Agenda 03/24/2009 Item #10B
Agenda Item No. 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 1 of 39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation
by the Collier County Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year average to calculate the
annual impact fee indexing, the requirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special
Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances snch that this calcnlation method will update the adopted
methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to
provide an approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based
on the review, that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County
Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of
the required ordinance amendment to implement the change to the indexing methodology
and corresponding rate schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enforcement,
Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical Services and Educational Facilities Impact Fees, for
consideration at a future regulal' meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, as an
advertised public hearing
,-
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) consider the recommendation
by the Collier County Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year average to calculate the
annual impact fee indexing, the requirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special
Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances (Code) such that this calculation method will update the adopted
methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to provide an
approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based on the review, that
the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County
Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of the required ordinance
amendment to implement the change to the indexing methodology and corresponding rate
schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enfc)rcement, Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) and Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fees, for consideration at a future
regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing.
CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth-
related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978 (Water and Sewer). The most
recently adopted impact fee is the Law Enforcement I mpact Fee which was adopted by the Board
in 2005. In October of 2002, the Board directed that during the upcoming required three-year
updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the
annual indexing of the fees in the years between the fomlal updates.
Impact Fees generate funds to be expended for capital improvements to public facilities
necessitated by growth. Rate indexing provides additional funding for capital projects consistent
with the increases in actual costs, promotes predictability of the annual revenues, reduces costs
for services of rate consultants, allows the development and construction industries to plan more
accurately for scheduled increases and helps to avoid large rate escalations caused by time lapses
between fonnal studies.
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 2 of 39
On February 28, 2006. the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing
methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect
localized information and develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier
County, This direction is consistent 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. This indexing study was completed by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
(Consultant) in association with Robert Burchell, Ph,D. trom the Center for Urban Policy and
Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Po licy at Rutgers, The study was presented to the
Board of County Commissioners on May 22, 2007 for their review, consideration and direction.
The Board accepted the tindings of the report and directed the County Manager (or his designee)
to finalize the study, prepare the necessary amendments to the Code to incorporate the changes to
the indexing methodologies and the corresponding changes to the impact fee rate schedules for
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing. The
"Collier County I mpact Fee Indexing Study" and associated rate schedules were adopted by the
Board on June 26, 2007 via Ordinance No 2007-57 with a delayed effective date of January I,
2008.
Currently each of the County's twelve (12) impact fees has an adopted methodology for annual
indexing which is specific to the individual impact fee. The "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Study," identities four measures (land costs, building costs, building equipment costs and
transportation costs) to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index for each of
Collier County's impact fees. The adopted methodology then uses the calculated indexes over a
10 year period fitted with a linear regression analysis. This method has an overall smoothing
etfect on 1he index and therefore the index is slower to increase in years of escalating costs and
slower to decrease in years that costs are declining.
The following chart provides the indexes which generated the current adopted fees for EMS, Fire
(Dependent Districts), Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Library and School Impact
Fees.
Impact Fee Category Indexing Percentage ofIncrease
Adopted: June 26, 2007
Effective: January 1,2008
EMS 11.8%
Fire (Dependent Districts) 5.9%
Government Buildings 9.8%
Law Enforcement 8.5%
Library 9.4%
School 9.7%
The Productivity Committee conducts a review of certain impact fees being updated or indexed
(on a rotating schedule) to detennine if the fee structure increases are justifiable. At their meeting
held on October 15, 2008, the Productivity Committee discussed in length impact fee indexing
for EMS, Fire (Dependent Districts), Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Library, and
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 3 of 39
Schoo\. The update studies for the remammg six impact fees (Water, Sewer, Con'ectional
Facilities, Transportation, Community and Regional Parks) are in the process of being
completed or have completed and therefore are not subject to indexing on this annual rotation.
At the October 15, 2008 meeting, the Productivity Committee unanimously approved the
following recommendation relative to the proposed impact fee indexing:
"Thai the Board of County Commissioners defer a decision on impaclfee adjustments as
proposed unlil such time the methodology can be reassessed. "
While the Productivity Committee and the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC)
each reviewed the current indexing methodology prior to its adoption by the Board in 2007, and
theoretically agreed with the findings of the report based on the "sound technical practices"
(Productivity Committee) and "first-class quality and technical merits of the study" (DSAC), the
Productivity Committee has requested that the Board temporarily defer impact fee indexing to
allow the Productivity Committee roughly 3-4 months to re-analyze the methodology. This
request was due in part to the desire of the Productivity Committee to consider the
appropriateness of an indexing model that is more sensitive to the current economic conditions.
On October 28, 2008 at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, under the
Communications Section of the Agenda, the Board directed that the Productivity Committee be
afforded the opportunity to review the indexing methodology consistent with the Committce's
request. The Board also agreed that the County's impact fee consultants, Tindale-Oliver and
Associates would assist with the review.
During the December 17, 2008 Productivity Committee review of the "Collier County
TranspOltation Impact Fee Update Study" (Update Study) the committee also recommended, by
a majority vote, that all of the impact fee rates be rolled back to the rates in effect on December
31, 2007. This guidance was provided in addition to the recommendations given related to the
Update Study.
On January 13, 2009 and February 10, 2009, the Board provided direction related to the
implementation of the Update Study and corresponding rate schedule and the change to the
timing of payments to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA), The Board
elected not to implement the rollback recommendation of the Productivity Committee.
Therefore, on January 21, 2009, the Productivity Committee provided further direction to staff
and the impact fee consultant to facilitate the completion of a report on indexing options for the
Committee's review.
On February 18, 2009, the Productivity Committee reviewed the materials prepared and
presented by the impact fee consultant and determined that the methodology for annual indexing
should be revised from the currcnt use of regression analysis to the use of the average cost
change over a two year or three year period, as this method is intended to be more responsive to
cost fluctuations. This recommendation was approved unanimously by the Committee, The
impact fee consultant has since determined that the two year average should be utilized for the
purpose ofthe indexing calculation because of its responsiveness to cost changes. This approach
Agenda Item NO.1 08
March 24. 2009
Page 4 of 39
is consistent with the Productivity Committee's recommendation. The table below provides a
side-by-side comparison of the scenarios for each of the impact fees tha1 are scheduled to be
indexed. Column "8" represents the proposed index using the adopted regression analysis model
and Column "C" provides the index using the two-year average, Column "C" also utilizes the
most current data available for the indcxes and therefore reflects the Productivity Committee
recommendation.
A B C
Impact Fee Category Calculated Index Using Calculated Index Using 2-
Adopted Regression Year Average (2007 and
Analysis 2008 data)
Emergency Medical Services 130/0 3.2%
Fire Protection
(Dependent Districts) 7.4% 1.3%
Government Buildings 11.9% 7.2%
Law Enforcement 10.2% 4.1%
Library 11.2% 5.30/0
School 11.7% 6.5%
As displayed in the chart above, the calculation utilizing the two-year average is more sensitive
to cost fluctuations than the adopted methodology using regression analysis. While none of the
indices rellect a negative number, there is a significant downward trend in the percentages. It is
also imp0l1ant to note that of the index measures (land costs, building costs, building equipmcnt
costs and transportation costs) the greatest changes have been in the areas of land cost and
transportation costs, The types of impact fees being reviewed in this cycle have the greater
weight of the index placed in building costs and equipment costs where the downward trend is
not as dramatic, A comparison of the two-year average calculation using 2006 and 2007 data
versus 2007 and 2008 data is provided as Attachment "A" in order to provide an example of the
ongoing changes. In the future, as costs begin to increase this method will also quickly capture
any upward trends.
In the event that the Board elects to implement the Productivity Committee's recommendation
and amend the indexing methodology to utilize the two-year average calculation, the indices will
continue to be calculated and revised annually consistent with the new approach, Additionally,
in the event that the indcx for a specified impact fee eq uals a 15 percent or greater change, the
cost increase will be vcrified through bid data, land purchases and other available data, as
recommended by the Consultant and legal counsel in order to the accuracy of the calculation.
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24. 2009
Page 5 of 39
Upon receiving direction from the Board related to this item, staff will provide the Development
Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) with a full report for their review and recommendations.
STAFF ANALYSISIRECOMMENDATIONS: With the change to a two-year average, the
percentages by which the impact fee rates will be adjusted have been greatly reduced. However,
as stated above, none of the indices reflect a negative number which would translate to a
reduction in fees. The recommendation by the Productivity Committee provides an option to
continue with the concept of indexing while utilizing a model that is sensitive to cost
fluctuations. By retaining the provision that any change of 15% or more (increase or decrease)
must be verified, the accuracy of the calculation will be scrutinized and the volatility of the two-
year average will also be reviewed. While the adopted indexing methodology utilizing the
regression analysis is technically correct and legally defensible, the current economic conditions
dictate that a different methodology is appropriate.
In the event that the Board is seeking to take action that will not result in the increase of any
impact fees, the corresponding action may be to accept the Productivity Committee's
recommendation to utilize the two-year average for calculation of the indices and amend the
Code requirements to rellect that direction. However, the Board would also direct that the rate
schedule changes generated by the application of the index would not be implemented due to the
economic downturn.
As stated above, the impact fees that are subject to this cycle of indexing are scheduled for a full
review during Calendar Year 2009. Therefore, the Board should also determine if it is
appropriate to delay the scheduled reviews. Staff recommends that if the Board elects this course
of action that it be limited to this Calendar Year with statf reporting back to the Board in
November or December (2009) in order to develop a schedule for indexing and full studies. This
action would not affect the ongoing Parks Impact Fee Update Study or the Correctional Facilities
Impact Fee Updatc Study, as those are required 2008 update studies that are nearing completion
and will be presented to the Board at a future datc. Water and Sewer Impact Fees are scheduled
for indexing in 2009 and will proceed on that schedule unless otherwise directed by the Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: The following chart provides a comparison between the application of the
current indexing methodology (regression analysis) and the proposed revised indexing
methodology (two-year average) and the dollar difference betwecn the two indices for each of
the individual impact fees for a 2.000 square foot (living area) single family home.
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 6 of 39
Impact Fee Current Rate rndexing Indexing $ Difference
(Per Dwelling (Regression) (2- Year Average) Between Regression
Unit) and 2-Year Average
Emergency $125.26 $]41.67 $]29.27 ($12.40)
Medical Services
Fire Protection $1,(132 (I C) $1,108.37 (lC) $] ,045.42 (lC) ($62.95) IC
Isles of Capri
(lC) $ I, 776(OFO) $1,907.42(OFO) $1,799.09 (OFD) ($]08.33) OFD
and
Ochopee (OFO)
Government $886.09 $991.53 $949.89 ($41.64)
Buildings
Law Enforcement $344.54 $379.68 $358.67 ($21.01)
Library $553.84 $615.87 $583.19 ($32.68)
School $10,098.98 $11,280.56 $10,755.41 ($525.15)
While the chart above provides a comparison between the two indexing calculations, the chart
below provides the changes to the impact fee rates, by category, based on the Productivity
Committee's recommendation to utilize a two-year average for the calculation, As stated above,
none of the indices reflect a negative number theref()re the below reflects increases to the
adopted rates.
Impact Fee Current Rate Indexing Dollar Increase
(Per Dwelling Unit) (2-Year Average)
Emergency Medical $125.26 $129.27 $4.01
Serv ices
Fire Protection
Isles of Capri (lC) $1,032 (IC) $1.045.42 (Ie) $]3.42(1C)
and
Ochopee (OFO) $1,776 (OFD) $],799.09 (OFD) $23.09 (OFD)
Government Buildings $886.09 $949.89 $63.80
Law Enforcement $344.54 $358.67 $14.13
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 7 of 39
Library $553,84 $583,19 $29.35
School $10,098.98 $10,755.41 $656.43
TOTAL INCREASE $781.14
Total impact fees for a 2,000 square foot (living area) single-family home cU1Tently total
$35,657.11, on Coun1y Water and Sewer service. The indexing changes above would increase
the total to $36,438.25. This equates to a 2% increase in the total impact fees for a single-family
home. However, these numbers do not take into account the reductions to the Road Impact Fees
that are proposed to become effective on June 8, 2009. The associated reduction to a 2,000
square foot single-family home is $1,150.55 which is 10% in that category.
The following are additional examples of the total impact fee increases related to indexing for
common land uses. As stated above, these numbers do not renect the Road Impact Fees
proposed to become effective on June 8, 2009, which renect downward adjustments to the
General Industrial and Office categories and an increase in the Retail category.
Land Use Current Total Total Impact Fees Dollar Increase
Impact Fees' After Indexing*
(2 Year Average)
Retail $248,066 $249.531 $1,465
10,000 square feet
Office $254.025 $254,882 $857
10,000 square feet
General Industrial $136,314 $136.762 $448
10,000 square feet
* Includes estimated Water and Sewer Impact Fees. Actual Water and Sewer Impact Fees are calculated on
information that is specific to the proposed construction.
Revenue projections related to the indexing of the individual impact fees depend heavily on the
permitting trends during the time period of the impact fee increase. Any changes in permitting
activity and trends associated with the size of new homes and/or commercial and other non-
residential buildings being constructed in Collier County will directly affect this impact fee
revenue stream. In accordance with Section 163.3180 I, Florida Statutes a minimum 90-day
notice is given after the final adoption of an impact fee or impact fee increase and the
implementation of the fee. This allows permits that are "in process" via a complete building
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 8 of 39
pennit application to remain at the then current rates and are therefore not subject to imposition
of increased impact fees.
Because of the decline in construction activity impact fee revenue has also been significantly
reduced. Based upon actual impac1 fee collections and current permitting activity and forecasts,
the following is the projected change in impact fee revenue associated to the indexing rate
revisions assuming that development activity remains constant. Any further decline in activity
will also directly affect the impact fees collections. Additionally, any increases to the impact fee
revenue generated by this proposed change will not be recognized in Fiscal Year 2009 due to the
timeframe for public hearing and adoption and the required 90-day notice period.
1m pact Fee Potential Increase in Annnal Collections
Based on Current Activitv
Emergency Medical Services $6,500
Fire Protection - Dcpendent Districts $74
Isles of Capri and Ochopee
Government Buildings $57,000
Law Enforcement $13,400
Library $18,000
School $200,000
Finally, the six impact fees above are scheduled for a full update study (3 year) as required by
Section 74-502 of the Code which requires that impact fees be reviewed "at least every three
years." The cost of an annual update generally ranges from $60,000 to over $100,000 depending
on the scope of work. The average cost of the most recent studies was $70,600. The cost of
these studies is incurred by the applicable impact fee trust fund for which the study is being
conducted.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The concept of annual indexing is consistent with
Objective 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP), which states: "Fulure developmenl will hear a proportionate cost of
facility improvements necessitated by growth."
[mpact Fees generate funds to be expended for capital improvements to public facilities
necessitated by growth. Rate indexing provides additional funding for capital projects, promotes
predictability of the annual revenues, reduces costs for services of rate consultants, allows the
development and construction industries to plan more accurately for scheduled increases and
helps to avoid large rate escalations caused by time lapses between formal studies. Additionally,
this approach is consistent with Section 163.3180 I, Florida SwtU/es, which is the Florida Impact
Fee Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations.
Agenda Item NO.1 OS
March 24, 2009
Page 9 of 39
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: No legal issues are presented at this time. The County
Attorney will work with staff to implement Board direction. This is a regular item requiring
simple majority vote. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
consider the recommendation by the Collier County Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year
average to calculate the annual impact fee indexing, the requirements for which are set forth in
Article III, Special Requiremenlsfor Specific Types of Impacl Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances such that this calculation method will update the adopted
methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to provide an
approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based on the review, that
the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County
Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of the required ordinance
amendment to implement the change to the indexing methodology and corresponding rate
schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical
Services and Educational Facilities Impact Fees, for consideration a1 a future regular meeting of
the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
CDES
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page] of 1
Agenda Item No. 108
March 24, 2009
Page 10 of 39
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
108
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation by
the Collier County Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year average to calculate the
annual impact fee indexing, tile requirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special
Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances such that this calculation method will update the adopted methodology
in the approved Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study in order to provide an approach for
indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based on the review, that the
Board of County Commtssioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County
Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of the required ordinance
amendment to implement the change to the mdexing methodology and corresponding rate
schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Dependent Fire. Emergency
Medical Servtces and Educational Facilities Impact Fees, for consideration at a future regular
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. as an advertised public hearing (Amy
Patterson, Impact Fee and EDC Manager, COES)
3/24/2009 900:00 AM
Prepared By
Amy Patterson
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Impact Fee Manager
Date
Approved By
Financial Admin. & Housing
3/9/200910:36:42 AM
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Dato
Approved By
3/9/20091:34 PM
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
3/11/20095:15 PM
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
3/11/20095:23 PM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMS Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
3/12/2009 2:36 PM
Approved By
Susan Usher
County Manager's Office
Senior Management/Budget Analyst
Date
Office of Management & Budget
3(16(20094:13 PM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager
Date
County Manager's Office
3/17/200912:32 PM
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24. 2009
Page 11 of 39
ATTACHMENT "A"
2- Year Average - Indexing Scenarios
Impact Fee 2- Year Average 2- Year Average
2006 and 2007 data 2007 and 2008 data
Emergency Medical 9.8% 3.2%
Services
Fire (Dependent Districts) 1.1% 1.30/0
Government Buildings 10,8% 7.2%)
Law Enforcement 6.6% 4.1%
Library 8.6% 5.3%
Educational Facilities 10,1% 5.2%
(School)
A. Patterson
CDES
31912009
Agenda Item No.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 12 of 39
rn Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~ Pl<ullling 'Uld En~neering-
February 25, 2009
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34]04
RE: Updated Indices
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Per direction provided by the Productivity Committee and County staff on February 18, 2009 and during
subsequent discussions, TOA calculated indices for the six fee areas by using the average cost changes over
a two-year period instead of using a regression analysis, The six program areas for which indices were
calculated are listed in the table on the next two pages.
A two-year average as opposed to a three-year average is used to calculate indices because a two-year
average is found to be more response to cost fluctuations. It should be noted that the County has a 15
percent cap in place during cost increases, If any of the indices is above 15 percent, it is required that the
County verifies this increase. It is recommended that such a cap should be implemented for cost decreases
as well. In other words, if any of the calculated indices is less than -15 percent, this cost decrease should be
verified based on County building/infrastructure construction costs and land and equipment purchase prices.
Calculation of two-year averages includes the following steps:
. For building component, consistent with the adopted indexing methodology, the average of three
indices is used. These indices are Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index, Turner Building
Cost Index, and RS Means Index.
. For equipment/vehicle component, the average of Producer Price Index for Public Furniture and
Consumer Price Index is used.
. Indices used both for buildings and equipment/vehicles are adjusted for local cost using updated
multipliers (based on 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and 2007 American Community
Survey). These multipliers are only applied to the aggregate change from one year to another, and
1000 North Ashley Drive, Surte 100, Tampa. FlOrida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224,8862 . Fax: (813) 226-2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657.9210 . Fax: (407) 657.9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481
Agenda Item No.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 13 of 39
Tindale-Oliver & A~sociates, Inc.
Pl;UlIlillg and FJlgillCt'rillg
Ms. Amy Patterson
February 25, 2009
Page 2 of 3
have minimal impact on the overall index.
. Land index is based on the change in market value of all property in Collier County based on figures
published by the Collier County Property Appraiser.
. Two sets of indices are calculated. One sel reflects 2008 indices and are based on 2006 and 2007
data, which is the comparable time period used 10 calculate previous indices that were calculated
using the regression model. When the previous calculations for 2008 indices were prepared for the
fee adjustment, costs were being updated from 2007 to 2008 levels based on historical data through
2007.
The second set of indices are 2009 indices and calculated based on the average of 2007 and 2008
data, which is more current, and better reflects the recent decrease in land values.
The following table presents these calculalions.
Table 1
Index Calculations
Libraries 5.3%
EMS 3.2%
Fire Rescue 1.3%
Government Buildin s 7.2%
Law Enforcement 4.1 %
Schools 6.5%
(I) Calculated using 2007 and 2008 data
(2) Calculated using 2006 and 2007 data
(3) Calculated using IO-year historical data through 2007
(4) Adopted index in 2007. provided for comparison purposes
8.6%
9.8%
1.1%
10.8%
6.6%
10.1%
11.2%
13. 0%
7.4%
11.9%
10.2%
]1.7%
9.4%
11.8%
5.9%
9.8%
8.5%
9,7%
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone; (813) 224-6862 . Fax: (813) 226-2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-8106
'95 South Central Avenue, Bartow, FlOrida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-a454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481
Agenda Item No. 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 14 of 39
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Pl;Ulllill~ ;uu] Ellgillcelillg
Ms. Amy Patterson
February 25, 2009
Page 3 of 3
If you should have any questions concerning these calculations, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Nilgiln Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine,
~n~~
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AlCP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224.8662. Fax: (813) 226-2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533*6454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481
COLLIER COUNTY
INDEXING METHODOLOGY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Co1N~r County
~-
March 11,2009
Preparedfi)r:
Collier County
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples. Florida 34112
Ph (239) 252-8999
Prepared by:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
WOO N Ashley Dr., #!OO
Tampa, Florida. 33602
ph (8!3) 224-8862.fax (813) 226-2106
073037-02.08
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 15 of 39
Agenda Item No. 108
March 24, 2009
Page 16 of 39
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1
Introd uction ............................................................................................................ 2
Evaluation of Current Index Composition ............................................................ 2
Indexing Methodology Evaluation ......................................................................... 4
Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 18
List of Appendices:
Appendix A - Indexing Methods Used by Other Jurisdictions
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No. 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 17 of 39
Executive Summary
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained by Collier County to prepare a
review of the adopted indexing methodology. The current adopted localized indexing
methodology uses trend data and regression analysis, which moderate the changes in the
index, and the effect of the index on the final impact fee schedules. When costs are
increasing, the indexing methodology does not allow the index to increase as rapidly as
actual cost changes occur. Similarly, when costs are decreasing, the index lags the actual
reductions in costs, Given the current decrease in costs, Collier County is interested in a
study that would review the current process and explore potential changes to the current
methodology.
This Executive Summary provides a summary of the three primary findings:
I. The current adopted methodology adjusts national, regional or statewide figures
to local figures using wage rates to reflect local costs. The analysis found that
although this adjustment is useful in capturing some of the difference between
local and non-local costs, it does not have a significant impact on the final indices.
As such, it is recommended that the County continue to adjust national, regional,
and statewide figures to local costs.
2. The current adopted methodology uses regression analysis. Regression analysis
tends to work well in smoothing changes over time when there are no significant
fluctuations in the underlying data. The indices for seven of Collier County's ten
impact fee program areas are based on relatively stable national or regional data.
However, indices for the other program areas (transportation, regional parks, and
community parks) are based on the change in land values and transportation
construction costs, which fluctuated significantly over the past several years.
When costs fluctuate heavily, the regression analysis reacts with a lag.
3. Given the above described findings, it is recommended that the County use two-
year average data of locally adjusted indices for all program areas. This approach
will result in indices that are much more reactive to the changes in cost.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No. 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 18 of 39
Introduction
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc, (TOA) was retained by Collier County to prepare a
review of the adopted indexing methodology, In the early 2000s, Collier County started
to index its impact fees. Historically, the County used national indices for most of the
variables. However, over the past few years, there were concerns that national indices
failed to represent the significant cost increases experienced in Collier County. As a
result, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) requested a localized
indexing study to better measure the increase in local infrastructure costs. TOA
completed the localized indexing study in 2007, which was then adopted by the BOCC,
and the initial set of new indices became effective in January of2008.
Since then, costs have started to stabilize, and in some cases, to decrease, The localized
indexing methodology uses trend data and regression analysis, which moderate the
changes in the index. When costs are increasing, the indexing methodology does not
allow the index to increase as rapidly as actual cost changes may occur. Similarly, when
costs are decreasing, the index lags the actual reductions in costs. Given this, Collier
County is interested in a study that would review the current process and explore
potential changes to the current methodology,
This summary report is organized in the following manner:
. Evaluation of Current Index Composition
. Indexing Methodology Evaluation
. Summary and Conclusions
In addition, Appendix A presents a summary of indexing methods used by other
jurisdictions.
Evaluation of Current Index Composition
The adopted indexing methodology relies on several indices. Some of these indices
reflect national data that were adjusted to local cost levels through the use of labor wage
rate comparison. Table I provides a summary of each index and its scope. As presented,
three of the indices (Engineering News Record (ENR), Producer Price Index (PP!), and
Turner Building Cost) provide national level data while Consumer Price Index (CPI) and
RS Means provide regional data (such as the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area, or the City of
Miami, etc.), and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) provides state data.
Finally, land values are provided at the local level.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
2
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 19 of 39
Table 1
Indices and Associated Data Sources
. Impact Fee. National Statewide Regional Local Total
Libraries 60% 0% 27% 13% 100%
EMS 34% 0% 33% 33% 100%
Fire Rescue 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%
Gov't Buildings 89% 0% 0% 11% 100%
Law Enforcement 43% 0% 47% 10% 100%
Correctional 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Parks (Regional) 7% 0% 0% 93% 100%
Parks (Community) 38% 0% 0% 62% 100%
Schools 79%) 0% 9% 120/0 100%
Transportation 0% 79% 0% 21% 100%
Source: Collier County Indexing Studv by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. in association
with Center for Urban Policy Research, June I I, 2007 and Collier County Impact Fee Studies
Table 1 also presents the distribution oflocal, state, regional, and national data for the
indices calculated for each impact fee program area. Based on the distribution ofthe
inventory among land, buildings, equipment. and transportation costs, each impact fee is
influenced differently by national, state, regional, or local data. As shown, the parks
impact fee indices are affected mostly by local indices (land values); the fire rescue index
is affected solely by regional data while the correctional facilities index is detennined
solely by national data; the transportation index is heavily detennined by statewide data,
while libraries, govemment buildings, and school impact fee indices are affected
primarily by national data. The EMS impact fee index is influenced equally by all levels
of data, and the law enforcement index is influenced mostly by national and regional
data.
This relation, in tum, detennines the potential level of tluctuations, Historically, national
and regional data have been more stable than state or local data, As such, indices that
rely more heavily on national data do not fluctuate as much. Conversely, those that rely
heavily on state and/or local data tend to fluctuate more.
As mentioned previously, under the adopted methodology, national, regional and state
indices are adjusted to local area cost levels. The next section ofthis report provides
more detailed infonnation on this adjustment process.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
3
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 06
March 24, 2009
Page 20 of 39
Indexing Methodology Evaluation
As mentioned previously, historically, Collier County calculated its indices based on
straight averages and unadjusted national, regional and state figures. The adopted
methodology revised the original approach by adding two components:
. Adjustment of national, regional, and statewide figures to local costs; and
. Utilization ofregression analysis to smooth the tluctuations.
In addition, multiple indices were used for each component ofthe inventory (buildings,
equipment, transportation, etc.), with the exception ofland. This section reviews the
impact of these revisions on the responsiveness of indices to annual tluctuations in cost.
Adiustment to Local Costs
The adopted indexing method adjusts national, regional and statewide figures to local
costs through a comparison of change in labor rates in a given geographic area (state,
nation, etc.) to South Florida (Collier and Palm Beach Counties). Table 2 provides a
comparison of unadjusted and adjusted indices, In addition, as mentioned previously,
under the adopted methodology multiple indices are used for various components of the
inventory (buildings, equipment, etc.),
For the five-year period shown in Table 2, the original methodology that relied on
unadjusted national variables results consistently in a lower index, with the exception of
transportation. The transportation index decreased when adjusted because the addition of
the Producer Price Index (PPl) for Highway and Street Construction moderated the
impact of statewide cost increases.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
4
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
cDmm
000<>
~o~
.N 0
o '~
Z~("\J
E...<l)
w"U 0)
-~"
-"0..
.gJ:2:
c
Q)
0>
<(
....
l/l
o
U
III
(,)
o
...J
...
.E
"C
Q)
....
l/l l/l
Q) :J
(,) ......
._ "C
"C<(
.El/l
N-Q)
Q) 0 .!:!
-I:"C
.001:
Illl/l-
I- .- l/l
:u :J
Q.l/l
E li>
o >
Ul/l
Q)
(,)
"C
I:
"C
Q)
....
l/l
:J
......
"C
III
I:
::J
..
<
..
"
'"
;..
,
lfl
'C .. ill
~ = CJ
~ .9 :=
"....,'" --
'C " =
-<:z:....
.. i!l
= ...
~;a
" =
:z:....
'C .. '"
~ = a,.l
'" <0 ...
Q\ =....:=
= "....,_....
_ "t:I = ==
N -<:z:....
,
""
o
o
N
.. ill
~ ...
:c:;;
" =
:z:....
'C-
- ~ : ~
'" <0 ...
QO =...;a
<::> ....."... ==
~ ~ z ~
,
t"-
o
o
N
-; ~
= ...
~;;
" =
:z:....
t"-
o
o
N
,
""
o
o
N
'C-
'" "
- =
'" <0
= ,-
,~-
'C "
-<:z:
.. ill-:-
= ...
~;;
" =
:z:....
~ "; tIl
- = '"
tIl, = CJ
.:,:c: :.s
'C " =
-<:z:....
""
o
o
N
,
lfl
o
o
N
-
~ ill
.S; .:=:,
_'C
" =
:z:....
-"E";j rIl
- = '"
'" <0 ...
lfj =:0:.0
00 :.;'==
N -<:z:....
,
...
o
o
N
.. ill
= ...
~:.a
. " =
:z:....
"
'"
<
II
1;0,
~~~~~~~~';f.~
::6~~:ci~~~:~~
>,>-
":-0
3.3
oVJ
::5;;
~ 0
o
0-0
U 0
..::;
::;
~
Pf
';:1
'"
-0
..s
~
- '"
E
::l ~
'" '"
~~?f-?f?~~ '2f-'rf-5~
r-Mo--::t("f')~""",,-If')~ur-
~r-:N-:i-::iM~=-::t=c.f~
0..::;
U u
~~~~~$~~~~~~
0oo.,fr-:0'O"'T-t'-o-
~~
'!l vi'
:=: "
Q.).~
Z-O
,~.5
~~~:$:::.f:.~~"::f:.~~ c-
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '~.'c ~
OOr-~~'-OtrlMM~r-_ g::5
.,.. r--- ,..-, ~ .,. r'j :! ::: -::t ~ :::"';:;
"Ci:l:..o
c-o
ll..l (OJ
?f'cf:-?f~~'2f?-~~~~ ,"""0
~ r-- 0 00 '_" ~ 0'-. V', 00 0\. 0"3
\Ooo-::t1.00l/)~~0~~]
'"
"
89~
~ ;?. ':? ~ ':? ~ '::? ':? "::? ::f ~.~
oooooooooo...c:.""O
r--Vjc;~Mo-_r--t.rjV-)r-- 'J:::
..,fr--,....77("'~V)-."..O
i!l
...
;0.
=
....
'"
'"
_ r/') (j
oro:..a:
U C.5
"'0.2 Q.)
~ g .~
....,..,"0 ,__
_ -0 <1.) C
~ t; :J
- ;:J u...
~trw
o<(j3
-0 ::l
_ fA ~ 0...
1362
1i ~ '"
......-g
~aO::
u ~
- --a fl a
~ ~ "E
""d 'c:5 l-.
coVi
-t)~~
Q.) [J'l a
c:::'a >.
2 ....... ro
r/') 5: :::
~ ~~
:.0 ~.=
.5 c;) :-
':? ':? ~ ~ ':? ::? ~ ~ ":1( ::? ] 2~
~ g.. ~ 0., g.. ~ ~ ~ :; 0; .~ ~ ~
70NM('f",N:!:=: ;::~Evl
5 5 a
,-u"
o ~
Vl 0.",
(!) :..::: V~
on- ~
" 0
ti u ~
:> 00
<(~u
-0 on
iti :::: ::::
2--;;:g
is .i:: .3
" (/) 0... co
t;
.~ 0'\
68
,','"
I '"@ -5
l-g a
I i= ~
~~?f:.?f-~~~?f:.~~
r--M::.7':V1M-~~~~
lflOOMV1lfl":I.DNV',-
~~~~~$.~t:.~~~
0'\\00'\ r--7 N 0'\ f"-OO 00
.,:r--:N":":r"lV1-":M
V)
~~
- '"'
~~~~'$.~'$.~~~
f"-Nf"-LnN-OO\OLn
7f"-N77MV1-":N
~~~~~~,~~~~
-:l: r-: r-: ~ c: - 00 f'! r: 0;
Lnf"-MV',Ln7"'1"-LnOO
u
.E
'^
'"
"
'G
o
'"
.:;:
~
!SJ
c
:g
'3
~
~
.2
OJ
,..
o
0-
:!l
"
~
Agenda Item No, 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 22 of 39
The adjusted indices tend to capture the higher cost increases experienced in Collier
County and, in general, provide somewhat higher indices.
At the time of the study, the wage comparison was based on 2000 Public Use Microdata
Sample (PUMS) and 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) infonnation. PUMS is a
component of the Census data and is only updated every 10 years, As such, an updated
version is not yet available. However, since the completion ofthe study, the 2007 ACS
has been published. Table 3 provides a comparison of multipliers included in the original
indexing study and updated figures using 2007 ACS data. As presented, while the
multipliers for construction costs continued to increase, the multiplier for 1he trucking
industry decreased, It should be noted that the recent decrease in the labor component of
construction costs is not yet reflected in the 2007 ACS figures.
Table 3
Multiplier to Convert National/State/Regional
Indices to South Florida(1)
.
Comparison of Multiplier
Geo"...uhic Areas Used For TVDes of W'2es 2005 A CS(I) 2007 ACS(2)
Nation to South Florida ENR Index Construction Industry 1.35 1.7]
Turner Index
FDOT Urban Road
Florida to South Florida Construction Construction Industrv 1.15 1.29
Highway and Street
Nation to South Florida Construction (BLS) Construction Industry ] .40 2.04
Miami to South Florida RS Means Construction Industry 1.90 2.04
Nation to South Florida Public Furniture CPP!) Trucking Industrv 1.72 0.24
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale to
South Florida cpr Truckino Industry 2.32 0,21
(1) Source: Collier County Indexing Study by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. in association
with Center for Urban Policy Research. June] I. 2007
(2) Source: Center for Urban Policy Research
These multipliers apply only to the change in indices from one year to another, which
results in a moderate impact on the final indices,
Figure 1 presents the change in actual library construction costs experienced in Collier
Coun1y as well as estimated costs using unadjusted and adjusted national indices for the
local cost differential. Prior to 2002, when costs were relatively stable, unadjusted
national indices were accurate in reflecting changes in cost. However, with significant
cost increases experienced over the past few years, the original method failed to predict
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
6
CoJIier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 23 of 39
actual costs experienced in Collier County, As presented, the adjustment for local costs
still does not capture the full cost change; however, it does bring the indices somewhat
closer to actual cost increases.
Figure 1
Comparison of Actual Library Construction Cost Changes
To Estimated Cost with Indexing
\,
-e--Actual Cost per Sq FI
__ Indexed Cost
Cost with Adjusted Index
2000
\'-----------.-----
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
,
,._.-J
Source: Collier County Impact Fee Studies (1999,2002, and 2006) are used for actual cost
figures. Cost adjustment with unadjusted indices are based on indices calculated using the
historical method without adjusting for local cost. Cost increase with adjusted indices is
calculated by applying the national indices to local cost and adding more indices for each
variable. These figures reflect 10-year averages of applicable data and do not use the regression
analysis.
Figure 2 provides a similar example for transportation costs. The difference between
national cost indices and Florida Long Range Estimates (LRE) figures for transportation
infrastructure costs are presented in this chart. This difference further shows the need to
adjust the non-local indices to obtain local area costs.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
7
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No. 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 24 of 39
Figure 2
Comparison of Transportation Cost Changes
FOOT LRE VS. National PPI
(
I 40,0%
- LRE - Actual Growth Rate
30,0%
20,0%
10.0%
0.00/0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) and PPI for Highway and Street Construction
In conclusion, the adjustment of national, regional, and statewide costs to local costs has
a minimal impact on the overall index; however, this approach does result in figures more
reflective of local costs. As such, it is recommended that Collier County continue to use
this adjustment for future indices.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
8
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 08
March 24, 2009
Page 25 of 39
Impact of Re!!ression Analvsis
The second adjustment made to the original method was the utilization of regression
analysis of two- or three-year rolling averages to smooth the fluctuations in cost over
time, As part of this current indexing methodology review, TOA conducted a sensitivity
analysis of the regression analysis, This analysis showed that when costs are relatively
stable, the utilization ofregression analysis is beneficial in smoothing changes from one
year to another. However, when there are large fluctuations in cost, the regression
method responds with a significant lag both when cost are increasing and decreasing,
The remainder of this section provides a summary of the results of this analysis.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
9
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No.1 OB
March 24. 2009
Page 26 of 39
Historically, national and regional indices used for building and equipment/vehicle
components of the inventory have been relatively stable. These indices include ENR
Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, and RS Means Index for building cost;
and CPI and PPI for Public Furniture for equipment and vehicle cost. Figures 3 and 4
present trends in these indices along with a regression line that combines the impact of
applicable indices for building cost and equipment/vehicle costs.
Figure 3
Trends in Building Cost Indices
and Regression Analysis
(-~---------
1,0.0% .
"
I
0.0%
30.0%
20.00;.,
I
!10.0%-
I
r10.On;.,
\.
lOO]
2002
21103
2004 2005 2006
21107
2008 ~
Source: ENR Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, RS Means Index
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
10
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 27 of 39
Figure 4
Trends in EquipmentlVehicle Cost Indices
and Regression Analysis
40.0%
0.0%
-... cpr, Actual
~ !c" PPI - Actual
30.0% -Blended Regression
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
i
/
Source: CPI and PPI for Public Furniture
As shown, utilization of regression analysis for these relatively stable indices tends to
smooth the changes in cost from one year to another and does not have a significant
impact on the index. Conversely, when there are significant fluctuations in the data, the
regression analysis tends to create a significant lag, and not react as quickly as may be
desired.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
11
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No, 10B
March 24, 2009
Page 28 of 39
Figure 5 presents trends in LREs published by FDOT and PPI for Highway and Street
Construction. The figure plots the actual data, a two-year average of actual data,
regression excluding PPI, and a blended regression. As shown, the plot of actual LRE
figures results in a trend line that is highly sensitive to fluctuations in costs, The two-
year average of LRE figures tracks the actual changes with a minimal lag. However, the
regression analysis that uses only the LRE data reacts to the changes in cost with a
significant lag. This lag is somewhat moderated by blending LRE data with PPI data;
however, there is still a considerable lag compared to the utilization of a two-year
average,
Figure 5
FOOT LRE Trends
r
, 40,0%
I
10.0%
30,0%
20.0%
-10,0%
I
'---.
Source:
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
J
Data from FOOT LREs and PPI for Highway and Street Construction
Tindale-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
]2
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 DB
March 24. 2009
Page 29 of 39
Figure 6 demonstrates how the adopted model would function with a cost increase of 10
percent per year over the next three years through 2012. The chart plots historical data
until 2009, and then assumes an annual cost increase of 10 percent. As presented, the
regression analysis lags in capturing the observed changes in costs.
Figure 6
Transportation Construction Cost
Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results
with a 10% Annual Cost Increase from 2009 to 2012
0.0% -
......... + I 0% Cost Growth Rate Regression
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
.10,0%
-20.0%
-". LRE Actual
. ,,- LRE Growth, 2 Yr Avg
! -300%
I '
,
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Data from FOOT LREs and PPI for Highway and Street Construction for years 2005
through 2008, assumed 10 percent annual increase as of 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associales. Inc.
March 2009
13
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 30 of 39
-
Similarly, Figure 7 presents how the current adopted model would function with a cost
decrease of 10 percent per year over the next three years, through 20 I 2. Again, the
regression analysis lags in capturing the observed changes in costs.
Figure 7
Transportation Construction Cost
Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results
with a 10% Annual Cost Decrease from 2009 to 2012
i--
I
I
! 30.0%
I 20,0%
--------'\
10.0%
,
--~---- -- -~_.- :
.
'. ." . .
\: :
,--~ ------ '~.-----." . . "~'" - :
, "" "\,, ..:.,' .
,."....-.....:.. .'
0,0%
.
.
.
.
.
.
~:--- -...-..:,----;--
.
----- -1 0% Cost Growth Rate Regression .
). -
- --"',:
\
..
..
-10.0%
e--",._,...'_'_' ~_.
-- ..
-20.0% -... LRE Actual
''" LRE Growth, 2 Yr Avg
-30.0%
'----. - -
2005 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 .J
Source: Data from FOOT LREs and PPI for Highway and Street Construction for years 2005
through 2008, assumed 10 percent annual decrease as of 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
14
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item No. lOB
March 24, 2009
Page 31 of 39
In addition to transportation costs, land values also experienced significant fluctuations
over the past few years. Figure 8 presents the actual annual changes, 2- and 3-year
averages, and the regression results for land values over the past eight years. As
presented, actual changes are somewhat moderated by the two-year averages, and even
more so with the utilization of three-year averages. The regression analysis, on the other
hand, reacts to actual changes with a significant lag.
Figure 8
Land Value Trends
-,
,
0.00/0 -
-.. 2- Yr Average
~Re~'Tession
40.0'%
- ... Actual
30.00/0
}.Yr Average
20,0%
10,0%
_10.00/0 -
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
----------------_/
Source: Countywide land value is from Collier County Property Appraiser
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
15
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 32 of 39
Figure 9 demonstrates actual cost changes from 2005 to 2009, and how the adopted
model would function with a cost increase of 10 percent per year over the next three
years, through 2012, The chart plots historical data until 2009, and then assumes an
annual cost increase of 10 percent. Similar to the results shown for transportation costs,
the regression analysis ofland values lags in capturing the observed changes in costs,
The two-year average, on the other hand, follows the actual changes closely,
Figure 9
Land Values
Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results
with a 10% Annual Cost Increase from 2009 to 2012
,,-
,
.
.
.
~!
; I
I'
I
,
i
30.0%
,
t-t...
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
....
;"---1':":--' -__
20.0%
10.0%
..
0.0%
..
-111.0%
I .......-. Regression ----.,
1
-. Land Growth - Actual
-20.0%
Land Gro"th - 2 Yr Avg
-30.00/6 .__._----_.._-------~_.~_.~~-_.- ... -.-----.-.--.--,-..----..-----------
''---
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
)
Source: Countywide land values are from Collier County Property Appraiser for years 2005
through 2008, and assumed 10 percent annual increase as of 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
16
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 33 of 39
Similarly, Figure 10 presents actual cost changes from 2005 to 2009, and how the current
adopted model would predict land values with a cost decrease of 10 percent per year over
the next three years, through 2012. Again, the regression analysis lags in capturing the
observed changes in costs.
Figure 10
Land Values
Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results
with a 10% Annual Cost Decrease from 2009 to 2012
~
,
0.0% -
...,. Ii- Land Grov..th - 2 Y r A vg
30.0%
! 20.0%
10.0%
-10.0%
.....- Regression
,20.0% -. Land Growth - Actual
I ,30.0%
'''--------
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
I
/
Source: Countywide land values are from Collier County Property Appraiser for years 2005
through 2008, and assumed I 0 percent annual decrease as of 2009
In summary, regression analysis tends to smooth fluctuations over time, which causes it
to lag in responding large fluctuations. For the majority of the Collier County impact
fees, the utilization of regression analysis does not have a significant impact. These are
the impact fees that utilize relatively stable national or regional data in the calculation of
their indices, and include the following:
. Libraries
. Fire Rescue
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
17
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 34 of 39
. EMS
. Government Buildings
. Schools
. Law Enforcement
. Correctional Facilities
In contrast, indices for parks and transportation impact fees rely heavily on statewide and
local data, which tend to fluctuate significantly. In these cases, the regression analysis
responds with a lag.
Summary and Conclusions
A review of the adopted indexing model resulted in the following conclusions and
recommendations:
. There has been a definite difference between national cost increases and cost
increases experienced in Collier County. As such, it is important to incorporate a
local adjustment factor in indexing calculations.
. The use of regression method tends to smooth out the differences from one year to
another, and seems to work well during relatively stable periods. However, it
does not respond quickly to large increases or decreases in costs.
. Some of the policy options the County should evaluate include the following:
1. The County may decide to use the rcgression method during periods when
costs are increasing and use averages when costs are decreasing. This option
would result in revenue loss for the County since the regression model slows
down the increase in indices, while using averages responds more quickly to
cost decreases.
2. The County may decide to use two- or three-year rolling averages, which
somewhat smoothes out the impact, but is much more reactive to large
fluctuations, If this is the case, it is recommended that the County continues
to adjust the national, regional, and state indices for local cost.
3. Seemingly, the best option is to start using a two-year average method and not
use the regression analysis as a means to stabilize costs from one year to
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
18
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 08
March 24, 2009
Page 35 of 39
another until the variation in costs over the last few years dissipates. It is also
recommended that the County uses this approach not only during the periods
when costs are decreasing, but also when costs are increasing.
4. Currently, the County caps the increase in individual indices at 15 percent
unless additional analysis is conducted to verify the actual increase, It is
recommended that the same IS percent cap should be used when costs are
decreasing (i.e., if the changes is greater than - J 5 percent, the decrease should
be capped at 15 percent).
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
19
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 36 of 39
APPENDIX A
Indexing Methods Used
By Other Jurisdictions
Agenda Item No, 1GB
March 24, 2009
Page 37 of 39
Methods Used by Other Jurisdictions
As part of the methodology analysis, TOA contacted all Florida counties to understand
whether they index their impact fees and, if so, which methods they use. The following
bullets summarize the results of this survey.
. Of the 67 Florida counties. 50 have implemented impact fees in at least one
servIce area.
. Currently, of the 50 counties, 6 have placed a moratorium on impact fee
collections due to current economic conditions.
. Of the 50 counties, 20 counties index their impact fees in at least one program
area. It is our understanding that none of these counties use a regression model or
adjust the national indices for local cost.
. The majority ofthe counties base their index on the following indices without
adjusting for local cost:
o ENR Construction Cost Index;
o FOOT Cost Trends;
o Consumer Price Index;
o Land val ues
o Florida Department of Education Student Stations Cost Factor Report
A list of counties with impact fees is included in Table A-I. The list also indicates
whether they index their fees and whether they have implemented a moratorium on
impact fees.
TindaJe-OJiver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
A-I
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 OB
March 24, 2009
Page 38 of 39
Table A-1
Florida Counties with Indexing
x....i< I<j:r.i~ 'x Mb~~t6H~ffi
Alachua y N
Baker N N
Bay N N
Bradford y y
Brevard N N
Broward y N
Charlotte y N
Citrus . N N
Clay N N
Collier y N
Columbia N N
De Soto N N
Dixie N N
Escambia N N
Flal!ler y N
Gi !christ N N
Glades Y y
Gulf y y
Hardee N N
Hendry Y y
Hemando N N
Highlands y N
Hillsborough N N
Indian River N N
Jefferson N N
Lafayette N N
Lake N N
Lee N N
Levy N N
Manatee y N
Marion N N
Martin N N
Miami-Dade y N
Monroe N N
Nassau N y
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine,
Mareh 2009
A-2
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Agenda Item NO.1 DB
March 24, 2009
Page 39 of 39
Table A-1 (continued)
Florida Counties with Indexing
Countv Index Moratorium
Okeechobee N N
Orange Y N
Osceola y N
Palm Beach Y N
Pasco Y N
Pinellas Y N
Polk Y N
Putnam N N
Santa Rosa N N
Seminole N N
St. Lucie Y N
Sumter N N
Volusia Y N
Wakulla N Y
Washington N N
Source: County representatives and Municode
A-3
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009