Agenda 04/28/2009 Item #17A
~ l,;:;:T ~Jo_ 17.4
~\;Jrif 28, ;~009
"3;S 1 of 67
.'-
EXECUTIVE SCMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinanees (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation hy reference of the
impact fee study entitled the "Collier County Indexing Methodology Study," dated March
11, 2009, which is an amendment to the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Study"; amending Schedules Five through Ten of Appendix A by applying the indexing
percentages and thereby establishing the new impact fee rates and re-organizing the layout
of the schedules to a user-friendly format; providing for re-organization of Schedules One,
Three and Fonr in order to provide more user-friendly format; and providing for a delayed
effective date of July 27, 2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required by
Section 163.3180I (3)(d), Florida Statutes
.~
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt an Ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact
fee study entitled the "Collier County Indexing Methodology Study," dated Mareh II, 2009,
which is an amendment to the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study"; amending
Schedules Five through Ten of Appendix A by applying the indexing percentages and thereby
establishing the new impact fee rates and re-organizing the layout of the schedules to a user-
friendly format; providing fe)r re.organization of Schedulcs Onc, Thrcc and Four in order to
provide more user-friendly fomlat: and providing for a delayed effective date of July 27, 2009, in
accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section 163,31801 (3 led), Florida Statutes,
This action is consistent with the dircction provided by the Board on March 24, 2u09,
CONSIDER-\TIONS: 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 Enforcemcnt Impact 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 fecs that methodology also be dcveloped to provide for the
annual indexing of the fees in the years between thc felDnal 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 rcvenues, reduces costs
for services of rate consultants, allows the development and eonslruction industries to plan more
accurately for scheduled increases and helps to avoid large rate escalations caused by time lapses
between fonnal studies,
-
On February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directcd that the indexing
methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect
localized infonnation and develop a legally def,,'nsible indexing program, specitic to Collier
County, This direction is consistent with Seelion 163.31801, Florida Swtutes, 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 Robelt Burchell, Ph.D, from the Center for Urban Policy and
Research, Bloustein School of Plan ningi Public Policy at Rutgers. The study was presented to thc
Board of County Commissioners on May 22,2007 f()r their rcvicw, consideration and direction.
The Board accepted the findings 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 Impact Fee Indexing Study" and associated rate schedules wcre adopted by the
Board on June 26, 2007 via Ordinance No 2007,57 with a delayed effective date of January 1,
2008.
Currently each of the County's twelve (12) impact fees has an adopted mcthodology for annual
indexing which is specific to the individual impact fee. The "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Study:' identifies four measures (land costs. building costs, building cquipmcnt costs and
transportation costs) to be used, alone or in combination, to calculatc the annual index for cach of
Collier County's impact fecs. Thc adopted methodology then uses tbe calculatcd indexes ovcr a
10 year peliod fitted with a linear regression analysis. This mcthod has an overall smoothing
effect on the index and therefore the index is slower to increase in years of escalating costs and
slower to decrease in years that costs arc declining.
The Productivity Committee conducts a review of certain impact fees being updated or indcxed
(on a rotating schedule) to detCn11ine if the fee structure increases arc justifiable. At their meeting
held on October 15, 2008, the Productivity Committee discussed in length impact fee indexing
for EMS, Fire (Dcpendent Districts), Government Buildings, Law Enf()reemenl, Library, and
School. The update studies for the fenmining six irnpact fees (\Vatcr, Sc-"VCf, Correctional
Facilities, Transportation, Com!11unity and Regional Parks) arc in the process of being
completed, or have been e,)mplcted, 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 fec indexing:
"17wl the Board o(CollI1IV COll1l11issiOIlCl"S deFer a decision on iml'actf(oe adjustments as
proposed until such time the mClhodology can be rcassessed. "
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 Octobcr 28, 2008 at thc regular mceting 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 CommIttee's
request. The Board also agreed that the County's impact lee consultants, Tindale,Olivcr and
Assoeiatcs, would assist with the review.
On February 18, .LOUl), the I'roduetlvlty ComJ11lttee reviewed the materials prepared and
presented by the impact fee consultant and detennined that thc J11ethodl)logy for annual indexing
::>2i1>.i
:"]0.17/\
.=.(1. ~:ooa
:3 c:- C7
should be revised from the current use of regression analysis to the lIse 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 detennined that the two year average should be utilized for the
purpose of the indexing calculation because of its responsiveness to cost changes. This approach
is consistent with the Productivity Committee's recommendation. The attached report titled the
"Collier County Indexing Mcthodolc,gy Study" contains the technical inJ'Jnllation and analysis
that is the basis for the recommendation to change to the two-year average method. The report
will be incorporated by reference into the Code as an amendment to the adopted "Collier County
Impact Fee Indexing Study." The indices yvilI continue to be calculated and revised annually a..~d
will be reviewed by both the Productivity Committee and the Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC). Additionally, in the event that the index J(lr a speeiJled impact fee equals a
] 5 percent or greater change, the cost increase will be veriJied through bid data, land purchases
and other available data, as recommended by the Consultant and lcgal counsel, in order to
validate the accuracy of the calculation.
The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the scenarios filr each of the impact fees
that are scheduled to be indexed. Column "B" represents the proposed index using the adopted
regression analysis model and Column "C" provides the indcx using the two-year average.
Column "C" also utilizes the most current data available for the indexes and therefore reflects the
Productivity Committee recommendation.
A B C
Impact Fee Catego."y Calculated Index Using Calculated Index Using 2-
Adopted Regression I Year Average (2007 and
A.nalysis 2008 da ta)
Emergency Medical Services +----- ] 3(~;J 3.2')0
I
Fire Protection
(Dependent Districts) 7.4% 1.3~1o
Government Buildings 11.9% 7.2~'O
Law Enforcement 10.2% 4.1 (~,'O
Library 11.2'>-0 5.3~'~1
---r------ -
School 11.7% 6.5~'~J
I I
As displayed in the chart above, the calculation utilizing the two-year average is more sensitiv'e
to cost fluctuations than the adopted methodology using regression analvsis. While none of the
indices reJlect a negative number, therc is a significant downward trend in the percentages. It is
also important to note that of the index measures (land costs, building costs, building equipment
-. ~1
-:;
::
costs and transportation costs) the grcatest changes have been in the areas of land cost and
transportation costs. The t)l)eS of impact fces 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 p]'()\'idcd 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.
On March 24, 2009. the Board directcd that the County Manager (or his designee) and the
County Attorney prepare the necessary ml1endlnents to the Code in order to ilnplcn1cnt the
change to the indexing methodology. The Board also directed that the applicable indexing
percentages be applied to the rate schedules for Govemment Buildings, Law Enforcement,
Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical Serviccs and Educational Facilities Impact Fees, which
were each scheduled to be indexed on this study rotation, thcreby establishing the new rates for
consideration at a future rCipllar meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, as an
advertised public hearing. Additionally, the Board directed that the impact fees that are
scheduled for a full review during Calendar Year 2009 be temporarily delayed, with staff
reporting back to the Board in November or December (2009) in order to develop a schedule for
indexing and full studies. Finally, the Board directed that the County Manager (or his designee)
and the County Attomey work with the DSAC in order to ensure the committee's conCUITence
with the temporary delay of the full studies. This action does not at1ect the ongoing Parks
Impact Fee Update Study or the COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study, as those are
required 2008 update studies that are nearing completion and will be presented to the Board at a
future date.
On April 1, 2009, staff presented to the DSAC the information related to the change tj'om the
cunent use ofregrcssion analysis to a two-year average method for the purpose of calculating the
impact fee indices. Additionally, staff discussed the Board direction to temporarily delay the
required 2009 full studies, \vith staff rep01iing back to the Board in NOvcll1bcr or DCccll1bcr to
review the matter and develop a schedule to resume the studies, and advised the DSAC that the
Board requested to be advised if the committee had any issues with the delay. The DSAC, by a
unanimous vote, approved both of the items disclIssed.
As pmi of this Ordinance amendmcnt, the rate schedulcs in Appendix "A" of Chapter 74 of the
Code are being re-organized in ordcr to provide a user- fricndly format. The changes to
Schedules One (Road), Three (Parks) and Four (Jail) are f(mnat only, with no change to the fee
structure. Schedules Five through Ten, which are Dependent Fire, School, EMS, Library,
Govemmcnt Buildings and Law Enl(lI'cement are the fees that are being indexed on this rotation,
as detailed in this executive summary and thercf(,re the changes are both to the fOl1nat and fee
structures of the schedules.
FISCAL IMPACT: The J(lllowing chart provides a comparison between the application of the
cUlTent indexing methodology (regression analysis) and the proposed revised indexing
methodology (two-year average) and the dollar ditJerence between the two indices jor each of
the individual impact tces Jor a 2,UUU square t,)ot (living arca) singie taJ11lly home.
Impact Fcc Currcnl Ratc Indexing Indexing $ Differcnce
(Per Dwelling (Hcgrcssion) (2- Year Average) Between Regression
Unit) and 2- Year Average
Emergency $] 25.26 $]41.67 $129.27 ($] 2.40)
Medical Services
Fire Protection $1,032 (lC) $1.108.37 (lC) $] ,045.42 (IC) ($62.95) IC
Isles of Capn I I
(lC) $] ,776(OFO) $] .907.42(OFO) $1.7<)909 (OFO) ($j08.33) OFO
and
Ochopee (OFD)
Goven1ll1cnt $886.09 I $991.53 $949.89 ($41.64)
Buildings
Law Enf()TCCment $344.54 $379.68 $358.67 ($2l.01)
Library I $553.S4 $6]5.87 $583.19 ($32.68)
I
School i $10.098.98 $] ] .280.56 $]0,755.41 ($525.]5)
I
"''bile the chaJ1 above provides a comparison between the two indexing calculations, the chart
below provides the chant!es to the iml'acl fee rates by categorv hased on the Productivitv
'-" , -', . -'
Committee's recommendation to utilize a two-year average t()r the calculation. As stated above,
none of the indices reflect a nc,'ativc number thercfore tbc brlow reflects increases 10 the
o . - .
adopted rates.
Impact Fee Current Rate Indexing Dollar Increase
(Per Dwelling Unit) (2-Year Average)
Emergency Medical $125.26 $]2<).27 $401
Services
Fire Protection $ UJ32 $1.045.42 $ 13.42
Isles of Capri (1(') I
Go'"Cnlment Buildings $886.119 5949.89 I $63.S0 l
I
J Law EnJ()!TCmcnl
I
$14.13
r-----'-----r--------I
I $'44 -1 ' ," -S . 7 I
"-" .:> I ,"".,) ( .n
I I I
-.i1,
l.ibrary 5553S4 5581.19 529.15
School 510.098.98 510,755.41 $656.41
TOTAL INCREASE $781.14
Total impact fees for a 2,000 square foot (living area) single-family home currently total
$35,657.1] (within the County \'iater and Sewer District). The indexing changes above would
increase the total to $36.438.25. This equates (0 a 2% increase in the total impact fees J(Jr a
singlc-family home. Howcver, thcsc 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 singlc-tilJnily 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 reJlect the Road Impact Fees
proposed to hecome effective on June 8. 2009, which implements downward adjustments to the
Generallndustrial and On-Ice categories and an increase in the Retail category.
Land Use Current Total Total Impact Fc'es Dollar Increase
Impact Fees* After Indexing*
(2 Year Average) I
Retail I S248,()66 5219,531 $1,465
10,000 square feet I
Office $254,025 5254,882 S857
10,000 square feet
General Industrial $136,314 $ 136,762 $448
] 0.000 square feet
* Includes estimMl'd \Vater and Sevvcr Impact Fees. Actual \V3ler and Se\','cr Impact fees arc 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
pennitting trends during the time periud of the impact fee increase. Any changes in penllitting
activity and trends associateu \\'lt11 the size of new h0111CS emu/or C0!11111Crcial and other non-
residential buildings being constructed in Collier County will directly affect this impact fee
revenue stream. In accordance \Iith Section 163.3180 I, Florida Statutes a minimum <)O-day
notice is given alter the finul adoption of an impact fee or impact fce increase and the
ilnp1cnlentatjon of the fee. 'rilis a1Jo\\/:-) pcnnits that are -in process.. via a conlp1ete building
permit applicatiolllu rcnlain at the llK~il CUIH:nt nlies and ~lle tllefefon.: llol subjed (0 irnposlllun
of increased impact fees. Based on the 90-day notice requircment the effective date of thc
amended rate schedules will be July 27, 2009.
Because of the decline in construction activity impact fce revenue has also been signiJicantly
reduced. Based upon actual impact fee collections and cuncnt 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 fllliher decline in activity
will also directly affect the impact fees collections. Additionally, any increases to the impact fee
revenue generated hy this proposed change will not be recognized in Fiscal Year 2009 due to the
ti~TIeframe for public hearing ~md adoption and the required 90-day notice period.
Impact Fee Potentiallncl'case in Annual Collections
Based on Current Activity
Emergency Medical Services $6,500
Fire I'rotection- Dependent Districts $74
Isles of Capri and Ochopee
Govenl111cnt Buildings $57,000
Law Enforcement $ IHOO
Library $18,000
School $200,000 I
F'nullv tho s;x j'm'Ja"; '~es a')()"e ''''0 ''''hw1''lad "01' " +;"1 U'1"a'0 S,;",k f, "c'at.) "S "en"'t.ad ,,,,
1 J, II....." L 1 Jl '-'l I.... l..'. UI'- .~......., ....UU..... II U JUI 1."J tv. lUUY \_. .f' u. I '"1U1..... l J
Section 74-502 of thc Code which rcquires that impact fees be reviewed "at least every three
years." The cost of an annual update generally ranges fi'om $60,000 to over S 100,000 depending
on the scope of work. The avcrage cost of the most recent studies was $70,600. The cost of
these studies is incurred by the ~pplicuble irnpuct fee trust fund for which the study is being
conducted.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT "1PACT: The concept of annual indexing is consistent with
Objective 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element (elE) of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMPl, which stales: "Futurc dcvclopmcnt l1ill bcar a proportiOlzatc cost of"
f(lCi/ity improl'('!llcnts necessitated by grol1'th."
Impact Fees generate funds to be expended !()r capital improvcments to public facilities
necessitated by growth. Rate indexing provides additional funding !t,r capital projects, promotes
predictability of the annual revenues, reduccs costs Jt)]' services of rate consultants, allows the
development and construction industries to plan more accurately for scheduled increases and
helps to avoid large rate escaiations caused by time lapses between )t)!ll1al studies. Aciditionaily,
this approach is consistent with Section] 63.3180 I, Florida Stat lites, which is the Florida Impact
Fcc Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data he used in inlpact fee ca1cul::1tion~.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This proposed Ordinance is legally sufficient for Board action.
This is a regular agenda item requiring simple majority vote. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference
of the impact fee study entitled the '"Collier County Indexing Methodology Study," dated March
I I, 2009, which is an amendment to the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study";
amending Schedules Five through Ten of Appendix A by applying the indexing percentages and
thereby establishing the nc\v inlpact fee r:.rtcs and [('--organizing the layout of the schedules to a
user-friendly fonllat: providing for IT-organization of Schedules One, Three and Four in order to
provide more user-fi'icndly J(lrmat: and providing for a delayed elfective date of July 27,2009, in
accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section] 63.3180 I (3 )(dl. Florida Statutes.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
(,DES
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
r dt;.1:" 1 \11 ,...:.,
~ ,;;J
,'...,
-"
2J',-,J
\.' v.j
COLLIER COUNTY
;:':G,c.2D G~ COUl{iY GOMiWESIOI\ERS
i;A
P:8CCrn!T1endatlun that the 8~)ard 'Jf Counly C0r:~rnl::'~I:Jr,ers adopt an Ordinsi;ce amending
Ch2f:;er 74 of the Callier County Cod'? of Laws and O~,jlnanc9s (The COI!ier County
"':;Oiisoli::Jated liT183ct F~e Ordlnan.-,'2,1 provid:~lg br the lr:cor;:'oration by reference of the
il"lpact fee stUj'j-' entitled the CJiller County In,jexlng fVie!hJd.J:.J;J'Y Study, Gated March 11,
2S09 whi.:h is an 31,'e-roiTient tc- tiiE adopied Cc,!iier CGunty irnpcJct Fee- Inde)<ing Study
amendi:lg SChedules Five throlJ;jh Ten of Appendix p, by applying the indexing ;::,ercentages
and the!::,by establ~shlng the ;:ew irr:1J3c! fee rs'C~S 31-i;j re-lxgaii:::ing t'1e layout of the
schedules TO a l~ser-fiie!ldiy rOlr,l2t proviciillg for re-organ:z8r!On of SCneCljieS One, Three
and caul in orj'~r ta provlje rrYe use:-~1-riendly fu:'rnar and providing for a delayed effe:L\'e
jate :Jf J:_'!v 27 .-::'009 :'"', c;c:::;oi::LJn'~,e with ths 90 Cloy not'::;::: ~\e;i:)j required by S,::::;:i:Jn
1'::3,::.~~eC;1 (3)'d), F!'~' ::.:'3 St2:Lij-,'.' ,end :he C:!H-S:i'::H1 P!C:l\:'Cf.'j bj' the Board or: fAars!': 24.
:'009
4/28/200990000 AM
Prepared By
Amy Patterson
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Imp8ct F€'e nr.anager
Date
Financrai Admin. & Housing
4.'9!2a09 2:14:40 PM
.\ppI'O\fcd By
Judy Puig
Community Developm(mt &
Environmental S,;)rvic:es
OpeLations A::a~yst
Date
Commur,rty Dev':,>lopmcnt &.
Envif'Onrn~,'"t2: Sf'rvf,;.CS Admin,
4ii3i2~>(:S $:57 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County.llttorncy
COU:--I:y.L:ttome}'
Date
CC'.inty Ah:,,'rney Ofi:Ct::
4/'13:2009 '10:51 AfJl
ApprovE'd By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Servic'2-s
CGm~unity Devefoprne.lt &
Envi~',:)n:n0ntal S~rvices Admi:lsu'otcr
D2te
Com:r:unity Devslop!11f-':lt &
Env~r()nm~;nta! Se:-vi:::es Admin.
4J14i2(JCJ9 9:55 AM
'\ppro\'('d By
Or-Ji5 Coordinator
County Manager's Offk:e
0[\,'{8 Coord.tatar
Date
O~'fiC0 of ::,'1a~?g('T,Gtlt & Budgs1
4, ;,.'2-:)09 ~1;06 .L,M
\pproY('d BJ
Ranc!y Grean\;'nld
Co:mty Manager-s Omee
M3~2ge:T:0!"'!tJ8:.::i0ct ;:r:J!y~;t
D2t'?
C'f'ficc' of [l!ian<i9':;ment &. Bm!gt:t
4/1 i /20'2'9 1 ~20 Phil
Approved By
:~dS3n Lh;i'j?r
Cc.unty r,~cH1;,,';.~e-r's .':)ff1ce
;:;(:mcr
D3te
/"n?iy.
C~-;-~CL oi' U;;;--,<i;iC;-,r""'l1t ,:1 Sudgr,t
4/H-;,/200~\ S:i9 /..,fw1
Approved By
Leo E. Ocils. ~Jr.
J"Pll~Y Count)' :,:art~<'{
:::31:0.;'
::<;: :;." ~j::<ilHi:Y
. . ";:y :,;:i~;" ",",
'J~jm: ,1!SSiJ~:{"<;
)f:~ p
'., ;::,:);'\' ~. i 7 ;:' ,'r;
I ",=c..:. UI ..:.
~,' r.
,"
~- ,
t-\
:;i
1':: i'~ i~O 7;',
fc _,_, '- ceo
.~
:;1
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% ..., ,0/
~i..;.. /0
Servi ces
Fire (Dependent Districts) 1.1 Cj'O ].3(%
Government Buildings 10.8% 7.2%
Law Enforcement 6.6~~ 4.1%
Library 8.6% 5.3~'O
Educational Facilities I 10.1% 5.2c)'O
(School)
l\, Patterson
("DES
4,'lJ'2()()9
-
~() "- z\
;, _ ~. .:~,CJ
,- c ':) ,~ .', ': I
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-
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
INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE "COLLIER COUNTY INDEXING
METHODOLOGY STUDY" WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ADOPTED "COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEE INDEXING STUDY;"
AMENDING RATE SCHEDULES FIVE mROUGH TEN OF APPENDIX A
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED INDEXING METHODOLOGY
A.."lD RE-ORGA."".zING THE RATE SCHEDULES TO A USER-FRIENDLY
FORMAT; PROVIDING FOR mE RE-ORGANIZATION OF SCHEDULES
ONE, THREE AND FOUR OF APPENDIX A TO A USER-FRIENDLY
FORMAT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 27, 2009.
WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary
capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related
development that is necessitated by grov.th in CoIlier County; alld
WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding SOUTee for growth-related
capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-13, the CoUier 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, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners 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 formal
updates; and
WHEREAS, 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 locali7~,d information; and
WHEREAS, Collier County, retained Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the
"Consultant"), to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and
UJldetLil)e~ text is add~d; ttFUak mtBl:Igfl lext is deleted
.. ~. ,I ~\ ( i--\
:il ~'3.? ,/,
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 October 28,2008, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the
Productivity Committee be afforded the opportunity to review the indexing methodology based
on the Committee's request to consider the appropriateness of an indexing model that is more
sensitive to the current economic conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners also agreed that the County's impact
fee consultants, Tindale-OIiver and Associates, Inc. would assist with the review; and
WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. completed the report entitled the
"Collier County Indexing Methodology Study, " which amends portions of the adopted "Collier
County Impact Fee Indexing Study" and recommends that a two-year average be utilized to
calculate the various indices; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, the Florida Impact Fee Act, requires
the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations and this study complies
with that requirement; and
"'HEREAS, the proposed revised fees for this indexing rotation are incorporated in
Schedules Five through Ten of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinance (attached); and
WI,IEREAS, Schedules One and Three through Ten are also being reorganized to a user-
friendly format; and
WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and fmdings and concurs
with the results of the study, and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OJ;' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE. Article I, General, Section 74-106, Adoption of impact fee studies, of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as foHows:
Underiined u=x( is added; ~d. DUEil:lgh text is deleted
I
I
Page:! 0.(30
!!",
, ,';,j
iI "->,..:. ~.
:-: j
Section 74-106. Adoption of impact fee stu dies.
The board hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following studies with regard
to the respective public facilities:
***
(II) Indexing: "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June I I, 2007,
prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., in association with Robert W.
Burchell, Ph.D., te be apelated amNIall)', as amended bv the "Collier CounlY
Indexing MethodoIol!V Studv" dated March I L 2009. to be undated annually,
u.
SECTION TWO. Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinance is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.
SECTION THREE. 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, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions.
SECfION FOUR. 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-
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 FIVE. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date written below; however, the
effective date of the rate schedules shail be delayed to jury 27,2009.
Page 3 or JO
I
I
,
Underhn::d tc:o:.t b ~.k-d; ~.;-._;- ''---OlgH t;;:.;t i" ddetcd
..;'';'1, '\]0 "7:::
~'~" .- :)':;-9
::: "15 '3{
PASSED AND DUl"Y ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida this _ day of ,2009.
ATTEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chainnan
Underlined i.t:Ai i~ &Oded; Sinn;): tRA3J,!;A texi IS dcic~d
Page- 4 000
~ ,.~
,..}.
o
.'.PPENDIX ,\
SCHEDULE ONR: RO,'.D IMI'.'.CT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Fffecti'le JURe &, 2009
Resillential
Siagle Family Detaelled Home
Rete
Less than 1,50g sq, ft.
I ,5Q9 to ", 199 ~q. f1.
2,5g0 $'1. H. or larger
$7,652.00/dwelliag lHIit
$' 0 3"" "or~"'o'''i'lg ,mi'
... , ,_.v {~.. u... .
$1 I,559.90/dwelliag IIDit
Multi Family (l,partments)] 10 Slories
M..lti Family (.^.partments) Above 10 Stories
... ~..s.si.sterJ Li ying Faeility (/'..LF)
Condominimn/Tovmhou~e (l 2 Stories)
Mobile Heffi~
Retirement COlllffilHlity
High Rise Condominium (3+ Stories)
S7,161.00/dwelling lmit
$1,7&1.00/dwelIing !,Illit
$I,317.90/E1welIing ullit
$7,725.90,'dwelling lillit
$1,3 I HIO/dv/ellillg IIDit
$3,751.00/dwelIiRg ooit
$5,526.00/E1',velIing Imit
Lollging
I-!etel
Mete!
!.I1 Sliiles Hotel
RV Pa;k
$6,57&.00 ]lor room
$1,222.00 ]lor room
$3,891.00 per room
$2,299,OQ per site
ReeFetlB9B
Golf CeHIse
Moyie Theaters
Mariaa
Dal"lce Stlidies/GYffiaasties
$719,&91.00/1& holes
$46,2P"OO/ per SGreell
$3,517.00/ beat berth
$11,339.00/ 1,000 sq, ft.
InstitutioRal
Hospital
Nursing Home
Glmreh
PO'late EIemental'y Sehool
Pri'/:lte Middlc Scl100l
Private High Scl1oo1
Private Univcrsit:y/Jr. Collegc ~ 7,501 stujcnts
Prl";at0 Uni-;ljfsity/Jr. C011e;e.... :,500 sti:laelit5
$ I &,031.00/ 1,000 sq. ft.
g I ,26 J. 00 ]ler bed
1:&,619.00/1,000 sq. ft.
$1,005,09 ]ler student
$1,139.00 ]l:r student
$1,526.00 ]ler stl1dent
$2,371.00 ]ler stliaeRt
di1 ""7fr .....g . ..1_.,
~ 1" OO.V per r.>tUUelll
$1,115.00 ]ler stlideRt
Day Cure
{)ftiee
-:'ffice 50,000 sq ft or iess
$ifi,7€3.0C'/ iOOO ~;q, fl.
Underli.n~..ci text is added; Stf1::leJ~ througH text is deleted
Page 50f31
"
~v ~)
7
ames 50,001 IQO,OOO sq. ft.
Omee 100,001 200,QOO sq. ft
Offies 20Q,00I 100,000 sq. ft.
Omes Greater than 100,000 sq. ft
Medical Office
$I1,257.QO/ 100Q sq. ft.
$I2,II5.QQ/ 1000 S'l. ft.
$] 0,296Jlll/ I QQQ sq. ft.
$9,318.00/1000 s'l. ft.
$ 19,51 7.00/ ] OOQ sq. ft.
Retail
Speeialty Retail
Retail 5ll,QOll sq. ft. or less
Rstail5g,091 I QQ,OQO sq. ft.
Retail 100,001 150,000 sq. ft.
RetaiI150,OQI 2ll0,000 :;'1.. [1.
Retail 200,001 100,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001 600,000 sq. ft.
Reffii1600,00I 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Retail grsat::r tRanl,OQQ,O()() sq. ft.
Famiture Stare
Pharmacy/Dn<g Slors vdDrive Th."1l
Heme Iffijlrs'iement SUjlerstonJ
Restaurant: High Turnover
Restaw'aflt: (QllalilJ')
Restamallt: Drive iA
Gll5elifle/Sen-iee Statiefl
SUjl6ffilarl:et
Quid: Lube
Convenience Store (21 asHl's)
~' . 8 '~p
.8f1YBfllencetore '1i'vaS umps
$26,877.0Q/ I,QQO sq. ft.
$19,&23.0Q/ I,QQQ sq. ft.
$"0,911.0Q/ 1 ,QOO sq. ft.
~~e,5~1.0:;/ 1,C2~ '::01. ft.
$17,&&3.00/ I,OQQ sq. ft.
$I6,893.Q9/ I,llllll sq. ft.
$16,&17.ll9/ 1,0Qll sq. ft.
$18,255.00/ I,D09 sq. ft.
$19,I87.DQ( 1,000 sq. ft.
$3,545.00/ I,OOQ sq. ft.
$13,958.IlQ/ 1,000 sq. ft.
$<J,901.QO/ I,OOQ sf!. ft.
$2, 110.0Q/ seat
$1,55HlOI seat
$137,111.QO/ 1,000 sq. ft.
$8,22 I .QO per fuel positioB
$26,570.9Q/ I,QQO sq, ft.
$11,522.99 per buy
$97,636.00/ I,OQQ sq. ft.
$37,652.00 per fuel pesitien
Sen'iees
Tire Store
NewiT~'se'" "'\uto Sales
Lllm!!)' .wto Sales
Bank/Savings: Walk is
BanklSavillgs: Dri'/e is
Self Servie6 Car Wash
/\ulomatea Car Wash
$IQ,930Jl9 per bay
$27,131.00/ I,glla sq. ft
$11,996.00/ I,QQO sq. ft
$39,129.99/ 1,00Q sq. ft.
$19,15&.00/1,000 sq. ft.
$36,387.00 per bay
$39,066.00/1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial and Agricultural
GelleraI Light Industrial
BllGilless Park (FIe); space)
~. ~:::: '.l.' 3:-:!::::;:;S:
$7,732.00/ I,OQQ sq. ft.
$14,021.00/1,000 sq. ft.
$1,436.0Cl/ 1,000 sq. ft.
Underlined text is added; 8m..l: threHgli text is deleted
Page 6 of31
"
'.
'-:nt :.::;
_ .__.e
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE ONE
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective J unc 8, 2009
Imoact Fee Land Use Catc20rv
Rate
Residential
Assisted Liyin~ Foeili!\' (ALF)
C(ln4.q.{I0.,:,!~I}.bg~"~__O_:1 :<i1Qrj.~J
Hii!h-Rise Condominium (3+ Stories)
Mobile HQme
Multi-Family (Anartmen",) 1-10 Stories
Multi-Family (Apartments) > 10 Stories
Retirement Communitv
$1.347,00 Per Dwellin. Unit
$7 725.Jl_Q Per DweJlinl! Unit
$5 526.00 Per DwelIinE! Unit
S4,] 14.00 Per Dwellin. Unit
S7.464.00 Per Dwellin. Unit
$4.784.00 Per Dwellin2 Unit
$3.754.00 Per Dwelling Unit
$7,652.00 Per Dwelling Unit
$10.372.00 Per Dwellin. Unit
$1 t.5590,Q Per Dwellin. Unit
Single Familv Detached House
Loess than 1 500 SQ. ft.
t ,500 to 2.499 SQ. ft.
2.500 sq. ft. nr larser
Non-Residential
Auto Saics ~ Luxurv
Auto Sales ~ New/Used
Bank/Savings: Drive-In
Bank/Sayin.s: Walk-In
Business Park
Car Wash - Automatic
$14.996.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
~nJ.3100 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$40.158.00 Per I OOo..2!Llt
$.19.4::9.00 Pcr 1.000 sa. ft.
:>J.4.01 t .00 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
S39.06600 PELJ.OOO SQ. ft.
$36.367.00 Per Service Bav
$8.619.00 Per t .000..2!Llt
Car Wash - Self-Service
Church
Cnderlined text is added; Stru..."*-thh'"+U;g~ text is deleted
Page 7 of31
\~! I i
Imoact Fee Land Use Catel!orv
Rate
_ColleQclUniversitv (Priyi!!Q)
<7.50] Students
>7.5 00 SWdents
Convenien~Store (24 hours)
Convenience Store w/Gas Pumes
Dance Studios/Gymnastics:
Dav Care
Furniture Store
GasolineiService Station
General Licllt lndustrial
Golf Gourse
Home Imorovement Store
HosDital
Hotel
Hotel - All Suites
Marina
Mini- Warehouse
$2.3740Q Per Student
$1.766.00 Per Student
$97.636.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
$37,652.00 Per Fuel Position
$] 1.339.00 Per 1.000 SQ ft.
$1.445.00 Per Student
$3,545,Qil Per! .000 SQ. ft.
$8.22 10Q Pl~r F lJeI Position
$7,732.00 Per] .000 SQ. ft"
$749.894.00 Pcr ] 8 Holes
$900LOO Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
$18.034.00 Pcr t.OOO SQ. ft.
S6.578.00 Per R Dom
83.891.00 Per R nom
83.517.00 Per Berth (Drv/Wet)
$1.436.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
$4.222.00 Per Room
$46,2 t 7.00 Per S<;:l.~m
$t 26100 Pcr Bed
$16,76300 Per),POO sa. ft.
$]4.257.00 I'er I 000 sq. ft.
8]2.]]5.00 Per! .000 sq. ft"
SI0,296.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$9348.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
840.5] 7.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
813.958.00 Per 1..000 ,q. ft.
$t4.522.00 !:t2f S ervuce Bav
$137.444.00 Per 1.00Q1i!Lll
82.440.00 Per Seat
Motel
Movie Theater
Nursing: Home
Office 50.000 '0. fl. or less
Office 50.001-100.000 so. ft.
Office tOO.001,200.000 sq. ft.
Office 200.00].-400.000 sq. ft,.
Office Greater than 400.000 SQ. ft.
Office - ~f edica!
Pnannacv/DruQ: Store
Ouick Lube
Res~llrant - Drive-In
Res.taurant - Hiph Turnover
b]nderlined text is added; Stn:lE:l: tAT8Ugh text is deleted
P"gl~f.:of11
;., ;::t,
--;(
'\1
[ml1act Fee Land Use Cateoorv Rate
Restaurant - Oualitv S 1.553.00 Per Seat
Retait 50.000 S!I. Ft. or Less $19.823.00 r!?L 1.000 SQ. fl.
Retail 50.00t-IOO.000 SQ Ft. $20.041.00 Per I .000 SQ. ft.
Retail I 00.00 t -150.000 SQ. Ft. $18.661.00 Per t .000 SQ. fi.
RefaiI150.001-200.000 SQ. Ft. 517.883.00 Per t .000 SQ. fi.
Retail 200.00,-400.000 SQ Ft. $16.893.00 Per 1.000 _>fh ft.
Retail 400.001-600.000 S!lcEh $16.847.00 Per 1,OflQ-'fL..lL
Retail 600.001-1.000.000 S!I. Fe $18.255.90 Per 1.000 SQ. fi.
Retail >1.000.009 SQ. Ft. $ t 9,1 87.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Retail -: Snecialtv $26.877.00 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
R V Park $2.299.00 Pcr Site
School- Elementary [j'rivatcl $1.005.00 Per Student
School - Middle (Private) $1.439.00 Pcr Student
Schopl . Hil:!D School (Prjvat~) $1.526.00 per Student
Suoemlarkct $26.570.00 Per I .000 SQ. fi.
Tire Store $10.930.0.0 Per Service Bav
Underlined text is added; StnJeJ: tkel:l.g:h text is ddeted
Page 9 01"31
APPENDIX :\
NO.7,':',
'-jl:: ..c:'::> ,)__k::;,
- 2-: ,I,
SCHEDULE THREE: Pl\R.T(S ,o.Nn RECRKUIONAL F."CILITIES IJl.fP.\CT
FEE Rf.TE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE J,'.NU,\R-\'-I~
COMMUNITY PARKS (CaleuIllted 6R Liyia:; Area):
L\ND USE;
R.'.TE
SINCLE F f.I\flL Y nET ACHED:
Less than 1,500 sf[. ft.
1,500;82,199 sq, ft.
2,500 sq. ft. or mare
$ I ,075 .25
$1,181.05
$1,286.85
MULTI F,\MIL Y
$867.50
MOBILE HOMEfR'/ P f.RK
$I.062,6()
IIOTEUIVIOTEL
$578.15
RECIONAL Pf.RKS (Caleelftted 6ft LiviD:; ".rea):
L'.Nn USE:
RATE
SINCLE FAMll.Y DET".CHED:
Less than I ,500 sq. ft.
1,500 18 2,499 sq. ft,
2,500 sq. ft. or more
$2,378.20
$2,6 I 2.80
$2,847.10
MUL TI FL'\UL Y
$1,907.85
MOlHLE HOME/RV P".RK
$2,351.75
HOTELlIVIOTEL
$1,279.95
FER
Dwelling Unit
Dwelling Uait
D'l,elling Unit
Dwelling Unit
Pad
Reem
PER
Dwelling Unit
DVielling '.Jnil
D',yclling '.Jnit
D..wIling Unit
Pad
Reem
Note: '=ommunity Parks Impact Fees 60 BBt apply to me City ofl>;EIjlles, City of Mar eo
Island aHd B\'erglades City.
Underlined texl is added; Slr~ek IItrOHgk text is deleted
Page 10 of 31
J is" ',') 1~-~
;; :C~:i
-
" _'.,-l
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE THREE
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1,2008
Imnact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Parks. Community
Hotel/Motel $578.45 Per Room
Mobile HomefRV Park $1,06260 fer Unit/Site
Multi-Familv $862.50 Per Dwelling Unit
Single Familv Detached House
Less than 1.500 sq. ft. $1.075.25 Per Dwelling Unit
! .500 to 2,499 sq. ft. $.lJ_a.LJ!2 Per Dwelling Uill!
2.500 SQ. ft. or lar~er n,286.85 Per D\:y'elling l!nit
Parks. Rc"ional
HotelfMotel $ 1.279.95 Per Room
Mobile Home/RV Park S.v 5 LD P~.LJJnit/Sjte
Multi-Familv $J.907.8~ Per Dwelling Unit
Single Familv Detached House
Less than 1.500 sa. ft. $2.378.20 Per Dwelling Unit
1.500 to 2.499 SQ. ft. $2.612.80 Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft or larger $2.847.40 Per Dwelling Unit
Note: Community Parks Impact Fees do not applv to the City of Naples,
City of Marco Island or Everglades CltV.
Underlined te". is added: ~€l, thro"gh text is deieted
Page I I of 3 1
APPENDIX !.
SCHEDULE FOUR, CORRECTIONAL F f. ClI.ITIES IMPACT FEE R. '. TE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE .\PRIL IS, 2908
Laad Use
CeFfeoti81la1 FaeilitieslHlfl.et ree Per ~~uare Feat
SiBgle Family Deta<Jlled
$Q.115 per ''1'"'''' f-eet'
Otller Re~ideRtiai:NHrsinb lIeme
i;Q.063per square foot"
NeB Residential!
Ladr.i:'g
HoteL' ~10t.1
$0.316 per square f{let
~\kd"$Ol
lIespital
$0.367 per square feet
C""IfiIeFcial
oo:iee
$0.210 per square faot
Retail'C ommercial I.ReerootioR
$(1.1; II peF ~'1"are foet
ReotaHflmt'Bar ,fLouRge
$9.611 peF s'lllare foet
Indu.trial .'1'.1ellllfaeturillg
$9.933 per ~qllare foot
Leisure.'OHtaeoF
$0.611 per "'1u<lfe foet
~~lstitulisliS
Clllirell
$0.993 per "qlllll'E! foet
Selloeb/College
$0.&06 !"er sqHare Foot
GO'iCrHffient/PHlllio fluiIdiag
X9.263 per ''1 liar. fBet
, The Carreetian.l FHeiliiles IHlflaet Foe is Bapped b05ed "l'eA the fee 'ppliGal:>le te . 1,1'9g s'luare [<oat
(liyi"~ area) ~iAble ,....il)' Delaoaed ,k. elliag; "ait.
.. The CerrectisA.1 F'Gilities Imraet Fee is ellflped aase. "pea the ree llflplieable ts a 1,g9g sq"are f<3ot
(-li\iAg area) Otfler Res.iaentiallSt'1,'eIliFlg; BRit. The ea~ Bees Ast appl:' tEl tke squMe fflfltag-e of Nm'3ing
~
Underlined text is added; SlHwk thrsllgh lext is deleted
Page 12 of3J
~
i)'::
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE FOUR
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES (JAIL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective April 15. 2008
Imvact Fee Land Use Catc!!orv
Rate
Residential
Single Familv Detached
Other Residential
~
$0.063
Per sq. ft. (max 4_000 Sq. Ft per unit)
Per Sq. ft. (max 4,000 ,Sq. FI. per unit)
Non-Residcntial
Church
Government/Public Buildings
Hosoital
Hotel/Motel
I ndustrialiM anuf acturi Ill!
Leisurc/Outdocl[
Nursing Home
Office
Restaurant/Bar !Loun ge
Retai IICommerciallRecreati on
School/Collcge (Private)
$0.093 I'~LML...1t
$0.263 PeL'ifh...fl
SO.367 pp sa. ft.
$0.346 Per "1. fl.
$0.033 Per sq. n.
$0.61 I Per "1 ft.
$0.063 Per sq. ft.
$0.240 Per Sq. ft.
~ Per sa, ft.
~ Per S<l. ft.
$9.806 Per sq. ft.
Underlined text is added; StruGI: tIlreHgll text is deleted
Page 13 of31
"::-;:-n h..o 72.,
:,\~)_ ~<,JC S+
:::]8 "~-:=:. 7
APPENDIX f.
SCHEDULE FlYEr FIRE IMPACT FEE R.,\TE SCHEDULE
EF CCTIVE JANV.'.RV 1,2098
Oeho~ee Fire CODtrol aDd Reseue Di!:triet
Residential:
~O.74 r::: s.::;.t:xe :Feot*
Non Resielential:
$0.21 j'ler sEjuare f{Jot
Isles of Ca~ri Fire Control aDd Reseue Distriet
Resielential:
$9.13 per square f-oot**
Non R-esidcntial:
8; I.11 per square f-oot
* The Oehej'lee Fir-e Centrol and Rescue District Impact Fee is caj'lped Based Ufl0B the fee
applicaBle to a 1,990 s'laare foet EPNellin!', unit
** The Isles efCapri Fire Contreland Rescue District Impact Fee is capped Based apeB
the fee ElJlplisaBIe 10 a 1,009 square foot dwelIillg unit
Underlined text is added; Slruok fuFeHgh text is deleted
Page t4 of31
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE FIVE
FIRE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective .'"Iv 27. 2009
ImDact Fee Land Use Catel!orv
Rate
Isles of Capri
Residential (4.000 sq. ft. max. per unit)
]\Ion-residential
$044
$]]5
OcbODce
Residential (4.000 sa. ft. max. ocr unit)
$0.75
iQ.~]
Non-residential
Underlined text is added; &tnlck throu;;f1 text is deleted
Page lS of31
Per sa. ft. under roof
Per sa. ft. under roof
Per sq. ft. under roof
Per sq. ft. under roof
'-j !;: '", '~J. .A
2 ;'_'~1
,.,:: ~ (-' '~)
!',:=:rn :'~o. 7,6..
:::F.L 2 09
27 () ;~)7
APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE SIX: EDUCf.TlON.U F}.CIUTlES IMPf.CT FEE RUE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE J-f.MUf.RY I, Jg9S
HOHSiIlg Type
Impact Fee Rate (per dwelliIlg uBit)
Siagle Family
Less tliaR 1 ,50G 3tj8are feet
1,500 2,199 sqWlt'e feet
2,500 s"Illafe feet er larger
$9,926.12
$10,098.98
$10,9&&.65
Multi Family
$3,139.61
Mobile Heme
$6,279.73
Undertined text is added; Stmek IhFeagH lext is deteted
Page 160f31
.'."Y' d
, .;;:< _::J
r:7
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE SIX
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effectin July 27. 2009
Impact Fee Land Use Cateeorv Rate
Mobile Home/RV Park $6.687.38 Per Unit/Site
Multi-Family $3.343.68 Per Dwelling Unit
SiD.&le Fami1xpetached lIouse
Less than 1.500 sq. fl. $9.612.82 Per Dwelling Unit
\.500 to 2.499 Sq. ft. $10.755.41 Per Dwelling Unit
2.500 SQ. ft. or larger $11.702.91 Per Dwelling Unit
Underlined text is added; ~:nwl~ trn-e\:l;h text is deleted
Page 17 of3t
l:C~:T: ::0 ,21.,
','n '(<1
APPE~rDIX }.
SCHEDULE SEVENl EMERCENCY MEDIC!.L SERVICES IMPACT FEE
R\ TE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JANUl.RY 1,2008
IHIJlact Fee Land Use Categer)'
Impact Fee Rate
Rllsillential:
Less than 1 ,5QO square f<::ct
] ,5QO te 2,199 square feet
2,5(}0 sqllare feet er more
$1I 2.16 per dwelling illlit
$125.26 per Gv,'elliag _it
$137.15 per dwelling UBit
TFllosisnt, A~sisted, Croup:
Hotel.' MeteI
Nursing Beme
~52.1 I per room
~87. 77 j1er bed
ReeFeatio8al:
Marina
Gelf Course
Moyie Theater 'NftB Matiaee
$I 8.29 per berth
$5,289.22 per 18 aoIes
$788.30 per screen
Iostituti8Bsr
Hospital
EJemefltary Schoel
MiadIe Scheel
High School
JUHiorfCommunity College
UniveFSil)'/Cellege
Church
Day Care Center
$150.86 per ],Ogg sq. ft.
$5.'19 per student
$6.3 9 per studeHt
:n.3l per stHdent
~5.49 per sllldent
$11.88 per staacnt
$52.1 1 per 1,0gO sq. ft.
$5.49 per ~;tudent
Omee aoll FinaoeiaI:
Office 59,000 sq. ft. Br less
Offiee 59,001 100,000 sq. n.
Office 100,99 I 200,009 sq. ft.
Office 290,001 190,QQQ sq. ft.
Offiee greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
Medical Office
$152.89 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$117.95 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$] 00.58 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$85.94 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$73.14 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$158.17per 1,000 3q. ft.
Retail (Gross Squar€ Feet)
Specialty Retail
Retail 5Q,000 sEI. ft. Sf less
$137.15 per 1,000 SEl. ft.
$262.11 pcr 1,000 sq. ft.
Underlined text is added; Stm<t: ,"rough text is deleted
Page 18 of31
Retail 50,001 WQ,OOO sq. ft.
RemillOO,OOI 150,ClOO sq. ft.
Retail 150,001 200,000 sq. ft.
Retail200,QOl 100,ClOO sq. ft.
Retail 19Q,001 600,000 sq. fL
Retail aOO,OOI 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Retail over 1,000,000 sq. ft.
PHarmaey/Drug Stefe \'.\'Drive Th.-u
Home kapfOvement Superstere
Quaiity P,esiallfarJ
HigH Tumo\'er ReotaUfiillt
Fast Food Rest. w/Dri'le thru
GaslServiee StatisB
Quiek Lube
SUj'lermarket
COAveRieRee Store
Conveaieftee Stem w'Gas
,'.lIte ReflaH-
Tire Ster-e
New aHal.!sed Car Sales
Sel:Serviee Car \!/ash
Bank/Savin;;s Walk in
Baru(/Suvings Drive ift
IBElustyial:
Geftefal Industrial
BllilBesii pa;k
MiRi warehouse
$210.16 per I,OOG sq. ft
$213.95 per I,OOG sq. ft.
$260.57 per 1,000 DEl. ft
$228.58 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$233.15 per 1,000 Dq. ft.
$233.15 per J ,000 DEl. ft.
$191.Q9 per 1,99g DEl. ft.
$I7J.89 per 1,000 DEl. ft.
$162.75 per 1,009 DEl. Ft.
$618.n p(lr 1,000 .'El. fl.
$618.21 per 1,000 DEl. ft.
$800.02 per 1,000 Dq. ft.
$181.03 per fuel positioft
$1 De. 05 :(?er selyiee say
$185.60 per 1,000 Dq. ft.
$387.67 per 1,000 DEl. ft.
$397.72 per fuel position
$~91.ea fief 1,099 sE{. it
$112.63 per service bay
$158.17 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$172.80 Jler service bay
$231. 97 jler 1,000 sq. ft.
$189.26 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$63.09 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$91.13 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$6.39 jler 1,090 sq. ft
Underiined text is addcd~ St=reeL thrsl:lgh text is deieted
Paget9of31
'~;a '10: !.J,
..' ,:J'~~(;. 7
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE SEVEN
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective Julv 27, 2009
Imnact Fee Land Use Cat<2"orv
Rate
Residential
Less than 1.500 Sq. ft.
1,500 to 2.499 sq. ft.
2.500 Sq. ft. or larger
$116.06
$129,2.7
$141.54
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwellin~ Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Non-Residential
Auto Renair
Auto Sales iNewfUsed)
F\apM~yit!gs: Drive-In
$300.99 Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
$163.23 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$195.32 Pcr 1.000 sq. ft.
$242.49 Per 1.000 SQ. P!o:.
$94.36 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$ t 78.33 Per Service Bav
$53.78 Per I.OOG sq. ft.
$5.67 Per Student
S t2.26 Per Student
$400.08 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$4 t 0.45 Per Fuel Position
$5.67 Pcr Stude~l
$186.82 Pcr Fuel Position
$.Q.Ul Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
$2,458.48 Per 18 Holes
$167.96 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
$155.69 Per 1.000 sq, ft.
('.::':! 72 Per Room
-
~ Per Berth
BanklSilvine:s; \\'alk-In
Bll~incss Park
Car Wash ~ Self-Service
Church
CollcQ:e - Junior/Communitv
College - University
Convenience Store (24 hours)
Convenience Store wlGas Pump~
Dav Care
Gasoline/Servicc Station
General Lioht Industrial
Golf Course
Home Irnorovemcnt Store
Hosnital
Hote1/Jv1ote!
Marina
t;nderl~r:::d text is ~dded; Bt-rucl,,-1-hIBugh tc;d is deleted
Page 20 of3!
I;('-T: :";0. ,u,
~_i)lil :::3 d
"- :;:-1 (:' ~..j
I:, 'n --.!:..,
~":s ~:>'~)
:. .;~Jf,,;"
Imooet Fee Lood Use Cote2orv Rate
Mini- Warehouse $6.59 Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
1\.1ovie Theater $81].46 Per Scr~~.!!
Nursiol! Home $90.5 R Per Bed
Offic<;.iQ,QOO Sq. ft. or less $t57.58 Pcr t .000 sq. ft.
Office 50.001-1 OO,QOO Sq. ft. $121.72 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Office 100.00t-200000 5D. ft. tl()~ SUl Per] .000 Sq, ft.
~, __H'~
Office 200.00]-400.000 Sq. ft. $88.69 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than. 400.000 SQ. ft. S75.48 Pcr I.QOO SQ. ft.
Office - Medic?l $163.23 Pcr 1.000 sq. ft.
Pharmacv/Drul.! Sto@ SI77.39 Pcr 1.000 Sq. ft.
Ouick Lube ,L! 09.44 Per Service Ray
R.estaurant ~ Fast Food w/Orive-In S825.62 Per 1 .000 sq. ft~
Restaurant ~ Hillh Tumover $668.98 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Restaurant - QualiTY $Q.~8. 79 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Retail 50.000 Sq. ft. or less $270.81 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Rctail 50.001-100.000 sa. ft. S248.15 Pcr 1.000 siL.fh
Retail 100.001 -] 50.000 siL.fh S220.80 Pcr 1.000 sq. ft.
Retail 150.00 1-200 OOQ &it., $268.91 Pcr t .000 sq. ft.
RetaiI200.00 1-400.000 SQ. ft. $235.89 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Retait 400.00)-600.000_eSLft. $240.61 Per t .QQO sq. ft.
Retail 600.001-1.000.000 sfLft, $~40.61 Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Retail > 1.000.000 Sq. 11 St97.20 Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Retail - Soecialtv $141.54 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Sehool- Elementary (Private) $5.67 Per Student
SehooL:_Middle IPrivate) $6.59 Per Student
;ichool :High School (Private"! Ei4 Per Stud~nt
Supermarket $191.54 Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Tire Store $147.19 Per Service Bav
l.inucriincd text is added: SlA:ld~ ti.f~ text is deleted
1.)""",.,., ,-,f 1. 1
. '.e'" _~ 'H -"
f.PPENDIX :\
SCHEDULE EICIIT: LIBR:\RY IMPf.CT FEE Rf.TE SCHEDULE
Land Use Categery
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2008
S'H!;lc Fe-i1,. Deteehcd:
Less than 1,509 5E]lIare fuel
1,500 to 2,199 SEjliGre feet
2,500 SE]lial'e feet Elf mere
Mula F8mi1J'
Mehile IIl1me
ImpElet Fee Rate
$503.19 !ler d.,velliRg unit
$553.84 !ler (h<ellil1g Wlit
$600.16 !ler dwellil1g BRit
$402.79 !ler awelliag tmit
$1>'7.44 !leI' &welIiRg tmit
Underlmed lexl is added; Stmck thfo~gR text is deleted
Page 22 of31
I'::;,,, h. 7/\
?-:') ::: -)9
~-;::I _, ~. ':17
:.e;-n f\:-). i:"
:;:'E), :2t ,...
~7
,
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE EIGHT
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDllLE
Effective Julv 27. 2009
Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Mobile Home/RV Park $523.80 Per Unit/Site
Multi-Familv $424.14 Per Dwelling Unit
Single Familv Detached House
Less than 1.500 Sq ~ ft, $530.11 Per Dwelling Unit
1.500 to 2.499 sq...fh ,';,583.19 Per D\\:~l1ing Unit
2.500 SQ. ft. or larger $.63] .97 Per Dwelling Unit
Underlined text is added; Struck through text is deleted
Page 23 of 3 1
i !em r'~;.>. ~i 7/:\
~~3. ?Cf!:9
.'.,J ".11
..\PPENDIX A
SCHEDULE NINE:
CENERAL COVERNMENT RVILDINC 11\'IPr"\CT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE J.'.NV!.RY 1,2008
LaBd Uge
Rate
Residential:
Siagle Family:
Less thilfl 1,599 sEl ft
1,509 to 2,499 sq ft
2,500 sEl ft sr mere
$7%.95
$886.09
$967.34
Mtilti Family
Mobile Home
$150.18
$640.13
Transient, Assisted, Croup
Hotel/Motel
Numing Homoi.'.LF
$34 I .18.'Reom
$451.57/Bed
Reereational
Manna
GolfCeurse
Mo':ie Theater wilh Matinee
$91.13.'Berth
$9,213.32/18 Holes
$4,075.78'Serem
IJlstitutions
Hosj3itaI
Elemeffiery Seheol
Middle SCAool
Higl1 Seilool
JUflioI.'Comm~lRity College
University/Cellege
ChlolfCh
Day-Care~enter
$781.78.'1,909 sq. ft.
$28.55/Stl:ldent
$32.91/Studeat
$38.13/StHdent
$28.55/StlldeRt
$61.19/Student
$270.1 1/1,990 sq. ft.
~~e.: :/~~..:d0nt
Underlined text is added; Strook through text is deleted
Page 24 of31
f-;J. '
omee and FiDllReial
Office 59,000 SIl. 1'1. or less
Offiee 50,00 I 190,0005,,\. ft. or less
Office 190,001 200,000 s"l.. Ft. or less
Office 200,001 100,000 sq. ft. or less
Office Greater than 400,0005,,\. ft.
Medical Office
$79Uie/],900 s€I. ft.
$6 I I .59/] ,090 S<j. ft.
~521.55/1 ,999 sq. ft.
$H5.79/1 ,0005,,\. ft.
$378.81/1,000 sq. ft.
$&20.71/1,000 sq. ft.
Retail
Specialty Retail
Relail50,OOO sq ft Elr less
Retail 50,001 100,000 sq. ft.
Retail 190,(:)01 150,000 s~. ft.
Retail 150,09 I 2(:)0,000 sq. fl.
Reta.i1200,001 199,000 sq. ft.
Retail 190,001 699,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,00 I 1,900,000 sq. ft.
Retail greater tflan 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Ph.8Hllacy/Drug Store w/Drive Th-u
Heme Imprevemeilt SUl'erstore
Quality Restllunmt
High TlffilElver Restaurant
Fast FoeEl Rest. w/Drbe Th;l.I
Gas/SeF\'ice Station
Qo1iek Lube
SU]3eFHlilfket
Ctlflvenieaee Store
ConvzmeREe Store w/Gas
Tire Store
New/Used ,'.uto Sales
SelfServiee Cr%!' Wash.
Ballk/Savings: Walk in
Bank'Savings: Dri',e in
$710.11/1,<XI0 5,,\. ft.
$],360.12/I,99(} sEl. ft.
$1,216.23/1,000 sq. ft.
$1,10&.9&/1,000 sq. ft.
$I,}59.51/I,000 sq. ft.
$1,1&1.71/1,000 sq. ft.
$1,20&.90/1,0905,,\. ft.
$1,20&.90/1,090 s"\. ft.
$990.10/1,000 sq. ft.
$&91.5&/1,000 sq. ft.
$&13.26!I,000 ~q. ft.
$3,20&.36/1,000 sq. ft.
$3,359.&&/1,000 sq. ft.
$1,117.15/1,909 sq. ft.
:\:938.79/fl;lel positioa
$550. I O/llay
$961.&5/1,000 sq. ft.
$2,009.31.'1,000 sq. ft.
$2,Q62.04/fuel position
$73&.95/bay
$&70.71/1 ,000 sq. ft.
$&95.97/bay
$1,217.68/1,000 s,,\. ft.
5:981.61/1,000 sq. ft.
Iodustrial
Gel'leral IndlIDH'ial
Busil'less Park
Mil'li Vi ar~"ouse
$3~7.20.'I ,{lOO sq. ft.
$171.31/1,900 sq. ft.
$32.91/1,Q90 SEj.
Underlined text is added; Struck !hra.b" text is deleted
Page 25 of31
it^.' ,; t"J~). 7 ~
:'~j ?,
.,,:;,(-;.)/ !)j
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE NINE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUlLDlNG IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effcctive JulY 27. 2009
{mDDe. Fee Land Use Catc~'Orv
Rate
Residential
Mobile Home
$686.22
$482.59
Per Dwelling UnitlSitQ
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi-familv
Sin~le f .milv
Less than 1.500 SQ. ft.
1.500 to 2.499 SQ. ft.
2.500 so. ft. or laTfler
$853.37
$949.89
$1.036.99
Per DweIIin~ Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Non-Residential
$87927 Per 1.000 'oJt,
$1.052.29 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$1305.35 Per] .000 so, ft.
S508.49 Per 1.000 sq. ft.
S960.48 Per Sen1ice Bav
$289.56 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$30.6t Per Student
$65.92 Per Student
$2.154.01 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$2.2 t 0.51 Per Fuel Position
$30.61 Per Student
$1.007.45 Per Fuel Position
$9.876.68 Per 18 Holes
$903.97 Per I.O(lO SQ. It.
ltQ"2Q (Ii 0.,...1 /I(\fl <"'" ft
~.'.o-!,.!..'~ ' ....' "VVV .)"t. ..~.
$366.07 Per Room
Aoto Sales{blewiUsed)
Bank/Savinl!s: Drive-in
B.nkiSavings: Walk-In
Business Park
!;ar Wash - Self-Service
Church
CollcQe - JunioriCommunjJy
r,!ltteee - University
Convenience Store (24 hours)
Convenience Store wlGas Pumns
Dav Care
GasolineiService Station
Golf Course
Home Improvement Store
Hospital
HoteliMotel
Unde.riincd l<.:xl i:;. auJ~; $:ru.:.t :11f..::r.;;;: text j:; deleted
Page 26 of31
Industrial - General Light
Marina
Mini~ Warehouse
S350.7~
$101.23
$35.31
$4.369.24
Movie Theater
Nursin[! Horne
Office 50.000 SQ. ft. or less
Office 50.001-100.000 SQ. ft.
Office 100.001-200.000 sq. ft.
Office 200.001-400.000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400.000 SQ. ft.
Office - Medic!!.!
PhannacviDrug Store
Ouiek Lube
Restaurant. Fast Food wlDrive-In
$487.30
$848.66
$655.62
S559.10
$477.89
$406.08
$879.27
S955.77
$5892.1
$4.445.74
Restat.!-rant - Hisili Tumon:_T
R~5taurant ~ OuahlX
.Retail 50.000 Sq. Ft. or Less
B.etail 50.001-100))00 SQ. Ft.
Retail 100.001-150.000 Sa. Ft.
Retail \50,001-200.000 SQ. Ft.
Retail200.001-400.000_So. Ft.
Retait 4(\0.001-600.000 5_lLll
RetaiI600.001-1.000.goo So. Ft.
Retail > 1.000.000 SQ. Ft.
Retail - Soecia!tr.
School - Elemcntary (Private)
School- Middle (Private)
School- High School (Private)
S3.60 1.79
$3.439.36
$1.458.36
$t.335.96
SI.188.83
$1.447.78
$1.270.04
$1.295.94
$1.295.94
S1.061.71
$761.56
$30.6\
$35.31
$41.20
S 1.0;1.1.111
B..uoermarket
Tire Store
E22.15
-{ ! J -...,
:" '..
Per t .000 SQ. ft.
Per Berth
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Per Screen
Per Bed
Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 SQ._ft
f.IT..LOOO so. ft.
Per) .000 Sq. ft.
Per t .000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 'QJ!.
Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Per Service Bav
Per t .000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
per] .000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Pcr 1.000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 SQ. f!.
Per 1.000 SQ. f!~
Per 1.000 'i~
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Pcr 1.000 SQ. ft.
Pcr Student
Per Student
Per Student
Per t ,000 sq. ft.
Per Service Ba\'
Underlined text 1:> added; Struelc thn:I;:l,l:;B text is deleted
Page 27 of31
.ti'PENDIX A
I",c:;rr: !'0~) ': 7/-\
28.::':;U-0
:y:., v~' ();'
SCHEDULE TEN: Lf.W ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE Rf.TE SCHEDULE
LaRd Use
ResideRtiah
Single ramiIy:
LesG thEIR 1,500 sqllal'e feet
1,500 Ie 2,199 sljuare feet
2,500 sqlHlfe fuel ef more
M\llti- Family
Mobile Home
TFIlRsieBt, Assisted, CF911fl
IIateVMelel
NlIfsing Heme!.'\LF
Reerellti9Ral
Marina
GeIfCourse
Movie Theater ,...itft Matinee
Institutions
Hesflital
Elementary SellaoI
Missle Sehool
High Seaeel
Jr./Cemnnmity College
Um.'.'ersity/Cellege
Cfloceh
Day Care CeRter
Offiee alld F-illlllleilll
Omee 50,000 slj. ft. or less
Gillee 50,001 100,000 sq. ft. C~ bs
EFFECTIVE JAi'lUARY I, 200S
Rate
$309.75/dwelling lliIit
$344.54/swelling \Hlit
$375.87!dwelIiRg unit
$1 8€i.20/dwelIiRE; unit
$257.51!d'.velIiRg HRit
$99. I 9fRoeffi
$I€i7'()5/Bed
$29.S8/Bertll
$3,6(; 1.22!I 8 Holes
$911.1 L'SereeR
$3 Hi.29!1 ,000 S!j. ft.
$15.66/StuaeHt
$19. I 4!Stuaent
$2 I.I 8/Staaeat
$24J €i/Student
$55.68/StuaeHt
$88.74!1,000 sq. ft.
$8.70/Stmlent
$219.26/1,000 sq. ft.
$I87.93!1,000 sq. ft.
Undcrlmed text is added; ~tTHoI, throHgh text IS deleted
Page 28 of31
Office 19G,OOI 200,000 sq. ft. er less
omce 200,001 100,000 sq. ft. or less
Offiee Greater tft1lll10G,000 sq. ft.
Meaiew Office
Retail
Specialty Retail
Retail 59,900 sq. ft. OI less
Retail 50,001 100,00G sq. ft.
Retail I OO,GQ I 150,000 sq. ft.
Retail 159,GO I 200,000 sq,. ft.
RelaiI200,GGI 10Q,QOO sq. ft.
Relail 400,001 600,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,QO 1 1,000,000 sq. ft.
Retail greater ~haJl 1,999,000 sq. ft.
Pharmac)"/Drug SteFe w/Drive Th.-u
Home Imflfovement 8l1jlerstore
Quality RestalHant
lligll Tamover Restaurant
F851 Food Rest. w/Dri'..e Thrn
GasiEef\qee Station
Quick Lube
~
CeR'..enience Slere
COflYeRiellee Store W/GM
Tire Store
NevdUsed ",.\HG Sales
Seif Service Car Wash
Bank/SEtyings: Walk in
BanlciSavlnbs: Drive iA
HIllastrilll
Goneral Industrial
BusiRe~ls p,,*
Mini WarehElH5e
$]@.09/I,000 sq. ft.
$I35.73/1,OOG sq. ft.
$123.55/1,000 sq. ft.
$271.91/1,000 sq. ft.
$ 311. 06/1,000 ~;q. ft.
$551.61/1,000 sq. ft.
$51&.55/1,009 sEj. ft.
$562.06/1,999 sq. ft.
$527.26/1 ,000 sq. ft.
$157.65/1,000 sq,. ft.
$175.06/1,OGO sq,. ft.
$171.57/1,099 sq,. ft.
$H 1.11/1,000 sq. ft.
$101.97.'1,000 sq. ft.
$155.92/1,000 sq. ft.
$ I ,392. I G/I ,9GO sq. ft.
$1,191.29/1 ,OGO sq. ft.
$1,92&.06(1,000 sq. ft.
$'126.33:FHel Position
$ I 91.'l2/Ba)"
$395.01/1,000 sq. ft.
$E 1G.18/l,OOO sq. ft.
$1,2I8.09iFuel PositioH
$2&3.61/Bay
$330.62/1,000 sq. ft.
$339.3:!/Bay
$382.83/1,090 sq. ft.
$311.1 &/1 ,000 sq. ft.
$107.&9/1,009 sq,. ft.
$156.61/1,999 9q. ft.
$12.18/1,000 sq. ft.
J]nderlined text is added; Stm:l: tJ".;euf,h text is deleted
Page 29 of31
. j,] . -'!:,
-, Od', ..:' _>ji.'::J
':;,/
y "I~;:j I:en"' hio I L...
:3, ~C""':J
:)1" ':",7
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE TEN
LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective .Julv 27, 2009
Impact Fee Land Use Cate20n
Bl!!!;
Residential
Mobile Home
Multi-Familv
Single FamilY..
Less than I. 500 SQ. ft.
1.,500 to 2.499 sq. ft.
2,500 Sq. ft, or lar~cr
$268.] 0
$\93.1\J.
Per Dwelling Unit/Site
Per Dwelling Unit
~322.45
$358.67
$391.28
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwellin~ Unit
Non-Residential
Auto Sales (OJew,Useill
BankfSavjnl:l"s~ Drive-In
S344,18 Per 1.000 sq, ft.
$324,25 Per 1.000 Sq, ft.
$398.53 Per 1.000 so. fl.
$163.03 Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
$353.23 Per Servicc Bay
$92.38 Per I.QOO sq. ft.
;;;25.36 Per Student
$57.96 Per Student
$874.94 Per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1.268.Q3 Per Fuel Position
$9.06 Per Student
~443.81 Per Fuel Position
$3.8] L33 Per 18 Holes
$474.61 Per 1,000 Sq. ft,
$360.49 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
t t 03.26 Per Room
Bank/Savings: Walk-In
Business Park
Car Wash - Self. Service
ChtlJ'ch
Col1c:i!e - Junior.~Communitv
College - University
Convenienoe Store (24 hours)
Convenience Store w/Gas Pumos
Day Care
0ar;oline/Service Station
Golf Course
Home Improvement Store
Hospital
HotellMo1c1
l.!.nder1ine<!.texl ;s added; ~ text is deleted
Page 30 of 3 J
Im"act Fcc Land Use Cate~orv
Rate
Industrial ~ General ~ir!:ht
Marina
Minia Wareholl.'>c
Movie Theater
Nursintr Home
Office 50.000 sa. ft. or less
Office 50.001-100.000 SQ ft.
Officc 100.001-200.000 sq. fl.
Qffice 200.001-400.000 SQ. ft.
Office Greater than 400.000 SQ. fl.
Office - Mcdical
Pharmacv.iDrug Store
Ouick Lube
Restaurant - Fast Food \'V'/Drive-In
Restaurant - Hi~h Turnover
Restaurant - Qualitv
Retail 50.000 SQ. Ft. or 1.".\
Retail ~O.OOt-lOO.OOO Sq. FI.
Rctaill00.001-150.000 SQ. Ft.
RetaillSO.001-200.0UO SQ. Ft.
RetaiI200.00t-400.000 Sa. Ft
Retail 400.001-600.000 SQ. Ft.
Retail 600.001-1.000.000 Sa. FI.
Retail> 1.000.000 Sa. Ft.
Retail - Specialty
~chool- Elementarv (Private)
School - Middlo (Private)
School - Hicl1 School (Private)
SUD<'-'l1l1arket
Tire Store
$t 12.31
$30.79
512.68
$980,m
$173.90
5228.25
$ I 95.64
$ I 66.65
5141.29
$128.62
$2S6.21
$41845
5199.27
$2.007.11
S 1.552.43
$1,449.t 8
$574.23
$539.81
S5g5l0
S5488R
$4764[
$494.54
$490.90
543 Ul.
$355.04
li..6.30
$19.92
521.75
$411.2t
$295.27
"71
1-...
23 _, ,,~j
rcr 1.000 SQ. fl.
Per Bcrth
Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Per Screen
Per Bed
Per 1.000 sa. ft.
rer 1.000 sa. ft.
Per 1.000 Sq. fl.
Per 1.000 sa ft.
rer 1.000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.0002!L1l
rer 1.000 Sq. fl.
Per Service Bav
Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Per 1.000 Sq. ft.
Per t .nnn so. fi.
Per I.QOO Sq. ft.
Pcr !Jl00 sa. ft.
rer 1.000~
Per 1.000 sq. ft.
Per t .000 sa fi.
rer 1.000 sa. fi.
Pcr Student
Per Student
Per Student
Pcr 1.000--'"L.ft
Per Service Bay
1. rf!d-::r!iP.'~d ~~\:! i ~ 3.ddd; ~'::-''':!: ::!~:T.:,;t !t~:t is de!c!!:'d
Page 3t of3t
Iti. m i\iO. '17:~
:1 ~'3, 2Cr:IS
..:\3
COLLIER COUNTY
INDEXING METHODOLOGY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
ec;1ff~"Y County
___~~->mf'
March 11,2009
Prepared(or:
Collier County
3301 E. Tamiarni Trail
Naples, Florida 34 I 12
Ph (239) 252-8999
Prepared bv:
Tiudale-Olivcr & Associates, Inc.
](}(}() N. Ashlev Dr., #]()(}
Tampa, Florida, 33602
ph (8 I 3) 2l4-8862,fax (813) 2l6-2 I (}6
073037-02.08
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1
In trod u ction ..................... ...... ......... ......... ............ ..... ................ ................ .............. 2
Evaluation of Current Index Composition ............................................................ 2
Indexing Methodology Evalnation ......................................................................... 4
Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 18
List of Appendices:
Appendix A - Indexing Methods Used by Other Jurisdictions
I'indale-Ulivcr & /\SSOCi3tCS, Inc.
March 2009
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
;-:ii; ;..1,
~_'j, [) <1
"
..'- .,
.,;:,.] !'<J0. ::\
2~L:2 G9
.:j:;" ;::7
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 reb~'ession analysis, which moderate the changes in the
index, and the eJTect ofthe 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:
1. The current adopted methodology adjusts national, regional or statewide figures
to local figures using wage rates to rellect local costs. The analysis found that
although this adjustment is useful in captllling 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 reb~'ession analysis. Regression analysis
tends to work well in smoothing changes over time when there are no sib'11ificant
lluctuations in the underlying data. The indices for seven of Collier County's ten
11npact fee prCt-,rralTI areas are based on relatively stable national or regional data.
However, indices for the other program areas (transpOliation, regional parks, and
community parks) are based on the change in land values and transportation
construction costs, which llucluated 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 oflocally 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 MethodoJogy Study
.' c:-"
~(j _ 'i :.
..:. r" :~:I ,.j
- .- ~
r''::';:-:; :"1.>
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 signiJicant 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 111 local infrastructure costs. rOA
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 of 2008.
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 ClllTent process and explore
potenlial changes lo lhe current melhuuology.
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 lcvels through the use of labor wage
rate comparison. Table I provides a summary of each indcx and its scope. As presented.
three of the indices (Engineering News Record (ENR), Produecr Price Index (PPI), and
Tumer Building Cost) provide nationallcvcl data while Consumer Price Index (CPl) and
RS Means provide regional data (such as the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area. or the City of
"1iami. etc.). and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) provides state data.
Finally, land values are provided at the local level.
findale-Oliver & i\ssocia1cs, Inc.
March 2009
2
Colher County
Indexing Methodology Study
_r:., -~:!I: '~o. "1 ("A.
:_0 ~:1:8
47 c/ ;:~;7
Table 1
Indices and Associated Data Sources
Impact Fee National Statewide Regional Local Total
Libraries 60% 0% 27% 13% 100%
EMS 34% 0% 330/0 33% 100%
Fire Rescue 0%, 0% 100% 0% 100%
Gov't Buildings 89% 0% 0% 11% 100%
La'vv Enforcetnent 11101. O~:Q 4 7~/o JO~:Q 100~'O
,J/O
Correctional 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Parks (Regional) 7~/o 0% 0% 93% 100%
Parks (Community) 38% 0% 00' 62% 100%
/0
Schools 79~/(J 00' 9~-(1 P% 100%
!o
Transportation O~/;) 79% 00' 21%, 100%
/0
Source: Collier COlll1(V Indexing StUl!V by Tindale-Olivcr & Associates, Inc. in association
with Center for Urban Policy Research, June I J, 2007 and Collier County Impact Pee Studies
Table I also presents the distribution ofJocal, state, regional, and national data for the
indices calculated for each impact fee prol,,'ram area. Based on the distribution of the
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 aJfected mostly by local indices (land values); the fire rescue index
is affected solely by regional data vv'hi1c the correctional facilities index is dctc1111ined
solely by national data; the transportation index is heavily detemlined by statewide data,
while libraries, govemmcnt buildings, and school impact fee indices are affected
primarily by national uata. The EMS impact fce inucx is inilucnccu cl.jually by all levels
of data, and the law enforcement index is influenced mostly by national and regional
data.
This relation, in tUI11, detel111ines the potential level of Jluctuations. 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 of this report provides
more detailed inJ(J11nation on this aujustment process.
Tindalc-Olivcr & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
3
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
T iL)
-,
:. ~
::~:s ":to: .' i
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 Jigures to local costs; and
. Utilization ufregTession analysis to smuolh the l1uctualioTls.
In addition, multiple indices were used for each component of the inventory (buildings,
equipment, transportation, etc.), with the exception of land. This section reviews the
impact of these revisions on the responsiveness of indices to annual Jluctuations in cost.
Ad iustment 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 geot,'Taphic area (state,
nation. etc.) to South Florida (Collier and Pahn 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 t1ve-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 adjustcd bccause the addition of
the Producer Ptice Index (PPI) t,)r Highway and Street Construction moderated the
impact of statewide cost increases.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
4
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
::;:3,"-
!,,_..=.. c:
c-~o
"J)
;-;-
- QJ
~~~
'-:::::0...
'"
;2
Qj
OJ
~
-
III
o
U
ltl
U
o
...J
....
o
....
"'C
CIl
-
III III
CIl :J
U.~
._ "'C
"'C<(
-= III
N....CIl
CIl 0 U
-e:"'C
.oOe:
ltllll-
I- .;:: III
ltl :J
a. III
E Qj
o >
U III
CIl
U
"'C
e:
"'C
CIl
-
lJ)
:J
.~
"'C
ltl
e:
::>
~
..
-<
...
"
'"
;..
,
III
"'0 d r.t.l
.:: = ~
~ .s: :,;:
._ _ 'wi
"0 " =
-<Z'"
-
" '"
= 1:1
0""
;:..
" =
Z'"
0\
<:>
<:>
N
,
""
<:>
<:>
N
"E c; r.t.l
- = '"
:l .:1 .~
._ _ "'0
"CI =' ==
-<Z'"
;; '"
= 1:1
.9 ....
-""
" =
.. Z'"
"i";r.t.l
- = ~
:; .:1 ~
:s.~ ==
-<Z'"
""
<:>
<:>
N
,
t'-- -; r.t.l
g ". = ~
N ,g:a
~.s
....
<:>
<:>
N
,
""
<:>
<:>
N
"0-
,~ ~ ~
'" 0 <.J
= .- :a
,:a'-;=
-<Z'"
;; '"
= '"
o <.J
~:a
" =
Z'"
~ d r.t.l
- = '"
'" 0 "
.:, ~ ;;
"'0 ~ =
-<Z...
""
<:>
<:>
N
,
III
<:>
<:>
N
;; '"
.~ e
_:.s
" =
Z'"
III
<:>
<:>
N
,
....
<:>
<:>
N
"'g -; r.t.l
- = '"
~.9 .~
._ _ "C
"0 " .s
-<Z
c; CI'J
= 1:1
~:a
" =
Z'"
"
'"
...
-<
'"
"
""
,0 ,0 ',0 ,0 .,,0 .0 ,,0 ".,0 ,0 ,0
0" 0" 0' 0" 0' 0" 0' 0' 0' 0"
-M 0....... \C 0\ f""',OO..-C:
'-0 oo-i '-Q If)-.::i tr;......... \0 0 ~
..- g
~ ~
'o~ ~ --p ;~ 6~ ;~ ;~ ~ 'C~ ~ 6 :3
["--f""',s.-''''1:r0~=.........If)~U_
<o;:t ["-- N ,.. "7 r0 '-0' ......... "T -
- -
'"''"'
-::::"'0
S 3
OVl
u '"'
.... bJj
~ 0
o
0"0
u~
;)
-
""
- ""2~ ~
8-5
~ o-e O";~ 2~ r/:, ~o. ;'2. 2~ ~ ~ ~
oo'~r--: =:~ _'r)~c:O\
\000"1"["--\0,..07_["--0-
- -
~Jj
'R
~
;~ ;~ ;::. 'Of; ;~ ;'2. ~ ;::. 'Of:: ;~
\Or--C:CI;~~o;If)OOo;
\0 oc ,.. \C\C' If) If) N\!)O'
;~ ~ ~ ;'e. 0::' ?:,!2. '0'2. o~ ~ o~
r--Ir)C:"TMo;r--:lf!lf)r--:
"Tr-M-.::i-iNlfl.........-iO
~ o~ ~ '0:::: 'o!2.
["-- rr; 0\ In rr;
If) 00(""; V) lJ)
0' ;~
-=:
-i-o
<n
',0 ,,0 0
c" 0' 0"
r--rr;~
;~ 6'2. ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-::t;r-- oooNrrlO;
If) r- r'l If I If) -i -::t ......... If) ex)
('1 CCj
-~
~ ~ -- 'a
.<=_'='D c: ~;:::
'l.) .......... 0 c:.
......., u ct'i ,- ;:;
I ..........:-..- bJj -
r:n .= ,0 0 'l.) 0
"~ ..;:;:: -:=:..... ~ u
e Vl '~II;:: ~3il, ~ ..Q~il..Q
..0 ~ .s 001:; 0 ~ ~
~:.w~ ""';Uc....c...
o
.s
,S
I9
~
~Ig,
01i~
...c co
() ~
Vlf-<
cO
QJ
;oj
"G
o
~
,~
<r:
Od
il
~O\
08
,,::,N
~-g
, ~
t=,.:;...
"'~n ' ':.)\
:' :)C'~j
-': ':/
The adjusted indices tend 10 capture the higher cost increases experienced in Collier
County and, in general, provide somewhat higher indices.
At the time of the study, the wage compmison was based on 2000 Public Use Microdata
Sample (PUMS) and 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) infomlation. 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 comp]etion of the study, the 2007 ACS
has been published. Table 3 provides a comparison of multipliers included in the original
indexing study and updatcd figures using 2007 ACS data. As presented. while the
multipliers Jor construction costs continued to increase, the multiplier for the 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!!raphic Areas Used For TYDes of W.!!es 2005 ACS(l) 2007 ACS(2)
Nation to South Florida ENR Index Construction Industry ] .35 1.71
Turner Index
rDOT Urban Enad
Florida to South Florida Construction Construction Industry 1.15 1.29
lIighv"dY and Strect
Nation to South Florida Construction (BLS) Comtruction Industry 1.40 2.04
Miami to South Florida RS Means Construction Industry 1.90 2.04
Nation to South Florida Public Fumiture (PPI) Trucking Industry 1.72 0.24
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale to
South Florida CPI l"rucking hldustry ? 'J 0.21
_..,
(1) Source: Co/lier COllnty Indexing Stlldy by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. in association
with Center for Urban Policy Rescarch, June 11.2007
(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 thc final indices.
Figure 1 presents the change in actual library construction costs experienced in Collier
County as well as estimated costs using unadjusted and adjusted national indices for the
local cost differential. Prior to 2002. \'vhcn costs were relatively stable, unadjusted
;~3tion~1l1ndiccJ ";,ere JCCUfJte in reflecting ehungc~, in ~Gst. HOWC\'Ci, with ~;i6nific,:mt
cost inc:n.:ascs experienced o\'l:r the past rev,; Yl:di"S, t]a:: original method failed to predict
Tindale-Oliver & Associates. fnc.
March 2009
(,
Collier County
Indexing !'vlcthodology Study
'1:=;ir~ r',JJ. 1- L\
2j,2'Y'S)
,,' C7
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
$350
$330
--------J
____ Actual Cost P"'r Sq Ft
~Indcxcd Cnst
Cost v"ith Ad.iust~ Index__
-q
i
$310 -
$290
I
_~_..J
i
$270
I $250
$230
$210
/
.....
$190 E...
. ."'-
$170 - -
$150
1999
T
T-
-^
-'
..-i
,
,
I
--.---J
I
2000
2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
2006
---/;'
Source: Collier County Impact Fee Studies (1999, 2002, and 2006) are used for actual cost
tib'llres. Cost adjustment with unadjusted indices are based on indiccs 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 1 O-year a\-'cr8gcs of applicable data and do not use the regression
analysis.
Fib'llre 2 provides a similar example for transportation costs. The ditference between
national cost indices and F10lida Long Range Estimates (LRE) fib'Ures for transportation
inti'astructure costs are presented in this chaIi. 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
:'1,:>
'i .::J
'.;_ :,;1 .~
Figure 2
Comparison of Transportation Cost Changes
FDOT LRE VS. National PPI
40.0% r--=-LR~~ :C~I:O\~~~a[e -I
--- PPi - Acruai Grow111 Rate 1_
30.00/~ ._........J
32.8%
9.7%
12.6%
2().0IYo
10.011'0
0.0'1'0
-,--
0.4%
-]0.0'1'0
L__~
-2.4%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) and PPI for Highway and Street ConstlUction
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
rcJlective oflocal costs. As such, it is recommended that Collier County continue to use
this adjustment for future indices.
Tindale-Oliver & /\ssociates. Inc.
March 2009
8
Collier COLlnty
Indcxing Mcthodology Study
Impact of Re!!ression Analvsis
The second adjustment made to the original method was the utilization of ref,~'ession
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 of regression analysis is beneficial in smoothing changes from one
year to another. However, when there are large 11 uctuations in cost, the ref,'Tession
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.
Tindalc-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
9
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
:;-:;iT {\;o. -iTA,
f'.p!'il 23, ~Dr'.'~i
=? of '57
jr::T >,<'J.
~8,~' .)0
;'::j'~ ::.:1 c '2:"1
Historically, national and regional indices used for building and equipment/vehicle
components of the inventory have been relatively stable. Thcse indices include ENR
Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, and RS Means Index for building cost;
and CPI and PPI for Public Fumiture for equipment and vehicle cost. Figures 3 and 4
present trends in these indices along with a reb'Tession 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
:41I.U";',
c-;;:-~_. .....m n__---,
,-.... ENR - Actuat
..._~._~
II
I!
I
i
I
30.0%
,
I
I
I
L--'-'Blended Regression
Turner Building - Actual i
I
RS Means - Actual I
I
.~
:J---
I I
I
,
..
/
.-:-",B
. ......,
,
JII
..
..
..
..
I
.. - _I " ..
I
IUI'Y" -
, !
'-lll.O% L______~_
;WO) ZU(JZ
ZUlU
ZflU4
ZllUS
Z(I(J6
ZlIIJ7
Source: E'\R Building Cost Index, rumor Building Cost Index, RS Means Index
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
10
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
i :"?n1 \jo. 7[1.,
':::8. 2X~9
::5 of 7
Figure 4
Trends in EquipmenWehicle Cost Indices
and Regression Analysis
40'0'Y.l~~~---- ------~-
'-' - ------,
-.. CPI - Actual I
I
PPI - Actual
30.0% J-Blended Regre"'C>IlJ---
~-------------- ------------~
I'
I'
I
!
I 20.0.%
10.0.10
~
.~..- -
-. -
-+:-
-. -+
0.0% -
~.- ..- .~ .......
-.
~..--r----- .-. ---;';.'.-r...---:,;
- - '"
.
-10.00;;,
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
\~-_._.._.__...-
Source: CPI and PPI for Public FUl11iture
As shown, utilization ofregression 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
ret\Tession analysis tends to create a significant lag, and not react as quickly as may be
desired.
Tindalc-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
Collier County
II Indexing Methodology Study
.'~, '
"
/\
II
~ a:,~:
Figure 5 presents trends in LREs published by FDOT and PPI for Highway and Street
Construction. The tl.6'11re 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 fiuetuations 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
si.6'11ificant 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
FDOT LRE Trends
4(1.0'Yo
[- - -- - - - -- -
--,
- . - LRE - <\ctua! I
LRE-2YrAvg
i f ::- ~~dc~ ~~;~~~~'on I
-----~-----.u-------.~-~-l
30.01VlI
~
, .
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
~O.U'~1c.1
--,"-"--'-----------
,
,
. .
y--~
.
" _~J
0.00;1,
.
10.0%
... .U';;';
.
.
... -
I
I
I
I
.__._____~_~___----.J
-10.W~1
2001
2002
2003
21H14
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Data from FDOT UtEs and 1'1'1 !()r Highway and Street Construction
Tindale-Oliver", Associates. Inc.
March 2009
12
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
"~;"l ~ ~~~ /\
:::'.:1 _ Sf;
~:", CJ u,
Figure 6 demonstrates how the adopted model would function with a cost increase of] 0
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 1 0 percent. As presented, the
regression analysis lags in captUling 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
JO.O'Yll
20.0%
1II.()%
0,0%
-1U.0% . .
~2(l.O%
,
i
-JO.O%
..
..
.
;
,.
--r--:--- ------r
.. - -
----- .
-<1- + 10% Cost Growth Rate Rcgrcs:;ion
-...
LRE Actual
I
I
I
I
i
_~U'~~~._... ~_____,_,~______~,__,_,"_.__._____._____j
LRE Growth - 2 Yr Avg
___.J
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
21110
2011
2[112
Source: Data from FDOT LREs and PPI for I Iigbway and Street Construction for years 2005
through 2008, assumed 10 percent annual increase as of 2009
Tindale-Olivcr & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
] 3
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
') .Tf-\
!i 2.~ _., '}~J
,'.;,'; -.f"
Similarly, Figure 7 presents how the CUHent adopted model would function 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 7
Transportation Construction Cost
Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results
with a 10% Annual Cost Decrease from 2009 to 2012
..
.~(1.0%
,-.
..
..
\
.
2fJ.U%
lO.O'Y..
-_._~'-.~
~';-
.
~.
0.00;'.
I \ -.. .. ..
~1{jO"/" lj- - :":-~OOlo c:: G~ol'.'th R:~e Re~:::,;=rt~~n-- - -.
-200'h J -... LRE Acrucd ------.
!
-- -,~ ',-
LRE Growth - .1 '{ r A vg
~
I
.._____~_. _.__.__.._.____~_.~~_._.J
-311.0%
2005
2006
211117
21111X
21109
2010
2111l
2012
Source: Data Ii'om FOOT LREs and PPI for I lighway and Street Construction for years 2005
through 2008, assumed 10 percent annual dccrcase as of 2009
Tindale-Olivcr & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
1-1
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
:T-:' "Y: ~\;J --; A
) ,;~8. 2 U:-J
:~;rcj t"1 (, 67
In addition to transp0l1ation costs, land values also experienced signiJicant tluctuations
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 reb'l'cssion analysis, on the other
hand, reacts to actual changes with a significant lag.
Figure 8
Land Value Trends
,
I
I 40.0'1. ----~.---------------------.~-----..-------!
1--:.' -- ~\~~-----l i
: -... 2.Yr/-\\Tragc I I
~Regrcssi{)n JI- ------------ ---~---- I
,,~ 3-Yr Average
20.0% - --~: : ' .~" ~ ,,\~~\ ";'-
.... '1ft ...... .l' .,.." ...~ , \
"" , :,. ,,'\ I
10.00,1(, ------ -- --~-----_._-----_._~-- ------_.._--~._-_.~-~_._"-'-------.- -.--,{
30.WYu
\.
~
.
0.0110
~
----.--'-----'I---'~----'---,---"~-T~---r---.---T-'----_.;_---1
. I
" !
i
I
----------~
.
.
-lOJ)%.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Countywide land value is from Collier County PropC11y Appraiscr
Tindale-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
] 5
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
>J",
. '. ')., ~,
L'_I,
~, '_,,' .if
Fii,'llre 9 demonstrates actual cost changes 11'om 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 1 0 percent. Similar to the results shown for transportation costs,
the rei,'Tession analysis of land 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
;
,
.
30.0"/..
..
., ~
2ll.0'Y"
;
t--_
'- .
,
.
.
.
'~
,,= i
~~!~~~..~~-~
##: ~I
. ,
# . '
.
# :
~ ~ :
.
.
111.0%
,
.____L...__
,
"
O.ll%~.
~
-,
,
.1II.U%
----.'
I
t
__.J
i
i
,
i
........ _______..J
I !
-20.0'% r---"
"',.,~~- RcgrcssJon
-I
,
-....- Land (;rO\vth . Actual
Land Grew..-th - 2 'rT r Avg
-30.()'Y"
~005
2006
2007
2008
2009
20tO
2011
2012
Source: Countywide land ,alues are Ii'om Collier Counly Property ,\ppraiser for ycars 2005
through 2008, and assumed 10 percent annual increase as of 2009
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
1 (,
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
"'"i !>SiT: t-,j-] TA.
:.::: ~~'C;9
"1 C~-; ':' 7
Similarly, Figure 10 presents actual cost changes from 2005 to 2009, and how the CUHent
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
2(1.00;..
",'
~--4
,
---- ----~"-"~-~"------_._------------_.~._.~--""-~-------I
-j
I
I
l
I
I
,
---~---1
,
30.0%
~--..~--
..
,
'..
,
,
10.0'10 -
,
,
....
(1.(1% ~I
..
..
....
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
";--'-~--"---'---~.:_."-~---
.
.
.
.
..
- -~ .~-
-10.0%
~ Regression
~20.0%
- ~ Land Growth - Actual
.
_30.00/~ - ----.--.-----------"-~---------"~-.--------------~..----.---.-----,
Land Growth - 2 "{r Avg !
.J
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
20ll
2012
Source: Countywide land values are fro111 Collier County Property Appraiser for years 2005
through 2008, and assumed 10 percent annual decrease as of 2009
In summary, regression analysis tends to smooth fluctuations over time, which causes it
to lag in responding large Jluetuations. For the majority of the Collier County impact
fees, thc utilization of regression analysis does not have a signiJicant impact. These are
the ilnpact fees that utilize relatively stable national or regional data in the calculation of
their indices, and include the following:
. Libraries
. Fire Rescue
Tindale-Olivcr & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
17
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
'I ~) 'l'::;:li I';').
L :):'11 ')8.
'/..\
-j
-"'00: ':i2 J
. EMS
. Govemment 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 re!,'fession 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 detlnite diJference 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 diJferences from one year to
another, and seems to work well during relatively stahle periods. However, it
does not respond quickly to large increases or decreases in costs.
. Some of the policy options the County should evaluate inelude the following:
1. The County may decide to use the regression method dllling periods when
costs are increasing and use averages when costs are decreasing. This option
would result in revenue loss J(lr the County since the re!,~'ession model slows
down the increase in indices, while using averages responds more quickly to
cost decreascs.
) 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
Jluctuations. If this is the case, it is recommended that the County continues
to adjust the national, regional, and state indices for local cost.
3. Seenlii"igly, the h-::st (,ption is to :-;tart using a t\vo-ycar average iTICthud and il\Jt
use the regression analysis as a means to stabilize costsfr0111 one year to
Illldale-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
18
(,oilier County
Indexing MethodolDgy Study
j;en~, r,;,:
,A.~nil 28 :j
.~jf ',:7
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
whcn 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 15 percent cap should be used when costs are
decrcasing (i.e., ifthc changes is greater than -15 pcrcent, the decrease should
be capped at 15 percent).
Tindalc-Olivcr & Associates, Inc.
March 2009
19
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
::::::','1 !,~o. ',....,
:::3, ~,:!~j:-;
r_, ~
'~'~ -
APPENDIX A
Indexing Methods Used
By Other Jurisdictions
::: :~" i ,j ,~). ! ,~\
""l
~!
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.
. Cun'ently, 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 pro!,'Tam
area. It is our understanding that none of these counties use a regression model or
adjust the national indices for local cost.
. The majority of the counties base their index on the following indices without
adjusting for local cost:
o ENR Construction Cost Index;
o FDOT Cost Trends;
o ConSU111cr Pdcc Index;
o Land values
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.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2009 A-]
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
',8':' .~
~:'3 9
~jt:~ V~,
Table A-1
Florida Counties with Indexing
County Index Moratorium
Alachua Y N
Bak er N N
Bay N N
Bradford Y Y
Brevard 1\1 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
Flagler y N
Gilchrist N N
Glades Y y
Gulf Y Y
Hardee N "I
Hendry Y Y
Hemando N N
Highlands Y N
Hillsborough N N
Indian River 1\1 N
Jefferson N N
LaJilyette N N
Lake N N
Lee N 1\1
Levy N N
Manatee Y N
Marion N N
Martin N N
Miami-Dade Y N
Monroe N N
'\ assau \i Y
Tindale-Oliver & ,Associates, Tnc.
March 2009
A-2
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study
I' - ;-1 t>)O. 7A,
2-3 /i'JJ
~; I ,~') i
Table A-1 (continued)
Florida Counties with Indexing
County Index Moratorium
Okeechobee N N
Orange y N
Osceola Y N
Palm Beach Y N
Pasco v "1
. "
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 representatjves and 1\1unicode
Tinda]e-Oliver & Associates. Inc.
March 2009
A-3
Collier County
Indexing Methodology Study