Agenda 11/12/2019 Item # 9E (Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments)11/12/2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
providing for the incorporation by reference of two impact fee studies; amending the Road
Impact Fee rate schedule and the Water and Wastewater impact fee rate schedule; p roviding
for an effective date of November 25, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a
delayed effective date of March 2, 2020 for all rate categories that are increasing and
new/replacement land use categories being added to the fee schedules, in accordance with the 90-
day notice requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and providing for
revised definitions and update of the requirements related to the payment of Road Impact Fees
to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) to comply with the new provisions of
the Florida Statutes.
OBJECTIVE: To adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances (Code) to provide for updates to the Road Impact Fees and Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees. Also included in the proposed Ordinance are needed revisions to the definitions section
of the Chapter and an update of the COA provisions to comply with new language in the Florida
Statutes.
CONSIDERATIONS: Impact fees are collected in order to provide a source of revenue to fund the
construction or improvement of public facilities necessitated by growth. As such, Collier County has
used impact fees as a funding source for growth-related capital improvements.
Impact fees require development to contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements and additions
to infrastructure but may not be charged in excess of the amount anticipated to offset the demand on
the respective facility. The requirement for the update of impact fees is set forth by Section 74 -502 of
the Code.
On October 22, 2019, the Board authorized the County Manager and the County Attorney to adve rtise
this proposed ordinance amendment for future consideration.
In accordance with the notice period requirements of Section 163.31801(3)(d) Florida Statutes (The
Florida Impact Fee Act) upon adoption by the Board, the proposed impact fee rates will b e
implemented on two dates. Based on changes to the statute passed in the 2009 Legislative Session,
decreases to or elimination of impact fees are not subject to the 90 -day notice requirement. Therefore,
the proposed impact fee rates, which set forth a decrease in a land-use category will become effective
on November 25, 2019. The proposed impact fee rates, which set forth an increase in a land -use
category as well as any new/replacement land uses being added to the schedule, will become effective
on March 2, 2020, in observance of the notice requirement.
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY: Water and Wastewater Impact Fees have
been in place in Collier County since 1978 and are assessed on both residential and commercial
construction. On April 25, 2017, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2017-13, providing for the
adoption of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier Water-Sewer District, thereby
establishing the current Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rates.
In keeping with the formal update requirements, the County retained Raftelis, formerly doing business
as Public Resources Management Group (PRMG), to complete the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
study. The report describes the technical and legal framework and the methodology used to u pdate the
9.E
Packet Pg. 205
11/12/2019
impact fees.
The update utilizes the same approach and methodology used in the preceding updates. The major
elements associated with the study include:
Asset inventory
Level of Service
Capital Projects - Growth
Remaining available capacity
Calculated Fee Schedule
The Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are designed to recover the pro-rata share of allocated,
growth-related capital costs from new customers or from increases in capacity reservations for existing
development. The level of service (LOS) for Water and Wastewater used in this update is 300 gallons
per day (gpd) and 200 gpd, respectively (expressed on an average daily flow basis). This level of
service represents a reduction from 325 gpd and 225 gpd for water and wastewater respectivel y, in line
with the Engineering and Financial Bond Feasibility Report which is incorporated in the Report of the
Independent Financial Advisor dated April 17, 2019 issued by the county’s financial advisor PFM and
will also be updated in the upcoming Utilities Masterplan and the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory
Report/Capital Improvement Element. The total gross Utility Plant in Service System existing assets
total $1.4 billion with remaining average daily capacity of approximately 37.64% of water facilities
and 45.81% of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities available to serve new growth. Finally, the
capital-related costs for expansion of the permanent northeast utility plant put into service and
financed to serve existing and new developments as well as the estimated incremental costs for
construction of additional capital infrastructure in a projected time period to serve new development
within the Collier County Water-Sewer District are considered.
Based on current and projected growth, staff will continue to monitor the need for additional capital
projects related to growth and will report back to the Board with changes that would warrant an update
study sooner than the required 3-year timeframe.
The proposed Water and Wastewater fee schedule, as shown in Appendix “A” of the attached
ordinance amendment is considered by the Consultant to be the most accurate and legally defensible
option for the imposition of these impact fees. Additionally, the study has been reviewed by the
County’s outside legal counsel, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Below is a comparison of several of
the current and proposed impact fee rates for Water and Wastewater:
WATER
LAND USE PROPOSED
RATE
CURRENT
RATE
$ CHANGE % CHANGE
Residential:
Single Family <4000 sf (per unit) $3,382.00 $2,562.00 $820.00 32%
Non-Residential:
1-Inch Meter $5,647.00 $4,278.00 $1,369.00 32%
2-Inch Meter $18,026.00 $13,655.00 $4,371.00 32%
WASTEWATER
LAND USE PROPOSED
RATE
CURRENT
RATE
$ CHANGE % CHANGE
Residential:
9.E
Packet Pg. 206
11/12/2019
Single Family <4000 sf. (per
unit)
$3,314.00 $2,701.00 $613.00 22.7%
Non-Residential:
1-Inch Meter $5,534.00 $4,510.00 $1,024.00 22.7%
2-Inch Meter $17,663.00 $14,396.00 $3,267.00 22.7%
ROAD IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY: Road Impact Fees have been in place in Collier County
since 1985 and are assessed on both residential and commercial construction. On February 10, 2015,
the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2015-17, providing for the adoption of the Road Impact Fee Update
Study, and on April 25, 2017, adopted 2017-14 approving the annual indexing calculations and thereby
establishing the current Road Impact Fee rates.
In keeping with the formal update requirements, the County retained Tindale -Oliver & Associates
(TOA), to complete the Road Impact Fee Update Study. The repo rt describes the technical and legal
framework and the methodology used to update the impact fees.
The updates utilized the same approach and methodology used in the preceding updates. The major
elements associated with the study include:
•Demand
•Cost
•Credit
•Calculated Fee Schedule
Changes in major components include updates to trip data and additions, and deletions of land uses
based on new information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual 10th Edition. Updates to cost components related to Design, Right of Way, Construction,
CEI, Mitigation and Urban Overpasses are also included. With the exception of Mitigation, costs have
increased in all areas since the last study. Specifically, the constructio n costs being utilized for the
study represent local costs, for a total of $3.5 million per lane mile, and a total, local cost per lane mile
of more than $6 million. Data from recent impact fee studies in Florida and/or Florida Department of
Transportation were used to validate costs; however, State costs have been removed from inclusion in
the calculation as there are currently no plans to advance impact fees for State projects. Should this
change in the future, State costs may be included in a future update.
As detailed in the study, it is important to note that the assessable trip length used in the study for the
single-family land use, and related land uses, (5.88 miles) is extremely conservative. This trip length
continues to be utilized based on the direction of the Board. Recent studies suggest that the average
trip length may be closer to 7.28 miles. More specifically, by geographic area, average trip lengths
range from 6.62 miles in the urban area to 11.75 miles in the eastern part of the Cou nty. Increases in
trip length have a direct correlation to higher rates.
With respect to the credit component, this study includes a credit for funding provided by the Local
Option Infrastructure Surtax to the extent that it provides financing for projects that are otherwise
impact fee eligible.
The proposed Road Impact Fee rate schedule provides both increases and decreases across the land use
categories. Increases are primarily due to increased costs, etc. Additionally, as provided above, there
are land-use additions/replacements and deletions based on new ITE data. Several of the “multi -
family” categories (Condo, High-rise Condo, Duplex, Apartments, etc.) will be included in three
categories of “Multi-Family Housing” uses, as data suggests that there is limited or no correlation
9.E
Packet Pg. 207
11/12/2019
between type of property ownership and travel characteristics/demand. The Office category is being
collapsed to one rate, and Retail categories are being reduced from ten to three. In addition, the
Convenience Store with Gas categories are being modified to also include the square footage of the
store as one of the factors used to determine the rate. New land uses are also being added for two types
of residential construction over commercial (mixed-use developments). As discussed above, the
new/replacement proposed land uses, as well as the definition changes will take effect, if approved, on
March 2, 2020, in observance of the notice provisions required by statute. The categories where the
calculated rates are decreasing is mainly related to reduced trip generation rates reflected in ITE.
There is no notice requirement for decreases, and as such, the decreases, if approved, will take effect
on November 25, 2019.
The proposed Road fee schedule, as shown in Appendix A of the attached ordinance amendment, is
considered by the Consultant to be the most accurate and legally defensible option for the imposition
of these impact fees. Additionally, the study has been reviewed by the County’s outside legal counsel,
Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Below is a comparison of several of the current and proposed
impact fee rates for Roads:
ROADS
LAND USE PROPOSE
D RATE
CURRENT
RATE
$
CHANGE
% CHANGE
Residential:
Single Family <4000 sf (per unit) $8,090.00 $7,443.99 $646.01 8.7%
Mobile Home (per unit) $3,576.00 $3,146.48 $429.52 13.7%
Retirement Community (Attached) (per
unit)
$2,018.00 $2,787.92 ($769.92) (27.6%)
Non-Residential:
Church (per seat) $286.00 $347.96 ($61.96) (17.8%)
General Light Industrial (per 1,000 sf) $4,584.00 $5,699.95 ($1,115.95) (20%)
Retail < 6,000 sf (per 1,000 sf) $5,737.00 $5,696.77 $40.23 0.07%
Medical Office >10,000 sf (per 1,000 sf) $31,444.00 $28,313.05 $3,130.95 11 %
The following chart provides the overall changes to the total impact fees:
TOTAL IMPACT FEES - WITH INCREASES*
LAND USE PROPOSED
TOTAL
CURRENT
TOTAL
OVERALL $
CHANGE
OVERALL %
CHANGE
Single Family <4000 sf (per unit) $30,450.29 $28,371.28 $2,079.01 7.3%
General Light Industrial (10,000
sf)
$67,812.20 $76,578.70 ($8,766.50) (11.5%)
Retail < 6,000 sf (5,900 sf) $63,723.27 $61,092.91 $2,630.36 4.3%
* Includes Greater Naples Fire Impact Fees. 1” meter size used to calculate commercial Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
Also included in the proposed Ordinance Amendment is new language to address statutory changes
related to timing of payment of impact fees. On July 1, 2019, new provisions of Section 163.31801,
Florida Statutes became law, providing that “Collection of the impact fee may not be required to occur
earlier than the date of issuance of the building permit for the property that is subject to the fee.”
Therefore, Section 74-302 of the Code, related to “payment of road impact fees to obtain a certificate
of adequate public facilities,” is being amended to comply with the new timing. The provisions of the
Code will remain in place for applications approved prior to July 1, 2019, in order for staff to continue
9.E
Packet Pg. 208
11/12/2019
to administer the remaining participants in the (old) Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA)
Program. Applications approved on or after July 1, 2019 will still be required to obtain a COA in
accordance with Section 10.02.07 of the Land Development Code (LDC) but will not be required to
pay Road Impact Fees to obtain the COA. The LDC will also be updated in a future cycle to capture
the necessary changes.
Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) Recommendations: The Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Study was reviewed by the DSAC subcommittee and subsequently presented to the DSAC
on October 2, 2019. The Committee voted to accept the integrity of the study and methodology and
made no recommendation on the fee increases.
Staff is working with the DSAC subcommittee for review of the Road Impact Fee Update Study. The
study will be presented to the full DSAC on November 6, 2019. The final DSAC recommendations
will be made available and read into the record at the Adoption Hearing for theses updates, currently
scheduled for November 12, 2019.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal year 2019 collections and the projected change in revenue associated
to the fee schedule changes, based upon current permitting activity, is shown below. However,
changes to the volume of building permits, as well as the size and type of units being constructed, will
directly affect these incoming revenue streams. The increase in revenue will not be fully realized in
the first year following the increase as permitting activity within the 90-day notice period has
historically increased prior to the effective date of an increase in fee s, and all permits that are currently
“in process” via a complete building permit application are not subject to imposition of an increased
rate. For Water and Wastewater, increased revenue is likely to begin in the fourth quarter of the
current Fiscal Year (FY 20) and continue into Fiscal Year 2021, especially as building activity
continues in Eastern Collier. Conservative projections indicate potential increases in annual revenue of
$1.9 million for Water and $1.4 million for Wastewater, once the fees are fully implemented.
For Transportation, several factors indicate a more fiscally neutral position relative to the proposed fee
schedule changes. There are both increases and decreases associated to the study, so types of activity
will determine how much, if any, revenue is generated by the updated fees. Staff will continue to
monitor permitting activity that may trigger the need to further evaluate the fee structure.
The full effects of the change in timing of payment were not experienced in Fiscal Year 2019, as the
provisions went into effect late in the fiscal year. It is anticipated that this lag in revenue collections
will continue well into Fiscal Year 2020 until collections then normalize under the new timing
scenario. The statutory change does not affect the County’s ability to collect impact fees but does shift
the timing to later in the process. As of July 1, 2019, all Collier County Impact Fees are paid prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Land uses that do not require a Building Permit may
be required to pay through another mechanism tied to a final local development order. Fire Impact
Fees for the Independent Districts and impact fees collected by the municipalities, on behalf of Collier
County, are collected at issuance of a Building Permit.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The adoption of the proposed impact fee updates is
consistent with Objective 2 of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP), which states: “Future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility
improvements necessitated by growth.” The methodology used in the studies is consistent with Section
163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act 2006, requiring the most recent and
localized data be used in impact fee calculations.
9.E
Packet Pg. 209
11/12/2019
The proposed impact fee rates are designed to provide adequate funding for the acquisition of land and
the construction of facilities and capital improvements necessitated by growth, however impact fees
may not be collected in excess of the amount reasonably anticipated to fund such improvements. The
proposed impact fee rates represent accurate assessment of the cost of providing public facilities
attributable to new development.
The “impact” of impact fees has been studied extensively since the Great Recession. During that time
period, many jurisdictions aggressively reduced or eliminated impact fees, developed incentive
programs, and/or implemented different fee structures to avoid the perceived stigma of impact fees.
However, there is still no conclusive data to support that arbitrary reduction/elimination of impact fees
increases permitting activity because market factors, such as demand, financials, etc. control activity.
Not all Counties have impact fees, yet the construction slowdown occurred in both impact fee and non-
impact fee counties. Collier County had developers that were paid at 100% + of the largest impact fee
but no permits were being pulled. Additionally, during this time period in Co llier County
(2010/2011), significant impact fee decreases tied to cost/demand reductions generated no increase in
permitting or construction and no evidence of job creation tied the decreases. The then current Collier
County Board of County Commissioners challenged businesses to bring forward job proposals in
exchange for further impact fee concessions, however, there were no applicants. Finally, Collier
County, with some of the highest impact fees in the State, even after reductions, recovered faster ou t of
the recession than similar counties with impact fee moratoriums.
With respect to affordable housing, Collier County currently offers several different impact fee deferral
programs, which have capacity for new applicants. The proposed impact fee increases will be
included into the total amount eligible for deferral. In addition, there are also impact fee deferral and
payment programs available to qualifying businesses, not-for-profits, etc. Staff continuously monitors
the participation levels in these programs and looks for opportunities for improvements, incentives,
etc. that may be implemented.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as
to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: To adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
providing for the incorporation by reference of two impact fee studies; amending the Road Impact
Fee rate schedule and the Water and Wastewater impact fee rate schedule; p roviding for an effective
date of November 25, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective date
of March 2, 2020 for all rate categories that are increasing and new/replacement land use categories
being added to the fee schedules, in accordance with the 90 -day notice requirements set forth in
Section 163.31801(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and providing for revised definitions and update of the
requirements related to the payment of Road Impact Fees to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public
Facilities to comply with the new provisions of the Florida Statutes.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Director,
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. IF presentation Roads 2019 (PPTX)
2. Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (PDF)
3. [Linked] WWW Impact Fee Study w. Attachments (Final) (PDF)
4. [Linked] Collier Road IF Study_FINAL_10-14-2019 (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 210
11/12/2019
5. CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (PDF)
6. Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (PDF)
7. Legal Ad - Impact Fee Ordinance (002) (PDF)
9.E
Packet Pg. 211
11/12/2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.E
Doc ID: 10745
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
providing for the incorporation by reference of two impact fee studies; amending the Road Impact Fee
rate schedule and the Water and Wastewater impact fee rate schedule; providing for an effective date of
November 25, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective date of March 2,
2020 for all rate categories that are increasing and new/replacement land use catego ries being added to the
fee schedules, in accordance with the 90-day notice requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d),
Florida Statutes; and providing for revised definitions and update of the requirements related to the
payment of Road Impact Fees to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) to comply with
the new provisions of the Florida Statutes.
Meeting Date: 11/12/2019
Prepared by:
Title: Senior Grants and Housing Coordinator – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program
Management
Name: Gino Santabarbara
11/04/2019 10:13 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program
Management
Name: Amy Patterson
11/04/2019 10:13 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 11/04/2019 10:55 AM
Public Utilities Operations Support Joseph Bellone Additional Reviewer Completed 11/04/2019 1:44 PM
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Amy Patterson Additional Reviewer Completed 11/04/2019 4:04 PM
Growth Management Department Gino Santabarbara Deputy Department Head Review Skipped 11/04/2019 10:24 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 11/04/2019 4:55 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 11/04/2019 4:56 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 11/05/2019 3:31 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 11/06/2019 11:43 AM
County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 11/06/2019 2:39 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 11/12/2019 9:00 AM
9.E
Packet Pg. 212
Collier County Impact Fees
Amy Patterson, Director
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management
Growth Management Department, Collier County Government
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
History of Impact Fee Implementation …
2
§Wa ter/Wastewater –1978 (boundaries of Water/Sewer District)
§Tr ansportation –1985 (Countywide)
§Community Parks 1988 (Unincorporated County)
§Re gional Parks –1988 (Countywide)
§Library –1988 (Countywide)
§EMS –1991 (Countywide)
§School –1992 (Countywide)
§Fire Protection –1998 (dependent) Dates vary by independent district (by District)
§Correctional Facilities –1999 (Countywide)
§General Governmental –2004 (Countywide)
§Law Enforcement –2005 (Unincorporated County and City of Everglades)
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Impact Fee Studies
Required at least every three years
Must utilize most recent and localized data available
Collier also requires indexing between full studies
-3-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Impact Fee Indexing
Indexing since 2002
Localized in 2007 -National indices with localizing factors
Adjusted 2009 due to downturn/changed to more sensitive model
Cost only
Designed to smooth rate adjustments due to cost fluctuations
between full updates
-4-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Collier County Impact Fee Program
Great Recession Adjustments
Major decreases in land use applications and permitting drove:
•Modification of upfront Road Impact Fee requirements and DCA terms
•Developments paid at 100%+
•Affordable Housing programs suspended
•Significant reductions to infrastructure costs
•Foreclosures stressed County resources, but lessened demand for new
infrastructure
•Aggressive adjustments to impact fee rates based on reduced costs, etc.
•Shift to even more pro-business/job environment
•Incentive Programs developed to mitigate impact fees for existing
commercial structures
•Restructured Economic Development programs to incentivize jobs-5-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
What Did Florida Counties Do?
Around the State…
•Counties/Municipalities suspended/reduced impact fees by policy
•Counties opted to implement new fee structures (Mobility and Multi-
Modal Fees, Tax Increment Financing –type mechanisms, use of
infrastructure sales tax, etc.) to move away from “stigma” of impact fees
•Created programs to incentivize certain types of business and industry
•Developed programs to reduce impact fees for job creation
In Collier…
With the exception of Schools, fees were reduced only through technical
studies; NO POLICY REDUCTIONS
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Did It Work Anywhere?
•No conclusive data to support that arbitrary reduction/elimination of impact fees
increases permitting activity
•Market factors, such as demand, financials, etc. control activity
•Decreases in Collier tied to cost/demand reductions; no increase in permitting or
construction
•No evidence of job creation tied to impact fee decreases. Collier County Board
challenged businesses to bring forward job proposals in exchange for further
impact fee concessions; Number of participants = 0
•Not all Counties have impact fees, yet the construction slowdown occurred in
both impact fee and non-impact fee counties. Collier had developers that had
paid 100% + of the Road Impact Fees, but no permits were being pulled
•Collier, with some of the highest impact fees in the State, even after reductions,
recovered faster than moratorium counties
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Collier County Impact Fee Program -2019
Where Do We Go From Here?
-8-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Recovered -Po st Recession Fee Env ironment
•High volume of land use petitions and permit activity
•Affordable Housing back on the radar
•Need for infrastructure improvements increasing
•Cost escalations outpace funding; Driving calculated increases to
impact fee rates
•Demand to maintain level of service
•Level of Service = quality of place/life
-9-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Benefit Programs*
County-wide Impact Fee Deferral Program
Multi-Fa mily Impact Fee Deferral Program
Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program
Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment (Change of Use)
Immokalee Impact Fee Installment Payment Pilot Program
Economic Development Programs
* These programs have capacity for new applications
-10-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Impact Fee Revenue
-11-$115,570,917 $52,708,921 $30,060,858 $34,873,675 $22,715,361 $32,100,845 $41,062,417 $40,564,107 $53,701,791 $67,549,618 $64,826,913 $82,422,544 $88,197,746 $-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 (EST.)
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEE REVENUE FY07-FY19
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Impact Fee Studies
What are the options?
1. Stay with “Growth Pays for Growth” policy and implement
fees in full, to the maximum legal limit
2. Phase-in fee increases over a specified time period
3. Implement partial fee increases
4. Adopt study and implement only decreases
“Do nothing” is not an option for any studies with decreases
Any option, other than #1, shifts a portion of the growth demand to taxpayers
or other funding sources or requires reductions in level of serv ice.
-12-
9.E.1
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: IF presentation Roads 2019 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
9.E.2
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Ord. WS-Road 2019 II stamped (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)
Collier County Water-Sewer District
2019 WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
NOVEMBER 12, 2019
Public Utilities Department
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Agenda
●Purpose and Use
●Methodology
●Major Assumptions
●Proposed Impact Fees
●Summary of Recommendations
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Purpose of Impact Fees
●Application of Impact Fee Common in Utility Industry
o Used by Collier County Water-Sewer District (the
“District”) Since 1998
o Impact Fees Last Updated in 2017
o Ordinance requires update at least every 3 years
●Support Policy of “Growth Paying for Growth”
o Existing Customers Not Responsible for New Expansion
Related Capital
o Additional Financial Resources Provide Long-Term
Favorable User Rate Benefit
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 3
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Enterprise Fund Revenue Sources
●User Fees
o Used to operate and maintain the utility (53%)
o Fund critical aging infrastructure repair and rehabilitation capital projects
(33%)
o Pay user fee debt obligations and fund statutory reserves (14%)
●Impact Fees
●Pays for expansion related infrastructure to serve growth
o Are pledged to meet expansion related debt service (47%)
o Fund reserves necessary to meet Bond Covenants (53%)
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 4
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Use of Impact Fees
●Pay for Financing Growth / Expansion-Related
Infrastructure
o Capital Projects (Treatment Plants and Transmission Mains)
o Expansion-Related Portion of Debt Service
●Per Bond Resolution: Impact Fees Are Pledged Revenue
for Payment of District’s Outstanding Debt
o District is AAA-Rated Utility –Indication of Low Credit Risk
o Strong Rating Reduces District’s Borrowing Costs and Keeps
Impact Fees and User Rates Lower
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 5
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Impact Fees Legislation
●Section 163.31801 Florida Statutes is Cited as the
Florida Impact Fee Act
●Signed into Law June 14, 2006
o Most Recently Amended July 1, 2019
●Must Meet “Dual Rational Nexus” Test
●No Intentional Windfall to Existing Users
●Only Covers Capital Cost of Construction and Related
Costs for Capital Expansions to Serve Growth
●Fee Must be Based on Most Recent and Localized Data
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 6
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
o The methodology has been reviewed and agreed with
impact fee outside legal council
o The Impact Fee Rate Study was reviewed in detail by the
DSAC subcommittee and accepted unanimously by the full
DSAC at their October 2, 2019 meeting
▪The subcommittee reviewed the proposed increase and
recommended the study be endorsed, but did not opine on the
proposed rates
▪The 27 percent increase only amounts to $1,433 of the total
$25K +/-fee, not creating a significant burden on the overall
rate
▪Water and Wastewater is an important component of
development in the County and need to be adequately funded
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Legal Council and DSAC Review
7
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Calculation Methodology
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Level of Service
(Gallons per ERC)Impact Fee ($/ERC)
Capital Investment
($)
Capacity per Day
(Gallons)
8
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
●Impact Fees Include Two Primary Capital Cost Recovery
Components
o Identified as System Costs
●Treatment Component (Plants)
●Primary Transmission Component (Lines 10 Inches in Diameter or
Greater, Storage, Master Pump Stations not built by developers and
conveyed)
●Does Not Include Onsite Costs Specific to Development
o Water Distribution Lines, Hydrants, Meters
o Collection Lines, Manholes, Local Lift Stations
o Generally Donated as Part of Development Process or Funded from a
Separate Rate
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 9
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Major Assumptions –Cost of Infrastructure
●The Water-Sewer District has $1.4 Billion in Constructed Water and
Wastewater Utility Assets as of 9/30/18
o $614.6 Million Excluded from Fee Calculations
●Miscellaneous Equipment, Non-Backbone Distribution, and Collection Lines
●County 11-Year Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) = $1.0 Billion
in Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs (2019 through 2029)
o $668.8 Million Excluded from Fee Calculations
●General Capital Improvement, Non-System Improvements, Retirements
o $334.4 Million “Incremental Cost” Increase in Estimate of Installed
Infrastructure Assets; Includes Permanent Portion of NE Plant Expansions
and Transmission Mains currently under construction
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 10
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Major Assumptions –Cost of Infrastructure
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 11
Water Wastewater Total
Total Assets in Service as of 9/30/18 $660.5 $781.5 $1,442.0
Less: Serves All Customers 257.2 357.4 614.6
Treatment and Transmission Assets $403.3 $424.1 $827.4
% Capacity Consumed by Current Customers 62.4%54.2%
% Capacity Available to Serve New Growth 37.6%45.8%
Amount Recognized in Impact Fee $151.8 $194.3 $346.1
Water Wastewater Total
Total Planned Capital Expenditures $441.3 $561.9 $1,003.2
Less: Projects to Serve All Customers 253.5 362.0 615.5
Less: General Depreciation over Plan Period 35.7 17.7 53.4
Net Amount Recongnized in Impact Fee $152.1 $182.2 $334.3
% Total CIP Recognized in Impact Fee 34.5%32.4%33.3%
$ Millions
ASSETS CURRENTLY IN SERVICE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2019 - 2029
$ Millions
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Major Assumptions –Level of Service
●Level of Service (“LOS”) = Allocated Capacity / Flow per Equivalent
Residential Connection (“ERC”)
●LOS (gallons per day) is based on:
o 2019 Master Plan Update (AECOM Report dated December 7, 2018)
o Actual Water Sales and Production Data
o Wastewater Billing and Treated Flow Data
●Proposed Fees Reflect Reduction to Current, Localized Data
•Consistent with Trends Experienced in Florida and in line with a similar
and comparable utility in Hillsboro County
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Water Wastewater
Existing LOS per ERC 325 gpd 225 gpd
Proposed LOS per ERC 300 gpd 200 gpd
12
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Level of Service Comparison
Water LOS (gpd)Wastewater LOS (gpd)
Collier County –Existing 325 225
Collier County –Proposed 300 200
Charlotte County 325 190
Hernando County 350 280
Hillsborough County 300 200
Lee County 250 250
Manatee County 250 185
Pasco County N/A N/A
Pinellas County N/A N/A
Sarasota County 200 200
Surveyed Utility Average 279 218
gpd = gallons per day
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 13
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Major Assumptions –Existing Capacity
●Water Treatment Capacity and Flow
o Water Treatment Constructed Capacity –52.750 MMADF-MGD
●Excludes unused Golden Gate water treatment plant capacity that will be
repurposed and/or decommissioned
o Dependable Water Plant Capacity –45.085 ADD-MGD
o Available Capacity for Customer Growth –16.971 ADF-MGD
●Wastewater Treatment Constructed Capacity and Flow
o Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity –42.350 MMADF-MGD
o Dependable Wastewater Plant Capacity –37.149 AADF-MGD
o Available Capacity for Customer Growth –17.018 AADF-MGD
●Availability of Capacity Supports Buy-In Method
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 14
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Proposed Impact Fees per ERC
●Existing to Proposed Impact Fees per ERC:
●Breakdown of Change in Impact Fee per ERC:
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Existing Proposed Difference
System Fee Fee Amount Percent
Water $2,562 $3,382 $820 32.0%
Wastewater $2,701 $3,314 $613 22.7%
Total $5,263 $6,696 $1,433 27.2%
Water Wastewater
Existing Fee $2,562 $2,701
Infrastructure Investment $1,102 $1,027
LOS Decrease ($282)($414)
Proposed Fee $3,382 $3,314
15
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Impact Fees History
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 16
NE Facilities in Design (12/14/04 10E)NE Facilities in Hybernation (2/26/10 16C2)Design-Build
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Impact Fee Comparison
Some reasons why impact fees differ among utilities:
•Water quality and proximity to source of supply
•Type of treatment processes and effluent disposal
requirements
•Availability of grant and other external revenue sources
available to expansion related capital needs
•Density of service area
•Level of Service Standards
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 17
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Impact Fee Comparison
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 18
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Summary of Recommendations
●Accept Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact
Fees Rate Study Considered to be Reasonable and
Meets Criteria Established by Florida Impact Fee
Act and Case Law
●Adopt the Advertised Water-Sewer Rate Resolution
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 19
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Questions and Discussion
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 20
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Appendix
21
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Proposed NE Developments
●Purpose: Remain in
Compliance and Meet Demand
Throughout the District
o Meet village development needs
o Provide needed reliability to
stressed regional systems
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 22
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 23
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 24
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 25
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
●Methods Include:
1.Standards Method
o Based on Theoretical Cost of Improvements for Incremental Development
o May Not be Tied to Current Capital Plan
2.Historical Cost / “Buy-In” Method
o Based on the Historical / Original Cost of Assets
o Only Recognizes Capacity Currently in Service
3.Improvements Method
o Based on Future Capital Costs and New Capacity Over a Projected Period
of Time
o Does Not Account for Unused Constructed Capacity at Existing Facilities
Available for New Growth
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
26
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
●Method Utilized in Impact Fee Study
o Blending of Buy-In and Improvements Methods
●Includes Historical Costs of Existing Facilities
●Recognizes Plant Capacity Available from Existing Facilities
to Meet
Near-Term Growth Requirements
●Includes Projected Near-Term “Incremental” Capital Costs
o Links Constructed Infrastructure Cost to Timing of
When Fee is Applied
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
27
9.E.5
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: CCWSD Impact Fee Presentation 11-12-19 revised (10745 : Ordinance
Collier County
Road Impact Fee Update Study
November 12, 2019
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Presentation Overview
2
1 Background
Technical Analysis2
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Background
Collier County:
•Road impact fee implemented in 1985
•Last update study completed in 2015
•Population growth of 175,000 projected through 2045
•Update to reflect most recent and localized data
•ITE 10th Edition in 2017
•Local Option Sales Tax Adoption in 2018
•Cost increases since 2015 3
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Presentation Overview
4
1 Background
Technical Analysis2
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Technical Analysis
Impact Fee Definition:
•One-time capital charge to new development
•Covers the cost of new capital facility capacity
•Implements the CIP
5
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Consumption-Based Methodology:
•Common methodology used by many Florida jurisdictions
•Charges new growth based on its consumption of capacity
•Fees are calculated at a rate that cannot correct existing
deficiencies
6
Technical Analysis
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Technical Analysis
Basic Impact Fee Formula:
Net Impact Fee =
(Cost –Credit) x Demand
7
Cost to add
capacity
Non-impact fee
revenue from
future development
Vehicle
miles of travel
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Technical Analysis:
Consumption-Based
8
Total Impact
Cost ≈$9,200 13 vehicle-miles
of daily travel
Capacity
≈8,500
Vehicle-miles of capacity ≈$710
Total Credit ≈$1,200
Impact Fee ≈$8,000
÷ =
X=
One Lane Mile
≈$6.0 M
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
9
Summary of Changes
Variable
Change
Since Last
Study
Effect on
Fee
Cost
Credit
Demand
Single Family Rate (2015 Rpt)-+15%
Single Family Rate (Indexed)-+9%
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation –Demand Component
Update TGR to ITE 10th Edition:
•Trip Generation Increase ≈ 20 land uses
•Trip Generation Decrease ≈ 24 land uses
•No change ≈ 13 land uses
•Re-organization of multi-family and gas station w/convenience market
land uses
10
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation –Demand Component
11
Change in Trip Generation -Examples
Land Use Unit TGR
2015
TGR
2019 % Change
Single Family (2k sq ft)du 7.65 7.37 -3.7%
Day Care Center Student 4.38 4.09 -6.6%
Office (50k sq ft)1,000 sf 11.02 9.74 -11.6%
Retail (100k sq ft)1,000 sf 28.46 37.75 +32.6%
Bank w/Drive-In 1,000 sf 159.34 102.66 -35.6%
Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.96 -28.8%
Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.23 6.26 +19.7%
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 511.00 482.53 -5.6%
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
12
Transportation –Cost Component
Source: Florida Dept of Transportation, Long Range Estimates
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
FDOT LRE Construction Cost -Cumulative Growth Trend (3-yr Avg)
Construction Costs
Continue to Increase
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
13
Local Future Estimates
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2015 Report: Local Improvements and
County Database ≈$2.5 M per lane mile
2015 Report: Calculated Fee
≈$2.5 M per lane mile
Proposed:
$3,500,000 for
construction
-Local Bids/Estimates
-FL Database 2015+
Transportation –Cost Component
County Road Construction Cost Trend (curb & gutter)
= Collier Bid/Estimate
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Technical Analysis –Cost Component
Estimated Cost per Lane Mile
14
Phase County Roads
Design $385,000
Right-of-Way $1,208,000
Construction $3,500,000
CEI $315,000
Mitigation $74,000
Urban Overpass $523,000
Total $6,005,000
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Credit Component
•Revenue Sources
✓County funding (fuel tax, grants, debt service, etc.)
✓Sales tax option
✓This is NOT a developer credit for construction
15
Transportation –Credit Component
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Capital Expansion Funding (Excluding Impact Fees)
16
Credit Equiv. Pennies
per Gallon
≈Annual
Expenditures
County Revenues $0.047 $7.9 M
County Debt Service $0.087 $14.5 M
Total Fuel Tax Eq $0.134 $22.4 M
Transportation –Credit Component
Credit Equiv. Pennies
per Gallon
≈Annual
Expenditures
County Revenues $0.144 $24.2 M
County Debt Service $0.087 $14.5 M
Total Fuel Tax Eq $0.231 $38.7 M
Excluding Sales Tax Including Sales Tax
Single Family (2k sf) Credit = $703 Single Family (2k sf) Credit = $1,203
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Calculated Impact Fee Rates
17
Land Use Unit Adopted
Fees
Calculated
Fees
w/Sales Tax
Percent
Change
Study Date -2015 2019 -
Assessed Portion -100%100%-
Single Family (2k sf)du $7,444 $8,090 +9%
Light Industrial 1,000 sf $5,700 $4,584 -20%
Office (50k sq ft)1,000 sf $10,249 $8,605 -16%
Retail (125k sq ft)1,000 sf $14,354 $13,774 -4%
Bank w/Drive-In 1,000 sf $28,961 $21,254 -27%
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $96,567 $104,272 +8%
Transportation –Calculated Fees
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
18
Land Use Unit
Collier
No Sales
Tax
Collier
with Sales
Tax
Collier
Adopted
Lee
County
Charlotte
County
Palm
Beach
County
Miami-
Dade
County
Manatee
County
(NE)
Martin
County
Study Date -2019 2019 2015 2015 2013 2018 2006 2015 2012
Assessed Portion -100%100%100%45%40%95%*100%90%100%
Single Family (2k sf)du $8,590 $8,090 $7,444 $4,498 $2,389 $4,717 $9,464 $6,891 $2,815
Light Industrial 1,000 sf $4,865 $4,584 $5,700 $1,521 $1,518 $1,522 $3,821 $2,903 $1,857
Office (50k sq ft)1,000 sf $9,152 $8,605 $10,249 $3,426 $2,856 $3,418 $15,420 $4,594 $2,198
Retail (125k sq ft)1,000 sf $14,758 $13,774 $14,354 $5,164 $3,793 $7,656 $20,071 $11,737 $5,183
Bank w/Drive-In 1,000 sf $22,817 $21,254 $28,961 $11,511 $8,003 $16,116 $25,014 $11,737 $6,841
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $112,365 $104,272 $96,567 $22,010 $26,595 $30,702 $50,346 $11,737 $15,693
Transportation
*Light Industrial was adopted at 48%, Office was adopted at 49%, Fast Food was adopted at 54%
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
19
Land Use Unit
Collier
No Sales
Tax
Collier
with Sales
Tax
Collier
Adopted
Indian
River
County
Sarasota
County
Pasco
County
SUBURBAN
Polk
County
Lake
County
SOUTH
Marion
County
Study Date -2019 2019 2015 2014 2015 2018 2015 2013 2015
Assessed Portion -100%100%100%100%/45%100%n/a 100%70%11-20%
Single Family (2k sf)du $8,590 $8,090 $7,444 $4,248 $4,734 $8,570 $2,155 $2,706 $1,397
Light Industrial 1,000 sf $4,865 $4,584 $5,700 $1,206 $1,984 $0 $666 $1,505 $428
Office (50k sq ft)1,000 sf $9,152 $8,605 $10,249 $1,916 $4,327 $0 $2,237 $2,623 $676
Retail (125k sq ft)1,000 sf $14,758 $13,774 $14,354 $2,862 $9,365 $7,051 $3,808 $3,080 $1,014
Bank w/Drive-In 1,000 sf $22,817 $21,254 $28,961 $6,219 $8,598 $14,384 $3,808 $3,080 $2,260
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $112,365 $104,272 $96,567 $20,459 $17,867 $46,712 $3,808 $3,080 $2,803
Transportation
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Questions?
20
Thank You!
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Road Impact Fee Variables:
•Demand Component
•Trip generation rate, trip length, % new trips
•Cost Component
•County roads, capacity
•Credit Component
•Non-impact fee funding for roadway capacity expansion
21
Technical Analysis
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
Demand per Unit of Development:
•Trip Generation Rate = Number per day
•Trip Length = Travel A to B
•Trip Length Adjustment Factor = Accounts for travel on County Roads
ONLY
•% New Trips = Accounts for trips already on the roadway
•Interstate/Toll Adjustment Factor = Accounts for interstate & toll trips
(not charged)
22
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
Single Family (2,000 sq ft) Residential Example:
•Trip Generation Rate = 7.37
•Trip Length = 5.88 * 71% = 4.17
•% New Trips = 100%
•I/T Adj. Factor = 14.4%
(7.37 * 4.17 * 100% / 2) * (1 –14.4%) = 13.15
23
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
Cost Component
•Sources:
•Local county improvements
•Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
•Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd
•Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd
•Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 19th St NE
•Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from US 41 to E. of Goodlette-Frank Rd
•Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd
•County and state road improvements from other communities in Florida 24
Future Estimates
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
Cost Component
•Roadway Cost = $6,005,000
•Capacity = 8,500 vehicle-miles
•Cost per VMC ≈ $706
25
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Single Family (2,000 sq ft):
•Net VMT = 13.15
•Cost per VMC = $706.47
•Total Impact Cost = $9,293
•Revenue Credit = $703
•Including sales tax = $1,203
•Calculated Impact Fee Rate = $8,590
•Including sales tax = $8,090 26
Transportation
Net Impact Fee =
(Cost –Credit) x Demand
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Regional Roads
•US 41 (Tamiami Tr) from Lee Co. Line to Miami-Dade Co. Line
•Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Marco Island Bridge
•Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Camp Keais Rd
•Camp Keais Rd from Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd
•Immokalee Rd from US 41 (Tamiami Tr) to Camp Keais Rd
•Logan/Santa Barbara Blvd from Lee Co. Line to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd
•Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Desoto Blvd
27
Transportation
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Transportation
Demand Component
•Sources:
•National ITE Reference
•Florida Studies Database
•District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM)
•Demand Calculation:
•Trip Gen. Rate x Trip Length x % New Trips
28
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
•Fuel Taxes:
✓State tax indexed
✓Local tax NOT indexed
•Other revenue sources are indexed
29
Technical Analysis
Decrease in Value of 1¢ of Fuel Tax
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
Technical Analysis
Decrease in Value of 1¢ of Fuel Tax
30
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fuel Efficiency
Fuel Efficiency & Inflation
≈ -17%
≈ -52%
State
Local
Source: FHWA Highway Statistics Series
9.E.6
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Collier Road IF Presentation_11-12-19 (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter
9.E.7
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Legal Ad - Impact Fee Ordinance (002) (10745 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
FISCAL YEAR 2019
WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
FOR
COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
September 12, 2019
341 N. Maitland Avenue Phone: 407‐628‐2600 www.raftelis.com
Suite 300 Fax: 407‐628‐2610
Maitland, FL 32751
September 12, 2019
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303
Naples, FL 34112-5746
Subject: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ("Raftelis") has completed our review of the water and
wastewater impact fees for the Collier County (the "County") Water-Sewer District (the
"District") water and wastewater system (the "System"), and has summarized the results of our
analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this report, which is submitted for your consideration.
The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations
as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with: i) the utility assets
installed by the District; ii) the capital expenditure requirements identified in the District's multi-
year Capital Improvement Program ("CIP"); iii) industry guidelines and Florida Statutes; and
iv) County management objectives. The methodology for the determination of the capital costs to
be included in proposed impact fees (i.e., available to be recovered) was also reviewed by the
County's outside legal counsel and the fees as documented in this report reflect all of the
recommendations from said counsel.
Based on our review, Raftelis is recommending that the water system impact fee be increased
from $2,562 to $3,382 per Equivalent Residential Connection ("ERC"). For the wastewater
system, we are recommending an increase in the impact fee from $2,701 to $3,314 per ERC. The
combined water and wastewater fees with the proposed rate adjustments would be $6,696, an
increase of $1,433 or 27.2% when compared with the existing combined fees of $5,263. The
proposed impact fees, based on the analyses and assumptions as documented in this report, are
summarized on Table ES-1 following this letter and in the County’s format to be included in the
amended Impact Fee Ordinance presented in Appendix C.
The proposed impact fees were based on the recovery: i) of capital-related costs that have been
incurred for utility plant that has been placed into service and financed by the District which are
estimated to have available capacity to serve new development; as well as ii) the estimated
incremental costs for construction of certain capital infrastructure anticipated to be incurred by
the District during the projection period that are considered necessary to serve new development.
Based on the information provided by the District and the assumptions and considerations
outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, Raftelis considers the proposed
impact fees to be cost-based, reasonable, and based on local costs in accordance with the
provisions of Florida Statutes, 163.31801 (referred to as the "Florida Impact Fee Act").
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
September 12, 2019
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County
staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study.
Very truly yours,
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Robert J. Ori
Executive Vice President
Nicholas T. Smith, CGFM
Consultant
Michael J. Noga
Associate Consultant
RJO/dlc
Attachments
Page 1 of 2
Table ES-1
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees
Level of Service
Line (gallons per day
No. Description per ERC) Amount Cost Per Gallon
IMPACT FEES
Water Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
1 Treatment Component 325.00 $2,057.00 $6.33
2 Transmission Component 325.00 505.00 1.55
3 Total 325.00 $2,562.00 $7.88
Proposed Per ERC
Calculated
4 Treatment Component 308.30 $2,583.23 $8.38
5 Transmission Component 308.30 799.53 2.59
6 Total 308.30 $3,382.76 $10.97
Rounded
7 Treatment Component 300.00 $2,583.00 $8.61
8 Transmission Component 300.00 799.00 2.66
9 Total 300.00 $3,382.00 $11.27
Change (Total)
10 Amount $820.00 $3.39
11 Percent 32.0% 43.0%
Wastewater Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
12 Treatment Component 225.00 $2,341.00 $10.40
13 Transmission Component 225.00 360.00 1.60
14 Total 225.00 $2,701.00 $12.00
Proposed Per ERC
Calculated
15 Treatment Component 197.88 $2,717.66 $13.73
16 Transmission Component 197.88 596.59 3.01
17 Total 197.88 $3,314.25 $16.75
Rounded
18 Treatment Component 200.00 $2,718.00 $13.59
19 Transmission Component 200.00 596.00 2.98
20 Total 200.00 $3,314.00 $16.57
Change (Total)
21 Amount $613.00 $4.57
22 Percent 22.7% 38.0%
Page 2 of 2
Table ES-1
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees
Level of Service
Line (gallons per day
No. Description per ERC) Amount Cost Per Gallon
Combined Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
23 Treatment Component $4,398.00
24 Transmission Component 865.00
25 Total $5,263.00
Proposed Per ERC (Rounded)
26 Treatment Component $5,301.00
27 Transmission Component 1,395.00
28 Total $6,696.00
Change (Total)
29 Amount $1,433.00
30 Percent 27.2%
-i-
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Letter of Transmittal
Table ES-1: Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices ................................................................................ ii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees ..................................................................... 2
Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fees ......................................................................... 5
Development of Impact Fees .................................................................................................. 6
Level of Service Requirements ............................................................................................... 8
Capital Investment .................................................................................................................. 11
Existing Plant-in-Service ................................................................................................... 11
Additional Capital Investment ........................................................................................... 15
Design of Impact Fees ............................................................................................................ 17
Impact Fee Comparisons......................................................................................................... 20
Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 24
-ii-
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDICES
Table No. Description
ES-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System
Impact Fees
[*]
1 Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility
Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
[**]
2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity
Available to Serve System Growth
[**]
3 Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function
Through Fiscal Year 2029
[**]
4 Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant
Function Through Fiscal Year 2029
[**]
5 Development of Water System Impact Fee [**]
6 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee [**]
7 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC [**]
Figure No. Description Page No.
1 Location of Collier County 1
2 Impact Fee Determination Methodology 6
3 Comparison of Water Impact Fees per ERC 21
4 Comparison of Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC 22
5 Comparison of Combined Impact Fees per ERC 23
Appendix No. Description
A Summary of Existing Utility System Assets [**]
B Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance [**]
C Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee
Schedule in County Format
[**]
__________
[*] Table ES-1 follows the letter of transmittal.
[**] Referenced tables and appendices located at the end of the report.
-1-
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida governed by the State
Constitution and general laws of the State of Florida. In 2003,
the Legislature of the State of Florida pursuant to Section
189.429, Florida Statutes, adopted the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Special Act (formally known as House Bill 849)
(the "Act") to create the Collier County Water-Sewer District
(previously defined as the "District") on behalf of the County.
The Act is represented in Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida.
The District is an independent special district and public
corporation of the State with the Board of County
Commissioners being the governing board of the District. The
purpose of creating the District was to provide the District with
the overall responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater services to a specified
geographic service area of the County as defined in the Act due primarily to the extensive growth
within the County and to meet the public health and water supply issues affecting such service
area. The County occupies approximately 2,026 square miles and as shown on the illustration in
Figure 1 is located in the southwestern portion of the State. In terms of land area, the County is
the largest county in the state. Based on medium range growth projections developed by the
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida ("BEBR") and published on
the website of the State of Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (the "2018
BEBR Estimates"), the County had an estimated permanent population of approximately 367,347
people as of April 1, 2018, of which approximately 89.7% were estimated to be located in the
unincorporated area of the County. Among the 67 counties in Florida, the County ranked
sixteenth in terms of permanent population size according to information contained in the 2018
BEBR Estimates as of April 1, 2018.
The District owns and operates a water and wastewater utility system (the "System"), which
during the Fiscal Year 2018, provided service to an estimated 68,048 water retail accounts and
96,622 wastewater retail accounts, on average. It should be noted that the average annual retail
accounts include customers obtained through the acquisition of Orange Tree Utility Company
and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority’s Golden Gate system. The population for
Collier County is projected by the Florida Legislative Office of Economics and Demographic
Research to increase from 367,347 in 2018 to approximately 382,800 people by the year 2020
(4.2% growth from current population) and to approximately 418,400 people by the year 2025
(13.9% growth from current population). According to the County's proposed 2019 Annual
Update and Inventory Report (the "AUIR"), the permanent population served by the District's
water system as estimated by the County was 220,928 in Fiscal Year 2018, which represents
approximately 60.1% of the population located in the County as determined by the BEBR for
2018. With respect to the District's wastewater system, the AUIR estimates for Fiscal Year 2018
reflect a permanent population of 120,957 for the service area of the District's North County
Figure 1.
Location of Collier County
-2-
Water Reclamation Facility, 102,609 for the service area of the District's South County Water
Reclamation Facility, and 5,034 for the service area of Orange Tree. On a combined basis, the
permanent population served by the District's wastewater system as estimated by the County was
228,600, which represents approximately 62.2% of the BEBR population estimates for the
County.
The District has constructed or plans to construct utility infrastructure to accommodate the future
developments identified for the County that are expected to be served by the System.
Historically, the District has utilized water and wastewater impact fees, which are referred to as
"system development fees" in the District's authorizing bond resolution, to fund a portion of
constructing the infrastructure requirements associated with new growth or increased
development. For the purpose of this report, the terms "impact fees" and "system development
fees" shall be used interchangeably.
PURPOSE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs that are
considered as growth-related from new customers connecting to the System or from existing
customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and / or wastewater capacity
associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population
growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal
services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or
system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable
and provides for the proper match of initial capital investment to the capacity being reserved.
Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" without existing user
cost burdens. The application of impact fees to finance capital infrastructure allocated to such
new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source
of contributed capital by the District for many years.
The initial precedent for impact fees in Florida was set in the Florida Supreme Court decision,
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Authority v. The Authority of Dunedin, Florida.
In this case, the Court's ruling found that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact
fees, could be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital charge for
services. On June 14, 2006, additional impact fee legislation became effective as Chapter
2006-218, Laws of Florida, and was later incorporated in Section 163.31801 of the Florida
Statutes. The impact fee legislation, which has been designated as the "Florida Impact Fee Act,"
recognized that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in
funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Florida Impact Fee Act has
subsequently been amended in May 2009 with Florida House Bill 227 and most recently
effective July 1, 2019 with Florida House Bill 207. The act further states that at a minimum an
impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality, or by resolution of a special
district, must satisfy all of the following conditions:
● The local government must calculate the impact fee be based on the most recent and
localized data;
-3-
● The local government must provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections
and expenditures in a separate accounting fund;
● The local government must limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to
actual costs;
● The local government must notice no less than 90 days before the effective date of an
ordinance or resolution imposing a new or amended impact fee. However, a county or
municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an impact
fee;
● The local government may not require payment of the impact fee before the date of
issuance of the building permit;
● The impact fee must be reasonably connected to, or have a rational nexus with, the need for
additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated by the construction;
● The impact fee must be reasonably connected to, or have a rational nexus with, the
expenditures of the revenues generated and the benefits accruing to the new construction;
● The local government must specifically earmark revenues generated by the impact fees to
acquire, construct, or improve capital facilities to benefit new users; and
● The local government may not use revenues generated by the impact fees to pay existing
debt or for previously approved projects unless the expenditures are reasonably connected
to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new construction.
Additionally, the Florida Impact Fee Act states:
"In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of
state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard."
Based on Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes and existing Florida case law, certain
conditions are required to develop a valid impact fee. Generally, it is our understanding that
these conditions involve the following issues:
1. The impact fee must meet the "dual rational nexus" test. First, impact fees are valid when a
reasonable impact or rationale exists between the anticipated need for the capital facilities
and the growth in population. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association,
or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the
benefits accruing to the development from the use of the proceeds.
2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall
to existing users.
3. The impact fee should only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto
(engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for capital expansions or other system-
-4-
related capital requirements that have been or are anticipated to be constructed which are
required or available to serve growth. Therefore, expenses due to rehabilitation or upgrade
of a facility that has been constructed (e.g., replacement of a capital asset) or an increase in
the level of service should be borne by all users of the facility (i.e., existing and future
users) to the extent that capacity in such facilities is available to serve the needs of new
development.
4. The County should adopt an impact fee resolution or ordinance that explicitly restricts the
use of impact fees collected. Therefore, impact fee revenue should be set aside in a separate
account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used
only for the lawful purposes described above.
5. The Florida Impact Fee Act does not apply to water and sewer connection fees (physical
connection of a property to the District regional system).
Based on the criteria above, the proposed impact fees, which are set forth in subsequent sections
herein: i) include only the estimated allocated capital cost of facilities necessary to provide
capacity to serve anticipated service territory growth; ii) do not reflect costs associated with
renewal and replacement of any existing capital assets (except for any incremental portion of
upgrades allocable to growth, such as "upsizing" or "looping" of certain transmission lines or for
that portion of the installed assets that have unused capacity allocated to serve new
development); and iii) do not include any costs of operation and maintenance of any facilities.
The courts, recent legislation, and industry practices have addressed three areas associated with
the development of the impact fee. These areas include: i) the "fair share" concept dealing with
payment of the fee by the affected property owners; ii) the "rational nexus" concept, which
focuses on the expenditure or purpose of the fee; and iii) the consideration of credits, which
recognize appropriate fee offsets.
The fair share concept addresses that the fee can only be used for capital expenditures that are
attributable to new growth. The fee cannot be used to finance level of service deficiencies or the
replacement of existing facilities required to provide services to the existing System users.
Typical industry practices also allow for establishing different fees for different classes of
customers and the ability for the payment of a reduced impact fee if applicants can demonstrate
that their development will have smaller impact (or capacity need resulting in a lower allocated
capital requirement) than assumed in the fee determination. Additionally, the fair share concept
recognizes that the cost of facilities used by both existing customers and new growth must be
apportioned between the two user groups such that the user groups are treated equally, and one
group does not intentionally subsidize the other.
The rational nexus concept requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the need for
capital facilities and the benefits to be received by new development for which the fee will be
expended or applied. The County's existing infrastructure and the corresponding financing and
management of such infrastructure is on a System-wide basis. And as such, the proposed impact
fees were determined on a System-wide basis. The second nexus condition recognizes that the
property must receive a benefit from the public services for which the fee is being applied. With
respect to the water and wastewater charge, these facilities are used by and are constructed on
-5-
behalf of all the property within the County's service area and benefit both residential and
commercial customers. As such, all new growth requesting capacity from the System (either
water and/or wastewater) are subject to the application of the impact fees.
Credit or fee offsets recognize that if an agency has received property in the form of cost-free
capital or there is specific revenue (taxes) that will be used for the capital expenditures for which
the impact fee was designed to recover necessitated by new growth; a credit should be applied to
the fee. Examples of cost-free capital include grants, property contributions by developers (that
are associated with infrastructure identified in the County's utility master plans), infrastructure
funded from external sources (assessments), and other sources that provide funds toward the
capital expenditures for which the impact fee was designed to recover. These credits allow for
the recovery of costs to serve new development through impact fees, net of such cost-free
capital. The evaluation of the proposed water and wastewater impact fees proposed to be charged
by the County as identified in this study to new development requiring water and/or wastewater
System capacity recognized the above-referenced issues.
EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
Ordinance No. 2017-13, which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County ("BOCC") on April 25, 2017 (the "Impact Fee Ordinance"), established the District's
current water and wastewater impact fees. The current impact fees are applied on the basis of: i)
meter size; and ii) living space or square footage. The following provides a summary of the
impact fee application by customer classification:
Summary of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
Description Basis of Fee ERC Factor [*] Water Fee Wastewater Fee
Residential (Meter) Per ERC 1.00 $2,562 $2,701
Multi-Family (Sq. Ft.)
0 – 750 Sq. ft. Per Unit 0.33 $845 $891
751 – 1,500 sq. ft. Per Unit 0.67 1,716 1,809
1,501 sq. ft. or More Per Unit 1.00 2,562 2,701
Non-residential (Meter)
3/4 Inch Per ERC 1.00 $2,562 $2,701
1 Inch Per ERC 1.67 4,278 4,510
1-1/2 Inch Per ERC 3.33 8,531 8,994
2 Inch Per ERC 5.33 13,655 14,395
3 Inch Per ERC 15.00 38,430 40,515
4 Inch Per ERC 33.33 85,391 90,024
6 Inch Per ERC 66.67 170,808 180,075
8 Inch Per ERC 116.67 298,908 315,125
__________
[*] Equivalent Residential Connection ("ERC") factors for non-residential customers reflect rated hydraulic capacity of
meter divided by 30 gallons per minutes based on rate capacity of smallest meter size.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-6-
The current impact fees charged by the District to a standard, individually metered single-family
residential household through a 3/4-inch meter from the System, which represents approximately
96% of individually metered single-family residential customers currently being served by the
System are summarized as follows:
Existing Residential Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees per ERC [*]
Water System $2,562
Wastewater System 2,701
Combined $5,263
__________
[*] Reflects fee for standard individually metered residential unit (generally served
through a 3/4-inch meter service and is considered to equate to 1 ERC).
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT FEES
There are three significant components addressed in the design of impact fees. These three
components include: i) the total capital investment recognized as a cost component that may be
recovered from a new applicant requesting capacity; ii) the total estimated dependable capacity
associated with the capital investment; and iii) the level of service to be apportioned to the
applicants that request System capacity. The recognition of these components provides the
general basis to recover the allocated capital costs from a new applicant requesting service and is
depicted in Figure 2:
All of these components are necessary to determine the amount of the impact fees expressed to
be charged to new applicants requesting service on an equivalent residential connection or
"ERC" basis, which is more fully discussed later in this report.
Level of
Service
(Gallons per
ERC)
Impact Fee
($/ERC)
Capital
Investment
($)
Capacity per
Day
(Gallons)
Figure 2. Impact Fee Determination Methodology
-7-
With respect to the development of the capital costs to be recognized in the fee determination,
there are three methods generally used, which include: i) the Standards Method; ii) the System
Buy-in Method; and iii) the Improvements Method. The Standards Method would base the
capital cost on a theoretical cost of the improvements for incremental development (e.g., the
standard cost for the construction of a water treatment plant expressed on a dollars per gallon
basis). This method generally would not recognize the existing installed infrastructure that has
capacity to serve new development and may also not recognize the current capital plan identified
to provide service or complete the master planning of the system facilities. The System Buy-in
(or historical) Method recognizes the installed original cost of the utility infrastructure in the
determination of the allocated capital costs to provide service on an equivalent unit basis. This
method is applicable to mature or developed utility systems that have constructed the majority of
its infrastructure. This method generally would only reflect the constructed capacity and may not
recognize any anticipated changes in service area infrastructure. The Improvements Method
would be based on future capital costs and new capacity determined over a projected period of
time; it may not account for unused constructed capacity that may be available to serve new
development. This fee is similar to the standards method in that it is based on a future cost
(however, it is specific to the utility as opposed to a theoretical construction cost standard). This
method may also result in a disparity of the amount of growth to be served by the new facilities.
For the purposes of this study, a blending of the Buy-in Method and Improvements Method was
recognized for the following reasons:
1. Since the Florida Impact Fee Act requires that the impact fee be based on localized costs,
basing the fee on the original installed costs of the assets that are currently in service would
strongly promote this requirement since the costs are known and measurable.
2. The County has identified expansion-related and System upgrade projects in the near term,
which will increase the availability of capacity to serve new development and the overall
installed infrastructure cost to provide service. Since the District utility system is managed,
financed, operated, and constructed as a single system and the new infrastructure associated
with the development in the Northeast segment of the service area will be interconnected
with the remainder of the system, near-term capital improvements were considered in the
fee to recognize the estimated installed cost of capacity coincident with the time frame that
the fee is to be charged to new development.
3. The System Buy-in Method and Improvements Method were consolidated in our analysis
to identify the blended average cost of the remaining installed capacity to serve new
development during the planning period, which places more emphasis on the System Buy-
in Method and will promote the "system concept" as it relates to service availability for
new development since it does not only consider the capital improvement expenditures,
which, in many instances, is higher than the original cost of the utility infrastructure that
has been constructed and placed into service.
The following is a discussion of these impact fee components.
-8-
LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services,
it is important that a level of service ("LOS") standard be developed. Pursuant to
Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or
degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to
the operational characteristics of the facility and shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand
for each public facility or service. Essentially, the level of service standards are established in
order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes
of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g) of the Florida
Statutes. As further stated in the Statutes, each local government shall establish a LOS standard
for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has
authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual
facility or facility type or class and not on a system-wide basis. With respect to the determination
of the water and wastewater impact fees the LOS standards were determined on a system-wide
basis since all the water production and wastewater treatment facilities are managed, operated,
financed, and accounted for on a total system basis and serve as a single water and wastewater
system. This is also consistent with past practices of the County and the fee application of other
local governments throughout the State of Florida.
For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is
the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons)
allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the
amount of daily dependable capacity allocable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is
actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve"). As previously mentioned, an ERC
is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually metered or
single-family residential account. This class of users represents the largest amount of customers
served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest (and most common) level
of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. In the development of the level of
service standards for the impact fee update, the following references were considered and
reviewed:
● Revised 2019 Water, Wastewater, IQ Water, and Bulk Potable Water Master Plan / CIP
Plan Update for the Expanded CCWSD (the "2019 Master Plan Update") prepared by
AECOM, the District's consulting engineers (the "Consulting Engineers");
● Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") general design standards;
● Florida Public Service Commission ("FPSC") capacity relationships for private utilities;
● Actual water sales and billed wastewater flow data reported by the District for the
residential and commercial customer classes over the past several years; and
● Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past
several years.
-9-
The following table shows the level of service standards contained in some of the reference
sources:
Comparison of Water and Wastewater Level of Service (LOS)
Standards Per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC)
Water
ERC
Wastewater
ERC
Description (gpd) (gpd)
2019 Master Plan Update [1]
2.25 persons per household – Integrated Population Model 283 184
2.36 persons per household – BEBR 2017 296 193
2.38 persons per household – 2010 U.S. Census 299 194
2.55 persons per household – 2013-2017 U.S. Census Projections 320 208
Level of Service Standards Recognized By State Government of Florida:
Florida Public Service Commission ("FPSC") Capacity Relationships for Private Utilities [2] 350 280
Florida Department of Health Design Standards for Sewer Systems [3]
Single or Multiple Family per Dwelling Unit [4] N/A 300
Level of Service Utilized for Impact Fee Calculations 300 200
__________
[1] LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in the 2019 Master Plan Update multiplied by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per
day derived as follows:
2019 Master Plan Update
Water Wastewater
Total gpcd 150 100
Adjustment for Commercial Component per County Billing
Records (24) (18)
Estimated Residential-only gpcd 126 82
[2] Rule 25-30.515(8), Florida Administrative Code. A wastewater ERC level of service is assumed to be 80% of the water ERC level of service
(350 gpd x 80% = 280 gpd).
[3] Amounts derived based on information as published in the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Rule 64E-6.008
[4] As stated in FAC Rule 64E-6.008, design standard (estimated sewage flows expressed on a gallons per day basis) for 3-bedroom house with 1,201 - 2,250
square feet of building area and was assumed to be representative of a typical or standard residence.
Recognizing: i) the current trends in water use per single-family residential ERC; ii) the current
capacity planning ERC service levels assumed in the most recent utility 2019 Master Plan
Update used in the evaluation of and planning for water and wastewater treatment capacity
needs; iii) single-family residential and commercial water use relationships based on detailed
utility billing information as provided by the District; iv) the most recent U.S. Census data
regarding persons per household for the County; and v) discussions with the District staff, the
LOS standards recognized for the evaluation of the fees as expressed on an average "gallons per
day ("gpd") per ERC" basis are recommended to decrease from the current service levels of 325
gpd and 225 gpd, for water and wastewater respectively, to: i) 300 gpd for a water system ERC
and ii) 200 gpd for a wastewater system ERC. The primary differences in the LOS standards
between the two utilities are considered to be: i) the recognition of outdoor irrigation demands
for potable water service which reflect water usage not returned to the wastewater system;
ii) differences in unaccounted for water (finished water leaving the water treatment plant
compared with water metered at the customer premise) and wastewater inflow and infiltration
(groundwater and stormwater entering the wastewater collection system which are treated at the
wastewater treatment plants) relationships; and iii) other factors.
-10-
A review of the levels of service with other neighboring utilities was also conducted to identify
the level of service standards employed by such utilities. Although not specific to the County, it
is generally assumed that the level of service standards and customer usage characteristics for the
neighboring utilities would be similar to the County since i) they have followed the same
development patterns since they generally correspond to the same geographical location, land
use, and timing of development; ii) county utilities would also provide service to rural areas (or
less dense) than municipal systems; that is the service areas are more comparable; and
iii) average daily water use (sales) per single-family dwelling unit are similar. A summary of the
comparison is shown below.
Level of Service Comparison with Other Utilities [*]
Utility
Water
LOS
Wastewater
LOS
Collier County - Existing 325 225
Collier County - Proposed 300 200
Charlotte County 325190
Hernando County 350280
Hillsborough County 300 200
Lee County 250250
Manatee County 250185
Pasco County N/A N/A
Pinellas County N/A N/A
Sarasota County 200200
Other Utility Average 279 218
__________
[*] Information based on readily available information as provided or published by the
respective utility.
As can be seen above, the levels of service for other neighboring local county governments range
primarily from 200 to 350 gallons per day for water (the simple average of the above referenced
utilities is 279 gallons per day) and 185 to 280 gallons per day for wastewater (the simple
average of the above references utilities is 218 gallons per day).
The recommended downward adjustments are more representative of service standards used by
other utilities, the overall long-term downward trends in water use and corresponding sewer flow
demands per residential connection being experienced by the County and other utilities
throughout Florida and the nation, and generally provides a reserve margin for other specific
needs (larger household sizes, weather events, etc.). The LOS is considered by Raftelis to be
reasonable and is recommended for the development of the proposed fees for services. It is also
recommended that the impact fees, including the level of service standard, be reviewed no later
than five years from the date of this report.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-11-
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
In the evaluation of the water and wastewater impact fees, the development of the estimated
facility or infrastructure costs associated with the identified facility capacity is a primary
component in the fee development. As previously mentioned, the determination of the facility or
infrastructure costs in this study was based on a blend of the System Buy-in Method and the
Improvements Method to identify the estimated localized cost of the infrastructure necessary to
meet the near-term future capacity needs associated with new development within the District on
a system-wide basis during the planning period. The planning period included a ten-year forecast
period consistent with the County’s capital improvement planning process. The following is a
discussion of the existing utility plant and new capital facility evaluation considered in the
development of the impact fees for the water and wastewater utility systems.
Existing Plant-in-Service
In the determination of the impact fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any
constructed capacity in the existing treatment and transmission utility system that is available to
serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity was constructed and is available to serve
the near-term incremental growth of the utility system, it is appropriate to recognize the capacity
availability of such facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant-in-
service to meet or provide for near-term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize
the existing constructed utility plant by specific function or purpose (treatment, conveyance,
etc.). The "functionalization" of the existing utility plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets
that should be considered or included in the determination of the impact fees; and ii) match
existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs.
It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into certain asset categories such that the
estimated System infrastructure components ("System"-related expenditures that benefit all
customers) can be identified such that the fee could be developed. The functional cost categories
are based on the purpose of the assets and the service level that such assets provide or support.
The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant-in-service
identified in this report.
Functional Plant Categories
Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant
Supply Treatment General Plant (Equipment, Vehicles, etc.)
Treatment Effluent /Irrigation Quality Water
Transmission Transmission
Distribution Collection (Includes Local Lift
Stations, Manholes, and Laterals)
Fire Hydrants
Meters and Services
System improvement costs relate to those costs incurred to provide capacity needed to serve new
growth and development and do not include site improvements and facilities that are planned and
designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the
use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project or routine and periodic maintenance
expenditures, personnel training, and other operating costs. Therefore, the costs of on-site
-12-
facilities which serve a specific development or customer are not considered as a "System" cost
which is proportionately allocable to all users. These utility plant facilities include on-site
(fronting the premise) water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services,
local lift stations, and fire hydrants are usually: i) donated by a developer as part of the District's
utility extension program (a contribution of the plant); ii) recovered from the individual
properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special
benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the
specific cost of such facilities; or iii) funded from the customer directly (e.g., by a "front-foot"
charge where the on-site lines were initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer
or an installation charge to recover the cost of a new service line and / or the potable water
meter). Such utility plant should not be a capital cost included in the impact fee calculation.
Additionally, assets or utility plant with short service lives that are replaced on a recurring basis
should also not be included since these assets are considered attributable to the existing
customers of the System. An example of this utility plant would be assets commonly referred to
as "general plant" and would include vehicles, equipment, furniture, and other related assets.
The County provided Raftelis with reported utility plant asset information through September 30,
2018 (the most recently completed fiscal year at the time of this analysis) that served as the basis
of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service. Appendix A at the end of this
report provides a summary of the functionalization analysis of the existing utility plant-in-service
for the System. The functionalized existing utility plant-in-service as shown in Appendix A
represents the original installed cost of such assets (gross book value) when placed into service
and represents all assets in service as of September 30, 2018 that were provided by the County
and detailed in the utility asset records. This information represents the most current information
available relative to the plant-in-service to serve the existing and near-term future customer base
of each utility system. The assets represent "installed costs" and have not been restated to
account for any fair market value adjustments which would reflect current costs (would
essentially assume that assets were replaced with identical materials). If an asset had been
upgraded, improved, or replaced by the County as of September 30, 2018 and is now in service,
such assets were considered since they are physically in-service and represent the immediate
basis for the capital cost being incurred by the County to provide service to future development.
This also recognized that the asset that was replaced is retired, is no longer in service, and was
assumed to not be included in the fixed asset register provided to Raftelis.
A summary of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service in Appendix A is
shown as follows:
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-13-
Summary of Water and Wastewater Utility System Existing Assets (Gross Utility Plant)
Water System [1] Wastewater System [1] Totals
Function Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent
Supply $100,867,248 15.3% $0 0.0% $100,867,248 7.0%
Treatment / Disposal 212,734,434 32.2% 287,301,795 36.8% 500,036,229 34.7%
Transmission / Storage / Master Pumping 89,595,275 13.6% 89,680,683 11.5% 179,275,958 12.4%
Effluent / Reclaimed 0 0.0% 47,144,160 6.0% 47,144,160 3.3%
Hydrants / Meters / Services 12,635,348 1.9% 0 0.0% 12,635,348 0.9%
General Equipment and Costs [2] 18,670,787 2.8% 21,877,474 2.8% 40,548,261 2.8%
Distribution / Collection 155,831,456 23.6% 245,719,739 31.4% 401,551,195 27.8%
Other [3] 47,814,669 7.2% 56,026,785 7.2% 103,841,454 7.2%
Construction Work-in-Progress [4] 22,292,274 3.4% 33,777,950 4.3% 56,070,224 3.9%
Total Gross Utility Plant-in-Service $660,441,491 100.0% $781,528,585 100.0% $1,441,970,077 100.0%
__________
[1] Amounts shown derived from utility asset records as of September 30, 2018 that were provided by the District as shown in Appendix A.
[2] General Plant represents equipment, vehicles, and assets with short service lives, and was allocated to the water and wastewater systems in
proportion to all other functionalized utility plant.
[3] Reflects reported assets that: i) represent capitalized costs (e.g., studies) that did not directly link to an existing constructed asset; and ii) certain
asset costs considered to benefit only existing users; such amounts were not included as a capital cost for the determination of the impact fees.
[4] Construction work-in-progress was not recognized since the projects have not yet been completed and placed into service by the District and the
corresponding existing assets, if any, that would be retired or improved were not removed from the fixed asset register.
As can be seen above and on Appendix A, approximately 61% of the installed water system
assets and 54% of wastewater system assets are considered to be either treatment and disposal
plant or transmission-related and are therefore recognized as a cost for the development of the
proposed water and wastewater impact fees.
In order to determine the amount of constructed water supply / treatment and wastewater
treatment / disposal plant assets available to meet future growth, it is necessary to identify the
estimated amount of available capacity in such facilities. Table 1 at the end of this report
provides an estimate of the available capacity and the allocated water supply and treatment utility
fixed asset (plant) costs that was recognized as being available to serve future needs. A similar
analysis is shown on Table 2 at the end of this report for the wastewater system. This estimate
for water and wastewater capacity and the allocation of existing plant to future growth was based
on: i) the permitted design capacity of the respective utility plant facilities; ii) the recognition of
adjustments to present the facility capacity on an average daily demand / flow basis to be
consistent with the assumed level of service requirements (dependable daily capacity); and
iii) actual use of such facilities as experienced by the System service area through the Fiscal Year
2018. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that the existing water supply and treatment,
wastewater treatment, and effluent disposal plant facilities had the following remaining and
available capacity to meet future needs:
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-14-
Summary of Plant Capacities
Plant Capacity (MGD)
Water
Plant [1]
Wastewater
Plant [2]
Total Permitted Design Capacity (MMDD / MMADF - MGD) 54.850 42.350
Less Capacity Considered Offline and Removed from Service [3] (2.100) 0.000
Adjusted Permitted Design Capacity (MMDD / MMADF –MGD) 52.750 42.350
Peaking Factor [4] 1.170 1.140
Plant Capacity Expressed on Average Daily Demand / Flow Basis 45.085 37.149
Less Existing Plant Utilization (ADF) 28.115 20.132
Net Available to Meet Future Service Area Needs 16.971 17.018
Estimated Percent of Total System Capacity 37.64% 45.81%
__________
MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
ADF = Average Daily Flow
[1] Amounts derived from Table 1.
[2] Amounts derived from Table 2.
[3] Reflects the removal of the Golden Gate Water Treatment Plant which is no longer considered to be in service as of the date of
this report.
[4] The utilized peaking factors are based on a review of historical peaking relationships experienced by each specific utility
(presented on a coincident month basis).
As shown above, it has been estimated that approximately 37.64% in existing water production
and treatment utility assets is allocable to serve future development. With respect to the
wastewater system, it is estimated that approximately 45.81% of the combined treatment and
disposal utility assets is allocable to serve new customer growth.
In the identification of the capital costs associated with constructed infrastructure to be
considered in the development of the impact fees, certain assets were not considered, which
included the following asset categories:
● Water distribution assets that were identified as project improvements were assumed to be
specific to providing service directly to the customer premises (referred to as an "on-site"
capital improvement), and which would generally i) be contributed to the County by a
developer; or ii) recovered in a separate fee such as a meter installation charge were not
reflected as a system improvement. With respect to the determination of the water
conveyance system assets that were considered as a project improvement (non-recognized
asset) and based on discussions with the County, it was assumed that all water distribution
pipe with a diameter size of 8-inches or less would be identified as a project improvement
and not be identified as a system improvement that is allocable to providing service
generally to all customers. In addition to the water distribution (pipe) facilities, utility plant
that would also fall into this functional asset category as a plant improvement would
include meters, hydrants, and services to the customer property. It was further assumed that
all water distribution (transmission) mains with a pipe diameter size of 10-inches or
greater, primary booster pumping stations and water storage facilities would be considered
as the primary conveyance system assets and would be included in the fee determination as
a system improvement.
-15-
● Wastewater collection assets were assumed to be specific to providing service directly to
the customer premises (referred to as an "on-site" capital improvement), and which would
generally i) be contributed to the County by a developer; or ii) recovered in a separate fee
such as a sewer tap charge were not reflected as a system improvement. With respect to the
determination of the wastewater collection system that were considered as a Project
Improvement (non-recognized asset) and based on discussions with the County, it was
assumed that all wastewater force mains, low pressure sewers, vacuum sewers with a
diameter size of 6-inches or less and gravity mains with a diameter of 8-inches or less
would be identified as a project improvement and not be reflected as a system improvement
that is allocable to providing service generally to all customers. In addition to the
wastewater collection (pipe) facilities, utility plant that would fall into this functional asset
category would include local lift stations, manholes, and laterals to the individual customer
properties. It was further assumed that all sewer interceptors, which is a component of the
sewer network that directs flow to the wastewater treatment plants and force mains and
gravity sewers with a pipe diameter size of 10-inches or greater and primary or master
pumping stations would be considered as primary conveyance assets and would be
recognized as a system-wide cost and would be included in the fee determination as a
system improvement.
● In reviewing the fixed assets, several assets were deemed as "excluded assets" and not
reflected in the fee evaluation. Examples of these reported assets included expenditures
classified as engineering fees and capitalized salaries that could not be specifically
allocated to or identified with a specific utility asset.
● The County has also recognized a significant investment in what is referred to as general
plant, which consists of equipment, vehicles, furniture, and other assets that have generally
short service lives, which are replaced frequently. Because of the nature of this capital
investment and the frequency of asset turnover, these expenditures were assumed to benefit
only the existing customers being served and were not included in the impact fee analysis.
Additional Capital Investment
The System is continually in the process of updating and expanding the water and wastewater
plant facilities to serve increasing demand, capacity requirements, new regulatory requirements,
and improve and upgrade existing infrastructure, which will provide the ability to serve both
existing and new development. To develop impact fees that link to the installed cost to provide
service during the planning period, the expenditures associated with the System's Capital
Improvement Program ("CIP") as currently planned by the County to meet the near-term future
needs of the System have been considered in the development of the proposed impact fees. The
County has prepared an eleven-year CIP, which outlines the capital improvements for both the
water and wastewater systems. The County’s CIP is shown on Tables 3 and 4 at the end of this
report for the water and wastewater systems, respectively. These capital improvements are for:
i) improvements to and new facility expansions to meet anticipated service area demands;
ii) upgrades and improvements to existing assets that may provide a benefit both current and
future users of the System (e.g., a transmission line relocation, upgrade facilities); and
iii) replacement and improvements to assets or conducting capital programs that benefit the
current users of the System.
-16-
With respect to the water system, the County has identified approximately $441.3 million in
capital expenditures to be constructed or initiated through Fiscal Year 2029. A summary of the
water system CIP is shown on Table 3 at the end of this report. Based on the water system capital
program as outlined in the CIP, several of the projects are for ongoing or recurring expenditures
and may not be necessarily associated with a specific project; such expenditures are considered
as an ongoing capital program and were assumed to only benefit existing customers and have not
been considered in the fee determination. Approximately $441.3 million in water system capital
improvements have been identified of which approximately $152.1 million have been recognized
in the determination of the fees or for which a portion of the cost is considered as being available
to be funded from impact fees. The amount of capital needs identified as an expenditure to
determine the estimated installed or constructed cost of water utility infrastructure to determine
the unit cost of capacity to be recovered from future growth is shown on Table 3 for water
system and is summarized below:
Summary of Water System Capital Improvement Program
Recognized in Impact Fees [1]
Amount
Total Water Capital Plan Expenditures $441,347,122
Less Excluded Expenditures [2] (73,813,830)
Capital Plan – Net of Excluded Expenditures $367,533,292
Less Capital Not Considered as System Improvements [3] (179,695,007)
Net Identified Capital Expenditures [4] $187,838,285
Allowance for Asset Retirement [5] (35,717,796)
Net Amount of Capital Expenditures Recognized $152,120,489
Percent of Total CIP Recognized in Fee Development 34.5%
__________
[1] Amounts shown derived from Table 3 at the end of this report.
[2] Represents assets, if any, considered to be required beyond the planning period for the fees (Fiscal
Year 2029) or represent ongoing general capital program expenditures that were assumed to benefit
only existing customers or change in cost subsequent to CIP development.
[3] Represents capital expenditures of utility plant not considered as a System improvement that benefits
all users; examples would include meter replacement program, local area water line replacements and
improvements / upgrades, and other similar expenditures.
[4] Amounts shown represent estimated capital expenditures for assets that are "System" costs and may
be recognized in the determination of the installed cost of facilities to be included in the
determination of the impact fee.
[5] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing
asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to
be in service during the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new
development.
As can be seen above, approximately 35% of the total water Capital Improvement Program was
recognized in the development of the impact fees for the water system.
A similar analysis was performed for the wastewater system to determine the near-term capital
expenditures to be recognized in the fee determination. With respect to the wastewater system,
the County has identified approximately $561.9 million in capital expenditures to be constructed
or initiated through Fiscal Year 2029. A summary of the wastewater system CIP is shown on
Table 4 at the end of this report. Based on the wastewater System capital program as outlined in
-17-
the CIP, several of the projects are for ongoing or recurring expenditures and may not be
necessarily associated with a specific project; such expenditures are considered as an ongoing
capital program and were assumed to only benefit existing customers and have not been
considered in the fee determination. Approximately $561.9 million in wastewater system capital
improvements have been identified of which approximately $182.2 million have been recognized
in the determination of the fees or for which a portion of the cost is considered as being available
to be funded from impact fees. The amount of capital needs identified as an expenditure to
determine the estimated installed or constructed cost of wastewater utility infrastructure to
determine the unit cost of capacity to be recovered from future growth is shown on Table 4 for
wastewater system and is summarized below:
Summary of Wastewater System Capital Improvement Program
Recognized in Impact Fees [1]
Amount
Total Wastewater Capital Plan Expenditures $561,864,308
Less Excluded Expenditures [2] (255,200,056)
Capital Plan – Net of Excluded Expenditures $306,664,253
Less Capital Not Considered as System Improvements [3] (106,758,898)
Net Identified Capital Expenditures [4] $199,905,355
Allowance for Asset Retirement [5] (17,656,891)
Net Amount of Capital Expenditures Recognized $182,248,464
Percent of Total CIP Recognized in Fee Development 32.4%
__________
[1] Amounts shown derived from Table 3 at the end of this report.
[2] Represents assets, if any, considered to be required beyond the planning period for the fees (Fiscal
Year 2029) or represent ongoing general capital program expenditures that were assumed to benefit
only existing customers or change in cost subsequent to CIP development.
[3] Represents capital expenditures of utility plant not considered as a System asset that benefits all
users; examples would include local lift station replacement program, local area sewer line
replacements, relining, and improvements / upgrades, and other similar expenditures.
[4] Amounts shown represent estimated capital expenditures for assets that are "System" costs and may
be recognized in the determination of the installed cost of facilities to be included in the
determination of the impact fee.
[5] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing
asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered in
service to meet future capacity demands associated with new development.
As can be seen above, approximately 32% of the total wastewater Capital Improvement Program
was recognized in the development of the impact fees for the wastewater system.
DESIGN OF IMPACT FEES
Tables 5 and 6 at the end of this report provide the basis for the determination of the proposed
impact fees for the water and wastewater systems, respectively. The derivation of the impact fees
was based on the estimated installed or anticipated System improvement costs, facility capacity,
and utility level of service standards recognized for the individually metered residential ERC
components as presented earlier in this report. In the development of the proposed impact fees,
several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design
of the calculated impact fees included:
-18-
1. In the development of the proposed fees, the "System Buy-in" approach was recognized
using the original cost method, adjusted for the estimated marginal cost increase associated
with the recognition of the near-term System improvements and capacity expansions, if
any, to match the estimated installed cost of infrastructure to the future fee recovery period.
This method allocates the estimated proportionate share of the System improvements at the
original cost (value) of the existing assets – the applicant requesting capacity contributes
funds to the County for its share of the infrastructure constructed to serve System growth. It
should be noted that this method does not impart or transfer ownership to the customer but
is generally considered to provide access to capacity in the amount purchased at a status
equal to that of the existing customers of the System. The proposed impact fees reflect the
estimated proportionate share of the existing utility plant and anticipated near-term plant
improvements and additions that are considered as a primary or "System improvement"
expenditure that would be allocated to all users and is available to serve new development
to reflect the estimated "buy-in" infrastructure value for the respective water and
wastewater systems.
The approach was based on the identification and allocation of the installed cost of the
gross plant investment (expressed on an original cost basis – that is when the asset was
originally placed into service and not the estimated replacement cost of such assets) that is
available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the
impact fee is essentially reimbursing the System only for the applicant's estimated
proportionate share of the constructed facilities that are currently in-service as of
September 30, 2018 and estimated to be constructed in the next 10 years that are available
to meet the requests for System capacity from new development. This method also
recognizes that as capital improvements are made to the utility system, the available net
cost of capacity to meet the future demands of the new development would increase based
on the net incremental change in asset value (i.e., representing plant additions less any
plant retirements) identified based on the implementation of the capital plan. The
recognition of the Capital Improvement Program provides a match of the estimated
constructed gross plant investment that is anticipated to be in service to meet the growth
demands of the System and the impact fee proposed to be charged during the projected
period of the capital plan (i.e., the next ten fiscal years). This promotes the "localized-cost"
parameter in fee development and is considered as being reasonable for the determination
of the impact fee.
2. The "System Buy-in" method recognizes the System improvements considered in the fee
development based on the allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment that
is considered available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant
paying the impact fee is reimbursing the System for the applicant's proportionate share of
the facilities available to serve the new development. This method also recognizes that as
improvements are made to the system, the available capacity to meet the future demands of
the new development is being maintained and therefore the installed cost of the gross plant
investment is reasonable. To the extent utility plant assets are upgraded, renewed or
replaced and there is capacity in the utility plant to serve new customers, such new
customers should be responsible for the pro rata share of the incremental and marginal cost
of such improvements and such costs have been recognized in the fee; any capital costs that
-19-
would be allocated to existing customers were not recognized in the impact fee
development or should be recovered from the fees.
3. The level of service for a water individually metered equivalent residential connection
("ERC") was assumed to be 300 gpd expressed on an average daily flow basis (maximum
month basis used to recognize fluctuations and seasonality effects on water use) of finished
water delivered to the water system since this links to the capacity costs constructed to
provide service; it does not represent the potable water use as metered at the customer
premises. This change represents an approximate reduction in the water impact fee of $282
or 7.7%. For the wastewater system, the level of service for a wastewater individually
metered equivalent residential connection (previously defined as "ERC") was recognized to
be 200 gpd expressed on an average daily flow basis provided at the wastewater treatment
facilities. This change represents an approximate reduction in the wastewater impact fee of
$414 or 11.1%. The recognized levels of service represent a reduction to the current level
of service standards, which were considered by Raftelis to be reasonable and reflective of
industry trends and actual individually metered residential connection flows / capacity use.
4. To serve new development and requests for increased capacity, the County must build the
necessary infrastructure in advance of the capacity request (growth); the construction of the
infrastructure is significant when one reviews the amount of capital costs included in the
fee determination. Based on a review of County financial documents and master planning
studies and System reports, a significant portion of the System improvements were debt
financed; thus, there is an interest carry cost that is being incurred by the County associated
with the financing of the infrastructure. We have conservatively not reflected any cost of
carry in the fee since: i) it is not a capital cost and in many instances a separate fee may be
charged to recover or reimburse a utility for prior period interest expenses; and ii) the cost
of carry can change frequently due to changes in debt structure (e.g., new debt issues and
debt repayment and maturities, application of impact fees towards debt repayment, etc.)
and the structure of the capital financing.
5. In the development of the proposed impact fees, no credit for the payment of future debt
service was recognized because: i) the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund;
ii) all financial resources received by the County stay within the fund for the benefit of
such system; iii) the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any
fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv) there is no interest-expense carry in
the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new
development; v) the County has historically used monies received from the application of
the impact fees towards the payment of expansion-related debt; and vi) there are no other
revenues received by the System from new development for the capital costs / utility plant
reflected in the impact fee (e.g., ad valorem taxes on the property) or from the General
Fund for new primary system construction. All realized impact fee funds remain in the
System and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and
available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing
expansion-related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual
expansion-related debt service payments. As previously mentioned, the County historically
has applied impact fees received by the System towards the payment of expansion-related
debt to reduce the expenditure requirements for the benefit of the existing ratepayers.
-20-
Based on the analysis of the primary System assets and the corresponding estimated capacity of
such System, the following impact fees were calculated and are being proposed.
Summary of Calculated and Proposed Impact Fees [1]
Description Amount
Water System [2]
Water Supply/Treatment $2,583.23
Water Transmission 799.53
Total Calculated Water System Fee $3,382.76
Proposed Water System Fee $3,382.00
Wastewater System [3]
Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $2,717.66
Wastewater Transmission 596.59
Total Calculated Wastewater System Fee $3,314.25
Proposed Wastewater System Fee $3,314.00
__________
[1] ERC representative of the allocated daily flow for an individually
metered residential dwelling unit served by a 5/8" x 3/4" meter.
[2] Amounts shown derived from Table 5 at the end of this report.
[3] Amounts shown derived from Table 6 at the end of this report.
IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS
In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated
impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida
jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 7 at the end of this report
and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single-family
residential connections (i.e., one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges
currently imposed by other municipal / governmental water and wastewater systems located
primarily in the southwest Florida region. It is important to note that one must view the
comparison with caution as no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods
used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any
analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from
system capacity charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through
the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities
currently in service or planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent
disposal for systems that do not discharge directly to surface waters generally have a higher
capital cost per unit of capacity than those that do.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-21-
The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the water system impact fee
comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged to a single-family
residence) of the District's fees with those of the surveyed utilities:
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-22-
The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the wastewater impact fee
comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged for a single-family
residence) of the District fees with those of the surveyed utilities:
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
-23-
The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the combined water and wastewater
impact fee comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged for a single-
family residence) of the District fees with those of the surveyed utilities:
Some reasons why impact fees differ among utilities include, but are not limited to, the
following:
● Water quality and proximity to source of supply.
● Type of treatment process and disposal requirements (e.g., brine from reverse osmosis
process, effluent from wastewater process).
● Availability of grant and other external sources (e.g., other General Fund revenues such as
sales taxes) available to finance expansion-related capital needs.
● Density of service area, including number of ERCs served per mile of water and wastewater
transmission lines and number of treatment facilities to serve the service area.
● Age of system / level of renewals and replacements.
● Utility life cycle (e.g., growth-oriented vs. mature).
● Level of service standards.
-24-
● Administrative decision to maintain fees at a level below what could justifiably be charged.
● Addition of any administrative fees, as allowed by the Florida Impact Fee Act, that may be
embedded as a cost recovery component in the fee charged.
As shown on Table 7 at the end of this report, the average water and wastewater system impact
fees for the 21 governmental entities surveyed are $1,891 and $2,861 (combined fee being
$4,752), respectively, for a standard single-family residence (i.e., one ERC). It should be noted
that many utilities have not adjusted fees in many years or may be a mature position with limited
growth potential. When comparing the fees for those counties that are considered to have the
ability for continued growth, the proposed fees continue to remain comparable as shown below:
Summary of County and "High Growth" County Impact Fees – $/ERC [1]
Water System Wastewater System Combined Fees
Collier County
Existing Fees $2,562 $2,701 $5,263
Proposed Fees 3,382 3,314 6,696
Other Counties
Charlotte County $1,290 $1,610 $2,900
Desoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050
Hillsborough County [2][3] 1,750 1,800 3,550
Lee County [3] 2,440 2,660 5,100
Manatee County 1,738 3,175 4,913
Marion County 1,659 3,844 5,503
Orange County [3] 1,791 3,346 5,137
Pasco County 1,561 2,730 4,291
Polk County [2] 2,844 4,195 7,039
Sarasota County [2][3] 2,720 2,627 5,347
__________
[1] Amounts shown derived from Table 8 at the end of this report.
[2] Reflects utilities that have not adjusted fees in approximately ten years.
[3] Utilities either have or anticipate conducting an impact fee study within the next twelve months.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our evaluation of the District water and wastewater system impact fees, Raftelis offers
the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. Based on our review, the County's current water and wastewater impact fees do not appear
to be recovering the estimated installed proportional cost of System improvements per
equivalent residential connection for the cost of system water production, treatment and
conveyance capacity or the system wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal
capacity.
2. Based on a review of prior studies, the County's current level of service recognized in the
development of the water impact fees is 325 gpd (average day) per ERC. Based on the on
current metered water use for the individually metered residential customer class (i.e., an
-25-
equivalent residential connection) and retail finished water deliveries, it is recommended
that the level of service standard for a water ERC be reduced to 300 gpd (average day) for
the determination of water-related impact fees. The County's current level of service
recognized in the development of the wastewater impact fees is 225 gpd (average day) per
ERC. Based on estimates of indoor water use, current billed wastewater flows for the
individually metered residential customer class, retail wastewater treatment requirements,
and capacity planning parameters based on discussion with the County, it is recommended
that the level of service standard for a wastewater ERC be reduced to 200 gpd (average
day) for the determination of wastewater-related impact fees.
3. Based on levels of service per ERC and the capital costs identified, the proposed impact
fees for the water and wastewater systems, respectively, are as follows:
Existing and Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Calculated
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC
Proposed Existing Proposed Difference
System LOS (gpd) Fees Fees Amount Percent
Water 300 $2,562.00 $3,382.00 $820.00 32.0%
Wastewater 200 2,701.00 3,314.00 613.00 22.7%
Total $5,263.00 $6,696.00 $1,433.00 27.2%
__________
ERC = Equivalent Residential Connection
Raftelis considers the impact fees to support the rational nexus requirements whereby the
benefits received by the applicant (new development) are reasonably related to the capital
cost of providing utility services; Raftelis considers the proposed impact fees to be based
on localized costs and reasonable.
4. It is recommended that the County evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed impact fees no
later than five years from the date of this report to provide that the capital cost recovery in
the fee is consistent with the County’s investment in System improvement infrastructure.
5. Consistent with our scope of services, Raftelis only reviewed the water and wastewater
impact fee levels and did not review the County's methodology for charging the impact
fees to applicants / new development requesting capacity as shown in the Impact Fee
Ordinance in Appendix B. Appendix C reflects the proposed fees applied to the County's
existing methodology.
6. In accordance with the Florida Impact Fee Act, the County cannot implement the
recommended impact fees less than 90 days after the effective date of an ordinance or
resolution imposing the amended fees (notice to the community) since the proposed impact
fees represent an increase in the fees.
ANALYSIS TABLES
Page 1 of 3
Table 1
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Line Water
No. Description System
1 Existing Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) [1] 54.850
2 Less Capacity Considered Offline and Removed from Service [2] (2.100)
3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) 52.750
4 Adjustment to Reflect Average Daily Demand of Water Treatment System (MGD) [3] (7.665)
5 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADD) 45.085
6 Average Daily Demand Recognized [4] 28.115
7 Remaining Estimated System Capacity (ADD) to Serve Future Growth (MGD) 16.971
8 Percent of Total Existing System Capacity Available to Serve Future Growth 37.64%
9 Capacity Available to Service New Growth (AADF) 16.971
10 Capacity Available to Service New Growth (gallons) 16,970,700
11 Level of Service Standard Per ERC (gallons per day) [5] 300
12 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity [Line 10 / Line 11] 56,569
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow
_____________________
Footnotes on following page.
Page 2 of 3
Table 1 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Footnotes:
[1]Amounts reflect MMADF treatment capacity of facilities as provided by the District. The permitted capacities of the two
individual regional facilities are 20.0 MMADF-MGD for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (WTP),
32.0 MMADF-MGD for the South County Regional WTP, 0.75 MMADF-MGD for the Orange Tree WTP and 2.10 for
the FGUA Golden Gate WTP.
[2]Based on discussions with the County, the Golden Gate service area is being served by the County's regional water
treatment facilities; the Golden Gate Water Treatment Plant is no longer in use and is planned to be repurposed or
decommissioned. Therefore such plant capacity has been recognized as not being available.
[3] With respect to the water facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily flow basis. To be consistent
with the level of service requirements for the water system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily
demand basis. A maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand peaking factor of 1.17 was utilized as
supported by finished water flow data contained in the Monthly Operating Reports filed with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) as shown below:
Maximum
Annual Average Month Daily
Daily Demand Demand Estimated Peak
(MGD) (a) (MGD) (a) Month Factor
Fiscal Year 2004 25.620 28.714 1.12
Fiscal Year 2005 26.739 30.399 1.14
Fiscal Year 2006 27.223 33.730 1.24
Fiscal Year 2007 28.115 33.604 1.20
Fiscal Year 2008 24.760 27.900 1.13
Fiscal Year 2009 24.366 29.805 1.22
Fiscal Year 2010 23.015 24.774 1.08
Fiscal Year 2011 24.292 27.999 1.15
Fiscal Year 2012 24.086 27.960 1.16
Fiscal Year 2013 23.753 28.440 1.20
Fiscal Year 2014 25.581 29.125 1.14
Fiscal Year 2015 26.009 30.009 1.15
Fiscal Year 2016 26.147 30.571 1.17
Fiscal Year 2017 26.222 31.671 1.21
Fiscal Year 2018 26.239 30.812 1.17
Fifteen-Year Maximum 1.24
Fifteen-Year Average 1.17
Factor Utilized For Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.17
52.750 MMDD-MGD Capacity / 1.17 Peaking Factor = 45.085 ADD-MGD Capacity. 52.750 Less 45.085 = 7.665.
(a) Amounts shown include adjustments for the acquisition of the Orange Tree (acquired March 1, 2017) and Golden Gate Utility System
(acquired March 1, 2018) as if such Systems were under County Ownership for the historical period to provide comparability among all periods.
Page 3 of 3
Table 1 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Footnotes:
[4]Reflects the highest reported average daily demand experienced by the District's water treatment facilities for the fifteen
Fiscal Year period ended 2018 as shown below:
Water
Maximum Period Reported ADD (*) 28.115
(*) Reference is made to Footnote 3 for applicable average daily demand data.
[5]The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily water demand
basis for a standard equivalent residential unit.
Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day 150.0
Adjustment to Remove General Service Water Demands
2018 Billed Water Sales - Residential Service (Thousands of Gallons) 6,299,570
2018 Billed Water Sales - General Service (Thousands of Gallons) 1,516,323
2018 Billed Water Sales - Irrigation Service (Thousands of Gallons) 543,329
2018 Billed Water Sales - Wholesale Service (Thousands of Gallons) 60,290
Total 2018 Billed Water Sales (Thousands of Gallons)
All Customer Classes 8,419,512
All Customer Classes Excluding Wholesale Service (Retail Service) 8,359,222
Residential as a Percent of Retail Service 80.60%
Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day - Residential Service Only 120.9
U.S. Census Projection - 2013-2017 Persons per Household 2.55
Level of Service per ERC Calculated 308.30
Level of Service per ERC Recognized 300.00
Page 1 of 3
Table 2
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Line Wastewater
No. Description System
1 Existing Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) [1] 42.350
2 Less Capacity Considered Offline and Removed from Service 0.000
3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) 42.350
4 Adjustment to Reflect Average Daily Demand of Wastewater Treatment System (MGD) [2] (5.201)
5 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADF) 37.149
6 Average Daily Demand Recognized [3] 20.132
7 Remaining Estimated System Capacity (ADF) to Serve Future Growth (MGD) 17.018
8 Percent of Total Existing System Capacity Available to Serve Future Growth 45.81%
9 Capacity Available to Service New Growth (AADF) 17.018
10 Capacity Available to Service New Growth (gallons) 17,017,591
11 Level of Service Standard Per ERC (gallons per day) [4] 200
12 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity [Line 10 / Line 11] 85,088
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow
_____________________
Footnotes on following page.
Page 2 of 3
Table 2 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Footnotes:
[1] Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The permitted capacities of the
two individual regional facilities are 24.1 MMADF-MGD for the North County Water Reclamation Facility,
16.0 MMADF-MGD for the South County Water Reclamation Facility, 1.50 MMADF-MGD for the Golden Gate
Wastewater Treatment Facility, and 0.75 MMADF-MGD for the Orange Tree Wastewater Treatment Facility.
[2] With respect to the existing wastewater facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily flow basis.
To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the wastewater system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect
an average daily demand basis. A maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand peaking factor of 1.14
was utilized as supported by treated wastewater flow data contained in the Monthly Operating Reports filed with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as shown below:
Maximum
Annual Average Month Daily
Daily Demand Demand Estimated Peak
(MGD) (a) (MGD) (a) Month Factor
Fiscal Year 2004 17.142 20.120 1.17
Fiscal Year 2005 17.685 20.668 1.17
Fiscal Year 2006 18.772 21.290 1.13
Fiscal Year 2007 17.048 19.806 1.16
Fiscal Year 2008 16.938 18.494 1.09
Fiscal Year 2009 15.191 16.838 1.11
Fiscal Year 2010 15.673 17.339 1.11
Fiscal Year 2011 16.077 18.146 1.13
Fiscal Year 2012 17.334 19.564 1.13
Fiscal Year 2013 18.538 20.748 1.12
Fiscal Year 2014 17.657 20.952 1.19
Fiscal Year 2015 18.730 21.024 1.12
Fiscal Year 2016 19.411 23.085 1.19
Fiscal Year 2017 20.132 23.659 1.18
Fiscal Year 2018 19.150 21.328 1.11
Fifteen-Year Maximum 1.19
Fifteen-Year Average 1.14
Factor Utilized for Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.14
42.350 MMDD-MGD Capacity / 1.14 Peaking Factor = 37.149 AADD-MGD Capacity. 42.350 Less 37.149 = 5.201.
(a) Amounts shown include adjustments for the acquisition of the Orange Tree (acquired March 1, 2017) and Golden Gate Utility System
(acquired March 1, 2018) as if such Systems were under County Ownership for the historical period to provide comparability among all periods.
Page 3 of 3
Table 2 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Footnotes:
[3]Reflects the highest reported average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater treatment facilities for the
fifteen Fiscal Year period ended 2018 as shown below:
Wastewater
Maximum Period Reported AADF (*) 20.132
(*) Reference is made to Footnote 3 for applicable average daily flow data.
[4]The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily wastewater demand
basis for a standard equivalent residential unit.
Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day 100.0
Adjustment to Remove General Service Wastewater Demands
2018 Billed Wastewater Flows - Residential Service (Thousands of Gallons) 6,205,636
2018 Billed Wastewater Flows - General Service (Thousands of Gallons) 1,789,333
Total 2018 Billed Wastewater Flows (Thousands of Gallons)
All Customer Classes 7,994,969
Residential as a Percent of Retail Service 77.62%
Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day - Residential Service Only 77.6
U.S. Census Projection - 2013-2017 Persons per Household 2.55
Level of Service per ERC Calculated 197.88
Level of Service per ERC Recognized 200.00
Page 1 of 2Table 3Collier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Water Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2029 Purpose 2019-2029 Net Amount Functional CategoryRetirement AdjustmentLine Existing Estimated For Future Supply Treatment Transmission & Storage Distribution/ Transmission &No. Project DescriptionType Expansion New Improve Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Other Total Supply Treatment StorageWATER SYSTEMDepartmental Capital1 Building ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02 Improvements GeneralOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000003 Utilities Pipes Meters Etc. ImprovementOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000004 Autos and TrucksOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 209,545 0 209,545000000209,545 209,545 0 0 05 Auto ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000006 Heavy Equipment and TrailersOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000007 Machinery and ToolsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000008 Communications EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000009 Radios and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 457,082 0 457,082000000457,082 457,082 0 0 010 Office EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%0000000000000011 Data Processing EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 941,998 0 941,998000000941,998 941,998 0 0 012 Software General Over $10,000Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%0000000000000013 Other Machinery and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,259,615 0 2,259,6150000002,259,615 2,259,615 0 0 014 Additional Personnel Equipment CostsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 73,120 0 73,12000000073,120 73,120 0 0 015 Total Departmental Capital$3,941,360 $0 $3,941,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,941,360 $3,941,360 $0 $0 $0Fund 411: Expansion-Related Water System Capital Projects16 Operating Project - Impact Fee RefundsTrans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $168,472 ($168,472) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $017 NERWTP First Phase (5 MGD) online by 2028 Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45,912 0 45,912 0 0 0 45,912 0 0 0 45,912 0 0 018 Northeast Regional WTPTreatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23,662 0 23,662 0 0 0 23,662 0 0 0 23,662 0 0 019 Golden Gate City Utility Ph 1 & 2 (Transmission) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15,000,000 0 15,000,0000000015,000,000 0 15,000,000 0 0 020 Golden Gate City Utility Phase 2 (Expand Distrib) Distribution100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10,000,000 0 10,000,00000000010,000,000 10,000,000 0 0 021 Total Fund 411: Expansion-Related Water System Capital Projects$25,238,045 ($168,472) $25,069,573 $0 $0 $0 $69,573 $0 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $25,069,573 $0 $0 $0Fund 412: Renewal and Replacement Water System Capital Projects22 Integrated Asset Management ProgramOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $3,272,368 $0 $3,272,368 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,272,368 $3,272,368 $0 $0 $023 Hurricane IrmaOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,909,868 (1,909,868)00000000000024 Water Meter Renewal and Replacement Program Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,638,732 0 4,638,7320000004,638,732 4,638,732 0 0 025 Real Property/Infrastructure AuditOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 516,423 (516,423)00000000000026 Cross Connections ProgramDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,156,012 0 2,156,0120000002,156,012 2,156,012 0 0 027 Fire Hydrants ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,905,562 0 2,905,5620000002,905,562 2,905,562 0 0 028 Utility Master PlanOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,056,470 (1,056,470)00000000000029 Water Plant Concrete Structure Rehabiliatation Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,634,080 0 2,634,080 0 0 2,634,08000002,634,080 0 1,195,268 030 Water Lighting/ Surge Protection & Grounding Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,696,171 0 1,696,171 0 0 1,696,17100001,696,171 0 769,672 031 FDOT Utility Construction Projects - WTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,060,630 0 1,060,63000001,060,630 0 0 1,060,630 0 0 366,80732 Well/Plant Power SystemTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,495,253 0 6,495,253 0 0 6,495,25300006,495,253 0 2,947,355 033 Countywide Utility Projects - WaterDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 631,404 0 631,404000000631,404 631,404 0 0 034 Wellfield SCADA Support Operating Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,234,235 0 3,234,2350000003,234,235 3,234,235 0 0 035 Wellfield/Raw Water Booster Station Op TSP Supply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 11,812,202 (11,812,202)00000000000036 PUD Ops Center TSPOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,863 (1,863)00000000000037 Vanderbilt Dr WMTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 238,137 0 238,1370000238,137 0 0 238,137 0 0 82,35738 SCRWTP Deep Injection WellTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100,018 (100,018)00000000000039 SCRWTP SCADA Support OperatingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,473,549 0 3,473,5490000003,473,549 3,473,549 0 0 040 NE Svs Area IntergDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 40,905 0 40,90500000040,905 40,905 0 0 041 Water Plant ComplianceTreatment 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6,049,208 0 6,049,208 0 0 6,049,20800006,049,208 0 0 042 Lime Treatment TSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,259,296 (3,259,296)00000000000043 NCRWTP FacilitiesTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 8,041 (8,041)00000000000044 PUOC FacilitiesOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 16,221 0 16,22100000016,221 16,221 0 0 045 Facility Infrastructure Maint Water Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,738,029 (3,738,029)00000000000046 Infrastructure TSP Field Ops-WaterSupply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,023,966 (2,023,966)00000000000047 Infrastructure TSP -Water PlantsTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,253,359 (5,253,359)00000000000048 Naples Pk Basin OptimizationDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 31,367,467 0 31,367,46700000031,367,467 31,367,467 0 0 049 Utility Billing Customer Serv SoftwareOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,948,700 0 1,948,7000000001,948,700 1,948,700 0 0 050 VB DR CDS Basin 101Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,258,088 0 2,258,0880000002,258,088 2,258,088 0 0 051 Naples Park Water Main ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 709,948 0 709,948000000709,948 709,948 0 0 052 BCHS W Main ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 91,875 0 91,87500000091,875 91,875 0 0 053 VBR WM Replacement-Apt. to US41Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,038,476 0 6,038,4760000006,038,476 6,038,476 0 0 054 Large Meters Renewal & ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,207,038 0 2,207,0380000002,207,038 2,207,038 0 0 055 SCRWTP Power Systems ReliabilityTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,001,000 0 1,001,000 0 0 1,001,00000001,001,000 0 454,224 056 Well/Water BoosterSupply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 68,546 0 68,546 68,54600000068,546 32,679 0 057 Imp GC Blvd WM ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 197,024 0 197,024000000197,024 197,024 0 0 058 SCRWTP Reactor #4Treatment 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 3,043,000 0 3,043,000 0 0 3,043,00000003,043,000 0 0 059 Water Plant Capital ProjectsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,138,946 0 3,138,9460000003,138,946 3,138,946 0 0 060 SCRWTP SCADA TSPOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 65,286 (65,286)00000000000061 NCRWTP SCADA TSPOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 90,825 (90,825)000000000000
Page 2 of 2Table 3Collier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Water Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2029 Purpose 2019-2029 Net Amount Functional CategoryRetirement AdjustmentLine Existing Estimated For Future Supply Treatment Transmission & Storage Distribution/ Transmission &No. Project DescriptionType Expansion New Improve Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Other Total Supply Treatment Storage62 PUD Operations/Collection CenterOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,000,000 0 2,000,0000000002,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 063 Gulfshore Dr AC WM Abandon Ph 2 (cap) Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 640,274 0 640,274000000640,274 640,274 0 0 064 Orangetree Plant TSP (op)Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 491,126 (491,126)00000000000065 Distribution Capital Projects (unplanned) Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 28,209,750 0 28,209,75000000028,209,750 28,209,750 0 0 066 Tree Farm Rd LoopDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 7,395 0 7,3950000007,395 7,395 0 0 067 Orangetree HSP & Chloramine SystemsTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 34,000 0 34,000 0 0 34,000000034,000 0 15,428 068 Warren St. LoopingDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 816,759 0 816,759000000816,759 816,759 0 0 069 Trail Blvd. WM ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 809,242 0 809,242000000809,242 809,242 0 0 070 Wildflower LoopDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 710,448 0 710,448000000710,448 710,448 0 0 071 YMCA Road AC WM ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 305,374 0 305,374000000305,374 305,374 0 0 072 NRO Well 6 Turbo RemSupply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 110,283 0 110,283 110,283000000110,283 52,577 0 073 Manatee GST UpgradeTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 336,875 0 336,8750000336,875 0 0 336,875 0 0 116,50574 Twin Eagles Mon PanlDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 34,845 0 34,84500000034,845 34,845 0 0 075 Cyber Security SCADAOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 671,153 0 671,153000000671,153 671,153 0 0 076 NERC 16" WM/ FirelineTrans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 742,866 0 742,8660000742,866 0 0 742,866 0 0 077 Palm River Utility ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 18,533,087 0 18,533,08700000018,533,087 18,533,087 0 0 078 NE Utility FacilitiesTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,926,232 0 3,926,23200003,926,232 0 0 3,926,232 0 0 1,357,84479 Tamiami WellfieldSupply 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 18,063,978 0 18,063,978 18,063,97800000018,063,978 4,305,935 0 080 Old Lely AC Pipe ReplacementDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 16,789,058 0 16,789,05800000016,789,058 16,789,058 0 0 081 Collier County Utility StandardsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 241,439 (241,439)00000000000082 Golden Gate InterconnectDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 286,115 0 286,115000000286,115 286,115 0 0 083 Golden Gate City Utility ComplianceDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 16,904,628 0 16,904,62800000016,904,628 16,904,628 0 0 084 I-75 / CR951 UtilityTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 13,050,652 0 13,050,652000013,050,652 0 0 13,050,652 0 0 4,513,42285 Cust Svs/ BillingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 13,440 (13,440)00000000000086 Water Security SystemsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,964,002 0 4,964,0020000004,964,002 4,964,002 0 0 087 Distribution System TSP Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 10,207,152 (10,207,152)00000000000088 10 Year Water Supply PlanOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 64,443 (64,443)00000000000089 NCRWTP SCADA Support OperatingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,320,106 0 3,320,1060000003,320,106 3,320,106 0 0 090 SCADA Compliance Assurance Program- Water Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,424,862 0 1,424,8620000001,424,862 1,424,862 0 0 091 Membrane Improvement & Interstage Booster Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,101,035 0 1,101,035 0 0 1,101,03500001,101,035 0 860,127 092 General Legal ServicesOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 663,757 (663,757)00000000000093 Water Plant Variable Frequency DrivesTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,102,131 (3,102,131)00000000000094 SCRWTP Operating TSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 7,289,622 (7,289,622)00000000000095 NCRWTP Operating TSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 8,360,335 (8,360,335)00000000000096 Distribution Repump Station TSPTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,043,465 (6,043,465)00000000000097 State Revolving Loan FundingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 93,864 (93,864)00000000000098 Wellfield Program ManagementSupply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,678,051 (1,678,051)00000000000099 PUD Hydraulic ModelingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,171,061 (1,171,061)000000000000100 Financial ServicesOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 534,452 (534,452)000000000000101 GM Comprehensive Planning Technical Support Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 292,875 (292,875)000000000000102 Pelican Ridge AC Pipe RemovalDistribution 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,000,000 0 1,000,0000000001,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0103 SCRWTP Ion Exchange ImprovementsTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 12,200,000 0 12,200,000 0 0 12,200,000000012,200,000 0 5,536,001 0104 Variable TDS Treatment Bridge-the-Gap Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 2,500,00000002,500,000 0 1,134,426 0105 SCRWTP Odor Control - ROTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,500,000 0 6,500,000 0 0 6,500,00000006,500,000 0 2,949,509 0106 Equip NRO Well 118Supply 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%00000000000000107 Equip NRO Well 120Supply 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%00000000000000108 Raw Water Main Fusible PVCSupply 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 3,000,0000000003,000,000 1,430,228 0 0109 Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext RelocatesTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,000,000 0 3,000,00000003,000,000 0 0 3,000,000 0 0 1,037,517110 NCRWTP Generators 1 & 4Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,00000001,500,000 0 680,656 0111 PCCP Replacement and ImprovementsTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 17,000,000 0 17,000,000000017,000,000 0 0 17,000,000 0 0 5,879,261112 Total Fund 412: Renewal and Replacement Water System Capital Projects$341,188,451 ($70,082,858) $271,105,593 $21,242,807 $0 $44,753,747 $0$39,355,392 $0 $165,753,646 $271,105,593 $5,821,418 $16,542,666 $13,353,712Fund 415: Existing Bond Funded Water System Projects113 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 1 (39th Ave NE Water Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $1,950,000 $0 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,950,000 $0 $1,950,000 $0 $0 $0114 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 2 (Park Site - Water Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,183,847 0 2,183,847000002,183,847 0 2,183,847 0 0 0115 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 3 (Water Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4,266,719 0 4,266,719000004,266,719 0 4,266,719 0 0 0116 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 3 (Potable Water Storage Tank) Storage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,500,000 0 2,500,000000002,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 0117 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 4 (Rivergrass Village & Hyde Park Village - Water Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,791,200 0 3,791,200000003,791,200 0 3,791,200 0 0 0118 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Segment 5 (Immokalee Road Rural Village, Hogan Island Village - Water Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,900,000 0 3,900,000000003,900,000 0 3,900,000 0 0 0119 NEUF -Water Impact Fee Enviornmental Permitting, FPL, Landscape Buffer & Design Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 425,000 0 425,000 0 00 425,000 0 0 0 425,000 0 0 0120 NERWTP 5 MGD Expansion online 2028 Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%48,400,000 0 48,400,000 0 0 0 48,400,000 0 0 0 48,400,000 0 0 0121 NEUF -Water User Fee Segment 3 (Interim Potable Water Pump Station) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,500,000 (3,500,000)000000000000122 NEUF -Water User Fee Segment 3 (Security Facilities) Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 62,500 (62,500)000000000000123 Total Fund 415: Existing Bond Funded Water System Projects$70,979,266 ($3,562,500) $67,416,766 $0 $0 $0 $48,825,000 $0 $18,591,766 $0 $67,416,766 $0 $0 $0124TOTAL WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS$441,347,122 ($73,813,830) $367,533,292 $21,242,807 $0 $44,753,747 $48,894,573 $39,355,392 $33,591,766 $179,695,007 $367,533,292 $5,821,418 $16,542,666 $13,353,712
Page 1 of 3Table 4Collier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2029 Purpose 2019-2029 Net Amount Functional CategoryRetirement AdjustmentLine Existing Estimated For Future Treatment and Disposal IQ-Only Transmission Collection/ Treatment andNo. Project DescriptionType Expansion New Improve Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Other Total Disposal IQ-Only TransmissionWASTEWATER SYSTEM Departmental Capital1 Building ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02 Improvements GeneralOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000003 Utilities Pipes Meters Etc. ImprovementOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000004 Autos and TrucksOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 209,640 0 209,640000000209,640 209,6400005 Auto ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000006 Heavy Equipment and TrailersOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000007 Machinery and ToolsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000008 Communications EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%000000000000009 Radios and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 397,249 0 397,249000000397,249 397,24900010 Office EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%0000000000000011 Data Processing EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,140,628 0 1,140,6280000001,140,628 1,140,62800012 Software General Over $10,000Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%0000000000000013 Other Machinery and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,856,794 0 2,856,7940000002,856,794 2,856,79400014 Additional Personnel Equipment CostsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 73,288 0 73,28800000073,28873,28800015 Total Departmental Capital$4,677,601 $0 $4,677,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,677,601 $4,677,601 $0 $0 $0Fund 413: Expansion-Related Wastewater System Capital Projects 16 Operating Project - Impact Fee RefundsTrans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $168,700 ($168,700) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $017 NE Utility FacilitiesTreatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47,328 0 47,328 0 47,3280000047,32800018 Pump Station 133.09Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 68,450 0 68,4500000068,450068,45000019 NE Proj Mgt/OversightTreatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40,519 0 40,519 0 40,5190000040,51900020 Total Fund 413: Expansion-Related Wastewater System Capital Projects$324,997 ($168,700) $156,296 $0 $87,847 $0 $0 $0 $68,450 $0 $156,296 $0 $0 $0Fund 414: Renewal and Replacement Wastewater System Capital Projects21 Integrated Asset ManagementOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $2,599,708 $0 $2,599,708 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,599,708 $2,599,708 $0 $0 $022 Biosolids Reuse FacilityDisposal 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,949,067 0 1,949,067 1,949,0670000001,949,067 884,429 0 023 Hurricane IrmaOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,033,698 (4,033,698)00000000000024 Real Property/Infrastructure AuditOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 508,536 (508,536)00000000000025 Utilities Master PlanOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,022,379 (1,022,379)00000000000026 Gravity Sewers TSP CAPCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 726,278 (726,278)00000000000027 Force Main Improvements CapTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,425,109 (1,425,109)00000000000028 Wastewater Pump Station TSP Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 441,347 (441,347)00000000000029 Master Pump Stations TSP CapTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,540,471 (1,540,471)00000000000030 Wastewater Collection Power System Cap Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 329,137 (329,137)00000000000031 NCWRF Power System TSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 34,601 (34,601)00000000000032 SCWRF Power System CapTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 31,861 0 31,861 31,86100000031,86114,4580033 NCWRF SCADA Support OperatingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,572,583 0 4,572,5830000004,572,583 4,572,58300034 SCWRF SCADA Support OperatingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,205,517 0 3,205,5170000003,205,517 3,205,51700035 NE Svs Area IntergTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 218,253 0 218,2530000218,253 0 0 218,253 0 0 99,03736 Goodlette IQ W MainIQ 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,367,246 0 1,367,246 0 0 1,367,24600001,367,246 0 472,847 037 WW Remote Sites MSPTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,076,874 (3,076,874)00000000000038 WW Treatment Plants MSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,802,295 (5,802,295)00000000000039 Naples Pk Basin OptimizationCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 41,587,793 0 41,587,79300000041,587,793 41,587,79300040 Utility Billing Customer Serv SoftwareOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 998,700 0 998,700000000998,700 998,70000041 VB DR CDS Basin 101Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,330,514 0 6,330,5140000006,330,514 6,330,51400042 Basin 101 Program CapitalCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,689,084 0 1,689,0840000001,689,084 1,689,08400043 Basin 305 Program Capital (Pump Stations) Collection 0.00% 0.00%100.00% 6,083,410 0 6,083,4100000006,083,410 6,083,41000044 Basin 306 Program CapitalCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,574,762 0 1,574,7620000001,574,762 1,574,76200045 Gravity Transmission Systems TSP Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 256,878 (256,878)00000000000046 Force Main Transmission Systems TSP Trans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,330,756 (1,330,756)00000000000047 WW Pump Station TSPCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,885,953 (2,885,953)00000000000048 Master PS TSP OpTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,573,146 (1,573,146)00000000000049 Collections Power System TSPCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 209,860 (209,860)00000000000050 Water Reclamation Facilities TSPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 76,857,631 (76,857,631)00000000000051 NCWRF Headwork & IQ Pump StationTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 499,058 0 499,058 499,058000000499,058 226,458 0 052 NCWRF SCADA TSP Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 572,581 (572,581)00000000000053 SCWRF SCADA TSPOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 528,106 (528,106)00000000000054 WW Collections SCADA TelemetryOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 581,259 0 581,259000000581,259 581,25900055 PUD Operations/Collection CenterOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,200,000 0 1,200,0000000001,200,000 1,200,00000056 Orangetree Plant TSP (op)Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,396,239 (3,396,239)00000000000057 Tree Farm Rd LoopCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 29,112 0 29,11200000029,11229,11200058 Pump Station 312.35Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 38,865 0 38,86500000038,86538,86500059 Cyber Security SCADAOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 171,153 0 171,153000000171,153 171,15300060 Orange Tree WWTPTreatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 0 5,000,000000005,000,00000061 Palm River WM ReplacementCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 60,087 0 60,08700000060,08760,087000
Page 2 of 3Table 4Collier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2029 Purpose 2019-2029 Net Amount Functional CategoryRetirement AdjustmentLine Existing Estimated For Future Treatment and Disposal IQ-Only Transmission Collection/ Treatment andNo. Project DescriptionType Expansion New Improve Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Other Total Disposal IQ-Only Transmission62 NE Utility FacilitiesTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,066,418 (1,066,418)00000000000063 MPS 302 Bypass PipeTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 117,542 0 117,5420000117,542 0 0 117,542 0 0 53,33764 Immokalee Rd FM (951 to Logan Blvd Phase) Trans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,100,000 0 2,100,00000002,100,000 0 0 2,100,00000065 County Utility Standards Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 306,351 (306,351)00000000000066 SCWRF Turbo BlowersTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,993,015 0 1,993,015 1,993,0150000001,993,015 904,371 0 067 SCWRF IQ Storage ImprovementsTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100,000 0 100,000 100,000000000100,000 45,377 0 068 MPS 321 RehabilitationTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 360,000 0 360,0000000360,000 0 0 360,000 0 0 163,35769 MPS 301 RehabilitationTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 200,000 0 200,0000000200,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 90,75470 PS 302.07 Gravity SewerCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 223,104 0 223,104000000223,104 223,10400071 MPS 300 RehabTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 250,000 0 250,0000000250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 113,44372 MPS 107 Re-ConfigurationTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 540,000 0 540,0000000540,000 0 0 540,000 0 0 245,03673 MPS 302 ReconfigurationTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 964,860 0 964,8600000964,860 0 0 964,860 0 0 437,82574 MPS 309 RehabilitationTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 600,000 0 600,0000000600,000 0 0 600,000 0 0 272,26275 Golden Gate City CAPCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,291,422 0 5,291,4220000005,291,422 5,291,42200076 Twin Eagle CPS & FMTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,072,003 0 1,072,00300001,072,003 0 0 1,072,003 0 0 486,44377 OT Pump Station & FMTrans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,268,550 0 1,268,55000001,268,550 0 0 1,268,55000078 MPS 308 Force MainTrans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,500,000 0 2,500,00000002,500,000 0 0 2,500,00000079 Logan Blvd FM (Immkl - VB)Trans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 7,000,000 0 7,000,00000007,000,000 0 0 7,000,00000080 Eliminate NPDESIQ 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 500,000 (500,000)00000000000081 GG MBR Addition StudyTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 150,000 (150,000)00000000000082 Reject Storage TankDisposal 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,425,000 0 1,425,000 1,425,0000000001,425,000 646,623 0 083 MPS 306Trans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 11,000,055 0 11,000,055000011,000,055 0 0 11,000,055 0 0 4,991,50184 General Legal Services Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,121,237 (1,121,237)00000000000085 Western InterconnectTrans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6,188,900 0 6,188,90000006,188,900 0 0 6,188,90000086 NCWRF FacilitiesTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 573 (573)00000000000087 SCWRF FacilitiesTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 12,049 (12,049)00000000000088 Facility Infrastructure Maint Wastewater Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,117,070 (4,117,070)00000000000089 WW Security SystemsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,093,288 0 5,093,2880000005,093,288 5,093,28800090 SCADA Compliance Assurance Program- Wastewater Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,303,614 (1,303,614)00000000000091 FDOT Utility Construction Projects - WW Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%4,486,543 (4,486,543)00000000000092 CW Util Proj-WWCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,305,748 0 2,305,7480000002,305,748 2,305,74800093 WW Collection SCADA TelemetryOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,914,255 (4,914,255)00000000000094 Cust Svs BillingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 32,328 (32,328)00000000000095 NCWRF Technical Support ProgramTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 666,340 (666,340)00000000000096 SCWRF Technical Support Program Treatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 238,777 (238,777)00000000000097 State Revolving Loan FundingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 92,550 (92,550)00000000000098 Grant ApplicationsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,336 (2,336)00000000000099 PUD Hydraulic ModelingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,313,993 (1,313,993)000000000000100 Financial Services Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 533,077 (533,077)000000000000101 GM Comprehensive Planning Technical Support Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 505,228 (505,228)000000000000102 Livingston Rd FM Phase 9Trans 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 3,000,000 0 3,000,00000003,000,000 0 0 3,000,000000103 Rehab Community Pump Station 309.09 Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 350,000 0 350,000000000350,000 350,000000104 Collections Operating TSPCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 30,000,000 (30,000,000)000000000000105 Golden Gate WWTPTreatment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6,000,000 0 6,000,000 6,000,0000000006,000,000 2,722,623 0 0106 MPS 310 Reconfiguration and Rehabilitation Trans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000107 Old Lely Gravity Sewer ReplacementCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000108 Palm River Gravity Sewer ReplacementCollection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 10,500,000 0 10,500,00000000010,500,000 10,500,000000109 MPS 313 Replacement and ImprovementsTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,000,000 0 5,000,00000005,000,000 0 0 5,000,000 0 0 2,268,853110 Pump Station and Gravity Main TSP Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 9,000,000 (9,000,000)000000000000111 MPS and FM TSPTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 38,000,000 (38,000,000)000000000000112 MPS 103 Replacement and ImprovementsTrans 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 5,000,000 0 5,000,00000005,000,000 0 0 5,000,000 0 0 2,268,853112 Golden Gate City Utility Phase 3 (Septic Replacement) Collection 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3,000,000 0 3,000,0000000003,000,000 3,000,000000113 Total Fund 414: Renewal and Replacement Wastewater System Capital Projects$368,146,131 ($204,914,614) $163,231,517 $11,998,001 $5,000,000 $1,367,246 $0 $47,380,163 $0 $97,486,108 $163,231,517 $5,444,339 $472,847 $11,490,701
Page 3 of 3Table 4Collier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2029 Purpose 2019-2029 Net Amount Functional CategoryRetirement AdjustmentLine Existing Estimated For Future Treatment and Disposal IQ-Only Transmission Collection/ Treatment andNo. Project DescriptionType Expansion New Improve Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Existing Expansion Other Total Disposal IQ-Only TransmissionFund 415: Existing Bond Funded Wastewater and IQ System Projects114 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Segment 1 (39th Ave NE - Wastewater Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $550,000 $0 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $0 $550,000 $0 $0 $0115 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Segment 2 (Park Site - Wastewater Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 575,000 0 575,00000000575,000 0 575,000000116 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Segment 3 (Wastewater Pipes) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,700,000 0 2,700,000000002,700,000 0 2,700,000000117 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Segment 4 (Rivergrass Village & Hyde Park Village - Wastewater Force Main) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,600,000 0 2,600,000000002,600,000 0 2,600,000000118 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Environmental Permitting, FPL, Landscape Buffer & Design Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 425,000 0 425,000 0 425,00000000425,000000119 NEUF -Wastewater Impact Fee Segment 5 (Immokalee Road Rural Village, Hogan Island Village) Trans 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,850,000 0 3,850,000000003,850,000 0 3,850,000000120 NEWRF 4 MGD Expansion online 2025 Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 114,400,000 0 114,400,000 0 114,400,00000000114,400,000000121 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 2 (Park Site - IQ Pipes) IQ100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 145,000 (145,000)000000000000122 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 3 (IQ Pipes) IQ 100.00% 0.00%0.00% 1,935,000 (1,935,000)000000000000123 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 3 (IQ Storage Tank and Pump Station) IQ 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5,500,000 (5,500,000)000000000000124 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 3 (Wastewater Interim Plant Facilities) Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27,847,234 (27,847,234) 0 00000000000125 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 4 (Rivergrass & Hyde Park - IQ Water Main) IQ 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,100,000 (2,100,000)000000000000126 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Security Facilities Treatment 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 62,500 (62,500)000000000000127 NEUF -Wastewater User Fee Segment 5 (Immokalee Road Rural Village, Hogan Island Village - IQ Water Pipes) IQ 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,650,000 (3,650,000)000000000000128 Total Fund 415: Existing Bond Funded Wastewater and IQ System Projects$166,339,734 ($41,239,734) $125,100,000 $0 $114,825,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,275,000 $0 $125,100,000 $0 $0 $0129TOTAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS$539,488,463 ($246,323,048) $293,165,415 $11,998,001 $119,912,847 $1,367,246 $0 $47,380,163 $10,343,450 $102,163,709 $293,165,415 $5,444,339 $472,847 $11,490,701IQ WATER SYSTEM Departmental Capital130 Building ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0131 Improvements GeneralOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000132 Utilities Pipes Meters Etc. ImprovementOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000133 Autos and TrucksOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 815 0 815000000815815000134 Auto ImprovementsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000135 Heavy Equipment and TrailersOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000136 Machinery and ToolsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000137 Communications EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000138 Radios and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 71,701 0 71,70100000071,70171,701000139 Office EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000140 Data Processing EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 81,690 0 81,69000000081,69081,690000141 Software General Over $10,000Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%00000000000000142 Other Machinery and EquipmentOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 239,816 0 239,816000000239,816 239,816000143 Additional Personnel Equipment CostsOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,091 0 4,0910000004,0914,091000144 Total Departmental Capital$398,113 $0 $398,113 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $398,113 $398,113 $0 $0 $0Fund 413: Expansion-Related IQ Water System Capital Projects145 None - Operating Project - Impact Fee Refunds IQ 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0146 Total Fund 413: Expansion-Related IQ Water System Capital Projects$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Fund 414: Renewal and Replacement IQ Water System Capital Projects147 IQ Power SystemsIQ 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% $720,000 $0 $720,000 $0 $0 $720,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $720,000 $0 $249,004 $0148 IQ SCADA Support OperatingOther 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,197,076 0 4,197,0760000004,197,076 4,197,076000149 IQ Water System TSP IQ 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 8,854,344 (8,854,344)000000000000150 IQ SCADA TSPIQ 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 22,664 (22,664)000000000000151 IQ Aquifer Storage and RecoveryIQ 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,183,649 0 2,183,649 0 0 2,183,64900002,183,649000152 Design ASR Wells #s 3, 4, & 5 (Cap)IQ 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%00000000000000153 Construct ASR Well #3 (Cap)IQ 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,00000002,000,000000153 Construct ASR Well #4 (Cap)IQ 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,00000002,000,000000154 Construct ASR Well #5 (Cap)IQ 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,00000002,000,000000155 Total Fund 414: Renewal and Replacement IQ Water System Capital Projects$21,977,732 ($8,877,007) $13,100,725 $0 $0 $8,903,649 $0 $0 $0 $4,197,076 $13,100,725 $0 $249,004 $0156TOTAL IQ WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS$22,375,846 ($8,877,007) $13,498,838 $0 $0 $8,903,649 $0 $0 $0 $4,595,189 $13,498,838 $0 $249,004 $0157TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS - WATER, WASTEWATER AND IQ WATER$561,864,308 ($255,200,056) $306,664,253 $11,998,001 $119,912,847 $10,270,895 $0 $47,380,163 $10,343,450 $106,758,898 $306,664,253 $5,444,339 $721,851 $11,490,701
Page 1 of 2
Table 5
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Water System Impact Fee
Line
No. Description Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production
and Treatment Facilities:
1 Installed Cost - Existing Facilities [1] $313,601,682
2 Plus Anticipated Assets Placed in to Service - CIP [2] 65,996,554
3 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [3] (22,364,084)
4 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] (1,135,456)
5 Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities $356,098,696
6 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADD) [5] 45.085
7 Existing Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) (MDF) [6] 28.115
8 Level of Service per ERC - (GPD-AADF) [7] 300.0
9 Estimated ERCs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 150,285
10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 37.64%
11 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $134,039,726
12 Rate per ERCs Associated with Existing Facilities $2,369
Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production
and Treatment Facilities:
13 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [8] $48,894,573
14 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] 0
15 Cost of Additional Water Production/Treatment Facilities $48,894,573
16 Additional Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [9] 5.000
17 Dependable Plant Capacity (MGD) (MDF) [9] 4.274
18 Level of Service per ERC - (GPD-AADF) [7] 300.0
19 Estimated ERCs to be Served by Additional Facilities 14,247
20 Rate per ERCs Associated with Additional Facilities $3,432
21 Rate per ERC Allocable to Water Production/Treatment Facilities $2,583.23
Primary Transmission System:
22 Existing Facilities [10]$89,595,275
23 Plus Anticipated Assets Placed in to Service - CIP [2] 72,947,158
24 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [3] (13,353,712)
25 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] (17,639,323)
26 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs Recognized $131,549,398
27 Estimated ERCs Served by Existing Facilities [11] 150,285
28 Estimated Future ERCs served by Transmission Facilities [11] 14,247
29 Total Estimated ERCs served by Transmission Facilities [11] 164,532
30 Net Rate per ERC of Primary Transmission Facilities $799.53
31 Total Combined Rate per ERC After Rate Adjustment $3,382.76
32 Rounded Rate per ERC $3,382.00
33 Cost Per Gallon $11.27
34 Existing Rate per Gallon $8.54
35 Existing Rate per ERC $2,562.00
36 Proposed Increase / (Decrease)$820.00
MDF = Maximum Daily Flow
GPD = Gallons per Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow
Footnotes continued on the following page.
Page 2 of 2
Table 5 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Water System Impact Fees
Footnotes:
[1] Amount shown excludes estimated existing fixed assets associated with the Golden Gate Water Treatment
Plant, which is considered to be out of service and no longer a source of water treatment capacity.
[2] Amount shown recognizes incremental increase in cost based on the implementation of the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Such costs reflect assets anticipated to contribute to the Utility Plant-in-Service, which is
considered to have capacity available to serve new development.
[3] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being
retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to be in service during
the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new development.
[4] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the County.
[5] Amount reflects dependable treatment capacity as shown on Table 1.
[6] Amount reflects the average daily flow for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2018 adjusted by the County's
estimated historical peaking factor of 1.17.
[7] Amount reflects the County's actual level of service provided for a residential ERCs unit.
[8] Amount derived from Table 3, if any, and reflects the cost of additional water treatment capacity.
[9] Amount as provided by County staff and reflects the amount of additional water treatment capacity expressed on
a maximum daily flow basis, if any.
[10] Amount based on Appendix A and reflects water transmission assets currently in service.
[11] Amount derived from Table 1 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing water transmission system.
Page 1 of 2
Table 6
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Line
No. Description Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
1 Installed Cost - Existing Facilities $334,445,955
2 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [1] 22,268,895
3 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [2] (6,166,190)
4 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] (3,440,218)
5 Subtotal Wastewater Treatment Facilities $347,108,442
6 Existing Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [4] 42.350
7 Existing Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) [4] 37.149
8 Existing Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) (MDF) [5] 20.132
9 ERCs Unit Factor - (GPD) (MDF) [6] 200.0
10 Estimated ERCs Units Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 185,746
11 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 45.81%
12 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $159,006,430
13 Rate per ERCs Unit Associated with Existing Facilities $1,868.73
Total Estimated Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
14 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [7] $119,912,847
15 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] 0
16 Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities $119,912,847
17 Additional Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [8] 4.000
18 Dependable Plant Capacity (MGD) (MDF) [8] 3.509
19 Estimated ERCs Units to be Served by Additional Facilities 17,544
20 Rate per ERCs Units Associated with Additional Facilities $6,834.98
21 Rate per ERCs Units Allocable to Wastewater Treatment Facilities $2,717.66
Primary Transmission System:
22 Existing Facilities [9]$89,680,683
23 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [10] 57,723,613
24 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [2] (11,490,701)
25 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] (14,631,594)
26 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $121,282,001
27 Estimated ERCs Units Served by Existing Facilities [11] 185,746
28 Estimated Future ERCs Units served by Transmission Facilities [11] 17,544
29 Total Estimated ERCs Units served by Transmission Facilities [11] 203,290
30 Net Rate per ERCs Unit of Primary Transmission Facilities $596.59
31 Total Combined Rate per ERCs Unit After Rate Adjustment $3,314.25
32 Rounded Rate per ERCs Unit $3,314.00
33 Cost Per Gallon $16.57
34 Existing Rate per Gallon $13.51
35 Existing Rate per ERCs Unit $2,701.00
36 Proposed Increase / (Decrease)$613.00
MDF = Maximum Daily Flow
GPD = Gallons per Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow
Footnotes continued on the following page.
Page 2 of 2
Table 6 Footnotes
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Footnotes:
[1] Amount derived from Table 4 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment
facilities.
[2] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being
retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to be in service during
the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new development.
[3] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the County.
[4] Amount reflects dependable capacity as shown on Table 2.
[5] Amount reflects the average daily flow for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2018 adjusted by the County's
estimated historical peaking factor of 1.14.
[6] Amount reflects the County's actual level of service provided for a residential ERCs unit.
[7] Amount derived from Table 4, if any, and reflects the cost of additional wastewater treatment capacity.
[8] Amount as provided by County staff and reflects the amount of additional wastewater treatment capacity expressed
on a maximum daily flow basis, if any.
[9] Amount based on Appendix A and reflects wastewater transmission assets currently in service.
[10] Amount derived from Table 4 and reflects the planned expansions and upgrades to the existing wastewater
transmission system.
[11] Amount derived from Table 2 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater transmission system.
Page 1 of 1
Table 7
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC [1]
Line Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter
No. Description Water Wastewater Combined
Collier County Water-Sewer District
1 Existing System Impact Fees $2,562 $2,701 $5,263
2 Proposed System Impact Fees $3,382 $3,314 $6,696
Surveyed Florida Utilities:
3 Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. $2,600 $3,925 $6,525
4 City of Bradenton [2] 1,183 1,545 2,728
5 Charlotte County 1,290 1,610 2,900
6 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050
7 Englewood Water District [5] 1,751 2,754 4,505
8 City of Fort Myers 2,023 1,966 3,989
9 Hillsborough County [4] 1,750 1,800 3,550
10 Lee County [4] 2,440 2,660 5,100
11 Manatee County 1,738 3,175 4,913
12 City of Marco Island 3,740 4,610 8,350
12 Marion County 1,659 3,844 5,503
13 City of Naples 1,416 2,324 3,740
14 City of North Port [4] 1,890 2,575 4,465
15 Okeechobee Utility Authority [3] 1,510 2,935 4,445
16 Orange County [4] 1,791 3,346 5,137
17 Pasco County 1,561 2,730 4,291
18 Pinellas County [4] 352 2,060 2,412
19 Polk County 2,844 4,195 7,039
20 City of Punta Gorda 2,646 2,677 5,323
21 City of Sarasota [4] 900 2,577 3,477
22 Sarasota County [4] 2,720 2,627 5,347
23 Other Florida Utilities' Average $1,891 $2,861 $4,752
Footnotes:
[1] Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect fees charged to a standard residential connection
(considered as one ERC) in effect as of July 2019 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and
reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison
is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be
a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility.
[2] Fees are based on number of fixtures per customer. Fees shown are calculated at an assumed 19 fixtures for a
typical home representing a standard residential connection (considered as one ERC).
[3] Fees shown at gross amount. Actual charges reflect a ~75% temporary reduction from the original fee schedule until
their sunset date of September 30, 2019.
[4] Utility is currently included in a fee study, or plans to implement a fee revision within the next twelve months
following the comparison preparation date.
[5] Fees shown exclude the distribution and collection system components of the utility's capital capacity charges.
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA
SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
UUTTIILLIITTYY SSYYSSTTEEMM AASSSSEETTSS
Page 1 of 1Appendix ACollier County Water-Sewer DistrictWater and Wastewater Impact Fee StudySummary of Existing Utility System Assets [1]Line Water System Wastewater System TotalsNo. Function Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount PercentExisting Assets Included in Impact Fees1 Supply $100,867,248 15.3% $0 0.0% $100,867,248 7.0%2 Treatment Plant 212,734,434 32.2% 287,301,795 36.8% 500,036,229 34.7%3 Transmission and Storage 89,595,275 13.6% 89,680,683 11.5% 179,275,958 12.4%4 Effluent and Reclaim 0 0.0% 47,144,160 6.0% 47,144,160 3.3%5 Total Assets Included in Impact Fees $403,196,958 61.0% $424,126,637 54.3% $827,323,595 57.4%Existing Assets Excluded from Impact Fees6 Hydrants/Meters/ Services $12,635,348 1.9% $0 0.0% $12,635,348 0.9%7 General Equipment and Costs [2] 18,670,787 2.8% 21,877,474 2.8% 40,548,261 2.8%8 Distribution / Collection Lines 155,831,456 23.6% 245,719,739 31.4% 401,551,195 27.8%9 Other [3] 47,814,669 7.2% 56,026,785 7.2% 103,841,454 7.2%10 Construction Work-in-Progress [4] 22,292,274 3.4% 33,777,950 4.3%56,070,224 3.9%11 Total Assets Excluded from Impact Fees $257,244,534 39.0% $357,401,948 45.7% $614,646,482 42.6%12Total Existing Fixed Assets$660,441,491 100.0% $781,528,585 100.0% $1,441,970,077 100.0%Footnotes:[1] Reported by the County as of September 30, 2018.[2] General Plant represents equipment, vehicles, and assets with short service lives, and was allocated to the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant.[3] Reflects adjustments to reported assets to remove general-related costs from the fee calculations or to allocate portion of asset costs directly to existing users.calculations or to allocate portion of asset costs directly to existing users.[4] Construction work-in-progress was not recognized since the projects have not yet been completed and placed into service.
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG WWAATTEERR AANNDD WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR
IIMMPPAACCTT FFEEEE OORRDDIINNAANNCCEE
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG AANNDD PPRROOPPOOSSEEDD
WWAATTEERR AANNDD WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR IIMMPPAACCTT
FFEEEE SSCCHHEEDDUULLEE IINN CCOOUUNNTTYY FFOORRMMAATT
ERC Factor (Equivalent
Residential Connection)
BASIS OF FEE
ALLOCATION METER SIZE WATER IMPACT FEE WATER IMPACT FEE
WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE
WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE
EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
1.00 Per ERC (fixed at 1 ERC) 3/4" $2,562 $3,382 $2,701 $3,314
Varies (minimum value of 1)Per ERC (based on ADF
Formula)
Varies (Reference Meter
Size Notes)
ERC VALUE x $2,562
(minimum value $2,562)
ERC VALUE x $3,382
(minimum value $3,382)$2,701 $3,314
ERC (Equivalent
Residential Connection)
BASIS OF FEE
ALLOCATION METER SIZE
EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
0.33 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer of
Record $845 $1,116 $891 $1,093
0.67 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer of
Record $1,716 $2,265 $1,809 $2,220
1.00 PER UNIT
Per GPM or Engineer of
Record $2,562 $3,382 $2,701 $3,314
ERC (Equivalent Residential
Connection) Factor (1)
BASIS OF FEE
ALLOCATION METER SIZE (1)
EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
1.00 PER METER SIZE 3/4" $2,562 $3,382 $2,701 $3,314
1.67 PER METER SIZE 1" $4,278 $5,647 $4,510 $5,534
3.33 PER METER SIZE 1-1/2" $8,531 $11,262 $8,994 $11,035
5.33 PER METER SIZE 2" $13,655 $18,026 $14,396 $17,663
15.00 PER METER SIZE 3" $38,430 $50,730 $40,515 $49,710
33.33 PER METER SIZE 4" $85,391 $112,722 $90,024 $110,455
66.67 PER METER SIZE 6" $170,808 $225,477 $180,075 $220,944
116.67 PER METER SIZE 8" $298,908 $394,577 $315,125 $386,644
(1)
Rated Capacity ERC
Meter Size (gallons per minute) [1]Factor [2]
3/4" 30 1.00
1" 50 1.67
1-1/2" 100 3.33
2" 160 5.33
3" 450 15.00
4" 1,000 33.33
6" 2,000 66.67
8" 3,500 116.67
ERC Factors by Meter Size for Non-Residential Customers
[1] Based on the rated capacities per technical specifications of meters used by the County.
[2] Reflects rated hydraulic capacity of meter divided by 30 gallons per minute based on the rated capacity of smallest meter size.
Non-Residential
Non-Residential
Non-Residential
Meter Size Note
ERC with ADF Formula
Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter
Sizing Form.
When ADF is in Gallons Per Minute (GPM) then use the formula ((ADF-30)/30)+1
Non-Residential
1,501 OR MORE
Meter Size Note
NON-RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMER TYPE WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
Non-Residential
Non-Residential
Non-Residential
Non-Residential
LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.)WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
0 TO 750
Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter
Sizing Form.
Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter
Sizing Form.
INDIVIDUALLY METERED
Appendix C
Collier County Water-Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee Schedule in County Format
RESIDENTIAL
751 TO 1,500
LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.)
0 TO 4,999
(AND NO MORE THAN 4 TOILETS)
5,000 OR MORE
(OR MORE THAN 4 TOILETS)
RESIDENTIAL
MASTER METERED
Collier County Road
Impact Fee Update Study
Final Report
October 14, 2019
Prepared for:
Collier County Growth Management
Division, Planning & Regulation
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
ph (239) 252-2400
Prepared by:
Tindale Oliver
1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400
Tampa, Florida 33602
ph (813) 224-8862
fax (813) 226-2106
E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com
0073141-07.18
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 i Road Impact Fee Update Study
Collier County
Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 1
Legal Overview ..................................................................................................................... 2
DEMAND COMPONENT .................................................................................................... 5
Travel Demand ..................................................................................................................... 5
Additional Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 5
Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor ........................................................................ 6
State Road Adjustment Factor ............................................................................................. 7
COST COMPONENT ........................................................................................................... 8
County Roadway Costs......................................................................................................... 8
Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile .................................................................. 11
Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity ........................................................................................ 12
CREDIT COMPONENT ........................................................................................................ 13
Capital Improvement Credit ................................................................................................ 13
Present Worth Variables ...................................................................................................... 14
CALCULATED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 16
Road Impact Fee Calculation ............................................................................................... 18
Road Impact Fee Comparison .............................................................................................. 18
ROAD IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS .............................................................................. 20
District Boundaries ............................................................................................................... 20
Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts ............................................................................ 21
Regional Roads ..................................................................................................................... 21
Benefit Districts Recommendations .................................................................................... 23
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IN-LIEU PAYMENT .................................................................. 26
Appendices:
Appendix A: Demand Component
Appendix B: Cost Component
Appendix C: Credit Component
Appendix D: Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 1 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Introduction
Collier County is continuing to experience population growth, with a projected countywide
increase of 175,000 persons by 2045, resulting in an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. This
continuing growth requires additional capital facilities. Collier County’s Road Impact Fee
Ordinance was originally adopted in January 1985 to assist the County in providing adequate
transportation facilities for expected growth. The fee was last updated in 2015. In accordance
with the County’s impact fee ordinance requirements and to reflect most recent and localized
data, the County retained Tindale Oliver to update the technical study that will be the basis for
the updated fee schedule. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically
defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County
Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision .
This study is based on information obtained from Collier County and other sources, as indicated,
through November of 2018.
Methodology
The methodology used for the road impact fee study continues to follow a consumption-based
impact fee approach in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle -
miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile
of roadway network.
Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the road
impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is:
[Demand x Cost] – Credit = Fee
The “demand” for travel placed on a transportation system is expressed in units of Vehicle-Miles
of Travel (daily vehicle-trip generation rate x the trip length x the percent new trips [of total trips])
for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. Trip generation represents the average
daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis.
The “cost” of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle-mile of
roadway capacity.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 2 Road Impact Fee Update Study
The “credit” is an estimate of future non -impact fee revenues generated by new development
that are allocated to provide roadway capacity expansion. The impact fee is considered to be an
“up front” payment for a portion of the cost of building a vehicle-mile of capacity that is directly
related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee
schedule, that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the new development activity.
These credits are required under the supporting case law for the calculation of impact fees where
a new development activity must be reasonably assured that they are not being charged tw ice
for the same level of service. More specifically, the input variables used in the fee equation are
as follows:
Demand Variables:
• Trip generation rate
• Trip length
• Trip length adjustment factor
• Percent new trips
Cost Variables:
• Roadway cost per lane-mile
• Roadway capacity added per lane mile constructed
Credit Variables:
• Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies)
• Present worth
• Fuel efficiency
• Effective days per year
Legal Overview
In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through
case law since the 1980’s. Impact fees must comply with the “dual rational nexus” test, which
requires that they:
• Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the
need created by new development paying the fee; and
• Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically
accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity-
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 3 Road Impact Fee Update Study
adding projects included in the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement
Element, or another planning document/Master Plan.
In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the “Florida Impact Fee Act,” which recognized impact fees
as “an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its
jurisdiction.” § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute – concerned with mostly procedural and
methodological limitations – did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type
from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify procedural and methodological
prerequisites, such as the requirement of the fee being based on most recent and localized data,
a 90-day requirement for fee changes, and other similar requirements, most of which were
common to the practice already.
More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the
following:
• HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging
an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal
precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard.
• SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required
to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with
impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the
Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
to conduct studies on “mobility fees,” which were completed in 2010.
• HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar-for-dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency
compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required.
• HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also
encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of
tools identified in section 163.31801 (5)(f), Florida Statutes.
• HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with
additional clarifying language:
o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and
o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved
projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus
with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial
construction.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 4 Road Impact Fee Update Study
• HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees,
impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that
when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits
for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement will operate
prospectively. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for
affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss.
The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards
applicable here.
Impact Fee Definition
• An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development.
• An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure
capacity consumed by new development.
• The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of
projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital
improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories.
Impact Fee vs. Tax
• An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the
specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established
for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community,
as are taxes.
• Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is
accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts, where fees collected in a
benefit district are spent in the same benefit district.
• An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created
by new development.
This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and
statutory requirements.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 5 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Demand Component
Travel Demand
The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated
using the following variables and is a measure of the vehicle-miles of new travel a unit of
development places on the existing roadway system:
• Number of daily trips generated;
• Average length of those trips; and
• Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already on the
transportation system.
The trip characteristics variables were primarily obtained from two sources: (1) similar studies
conducted throughout Florida (Florida Studies Database) and (2) the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th Edition). The Florida Trip Characteristics
Studies Database is included in Appendix A and contains several studies conducted in Collier
County. This database was used to determine trip length, percent new trips, and the trip
generation rate for several land uses.
Additional Land Uses
As part of this update study, the following land uses were revised/added to the County’s fee
schedule to better reflect type of uses being developed in Collier County.
Assisted Living Facility/Retirement Home/Independent Living
The current road impact fee schedule includes “retirement community/age -restricted single-
family” and “assisted living facility (ALF)” land uses. Due to updates to ITE 10 th Edition and to
better align with the type of uses that are being developed in Collier County, these uses were re-
organized as the following:
• LUC 251: Retirement Community (detached), measured per “dwelling unit”
• LUC 252: Retirement Community (attached), measured per “dwelling unit”
• LUC 254: Assisted Living, measured per “bed”
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 6 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Fast Casual Restaurant
This land use is new to ITE 10th Edition and will be added to the Collier County road impact fee
schedule.
• LUC 930: Fast Casual Restaurant, measured per 1,000 sq ft . This land use is a sit-down
restaurant with no wait staff or table service. Customers typically order off a menu board ,
pay for food before the food is prepared and seat themselves. The menu generally
contains higher quality, made-to-order food items with fewer frozen or processed
ingredients than fast food restaurants. The average size of the surveyed sites is
approximately 3,000 square feet.
Fast Food with Drive-Thru with Two Meals
The current road impact fee schedule includes single “fast food w/drive-thru” land use, but does
differentiate between those that are open 24 hours a day and offer three meals vs. those that
offer only two meals. A new land use has been added to the schedule to reflect the reduced
travel demand associated with fast food restaurants that offer only two meals.
• LUC 934.1: Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals
Trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips data were based local trip characteristics
studies completed in Collier County in 2011.
Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor
This variable was used to recognize that interstate highway and toll facility improvements are
funded by the State (specifically, the Florida Department of Transportation) using earmarked
State and Federal funds. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements and
the portion of travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system is subtracted from the total
travel for each use.
To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility adjustment factor, the loaded highway network
file was generated for the District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v1.0.3). A select zone
analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within the Collier County in order to
differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips that simply
passed through the county.
The analysis reviewed trips on all interstate and toll facilities within Collier County, including,
Interstate 75 and Alligator Alley (toll portion of I-75). The limited access vehicle-miles of travel
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 7 Road Impact Fee Update Study
(Limited Access VMT) for county-generated trips with an origin and/or destination within county
was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. Next, the total VMT was calculated for
all county-generated trips with an origin and/or destination within Collier County for all roads,
including limited access facilities.
The I/T adjustment factor of 14.4 percent was determined by dividing the total limited access
VMT by the total County VMT. Total County VMT reduced by this factor is representative of only
the roadways that are eligible to be funded with road impact fee revenues. Appendix A, Table A-
1 provides further detail on this calculation.
State Road Adjustment Factor
This variable was used to adjust the trip length for each land use to reflect the portion of the trip
that occurs on non-state roadway facilities. To calculate this adjustment factor, the 2040 VMT
distribution was calculated using D1RPM v1.0.3 projections. Appendix A, Table A-2 provides
further detail on this calculation.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 8 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component
Cost information from Collier County and other counties in Florida was reviewed to develop a
unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane-mile of roadway capacity.
Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses.
County Roadway Cost
This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components
associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity expansion improvements
in Collier County. In addition to local data, bid data for recently completed/ongoing projects and
recent construction bid data from roadway projects throughout Florida were used to supplement
the cost data for county roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was
separated into six components: design, right-of-way (ROW), construction, construction
engineering/inspection (CEI), mitigation, and urban overpass costs.
Design and CEI
Design costs for county roads were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based
on a review of recent road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional
detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B-1.
CEI costs for county roads were estimated at nine (9) percent of construct ion phase costs based
on a review of recent road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional
detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B-8.
Right-of-Way
The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to
have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,
to build a new road. The ROW acquisition data from four recent projects in Collier County was
reviewed:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
• Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd
• Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE
The ROW costs for these improvements were then grouped as “low” cost or “high” cost
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 9 Road Impact Fee Update Study
depending on the geographical location and weighted by the distribution of lane miles in the
2040 LRTP. This distribution indicates that 71 percent of planned improvements will be
constructed in “low” ROW cost areas (rural area) and 29 percent of improvements will be
constructed in “high” ROW cost areas (urban and transitioning areas). Urban and transitioning
areas include west county (City of Naples) and extending into the Golden Gate area. Rural areas
include Immokalee and east county. As shown in Appendix B, Tables B-2 and B-3, the resulting
ROW cost was approximately $1.67 million per lane mile. This estimate suggests a significant
increase (95 percent) since the last technical study due primarily to the location of projects in the
last study vs. this study as well as a small sample size.
To supplement this analysis, a review of changes in the market value of all prop erty in Collier
County was reviewed. As reported by the Florida Department of Revenue, the value of properties
increased by approximately 40 percent between 2014 and 2018. To update the ROW cost, the
calculated cost per lane mile from the previous study ($863,000) was indexed using the value
increase observed over the past four years (approximately 40 percent). This index results in a
ROW cost of approximately $1.21 million per lane mile, which represents a conservative estimate
that accounts for the fluctuations in cost due to the location of projects and small sample sizes .
Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B-4.
Construction Cost
The construction cost for county roads was based on recently completed projects and future
estimates in Collier County and in other communities in Florida. A review of construction cost
data for improvement Collier County since 2012 identified six capacity expansion projects:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
• Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd
• Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from US 41 to E. of Goodlette -Frank Rd
• Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd
The costs for these improvements ranged from approximately $2.90 million to $5.60 million per
lane mile with a weighted average cost of $3.57 million per lane mile. Additional detail is
provided in Appendix B, Table B-6.
In addition to local projects, recent improvements from other counties throughout Florida were
reviewed to increase the sample size. This review included over 156 lane miles of lane addition
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 10 Road Impact Fee Update Study
and new road construction improvements completed between 2012 and 2018 with a weighted
average cost of approximately $2.73 million per lane mile. This cost has been increasing during
more recent years. Additional data is provided in Appendix B, Table B-7.
Based on a review of these data sets, a construction cost estimate of $3.50 million per lane mile
is used in the impact fee calculation for urban design (curb & gutter) improvements. Based on
discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that all the lane miles that the County will construct
in the future will have urban design characteristics.
Mitigation
Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in
Collier County:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
• Collier Blvd (CR 951) from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd
The costs for these projects ranged from $22,000 to $117,000 with a weighted average cost of
approximately $74,000 per lane mile. It should be noted that both of these projects are located
outside of the Panther Consultation Area (PCA) of Collier County. Historically, projects within the
PCA have commanded a higher mitigation cost per lane mile than those projects outside of the
area. Therefore, the use of $74,000 for the county road cost represents a conservative estimate.
Additional detail is provided in Appendix, Table B-9.
Urban Overpass
Urban overpass cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for three planned
improvements in Collier County:
• Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd
• US 41 (SR 90) Tamiami Tr East @ Collier Blvd (CR 951)
• Immokalee Rd & Collier Blvd
The total cost of these improvements was then divided by the total lane miles of county needs
projects in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, resulting in a cost of approximately
$523,000 per lane mile. Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B-10.
Table 1 summarizes the county road cost estimates for county roads while Table 2 provides a
comparison to the cost estimates used to calculate the current Collier County road impact fee
rates. As shown, the cost estimate is approximately 30 percent higher than last study.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 11 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table 1
Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile
for County Roads
1) Design is estimated at 11% of construction costs.
2) Source: Based on a review of local projects (Appendix B, Table B-3)
and taxable value increases countywide (Appendix B, Table B-4)
3) Source: Based on a review of local projects (Appendix B, Table B-6)
and statewide capacity expansion projects (Appendix B, Table B-7)
4) CEI is estimated at 9% of construction costs
5) Source: Appendix B, Table B-9
6) Source: Appendix B, Table B-10
Note: All figures rounded to nearest $000
Table 2
Total Cost per Lane Mile Comparison for County Roads
1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study , January 2015
2) Source: Table 1
Vehicle-Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile
An additional component of the roadway impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane-mile
of roadway constructed. The VMC is an estimate of capacity added per lane mile, for city/county
roadway improvements in the Collier County 2040 LRTP. As shown in Table 3, each lane mile will
add approximately 8,500 vehicles. Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B-11.
Cost Phase Cost per Lane
Mile
Design(1)$385,000
Right-of-Way(2)$1,208,000
Construction(3)$3,500,000
CEI(4)$315,000
Mitigation(5)$74,000
Urban Overpass(6)$523,000
Total Cost $6,005,000
Cost Phase Cost per Lane
Mile (2015)(1)
Cost per Lane
Mile (Updated)(2)% Change
Design $270,000 $385,000 43%
Right-of-Way $863,000 $1,208,000 40%
Construction $2,700,000 $3,500,000 30%
CEI $270,000 $315,000 17%
Mitigation $74,000 $74,000 0%
Urban Overpass $390,000 $523,000 34%
Total Cost $4,567,000 $6,005,000 31%
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 12 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table 3
Weighted Average Vehicle-Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile
1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-11
2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-11
3) Vehicle-miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1),
rounded to nearest 00
Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity
The roadway cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle-mile of
capacity. As shown in Table 4, based on information presented in Tables 1 and 3, the cost per
VMC for travel within the county is approximately $706.
The cost per VMC figure is used in the road impact fee calculation to determine the total cost per
unit of development based on vehicle-miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle-mile of travel
that is added to the county roadway system, approximately $706 of capacity is consumed. As
shown, the cost estimate is approximately 54 percent higher than last study.
Table 4
Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added
1) Source: Table 1
2) Source: Table 3
3) Average VMC added per lane mile (Item 2) divided by cost per lane mile (Item 1)
Road Type Lane Miles
Added(1)
Vehicle-Miles of
Capacity Added(2)
VMC Added per
Lane Mile(3)
County Roads 240.60 2,052,799 8,500
Source Cost per Lane
Mile(1)
Average VMC
Added per Lane
Mile(2)
Cost per VMC(3)
County Roads $6,005,000 8,500 $706.47
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 13 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Credit Component
Capital Improvement Credit
The credit component of the impact fee accounts for the existing County funding sources that
are being expended on roadway capacity expansion (excluding impact fee funds). This section
summarizes the calculations utilized in the credit for non-impact fee contributions. Additional
details are provided in Appendix C.
The present value of the portion of non-impact fee funding generated by new development over
a 25-year period that is expected to be expended on capacity expansion projects was credited
against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. In order
to provide a connection to the demand component, which is measured in terms of travel, the
non-impact fee dollars were converted to a fuel tax equivalency.
County Credit
A review of the County’s FY 2019-2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)
Transportation Work Program was conducted, indicating that a combination of impact fees, fuel
tax revenues, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion. Based on this review,
Collier County allocates an equivalent of 4.7 pennies for the portion of fuel tax and grant
revenues dedicated to roadway capacity expansion improvements.
Additionally, the County is using gas tax revenues to retire debt service used to fund roadway
capacity expansion improvements. The fuel tax dedication for Series 2012 and Series 2014 bonds
totals approximately 8.7 pennies of additional county credit. As shown in Table 5, a total fuel tax
equivalent revenue credit of 13.4 pennies as given for county expenditures.
Due to the recent adoption of a one-percent local government infrastructure surtax in November
2018, an additional credit scenario was developed to account for the planned expenditures of
the future sales tax revenue. This scenario assumes that the sales tax will be renewed after its
initial seven year adoption and that a large portion will continue to be allocated for
transportation capacity. As shown in Table 5, the sales tax credit adds an additional 9.7 pennies
of equivalent pennies to the County revenues, bringing the total to 14.4 pennies.
In summary, Collier County contributes 13.4 pennies, annually, to roadway capacity expansion.
A total credit of 13.4 pennies was included in the roadway impact fee calculation to recognize
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 14 Road Impact Fee Update Study
the future capital revenues that are expected to be generated by new development from all non-
impact fee revenues. When the sales tax is considered, the credit increases to 23.1 pennies.
Table 5
Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue
1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2
2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3
3) Source: Appendix C, Tables C-2 and C-4
4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-1
5) Average annual expenditures divided by the value per penny (Item 4) divided by 100
Present Worth Variables
• Facility Life: The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which
represents the reasonable life of a roadway.
• Interest Rate: This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is
used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development.
The discount rate of 4.0 percent was used in the impact fee calculation based on interest
rates on recent bonds issued by Collier County.
Fuel Efficiency
The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of
motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with
a particular land use.
Appendix C, Table C-10 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following
equation, where “VMT” is vehicle miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms of miles
per gallon.
Credit Average Annual
Expenditures
Value per
Penny(4)
Equivalent Pennies
per Gallon(5)
Excluding Local Government Infrastructure Surtax
County Revenues(1)$7,897,400 $1,675,465 $0.047
County Debt Service(2)$14,517,552 $1,675,465 $0.087
Total $22,414,952 $0.134
Including Local Government Infrastructure Surtax
County Revenues(3)$24,183,114 $1,675,465 $0.144
County Debt Service(2)$14,517,552 $1,675,465 $0.087
Total $38,700,666 $0.231
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 15 Road Impact Fee Update Study
=
TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle
TypeVehicle
TypeRoadway MPG
VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel
The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger
vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs)
and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to
calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types.
The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of
fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a “weighted” fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing
fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were
obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2016. Based
on the calculation completed in Appendix C, Table C-8, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the
updated impact fee equation is 18.74 miles per gallon.
Effective Days per Year
An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee.
However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays
(e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year,
therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that non-impact fee contributions are
adequately credited against the fee.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 16 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule
Detailed impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix D, which includes the
major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of
the major categories. For each land use, Appendix D illustrates the following:
• Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and pe rcent of new trips);
• Total impact fee cost;
• Annual capital improvement credit;
• Present value of the capital improvement credit; and
• Net road impact fee.
It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix D is not necessarily a
recommended fee, but instead represents the technically calculated impact fee per unit of land
use that could be charged in Collier County.
For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for
one of the land use categories. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the
single-family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the
impact fee schedules included in Appendix D. For each land use category, the following equations
are utilized to calculate the net impact fee:
Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Capital Improvement Credit
Where:
Total Road Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate × Adjusted Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (1 –
Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor) x (Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity)
Capital Improvement Credit = Present Value (Annual Capital Improvement Credit), given 4.0%
interest rate & a 25-year facility life
Annual Capital Improvement Credit = ([Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) ×
(Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 17 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this
example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the
actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential land use
category (<4,000 sq. ft.):
• Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.37)
• Assessable Trip Length = the average trip length on collector roads or above, for the category,
in vehicle-miles (5.88) (excluding local neighborhood roads)
• Trip Length Adjustment Factor = used to adjust the trip length for travel occurring on non-
state roads (71%)
• Adjusted Trip Length = the assessable trip length multiplied by the trip length adjustment
factor (5.88 * 71% = 4.17)
• Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which
is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all
roads including local roads (4.17 + 0.50 = 4.67)
• % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%)
• Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e.,
rate*length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel
generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination
• Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor = discount factor to account for travel demand
occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (14.4%)
• Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane-mile
($6,005,000)
• Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel
lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,500)
• Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of
development ($706.47)
• Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax
payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 4.00%
interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 15.6221
• Effective Days per Year = 365 days
• $/Gallon to Capital = the amount of equivalent gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used
for capital improvements, in $/gallon (excluding sales tax = $0.134, including sales tax =
$0.231)
• Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.74)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 18 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Road Impact Fee Calculation
Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached
(<4,000 sf) land use category as follows:
Road Impact Fee (excluding sales tax):
Total Impact Cost = ([7.37 * 4.17 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.144) * ($706.47) = $9,293
Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.37 * 4.67 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.134 /18.74) = $45
Capital Improvement Credit = $45 * 15.6221 = $703
Net Impact Fee = $9,293 – $703 = $8,590
Road Impact Fee (including sales tax):
Total Impact Cost = ([7.37 * 4.17 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.144) * ($706.47) = $9,293
Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.37 * 4.67 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.231 /18.74) = $77
Capital Improvement Credit = $77 * 15.6221 = $1,203
Net Impact Fee = $9,293 – $1,203 = $8,090
Road Impact Fee Comparison
As part of the work effort in developing Collier County’s road impact fee program, a comparison of
calculated fees to road/transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was
completed, as shown in Table 6.
Note that differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including
the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variation in
costs, credits, and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 19 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table 6
Road/Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
1) Represents the portion of the maximum calculated fee for each respective county that is actually charged. Fees may have been lowered/raised through indexing or policy discounts. Does not account for moratoriums/suspensions
2) Du = dwelling unit
3) Source: Appendix D, Table D-1
4) Source: Appendix D, Table D-2
5) Source: Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation. Road impact fees shown were adopted at 100 percent in 2015 and have since been indexed.
6) Source: Polk County Land Development Department. Retail/Commercial rate is applied to bank and fast food restaurant uses
7) Source: Pasco County Planning and Development Department. Mobility fee rates for the “Suburban” district are shown
8) Source: Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning. Rates for “South Benefit District” are shown
9) Source: Lee County Community Development Department, Building & Permitting Services
10) Source: Charlotte County Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning
11) Source: Martin County Growth Management Department
12) Source: Indian River County Planning Division
13) Source: Marion County Growth Services Department. Quality Restaurant rate is shown for Fast Food w/Drive-Thru
14) Source: Manatee County Administration Department. Average of four districts. Commercial/Shopping Center rate is applied to Bank and Fast Food Restaurant land uses.
15) Source: Sarasota County Planning & Development Services Department. Bank w/Drive-Thru land use is charged “per drive-thru lane.”
16) Source: Brevard County Planning & Development Department.
17) Source: Miami-Dade County Development Services Division. Fees shown are the “non-urban infill” rates. Impact fee rates shown reflect phasing and indexing applied since adoption in 2006.
Land Use Unit(2)
Collier County
Calculated
No Sales Tax(3)
Collier County
Calculated
w/Sales Tax(4)
Collier County
Existing(5)
Polk
County(6)
Pasco
County(7)
Lake
County(8)
Lee
County(9)
Charlotte
County(10)
Martin
County(11)
Indian River
County(12)
Marion
County(13)
Manatee
County(14)
Sarasota
County(15)
Brevard
County(16)
Miami-Dade
County(17)
2019 2019 2015 2015 2014 2013 2015 2013 2012 2014 2015 2015 2015 2000 2006
100%100%100%100%100%70%45%40%100%100%/45%11-20%90%100%100%100%
Residential:
Single Family (2,000 sf)du $8,590 $8,090 $7,444 $2,155 $8,570 $2,706 $4,498 $2,389 $2,815 $4,248 $1,397 $5,636 $4,734 $4,353 $9,464
Non-Residential:
Light Industrial 1,000 sf $4,865 $4,584 $5,700 $666 $0 $1,505 $1,521 $1,518 $1,857 $1,206 $428 $2,471 $1,984 $0 $3,821
Office (50,000 sq ft)1,000 sf $9,152 $8,605 $10,249 $2,237 $0 $2,623 $3,426 $2,856 $2,198 $1,916 $676 $3,911 $4,327 $5,058 $15,420
Retail (125,000 sq ft)1,000 sf $14,758 $13,774 $14,354 $3,808 $7,051 $3,080 $5,164 $3,793 $5,183 $2,862 $1,014 $9,993 $9,365 $5,270 $20,071
Bank w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $22,817 $21,254 $28,961 $3,808 $14,384 $3,080 $11,511 $8,003 $6,841 $6,219 $2,260 $9,993 $8,598 $23,331 $25,014
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $112,365 $104,272 $96,567 $3,808 $46,712 $3,080 $22,010 $26,595 $15,693 $20,459 $2,803 $9,993 $17,867 $35,791 $50,346
Date of Last Update
Adoption Percentage(1)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 20 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Road Impact Fee Benefit Districts
As part of the update of the road impact fee program, the existing impact fee benefit districts
(illustrated in Map 1) were reviewed. To charge impact fees, the County must meet one of the
dual rational nexus tests of proof of benefit to fee-paying development by ensuring that funds
collected are spent on eligible capital improvements projects. Establishing benefit districts
enhances this proof, showing a close connection to the fee-payer and their resulting benefit, by
restricting revenues to specific areas of the County where the fee is collected. Benefit dis trict
boundaries are typically influenced by geographic (i.e., lakes and rivers) or man -made
boundaries/barriers (i.e., roads, highways, municipal limits) which in some way restrict traffic.
District Boundaries
Currently, Collier County has eight road impact fee districts. Within these districts, Collier County
charges the same roadway impact fee rate, except for Districts 7 and 8, where no fee is charged.
Revenues collected in each district are placed into separate funds and can only be used to fund
improvements within the corresponding benefit district. For example, revenues collected in
District 2 are placed into an individual account and are only eligible to fund roadway capacity
improvements within District 2. However, exceptions are made for projects that span multiple
adjacent districts1. In those cases, funds from the two adjacent districts can both be used on the
improvement. The use of benefit districts restricts the impact fee funds to a smaller are a with
the intent of providing a direct benefit (via new road construction, lane additions, intersection
improvements, etc.) to the fee payer.
In regard to the geographic boundaries of the districts, no changes are recommended to the
existing districts. As shown in Table 7, impact fee revenues collected in Districts 1, 2, 4, and 6 are
all close-to or above 20 percent of total road impact fee revenues. Development in District 5 is
expected to pick up with the ongoing development of the Immokalee area while District 3 (City
of Naples) is built-out with little room for new development, explaining the low revenue
generation. However, because this District’s boundaries correspond to the city limits, no
boundary changes are recommended. If the City annexes additional land in the future, the
District 3 boundary should be expanded to capture this additional area. Based on a review of the
revenue collection levels, municipal & geographical boundaries, and discussions with County
staff, it is recommended that the current boundaries are maintained.
1 Collier County Code of Ordinances, Section 74-203 (b)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 21 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table 7
Road Impact Fee Revenues by District
Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts
As previously mentioned, for certain projects, revenues from adjacent districts can be pooled
together. Although this approach creates some flexibility, it requires an evaluation of each
project on a case-by-case basis and does not recognize regional roads that benefit multiple
districts. Given this, Tindale Oliver identified regional roads in the county, which is discussed
further in the following subsection.
Regional Roads
For purposes of the benefit districts analysis, “regional roads” refer to corridors which serve a
significant portion of the county and are essential to moving traffic across or through the County,
rather than serving as connectors to larger roads. From an impact fee perspective, improvements
to these corridors provide benefit to all districts, whether they are located within or adjacent to
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6
N. Naples GG City Naples S. Naples/Marco Immokalee GG Estates
FY 1993 $2,321,742 $1,163,364 $82,468 $402,663 $97,173 $863,259 $4,930,669
FY 1994 $2,744,801 $1,214,704 $115,869 $1,613,960 $189,868 $594,532 $6,473,734
FY 1995 $3,276,365 $1,521,121 $830,082 $811,176 $202,380 $557,716 $7,198,840
FY 1996 $2,810,839 $0 $200 $934,620 $77,723 $639,302 $4,462,684
FY 1997 $3,808,509 $2,007,956 $167,908 $865,108 $48,136 $745,656 $7,643,273
FY 1998 $4,167,168 $2,230,155 $63,698 $1,340,218 $72,635 $1,094,907 $8,968,781
FY 1999 $5,871,701 $3,406,219 $836,929 $950,243 $126,200 $1,646,388 $12,837,680
FY 2000 $5,778,945 $5,197,577 $539,488 $1,352,513 $131,817 $2,048,342 $15,048,682
FY 2001 $7,749,833 $4,511,417 $705,128 $1,544,623 $142,014 $2,558,992 $17,212,007
FY 2002 $7,735,213 $4,571,497 $554,868 $1,689,156 $264,819 $2,802,035 $17,617,588
FY 2003 $7,888,912 $4,901,994 $728,860 $4,218,999 $408,194 $3,396,842 $21,543,801
FY 2004 $15,174,057 $9,134,434 $552,884 $11,734,663 $199,847 $14,583,554 $51,379,439
FY 2005 $17,751,614 $11,882,408 $1,490,545 $14,385,927 $1,872,243 $11,144,818 $58,527,555
FY 2006 $13,213,937 $9,538,309 $560,954 $15,168,598 $4,468,762 $8,621,745 $51,572,305
FY 2007 $13,598,462 $20,155,638 $2,078,329 $12,673,929 $4,928,468 $16,001,882 $69,436,707
FY 2008 $14,748,470 $3,185,621 $750,668 $4,042,934 $2,804,124 $2,520,900 $28,052,716
FY 2009 $1,917,401 $2,426,745 -$125,590 $7,567,178 $181,984 $795,430 $12,763,149
FY 2010 $992,673 $2,398,827 $0 $3,209,026 $831,426 $4,841,052 $12,273,005
FY 2011 $639,635 $1,112,445 -$61,285 $2,153,551 $233,830 $1,523,791 $5,601,968
FY 2012 $2,406,382 $297,230 $115,747 $5,128,168 $1,621,702 -$1,108,015 $8,461,215
FY 2013 $1,240,684 $588,898 $0 $3,755,034 $412,290 $220,830 $6,217,736
FY 2014 $2,169,998 $1,047,911 $245,144 $4,785,319 $1,088,877 $605,410 $9,942,660
FY 2015 $3,906,462 $921,304 $810,145 $2,374,816 $1,164,597 $1,685,489 $10,862,813
FY 2016 $5,671,025 $3,290,503 $187,474 $5,148,218 $1,048,531 $2,915,399 $18,261,149
FY 2017 $5,937,727 $2,208,132 $206,225 $4,086,585 $1,532,470 $4,682,168 $18,653,307
FY 2018 $4,344,426 $1,918,757 $0 $2,836,945 $567,000 $2,035,060 $11,702,187
Total $157,866,979 $100,833,166 $11,436,739 $114,774,170 $24,717,110 $88,017,484 $497,645,648
%31.6%20.3%2.3%23.1%5.0%17.7%100.0%
Year Total
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 22 Road Impact Fee Update Study
every transportation district because they are major connectors across the county (east -west or
north-south, etc.). As such, it is appropriate that future capacity improvements to the corridors
classified as “regional” would be eligible for funding from all the impact fee districts in Collier
County. The process for classifying regional roads is based primarily on the model trip lengths
and traffic volumes along major roadways. Corridors with long lengths and high volumes suggest
that these roads as significant regional roads.
Model Trip Length Validation
The initial regional roads analysis was included as part of the previous impact fee update study2.
As previously mentioned, this list was determined through a review of model trip lengths, traffic
volumes, and discussions with County staff. The initial list of regional roads included:
• US 41 (Tamiami Trail)
• Collier Boulevard
• Oil Well Road
• Camp Keais Road
• Immokalee Road
Since the time of the previous impact fee report, several other segments have been e xamined
for potential re-classification as a “regional road” for impact fee purposes. The following
segments were deemed to serve the entire county and have been added to the regional roads
network:
• Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard from County Line to Rattlesnake Hammock Road
o Contingent upon the completion of the extension north to Bonita Beach Rd in Lee
County3
• Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Boulevard to Desoto Boulevard
o Contingent upon the completion of the planned extension east to Desoto Blvd 4
Table 8 presents the full list of designated “regional roads.”
2 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, January 2015
3 Classification of Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard, May 2016
4 Impact Fee Funding for Transportation Capacity Projects, June 2018
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 23 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table 8
Regional Roads in Collier County
As part of this update study the model trip lengths of all regional roads w ere re-examined to
verify that they still meet the criteria for the “regional” classification. For travel demand, the
FDOT District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v1.0.3) was used. Major arterial roadways
within the county were divided into multiple segments. A “select-link” analysis was conducted
on each of these segments using the existing 2010 scenario of the D1RPM. A select-link analysis
determines the characteristics of the travel demand of a particular link in the model network. It
allows the origin and destination of the traffic traveling on the analyzed link to be identified. For
example, it measures the trip length of every car that passes by a specific point on a specific road.
The select link analysis was used in order to determine the amount and route of traffic traveling
on the county’s major arterial roadways. The multiple select -link analysis allowed the studied
roadways to be evaluated to determine the total projected volume and trip length along the
corridor.
As shown on Map 1, all regional corridors have higher than average trip lengths, determined
through the select link analysis. The average trip length countywide is approximately 8.6 miles,
while the corridors identified on Map 1 range from 7.3 miles to 54.7 miles, with trip lengths
increasing as the select links move further away from the City of Naples and the urban core.
These relatively longer trip lengths indicate that drivers are utilizing these specific corridors for
long distance trips across Collier County. Collier Boulevard is the County’s primary north-south
connector, while Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road provide east -west connections for the
northern part of the county.
Benefit Districts Recommendations
Based on a review of geographic barriers, historical impact fee revenue, travel, and traffic
volume, it is recommended that Collier County continues forward with the existing benefit
district alignments. Additionally, identified “regional roads” should be eligible for impact fee
Description From To
US 41 (Tamiami Trail)Lee County Line Miami-Dade County Line
Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Marco Island Bridge
Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road
Camp Keais Road Immokalee Road Oil Well Road
Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail)Camp Keais Road
Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard Lee County Line Rattlesnake Hammock Road
Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard Desoto Boulevard
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 24 Road Impact Fee Update Study
funding from any benefit district, even if the improvement is not located within or adjacent to a
funding district.
The travel demand and traffic characteristics of these corridors highlight their importance in
moving traffic and connecting neighborhoods throughout the entire county. It is recommended
that in future updates Collier County continue to monitor travel and traffic along major corridors
to confirm this list of regional roads as well as to identify any additional regional -type roadways
that may emerge.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 25 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Map 1 – Collier County “Regional Roads”
22.6 miles 16.9 miles
42.5 miles
13.5 miles
16.6 miles
15.5 miles
8.8 miles
7.3 miles
32.6 miles
5
2
3
6
8
7
4
1
54.7 miles
Trip Length
Legend
Regional Roads
Benefit Districts
Collier County Avg.
Trip Length = 8.6 miles
18.1 miles 18.3 miles
13.6 miles
10.8 miles
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 26 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Sidewalk Construction In-Lieu Payment
This section includes a summary of recent sidewalk construction cost data from Collier County.
As shown in Table 9, recent stand-alone sidewalk construction projects averaged approximately
$818,000 per mile of construction. When compared to the FDOT District 75 LRE, which provided
costs for 5’ wide sidewalk ($507,548 per mile, both sides, including design, construction and CEI),
the local projects indicate a higher cost. However, local projects included in Table 9 are stand-
alone construction, which is expected to cost more than building a sidewalk as part of a
corresponding roadway improvement.
Table 9
Collier County Sidewalk Construction Costs
Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
Currently, for new development along a County-maintained roadway, Collier County collects an
in-lieu fee of $9.92 per square foot. Assuming a 5’ width and a sidewalk on both sides of the
road, this equates to approximately $524,000 per mile ($9.92 x 5 ft width x 5,280 ft x 2 sides of
road), which is consistent with the FDOT LRE figures.
Given that the roadway cost considered in impact fee calculations tends to include sidewalk
construction, it is recommended that in cases when a new development either bui lds a sidewalk
on the County’s classified, non-local roadways or pays an in-lieu fee, this amount should be
subtracted from the development’s impact fee amount.
5 Similar data for District 1 was not available
Project Length Design Construction CEI Total Cost Total Cost
per Mile
East Naples 16-6599 0.65 $97,597 $269,818 $95,821 $463,236 $712,671
Livingston Rd 13-6164 0.25 $34,845 $222,491 $0 $257,336 $1,029,344
New Market 15-6484 2.20 $159,545 $1,468,940 $188,092 $1,816,577 $825,717
Total 3.10 $291,987 $1,961,249 $283,913 $2,537,149 $818,435
Appendix A
Demand Component
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix A: Demand Component
This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the road impact
fee study.
Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor
Table A-1 presents the interstate and toll facility adjustment factor used in the calculation of the
road impact fee. This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model
v1.0.3), specifically the 2040 projected vehicle-miles of travel of all county-generated trips on all
in-county roadways. It should be noted that the adjustment factor excludes all external-to-
external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Collier County, but does not necessarily
stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the analysis since it does not come from
development within the county. The I/T adjustment factor is used to reduce the VMT that the
impact fee charges for each land use.
Table A-1
Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor
Source: D1RPM v1.0.3, 2040
Trip Length Adjustment Factor
Table A-2 presents the trip length adjustment factor for non-state roads used in the calculation
of the road impact fee. This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model
v1.0.3), specifically the 2040 projected vehicle-miles of travel of all county-generated trips on all
in-county roadways.
VMT %
Interstate/Toll 1,831,685 14.4%
Other Roads 10,929,656 85.6%
Total 12,761,341 100.0%
Facility Type Total
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-2
Trip Length Adjustment Factor
Source: D1RPM v1.0.3, 2040
Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database
The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different
residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 25 years. Data from these studies
include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information
has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip
characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S.
Tindale Oliver estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a roadway impact fee schedule
using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip
Generation reference report (10th edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are
available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended to increase the sample size and
provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development.
If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the
fee calculation.
The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that
record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances
to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential
land uses.
The trip length information is obtained through origin-destination surveys that ask respondents
where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving
the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use.
The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin-
destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent
new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured.
VMT %
Non-State Roads 7,004,055 71%
State Roads 2,871,737 29%
Total 9,875,792 100%
Facility Type Total
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Orange Co, FL 89.6 2006 --1.23 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 84.7 2006 --1.39 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 93.0 2006 --1.51 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 107.0 2007 --1.45 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 77.0 2009 --2.18 ----Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 93.7 2012 --1.15 ----Tindale Oliver
Total Size 545.0 5 Average Trip Length:n/a
ITE 780.0 15 Weighted Average Trip Length:n/a
Blended total 1,325.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:-
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:1.47
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:1.51
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:1.49
Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Gwinnett Co, GA -12/13-18/92 --5.80 -5.40 -31.32 Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA -12/13-18/92 --5.40 -6.10 -32.94 Street Smarts
Sarasota Co, FL 76 Jun-93 70 70 10.03 -6.00 -60.18 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 -4.40 -42.99 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun-93 75 75 8.05 -5.90 -47.50 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 -7.30 -62.42 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.85 -4.60 -31.51 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 13.20 -3.00 -39.60 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 -8.40 -55.52 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 393 Jun-93 207 207 7.76 -5.40 -41.90 Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a-6p 4.85 -48.55 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 128 May-96 205 205 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 -49.27 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 232 May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 -36.49 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 9a-6p 3.28 -29.29 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 -5.30 9a-5p 7.90 -41.87 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 142 Oct-97 245 -5.20 9a-5p 4.10 -21.32 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 150 Oct-97 160 -5.00 9a-5p 10.80 -54.00 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 215 Oct-97 158 -7.60 9a-5p 4.60 -34.96 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 257 Oct-97 225 -7.60 9a-5p 7.40 -56.24 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 345 Oct-97 161 -7.00 9a-5p 6.60 -46.20 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 368 Oct-97 152 -6.60 9a-5p 5.70 -37.62 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 383 Oct-97 516 -8.40 9a-5p 5.00 -42.00 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 441 Oct-97 195 -8.20 9a-5p 4.70 -38.54 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct-97 348 -6.10 9a-5p 8.00 -48.80 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 -12.80 8a-6p 11.40 -145.92 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 -7.80 8a-6p 6.40 -49.92 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 49 Apr-02 170 -6.70 7a-6p 10.20 -68.34 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 52 Apr-02 212 -10.00 7a-6p 7.60 -76.00 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 126 Apr-02 217 -8.50 7a-6p 8.30 -70.55 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 55 Apr-02 133 -6.80 8a-6p 8.12 -55.22 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 60 Apr-02 106 -7.73 8a-6p 8.75 -67.64 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 70 Apr-02 188 -7.80 8a-6p 6.03 -47.03 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 74 Apr-02 188 -8.18 8a-6p 5.95 -48.67 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 189 Apr-02 261 -7.46 8a-6p 8.99 -67.07 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 102 Apr-02 167 -8.02 7a-6p 5.10 -40.90 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 105 Apr-02 169 -7.23 7a-6p 7.22 -52.20 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 124 Apr-02 170 -6.04 7a-6p 7.29 -44.03 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 132 Apr-02 171 -7.87 7a-6p 7.00 -55.09 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 133 Apr-02 209 -8.04 7a-6p 4.92 -39.56 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Citrus Co, FL 111 Oct-03 273 -8.66 7a-6p 7.70 -66.68 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 231 Oct-03 155 -5.71 7a-6p 4.82 -27.52 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 306 Oct-03 146 -8.40 7a-6p 3.94 -33.10 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 364 Oct-03 345 -7.20 7a-6p 9.14 -65.81 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 374 Oct-03 248 -12.30 7a-6p 6.88 -84.62 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 42 Dec-06 122 -11.26 -5.56 -62.61 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 51 Dec-06 346 -18.22 -9.46 -172.36 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 59 Dec-06 144 -12.07 -10.79 -130.24 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 90 Dec-06 194 -9.12 -5.78 -52.71 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 239 Dec-06 385 -7.58 -8.93 -67.69 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr-07 516 -8.02 7a-6p 8.16 -65.44 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 95 Apr-07 256 -8.08 7a-6p 5.88 -47.51 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 90 Apr-07 338 -7.13 7a-6p 5.86 -41.78 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 58 Apr-07 153 -6.16 7a-6p 8.39 -51.68 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 74 Mar-08 503 -12.81 7a-6p 3.05 -39.07 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 97 Mar-08 512 -8.78 7a-6p 11.29 -99.13 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 315 Mar-08 1,347 -6.97 7a-6p 6.55 -45.65 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 42 Mar-08 314 -9.55 7a-6p 10.98 -104.86 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:7.81
Single Family Trip Length Analysis - Collier County
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Collier Co, FL 770 Dec-99 175 --8a-6p 4.96 --Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 -12.80 8a-6p 11.40 -145.92 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 -7.80 8a-6p 6.40 -49.92 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 1,260 55 655 Average Trip Length:7.59
Weighted Average Trip Length:5.88
Land Use 210: Single Family - Detached
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5.78 -5.20 -30.06 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.84 ----Sarasota County
Marion Co, FL 214 Apr-02 175 175 6.84 -4.61 -31.53 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 240 Apr-02 174 174 6.96 -3.43 -23.87 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 288 Apr-02 175 175 5.66 -5.55 -31.41 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 480 Apr-02 175 175 5.73 -6.88 -39.42 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 500 Apr-02 170 170 5.46 -5.94 -32.43 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Lake Co, FL 250 Dec-06 135 135 6.71 -5.33 -35.76 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 157 Dec-06 265 265 13.97 -2.62 -36.60 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 169 Dec-06 212 -8.09 -6.00 -48.54 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 226 Dec-06 301 -6.74 -2.17 -14.63 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr-07 456 -4.09 -5.95 -24.34 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 176 Apr-07 332 -5.38 -5.24 -28.19 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 364 Nov-13 --9.08 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 108 Aug-14 --5.51 ----Orange County
Hernando Co, FL 31 May-96 31 31 6.12 9a-6p 4.98 -30.48 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 128 May-96 128 128 6.47 9a-6p 5.18 -33.51 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr-02 198 198 4.77 9a-6p ---Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 248 Apr-02 353 353 4.24 9a-6p 3.53 -14.97 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 4,575 Average Trip Length:4.27
Total Size (TL)3,631 Weighted Average Trip Length:5.10
Land Use 220/221/222: Multi-Family (Low-, Mid-, High-Rise)
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Marion Co, FL 67 Jul-91 22 22 5.40 48hrs.2.29 -12.37 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr.3.72 -40.18 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 137 Jul-91 22 22 3.10 24hr.4.88 -15.13 Tindale Oliver
Sarasota Co, FL 996 Jun-93 181 181 4.19 -4.40 -18.44 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 -5.10 -17.90 Sarasota County
Marion Co, FL 188 Apr-02 147 -3.51 24hr.5.48 -19.23 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 227 Apr-02 173 -2.76 24hr.8.80 -24.29 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 297 Apr-02 175 -4.78 24hr.4.76 -22.75 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Hernando Co, FL 1,892 May-96 425 425 4.13 9a-6p 4.13 -17.06 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 4,121 9 1,303 Average Trip Length:4.84
Weighted Average Trip Length:4.60
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:4.17
Land Use 240: Mobile Home Park
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Lakeland, FL 67 3/28-4/2/90 26 24 3.50 9am-4pm 2.44 -8.54 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 778 Apr-02 175 -2.96 24hr.3.49 -10.33 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 877 Apr-02 209 -2.91 24hr.5.90 -17.17 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 1,054 Apr-02 173 -3.65 24hr.6.00 -21.90 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 3,076 Apr-02 198 -2.63 24hr.5.16 -13.57 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 3,625 Apr-02 164 -2.50 24hr.5.83 -14.58 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 9,477 6 945 Average Trip Length:4.80
ITE 9,170 14 Weighted Average Trip Length:5.42
Blended total 18,647 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:2.75
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:4.27
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:3.50
Land Use 251: Retirement Community/Senior Adult Housing - Detached
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct-91 726 726 2.46 24hr.3.28 -8.07 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 208 1 Average Trip Length:3.28
ITE 486 6 Weighted Average Trip Length:3.28
Blended total 694 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:2.46
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:3.70
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:3.33
Land Use 252: Retirement Community/Senior Adult Housing - Attached
Location Size / Units Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug-89 25 19 3.50 9am-5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale Oliver
Palm Harbor, FL 200 Oct-89 58 40 -9am-5pm 3.40 69.0 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 272 2 83 Average Trip Length:2.80
ITE 388 2 Weighted Average Trip Length:3.08
Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:71.6
Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facility/Assisted Living Facility
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (Rooms)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 123 1997 --6.32 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 120 1997 --5.27 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 146 1997 --7.61 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 252 1997 --5.63 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 172 1997 --6.36 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 170 1997 --6.06 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 128 1997 --6.10 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 200 1997 --4.56 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 112 1998 --2.78 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 130 1998 --9.12 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 106 1998 --7.34 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 98 1998 --7.32 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 120 1998 --5.57 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 70 1999 --1.85 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 123 1999 --4.81 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 123 1999 --3.70 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 211 2000 --2.23 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 144 2000 --7.32 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 105 2001 --5.25 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 891 2005 --5.69 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 1,584 2005 --5.88 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 210 2006 --4.88 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 1,499 2006 --4.69 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 144 ---4.74 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 148 ---7.61 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 160 ---6.19 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 130 ---4.29 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 130 ---3.40 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 144 ---7.66 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 100 ---7.37 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 190 ---4.71 Orange County
Orange Co, FL 1,501 2011 --3.50 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 174 2011 --7.03 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 238 2014 --4.05 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 10,184 21 164 Average Trip Length:-
ITE 876 6 Weighted Average Trip Length:-
Blended total 11,060 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:66.3
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:5.31
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:8.36
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:5.55
Land Use 310: Hotel
Location Size (Rooms)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 -10a-2p 2.80 65.0 -Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 -12p-7p 3.80 69.0 -Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 -2p-7p 5.20 84.6 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 222 3 104 Average Trip Length:3.93
ITE 654 6 Weighted Average Trip Length:4.34
Weighted Percent New Trip Average:76.6
Land Use 320: Motel
Location Size (Rooms)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 -10a-2p 2.80 65.0 -Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 -12p-7p 3.80 69.0 -Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 -2p-7p 5.20 84.6 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 510 Average Trip Length:4.86
Weighted Average Trip Length:5.42
Land Use 310/320: Hotel/Motel
Location Size (Screens)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.10 2p-8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 12 Sep-89 122 116 63.40 2p-8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 20 2 273 Average Trip Length:2.30
ITE 6 1 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.22
Blended total 26 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:87.8
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:83.28
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:220.00
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:114.83
Land Use 444: Movie Theater
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 66.99 7a-6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep-89 179 134 66.99 7a-6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale Oliver
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 28 25 - -2.60 89.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 15.6 301 Average Trip Length:2.20
Weighted Average Trip Length:2.03
Weighted Percent New Trip Average:73.2
Land Use 565: Day Care Center
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (Beds)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Lakeland, FL 120 Mar-90 74 66 2.86 11a-4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 120 1 74 Average Trip Length:2.59
ITE 480 3 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.59
Blended total 600 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:89.0
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:2.86
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:3.06
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:3.02
Land Use 620: Nursing Home
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 -11.30 -529.41 Sarasota County
Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec-92 --4.30 -5.40 - -Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec-92 --3.60 -5.90 - -Street Smarts
Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct-89 431 388 18.49 7a-5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 -7a-5p 3.40 94.0 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 742.1 5 736 Average Trip Length:6.46
ITE 11,286.0 66 Weighted Average Trip Length:5.15
Weighted Percent New Trip Average:92.3
Land Use 710: General Office Building
IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL
Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 22.22
Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22
Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34
Site 4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66
Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71
Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64
Average 17.59 17.71 35.30
Average (excluding Site 4)11.84 11.99 23.83
LUC 720: Small Medical/Dental Office Building: 10,000 sf or Less
Site Size (1,000 sf)Tues., Jan 11 Wedn., Jan 12 Thur., Jan 13 TOTAL AVERAGE AVERAGE (per 1,000 sf)
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 33 26 --6.00 79.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Palm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9a-5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL -Nov-89 34 30 57.20 9a-4p 1.20 88.0 -Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 58.4 May-96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 28.0 May-96 202 189 49.75 9a-6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct-97 -186 49.50 9a-5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct-97 -186 31.00 9a-5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct-97 -324 39.80 9a-5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct-03 -168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov-03 -340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec-03 -20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 50.6 2009 --26.72 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 23.5 2010 --16.58 ----Tindale Oliver
Total Size 298.6 11 763 Average Trip Length:5.07
ITE 672.0 28 Weighted Average Trip Length:5.55
Blended total 970.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:88.9
Average Trip Generation Rate:32.59
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:34.80
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:34.12
Land Use 720: Medical-Dental Office Building
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Collier Co, FL 14.1 May-99 -55 33.48 8a-6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 66.0 May-99 -43 11.53 8a-6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 211.1 May-99 -284 17.91 8a-6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 291.2 3 Average Trip Length:4.90
ITE 6,288.0 16 Weighted Average Trip Length:5.38
Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:88.8
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:17.22
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:12.44
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:12.65
Land Use 770: Business Park
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-7 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure A-1
Shopping Center/Retail (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Trip Length Regression
Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 527 348 ---66.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 170 ---1.70 --Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 354 269 ---76.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 144 ---2.50 --Kimley-Horn & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug-89 384 298 -11a-7p 3.60 78.0 -Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep-89 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale Oliver
Largo, FL 425.0 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale Oliver
Dunedin, FL 80.5 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep-89 485 388 -9a-6p 3.20 80.0 -Tindale Oliver
Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct-89 674 586 ---87.0 -Tindale Oliver
Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 ----1.30 74.0 -Tindale Oliver
Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul-91 ----1.30 73.0 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 68 64 --3.33 94.1 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 208 154 --2.64 74.0 -Tindale Oliver
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep-92 300 185 -12a-6p -61.6 -King Engineering Associates, Inc.
Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep-92 300 192 -12a-6p -64.0 -King Engineering Associates, Inc.
Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec-92 --46.00 -3.20 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec-92 --27.00 -8.50 84.0 192.78 Street Smarts
Sarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun-93 58 58 122.14 -3.20 --Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun-93 65 65 51.53 -2.80 --Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 79.79 -3.40 --Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun-93 62 62 66.79 -5.90 --Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May-96 608 331 77.60 9a-6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct-97 --73.50 9a-5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct-97 --72.00 9a-5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct-97 --43.00 9a-5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 -3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 376 65.30 -4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr-02 222 -145.64 9a-5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr-02 134 -38.23 9a-5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct-03 -784 55.84 8a-6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov-03 -390 54.50 8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 -3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 159.9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 -1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 -1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 5,757.5 7,536 Average Trip Length:2.66
Land Use 820: Shopping Center
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Trip Length (Miles)Square Footage
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-8 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure A-2
Shopping Center/Retail (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression
Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Percent New TripsSquare Footage
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct-89 152 120 -9a-5p 4.70 79.0 -Tindale Oliver
Clearwater, FL 43.0 Oct-89 136 106 29.40 9a-5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 13.8 1997 --35.75 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 34.4 1998 --23.45 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 66.3 2001 --28.50 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 39.1 2002 --10.48 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 116.7 2003 --22.18 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 51.7 2007 --40.34 ----L-TEC
Orange Co, FL 36.6 ---15.17 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 216.4 2008 --13.45 ----Orange County
Total Size 618.0 8 288 Average Trip Length:4.60
ITE (840)648.0 18 Weighted Average Trip Length:4.60
ITE (841)28.0 14 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:78.5
Blended total 1,294.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:21.04
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 840):27.84
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 841):27.06
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:24.58
Land Use 840/841: New/Used Automobile Sales
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug-89 163 62 106.26 9a-4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 62.0 1 163 Average Trip Length:2.08
ITE 170.0 5 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.08
Blended total 232.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:56.0
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:106.26
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:106.78
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:106.64
Land Use 850: Supermarket
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-9 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 80 -- -1.10 --Kimley-Horn & Associates
Largo, FL 2.5 8/15,25/89 171 116 634.80 -1.20 68.0 518.00 Tindale Oliver
Clearwater, FL 2.5 Aug-89 237 64 690.80 -1.60 27.0 298.43 Tindale Oliver
Clearwater, FL 2.1 Nov-89 143 50 635.24 24hr.1.60 35.0 355.73 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jun-91 94 43 787.20 48hrs.1.52 46.2 552.80 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jun-91 74 20 714.00 48hrs.0.75 27.0 144.59 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 146 36 - -2.53 24.7 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 148 38 - -1.08 25.7 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 148 84 - -1.11 56.8 -Tindale Oliver
Gwinnett Co, GA 2.9 12/13-18/92 - -- -2.30 48.0 -Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA 3.2 12/13-18/92 - -- --37.0 -Street Smarts
Total Size 18.2 7 1,241 Average Trip Length:1.48
ITE 24.0 8 Weighted Average Trip Length:1.52
Blended total 42.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:41.3
36.1 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:694.30
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:762.28
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:739.50
Land Use 851: Convenience Market
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pasco Co, FL 11.1 Apr-02 138 38 88.97 -2.05 27.5 50.23 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 12.0 Apr-02 212 90 122.16 -2.04 42.5 105.79 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 15.1 Apr-02 1192 54 97.96 -2.13 28.1 58.69 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 38.2 3 1,542 Average Trip Length:2.07
ITE (LUC 880)66.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.08
ITE (LUC 881)208.0 16 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:32.4
Blended total 312.2 Average Trip Generation Rate:103.03
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 880):90.08
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 881):109.16
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:104.37
Land Use 880/881: Pharmacy with and without Drive-Through Window
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Largo, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 64 34 --4.63 52.5 -Tindale Oliver
Tampa, FL 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 --7.38 55.7 -Tindale Oliver
Pompano Beach, FL 58.5 Jun-06 31 140 3.70 9a-6p 4.38 89.2 16.21 Nunner Group - Collier County
Stuart, FL 100.0 Jun-06 198 154 6.50 9a-6p 3.14 79.4 20.41 Nunner Group - Collier County
Boca Raton, FL 19.1 Jun-06 198 108 11.00 9a-6p 4.36 74.5 47.96 Nunner Group - Collier County
Total Size 209.5 132 Average Trip Length:4.78
177.6 Weighted Average Trip Length:4.05
ITE 779.0 19 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:77.8
Blended total 956.60 Average Trip Generation Rate:6.06
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:6.30
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:6.26
Land Use 890: Furniture Store
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 77 ---2.40 - -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 211 ----54.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug-89 113 52 -9a-6p 5.20 46.0 -Tindale Oliver
Largo, FL 2.0 Sep-89 129 94 --1.60 73.0 -Tindale Oliver
Seminole, FL 4.5 Oct-89 - ----- -Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 2.3 Jun-91 69 29 -24hr.1.33 42.0 -Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 3.1 Jun-91 47 32 -24hr.1.75 68.1 -Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 -48hrs.2.70 45.6 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 162 96 -24hr.0.88 59.3 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 116 54 --1.58 46.6 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 142 68 --2.08 47.9 -Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 5.4 May-96 164 41 -9a-6p 2.77 24.7 -Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 2.4 Apr-02 70 --24hr.3.55 54.6 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 2.7 May-02 50 -246.66 24hr.2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 25.2 9 1,407 Average Trip Length:2.38
ITE 147.0 21 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.46
Blended total 172.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:46.2
149.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:246.66
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:100.03
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:102.66
Land Use 912: Drive-In Bank
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 76 62 --2.10 82.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL 7.5 Oct-89 177 154 -11a-2p/4-8p 3.50 87.0 -Tindale Oliver
Clearwater, FL 8.0 Oct-89 60 40 110.63 10a-2p/5-9p 2.80 67.0 207.54 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 15.5 2 313 Average Trip Length:2.80
ITE 90.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length:3.14
Blended total 105.5 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:76.7
Land Use 931: Low-Turnover (Quality) Restaurant
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-10 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Hernando Co, FL 6.2 1996 242 175 187.51 9a-6p 2.76 72.5 375.00 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 8.2 1996 154 93 102.71 9a-6p 4.15 60.2 256.43 Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL 5.0 1989 74 68 132.60 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 243.98 Tindale Oliver
Kenneth City, FL 5.2 1989 236 176 127.88 4p-730p 2.30 75.0 220.59 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 5.2 2002 114 88 82.47 9a-6p 3.72 77.2 236.81 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 5.8 2002 182 102 116.97 9a-6p 3.49 56.0 228.77 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 5.0 1996 --135.68 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 9.7 1996 --132.32 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 11.2 1998 --18.76 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 7.0 1998 --126.40 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 4.6 1998 --129.23 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 7.4 1998 --147.44 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 6.7 1998 --82.58 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 11.3 2000 --95.33 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 7.2 2000 --98.06 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 11.4 2001 --91.67 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 5.6 2001 --145.59 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 5.5 ---100.18 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 11.3 ---62.12 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 10.4 ---31.77 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 5.9 ---147.74 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 8.9 2008 --52.69 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 9.7 2010 --105.84 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 9.5 2013 --40.46 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 11.0 2015 --138.39 ----Orange County
Total Size 194.9 21 1,102 Average Trip Length:3.07
ITE 250.0 50 Weighted Average Trip Length:3.17
Blended total 444.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:70.8
Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 61 ---2.70 --Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL -Mar-86 306 ----65.0 -Kimley-Horn & Associates
Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 11a-2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 4.30 Oct-89 456 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale Oliver
Tarpon Springs, FL -Oct-89 233 114 -7a-7p 3.60 49.0 -Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 1.60 Jun-91 60 32 962.50 48hrs.0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 4.00 Jun-91 75 46 625.00 48hrs.1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 66 44 --1.91 66.7 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 118 40 --1.17 33.9 -Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May-96 136 82 311.83 9a-6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 3.13 May-96 168 82 547.34 9a-6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 8.93 1996 --377.00 ----Orange County
Lake Co, FL 2.20 Apr-01 376 252 934.30 -2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 3.20 Apr-01 171 182 654.90 --47.8 -Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 3.80 Apr-01 188 137 353.70 -3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 2.66 Apr-02 100 46 283.12 9a-6p -46.0 -Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 2.96 Apr-02 486 164 515.32 9a-6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr-02 168 120 759.24 9a-6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 48.8 13 4,463 Average Trip Length:2.11
ITE 201.0 67 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.05
Blended total 249.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:57.9
34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:530.19
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:470.95
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:482.53
Land Use 934: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Largo, FL 5.5 Sep-89 34 30 37.64 9a-5p 2.40 88.0 79.50 Tindale Oliver
Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 124 94 -9a-5p 3.07 76.0 -Tindale Oliver
Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 110 74 -9a-5p 2.96 67.0 -Tindale Oliver
Jacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3-4/90 132 87 -9a-5p 2.32 66.0 -Tindale Oliver
Lakeland, FL 5.2 Mar-90 24 14 -9a-4p 1.36 59.0 -Tindale Oliver
Lakeland, FL -Mar-90 54 42 -9a-4p 2.44 78.0 -Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov-92 41 39 -2-6p 4.60 --LCE, Inc.
Orange Co, FL 36.6 ---15.17 ----Orange County
Orange Co, FL 7.0 ---46.43 ----Orange County
Total Size 86.2 6 519 Average Trip Length:2.74
ITE 102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length:3.62
Blended total 188.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:72.2
Land Use 942: Automobile Care Center
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Largo, FL 0.6 Nov-89 70 14 -8am-5pm -23.0 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL -Aug-91 168 40 - -1.01 23.8 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 0.6 1 238 Average Trip Length:1.01
ITE (vfp)144.0 18 Weighted Average Trip Length:1.01
Weighted Percent New Trip Average:23.0
Land Use 944/945: Gasoline/Service Station
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-11 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering
As part of this study, the single family residential trip generation rate tiering was included to
reflect a tiering analysis to ensure equity by the size of a home. To facilitate this, an analysis was
completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior.
This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2015
American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip-making characteristics of households in
the United States.
Table A-3 presents that trip characteristics being utilized in the proposed road impact fee
schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess
average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income
levels. In addition, the 2015 AHS database was used to compare median annual
family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the
income variable in each of these databases is simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism
between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS.
Location Size (Bays)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Largo, FL 10 Nov-89 111 84 -8am-5pm 2.00 76.0 -Tindale Oliver
Clearwater, FL -Nov-89 177 108 -10am-5pm 1.30 61.0 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 11 Dec-09 304 -30.24 -2.50 57.0 -Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 8 Jan-09 186 -22.75 -1.96 72.0 -Tindale Oliver
Total Size 29 3 778 Average Trip Length:1.94
Total Size (TGR)19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.18
ITE 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:67.7
Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:27.09
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:108.00
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:43.94
Land Use 947: Self-Service Car Wash
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Collier Co, FL 12.0 May-99 -13 19.70 8a-6p 3.70 75.0 54.67 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 12.0 May-99 -146 127.50 8a-6p 2.24 84.3 240.76 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 24.0 3 Average Trip Length:2.97
ITE 100.0 4 Weighted Average Trip Length:2.97
Blended total 124.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average:79.7
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:73.60
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (9th Edition):44.32
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate:49.99
Land Use N/A: Specialty Retail Center
Location Size (1,000 sf)Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Collier Co, FL 7.000 Jul-08 --30.29 ----Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 20.48 Jul-08 --17.19 ----Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 8.705 Jul-08 --23.89 ----Tindale Oliver
Total Size 36.2 3 Average Trip Length:n/a
Weighted Average Trip Length:n/a
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:21.33
Land Use N/A: Dance Studio
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-12 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-3
Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics
Source: Florida Studies TCS Database, Land Use 210: Single Family Residential
*Does not include the trip length adjustment factor
The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables A-4 and A-5. First, the data
shown in Table A-4 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in
housing units smaller than 4,000 square feet in size ($61,444) is lower than the overall average
income for the U.S. ($62,419). In Table A-5, annual average household VMT was calculated from
the NHTS database for several different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS
income data in Table A-4.
Table A-4
Annual Income by Housing Size
Source: American Housing Survey for the United State in 2017
1) Weighted average of annual income for each tier
Table A-5
NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category
Source: 2017 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration
To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative
ratios. As an example, consider the $61,444 annual income category. First, it was determined
that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 18,612 miles. This figure was
than compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to
the average of the $70,622 (19,713 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.944. It should be noted
Calculated Values Excluding
Tiering Trip Rate Assessable
Trip Length*
Daily
VMT
Single Family (Detached)7.81 5.88 45.92
2017 AHS Average Income Data
by Housing Size
Annual
Income(1)
Less than 4,000 sf $61,444
1,500 to 2,499 sf $70,622
4,000 sf or more $90,886
Average of All Houses $62,419
2017 NHTS Travel Data by
Annual HH Income
Annual
VMT/HH Days Daily
VMT
Ratio to
Mean
Normalized
to 1.055
Total (All Homes)18,684 365 51.19 1.000 -
Average of $61,444 18,612 365 50.99 0.996 0.944
Average of $70,622 19,713 365 54.01 1.055 1.000
Average of $90,886 22,703 365 62.20 1.215 1.152
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-13 Road Impact Fee Update Study
that the $70,622 (1,500-2,499 sq ft) category is not an impact fee tier, but rather the average
homes size that corresponds with the Florida Studies data shown in Table A -3.
Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing
unit size (less than 4,000 sq ft) to generate a daily VMT of 43.35 for the tier, as shown in Table A-
6. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 5.88 miles to
obtain a trip generation rate of 7.37 trips per day.
Table A-6
Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier
1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tier
2) Source: Table A-3
3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) multiplied by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sq tier
4) Source: Table A-5
Table A-7 illustrates the impact that the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached)
land use have on the County’s calculated roadway impact fee rate.
Table A-7
Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier
1) Source: Table A-6, Item 1
2) Source: Appendix D, Table D-1
Demand Variable Changes
Since the last demand component update in 2015, the trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL),
and percent new trips (PNT) has changed for several land uses. Tables A-8 through A-11 present
the change in each variable for each land use for the 2019 update.
Estimation of Trip Rate
by Tier Trip Rate(1)Assessable
Trip Length(2)
Daily
VMT(3)
Ratio to
Mean(4)
Single Family (Detached)
Less than 4,000 sf 7.37 5.88 43.35 0.944
1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 5.88 45.92 1.000
4,000 sf or larger 9.00 5.88 52.90 1.152
Impact of Tiering on
Fee Schedule Trip Rate(1)Assessable
Trip Length(2)
Daily
VMT(3)Net Fee(2)
Single Family (Detached)
Less than 4,000 sf 7.37 5.88 43.35 $8,590
4,000 sf or larger 9.00 5.88 52.90 $10,489
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-14 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-8
Percent Change in Gross VMT of Impact Fee Land Uses
- Gross VMT = TGR * TL * PNT / 2
- Individual variables are shown in Tables A-9 through A-11
ITE LUC Land Use Unit GVMT
2015
GVMT
2019 % Explanation
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 22.49 21.67 -3.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 27.11 26.46 -2.4%TGR update, see Table A-9
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 16.83 18.67 10.9%TGR update, see Table A-9
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 10.71 13.87 29.5%TGR update, see Table A-9
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 14.69 11.35 -22.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -8.77 -New land use
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -5.13 -New land use
240 Mobile Home Park du 9.59 9.59 0.0%No change
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 8.46 9.49 12.2%TGR update, see Table A-9
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 8.46 5.46 -35.5%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-9 and A-10
254 Assisted Living bed 2.48 2.42 -2.4%TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-9, A-10, and A-11
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 11.38 9.93 -12.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
311 All Suites Hotel room 8.76 7.98 -8.9%TGR update, see Table A-9
320 Motel room 9.41 5.60 -40.5%TGR update, see Table A-9
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park site 3.73 3.73 0.0%No change
420 Marina berth 7.83 6.38 -18.5%TGR update, see Table A-9
430 Golf Course 18 holes 642.68 546.29 -15.0%TGR update, see Table A-9
n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 192.81 163.89 -15.0%TGR update, see Table A-9
444 Movie Theater screen 104.16 112.17 7.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 25.34 25.34 0.0%No change
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 2.22 2.22 0.0%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-9 and A-10
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 3.13 2.50 -20.1%TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-9, A-10, and A-11
530 High School (Private)student 3.31 2.69 -18.7%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-9 and A-10
540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private)student 5.29 5.29 0.0%No change
550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private)student 3.97 3.97 0.0%No change
560 Church seat 1.07 0.77 -28.0%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-9 and A-10
565 Day Care Center student 3.25 3.03 -6.8%TGR update, see Table A-9
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 29.93 24.58 -17.9%TGR & PNT update, see Tables A-9 and A-11
620 Nursing Home bed 3.18 3.48 9.4%TGR update, see Table A-9
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 26.11 23.07 -11.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 58.85 58.85 0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 85.75 84.27 -1.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 30.29 30.29 0.0%No change
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 18.90 16.39 -13.3%TGR update, see Table A-9
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 34.19 29.64 -13.3%TGR update, see Table A-9
Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 41.66 37.57 -9.8%TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-9, A-10, and A-11
840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 51.33 44.66 -13.0%TGR update, see Table A-9
849 Tire Superstore service bay 25.52 25.52 0.0%No change
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 60.21 62.11 3.2%TGR update, see Table A-9
851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 224.10 230.43 2.8%TGR update, see Table A-9
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 23.38 23.38 0.0%No change
880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 31.94 34.73 8.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 8.26 9.89 19.7%TGR update, see Table A-9
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 68.63 33.60 -51.0%TGR update, see Table A-9
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 90.15 58.09 -35.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf -187.37 -New land use
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 3.46 3.14 -9.2%TGR update, see Table A-9
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 5.44 4.92 -9.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 303.79 286.86 -5.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf -264.40 -New land use
941 Quick Lube service bay 33.41 33.41 0.0%No change
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.18.27 19.98 9.4%TGR update, see Table A-9
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.18.27 23.85 30.5%TGR update, see Table A-9
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.18.27 26.77 46.5%TGR update, see Table A-9
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 32.57 32.57 0.0%No change
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 104.66 105.25 0.6%TGR update, see Table A-9
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 33.25 33.25 0.0%No change
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 17.25 12.28 -28.8%TGR update, see Table A-9
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 9.45 9.73 3.0%TGR update, see Table A-9
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 8.81 4.31 -51.1%TGR update, see Table A-9
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.07 2.41 -21.5%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-9 and A-10
n/a Mine 1,000 cy 0.07 0.07 0.0%No change
720
210
820
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-15 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-9
Percent Change in Trip Generation Rate of Impact Fee Land Uses
- See Appendix D for additional information
ITE LUC Land Use Unit TGR
2015
TGR
2019 % Explanation
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 7.65 7.37 -3.7%Updated tiering to AHS 2017 & NHTS 2017
Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 9.22 9.00 -2.4%Updated tiering to AHS 2017 & NHTS 2017
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 6.60 7.32 10.9%Re-alignment of multi-family land uses in ITE 10th Edition
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 4.20 5.44 29.5%Re-alignment of multi-family land uses in ITE 10th Edition
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 5.76 4.45 -22.7%Re-alignment of multi-family land uses in ITE 10th Edition
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -3.44 -New land use
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -2.01 -New land use
240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 4.17 0.0%No change
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 3.12 3.50 12.2%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 3.12 3.33 6.7%New land use, previously "attached" units assessed as LUC 251
254 Assisted Living bed 2.25 2.60 15.6%Unit change, update to ITE 10th Edition
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 6.36 5.55 -12.7%Additional FL Studies added and updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
311 All Suites Hotel room 4.90 4.46 -9.0%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
320 Motel room 5.63 3.35 -40.5%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park site 1.62 1.62 0.0%No change
420 Marina berth 2.96 2.41 -18.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
430 Golf Course 18 holes 643.32 546.84 -15.0%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 193.00 164.05 -15.0%Updated TGR for LUC 430 in ITE 10th Edition (Bundled = 30%)
444 Movie Theater screen 106.63 114.83 7.7%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33 21.33 0.0%No change
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 1.29 1.89 46.5%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 1.62 2.13 31.5%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
530 High School (Private)student 1.71 2.03 18.7%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private)student 2.00 2.00 0.0%No change
550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private)student 1.50 1.50 0.0%No change
560 Church seat 0.61 0.44 -27.9%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
565 Day Care Center student 4.38 4.09 -6.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 13.22 10.72 -18.9%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
620 Nursing Home bed 2.76 3.02 9.4%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 11.02 9.74 -11.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition, removal of sq ft tiers
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83 23.83 0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.72 34.12 -1.7%Update to ITE 10th
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 12.65 12.65 0.0%No change
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 86.56 75.05 -13.3%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 86.56 75.05 -13.3%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 28.46 37.75 32.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition, reduction of sq ft tiers
840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 28.25 24.58 -13.0%Update to ITE 10th Edition and merging of LUC 840 & 841
849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 30.55 0.0%No change
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 103.38 106.64 3.2%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 719.18 739.50 2.8%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 30.74 0.0%No change
880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 95.96 104.37 8.8%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition for LUC 880 & 881
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.23 6.26 19.7%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 121.30 59.39 -51.0%Update to peak hour-to-daily conversion calculation
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 159.34 102.66 -35.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf -315.17 -New land use
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 2.86 2.60 -9.1%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 4.83 4.37 -9.5%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 511.00 482.53 -5.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf -409.25 -New land use
941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 40.00 0.0%No change
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.157.33 172.01 9.3%Re-alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.157.33 205.36 30.5%Re-alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.157.33 230.52 46.5%Re-alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 43.94 0.0%No change
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 141.20 142.00 0.6%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 16.30 0.0%No change
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.96 -28.8%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.82 3.93 2.9%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 3.56 1.74 -51.1%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.15 1.49 -30.7%Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition
n/a Mine 1,000 cy 0.01 0.01 0.0%No change
720
210
820
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-16 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-10
Percent Change in Assessable Trip Length of Impact Fee Land Uses
- See Appendix D for additional information
- Trip length values do not include the trip length adjustment factor
ITE LUC Land Use Unit TL
2015
TL
2019 % Explanation
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 5.10 5.10 0.0%No change
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 5.10 5.10 0.0%No change
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 5.10 5.10 0.0%No change
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -5.10 -New land use
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -5.10 -New land use
240 Mobile Home Park du 4.60 4.60 0.0%No change
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 5.42 5.42 0.0%No change
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 5.42 3.28 -39.5%Updated to reflect Florida Studies for "attached" communities
254 Assisted Living bed 3.08 2.59 -15.9%Updated to use the TL for LUC 620, previously used LUC 253 (App. A)
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 5.42 5.42 0.0%No change
311 All Suites Hotel room 5.42 5.42 0.0%No change
320 Motel room 4.34 4.34 0.0%No change
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park site 4.60 4.60 0.0%No change
420 Marina berth 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
430 Golf Course 18 holes 2.22 2.22 0.0%Same as LUC 444
n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 2.22 2.22 0.0%Same as LUC 444
444 Movie Theater screen 2.22 2.22 0.0%No change
n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 2.97 2.97 0.0%No change
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 4.30 2.94 -31.6%updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 4.30 2.94 -31.6%updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models
530 High School (Private)student 4.30 2.94 -31.6%updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models
540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private)student 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private)student 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
560 Church seat 3.90 3.91 0.3%Updated to use the midpoint of office and retail (App. A)
565 Day Care Center student 2.03 2.03 0.0%No change
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change
620 Nursing Home bed 2.59 2.59 0.0%No change
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0.0%No change
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0%No change
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 1.12 1.12 0.0%No change
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 1.58 1.58 0.0%No change
Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 3.57 2.69 -24.6%Reduction of retail tiers, TL tied to avg size (450k sfgla) from ITE 10th
840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.60 4.60 0.0%No change
849 Tire Superstore service bay 2.32 2.32 0.0%No change
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.08 2.08 0.0%No change
851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 1.52 1.52 0.0%No change
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 2.34 2.34 0.0%No change
880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 2.08 2.08 0.0%No change
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 4.05 4.05 0.0%No change
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0%No change
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0%No change
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf -2.05 -New land use
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 3.14 3.14 0.0%No change
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 3.17 3.17 0.0%No change
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 2.05 2.05 0.0%No change
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf -2.19 -New land use
941 Quick Lube service bay 2.32 2.32 0.0%No change
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.1.01 1.01 0.0%No change
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.1.01 1.01 0.0%No change
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.1.01 1.01 0.0%No change
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 2.18 2.18 0.0%No change
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 2.18 2.18 0.0%No change
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.80 4.80 0.0%No change
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0%No change
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0%No change
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0%No change
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.10 3.51 13.2%Updated to use the midpoint of office and retail <50k sq ft (1.87)
n/a Mine 1,000 cy 14.82 14.82 0.0%No change
720
210
820
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 A-17 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-11
Percent Change in Percent New Trips of Impact Fee Land Uses
- See Appendix D for additional information
ITE LUC Land Use Unit PNT
2015
PNT
2019 % Explanation
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 100%100%0.0%No change
Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 100%100%0.0%No change
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 100%100%0.0%No change
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 100%100%0.0%No change
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 100%100%0.0%No change
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -100%-New land use
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du -100%-New land use
240 Mobile Home Park du 100%100%0.0%No change
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 100%100%0.0%No change
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 100%100%0.0%No change
254 Assisted Living bed 72%72%0.5%Slight change due to rounding issue
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 66%66%0.0%No change
311 All Suites Hotel room 66%66%0.0%No change
320 Motel room 77%77%0.0%No change
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park site 100%100%0.0%No change
420 Marina berth 90%90%0.0%No change
430 Golf Course 18 holes 90%90%0.0%No change
n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 90%90%0.0%No change
444 Movie Theater screen 88%88%0.0%No change
n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 80%80%0.0%No change
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 80%80%0.0%No change
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 90%80%-11.1%Updated to be the same as LUC 520
530 High School (Private)student 90%90%0.0%No change
540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private)student 90%90%0.0%No change
550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private)student 90%90%0.0%No change
560 Church seat 90%90%0.0%No change
565 Day Care Center student 73%73%0.0%No change
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 77%78%1.3%Updated to use the midpoint of LUC 310 and LUC 720
620 Nursing Home bed 89%89%0.0%No change
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 92%92%0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 89%89%0.0%No change
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 89%89%0.0%No change
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 89%89%0.0%No change
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 39%39%0.0%No change
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 50%50%0.0%No change
Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 82%74%-9.8%Reduction of retail tiers, PNT tied to avg size (450k sfgla) from ITE 10th
840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 79%79%0.0%No change
849 Tire Superstore service bay 72%72%0.0%No change
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 56%56%0.0%No change
851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 41%41%0.0%No change
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 65%65%0.0%No change
880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 32%32%0.0%No change
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 78%78%0.0%No change
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 46%46%0.0%No change
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 46%46%0.0%No change
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf -58%-New land use
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 77%77%0.0%No change
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 71%71%0.0%No change
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 58%58%0.0%No change
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf -59%-New land use
941 Quick Lube service bay 72%72%0.0%No change
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.23%23%0.0%No change
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.23%23%0.0%No change
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.23%23%0.0%No change
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 68%68%0.0%No change
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 68%68%0.0%No change
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 85%85%0.0%No change
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 92%92%0.0%No change
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 92%92%0.0%No change
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 92%92%0.0%No change
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 92%92%0.0%No change
n/a Mine 1,000 cy 97%97%0.0%No change
720
210
820
Appendix B
Cost Component
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix B: Cost Component
This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the road impact fee
update. Supporting data and estimates are provided for all cost variables, including:
• Design
• Right-of-Way
• Construction
• CEI
• Mitigation
• Urban Overpass
• Roadway Capacity
Design
The design cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost
per lane mile. This factor was determined based on a review of design-to-construction cost ratios
from previously completed road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. As shown
in Table B-1, recent design factors ranged from 8 to 14 percent with a weighted average of 11
percent. For purposes of this study, the design cost for county roads was calculated at 11 percent
of the construction cost per lane mile.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-1
Design Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies
Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida
Right-of-Way
The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that are necessary to
have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,
build a new road.
A review of ROW data for county roadway capacity expansion improvements identified two
recently completed and two recently bid expansion improvements:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
• Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd
• Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 10th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE
Due to variation in the cost per lane mile for these projects based on geographical location, the
improvements were grouped into “high” and “low” cost per lane mile categories. T he “high”
ROW category included improvements along Collier Blvd and Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension,
while “low” improvements were located along Golden Gate Blvd.
Design Constr.Ratio
2012 Osceola $371,196 $2,651,400 14%
2012 Orange $264,000 $2,400,000 11%
2013 Hernando $198,000 $1,980,000 10%
2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10%
2014 Indian River $159,000 $1,598,000 10%
2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10%
2015 Brevard $242,000 $2,023,000 12%
2015 Sumter $210,000 $2,100,000 10%
2015 Marion $167,000 $1,668,000 10%
2015 Palm Beach $224,000 $1,759,000 13%
2016 Hillsborough $348,000 $2,897,000 12%
2016 St. Lucie $220,000 $2,200,000 10%
2017 Clay $239,000 $2,385,000 10%
2018 Orange $203,000 $2,542,000 8%
$238,228 $2,221,671 11%
Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile)
Average
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study
To determine a single weighted average cost per lane mile for the impact fee calculation, the
“high” and “low” ROW costs were blended together based on the ROW designation of all capacity
expansion improvements listed in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. Improvements
located in rural areas were designated as “low” while improvements in ur ban or transitioning
areas were designated as “high”. Urban and transitioning areas include west county (City of
Naples) and extending into the Golden Gate area. Rural areas include Immokalee and east
county. Table B-2 details the specific improvements used to calculate the high and low ROW
costs and Table B-3 details the weighted average calculation. Additionally, Table B-11 provides
the project-by-project ROW designation for all roadway capacity expansion improvements in the
LRTP.
As calculated, the $1.67 million per lane mile represents a significant increase (94 percent) since
the last study. To supplement this analysis, a review of the recent changes in the just/market
value of all property in Collier County was conducted. As shown in Table B-4, the value of
properties increased by approximately 40 percent between 2014 and 2018. To update the ROW
cost for the impact fee calculation, the figure calculated in the previous study ($863,000 per lane
mile) was indexed using the value increase observed since this study (40 percent). This index
results in a ROW cost of approximately $1.21 million per lane mile, which represents a
conservative estimate, accounting for the fluctuations in cost due to the location of projects and
the small sample size.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-2
Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Estimates – County Roads
Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
Table B-3
Right-of-Way Cost Calculation
1) Source: Table B-11
2) Source: Table B-2
3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 2) multiplied by the LRTP ROW designation
distribution (Item 1) to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile
Description From To Area Lane
Miles
Right-of-Way
Cost
ROW Cost per
Lane Mile
Completed Projects
Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N Low 4.80 $4,444,170 $925,869
Collier Blvd Green Blvd Golden Gate Blvd High 4.00 $5,938,850 $1,484,713
Future Projects
Golden Gate Blvd W. of 20th St SE E. of Everglades Blvd Low 2.88 $4,920,550 $1,708,524
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Collier Blvd 16th St NE High 14.00 $44,002,000 $3,143,000
25.68 $59,305,570 $2,309,407
7.68 $9,364,720 $1,219,365
18.00 $49,940,850 $2,774,492
Low Cost Area
High Cost Area
Total
ROW Cost Rates LRTP ROW
Distribution(1)
ROW Cost per
Lane Mile(2)
Weighted
Avg. ROW(3)
Low Cost ROW 71%$1,219,365 $865,749
High Cost ROW 29%$2,774,492 $804,603
Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile $1,670,352
Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile (Rounded)$1,670,000
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-4
Just/Market Value Change – Real, Personal and Centrally Assessed Property
Source: Florida Property Valuations and Tax Databook
Table B-5
ROW Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies
Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida
Construction
The construction cost for county roads (curb & gutter, urban section design) was based on local
projects and the cost of recent projects in other communities in Florida. A review of local
construction cost data from recent years identified two recent bids and four future project
estimates:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N (2014 bid)
• Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd (2013 bid)
• Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd
Year Just/Market Value % Change
2014 $81,260,298,470 -
2015 $90,995,640,578 11.98%
2016 $102,025,075,579 12.12%
2017 $108,865,945,366 6.71%
2018 $112,378,569,611 3.23%
2014-2018 38.29%
ROW Constr.Ratio
2012 Osceola $1,087,074 $2,651,400 41%
2012 Orange $1,080,000 $2,400,000 45%
2013 Hernando $811,800 $1,980,000 41%
2013 Charlotte $1,034,000 $2,200,000 47%
2014 Indian River $656,000 $1,598,000 41%
2015 Collier $863,000 $2,700,000 32%
2015 Brevard $708,000 $2,023,000 35%
2015 Sumter $945,000 $2,100,000 45%
2015 Marion $1,001,000 $1,668,000 60%
2015 Palm Beach $721,000 $1,759,000 41%
2016 Hillsborough $1,448,000 $2,897,000 50%
2016 St. Lucie $990,000 $2,200,000 45%
2017 Clay $954,000 $2,385,000 40%
2018 Orange $1,200,000 $3,000,000 40%
$964,205 $2,254,386 43%
Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile)
Average
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from US 41 to E. of Goodlette-Frank Rd
• Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd
Costs for these local improvements ranged from $2.9 million to $5.6 million per lane mile with a
weighted average cost of $3.6 million per lane mile (Table B-6).
In addition to local improvements, recent bids/completed projects from other communities
throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample size of data. This review included
approximately 157 lane miles of improvements across 12 different counties, averaging $2.7
million per lane mile.
As show in Table B-7 and Figure B-1, the average cost per lane mile has been steadily increasing
in the past few years, far exceeding the average over the entire time period ($2.7 million). Figure
B-1 illustrates the range of construction costs per year as well as providing the annual average of
the entire sample (excluding the Collier projects).
Figure B-2 goes a step further, providing two different trend lines based on the set of statewide
data (excluding Collier projects). The “reduction of sa mple” trend shows how costs have been
increasing in more recent years by starting with the average of all projects (from 2012 to 2018)
and then gradually removing an earlier year of additional sample data. Conversely, the
“cumulative sample” shows how each additional year of cost data has impacted the weighted
average as the sample size has increased. As shown, the use of past seven years of data
moderates recent cost increases as the early years (2012 and 2013) had significantly more
improvements at lower costs.
Based on a review of the local projects, statewide projects, and the various trends, a construction
of $3.5 million per lane mile for county roads (curb & gutter) is utilized for the road impact fee
calculation. This figure is influenced heavily by the local project data and is also consistent with
the statewide data observed over the past several years, providing a reasonable estimate for
planning purposes.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-7 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-6
Local Roadway Construction Costs – County Roads
Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
1) Cost figures from County staff included construction/design/CEI as a single cost item. To estimate the portion solely alloca ted to construction, the cost was reduced by 20 percent (11 percent for design and 9 percent for CEI)
based on the average ratios observed statewide, presented in Tables B -1 and B-8
Description From To Bid
Year Feature Design Length Lanes
Added
Lane
Miles
Added
Construction/
Design/CEI
Cost
Cost per Lane
Mile
Construction
Cost (80%)(1)
Construction
Cost per Lane
Mile
Completed Projects
Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N 2014 2 to 4 Urban 2.40 2 4.80 $20,004,380 $4,167,579 $16,003,504 $3,334,063
Collier Blvd Green Blvd Golden Gate Blvd 2013 4 to 6 Urban 2.00 2 4.00 $21,403,300 $5,350,825 $17,122,640 $4,280,660
Future Projects
Golden Gate Blvd W. of 20th St SE E. of Everglades Blvd Est.2 to 4 Urban 1.44 2 2.88 $20,165,450 $7,001,892 $16,132,360 $5,601,514
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Collier Blvd 16th St NE Est.4 to 6 Urban 7.00 2 14.00 $54,858,000 $3,918,429 $43,886,400 $3,134,743
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.US 41 E. of Goodlette-Frank Rd Est.4 to 6 Urban 0.92 2 1.84 $9,700,000 $5,271,739 $7,760,000 $4,217,391
Airport Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Est.4 to 6 Urban 2.00 2 4.00 $14,520,000 $3,630,000 $11,616,000 $2,904,000
31.52 $140,651,130 $4,462,282 $112,520,904 $3,569,826Total
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-8 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-7
Construction Cost – County Road Improvements from Other Jurisdictions throughout Florida
Source: Data obtained from each respective county (Building and Public Works Departments)
County District Description From To Year Status Feature Design Length Lanes
Added
Lane Miles
Added Construction Cost Construction Cost
per Lane Mile
Indian River 4 Oslo Rd Ph. III 43rd Ave 58th Ave 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.15 2 2.30 $3,812,202 $1,657,479
Indian River 4 66th Ave SR 60 49th St 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 3.05 2 6.10 $20,773,389 $3,405,474
Polk 1 Kathleen Rd (CR35A) Ph. II Galloway Rd Duff Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 3.00 2 6.00 $17,813,685 $2,968,948
Polk 1 Bartow Northern Connector Ph. I US 98 US 17 2012 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 2.00 4 8.00 $11,255,736 $1,406,967
Volusia 5 Tymber Creek Rd S. of SR 40 N. of Peruvian Ln 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.89 2 1.78 $5,276,057 $2,964,077
Palm Beach 4 Jog Rd N. of SR 710 N. of Florida's Turnpike 2012 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 0.70 4 2.80 $3,413,874 $1,219,241
Palm Beach 4 West Atlantic Ave W. of Lyons Rd Starkey Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.80 2 1.60 $8,818,727 $5,511,704
Palm Beach 4 60th St N & SR 7 Ext.E. of Royal Palm Beach Blvd SR 7 2012 Bid 0 to 2 Urban 1.50 2 3.00 $3,821,404 $1,273,801
Orange 5 Clarcona-Ocoee Rd Ocoee-Apopka Rd Hiawassee Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 5.08 2 10.16 $19,831,058 $1,951,876
Orange 5 John Young Pkwy SR 528 FL Turnpike 2012 Bid 4 to 6 Urban 2.34 2 4.68 $13,722,494 $2,932,157
Orange 5 Econlockhatchee Tr SR 408 SR 50 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.38 2 2.76 $8,621,445 $3,123,712
Brevard 5 Babcock St S. of Foundation Park Blvd Malabar Rd 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 12.40 2 24.80 $56,000,000 $2,258,065
Marion 5 SW 110th St US 41 SW 200th Ave 2013 Bid 0 to 2 Urban 0.11 2 0.22 $438,765 $1,994,386
Marion 5 NW 35th St NW 35th Avenue Rd NW 27th Ave 2013 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 0.50 4
Marion 5 NW 35th St NW 27th Ave US 441 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.30 2
Sumter 5 C-466A, Ph. III US 301 N Powell Rd 2013 Bid 2 to 3/4 Urban 1.10 2 2.20 $4,283,842 $1,947,201
Orange 5 Rouse Rd Lake Underhill Corporate Blvd 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 4.15 2 8.30 $35,075,000 $4,225,904
Orange 5 Lake Underhill Goldenrod Rd Chickasaw Tr 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.69 2 1.38 $6,629,620 $4,804,072
Brevard 5 St. Johns Heritage Pkwy SE of I-95 Intersection US 192 (Space Coast Pkwy)2014 Bid 0 to 2 Sub-Urb 3.11 2 6.22 $16,763,567 $2,695,107
Sarasota 1 Bee Ridge Rd Mauna Loa Blvd Iona Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.68 2 5.36 $14,066,523 $2,624,351
St. Lucie 4 W Midway Rd (CR 712)Selvitz Rd South 25th St 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.00 2 2.00 $6,144,000 $3,072,000
Orange 5 CR 535 Seg. F Overstreet Rd Fossick Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.60 2 1.20 $3,836,448 $3,197,040
Orange 5 Wetherbee Rd Balcombe Rd Orange Ave 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.50 2 3.00 $9,234,873 $3,078,291
Lake 5 N Hancock Rd Ext.Old 50 Gatewood Dr 2014 Bid 0/2 to 4 Urban 1.50 2/4 5.00 $8,185,574 $1,637,115
Polk 1 CR 655 & CR 559A Pace Rd & N of CR 559A N of CR 559A & SR 599 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.60 2 5.20 $10,793,552 $2,075,683
Volusia 5 Howland Blvd Courtland Blvd N of SR 415 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.08 2 4.16 $11,110,480 $2,670,788
Hillsborough 7 Turkey Creek Rd Dr. MLK Blvd Sydney Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.40 2 2.80 $3,166,000 $1,130,714
Polk 1 Ernie Caldwell Blvd Pine Tree Tr US 17/92 2015 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 2.41 4 9.64 $19,535,391 $2,026,493
Orange 5 International Dr N Westwood Blvd S Westwood Blvd 2015 Bid 4 to 6 Urban 2.20 2 4.40 $18,802,148 $4,273,215
Volusia 5 LPGA Blvd Jimmy Ann Dr/Grand Reserve Derbyshire Rd 2016 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.68 2 1.36 $3,758,279 $2,763,440
St. Lucie 4 W Midway Rd (CR 712)W. of South 25th St E. of SR 5 (US 1)2016 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.77 2 3.54 $24,415,701 $6,897,091
Volusia 5 Howland Blvd Providence Blvd Elkcam Blvd 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.15 2 4.30 $10,850,000 $2,523,256
Volusia 5 Orange Camp Rd MLK Blvd I-4 in DeLand 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.75 2 1.50 $10,332,000 $6,888,000
Orange 5 Reams Rd Delmar Ave Taborfield Ave 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.60 2 1.20 $5,487,872 $4,573,227
Lake 5 CR 466A, Ph. IIIA Poinsettia Ave Centruy Ave 2018 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.42 2 0.84 $3,062,456 $3,645,781
Hillsborough 7 Van Dyke Suncoast Pkwy Whirley 2018 Estimate 2 to 4 Urban 2.05 2 4.10 $20,000,000 $4,878,049
Count:36 156.50 $427,748,398 $2,733,217 Total
4.60 $8,616,236 $1,873,095
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-9 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure B-1
Construction Costs – County Roads
Source: Table B-5 for projects (red dots) and Table B-6 for statewide projects (blue dots)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Projects Yearly Average
Proposed
Collier County Projects in RED
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-10 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure B-2
Construction Cost Trend – County Roads
Source: Table B-6
- Reduction of Sample = as trend line progresses an additional year of historical data is removed
- Cumulative Sample = as trend line progresses as additional year of data is added to the sample
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Reduction of Sample Cumulative Sample
2018
2017-2018 2016-2018
2015-2018
2014-2018 Proposed
2012-2018 2012-2017 2012-2016 2012-2015 2012-2014 2012-2013 2012
2013-2018 2012-2018
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-11 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figures B-3 through B-7 illustrate the recent change in units cost for earthwork, base, steel,
asphalt, and concrete for both District 1 and statewide. Each of these graphs indicate s that costs
are recovering since the crash in 2009/10, which is consistent with trends observed in the
County’s construction costs.
Figure B-3
FDOT Earthwork Cost Trend
Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management
Office
Figure B-4
FDOT Base Cost Trend
Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management
Office
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW
D1
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
$20.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW
D1
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-12 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure B-5
FDOT Asphalt Cost Trend
Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management
Office
Figure B-6
FDOT Concrete Cost Trend
Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management
Office
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW
D1
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW
D1
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-13 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Figure B-7
FDOT Steel Cost Trend
Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management
Office
Construction Engineering/Inspection
The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per
lane mile. This factor was determined based on a review of CEI-to-construction cost ratios from
previously completed road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. As shown in
Table B-8, recent CEI factors ranged from 3 percent to 17 percent with a weighted average of 9
percent. For purposes of this study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of
the construction cost per lane mile.
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW
D1
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-14 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-8
CEI Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies
Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida
Mitigation
Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in
Collier County:
• Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N
• Collier Blvd (CR 951) from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd
Both segments are located outside of the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which, historically,
tend to have higher costs than non-PCS mitigation. As shown in Table B-9, the weighted average
cost per lane mile for the two county roads projects is approximately $74,000 per lane mile.
CEI Constr.Ratio
2012 Osceola $265,140 $2,651,400 10%
2013 Hernando $178,200 $1,980,000 9%
2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10%
2014 Indian River $143,000 $1,598,000 9%
2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10%
2015 Brevard $344,000 $2,023,000 17%
2015 Sumter $147,000 $2,100,000 7%
2015 Marion $50,000 $1,668,000 3%
2015 Palm Beach $108,000 $1,759,000 6%
2016 Hillsborough $261,000 $2,897,000 9%
2016 St. Lucie $198,000 $2,200,000 9%
2017 Clay $191,000 $2,385,000 8%
$197,945 $2,180,117 9%
Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile)
Average
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-15 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-9
Mitigation Costs – County Roads
Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
Panther
Consultation
Area
Proj. #Description From To Feature Lanes
Added
Mitigation
Cost
Project
Length
(Miles)
Lane
Miles
Added
Mitigation
Cost per Lane
Mile
N 60040 Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N 2 to 4 2 $562,115 2.40 4.80 $117,107
N 68056 Collier Blvd (CR 951)Golden Gate Blvd Green Blvd 4 to 6 2 $88,060 2.00 4.00 $22,015
-$650,175 4.40 8.80 $73,884Total
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-16 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Urban Overpass
The urban overpass cost estimate was based on four planned improvements along county roads
in Collier County. These projects are estimated to have a total cost of $126 million, as shown in
Table B-10. This total was then divided by the total lane miles o f county road capacity
improvements in the Needs Plan from the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (Table B-11) to
develop an urban overpass cost per lane mile. The resulting cost of approximately $523,000 per
lane mile is used in the road impact fee calculation.
Table B-10
Urban Overpass Costs – County Roads
1) Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department
2) Source: Table B-11
3) Total urban overpass cost divided by the Needs Plan LRTP lane miles (Item 2), rounded to thousands
Roadway Capacity
As shown in Table B-11, the average capacity per lane miles was based on the projects in the
Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation’s cost feasible and unfunded roadway projects
lists. The listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle -miles of
capacity (VMC) that will be built in Collier County. The resulting weighted average capacity per
lane mile of approximately 8,500 was used in the road impact fee calculation.
Urban Overpass Status Cost(1)
Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd CF Plan; 2026-2030 $54,000,000
US 41 (SR 90) Tamiami Tr East @ Collier Blvd (CR 951)Unfunded $35,957,477
Immokalee Rd & Collier Blvd Unfunded $35,957,477
$125,914,954
240.60
$523,000
Total Urban Overpass Cost
Total 2040 Needs Plan (Cost Feasible/Unfunded) Lane Miles Added (2)
Total Urban Overpass Cost per Lane Mile (3)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 B-17 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-11
Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan – Needs Plan
Sources: Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
Reference County/
State Facility From To Project Type ROW Area Project
Length
# of
Existing
Lanes
# of
Future
Lanes
Lane Miles
Added
Initial
Capacity
Future
Capacity
Added
Capacity
Vehicle-Miles
of Capacity
Added
VMC Added per
Lane Mile
Cost Feasible Projects
12 County Old US 41 US 41 (SR 45)Lee/Collier Line Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.50 2 4 3.00 15,930 35,820 19,890 29,835 9,945
5 County CR 951 (Collier Blvd)Golden Gate Canal Green Blvd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.00 4 6 4.00 35,820 53,910 18,090 36,180 9,045
14a County Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 951 (Collier Blvd)8th St Expand from 0 & 2 Lanes to 2 & 3 lanes High 6.00 0 2 12.00 0 12,780 12,780 76,680 6,390
40 County Airport Pulling Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.00 4 6 4.00 29,160 45,000 15,840 31,680 7,920
25 County Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 3.90 2 4 7.80 14,580 31,950 17,370 67,743 8,685
16 County Randall Blvd 8th St Oil Well Rd/Everglades Lane Addition, 2 to 6 Low 6.00 2 6 24.00 14,580 31,950 17,370 104,220 4,343
20 County Immokalee Rd Camp Keais Rd Carver St Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.50 2 4 5.00 23,100 52,400 29,300 73,250 14,650
56 County Benfield Rd City Gate Blvd North Lords Way New Construction, 0 to 2 (4-lane footprint)Low 3.90 0 2 7.80 0 23,100 23,100 90,090 11,550
29 County Wilson Blvd/Black Burn Rd Wilson Blvd End of Haul Rd New Construction, 0 to 2 (4-lane footprint)Low 2.60 0 2 5.20 0 13,320 13,320 34,632 6,660
13 County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.8th St Desoto New Construction, 0 to 2 (4-lane footprint)Low 4.70 0 2 9.40 0 12,780 12,780 60,066 6,390
51 County Wilson Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 3.30 2 4 6.60 13,320 29,160 15,840 52,272 7,920
73 County Little League Rd Ext.SR 82 Westclox St New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 3.70 0 2 7.40 0 15,930 15,930 58,941 7,965
14b County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.CR 951 (Collier Blvd)8th St Add 3 Remaining Lanes Low 6.00 2 6 24.00 12,780 41,220 28,440 170,640 7,110
34 County Camp Keais Rd Immokalee Rd Pope John Paul Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.60 2 4 5.20 23,100 52,400 29,300 76,180 14,650
36 County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Airport Rd US 41 Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.10 4 6 4.20 35,820 53,910 18,090 37,989 9,045
32 County Immokalee Rd (CR 846)SR 29 Airpark Blvd Land Addition, 2 to 4 High 0.40 2 4 0.80 23,100 52,400 29,300 11,720 14,650
Unfunded Needs
17 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW 23rd St SW Wilson Blvd Ext.New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 2.90 0 2 5.80 0 15,930 15,930 46,197 7,965
23 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW CR 951 (Collier Blvd)23rd St SW New Construction, 0 to 4 High 2.10 0 4 8.40 0 35,820 35,820 75,222 8,955
26 County Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.20 2 4 4.40 12,780 27,360 14,580 32,076 7,290
27 County CR 951 Ext.Heritage Bay Entrance Lee/Collier Line New Construction, 0 to 2 High 2.50 0 2 5.00 0 15,930 15,930 39,825 7,965
31 County Goodlette-Frank Rd Orange Blossom Dr Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 0.90 4 6 1.80 35,820 53,910 18,090 16,281 9,045
37 County Goodlette-Frank Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.80 2 4 3.60 15,930 35,820 19,890 35,802 9,945
38 County Logan Blvd Green Blvd Pine Ridge Rd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.60 4 6 5.20 35,820 53,910 18,090 47,034 9,045
39 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW Wilson Blvd Ext.Everglades Blvd New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 3.90 0 2 7.80 0 15,930 15,930 62,127 7,965
42 County Santa Barbara Blvd Painted Leaf Ln Green Blvd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 1.70 4 6 3.40 35,820 53,910 18,090 30,753 9,045
44 County Logan Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 2.10 2 4 4.20 15,930 35,820 19,890 41,769 9,945
45 County Everglades Blvd I-75 (SR 93)Golden Gate Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 5.30 2 4 10.60 12,780 27,360 14,580 77,274 7,290
47 County Logan Blvd Pine Ridge Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 2.10 2 4 4.20 15,930 35,820 19,890 41,769 9,945
48 County Green Blvd Santa Barbara/Logan Blvd Sunshine Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.00 2 4 2.00 15,930 35,820 19,890 19,890 9,945
49 County Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Ave Maria Entrance Camp Keias Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 6 Low 1.00 2 6 4.00 12,780 41,220 28,440 28,440 7,110
50 County Everglades Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.S of Oil Well Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.20 2 4 4.40 12,780 27,360 14,580 32,076 7,290
52 County Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 5.00 2 4 10.00 23,100 52,400 29,300 146,500 14,650
53 County Orange Blossom Dr Airport Pulling Rd Livingston Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 0.70 2 4 1.40 14,580 31,950 17,370 12,159 8,685
54 County Westclox St Ext.Little League Rd W of Carson Rd New Construction, 0 to 2 High 0.90 0 2 1.80 0 15,930 15,930 14,337 7,965
55 County Benfield Rd US 41 (SR 90)Rattlesnake-Hammock Ext.New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 4.50 0 2 9.00 0 23,100 23,100 103,950 11,550
58 County Camp Keais Rd Oil Well Rd Pope John Paul Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.60 2 4 5.20 23,100 52,400 29,300 76,180 14,650
68 County Golden Gate Blvd Everglades Blvd Desoto Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.00 2 4 4.00 12,780 27,360 14,580 29,160 7,290
70 County Keane Ave Inez Rd Wilson Blvd Ext.New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 2.00 0 2 4.00 0 15,930 15,930 31,860 7,965
Total:Total:240.60 2,052,799 8,532
ROW (Low):ROW (Low):171.60 71%1,453,874 8,472
ROW (High):ROW (High):69.00 29%598,925 8,680
Appendix C
Credit Component
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix C: Credit Component
This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. County fuel taxes that
are collected in Collier County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each.
1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2¢/gallon)
• Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in
accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution.
• The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts
pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution
for road and bridge purposes.
• The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the
county.
• Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.
2. County Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon)
• Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.
• Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County’s reliance on ad valorem taxes.
• Proceeds are to be used for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction of
bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include
acquisition of rights-of-way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance,
and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian
pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.
• Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalit ies.
3. Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon)
• Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.
• Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.
• To accommodate statewide equalization, this tax is automatically levied on diesel fuel in
every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all.
• Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.
4. 1st Local Option Tax (up to 6¢/gallon)
• Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.
• Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study
• To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel
fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all
or at the maximum rate.
• Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed
upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.
5. 2nd Local Option Tax (up to 5¢/gallon)
• Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.
• Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures needed to meet requirements
of the capital improvements element of an adopted Local Government Comprehensive
Plan.
• Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed
upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.
Each year, the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR)
produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated
local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the
estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2018-
19 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Collier County for the current fiscal year.
Table C-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of
the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into
account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of fuel taxes. It is
estimated that approximately $1.68 million of annual revenue will be generated for the County
from one penny of fuel tax in Collier County.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-1
Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for
Collier County & Municipalities, FY 2018-19(1)
1) Source: Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research,
http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-government/reports/ --
2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the
total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon
(multiplied by 100).
Capital Improvement Credit
For the calculated impact fee, the capital improvement credit includes capacity-expansion
expenditures for roadway improvements in Collier County.
County Capital Project Funding
A review of the County’s FY 2019-2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)
Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of fuel tax revenues, impact fees, and
grants are used to fund transportation capacity expansio n improvements. As shown in Table C-
2, Collier County allocates approximately an equivalent of 4.7 pennies for non-impact fee
revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions,
and intersection improvements. The fuel tax credit in Table C-2 does not include the portion of
fuel tax revenues being used to repay debt service.
Tax
Amount of
Levy per
Gallon
Total
Distribution
Distribution
per Penny
Constitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $4,606,831 $2,303,416
County Fuel Tax $0.01 $2,034,546 $2,034,546
9th Cent Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,705,570 $1,705,570
1st Local Option (1-6 cents)$0.06 $9,577,469 $1,596,245
2nd Local Option (1-5 cents)$0.05 $7,207,560 $1,441,512
Total $0.15 $25,131,976
$1,675,465Weighted Average per Penny(2)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-2
County Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies
1) Source: Table C-5
2) Source: Table C-1
3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100
As previously mentioned, the County is currently using fuel tax revenues to retire debt of the
Series 2012 and Series 2014 Fuel Tax Bond Issues that are being used to fund capacity expansion
improvements. As shown in Table C-3, a credit of 8.7 pennies is allocated toward outstanding
debt service in Collier County.
Table C-3
County Debt Service Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies
1) Source: Table C-6
2) Source: Table C-7
3) Source: Table C-1
4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100
In November 2018, the County adopted a one-percent local government infrastructure surtax.
The tax went into effect January 1, 2019 with revenues available to tangible capital projects. The
tax is designed to expire after seven years, but may expire earlier is the revenue goal of $490
million is met. There is potential for an extension via another voter r eferendum. As shown in
Table C-4, based on the preliminary project list, approximately $114 million will be allocated for
transportation capacity expansion:
• Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd, $4 million
• Pine Ridge, Livingston & Whippoorwill intersection, $23 million
• Triangle Blvd roundabouts, $6 million
Source Cost of
Projects
Number
of Years
Revenue
from 1
Penny(2)
Equivalent
Pennies(3)
Grant Revenues(1)$5,500,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.007
Fuel Tax Revenues (2)$33,987,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.041
Total $39,487,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.047
Source Cost of
Projects
Number
of Years
Revenue
from 1
Penny(3)
Equivalent
Pennies(4)
Fuel Tax Bond Issue, Series 2012(1)$19,363,150 5 $1,675,465 $0.023
Fuel Tax Bond Issue, Series 2014(2)$74,514,454 7 $1,675,465 $0.064
Total $93,877,604 $0.087
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study
• Randall Blvd & Immokalee intersection, $7 million
• Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension to the East, $74 million
For impact fee credit purposes it is assumed that the sales tax will be renewed for at least 25
years and that the annual contributions to capacity expansion will remain at this initial level. As
shown in Table C-4, a credit of 9.7 pennies is given for the local government infrastructure surtax.
This report includes scenarios excluding and including this recently adopted revenue source.
Table C-4
County Local Option Sales Tax Equivalent Pennies
1) Source: Collier County Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Committee; collieronecenttax.com
2) Source: Table C-1
3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100
Tables C-5 through C-9 provide additional backup detail for the summaries included previously in
this report and in Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-4.
Source Cost of
Projects
Number
of Years
Revenue
from 1
Penny(2)
Equivalent
Pennies(3)
Local Govt Infrastructure Surtax Revenues (1)$114,000,000 7 $1,675,465 $0.097
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-5
Collier County – AUIR Summary
1) Source: FY 2019 – FY 2023 5-Year Work Program; AUIR
2) Source: Total debt service for FY 2019-2023 for Series 2012 Bond (Table C-6) and Series
2014 Bond (Table C-7)
Table C-6
Collier County – Gas Tax Bond, Series 2012
Source: Collier County Budget Department
AUIR Expenditures &
Revenues
Work Program Expenditures
Total - Capacity Expansion Projects(1)$136,120,000
Revenues available to fund capacity expansion (new projects)
- Impact Fees (including interest & fund balance)$96,633,000
- Grant Funds $5,500,000
- Fuel Tax (including interest & fund balance)$111,075,000
- Fuel Tax Fund 313 (carry forward)$7,066,000
Total $220,274,000
Revenues used to fund capacity expansion (new projects)
- Impact Fees (including interest & fund balance)$96,633,000
- Grant Funds (used to fund capacity expansion projects)$5,500,000
- Fuel Tax (includes General Fund transfer)$33,987,000
- Fuel Tax (used to fund debt service)(2)$66,585,189
Total $202,705,189
Revenues available to fund non-capacity improvements
- Fuel Tax $17,568,812
Year Principal Interest Total Debt
Service
FY 2019 $3,120,000 $749,650 $3,869,650
FY 2020 $3,280,000 $593,650 $3,873,650
FY 2021 $3,445,000 $429,650 $3,874,650
FY 2022 $3,615,000 $257,400 $3,872,400
FY 2023 $3,760,000 $112,800 $3,872,800
Total $17,220,000 $2,143,150 $19,363,150
5
$3,872,630
Payments Remaining
Annual Average Payment
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-7 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-7
Collier County – Gas Tax Bond, Series 2014
Source: Collier County Budget Department
Year Principal Interest Total Debt
Service
FY 2019 $7,710,000 $1,791,944 $9,501,944
FY 2020 $7,890,000 $1,584,545 $9,474,545
FY 2021 $8,070,000 $1,372,304 $9,442,304
FY 2022 $8,260,000 $1,155,221 $9,415,221
FY 2023 $8,455,000 $933,027 $9,388,027
FY 2024 $12,965,000 $705,587 $13,670,587
FY 2025 $13,265,000 $356,829 $13,621,829
Total $66,615,000 $7,899,454 $74,514,454
7
$10,644,922
Payments Remaining
Annual Average Payment
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-8 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-8
Average Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency – Excluding Interstate Travel
22.0 6.4 @ 22.0 mpg @ 6.4 mpg
Other Arterial Rural 317,691,000,000 45,164,000,000 362,855,000,000 88%12%
Other Rural 302,483,000,000 27,939,000,000 330,422,000,000 92%8%
Other Urban 1,553,636,000,000 93,910,000,000 1,647,546,000,000 94%6%
Total 2,173,810,000,000 167,013,000,000 2,340,823,000,000 93%7%
Gallons @ 22.0 mpg Gallons @ 6.4 mpg 2,340,823 miles (millions)
Other Arterial Rural 14,440,500,000 7,056,875,000 21,497,375,000 124,905 gallons (millions)
Other Rural 13,749,227,273 4,365,468,750 18,114,696,023 18.74 mpg
Other Urban 70,619,818,182 14,673,437,500 85,293,255,682
Total 98,809,545,455 26,095,781,250 124,905,326,705
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016 , Section V, Table VM-1
Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data - 2016 by Highway Category and Vehicle Type
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm
Travel
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) @ Percent VMT
Fuel Consumed Total Mileage and Fuel
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 C-9 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-9
Annual Vehicle Distance Travelled in Miles and Related Data – 2016(1)
By Highway Category and Vehicle Type
Published December 2017 TABLE VM-1
ALL LIGHT
VEHICLES(2)
SINGLE-UNIT 2-AXLE
6-TIRE OR MORE
AND COMBINATION
TRUCKS
Motor-Vehicle Travel:
(millions of vehicle-miles)
2016 Interstate Rural 139,460 1,095 1,740 44,086 9,905 50,430 183,546 60,335 246,716
2016 Other Arterial Rural 226,036 2,633 2,116 91,655 16,371 28,794 317,691 45,164 367,605
2016 Other Rural 212,457 2,856 1,946 90,026 15,563 12,375 302,483 27,939 335,224
2016 All Rural 577,954 6,583 5,802 225,768 41,839 91,599 803,721 133,439 949,545
2016 Interstate Urban 392,838 2,939 2,542 99,523 18,555 41,991 492,361 60,546 558,388
2016 Other Urban 1,220,973 10,923 8,006 332,663 52,944 40,966 1,553,636 93,910 1,666,475
2016 All Urban 1,613,810 13,862 10,548 432,186 71,499 82,958 2,045,997 154,456 2,224,863
2016 Total Rural and Urban(5)2,191,764 20,445 16,350 657,954 113,338 174,557 2,849,718 287,895 3,174,408
2016 Number of motor vehicles 192,774,508 8,679,380 976,161 54,870,473 8,746,518 2,752,043 247,644,981 11,498,561 268,799,083
registered(2)
2016 Average miles traveled 11,370 2,356 16,749 11,991 12,958 63,428 11,507 25,037 11,810
per vehicle
2016 Person-miles of travel (4)3,045,205 22,022 346,610 878,994 113,338 174,557 3,924,199 287,895 4,580,725
(millions)
2016 Fuel consumed 91,487,810 465,802 2,225,795 37,818,755 15,338,479 29,554,641 129,306,565 44,893,120 176,891,283
(thousand gallons)
2016 Average fuel consumption per 475 54 2,280 689 1,754 10,739 522 3,904 658
vehicle (gallons)
2016 Average miles traveled per 24.0 43.9 7.3 17.4 7.4 5.9 22.0 6.4 17.9
gallon of fuel consumed
(3) Single-Unit - single frame trucks that have 2-Axles and at least 6 tires or a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 10,000 lbs.
(4) Vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS); For single unit truck and heavy trucks, 1 motor vehicle mile travelled = 1 person-mile traveled.
(5) VMT data are based on the latest HPMS data available; it may not match previous published results.
SINGLE-UNIT
TRUCKS(3)
COMBINATION
TRUCKS
SUBTOTALS
ALL MOTOR
VEHICLES
(1) The FHWA estimates national trends by using State reported Highway Performance and Monitoring System (HPMS) data, fuel consumption data (MF-21 and MF-27), vehicle registration data (MV-1,
MV-9, and MV-10), other data such as the R.L. Polk vehicle data, and a host of modeling techniques. Starting with the 2009 VM-1, an enhanced methodology was used to provide timely indicators on
both travel and travel behavior changes.
(2) Light Duty Vehicles Short WB - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WM) equal to or less than 121 inches. Light Duty Vehicles Long WB - large passenger
cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches. All Light Duty Vehicles - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles regardless of
YEAR ITEM
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
SHORT WB(2)
MOTOR-
CYCLES BUSES
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
LONG WB(2)
Appendix D
Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix D: Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule
This appendix presents the detailed fee calculations for each land use in the Collier County road
impact fee schedule.
Table D-1 presents the calculated road impact fee rates for Collier County, excluding a revenue
credit for the recently adopted local government infrastructure surtax.
Table D-2 presents the calculated road impact fee rates for Collier County, including a revenue
credit for the recently adopted local government infrastructure surtax. This scenario calculates
lower impact fee rates due to the availability of an additional revenue source to pay for roadway
capacity expansion improvements.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-1
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)
Gasoline Tax Unit Cost per Lane Mile:$6,005,000 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor:14.4%
$$ per gallon to capital:$0.134 Average VMC per Lane Mile:8,500 Cost per PMC:$706.47
Facility life (years):25 Fuel Efficiency:18.74 mpg
Interest rate:4.00%Effectivedays per year:365
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) - Less than 4,000 sf du 7.37 Appendix A: Table A-5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100%n/a 13.15 $9,293 $45 $703 $8,590 $7,444 15%
Single Family (Detached) - 4,000 sf and greater du 9.00 Appendix A: Table A-5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100%n/a 16.06 $11,348 $55 $859 $10,489 $8,959 17%
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 7.32 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 11.34 $8,012 $39 $609 $7,403 $5,542 34%
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 5.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 8.43 $5,955 $29 $453 $5,502 $5,542 -1%
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 4.45 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 6.89 $4,871 $24 $375 $4,496 $3,532 27%
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du 3.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100%n/a 5.33 $3,765 $18 $281 $3,484 n/a n/a
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial (3)du 2.01
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100%n/a 3.11 $2,200 $11 $172 $2,028 n/a n/a
240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 Appendix A: LUC 240 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Appendix A: LUC 240 100%n/a 5.84 $4,123 $21 $328 $3,795 $3,146 21%
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 3.50 Appendix A: LUC 251 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Appendix A: LUC 251 100%n/a 5.77 $4,074 $20 $312 $3,762 $2,788 35%
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 3.33 Appendix A: LUC 252 3.28 0.71 2.33 2.83 Appendix A: LUC 252 100%n/a 3.32 $2,346 $12 $187 $2,159 $2,788 -23%
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Same as LUC 620 72%Appendix A: LUC 253 1.47 $1,042 $6 $94 $948 n/a n/a
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 5.55 Appendix A: LUC 310 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35
Appendix A:
LUC 310/320 66%Appendix A: LUC 310 6.04 $4,264 $21 $328 $3,936 $3,760 5%
311 All Suites Hotel room 4.46 ITE 10th Edition 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Same as LUC 310 66%Same as LUC 310 4.85 $3,427 $17 $266 $3,161 $2,900 9%
320 Motel room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 4.34 0.71 3.08 3.58 Appendix A: LUC 320 77%Appendix A: LUC 320 3.40 $2,402 $12 $187 $2,215 $3,086 -28%
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park(4)site 1.62
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Same as LUC 240 100%
Same as Residential Land
Uses 2.27 $1,602 $8 $125 $1,477 $1,226 20%
420 Marina boat berth 2.41 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 3.87 $2,735 $13 $203 $2,532 $2,593 -2%
430 Golf Course 18 holes 546.84
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90%Based on LUC 710 332.82 $235,124 $1,336 $20,871 $214,253 $205,266 4%
n/a Bundled Golf Course(5)18 holes 164.05
Same as LUC 430
(Adjusted to 30%)2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90%Based on LUC 710 99.84 $70,536 $401 $6,264 $64,272 $61,587 4%
444 Movie Theater screen 114.83
Blend ITE 10th &
Florida Studies 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Appendix A: LUC 444 88%Appendix A: LUC 444 68.33 $48,276 $274 $4,280 $43,996 $33,271 32%
n/a Dance Studios/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Dance Studio 2.97 0.71 2.11 2.61
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Specialty Retail 80%
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Specialty Retail 15.41 $10,887 $58 $906 $9,981 $8,204 22%
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 1.89 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710
(adjusted)(5)1.35 $956 $5 $78 $878 $729 20%
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 2.13 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710
(adjusted)(5)1.52 $1,077 $6 $94 $983 $1,028 -4%
530 High School (Private)student 2.03 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 90%Based on LUC 710 1.63 $1,155 $6 $94 $1,061 $1,085 -2%
University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)
(Private)student 2.00
ITE Regression
Analysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 3.21 $2,270 $11 $172 $2,098 $1,748 20%
University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students)
(Private)student 1.50
ITE Regression
Analysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 2.41 $1,702 $8 $125 $1,577 $1,311 20%
560 Church seat 0.44 ITE 10th Edition 3.91 0.71 2.78 3.28
Midpoint of LUC 710 &
LUC 820 (App. A)90%Based on LUC 710 0.47 $333 $2 $31 $302 $348 -13%
565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 2.03 0.71 1.44 1.94 Appendix A: LUC 565 73%Appendix A: LUC 565 1.84 $1,300 $8 $125 $1,175 $1,026 15%
210
540/
550
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-1 (continued)
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 78%
Midpoint of
LUC 310 & LUC 720 14.92 $10,543 $51 $797 $9,746 $9,889 -1%
620 Nursing Home bed 3.02 Appendix A: LUC 620 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Appendix A: LUC 620 89%Appendix A: LUC 620 2.12 $1,495 $8 $125 $1,370 $1,031 33%
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.15 0.71 3.66 4.16 Appendix A: LUC 710 92%Appendix A: LUC 710 14.04 $9,917 $49 $765 $9,152 $10,249 -11%
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83
Appendix A: LUC 720
Small Medical/Dental 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89%Appendix A: LUC 720 35.76 $25,267 $123 $1,922 $23,345 $19,443 20%
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.12 Appendix A: LUC 720 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89%Appendix A: LUC 720 51.21 $36,177 $176 $2,749 $33,428 $28,313 18%
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 12.65 Appendix A: LUC 770 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Appendix A: LUC 770 89%Appendix A: LUC 770 18.41 $13,004 $63 $984 $12,020 $9,989 20%
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.12 0.71 0.80 1.30
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(6k sq ft)39%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(6k sq ft)10.02 $7,080 $50 $781 $6,299 $5,697 11%
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.58 0.71 1.12 1.62
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(25k sq ft)50%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(25k sq ft)17.99 $12,708 $79 $1,234 $11,474 $10,676 7%
Retail greated than 25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 37.75 ITE 10th edition 2.69 0.71 1.91 2.41
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(450k sq ft)74%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(450k sq ft)22.84 $16,133 $88 $1,375 $14,758 $14,354 3%
840/ 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 24.58
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 79%
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 27.18 $19,200 $96 $1,500 $17,700 $16,878 5%
849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15
Mid-Point of LUC 944 and
LUC 942 (App. A)72%
Same as LUC 942
(Appendix A)15.53 $10,974 $62 $969 $10,005 $8,178 22%
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 106.64 Appendix A: LUC 850 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98 Appendix A: LUC 850 56%Appendix A: LUC 850 37.83 $26,724 $154 $2,406 $24,318 $19,163 27%
851 Convenience Market (24 hour)1,000 sf 739.50 Appendix A: LUC 851 1.52 0.71 1.08 1.58 Appendix A: LUC 851 41%Appendix A: LUC 851 140.15 $99,011 $625 $9,764 $89,247 $69,707 28%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.34 0.71 1.66 2.16
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(150k sq ft)65%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(150k sq ft)14.20 $10,029 $56 $875 $9,154 $7,483 22%
880/
881 Pharmacy with & without Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 104.37
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 32%
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 21.16 $14,946 $86 $1,343 $13,603 $10,165 34%
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 6.26 Appendix A: LUC 890 4.05 0.71 2.88 3.38 Appendix A: LUC 890 78%Appendix A: LUC 890 6.02 $4,252 $22 $344 $3,908 $2,706 44%
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In(7)1,000 sf 59.39
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Same as LUC 912 46%Same as LUC 912 20.46 $14,456 $80 $1,250 $13,206 $22,038 -40%
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 102.66 Appendix A: LUC 912 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Appendix A: LUC 912 46%Appendix A: LUC 912 35.37 $24,988 $139 $2,171 $22,817 $28,961 -21%
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 315.17 ITE 10th Edition 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Same as LUC 934 58%Same as LUC 934 114.23 $80,698 $468 $7,311 $73,387 n/a n/a
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 3.14 0.71 2.23 2.73 Appendix A: LUC 931 77%Appendix A: LUC 931 1.91 $1,350 $7 $109 $1,241 $1,130 10%
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 4.37 ITE 10th Edition 3.17 0.71 2.25 2.75 Appendix A: LUC 932 71%Appendix A: LUC 932 2.99 $2,111 $11 $172 $1,939 $1,758 10%
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 482.53 Appendix A: LUC 934 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Appendix A: LUC 934 58%Appendix A: LUC 934 174.88 $123,550 $716 $11,185 $112,365 $96,567 16%
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 409.25 Local Studies (2011)2.19 0.71 1.55 2.05 Local Studies (2011)59%Local Studies (2011)160.18 $113,165 $646 $10,092 $103,073 n/a n/a
941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15
Mid-Point of LUC 944 &
LUC 942 (App. A)72%
Same as LUC 942
(Appendix A)20.34 $14,369 $81 $1,265 $13,104 $10,697 23%
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.172.01 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 23%
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 12.19 $8,613 $63 $984 $7,629 n/a n/a
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.205.36 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 23%
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 14.56 $10,283 $75 $1,172 $9,111 n/a n/a
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.230.52 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22 Same as LUC 945 23%Same as LUC 945 16.34 $11,543 $84 $1,312 $10,231 n/a n/a
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 Appendix A: LUC 947 2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Appendix A: LUC 947 68%Appendix A: LUC 947 19.82 $14,004 $80 $1,250 $12,754 $10,395 23%
948 Automated Car Wash(8)1,000 sf 142.00
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Same as LUC 947 68%Same as LUC 947 64.06 $45,255 $258 $4,030 $41,225 $33,398 23%
720
820
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-1 (continued)
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)
1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1-Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor)/2). This reflects the unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle
2) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division. Residential Condo/Townhouse rate shown for LUC 231; High-Rise Condo (3+ stories) rate shown for LUC 232; Retirement Community/Age-Restricted Single Family
rate shown for LUC 215 and LUC 252; Office 6,001-100,000 sf rate shown for LUC 710; Retail 100,001-150,000 sfgla rate shown for LUC 820 greater than 25,000 sfgla; Gas/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash rate shown for LUC 9 44, LUC 945, and LUC 960
3) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 231 to approximate a daily TGR
4) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate was adjusted to reflect the average occupancy rate of 60 percen t based on data provided by the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
5) The TGR for bundled golf course is estimated at 30 percent of the TGR for LUC 430
6) The trip generation rates recommended for retail are based off a 50,000 sfgla development for tiers 0-6,000 and 6,001-25,000 and based on 450,000 sfgla for the >25,000 sfgla option
7) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 912 to approximate a daily TGR
8) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by a factor of 10 to approximate the Daily TGR
9) The mines land use impact fee rate was calculated using and I/T adjustment factor if 27.3% and a fuel efficiency valu e of 6.2 gallons per mile based on the 2009 Collier County Mines Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale Oliver
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
SERVICES:
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 Independent Studies 4.80 0.71 3.41 3.91 Independent Studies 85%Independent Studies 20.22 $14,286 $71 $1,109 $13,177 $10,947 20%
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 7.46 $5,271 $26 $406 $4,865 $5,700 -15%
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 5.91 $4,176 $20 $312 $3,864 $3,122 24%
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 2.62 $1,849 $9 $141 $1,708 $2,904 -41%
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 3.51 0.71 2.49 2.99
Midpoint of LUC 710 &
LUC 820 (<25k sq ft)92%Same as LUC 710 1.46 $1,032 $5 $78 $954 $999 -5%
n/a Mine(9)1,000 cy 0.01 Local Studies 14.82 0.71 10.52 11.02 Local Studies 97%Local Studies 0.04 $26 -$12 $14 $8 75%
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-2
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)
Gasoline Tax Unit Cost per Lane Mile:$6,005,000 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor:14.4%
$$ per gallon to capital:$0.231 Average VMC per Lane Mile:8,500 Cost per PMC:$706.47
Facility life (years):25 Fuel Efficiency:18.74 mpg
Interest rate:4.00%Effectivedays per year:365
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family (Detached) - Less than 4,000 sf du 7.37 Appendix A: Table A-5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100%n/a 13.15 $9,293 $77 $1,203 $8,090 $7,444 9%
Single Family (Detached) - 4,000 sf and greater du 9.00 Appendix A: Table A-5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100%n/a 16.06 $11,348 $95 $1,484 $9,864 $8,959 10%
220 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise, 1-2 floors)du 7.32 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 11.34 $8,012 $68 $1,062 $6,950 $5,542 25%
221 Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-10 floors)du 5.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 8.43 $5,955 $50 $781 $5,174 $5,542 -7%
222 Multi-Family Housing (High-Rise, >10 floors)du 4.45 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12
Appendix A:
LUC 220/221/222 100%n/a 6.89 $4,871 $41 $641 $4,230 $3,532 20%
231 Mid-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du 3.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100%n/a 5.33 $3,765 $32 $500 $3,265 n/a n/a
232 High-Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial (3)du 2.01
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100%n/a 3.11 $2,200 $19 $297 $1,903 n/a n/a
240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 Appendix A: LUC 240 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Appendix A: LUC 240 100%n/a 5.84 $4,123 $35 $547 $3,576 $3,146 14%
251 Retirement Community (detached)du 3.50 Appendix A: LUC 251 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Appendix A: LUC 251 100%n/a 5.77 $4,074 $34 $531 $3,543 $2,788 27%
252 Retirement Community (attached)du 3.33 Appendix A: LUC 252 3.28 0.71 2.33 2.83 Appendix A: LUC 252 100%n/a 3.32 $2,346 $21 $328 $2,018 $2,788 -28%
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Same as LUC 620 72%Appendix A: LUC 253 1.47 $1,042 $10 $156 $886 n/a n/a
LODGING:
310 Hotel room 5.55 Appendix A: LUC 310 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35
Appendix A:
LUC 310/320 66%Appendix A: LUC 310 6.04 $4,264 $36 $562 $3,702 $3,760 -2%
311 All Suites Hotel room 4.46 ITE 10th Edition 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Same as LUC 310 66%Same as LUC 310 4.85 $3,427 $29 $453 $2,974 $2,900 3%
320 Motel room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 4.34 0.71 3.08 3.58 Appendix A: LUC 320 77%Appendix A: LUC 320 3.40 $2,402 $21 $328 $2,074 $3,086 -33%
RECREATION:
416 Campground/RV Park(4)site 1.62
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Same as LUC 240 100%
Same as Residential Land
Uses 2.27 $1,602 $14 $219 $1,383 $1,226 13%
420 Marina boat berth 2.41 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 3.87 $2,735 $23 $359 $2,376 $2,593 -8%
430 Golf Course 18 holes 546.84
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90%Based on LUC 710 332.82 $235,124 $2,303 $35,978 $199,146 $205,266 -3%
n/a Bundled Golf Course(5)18 holes 164.05
Same as LUC 430
(Adjusted to 30%)2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90%Based on LUC 710 99.84 $70,536 $691 $10,795 $59,741 $61,587 -3%
444 Movie Theater screen 114.83
Blend ITE 10th &
Florida Studies 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Appendix A: LUC 444 88%Appendix A: LUC 444 68.33 $48,276 $473 $7,389 $40,887 $33,271 23%
n/a Dance Studios/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Dance Studio 2.97 0.71 2.11 2.61
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Specialty Retail 80%
Appendix A: LUC N/A
Specialty Retail 15.41 $10,887 $100 $1,562 $9,325 $8,204 14%
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private)student 1.89 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710
(adjusted)(5)1.35 $956 $9 $141 $815 $729 12%
522 Middle/Junior High School (Private)student 2.13 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710
(adjusted)(5)1.52 $1,077 $10 $156 $921 $1,028 -10%
530 High School (Private)student 2.03 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.59
50% of LUC 210 based on
Transp. Modeling 90%Based on LUC 710 1.63 $1,155 $11 $172 $983 $1,085 -9%
University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)
(Private)student 2.00
ITE Regression
Analysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 3.21 $2,270 $19 $297 $1,973 $1,748 13%
University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students)
(Private)student 1.50
ITE Regression
Analysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90%Based on LUC 710 2.41 $1,702 $14 $219 $1,483 $1,311 13%
560 Church seat 0.44 ITE 10th Edition 3.91 0.71 2.78 3.28
Midpoint of LUC 710 &
LUC 820 (App. A)90%Based on LUC 710 0.47 $333 $3 $47 $286 $348 -18%
565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 2.03 0.71 1.44 1.94 Appendix A: LUC 565 73%Appendix A: LUC 565 1.84 $1,300 $13 $203 $1,097 $1,026 7%
210
540/
550
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-2 (continued)
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
MEDICAL:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 78%
Midpoint of
LUC 310 & LUC 720 14.92 $10,543 $88 $1,375 $9,168 $9,889 -7%
620 Nursing Home bed 3.02 Appendix A: LUC 620 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Appendix A: LUC 620 89%Appendix A: LUC 620 2.12 $1,495 $14 $219 $1,276 $1,031 24%
OFFICE:
710 General Office 1,000 sf 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.15 0.71 3.66 4.16 Appendix A: LUC 710 92%Appendix A: LUC 710 14.04 $9,917 $84 $1,312 $8,605 $10,249 -16%
Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83
Appendix A: LUC 720
Small Medical/Dental 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89%Appendix A: LUC 720 35.76 $25,267 $212 $3,312 $21,955 $19,443 13%
Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.12 Appendix A: LUC 720 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89%Appendix A: LUC 720 51.21 $36,177 $303 $4,733 $31,444 $28,313 11%
770 Business Park (Flex-Space)1,000 sf 12.65 Appendix A: LUC 770 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Appendix A: LUC 770 89%Appendix A: LUC 770 18.41 $13,004 $109 $1,703 $11,301 $9,989 13%
RETAIL:
Retail 6,000 sfgla or less(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.12 0.71 0.80 1.30
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(6k sq ft)39%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(6k sq ft)10.02 $7,080 $86 $1,343 $5,737 $5,697 1%
Retail 6,001-25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.58 0.71 1.12 1.62
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(25k sq ft)50%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(25k sq ft)17.99 $12,708 $137 $2,140 $10,568 $10,676 -1%
Retail greated than 25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 37.75 ITE 10th edition 2.69 0.71 1.91 2.41
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(450k sq ft)74%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(450k sq ft)22.84 $16,133 $151 $2,359 $13,774 $14,354 -4%
840/ 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 24.58
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 79%
Appendix A:
LUC 840/841 27.18 $19,200 $165 $2,578 $16,622 $16,878 -2%
849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15
Mid-Point of LUC 944 and
LUC 942 (App. A)72%
Same as LUC 942
(Appendix A)15.53 $10,974 $106 $1,656 $9,318 $8,178 14%
850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 106.64 Appendix A: LUC 850 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98 Appendix A: LUC 850 56%Appendix A: LUC 850 37.83 $26,724 $266 $4,155 $22,569 $19,163 18%
851 Convenience Market (24 hour)1,000 sf 739.50 Appendix A: LUC 851 1.52 0.71 1.08 1.58 Appendix A: LUC 851 41%Appendix A: LUC 851 140.15 $99,011 $1,078 $16,841 $82,170 $69,707 18%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.34 0.71 1.66 2.16
Appendix A: Fig. A-1
(150k sq ft)65%
Appendix A: Fig. A-2
(150k sq ft)14.20 $10,029 $97 $1,515 $8,514 $7,483 14%
880/
881 Pharmacy with & without Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 104.37
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 32%
Appendix A:
LUC 880/881 21.16 $14,946 $149 $2,328 $12,618 $10,165 24%
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 6.26 Appendix A: LUC 890 4.05 0.71 2.88 3.38 Appendix A: LUC 890 78%Appendix A: LUC 890 6.02 $4,252 $37 $578 $3,674 $2,706 36%
SERVICES:
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In(7)1,000 sf 59.39
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Same as LUC 912 46%Same as LUC 912 20.46 $14,456 $138 $2,156 $12,300 $22,038 -44%
912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 102.66 Appendix A: LUC 912 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Appendix A: LUC 912 46%Appendix A: LUC 912 35.37 $24,988 $239 $3,734 $21,254 $28,961 -27%
930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 315.17 ITE 10th Edition 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Same as LUC 934 58%Same as LUC 934 114.23 $80,698 $806 $12,591 $68,107 n/a n/a
931 Low-Turnover Restaurant seat 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 3.14 0.71 2.23 2.73 Appendix A: LUC 931 77%Appendix A: LUC 931 1.91 $1,350 $12 $187 $1,163 $1,130 3%
932 High-Turnover Restaurant seat 4.37 ITE 10th Edition 3.17 0.71 2.25 2.75 Appendix A: LUC 932 71%Appendix A: LUC 932 2.99 $2,111 $19 $297 $1,814 $1,758 3%
934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 482.53 Appendix A: LUC 934 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Appendix A: LUC 934 58%Appendix A: LUC 934 174.88 $123,550 $1,234 $19,278 $104,272 $96,567 8%
934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 409.25 Local Studies (2011)2.19 0.71 1.55 2.05 Local Studies (2011)59%Local Studies (2011)160.18 $113,165 $1,114 $17,403 $95,762 n/a n/a
941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15
Mid-Point of LUC 944 &
LUC 942 (App. A)72%
Same as LUC 942
(Appendix A)20.34 $14,369 $139 $2,171 $12,198 $10,697 14%
944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos.172.01 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 23%
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 12.19 $8,613 $109 $1,703 $6,910 n/a n/a
945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos.205.36 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 23%
Appendix A:
LUC 944/945 14.56 $10,283 $130 $2,031 $8,252 n/a n/a
960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos.230.52 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22 Same as LUC 945 23%Same as LUC 945 16.34 $11,543 $146 $2,281 $9,262 n/a n/a
947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 Appendix A: LUC 947 2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Appendix A: LUC 947 68%Appendix A: LUC 947 19.82 $14,004 $138 $2,156 $11,848 $10,395 14%
948 Automated Car Wash(8)1,000 sf 142.00
ITE 10th Edition
(Adjusted)2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Same as LUC 947 68%Same as LUC 947 64.06 $45,255 $445 $6,952 $38,303 $33,398 15%
720
820
Tindale Oliver Collier County
October 2019 D-7 Road Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-2 (continued)
Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)
1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1-Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor)/2). This reflects the unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle
2) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division. Residential Condo/Townhouse rate shown for LUC 231; High-Rise Condo (3+ stories) rate shown for LUC 232; Retirement Community/Age-Restricted Single Family
rate shown for LUC 215 and LUC 252; Office 6,001-100,000 sf rate shown for LUC 710; Retail 100,001-150,000 sfgla rate shown for LUC 820 greater than 25,000 sfgla; Gas/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash rate shown for LUC 9 44, LUC 945, and LUC 960
3) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 231 to approximate a daily TGR
4) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate was adjusted to reflect the average occupancy rate of 60 perc ent based on data provided by the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
5) The TGR for bundled golf course is estimated at 30 percent of the TGR for LUC 430
6) The trip generation rates recommended for retail are based off a 50,000 sfgla development fo r tiers 0-6,000 and 6,001-25,000 and based on 450,000 sfgla for the >25,000 sfgla option
7) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 912 to approximate a daily TGR
8) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by a factor of 10 to approximate the Daily TGR
9) The mines land use impact fee rate was calculated using and I/T adjustment factor if 27.3% and a fuel efficiency va lue of 6.2 gallons per mile based on the 2009 Collier County Mines Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale Oliver
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Trip Length
Adjustment
Factor
Adjusted
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length Trip Length Source Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT(1) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Gas Tax Gas Tax Credit Net Road
Impact Fee
Current Road
Impact Fee(2)% Change
SERVICES:
n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 Independent Studies 4.80 0.71 3.41 3.91 Independent Studies 85%Independent Studies 20.22 $14,286 $122 $1,906 $12,380 $10,947 13%
INDUSTRIAL:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 7.46 $5,271 $44 $687 $4,584 $5,700 -20%
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 5.91 $4,176 $35 $547 $3,629 $3,122 16%
150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92%Same as LUC 710 2.62 $1,849 $16 $250 $1,599 $2,904 -45%
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 3.51 0.71 2.49 2.99
Midpoint of LUC 710 &
LUC 820 (<25k sq ft)92%Same as LUC 710 1.46 $1,032 $9 $141 $891 $999 -11%
n/a Mine(9)1,000 cy 0.01 Local Studies 14.82 0.71 10.52 11.02 Local Studies 97%Local Studies 0.04 $26 -$12 $14 $8 75%