Loading...
Agenda 12/10/2019 Item # 9C (Ordinance -Impact Fees)12/10/2019 EXECUTIVE 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; p roviding for a retroactive effective date of November 13, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective date of March 30, 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 approve 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 advertise this proposed ordinance amendment for future consideration. On November 12, 2019 the Board directed that the rate decreases be implemented, and the remaining rate increases be brought back for further discussion on December 10, 2019. Therefore, 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 be 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 retroactive to November 13, 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 30, 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 9.C Packet Pg. 319 12/10/2019 study. The report describes the technical and legal framework and the methodology used to update the impact fees and 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 th is 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 respectively, 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. The following is a brief chronology of actions taken by the Board of County Commissioners related to the Northeast expansion: • April 24, 2018, agenda item 16C7 - approved an amendment to Contract 04-3673 with Carollo Engineering to update the design of the northeast water and wastewater treatment facilities • July 10, 2018, agenda item 11B - granted permission to advertise a resolution to expand the CCWSD service area • September 11, 2018, agenda item 17B - adopted Resolution 2018-148 expanding the CCWSD service area • January 22, 2019, agenda item 16C4 - approved selection committee rankings and authorized negotiations with Mitchell and Stark for the design/build Contract Number 18-7474 • February 12, 2019, agenda item 11C - accept the Plan of Finance to fund utility infrastructure expansion in the northeast • March 12, 2019, agenda item 11B - award Agreement No. 18-7474 to Mitchell & Stark/Johnson Engineering for the Design-Build of the Northeast Interim Wastewater Treatment Plant, Storage Tank and Associated Pipelines • March 12, 2019, agenda 9A - Adopt a Resolution to authorize issuance of bonds to finance utility infrastructure expansion 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 time frame. 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 9.C Packet Pg. 320 12/10/2019 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: 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 report 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 construction 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 9.C Packet Pg. 321 12/10/2019 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 County. Increases in trip length have a direct correlation to higher rates. With respect to the credit component, this study includes a credit for funding pro vided 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 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 % 9.C Packet Pg. 322 12/10/2019 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 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 Impact Fee 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. The Road Impact Fee Update Study was reviewed by the DSAC Impact Fee Subcommittee and later presented to the DSAC on November 6, 2019. The DSAC voted to accept the Road Impact Fee Update Study and methodology and made no recommendation on the fee increases/changes. 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 discussed 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 fees, 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 a nd $1.4 million for Wastewater, once the fees are fully implemented. The proposed increases to the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees represent a 27.2% increase over current fees, however, these impact fees were decreased 30% during the recession years. The Water-Sewer District is now returning to an expansion environment that was shelved at the start of the economic downturn. As provided above, the financial planning for the utility expansion and capital projects has been presented to the Board of County Commissioners through a series of agenda items detailing plans for 9.C Packet Pg. 323 12/10/2019 funding utilizing Bonds, advance payment of impact fees and consideration of an impact fee update as strategies to provide sufficient funding for the needed improvements. User fees were als o considered to fund the user fee portion (non-growth) of the incremental debt service through Fiscal Year 2021. If the Board does not implement the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees as recommended, the cost of the growth-related capital improvements will be shifted to the utility rate payers. For Transportation, several factors indicate a more fiscally neutral position relative to the proposed fee schedule changes. With full implementation of the recommended Road Impact Fees, and assuming new residential construction remains a major contributor to permitting activity, approximately $2.5 million in new revenue may be generated. However, implementation of only the decreases and new land uses at decreased rates will reduce annual collections by approximately $2.3 million. Under this scenario, the increases in cost (per lane mile from $4,844,907(indexed) to $6,005,000) will not be fully captured in the adopted impact fees and the revenue stream will be adversely affected by implementation of the required decreases without any offsets by the calculated increases. Additionally, this will further exacerbate the funding shortfalls in the (growth) 5-year Capital Plan which was, in part, the basis for the projects identified for Local Option Sales Tax funding. The revenue projections and funding scenarios for those projects anticipated consistent levels of primary funding for the projects, with the Sales Tax funding the shortfall; not to become a replacement revenue source. Further, even under a consistent funding scenario, budgeting for projects is challenging due to the overall cost increases being experienced throughout the market. 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. With respect to the legislative changes, 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. 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, may jurisdictions aggressively reduced or eliminated impact fees, developed incentive programs, 9.C Packet Pg. 324 12/10/2019 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 Collier 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 out 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: 1) 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; p roviding for a retroactive effective date of November 13, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective date of March 30, 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; 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; 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. 2) Direct the County Manager to work with the County’s Impact Fee Consultant to develop options for new impact fee rates for Affordable Housing Land Uses for each of the residential impact fee categories (Road, School, Parks, Jail, EMS, Government Buildings, Law Enforcement and Library Impact Fees) for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting. Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Director, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (PDF) 2. [Linked] WWW Impact Fee Study w. Attachments (Final) (PDF) 3. [Linked] Collier Road IF Study_FINAL_10-14-2019 (PDF) 4. IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (PPTX) 5. Legal Ad (PDF) 9.C Packet Pg. 325 12/10/2019 9.C Packet Pg. 326 12/10/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.C Doc ID: 11031 Item Summary: *** This item was continued from the November 12, 2019, BCC meeting. *** 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 a retroactive effective date of November 13, 2019 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective date of March 30, 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. Meeting Date: 12/10/2019 Prepared by: Title: Senior Grants and Housing Coordinator – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Gino Santabarbara 12/04/2019 8:41 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Amy Patterson 12/04/2019 8:41 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Level 1 Reviewer Completed 12/04/2019 9:41 AM Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Amy Patterson Additional Reviewer Completed 12/04/2019 11:45 AM Public Utilities Operations Support AmiaMarie Curry Additional Reviewer Completed 12/04/2019 11:57 AM Growth Management Department Gino Santabarbara Deputy Department Head Review Skipped 12/03/2019 12:18 PM Growth Management Department Gino Santabarbara Department Head Review Skipped 12/03/2019 12:18 PM Office of Management and Budget Laura Wells Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 12/04/2019 12:01 PM Budget and Management Office MaryJo Brock Additional Reviewer Skipped 12/04/2019 12:13 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 12/04/2019 1:34 PM County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/04/2019 3:08 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/10/2019 9:00 AM 9.C Packet Pg. 327 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and 9.C.1 Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: FINAL Ordinance Package - Impact Fee (11031 : 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% Collier County Impact Fee Updates AMY PAT TERSON, DIRECTOR CAPITAL PROJECT PLANNING, IMPACT FEES AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies •Required at least every three years •Must utilize most recent and localized data available •Collier also requires indexing between full studies -2- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Current Fee Env ironment •High volume of land use petitions and permit activity •Affo rdable 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 -3- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Benefit Programs* County-wide Impact Fe e Defe rral Program Multi-Fa mily Impact Fe e Defe rral Program Charitable Organization Impact Fee Defe rral 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 -4- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the 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 5. Evaluate options to develop additional impact fee rate categories to address concerns related to housing affordability. Any option, other than #1 and #5, shifts a portion of the growth demand to taxpayers or other funding sources, or requires reductions in level of serv ice. -5- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? Single-Fa mily Home –less than 4,000 sq. ft. Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00 Subtotal $1,433.00 Ro ad Impact Fee 8.68% increase = additional $ 646.01 To tal Increase $2,079.01 -6- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? Office –10,000 sq. ft. Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00 Subtotal $ 2,393.00 Ro ad Impact Fee (16%) decrease = reduction $(16,438.80) To tal Change $(14,045.80) -7- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? General Industrial –10,000 sq. ft. Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00 Subtotal $ 2,393.00 Ro ad Impact Fee (20%) decrease = reduction $(11,159.50) To tal Change $(8,766.50) -8- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? Retail–10,000 sq. ft. Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00 Subtotal $ 2,393.00 Ro ad Impact Fee (1%) decrease = reduction $ (1,084.00) To tal Increase $1,309.00 -9- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? Multi-Fa mily 3-10 stories –per unit Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00 Subtotal $ 1,433.00 Ro ad Impact Fee (7%) decrease = reduction $ (367.89) To tal Increase $1,065.11 -10- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers? Multi-Fa mily 1-2 stories –per unit Wa ter Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00 Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00 Subtotal $ 1,433.00 Ro ad Impact Fee 25% increase = reduction $ 1,408.11 To tal Increase $2,841.11 -11- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Re commendations •Accept the proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Rate Study and the Road Impact Fee Update Study which are considered to be reasonable and meet the criteria established by the Florida Impact Fee Act and applicable case law •Adopt the advertised Impact Fee Ordinance Amendment and associated impact fee rates with the recommended implementation dates •Direct the County Manager to work with the County ’s Impact Fee Consultant to develop options for new impact fee rates for Affordable Housing Land Uses for each of the residential impact fee categories (Road, School, Parks, Jail, EMS, Government Buildings, Law Enforcement and Library Impact Fees) for consideration by the Board at a future meeting. 12 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Questions and Discussion 13 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Appendix 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Community and Human Services Division COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Public Services Department 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Housing Affordability Community Housing Plan Key Objectives: (1)Increase Density (2) Add Certainty in the Development Process (3) Increase Funding fo r Housing that is Affordable -16- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Housing Plan Successes BCC Acceptance October 25, 2017 Approved 2/27/18 •New Definition of Affordable Housing •Approved Housing Demand Methodology •Increased Advocacy for State & Federal dollars •Address housing that is affordable in future land acquisitions •Improved Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program •Improved Fast-Tr ack Program Approved 4/24/18 •Improve Rental Impact Fee Deferral Program •Establish a new Local Housing Trust Fund •Establish a Community Land Trust •Marketing, public relations, and communications plan -17- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Housing Plan Successes (Continued) Approved 11/6/18 •Collier Voters approved One Cent Sales Sur-Ta x earmarked $20 Million for land acquisition for Housing that is Affordable Approved 9/24/19 •Approved GMPA and PUD for Allura 304 Unit Luxury Rental Development with a Commitment to include 54 ESP Units (31 of which income/rent restricted to 80%AMI Approved 10/8/19 •“Housing That is Affordable” Outreach, Marketing & Education Marketing Plan, including YIMBY (YES in my back yard) •Awarded $200,000 SHIP Funding to H.E.L.P. to be used for down payment assistance for 1st time buyers -18- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Housing Plan Successes (Continued) Approved 10/22/19 •Bembridge PUD –Awarded Developer Agreement to McDowell Housing for 78 units on County Land •Awarded contract to H.E.L.P. for the creation of a non-profit Community Land Trust •Approved Guidelines and Work Plan for application/award of Local Housing Tr ust Fund dollars •Approved Rattlesnake Hammock Activity Center GMPA Tra nsmittal including 10% income & rent restricted •Staff directed to release RFP for mix of uses on Golden Gate Golf Course, including affordable housing -19- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Housing Affordability In Process: BCC Provided Direction on 10/9/18 to move forward with Implementation plans for remaining Community Housing Plan Initiatives: •Providing administrative approvals of certain affordable housing applications (including senior housing) •Streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions •Guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers (reduced transportation impact fees, increased densities…) •Process to allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites •Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors -20- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Issues on the Horizon Rural Lands •Rivergrass Village 2500 homes o Housing Affordability not Addressed •Longwater Village 2900 homes o Housing Affordability not Addressed •Belmar Village 2750 homes o Housing Affordability not Addressed •Hyde Park Village 1800 homes o Housing Affordability not Addressed •Immokalee Road Village 4200 homes o RFMUD has inclusionary Zoning Requirements 14,000+++ Total ???? Affordable -21- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Missed Opportunities •Seek a partnership between Park Uses and Affordable Housing on Manatee Park Site •Initiate a nexus study to determine appropriate linkage fees to fund the Housing Trust Fund •Direct staff to advertise Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (Inclusionary Zoning) •Approval of GMPA and PUD for Courthouse Shadows 300 Unit Rental Development o 60 ESP Units, no inclusion of income or rent restrictions -22- 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Water-Sewer Dist rict 2019 WAT ER AND WASTEWAT ER IMPA CT FEE STUDY Public Utilities Department 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Pu rpose 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 Pay ing for Growth” o Existing Customers Not Re sponsible for New Expansion Re lated Capital o Additional Financial Resources Provide Long-Te rm Fa vorable User Rate Benefit PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2 4 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Use of Impact Fees •Pay fo r Financing Growth / Expansion-Re lated Infrastructure o Capital Projects (Tre atment Plants and Tra nsmission Mains) o Expansion-Re lated Portion of Debt Service •Per Bond Resolution: Impact Fees Are Pledged Revenue fo r 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 2 5 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fees –Pledged to Fund Growth Debt Service 4.0 MGD WW 5.0 MGD Water Estimated debt Service Current Schedule New Series 2022 New Series 2024 Combined Schedule Current Rate Pr oposed Rate Current Rate Proposed Rate FY19 $13,930,920 $13,930,920 $14,000,000 Increase 27.2% FY20 $14,407,060 $14,407,060 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($407,060)$3,400,940 FY21 $14,409,665 $14,409,665 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($409,665)$3,398,335 FY22 $14,242,037 $906,628 $15,148,665 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,148,665)$2,659,335 FY23 $10,883,257 $4,410,619 $15,293,876 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,293,876)$2,514,124 FY24 $10,882,283 $4,410,619 $338,551 $15,631,453 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,631,453)$2,176,547 FY25 $10,295,995 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $16,353,617 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($2,353,617)$1,454,383 FY26 $8,727,129 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,784,751 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($784,751)$3,023,249 FY27 $7,132,576 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $13,190,198 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 $809,802 $4,617,802 FY28 $7,045,336 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $13,102,958 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 $897,042 $4,705,042 FY29 $9,265,307 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $15,322,929 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,322,929)$2,485,071 FY30 $8,249,830 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,307,452 $14,000,001 $17,808,001 ($307,451)$3,500,549 FY31 $8,252,117 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,309,739 $14,000,002 $17,808,003 ($309,737)$3,498,263 FY32 $8,248,320 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,305,942 $14,000,003 $17,808,004 ($305,939)$3,502,062 FY33 $8,248,530 $11,338,919 $1,647,003 $21,234,452 $14,000,004 $17,808,005 ($7,234,448)($3,426,447) FY34 $8,248,475 $11,332,206 $1,647,003 $21,227,684 $14,000,005 $17,808,006 ($7,227,679)($3,419,677) FY35 $8,248,074 $11,340,106 $4,234,153 $23,822,333 $14,000,006 $17,808,008 ($9,822,327)($6,014,325) FY36 $8,249,206 $11,345,241 $4,231,646 $23,826,093 $14,000,007 $17,808,009 ($9,826,086)($6,018,084) FY37 $5,828,650 $11,333,549 $4,234,596 $21,396,795 $14,000,008 $17,808,010 ($7,396,787)($3,588,785) FY38 $5,829,209 $11,336,263 $4,236,514 $21,401,986 $14,000,009 $17,808,011 ($7,401,977)($3,593,974) FY39 $5,830,266 $11,333,577 $4,232,148 $21,395,991 $14,000,010 $17,808,013 ($7,395,981)($3,587,978) FY40 $23,093,517 $4,233,162 $27,326,679 $14,000,011 $17,808,014 ($13,326,668)($9,518,665) FY41 $23,095,729 $4,232,159 $27,327,888 $14,000,012 $17,808,015 ($13,327,876)($9,519,872) FY42 $0 $8,623,529 $8,623,529 $14,000,013 $17,808,017 $5,376,485 $9,184,488 FY43 $8,624,355 $8,624,355 $14,000,014 $17,808,018 $5,375,660 $9,183,663 $196,454,242 $170,561,923 $63,690,845 $430,707,009 $350,000,105 $427,392,134 ($80,775,984)$10,616,044 Loan from User Fee Reserves Impact Fee Revenue Esti mates (1)(Deficit)/Surplus PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2 6 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the 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 2 7 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Re cent Board Actions on Expansion •April 24, 2018, agenda item 16C7 –approved an amendment to Contract 04-3673 with Carollo Engineering to update the design of the northeast water and wastewater treatment facilities •July 10, 2018, agenda item 11B –granted permission to advertise a resolution to expand the CCWSD service area •September 11, 2018, agenda item 17B –adopted Resolution 2018-148 expanding the CCWSD service area •January 22, 2019, agenda item 16C4 -approved selection committee rankings and authorized negotiations with Mitchell and Stark for the design/build Contract Number 18-7474 •February 12, 2019, agenda item 11C -accept the Plan of Finance to fund utility infrastructure expansion in the northeast •March 12, 2019, agenda item 11B –award Agreement No. 18-7474 to Mitchell & Stark/Johnson Engineering for the Design-Build of the Northeast Interim Wastewater Tr eatment Plant, Storage Tank and Associated Pipelines •March 12, 2019, agenda 9A –Adopt a Resolution to authorize issuance of bonds to finance utility infrastructure expansion PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2 8 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Legal Council, DSAC and CBIA 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 o CBIA notes that at 27% increase is large, however, proposed rates have been reduced over 25% since 2008 when the utility ’s capacity expansion plans were placed in hibernation due to the recession’s impact on demand for potable water and wastewater services o County water and wastewater services are essential to development, the public health and safety and protect the environment PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 29 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Proposed Impact Fees per ERC •Existing to Proposed Impact Fees per ERC: •Breakdown of Change in Impact Fee per ERC: PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 30 Existing Proposed Difference System Fee Fee Amount Percent Wa ter $2,562 $3,382 $820 32.0% Wa stewater $2,701 $3,314 $613 22.7% To tal $5,263 $6,696 $1,433 27.2% Water Wa stewater Existing Fee $2,562 $2,701 Infrastructure Investment $1,102 $1,027 LOS Decrease ($282)($414) Proposed Fee $3,382 $3,314 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fees History •Current Water/Sewer Impact Fees of $5,263 are 25.6% below 2008 fee structure when expansion plans were placed in hibernation due to the recession •Proposed Fee structure represent a 27.2% increase over current rates despite increases in building materials and engineering services costs •Building material costs have increased over 20% from pre- re cession times and Engineering Services costs are up 23% PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 31 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Impact Fees History PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 32 NE Facilities in Design (12/14/04 10E)NE Facilities in Hybernation (2/26/10 16C 2)Design-B uild 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Building Materials and Engineering Services PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 33 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County 2019 ROA D IMPACT FEE UPDAT E STUDY 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Use of Impact Fees •Pay fo r growth-related capital improvements o New roads o Additional lanes on existing roads (capacity adding) o Capacity adding turn lanes and intersection improvements PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 3 5 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Te chnical Analysis Basic Impact Fee Formula: Net Impact Fee = (Cost –Credit) x Demand 36 Cost to add capacity Non-impact fee revenue from future development Ve hicle miles of travel 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Te chnical Analysis Road Impact Fee Variables: •Demand Component •Tr ip generation rate, trip length, % new trips •Cost Component •County roads, capacity •Credit Component •Non-impact fee funding for roadway capacity expansion 37 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Tr ansportat ion –Demand Component Update TG R to ITE 10th Edition: •Tr ip Generation Increase • 20 land uses •Tr ip Generation Decrease • 24 land uses •No change • 13 land uses •Re-organization of multi-family and gas station w/convenience market land uses 38 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Tr ansportat ion Demand per Unit of Development: •Tr ip Generation Rate = Number per day •Tr ip Length = Travel A to B •Tr ip Length Adjustment Factor = Accounts for travel on County Ro ads ONLY •% New Trips = Accounts for trips already on the roadway •Interstate/Toll Adjustment Factor = Accounts for interstate & toll trips (not charged) 39 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Te chnical Analysis –Cost Component Cost per Lane Mile 40 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 To tal $6,005,000 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Tr ansportation –Cost Component 41 Source: Florida Dept of Transportation, Long Range Estimates -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% FDOT LRE Construction Cost -Cumulative Growth Trend (3-yr Avg) Construction Costs Continue to Increase 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Study Highlights •Costs continuing to increase •24% increase in construction cost per lane mile •Assessable trip length for Residential and related uses remains very conservative •State costs removed from calculation •Calculated credit included for Local Option Sales Tax •Significant rate decreases in many commonly used land uses land uses •Several land uses replaced or reorganized based on improved data •New land uses provide rate options for new development •(Residential over Commercial, 2-meal Fast Food, Fast Casual Restaurant, etc.) 42 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Legal Council, DSAC and CBIA o The methodology has been reviewed and approved by 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 November 6, 2019 meeting o CBIA notes that at some of the Road IF increases are large, however, the rate schedule also proposes a significant number of decreases to commonly used land uses. CBIA further recommended that the increases by phased-in should the Board elect to move forward with the proposed rates 43 9.C.4 Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: IF Presentation 12-10-19 packet 2 final (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the 9.C.5 Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Legal Ad (11031 : Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances)