Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) Review Collier County Clerk of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ave Maria Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) Review

Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court February 2012

1

WHY IS THE CLERK HERE TODAY?

2

What is the FIAM? The Fiscal Impact Analysis Model is the county’s adopted model designed to indicate the financial benefit or detriment of a development, as a whole, to the taxpayers of Collier County.

3

Requirement for the FIAM: Collier County Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element

Ordinance No. 2003-07 and 2007-18

4

Requirement for the FIAM: Land Development Code 4.08.07 L.1

5

Land Development Code 4.08.07 L.2 & 3

6

Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) requirement for the FIAM

Resolution No. 2005-234A

7

8

Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) requirement for the FIAM

BCC Meeting 10/23-24/2007 Item #10R

9

BCC Meeting 10/23-24/2007: Discussion of FIAM Adoption

10

FIAM Training Manual

Prepared by Dr. Fishkind

11

Original 5-Year Fiscal Monitoring Report Submitted to County Staff by WilsonMiller July 19, 2010

12

Final 5-Year Fiscal Monitoring Report Prepared by Fishkind & Assoc. Submitted to BCC 12/14/2010

13

BCC Meeting 12/14/2010 Item #10I

14

FIAM Meeting Timeline

• March 23, 2011:

Clerk’s Office, Fishkind & Assoc. and Barron Collier Co.

• March 28, 2011:

Clerk’s Office and County Staff

• May 11, 2011:

Clerk’s Office and County Staff

• May 25, 2011:

Clerk’s Office and County Staff

• May 31, 2011:

Clerk’s Office, County Staff, Fishkind & Assoc. and Barron Collier Co.

• June 03, 2011:

Clerk’s Office and County Staff

• August 16, 2011:

Clerk’s Office, County Staff, Fishkind & Assoc. and

• Barron Collier Co.
• August 23, 2011:

Revised model submission given to Clerk’s Office by Fishkind & Assoc. and Barron Collier Co.

• February 6, 2012:

Clerk’s Office, County Staff

• February 11, 2012:

Clerk’s Office, Fishkind & Assoc. and Barron Collier Co.

15

The Clerk’s Office does not concur with the

• utputs of the model that was submitted to the

BCC in 2010 due to the following concerns:

• The Ave Maria development is not evaluated as a

whole; build-out projections were not provided.

• Ad-valorem revenues inflated due to an incorrect

taxable value input for the Ave Maria SRA.

• Land values of contributions by Ave Maria appear to be

different than what the county has determined the value to be.

• Impact fee credits were used as a revenue in the model.
• Formulas used to calculate road costs were different

than both the 2005 submission and version 7.5, which the BCC was told was used.

16

Horizon Year Projections not Provided

17

Future Development Projections Included in Original 2005 Submission; Excluded in 2010 and 2011

2005 Submission: build-out shown through 2016

2010 Submission: build-out not shown

Input for Development in AREA 1 (Urban Core / Activity Center) or other dense, urban place

Existing 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Residential Units Vacant Acreage Single-Family - Type 1 Single-Family - Type 2 231 Single-Family - Type 3 Single-Family - Type 4 Multifamily-For Sale Condo 143 Multifamily-For Sale Townhome Multifamily-For Sale Other Multifamily-Rental Apartments Multifamily-ACLF/Nursing Home beds Multifamily-Rental Other Mobile Homes Total 374

5,120 Units Projected for First 5 Years

374 Units Built in First 5 Years

18

Summary of Results: 2010 and 2011 Submissions

19

Without horizon year projections, the total impact of the project to the taxpayers of Collier County is unknown.

2011 Submission 2010 Submission

Taxable Value of the Ave Maria SRA

20

Ave Maria Town maps from the Property Appraiser’s Office Cross-hatched area = 5,027 acres Delineates SRA acreage

• nly, not the entire

Ave Maria Stewardship District

• f 10,820 acres

21

Ave Maria Taxable Value in the 2010 and 2011 FIAM

• vs. Property Appraiser’s Value

Taxable Value per P.A. = $ 141,782,128

Taxable Value Reported in the FIAM = $ 182,755,998

22

Millage Rates Taxable Value / 1000

x

Ad Valorem Revenue

=

Impact of Correction to Ave Maria Taxable Value in 2010 and 2011 FIAM Submissions

23

$ 182,755,998 / 1000

x

$ 141,782,128 / 1000

x

3.5645 + .7161

$ 782,305

=

3.5645 + .7161

=

$ 606,913

Financial Impact of the Correction to FIAM Operating Revenue (Single Year)

=

• $ 175,392

Land Values for Oil Well Road Right-of-Way Donation

24

Developer Contribution Agreement between Ave Maria and the BCC $7,800,000 / 156 acres = $50,000/acre Used as a Capital Revenue in the FIAM

25

Right-of-Way Land Market Values (per acre)

Camp Keais Rd Oil Well Rd 2006 $17,074 2005 $6,340 2006 $9,793 2005 $12,810

Southeast corner of Ave Maria

Property Appraiser’s Market Values before and after SRA approval

26

Oil Well Road Right-of-Way Value per County Staff

$1,150,000 / 38.332 acres = $30,000 per acre The Developer valued the ROW donation at $50,000 per acre

28

2010 Submission

As Submitted $50K/Acre Using Staff’s Valuation of $30K/Acre

Revising the value to $30K per acre for the Right-of-Way contribution decreases Capital Revenues by $3.12 million

Impact fee credits were used as a revenue in the model

29

30

2010 Submission

Factoring in the Impact Fee Credits used ($909,509)

As Submitted using Design & Permitting Fees as 100% revenue ($7.546M)

The Developer has consumed impact fee credits of $909,509 for Design & Permitting Fees for Oil Well Road

31

2011 Submission

Factoring in the Impact Fee Credits used ($909,509) As Submitted: using Design & Permitting Fees as 100% revenue ($7.546M: $909,509 Credits Used + $6,636,491 Unused Balance)

Factoring the impact fee credits already used of $909,509 into the model reduces Capital Revenues.

Different Formulas Used to Calculate Road Costs

32

Final 5-Year Fiscal Monitoring Report Prepared by Fishkind & Assoc. Submitted to BCC 12/14/2010

33

Example of another inconsistency found: revised formula

(which affects road costs)

Version 7.5 2010 Submission

34

Version 7.5: 2010 Submission:

Cost per Lane Mile Trip Rate x Trip Length x % New Trips Capacity per Lane

x

Trip Rate x Trip Length x % New Trips

Capacity per Lane

x

(1 – Int Toll Adj)

2

Cost per Lane Mile

x The new formula appears to cut 2010 Transportation costs in half

“Capacity Used” formula affects road expenditures in the FIAM

35

36

Cost Allocated Formula Used as Intended by the FIAM Training Manual in the 2005 Submission

37

Comparison of road cost results as submitted vs. corrected formula:

( )

38

2010 Submission

Using Original Formula (same as Version 7.5 model) As Submitted (with revised formula)

Using the original formula for costs allocated to roads increases Capital Expenditures by $16.58 million

2011 Submission: Transportation Capital Revenues and Expenditures

Expenses not generated using actual costs

39

40

2011 Submission

Using Original Methodology (same as Version 7.5) As Submitted (using averages of impact fee costs)

As the 2011 model was submitted, the cost allocated formula was overwritten with a hard-coded value; allowing the formula to calculate properly increases the cost allocated to units put

• n the road system by the development.

2011 Submission Costs allocated to Roads are generated using the “Total Impact Cost” amounts from the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Tindale-Oliver)

Average of Total Impact Cost for Single Family Residential Land Use categories: Less than 1,500 sq ft: $ 9,432 1,500 to 2,499 sq ft: $ 12,828 2,500 sq ft or larger: $ 14,510 Average of 3 categories: $ 12,257

41

Average = $ 12,257 which is used as

a multiplier for cost per unit on the road system

= $ 13,126 applying actual

categories of development

Actual Units:

190 41

42

Land use categories where zero units have been built were brought into the calculation for road costs; this caused expenditures related to roads to decrease.

2011 Submission

Final 5-Year Fiscal Monitoring Report Prepared by Fishkind & Assoc. Submitted to BCC 12/14/2010

43

FIAM Training Manual

Prepared by Dr. Fishkind

Conclusion:

The Clerk’s Office does not concur with the outputs of the model that was submitted to the BCC in 2010 due to the following concerns:

• The Ave Maria development is not evaluated as a whole;

build-out projections were not provided.

• Ad-valorem revenues inflated due to an incorrect taxable

value input for the Ave Maria SRA.

• Land values of contributions by Ave Maria appear to be

different than what the county has determined the value to be.

• Impact fee credits were used as a revenue in the model.
• Formulas used to calculate road costs were different than

both the 2005 submission and version 7.5, which the BCC was told was used.

45