My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-169a
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2005
>
2005-169a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2016 11:11:28 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 8:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Interlocal Agreement
Approved Date
05/17/2005
Control Number
2005-169A
Agenda Item Number
9.A.1
Entity Name
Tindale-Oliver
Subject
Impact Fee Study Interlocal Agreement
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4919
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
318
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
activities ? For other facilities such as emergency medical and rescue , it is difficult to <br /> allocate demand to land uses when many of the calls are related to crashes . <br /> The traditional method for estimating the current and future demand for certain facilities <br /> is to use the population as the basis . For example , some states have established a <br /> statewide minimum standard of 0 . 3 square feet of library space per capita based on the <br /> population of communities meeting minimum thresholds . Yet, communities with high <br /> volumes of nonresidents who use library services may need more than 0 . 3 square feet per <br /> resident to effectively meet this standard . In the case of police , fire , and emergency <br /> medical facilities , the higher the nonresident daytime population , the greater the need is <br /> for service relative to the resident population . Moreover, it is not enough to simply add <br /> resident population to the number of employees , since the service -demand characteristics <br /> of employees can vary considerably by type of industry . Using unweighted population <br /> and employment data to estimate facility needs may result in substantial error. <br /> For many facilities , there is a convenient way to rationally attribute demand by land use <br /> and to estimate aggregate demand for a community . This method is called " functional <br /> population . " Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space <br /> within a community on a 24 - hours -per-day , 7 -days -per-week basis for public facilities <br /> providing around -the -clock services , such as police and fire/EMS services ( or alternative <br /> time period such as an 11 -hours -per-day, 5 -days -per-week basis for public buildings , <br /> which are open on the average only a total of 55 hours per week) . <br /> A person living and working in the community will have a functional population <br /> coefficient of 1 . 0 . A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend <br /> only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends <br /> for a functional population coefficient of 0 . 76 ( 128 -hour presence divided by 168 hours <br /> in one week) . A person commuting into the community to work five days per week <br /> would have a functional population coefficient of 0 . 24 ( 40 -hour presence divided by 168 <br /> hours in one week) . Similarly , a person traveling into the community to shop at stores , <br /> perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of <br /> 0 . 05 . <br /> Functional population thus , is designed to capture the presence of all people within the <br /> community , whether residents , workers , or visitors , to arrive at a total estimate of <br /> effective population needing to be served . Functional population measures are important <br /> to gauge the demand for facilities serving the community 24 hours per day , 7 days per <br /> week for services such as police , fire , and emergency medical services , or 11 hours per <br /> day , 5 days per week for services such as public building services . <br /> This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the popular <br /> approach of merely weighting residents two -thirds and workers one -third (Nelson and <br /> Nicholas 1992 ) . By estimating the functional population per unit of land use across all <br /> major land uses in a community , an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and <br /> services in the present and in a future year can be calculated . The following paragraphs <br /> explain how functional population is calculated . <br /> Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County <br /> May 2005 II - 7 Impact Fee Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.