HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-034 (3)Indian River County
2020 Comprehensive Plan
A&"qu
Indian River County Community Development Department
Adopted:
1Qlyl
Exhibit C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
BACKGROUND, . I I I # * 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... *46*90 ... 0"40000 0 0 a * a 0 a 0 0 0 ... 6 a * 0 0,0,0 ... a a 9 0 a 9 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 " . 0 0 * 0 ........ 2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS. . ...... ....... a 400
3
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL RELATED DATA.............................................................................3
Past and Projected Population.......................................................................................3
Permit Activity/Projected Permit Activity....................................................................4
Residential Development Activity.................................................................................5
Student Generation Multiplier.......................................................................................7
PUBLICSCHOOL SYSTEM......................................................................................................14
Enrollmentand Capacity.............................................................................................14
EnrollmentProjections................................................................................................16
Student Population from 2007 through 2013..............................................................20
Indian River County School Utilization................................................................21
Long Term Student Enrollment Projections, I I I 1 11 1 11 0.,,,,
21
School District Capital Funding Sources.....................................................................22
ANALYSIS. . * 00, 1 11 1 11 *** 0 be 9 a 0 an 0 60 0 00 0 *1,, 11 a * $0 1 *1 1 a a 0 go 9 @1 0 0* a to 0 11 1 of 0 00 0 *1 1 1 11 0 of 00 0 at 0 0 at 5 ***4,0"
22
SCHOOL SERVICE AREAS................................................................................22
SCHOOLLEVEL OF SERVICE.................................................................................................27
NeedsAssessment.......................................................................................................27
ElementarySchools...............................................................................................28
MiddleSchools......................................................................................................28
HighSchools..........................................................................................................29
LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR NEW SCHOOLS.......................................................................320
FINANCIALFEASIBILITY.......................................................................................................32
SCHOOLCONCURRENCY PROCESS........................................................................................33
PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION.................................................................................334
SCHOOL PLANNING AND SHARED COSTS..............................................................................40
INFRASTRUCTURENEEDS...................................................................................................410
COORDINATION....................................................................................................................41
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
POLICIES.................................................................................................45
PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................51
EVALUATION AND MONITORING
PROCEDURES',,'..... ..... ...................... ......................................_
..5
Community Development Department Indian River County
i
Community Development Department Indian River County
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 12.1: Population Data, 1995 — 2006................................................................................3
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-20230.............................................................................3
Table 12.3a: Total Building Permits Issued Per Year...............................................................4
Table 12.3b: Indian River County Total Residential Units.......................................................4
Table 12.4: Projected Building Permits for Next 5 Years.........................................................4
Table 12.5a: Students by Residential Housing Type and School Type.....................................8
Table 12.5b: Occupied Dwelling Units by Type, 2005.............................................................8
Table 12.5c: Student Generation Rates, Indian River County, 2005 ........................................8
Table 12.6: New Residential Development...............................................................................9
Table 12.7: School Year 2006/2007 School Enrollment and Capacity...................................16
Table 12.8: Elementary School Student Enrollment Projections............................................18
Table 12.9: Middle School Student Enrollment Projections...................................................18
Table 12.10: High School Student Enrollment Projections......,...",,. ...... 19
Table 12.11: Special and Alternative School Student Enrollment Projections .......................19
Table 12.12: Public School Student Enrollment Projections by School Type ........................20
Table 12.12: Planned Public Schools and Land Area Needed................................................30
Table 12.1314: School District's Capital Improvement Summary...........................................36
Table 12.145: School District's Capital Improvement Program Revenue Summary..............39
Table 12.16: Opportunities to Co -locate County or Municipal Parks. Libraries, and
Community Centers with Existing and Proposed Public Schools .
Table 12.17: Opportunities to Use Existing and Proposed School Facilities for
County/Municipal Recreational Youth Programs and/or Community Activities ...................43
Table 12.148: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix...............................51
Community Development Department Indian River County
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 12.1: Approved and Potential New Residential Development, . I I I I I I I a 6 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 9, 6 ... 00406
Figure 12.2: Existing School Locations..................................................................................15
Figure 12.3: Elementary School Service Area Boundary Map...............................................24
Figure 12.4: Middle School Service Area Boundaries Map....................................................25
Figure 12.5: High School Service Area Boundary Map..........................................................26
Figure 12.6: Existing / Programmed District Owned & Operated School Locations .............31
Figure 12.7: Co -location Opportunities...................................................................................44
Community Development Department Indian River County
iv
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
INTRODUCTION
Public schools are critical components to the well-being and future of a community. Because
of the importance of the public school system and its impact on the future of Indian River
County, coordinated school planning among the County, the School District and the
municipalities within the County is critical to ensure that public school capacity needs are
met.
Residential development is a primary factor associated with the growth of the public school
system. Because of the relationship between residential development and the provision of
public schools, the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) focuses on coordinated planning
among the School District, County and local governments to accommodate future student
growth needs in the public school system. This element establishes public school system
concurrency requirements, including a level of service standard for public schools and
procedures for establishing a concurrency management system.
Within Indian River County, the local governments participating in school concurrency are
Indian River County, the City of Vero Beach, the City of Sebastian, the City of Fellsmere,
and the Town of Indian River Shores. The fifth municipality in the County, the Town of
Orchid, is exempt from school concurrency based on the criteria contained in
163.3177(12)(b), F.S. At the time of its comprehensive plan's evaluation and appraisal
report, the Town of Orchid must determine if it continues to meet the criteria as an exempt
municipality.
Once implemented, school concurrency will ensure that the public school facilities necessary
to maintain the adopted level of service for schools are in place before or concurrent with the
school impacts of new residential development.
Community Development Department Indian River County
1
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Florida Legislature amended s.163.3180, F.S., and mandated the implementation
of public school concurrency. That legislation requires that each local government adopt a
Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) as part of its Comprehensive Plan and amend its
Capital Improvements Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The PSFE
must address school level of service; school utilization; school proximity and compatibility
with residential development; availability of public infrastructure; co -location opportunities;
and financial feasibility.
As mandated by Rule 9J-5-025 F.A.C., the PSFE must contain the following:
• Existing school facility deficiencies and school facilities required to meet future
needs;
• School level of service standards;
• A financially feasible five-year schedule of school -related capital improvements that
ensures adequate school capacity is available to maintain the adopted level of service;
• Provisions to ensure that school facilities are located consistent with the existing and
proposed residential areas they serve; that schools be used as community focal points,
and that schools be co -located with other public facilities;
• Maps depicting existing school sites, areas of anticipated future school sites, ancillary
facilities, and School Service Area Boundaries (SSABSSAs); and
• Goals, objectives, and policies for planning and school concurrency.
Community Development Department Indian River County
2
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
EXISTING CONDITIONS
For school concurrency purposes, existing conditions relate not only to the number and
location of public schools, but also to the County's population and overall level of residential
development activity. Because the County's land use and demographic characteristics relate
to the various components of the public school system, this section identifies past and
projected County population figures, recent residential development activity, student
enrollment data, and the existing conditions of Indian River County's public school system.
County and Municipal Related Data
Past and Projected Population
The first set of data used to establish the level of growth in Indian River County is the
population increase over time. For the time period 1995-2006, demographic data were
obtained from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Table 12.1
details the population estimates for Indian River County and the municipalities during this
ten-year period. Table 12.2 shows population growth projections and anffua1-growth rates for
the County to the year 20230.
Table 12.1: Population Data, 1995 - 2006
Source: University of Florida Annual Population Studies and US Census Bureau 2006
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-202')0
J ` 1995
2010
1996
62020
1997
": ' I 98
'`�
1999
2040
n� " 2001
Population
204
' 2Q�03
2404
176,964
1.911MOO
' " 2005'
`` 2#106
Indian
Growth
16,939
15,566
14,418
12.736
1.1.855
Growth
River
1009375
1023516
104,644
106,689
109,266
112,947
115,716
1185149
1219129
126,829
1303043
135,215
County
Population
Cities Po ulation
Fellsmere
2,357
29419
2,469
2,549
2,5931
3,813
39901
49044
49173
4,284
49322
4,581
Indian River
3 722
Shores
29602
2,648
29690
2,739
23782
39448
39521
3,507
39572
3,647
3,654
Orchid
25
29
45
60
1501
140
161
216
256
304
302
307
Sebastian
13,503
14,009
14,475
159115
15,662
16,181
16,796
17,425
189275
19,365
20,048
215666
Vero Beach
17,7011
17,7501
17,7941
17,745
17,856
175705
17,8791
17,9181
17,945
18,0121
17,895
18,160
Unincor-
86,779
orated
649187
659661
67,171
68,481
70,224
715660
733458
753039
769908
81,217
83,822
Total
1 1009375
102,5161
104,6441
106,689
10%2661
112,9471
1159716
1183149
121J291
126,8291
130,0431
135,215
Source: University of Florida Annual Population Studies and US Census Bureau 2006
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-202')0
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida, 2006
Community Development Department Indian River County
3
2005
2010
2015
62020
2025
21130
Indian River County
Population
130,041
146,980
1629546
176,964
1.911MOO
21)1..,..5..55.
Growth
16,939
15,566
14,418
12.736
1.1.855
Growth
Rate %
13.03%1
10.59%1
8.87%
1 7.19%
I 6.25'%
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida, 2006
Community Development Department Indian River County
3
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Permit ActivityTrojected Permit Activity
In Indian River County, the increase in population has been accompanied by an increase in
residential housing units. Table 12.3a details building permit activity for the Vie.-
county a11d municipalities for the period between 2001 and 2006.
Table 12.3b identifies the increase in total residential units from the 2000 Census to 2006.
Table 12.3a: Total Building Permits Issued Per Year
Source: Indian River County Community Development Report, January 2006
Table 12.3b: Indian River County Total Residential Units
Total Single Family Units 1 36,240 1 454851,451
Total Multi -Family Units 14,792 t4�18,149
Total Mobile Home Units 1 6,870 1 ',-X7.205
Total Housing Units 1 57,902 1 67761805
Source: Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Vacant Land Analysis Application 2006.
The data detailed in Table 12.3a indicate a steady increase in the number of single family
residential building permits issued in Indian River County between 2001 and 2005, with a
decrease occurring in 2006. These new units place additional demands on the school
system's capacity because each new housing unit has the potential to generate new students.
Table 12.4, however, shows that the number of building permits to be issued annually
through the year 2009 is expected to decrease and then increase in 2010 and 2011
Table 12.4: Projected Building Permits for Next 5 Years
Source: Indian River County Community Development Department & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 20067
Community Development Department Indian River County
4
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Annual
Population Change
5,623
51332
5,406
5,619
6,692
Projected Permits
'1,015
23-7291.557
2,350
29875
3,424
Source: Indian River County Community Development Department & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 20067
Community Development Department Indian River County
4
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Residential Development Activity
While building permit data provide an indication of future growth, development review
activity also serves as a growth indicator. Consequently, development review information,
including the number of new residential housing units under review by Indian River County
and municipal planning departments in Indian River County, was collected. This information
can assist the local governments and School District in anticipating the demand for public
schools.
Figure 12.1 depicts the location and intensity of approved and potential new residential
development. This information was obtained from the County and municipalities. For
analysis, these data were incorporated into a GIS dataset. In Figure 12. 1, new residential
development is thematically symbolized by the number of approved housing units. The
darker shaded areas identify developments with a higher number of housing units, while the
lighter shaded portions indicate developments with a lower number of housing units.
According to these data, approximately 26,637 housing units are under construction or in the
development review process. Generally, it is expected that those areas with an increase in
proposed new residential developments will experience a higher demand for new schools.
Community Development Department Indian River County
5
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Student Generation Multiplier
A critical component of the school concurrency process is projecting the number of students
that will be generated from new residential development. In order to calculate the number of
students associated with new residential development, a student generation multiplier was
created. Because the number of students living in a housing unit varies depending on the
type of residential housing, the student generation rate per residential unit is based on three
housing types: single family, multi -family, and mobile home.
Two key pieces of data were used to calculate student generation rates. These were the
Geographic Information System (GIS) parcel file from the Indian River County Property
Appraisers office with associated land use and attribute data (2005), and the GIS Point file
based on the October 2005 FTE Survey data provided from the School District (for the
school year 2005-2006). A spatial join was applied to these key files resulting in one
database with a common location. Once the data were joined, the student GIS Point file was
assigned a housing type based on the closest proximity of a residential parcel to the GIS
centerline point.
As a 100 percent student inventory (not a sample set), the volume of data used (16,857 geo-
coded students) was large enough to offset occasional land use assignment errors. The
student database was then sorted by grade and housing type.
To calculate a student generation rate (multiplier), the total number of students (by school
type) was divided by the total number of occupied dwelling units by residential type. Table
12.5a shows the number of students by residential housing type and school type in Indian
River County as of the October 2005 student count. The occupied dwelling unit counts are
based on an average 90 percent occupancy rate. The occupancy rate was determined by
dividing permanent 2005 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) households
by the 2005 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) housing unit count. The student
generation multipliers by residential housing type were derived from the "Indian River
County Student Generation Rates by Housing Type" report prepared by Fishkind and
Associates, Inc. (May 24, 2006).
Consequently, the number of students associated with a development can be calculated by
applying the multiplier to the development's proposed number and type of residential housing
units. The projected number of students is the product of the development units multiplied
by the student generation multiplier for the unit type.
Community Development Department Indian River County
7
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.5a: Students by Residential Housing Type and School Type
Single- Multi- Mobile Total
Family Family Home Students
Elementary 6,692 568 296 7,556
Middle 33439 231 107 3,776
High 4,377 220 108 4,705
Total 14,507 1,019 511 16,038
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board,
Indian River County Property Appraiser
Table 12.5b shows the 2005 occupied/permanent dwelling unit counts by type.
Table 12.5b: Occupied Dwelling Units by Type, 2005
Single- Multi- Mobile Occupied
Family Family Home Dwelling Units
Occupied Dwelling 35,444 15,542 6,555 57,541
Units
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board,
Indian River County Property Appraiser
Table 12.5c shows the resulting student generation rates for year 2005 by unit type by school
type.
Table 12.5c: Student Generation Rates, Indian River County, 2005
Single- Multi- Mobile All Unit
Family Family Home Types
Elementary 0.189 0.037 0.045 0.131
Middle 0.097 0.015 0.016 0.066
High 0.123 0.014 0.016 0.082
Total 0.409 0.066 0.078 0.279
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board, Indian River
County Property Appraiser
To determine the student impact of a proposed residential development for school
concurrency purposes, a proposed development's projected units by type of unit are
converted into the number of projected students using the student generation rate for the unit
type and grade level, as identified in Table 12.5c. As shown in Table 12.6, the
approximately 26,637 new residential units in Indian River County are estimated to yield a
total of 8,253 students. This information is to be used for long-range school planning
purposes.
Community Development Department Indian River County
8
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.6: New Residential Development
C CC
Indian Ricer Coon#y - Ne
41 ttGa"a
5
e�relopmerits
n
Ewlthw. .
Develo ment
Unit
Type*
Number
of SF
Units
Number
of MF
Units
SF
Students
0.409
MF
Students
0.066
Total
Students Per
Development
1
1 ST STREET SUB
RSF
22
-
9
-
9
2
27TH AVE SUB
RSF
66
-
27
-
27
3
66TH AVE & 87TH ST. SUB
MXD
33
78
13
5
19
4
ANSLEY PARK
RSF
90
-
37
-
37
5
ASHBURY SUBDIVISION
RSF
195
-
80
-
80
6
ASHLEY LAKES
RSF
36
-
15
-
15
7
ASHLEY LAKES NORTH
RSF
160
-
65
-
65
8
BEACH COVE MHP
RMF
-
58
-
4
4
9
BEJAR SD
RSF
70
29
-
29
10
BELLA ROSA
RMF
-
80
-
5
5
11
BELLA TERRA NORTH
RSF
16
-
7
-
7
12
BELLA TERRA SOUTH
RSF
16
-
7
7
13
BELLA VISTA ISLES
RMF
-
64
-
4
4
14
BENT PINE PRESERVE
RSF
152
-
62
-
62
15
BLUE LAKE MANOR
RMF
-
59
-
4
4
16
BLUEWATER BAY PD
RSF
379
-
155
-
155
17
BOWER HILL SUB
RSF
33
-
13
-
13
18
BRADFORD PLACE
RMF
-
152
-
10
10
19
BRAE BURN ESTATES
RSF
41
17
-
17
20
BRIDGEPOINTE
MXD
166
-
68
-
68
21
BRISTOL BAY
RSF
499
-
204
-
204
22
BROOKS SUB
RSF
13
-
5
-
5
23
BUCCANEER COVE
MXD
55
24
22
2
24
24
CITRUS SPRINGS PD
RSF
584
-
239
239
25
CITRUS WAY ESTATES AOE
RSF
11
-
4
-
4
26
CLEMAN OAKS SUB
RSF
25
-
10
-
10
27
COCONUT CAY
RMF
-
12
-
1
1
28
COQUINA BAY
RSF
21
9
-
9
29
CROFTON MEADOWS
RSF
11
-
4
-
4
30
CROSS CREEK LAKE ESTATES
RSF
134
-
55
-
55
31
DEER VALLEY ACE
RSF
31
13
-
13
32
DEVONWOOD LAKES
RSF
242
-
99
-
99
33
DIAMOND COURT
MXD
51
-
21
-
21
34
DIAMOND COURT VILLAGE
WEST
MXD
132
132
54
9
63
35
DIAMOND LAKE
RSF
117
-
48
-
48
36
DIVOSTA HOMES 25 ACRES
RMF
-
162
-
11
11
37
DODGER PINES
RSF
778
-
318
-
318
38
DODGER TOWN
RMF
-
326
-
22
22
39
EAGLES TRACE II
RSF
49
-
20
-
20
40
EARRING POINT
RMF
-
116
-
8
8
41
EAST GATE VILLAS
RMF
-
27
-
2
2
42 1
ECHO LAKE
MXD
310
90
127
6
133
43
EL RANCHO DEVELOPMENT
AOE
RSF
12
-
5
-
5
44
ENCORE RV RESORT
RMF
-
52
-
3
3
45
ESTANCIA
RSF
17
-
7
-
7
Community Development Department Indian River County
9
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
46
FALCON TRACE
RSF
593
243
- 243
47
FOUR LAKES
RSF
58
-
24
-
24
48
FOX RUN
RSF
24
-
10
-
10
49
FOXWOOD
RMF
-
55
-
4
4
50
GRACE GROVES
RSF
82
-
34
-
34
51
GRAND LEGACY
RMF
-
54
-
4
4
52
GROVE COTTAGES
RSF
5
-
2
-
2
53
HAMILTON TRACE
RSF
54
-
22
-
22
54
HAMMOCK COVE
RMF
-
104
-
7
7
55
HAMMOCK LAKES PHASE 3
RSF
1 96
-
39
-
39
56
HAMMOCK SHORES
RSF
117
-
48
48
57
HAMMOND INDUSTRIAL PARK
RSF
26
-
11
-
11
58
HARBORCHASE ALF
RMF
-
111
-
7
7
59
HARMONY SUBDIVISION
RSF
43
-
18
-
18
60
HERITAGE GROVE
RMF
-
115
-
8
8
61
HIDDEN HAMMOCK
RSF
14
-
6
_
6
62
HIDDEN LAKE
RSF
47
-
19
-
19
63
HIGH HAWK OF VERO
RSF
71
-
29
-
29
64
HIGH POINT PD
MXD
46
201
19
13
32
65
HOSPITAL TOWNHOUSES
RMF
-
178
-
12
12
66
HUNTER GROVE
RSF
70
-
29
-
29
67
HUNTINGTON PLACE
RSF
141
-
58
58
68
INLET AT SEBASTIAN
RMF
-
84
-
6
6
69
KASHI ASHRAM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
MXD
35
39
14
3
17
70
KOSLOWSKI SUBDIVISION
RSF
34
-
14
-
14
71
LAKES OF SANDRIDGE
RSF
142
-
58
-
58
72
LAUREL RESERVE
RSF
96
-
39
-
39
73
LEXINGTON PLACE
RSF
276
-
113
113
74
LOOKOUT POINTE
RMF
-
3
-
0
0
75
LOST LAKE
RSF
26
-
11
-
11
76
LOST TREE PRESERVE PD
RSF
389
-
159
-
159
77
MADERA ISLES
RSF
186
-
76
-
76
78
MAGNOLIA PLANTATION
RSF
21
-
9
_
9
79
MALLARD BAY
RMF
-
48
-
3
3
80
MANDALA CLUB
RSF
56
34
23
2
59
81
MARQUESAS
RSF
12
-
5
-
5
82
MAVERICK RUN
RSF
36
-
15
-
15
83
MEADOWBROOK SUB
RSF
16
-
7
-
7
84
MICHAEL CREEK SUB
RSF
60
-
25
-
25
85
MILANO ESTATES PD
RMF
49
3
3
86
MILLSTONE LANDING PD
RSF
630
-
258
-
258
87
MURANO PRESERVE
RSF
19
8
-
8
88
NANTUCKET CONDOMINIUMS
RMF
-
15
-
1
1
89
OAK GROVE VILLAS
RMF
-
108
-
7
7
90
OAK HOLLOW ESTATES
RSF
24
-
10
-
10
91
OAK ISLAND PHASE III
RSF
14
6
6
92
OAKS OF VERO PHASE II
RSF
137
-
56
-
56
93
OCEAN SANDS WEST
RMF
-
168
-
11
11
94
OLD FLORIDA ESTATES AOE
RSF
5
-
2
-
2
95
OLD PALM SUB
RSF
24
-
10
-
10
96
ORCHARD PARK PD
RSF
73
-
30
30
97
ORCHID RESERVE
RMF
-
100
-
7
7
Community Development Department Indian River County
10
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
98
PALADIN HAMMOCK
MXD
12
9
5
1
6
99
PALADIN PLACE II
MXD
27
26
11
2
13
100
PALISADES TOWN VILLAS
RMF
-
40
-
3
3
101
PARK LANE ESTATES
RSF
44
-
18
-
18
102
PARK PLACE PHASE II
RSF
494
-
202
-
202
103
PASKOR LLC
RSF
10
-
4
-
4
104
PATEL SUBDIVISION
RSF
36
-
15
-
15
105
PELICAN ISLE APARTMENTS
RMF
-
150
-
10
10
106
PINE GROVE
RSF
32
-
13
-
13
107
PINE VALLEY ACE
RSF
18
-
7
-
7
108
PINEAPPLE CAY
RMF
-
32
2
2
109
PINNACLE GROVE
RMF
-
234
-
15
15
110
PLANTATION HOUSES/SEA
OAKS
RMF
-
48
-
3
3
111
POINTE WEST NORTH VILLAGE
TOWNHOM
MXD
4
96
2
6
8
112
PORTOFINO PRESERVE
RSF
178
-
73
-
73
113
PORTOFINO SHORES
MXD
429
500
175
33
208
114
PORTOFINO VILLAGE (NORTH
PHASE)
RSF
109
284
45
19
64
115
PROVENCE BAY
RMF
-
232
-
15
15
116
QUAIL CREEK PD
RSF
91
-
37
-
37
117
QUAIL RIDGE
RSF
40
-
16
-
16
118
RANCH ROAD LAKE SAND
MINE AOE
RSF
30
-
12
-
12
119
REGENCY PARK
MXD
40
252
16
17
33
120
RIVER OAKS PRESERVE
RSF
366
-
150
-
150
121
RIVER PARK PLACE PHASE 2
RMF
-
-
-
122
RIVERWIND PHASE I, II, & III
RSF
146
-
60
-
60
123
ROBYNWOOD
RSF
14
-
6
-
6
124
ROMANI PALMS
RSF
18
-
7
-
7
125
ROMERO TOWNHOMES
RMF
-
52
-
3
3
126
ROUND ISLAND PLANTATION
RSF
6
2
-
2
127
ROYAL OAK
RSF
39
16
-
16
128
ROYAL RESERVE
RSF
34
-
14
-
14
129
SABALTRACE
RSF
57
-
23
-
23
130
SABALTRACE
RSF
57
-
23
-
23
131
SANDFOREST
RSF
80
-
33
33
132
SAPPHIRE LAKE
RSF
37
-
15
-
15
133
SEBASTIAN CROSSINGS
RSF
137
-
56
56
134
SEBASTIAN LAKEVIEW
ESTATES
RSF
97
-
40
-
40
135
SEBASTIAN PARK PD
RSF
400
-
164
-
164
136
SEBASTIAN PRESERVE
RSF
243
-
99
-
99
137
SEBASTIAN RIVER LANDINGS
UNIT II
RSF
189
-
77
-
77
138
SEBASTIANS LANDING
MXD
109
72
45
5
49
139
SEDONA POINT
RSF
70
-
29
-
29
140
SEGOVIA PD
RSF
82
-
34
-
34
141
SERENOA
RSF
294
-
120
-
120
142
SIENA GROVES
RSF
87
-
36
-
36
143
SKYLINE SUB
RSF
12
-
5
5
144
SOUTHLAKES
RSF
110
45
-
45
145
SOUTH POINT VILLAGE
RSF
18
-
7
-
7
Community Development Department Indian River County
11
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
146
STASSIDEV
MXD
60
52
25
3
28
147
STONERIDGE SUB
RSF
57
-
23
-
23
148
STONEYBROOK FARM
RSF
112
-
46
-
46
149
SUMMER GROVE
RMF
-
105
-
7
7
150
SUNRISE
RSF
134
-
55
-
55
151
SWEZY SUB
RMF
-
257
-
17
17
152
TAMARIND LAKES
RMF
32
-
2
2
153
THE ANTILLES SUBDIVISION
RSF
260
-
106
-
106
154
THE BOULEVARD VILLAGE &
TENNIS CLUB
RMF
-
98
-
6
6
155
THE CLUB AT WOODFIELD
MXD
292
144
119
10
129
156
THE ENCLAVE
RSF
22
-
9
-
9
157
THE ESTATES AT QUAIL
CREEK
RSF
34
-
14
-
14
158
THE ESTATES AT VERO BEACH
RMF
-
153
-
10
10
159
THE FALLS AT GRAND HARBOR
RSF
65
-
27
-
27
160
THE FOUNTAIN HEAD
RMF
-
89
-
6
6
161
THE FOUNTAINS AT AMBER
LAKES
RSF
50
-
20
-
20
162
THE GARDENS AT RIVERS
GROVE
RSF
66
-
27
-
27
163
THE HAMMOCK SD
RSF
61
-
25
-
25
164
THE INLET AT SEBASTIAN
RMF
-
84
-
6
6
165
THE ISLES OF GRAND HARBOR
MXD
359
450
147
30
177
166
THE LAKES AT BROOKHAVEN
RSF
49
-
20
-
20
167
THE LAKES AT WATERWAY
VILLAGE PHASE II
RSF
271
-
111
111
168
THE PRESERVE AT INDIAN
RIVER
RMF
-
39
-
3
3
169
THE RESERVE AT GRAND
HARBOR
RSF
100
-
41
-
41
170
THE RIVER PRESERVE
ESTATES
MXD
24
78
10
5
15
171
TIMBER RIDGE
RSF
14
-
6
-
6
172
TIMBERLAKE
RMF
-
102
-
7
7
173
TOSCANA
RMF
-
90
6
6
174
TRILLIUM
RSF
217
-
89
-
89
175
TRILLIUM WEST
MXD
25
52
10
3
14
176
TRIPSON ESTATES
RSF
276
-
113
-
113
177
TURTLE CREEK PRESERVE PD
RSF
450
56
184
4
188
178
TURTLE RUN PHASE I & II
RSF
180
-
74
-
74
179
TUSCANY LAKE ESTATES AOE
RSF
6
-
2
-
2
180
TUSCANY LAKES
RSF
129
-
53
-
53
181
VENEZIA ESTATES
RSF
39
-
16
16
182
VERANDAH AT VERO
RMF
-
70
-
5
5
183
VERO BEACH TOWNHOMES
RMF
-
169
-
11
11
184
VERO LARGO
RSF
525
-
215
-
215
185
VERO VILLAGE
RSF
83
-
34
-
34
186
VEROMAR BEACH CLUB
RMF
72
-
5
5
187
VERONA TRACE & THE
VILLAGES
RMF
-
447
-
30
30
188
VERONESE LAKES
RSF
54
22
22
189
VERONESE LAKES
RSF
54
-
22
-
22
190
WALKER WOODS
RMF
-
208
-
14
14
191
WARREN WAY
RSF
58
-
24
-1
24
192 1
WATER OAKS
MXD
18
32
7
2
F 9
Community Development Department Indian River County
12
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
193
WATERSIDE
RSF
54
-
22
-
22
194
WATERWAY VILLAGE PD
RSF
1596
-
653
-
653
195
WESTFIELD
RSF
137
-
56
-
56
196
WETHERELL AOE
RSF
10
-
4
-
4
197
WHISPER LAKES
RSF
18
-
7
-
7
198
WINDSOR OCEAN WAY
RSF
16
-
7
7
199
WINDSOR RIDGE
RSF
13
30
5
2
7
200
WING CREEK
RSF
12
-
5
-
5
201
WINGATE
RSF
18
-
7
-
7
202
WINTER BEACH VILLAGE PD
RSF
118
-
48
-
48
203
ZERAN 5 ACRE SUB
RSF
6
-
2
-
2
Total ,:
18,803 `:'.,
'x,834
7,696
X522'
81253
26,637
Source: Indian River County Community Development
Report, January 2006 & 2007 and Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. 2006
Community Development Department
*Unit Type: RSF - Residential Single Family
RMF - Residential Mutli-Family
MXD - Mixed Use Development
Indian River County
13
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Public School System
As required by the state, the School District must implement a financially feasible Five -
Year Capital Facilities Plan that provides for school capacity improvements to
accommodate projected student growth. Those improvements which are budgeted and
programmed for construction within the first three years of the Plan are considered
committed projects for concurrency purposes. Within the current Five -Year Capital
Facilities Plan, the capacity providing capital improvements consist of two new
elementary schools, one new middle school, one new high school, and minor capacity
additions at Sebastian River Middle School and Sebastian River High School.
As structured, the public school system consists of students, personnel, schools, and
administrative facilities. Residential development impacts the students and school
facilities because increases in new student enrollment can place demands on school
capacity and cause overcrowding of facilities. Therefore, an accurate inventory of both
current and projected school capacity and student enrollment is crucial for school
planning.
Enrollment and Capacity
The Indian River County School District provides the public school facilities necessary to
educate its students. Recently enacted state -mandated changes, such as early childhood
education and smaller teacher/pupil ratios at each school, significantly impact the
capacity needs of the School District.
Currently, the School District operates 21 public schools, from pre -kindergarten to 12th
grade. In school year 2004/05, approximately 64% of the County's school-age children
attended public schools operated by the School District. The remaining 36% attended
private schools or charter schools, or were no longer attending school. Students no
longer attending school are typically associated with drop-out students over the age of 16.
At this time. Tthe School District operates fourteen elementary schools, three middle
schools, two high schools, and two alternative education centers. These schools servingg
more than 16,000 students. Figure 12.2 shows the geographic locations of the public
schools operated by the School District. In Table 12.7, a breakdown of the enrollment
and school capacity for School Year 2006/07 is provided. The figures in Table 12.7
exclude charter schools, wh"because charter schools are not operated by the School
District.
On an annual basis. Sschool capacity figures are determined by the Florida Department of
Education (FDOE) and are based on the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH)
capacity analysis. As the -basis —fe To determini*ge permanent FISH capacity at
individual schools, the School District utilizes FDOE's FISH capacity data -and, which
includes district owned Type t pet4a"coneretable"classrooms.
Community Development Department Indian River County
14
Table 12.7: School Year 2006/2007 School Enrollment and Capacity
ouurce, tnu[un rtiver county wnoot /jistrict
*FTE (includes magnet schools does not include charters schools)
Enrollment Projections
For a school concurrency system, enrollment and capacity for each school are critical
components. Current enrollment and school capacity data provide a baseline that can be
used to develop a financially feasible level of service standard.
According to state law, the School District is required to a Eetifately-project future student
enrollment and school capacity. To determine future school capacity needs, the School
Community Development Department Indian River County
16
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
District calculates both short- and long-term student enrollment projections. Student
enrollment projections are based on data obtained from the following:
• School District of Indian River County
• University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)
• Local utilities
U.S. Census Bureau
Student projections based on residential growth trends in the County provide a data -
driven profile of the short-term and long-term future conditions driving the demand for
new public schools. The projected full-time equivalent (FTE) student counts by grade are
based on cohort survival history and historic population growth estimates compiled from
BEBR. Tables 12.8 — 12.11 summarize the enrollment forecast. Information on existing
residential development and residential development anticipated over both the next five
years and the long-term planning period was collected from the County and local
government planning departments to verify the accuracy of student enrollment
projections.
Community Development Department Indian River County
17
R
MF
Tin
218
NO
No
r
r
O
r
a
e�
^e
0000N°
N
O
N
c0
m
m^
N
CD
n
M
m
r
t�7.N
�
m
m
�
O
O
m
N
n
O
0
m
O
m
00
O
m
O
O
m
N
.II0JU3
�.
a
eo
M
tO
r�mm
m
fO
N
Cf)
m
MMa
O
OD
00
OD
M
n
o
n
CD
�h
tO
n
N
s�
N
aD
OD
N
tO
t0
OD
t0
M
tO
tO
tD
U)
p�
N
tO
N
rtO
tO
N
tD
NN
to
h
h
tO
h
LO
M
U')
co
CW
N
N V
N
O
T-
N
}
m
.1pJU3
m
IIaU3
tO
CD
(7)
to
N
N
Lo
CO
W)
r
OD
000
r
N
N
LO
MM
NW
M
a
mn
LO
Q)ra
00
tOv
t°n
D
t0Ontn
NM
eme�
aM
CO
00))
ttoo
Lo
to
0
LOCO
u)
�
N
m
0
M
0
N
�-•m
•Inn
N
a
N�
o
�oeNeO
o
o
ee�N�0
oea
O
t0
s
m
N
0)
n
o
N
m
m
m
0)
a
•mn
0)
NN
m
a
M
m
N
m
m
01
eo
•deo
O
N
Go
tp
M
0
N
N
IT
O
N
Y
v
C
OM
OD
MM
mO
co
M
r
o
10
OD
m
N
N
n
m
U)
m
m
COO
CD
N
O
tt'n)
O
O
u�
tc`o)
tion
in
tco)
•mn
tion
tion
Ln
tion
a00No
maDmm
i
O
eo
�
r
•poJU3
N00
(D
M
O
N
m
mt
N
O
N
r
O
N
N i
M
M
M
N
tD
to
n
to
tmO
to
CCDDMm0
m
tai
�i
f00
�i
tN0
N
Nf•OI
tN+)
N C
ton
ton
N
tt0O0
t`fi
to
tD
to
tai
to
LO
a j
t
i 'n
•!•
tr
Inn
aR
N
O
OXi 0
N
mo
ago
oe
Mo
g'
o
ae
oe
o
aR
aR
ag
*o
0
e
p
N
co
co
m .t
m�0CSm0)(,D�
�mC)0)���0)
'II0JU3
N
an
r c
cm')-
N
.deo
c
uin
CO
-C
co
00
LScoto
S
m
C
C/
O,deo
o
NN
m
N
N
LO
LO
coco
LOU)U)(0to0LO0g
o
a
m
M (
N
}
N C
r>
^
o
m
r>
ro
�a
N
_ _
•II0JU3
d)
.R
WWWW
d
Nt)m
o
OmNMm
v
M
.-
M
O
N
M
00�
a
N
tgva)tcDDILZSo
0
0
t
L000��t`fi�u��i`�i��
•uin
N
N
0
N
N
N
N
aR
.A
to
CD
r
co
n
M
�
m
co
a)
00
m
co
m
m
m
m
m
0)
eo
nOM
OD
N
CQ
Cf)
pp
0
00
tp
0
N
to
to
tO
fNo
tO
tf)
N
10O
tO
CMD
N
tO
LO
LON
}
a;
N
m
M
n
mh�
NW)N
MtO(0
Of`M')aM
a
to
O
a
N
OMD
aM
NO'
a
t0
N
tO
a
N
NNS
Tin
�wLa
ON�NOO
m
m
ON
fo
N
c�7
0
N
tr
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
0
• e�
LO
M
00
M
M
mO
OD
M
n
n
CO
0)
>-
C/)
C/)
II0JU3
C
N
mN
ON
M
MMa
7
N
CO
tD
to
vM
0
N
o
tD(O�AV
ton
N
N
Loon
I
,mn
2
Nm00oeNo
oe
a
oe
0
00,05
�o001m0o0
0 0
o
m
.-
�
8N
Nl�o
M
m
M
aN
M
V
00
00
M
r�
1�
00
N
to
to
00a
0
tO
m
0
CO)
O
1n
(0
Lr)
wttno
tD
to
tD
to
to
to
m
to
to
to
P
}
m
•IIaU3
t
0
m
M
O
M
m
M
O
m
a10O
INk
?D
LO
(D
..M•.}
V
0
r
COOBOO
N
umj
W)
00
Ln
155
(
t
O
M.
oe
oe
e
o
0
0 0
oe
oe
a`e
ae
ae
`e
%.eN�
o
m
a
0)
0o
0)
m
r
O
n
co
o
n
m
Cr)
0)
LD
2
�
m
o
m
Oo
OD
O)
O
B'J
O
tn0)00
LO
MMa10DIO
OD
M
D
t�
n
CD
02 C
O
1�O
aN
OD
m
O
10
00
M
O
to
tD
W)02
N
LO
M
m
tO
cD
tO
tO
tO
tO
tO
tO
to
u7
U)
S
}
C
m
'I10Ju3
v
h�W)to
tW)
W)
a
Dot
V
O
V
V
t�j
Y�7
^
C
C
m
a
c
m
a
_
d
ca
E
W
c
Z.~;
m
E
�°
Z
z�
Ed�ww
�(D
�Ww
Eby
$4)
W°
EOE-
d"
j
WwEE
m
r
W
d)
c
E
c
w
wow
W
W.
W
SCC
Lu
V
V
C
4)
0)
N
C
W
W
C
d
c
O
m
w
d
U
W
0
E
V
W
d
E
H
m
2
H4)
ig
m
D
tocg
R
MF
15n
218
r
r
r
r
a
e�
N
CD
t0
M
m
�
�
m
�
O
N
N
V
O
}
N
.II0JU3
M
tO
r�mm
m
�
O
•mn
�
r'ei
r�i
oo�o0
M
deo
r
co
CW
N
N V
N
O
T-
N
m
.1pJU3
tO
CD
(7)
to
N
N
Lo
CO
W)
r
O
r
N
v
mn
go.CDD0)
O
00))
N
• e0
�
N
m
0
M
0
N
�-•m
ar
N
a
N
poJU3
O
t0
s
0
N
N
N
N
a
•mn
NN
V
M
m
N
m
m
01
eo
O
N
Go
tp
M
0
N
m
IT
O
N
Y
v
U)
•poJu3
CD
LO
O
COO
CD
N
O
O
O
O
N
•mn
a00No
maDmm
i
O
eo
�
r
N00
(D
M
O
N
m
mt
N
O
N
N i
N
j
•IloJu3
N C
ton
ton
N
tt0O0
a j
t
i 'n
•!•
aR
N
O
OXi 0
N
g'
e
p
N
co
co
m .t
'II0JU3
N
an
r c
cm')-
c
uin
CO
-C
S
m
C
C/
O,deo
o
NN
m
N
'110Ju3
o
a
m
M (
N
N C
r>
^
o
m
r>
ro
�a
N
_ _
d)
.R
WWWW
d
>
o
v
v
c
co
a
N
0
0
t
R
MF
0
•Inn
oa
c
�
N
11
0000
eo
r
r
r
•deo
N
N
b
•"+
}
VJ
O
ro��
N
.IIaU3
O
1�
co
�
N
N
V
}
r
6!nn
VJ
x
oa
N
M
'poJU3
Mdduo
It
N
b
O
NCq
N
to
N
N
h
•Inn
}
N
o
e
co
0000
IIaU3
n
r
4FIO
IrIO
b
•!nn
L�a*
0
00�
N
sdoo
N
fV
N
V
}
r
Q•
N
V)
paU3
N
MN
O�
CODO
O
N
N
W
I I
.!nn
Inn
Ln
Go
�0)G)w
C-4
N
P1
eo
odeo
0
0
N
N
b
C7
}
O
00
r
co
N
•paU3
N
N
'd
O
�'
O
N
•Inn
•paU3
Q
N
b
N
O
M
o_
eo
O
o
r
m
N
N
V
�
•Inn
0
N
N
b
0
�o
co
N
000)0
co
co
.!!aU3
eo1!10
Lo
e,
M
0O
O
o
r
w
N
N
N
V
N
2
A
U)
$odeo
poJU3
N
b
N
M
M
N
O
O
r
Q
Coco
N
N
A
.nen
V
•Inn
a
oa
N
co
OOH
CD
1
r
e.7
O
eo
p
b
N
}
to
w
SO
O
r
N
N
N
Ili
}
(
U)
m
dJp
o
ca=
'poJU3
Z
Oo
W
rOO.
Lo
8
�E��
i
o
c
ooN�^
d�
�
N
N
V
,Inn
W
35
eo
g
OOrw
}
N
N
V
IIOJU3
N
N
O
CD
CQ
r
N
�
,0)n
oom
0
e�
r
O
M
Mt0
N
00)OW
}
.-
N
V
W
II0JU3
m
<o
a
oocoon
POI
N
fV
V
x
L
N
Z
8
�m
co
ANm
o
0B
0
MW
6!nn
oa
�
N
11
a
eo
N
N
b
•"+
}
VJ
.IIaU3
�
b
b
r
6!nn
x
oa
N
M
Mdduo
N
to
N
}
N
IIaU3
n
b
•!nn
L�a*
N
M
N
sdoo
r
Q•
N
V)
paU3
O
.!nn
Ln
Go
C-4
N
P1
eo
0
0
N
N
b
C7
}
uJ
•paU3
O
�'
O
•Inn
Q
N
b
N
O
M
o_
eo
�
o
0
N
N
b
}
N
.!!aU3
Lo
e,
'!pn
N
2
A
$odeo
o
N
b
N
•IIaU3
Q
Coco
b
h
.nen
a
oa
N
co
l7 .
1
r
e.7
8
p
b
N
}
to
'paU3
n
(
c
m
dJp
o
ca=
O
Z
Oo
W
N
8
�E��
i
o
c
0
d�
�
= C7
MW
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.12: Public School Student Enrollment
entary Schools
le Schools
Schools
otal
T
Student Population from 2007 through 2013
School
The data used to forecast student population were obtained from the FDOE. Since the
1998/99 school year, five charter schools have been established: in the county. These are
Sebastian Charter Junior High, North County Charter, St. Peter's Academy, Indian River
Academy, and Indian River Charter High School. As a result of the addition of these
schools, the FDOE enrollment data for the School District showed an estimated average
of 555 fewer students per year. When these students were accounted for in the School
District's enrollment projections, the number of students in the appropriate grades and
years were adjusted through the use of the enrollment ratios developed for this P11blic
school forecast4,.,...,,1,1: ��" 1 .
This process specified a regression model for each grade level as follows:
Students grade x, year — Const. + A * Studentsgradex-1, year 1-1 +,82 * population growth
This regression model specifies ro'ects student population in a given year as a function
of unobservable factors (captured by the constant term), cohort survival (the number and
percentage of students advancing in grade), and a percentage of population growth.
Changes in any of these trends from one year to the next can have a significant impact on
the number of students ultimately enrolled. For example, the high school driver's license
law change in 1997 resulted in fewer high school dropouts statewide in 1999 and 2000.
Similarly, increases in population growth and changing development patterns can result
in more students than the cohort survival method may predict.
This regression model was refined and adjusted on a grade -by -grade basis to build the
student forecast models with the highest degree of predictability.
Community Development Department Indian River County
20
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Indian River County School Utilization
The projected student enrollment data were used to determine the need for school
facilities in light of the growing demands on public schools because of new residential
development. An evaluation of Indian River County's current school enrollment and
capacity in conjunction with projected student enrollment provided a determination of
surpluses and deficiencies over the long-term planning period. To accommodate the
projected future student growth, additional capacity projects were added to the School
District's Capital Facilities Plan through school year 204-1-13-4-21_4. These additional
capacity projects were used to balance future enrollment by redistributing students from
their existing schools to their future schools. Tables 12.8 — 12.11 shows the details of
this analysis.
Long Term Student Enrollment Projections
Long term student enrollment projections are provided in Table 12.12 and were prepared
to provide insight an estimate of potential school needs in the years beyond school
year 201-32-143. Those projections are based on an assumed annual growth rate beyond
the 201-32-143 school year of 4-.9.2.035% for elementary schools, 2.14% for middle
schools, and 2.05% for high schools. Thisese is-a-percentages4hat takes into account
fluctuations in the growth rate that the County may experience. The assumed 1.9074long
term growth rates for public schools i-sare less than the assumed long term population
growth rate used in the County's population projections because not all new residents that
move to the County will bring children with them. In addition, the long term projections
are generalized and do not take into account unforeseen circumstances. If fFor instance,
if -a large manufacturing plant re -locates to the County and brings with it 2,000 new jobs,
workers may relocate to the County from other areas of the state and country to fill those
jobs. Those workers may then have families that they bring with them which would
attend public schools.
Overall, the long term student enrollment projections show an increase of 3-,2W.,486
elementary students, 11,778 middle school students, and 4-,847l .856 high school
students between school years 201-56-167 teand school year 2030-31.
Community Development Department Indian River County
21
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
School District Capital Funding Sources
To address the new construction and renovation needs of the School District's Five -Year
Capital Facilities Plan, the School District relies on local and state funding.
The School District's primary local funding sources are property taxes, impact fees, and
bonds. By Florida statute, school districts may levy up to 2 mills to fund their distrie�
capital programs. Currently, the Indian. River Countv School District imposes the entire
allowable 2 mill levy. In 2005, Indian River County adopted ana school impact fee of
approximately $1,755.96 for a single family home. Impact fees are collected for new
housing to offset a portion of the cost of students generated by new residential
development. The School District may also sell bonds or offer certificates of
participation (COPS). The District has the capacity to sell $150 million in COPs.
-YYfe-Currently. Florida Statutes phw-e-restrictions-en the School District's portion of state
capital outl funding to specific uses. Expansion projects for student
stations may make use of state capital outlay funding sources derived from motor vehicle
license tax revenue, known as Capital Outlay and Debt Service funds (CO&DS), and
gross receipts tax revenue from utilities Public Education Capital Outlay funds (PECO).
TheBecause of recent legislative mandates,, levethe state has provided additional state
funding for smaller class sizes and early childhood education. According to the
School District of Indian River County SY 200€_'-20191 Five -Year Capital Plan, repeAs
tlhit-the School District received $6043 35.174,000 from the State in fiscal year 20087 to
fund additional capacity needed to support the reduced class size requirement.
ANALYSIS
With the data collected from the School District, the County and the municipalities, an
analysis was performed to determine the short-term and long-term future conditions that
will impact public schools. As part of this analysis, the current inventory of public
schools and planned school capital improvements waswere reviewed in light of -4#e
projected student growth and available revenue to finance dw—planned capital
improvements. Generally, the analysis focusesd on whether existing and planned school
capacity e could support residential development at the adopted level of service
standard. Specific outputs from this analysis included school capacity figures, a
financially feasible adopted level of service, and goals, objectives and policies for the
school concurrency program.
School Service Areas
A fundamental requirement of school concurrency is the establishment of geographic
school service areas beundaries-(SSARs) to which school concurrency is applied when
reviewing the impact of new residential development on public schools. The SSAUs are
used to determine whether adequate capacity is available to accommodate new students
generated from residential development.
Community Development Department Indian River County
22
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Overall, tT-here are two alternatives for establishing SSABs. One alternative is to
establish a district -wide SSAB for each school type. This method calculates the district -
wide utilization of all schools of the same school type. For example, the district -wide
utilization for theall elementary schools in school year 2007/08, as identified in Table
12.8, is 965%. This rate i-swas calculated by dividing; district -wide enrollment for all
ublic '- -R-,rage-^f *'' *'�' *'opt �� *�, elementary schools b /
district -wide capacity for all public elementary schools. By measuring capacity in this
manner, the School District is currently operating at a level of service lower than 100%,
even though six individual schools are operating at a level of service greater than 100%.
This alternative would allow development to continue without mitigation wherveven
though there may be is --no capacity at the elementary school leveliacted by a new
development project, because capacity is available on a district -wide basis.
The other alternative is to establish less than district -wide SSABs. With this alternative,
SSA -Bs Beare established using geographic areas based on streets, natural
boundaries or existing school attendance zones. Less than district -wide SSA -Bs allow
school capacity determinations to be made at a local level. By using-aWith school
attendance zones €ertheas SSABs, capacity determinations directly measure the impacts
of residential developments at the schools; which the developments will impact. Using
school attendance zones as the service areas, the School District can more accurately
project which schools are most likely to be impacted by new residential development. In
conjunction with the School District and the municipalities of the County, Indian River
County has determined that the SSA -Bs will be applied en a less than district -wide -basis.
Figures 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5 detail the school service area boundaries for the elementary,
middle, and high school grade levels, respectively.
Community Development Department Indian River County
23
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
School Level of Service
Essentially, level of service (LOS) is the relationship between supply and demand. For
schools, LOS is expressed as a ratio of enrollment aceto capacity, with capacity being
number of student stations.
To establish an acceptable level of service, the school district and the local governments
must project future demand, identify needed capacity, and determine the level of financial
resources available to construct additional capacity. These factors are then used as a
basis to establish a school LOS standard. The level of service standard controls the
maximum utilization of schools.
Florida law requires that the public school facilities element of a local government
comprehensive plan address how the level of service standards will be achieved and
maintained. The ability to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service must be
based on a financially feasible Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan. Furthermore, the law
requires that the public school level of service standards be adopted into the local
government capital improvements element, and must apply to all schools of the same
type (elementary, middle, and high). Initial shortfalls in capacity over the five-year
period following adoption may be addressed by adopting a tiered level of service
standard along with a concurrency management system.
Prior to establishing a level of service standard, the School District must determine the
maximum capacity of the public schools. Tables 12.8-12.11 identify the capacity of all
public schools and their enrollment and utilization through school year 20123/l-34. The
current enrollment and capacity for each school are critical components in developing a
school concurrency system, because -- public school concurrency shouM-must ensure
that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support current enrollment and the projected
students from future residential development. Current enrollment and school capacity
data provide a baseline for developing a financially feasible level of service standard for
public schools.
As adopted, the public school level of service standard should maximize the efficiency of
each school facility for educating students. Based on this ideal, the preferred level of
service standard in Indian River County is 100% of permanent FISH capacity.
Needs Assessment
To determine the capacity for each school, the School District uses FISH capacity. The
FISH capacity is the number of students that may be housed in a facility (school) at any
given time based on a utilization percentage of the number of existing satisfactory student
stations. FISH capacity is a product of the number of classrooms at a school and the
student stations assigned to each room type. No capacity is assigned to small
instructional spaces orand4he-specialized classrooms (labs), i i-ngsuch as art, music,
elelab, and other similar rooms.
Community Development Department
27
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Since the number of student stations at a school is used to calculate the school's capacity,
the data detailed in Tables 12.8 – 12.11 are presented at the student station level. A
student station is defined as the square footage required per student for an instructional
program based on the particular course content. As indicated above, an analysis of
student stations is one component of establishing a school level of service standard.
A utilization rate was also calculated for each school. The utilization rate is calculated by
dividing the school's enrollment by the eapaeit.z at eaeh school's capacity. The
utilization value determines whether a school is over crowded or within its capacity
designation. Schools with a utilization rate less than 100% are operating within their
capacity, awhile schools with a utilization rate greater than 100% are over -crowded.
Based on the data and analysis for school year 2007/08, current district -wide school
capacity utilization is at 96:45% for elementary schools, 115% for middle schools, and
94-.77% for high schools. To achieve a district -wide level of service s*a -of
994100% or better for each school type, the school district must provide additional
student stations at the middle school level. AtWhile the district -wide elementary school
level, the dist iet wide utilization rate is less than 100%.,.— there are, however; three
elementary schools where enrollment presently exceeds capacity and the utilization is
greater than the 100% level of service standard ' .
Elementary Schools
Fourteen elementary schools are currently operated by the School District. Three Two
additional elementary schools are proposed in the current Five -Year Capital Facilities
Plan; twoone schools will open in school year 2009/2010, adding approximately
X190550 additional elementary student stations. TheA thifdsecond elementary school
will open in school year 201.1-0/201-21, adding approximately 550 additional elementary
student stations. With the addition of these elementary schools, the number of permanent
elementary student stations will be approximately 9-,&N,9409. The enrollment projection
for the five-year planning period identifies a total of 8;5988,711 elementary students by
school year 2010/11. The estimated district -wide utilization at the elementary school
level will then be approximately 903%.
As listed in Table 12.1.3, five additional elementary schools are needed between school
year 2012/13 and school year 2030/31. Each. elementary school. will be located on at
least a 20 acre site and will add approximately 750 elementary school student stations
each to the School district's overall elementary school capacity. Collectively, these five
new elementary schools will add approximately 3,750 elementary school student stations
to the School District's overall available elementary school capacity. The anticipated
locations for these elementary schools are shown on Figure 12.6.
Middle Schools
The School District currently operates three middle schools, all three of which are
currently at or are exceeding their FISH capacity. The At present, the total number of
Community Development Department
district -wide middle school student stations is 3,323. To accommodate the growth at the
middle school level, a new middle school with a capacity of 1,196 students is planned for
the 2009/10 school year. According to enrollment projections, there will be 404,258
enrolled middle school students by school year 2010/11. Based on these projections, the
estimated district -wide utilization at the middle school level will be approximately
9-193% for the 2010/11 school year.
Two additional middle schools are needed between school year
2012/13 and school year
2030/31. Each middle school will be located on at least
a 40 acre site and will add.
approximately 1.050 middle school student stations each to
the School district's overall
middle school capacity. Collectively these two schools will add approximately 2,100
middle school. student stations to the School District's available middle school capacity.
The anticipated locations for these middle schools are shown
on Figure 12.6,
High Schools
Currently, there are two high schools in Indian River County. These are Sebastian High
School and Vero Beach High School. Both high schools have capacity projects
scheduled in the current Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan. While Sebastian High will
receive a capacity addition, increasing its FISH capacity from 1,933 to 2,083 student
stations, Vero Beach High is in the midst of a modernization project which will decrease
the number of student stations on the main campus from 2,933 to 2,771. Consequently,
there will be 4,854 student stationsiincludina those at the Freshman Learnin€' Center, at
the high school level in school year 2010/112008/09, h T
n m�
b u ui
rte. The estimated enrollment at the high school level for school year
2010,11-1-2008/09 is 4;5$4,625 students. Based on these projections, the estimated
district -wide utilization at the high school level Iswill be approximately 9995%; for the
2010,11-2008/09 school year.
Figure 12.6 identifies the locations of the planned school capacity projects contained in
Tables 12.8 — 12.10. This figure shows approximate locations;& -those locations are
subject to change.
3 and school year 2030/31 _ two nddit;
Land Area Required for New Schools
I
:1
I buildinfiq nff-ctrPPt nnrlrinrr c+„av„+ ,.,
Community Development Department
7
29
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.13: Planned Public Schools & Land Area Needed
Planiied..Schoot: ,
Planned'9tudent:cG aci . ,
Year School Needed
Acrea' a Nee'dg
Element# L "E''
750
2012
20
Element#
"F"
750
2014
20
Elementary "G"
750
2016
20
Elementary
"H"'
750
2021
20
Element#
``I"
750
2024
20
Middle
School
"CC"
1,050
2014
40
Middle
School
"QU'
1.1050
2.026
40
H ,gh School
``BB"
1,200
2012-2014
80
High
School
"CCC"
1.200
2026
80
Community Development Department
30
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Financial Feasibility
School concurrency requires the School Board to adopt a financially feasible five-year
capital facilities plan. The Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan, which is affnua4y-updated
and adopted each year, details the capital improvements needed and funding revenues
available to maintain the adopted level of service.
As structured, the SY 2007-2011 School District's Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan
i4e s -reflects four fundamental goals which have been adopted by the School District
to ensure a consistent strategy for addressing facility improvements and long-range
capacity needs. The first goal is to build new capacity as needed to meet student growth.
The second goal addresses to updatgi*g schools on a systematic schedule to meet
educational needs. The next goal is to provide funding for maintenance and system
renovation to ensure that facilities function safely. The fourth goal is to develop a long-
range financially feasible plan.
School concurrency also requires that the School District annually update and adopt a
Plan that contains capacity to meet the anticipated demand for student stations, ensuring
that no schools exceed their adopted level of service for the five year period. This
requirement is met through the School District's Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan. The
School District's Plan identifies how each project meets school capacity needs and when
that capacity will be available.
The Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan provides the foundation of an annual planning
process that allows the School District to effectively address changing enrollment
patterns, development and growth, and the facility requirements of high quality
educational programs. The summary of capital improvements shown in Table 12.134
details the School District's planned expenditures over the five-year planning period.
While this summary must be adopted into the Capital Improvements Element of the
County's Comprehensive Plan, the school district's capital improvements program does
not require county or city funding.
Table 12.134 shows the estimated cost of projects to address existing facility deficiencies
and future facility needs for the five-year planning period, and the long range planning
period, in order to meet the adopted level of service standard.
The revenue for capital expenditures will continue to be derived from local and state
sources. Impact fee revenues, PECO and CO&DS revenues, and revenues from the 2
mills ad valorem tax, assessment with funds from the sale of certificates of
participation (COPs); if the School District chooses to issue them, will comprise the bulk
of the revenue stream. According to the School District's Capital Outlay Five Year
Revenue Forecast, the 2 mills tax will generate $135185 million over the next five years,
27-.3% of which will be used to fund capital expansion projects. The Five -Year Capital
Facilities Plan Summary of Estimated Revenue, shown in Table 12.145, details the
School District's projections for its revenue sources over the next five years and the long-
range planning period. A comparison of Tables 12.134 and 12.145 shows that the School
Community Development Department
32
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
District's capital plan is sufficient to fund necessary capital improvements and is
financially feasible.
School Concurrency Process
Mandated by Florida Statutes Section 163.31.80, a school concurrency process must be
established in each Florida County to ensure that the school facilities necessary to
accommodate a residential development are available concurrent with the school needs of
that development. Because school concurrencrequires participation by the County, the
School District, and the municipalities in the County, the parameters of the school
concurrency process are reflected in an Interlocal Agreement for Public School
Concurrency entered into by all parties involved with public school concurrency
In Indian River County, the school concurrency process involves a School Distict review
of, all non-exempt residential development project applications submitted to local
governments in the County for a determination of whether sufficient school capacity
exists to accommodate the impacts of the proposed project Exempt uses are existing lots
and parcels created before July 1 200$ non-residential projects residential projects that
do not increase the number of units residential multi -family projects receiving final site
plan approval prior to July 1 200$ and age restricted projects
For school concurrency purposes the School District will maintain a development review
table (DRT). The DRT is a database containing school capacity and demand data by
SSA. In each SSA capacity is the sum of FISH capacity (including type 4 portables) and
the capacity attributable to schools proposed for construction in the next three years as
reflected in the adopted five year facility plan.
Within the DRT, demand by SSA will be reflected by the Fall FTE count plus demand
reflected by vested development. Vested development consists of all development for
which a final concurrency certificate has been issued. This includes exempt uses such as
lots created prior to July 1, 2008. Concurrency certificates are issued by local
governments and confirm that adequate school capacity is available to accommodate a
development project at the adopted level of service standard A final concurrency
certificate is an acknowledgement that impact fees have been paid and capacity has been
reserved. This capacity reservation however, will expire unless construction commences
within. a specified time.
Because the development process is dynamic the DRT changes constantly. As indicated
the School. District will update the DRT whenever a concurrency certificate is issued or
expires. The School District will also conduct a major update on an annual basis
Each fall, the School District will. update the DRT to reflect the new Fall FTE Numbers
At the same time, the vested numbers will be reduced by the number of certificates of
occupancy issued during the past year. This process is based upon the expectation that
the newest enrollment figures reflect the students living in the recently C'O"ed units Also
Community Development Department
33
at the time of this update the School District will revise capacity figures to reflect an
to
the five year capital facilities
or each SSA, total capacity less total demand Yields_ available capacity. F
of District will
capacity to accommodate the project
Proportionate Share Mitigation
Ml
In the event that there is not adequate school capacity available to accommodate a
development's demand for student stations, the School Board may entertain proportionate
share mitigation options and, if accepted, shall enter into an enforceable and binding
agreement with the developer and the affected local government to mitigate the impact
from the development through the creation of additional school capacity.
A mitigation contribution provided by a developer to offset the impact of a residential
development must be directed by the School Board toward a school capacity project
identified in the School District's Five -Year Capital Facility Plan. Capacity projects
identified within the first three years of the Five -Year Capital Facility Plan shall be
considered as committed projects. If capacity projects are planned in years four or five of
the School District's Five -Year Capital Facility Plan within the same School Service
Area Boundafy-(SSA-R) as the proposed residential development, the developer may pay
his proportionate share of the identified capacity project to mitigate the proposed
development.
If a capacity project does not exist in the School District's Five -Year Capital Facility
Plan, the School Board may add a capacity project to satisfy the impacts from a proposed
residential development, as long as financial feasibility of the Five -Year Capital Facilities
Plan can be maintained. When the student impacts from a proposed development would
cause the adopted Level of Service to fail, a developer may enter into a 90 day
negotiation period with the School District and the applicable local government to review
potential mitigation projects. To be acceptable, a proportionate share project must create
a sufficient number of additional student stations to maintain the established level of
service with the addition of the development project's demand. Mitigation options may
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Contribution of land in conjunction with the provision of additional school capacity;
or
(b) Provision of additional student stations through the donation of buildings for use as
primary or alternative learning facilities; or
(c) Provision of additional student stations through the renovation of existing buildings
for use as learning facilities; or
(d) Construction of permanent student stations or core capacity; or
Community Development Department
34
(e) Construction of a school in advance of the time set forth in the School District's Five -
Year Capital Facilities Plan: or
(fl Construction of a charter school designed in accordance with School District
standards, providing permanent capacity to the District's inventory of student
stations. Use of a charter school for mitigation must include provisions for its
continued existence, including but not limited to the transfer of ownership of the
charter school property and/or operation of the school to the School Board.
The amount of proportionate share mitigation to be paid will be calculated utilizing the
total cost per student station, established by the Florida Department of Education, plus a
share of the land acquisition and infrastructure expenditures for school sites as
determined and published annually in the School District's Five Year Capital Facilities
Plan. The costs associated with the identified mitigation shall be based on the estimated
cost of the improvement on the date that the improvement is programmed for
construction. Future costs will be calculated using estimated values at the time the
mitigation is anticipated to commence. The cost of the mitigation required by the
developer shall be credited toward the payment of thehis school impact fee. If the
mitigation cost is greater than the school impact fees for the development, the difference
between the developer's mitigation costs and the impact fee credit is the responsibility of
the developer.
Community Development Department
35
N o 0 o O
�. o 0 o NN,
LL N Ln
N N N N
r
O O O O m
O
co p
O O O O N
NCD, Coco rn
r
N o
N N �
O
Q O C O O CD O
0 o e O m
um O o 0 0 0 o O m
o r�
No ti to
co oc;
of rn
r
0 0 0 0
Q� p CD O O O O OCD N
0 N CoCD C:> O O
LL 40 C; N Lof00
o co
C> CDP
m o
co Ott d' Co 0 0 0 '� Co o
� .n I-. tri o 0 r i � C) n
N c rn v a o o
Lf)v
s} co t0 f0 nj N
Lo
T
C=> 40
O O 0 m O O O
OQ O st O O LA � p 'G V^ O O Q
N N c co ao v a 0 Doo^ u+ 'nCDP to rn
OBD tf7 M. P9 et N O
O O O O O
Vco CD wo) Lo CD O C O r� OD L6 0 O O O r r r O N qtr cetpp <
�t O
O o v N coNM o voi h e o o ter. �? to
N o o rn
o so o to
d N wi �- a �+ N ate- � cv r�
0o v to o
0 0
0 0 o v o Ln v o
(��� CO o
o O V O N N
O N co O f.'I
00 OD f� u7 Do
r r r
U)
O
fs
Q o U.
~mper E
c O W m m Q a
(n co L
HU 05 Z > LL
N U R m ;a R
Ca is
,tg m
Z W W Z Z O (n v) in '
Z I
I r
I�
0
O
N
R
ma
O
m
o
c
0
C>
a
O
CD
O
N
b�-i
+r]
0
O N O OD to
O Ln m N
47 M O
v-:-
m d a
E
{IJ Co
Q d
N
J d O
tD U
.0 .d d C!/
C LP
d
POd U .o W
"Cc: N
o R
E o w 2 7E
` R
M to
U 0 CO ti 0
v:
La
0
N
'O
O
rC
Q
�
d
a
O
d
y
m
U
c
7
N
0
a
0
+r]
0
O N O OD to
O Ln m N
47 M O
v-:-
m d a
E
{IJ Co
Q d
N
J d O
tD U
.0 .d d C!/
C LP
d
POd U .o W
"Cc: N
o R
E o w 2 7E
` R
M to
U 0 CO ti 0
v:
La
w:r Ln
t0 m
N N
r T
o
m w m
T T
LL9 L(9
n M1
T T
T T
O O
�� CC M
00 Oct
T n M1
C4 C4
T T
O O
U cc
CD Mcri
LL N
T T
coO W WW)
LL N N00
LTi N
i•i
( 00 cn...
a G.0ITIMM
V O O
O N CV) U7 to
N N co "? R
i-( } o
eplt LL T `'
E
~ O O Lf) O O M M
cd O O O n O
co M i C6 r YOj {MD t00
a n M1
t0 N O O O
\%O;
Ln M1
V o 0 o ti o i
' tp M O co r -I: Lt% M
N O n OOU C
tri r o
O
cl
O
U
�I
N (
N
H
c
c
F, 7
d c
� o 0
rCD
a
t co �9 =
E E
y y O U d O
R J to r
C
F s O
E W S v C
u7 C
R
C) N mmy o 3
72
LL m m H O
w
o = o o a C
C7 � > >4) L
M1
x)
t0
N
M
coT
T
AW,
M
V
B
w:r Ln
t0 m
N N
r T
o
m w m
T T
LL9 L(9
n M1
T T
T T
O O
�� CC M
00 Oct
T n M1
C4 C4
T T
O O
U cc
CD Mcri
LL N
T T
coO W WW)
LL N N00
LTi N
i•i
( 00 cn...
a G.0ITIMM
V O O
O N CV) U7 to
N N co "? R
i-( } o
eplt LL T `'
E
~ O O Lf) O O M M
cd O O O n O
co M i C6 r YOj {MD t00
a n M1
t0 N O O O
\%O;
Ln M1
V o 0 o ti o i
' tp M O co r -I: Lt% M
N O n OOU C
tri r o
O
cl
O
U
�I
N (
N
H
c
c
F, 7
d c
� o 0
rCD
a
t co �9 =
E E
y y O U d O
R J to r
C
F s O
E W S v C
u7 C
R
C) N mmy o 3
72
LL m m H O
w
o = o o a C
C7 � > >4) L
M1
x)
t0
N
M
coT
to
T
O
M
V
B
R
t0
�
Z
to
T
O
M
V
B
R
t0
Lt)
mo!
VO+
n
m
M
o
rn
to
T
O
M
T
N
Co
t0
Lt)
mo!
O
n
m
M
o
rn
Ni
M
O
O
Lf)
N
M
T
n
M
N
N
co
Od
O
.-
M
T
d
n
N
T
O
O
T
M
O
n
M1
<tO
T
co
0)
m
rn
(0
N
T
U')
O
O
O
N
T
O
T
T
O
(0
(t(0p
eT
C)
O
N
O
M
n
(0
N
�-
O
O
O
O
to
n
d
O
n
T
O
r
m
�
0
0
(0
Of
M
L()
Lr
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
n
O
O
Lt)
m
O
O
N
LI)
O
Lt)
O
W
O
cn
v_
coO
M
co
LA
N
N
T
T
T
O
O)
N
N
n
M
T
O
)
O
(ooo
m
u
C)
U')
to '
co
m
O
O
O
•cr
Lf)
n
O
at
M
m
O
W
M
tri
O
*
O
W
O
cn
v_
r�
rn
rn
Lr
Lr
N
to
O
T
O
M
N
Ln
O
O
C?
(0
O
N
T
tri
O
*
O
n
a
o
<
n
W
to
(�
N
N
W7)
T
N
T
O
LE
IN
0
o
Ln
O
O
u)
O
O
o
O
o
O
N
n
LO
CN
O
M
C5
o
O
0
o
u)
O
O
(0
O
On
O
N
n
O
0
O
M
O
O
'N;r
O
O
t0
O
O
co
O
On
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C>
C>
O
QD
O
O
N
O
!W
O
O
0
O
0&
a
o
<
n
W
co
T N N N
(D o M o O o 0
O O t0 O O O O
O O�--_ O O O O
N) O qq Ln O O n
4qr (0 Ln N O O V'
N N) (0 M M Ln n
N N N N N
a)
U
W LL l6 V
C N n R
m a
ca cz o Of
d
N N N Q
'nc w R R M
co qq (D
•�' CJca 0 � N m
o J=LU o R Fn
Q l6 'C V •V N
N¢ w M z O a cn
F'
t0
co
ti
to
n
O
O
O
O
O
C>
C>
O
QD
O
o_
O
O
�
O
O
0
O
0&
O
o
<
n
W
�
O
N
M
M
T
M
T N N N
(D o M o O o 0
O O t0 O O O O
O O�--_ O O O O
N) O qq Ln O O n
4qr (0 Ln N O O V'
N N) (0 M M Ln n
N N N N N
a)
U
W LL l6 V
C N n R
m a
ca cz o Of
d
N N N Q
'nc w R R M
co qq (D
•�' CJca 0 � N m
o J=LU o R Fn
Q l6 'C V •V N
N¢ w M z O a cn
F'
t0
co
ti
to
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
QD
O
o_
O
O
O
O
0
0
0&
O
o
O
L()
a-
Ln
N
N
M
M
W
M
T
O
N
N
n
T N N N
(D o M o O o 0
O O t0 O O O O
O O�--_ O O O O
N) O qq Ln O O n
4qr (0 Ln N O O V'
N N) (0 M M Ln n
N N N N N
a)
U
W LL l6 V
C N n R
m a
ca cz o Of
d
N N N Q
'nc w R R M
co qq (D
•�' CJca 0 � N m
o J=LU o R Fn
Q l6 'C V •V N
N¢ w M z O a cn
F'
t0
co
ti
to
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o_
O
O
o
O
o
O
0
Lr
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
M
O
a
O
N
M
O
M
N
n
O
0)
L
)
O
T N N N
(D o M o O o 0
O O t0 O O O O
O O�--_ O O O O
N) O qq Ln O O n
4qr (0 Ln N O O V'
N N) (0 M M Ln n
N N N N N
a)
U
W LL l6 V
C N n R
m a
ca cz o Of
d
N N N Q
'nc w R R M
co qq (D
•�' CJca 0 � N m
o J=LU o R Fn
Q l6 'C V •V N
N¢ w M z O a cn
F'
t0
co
ti
to
n
O
o
O
O
o
O
a
0
LO
n
t0
M
M
N
o
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
M
m
N
O O
O O
O O
N M
M
C> CD1
O O
o
N M
.40'
f O
O
m
n
(D O
O
o
LO LO
T r
N
O
O
O
Lf)
C)
st
o
.=
co
n
r•
00
o
N
n
M1
O
O
O
OO
N
o
.=
O
T
T
DD
N
CD
n
O
u,
O
M
O
O
O
N
C
N
O
CD
O
O
O
T
o
O
0)
L
)
O
O
O
O
O
N
0
0
O
M
T
DD
t<
r-
O
N
O
T
O
N
N
0
(o
O
o
o
v
L
)
O
O
O
O
N
O
M
M
mi
r-
� v M O N
M co ( O O no
M M M co at
M 06 N O r
T N M T
um
d
E
S
C
w
v
c O
CD C
CD
y 0 u� N
L� L✓ J R' ca O C
td N N c
O .� H
ca
0 0 0 0 0 3 E b
E
W U a
1`
W4 O ♦t N t0
r 001 O OD O
(O calp
m O O O M Cq
O O O O O if n
N N N N 49
N N
C%4 cc go
/1
O
N M r O r m
LL O O O O M T�
N' N wx N
O N �
UO1 st O qw M 4Y
O W M M O M 001 O
CN
M cn O O r O M
N �-- M N N N r
N M
M O O Ocn r
O r V O OND W
C.)O W r r 1 7 m r co
N ri V r ri o"
N aD
apN u�1 m Cl. C> m
Q O N ti m Lr 06 r N
N N o n v un o r
i-- rn o 00
um "' N
r-+
•- o .r! U-� o
URe C4co
LM 00 4w Go
N unit
v� O O a? (o aD M
C N N M N N
Cl) a
Q ^ Ln 44n o
U') 1� cm cn O^D N
OD u7p st N P. r
N eF (o N 001
O N r IN N
U
Al
N
..O
H
m
f- m .CL w
d oa
CL U
Q
o � cr � d
o v LV ats
c.0= ca E
Coy
W m U- UL N d
[o
o w .""' to R •�
0 0 E = o O w d
(� C 0
CO CO)Il Q
Ln y r
Q
A
o
m
e
o
N M
o!
0 0
0
h
o
O
c
O
N
O
r
p
N N
et
N
N
N
N
W4 O ♦t N t0
r 001 O OD O
(O calp
m O O O M Cq
O O O O O if n
N N N N 49
N N
C%4 cc go
/1
O
N M r O r m
LL O O O O M T�
N' N wx N
O N �
UO1 st O qw M 4Y
O W M M O M 001 O
CN
M cn O O r O M
N �-- M N N N r
N M
M O O Ocn r
O r V O OND W
C.)O W r r 1 7 m r co
N ri V r ri o"
N aD
apN u�1 m Cl. C> m
Q O N ti m Lr 06 r N
N N o n v un o r
i-- rn o 00
um "' N
r-+
•- o .r! U-� o
URe C4co
LM 00 4w Go
N unit
v� O O a? (o aD M
C N N M N N
Cl) a
Q ^ Ln 44n o
U') 1� cm cn O^D N
OD u7p st N P. r
N eF (o N 001
O N r IN N
U
Al
N
..O
H
m
f- m .CL w
d oa
CL U
Q
o � cr � d
o v LV ats
c.0= ca E
Coy
W m U- UL N d
[o
o w .""' to R •�
0 0 E = o O w d
(� C 0
CO CO)Il Q
Ln y r
Q
A
70
v
�J
cc
E
•�
" lma
cn
W
4�
O
rtrtL
`V
E
E
/3
c J
m w cm w o, rn o o d d Ln co v
No rn pvopi_ m Mot�tD tn �.d' In �. 40 N N toLL N N..w o 0 o d 0 d d d toO O OO O i M O L^� _N � n m vi - top :f.
ci v o °O m ctop o NN N m `"_ `- N�
c o 0 o cS o o d d d d to ,n tc o
O r Ln Co 0 0 o om 0� a) o CF)
�- r 'a' t. 00 o 0
O O `r n. C Ln tri of to
N N N m o rn m h o on �
m i= N
M O V O M N
v o o p d o o d d d v o v to
p� O W) 0 0 0 o o ao o co r- r` co
o v to � c c o to v co
O r
m c m � Lri c Lri oo to r
N N 0 b) 000^ Ln
m to Ln of t` Nei
to v v
0 0 0 o d o o d d d o d o o "Cr Ln
Cl O O O O r r CO N N O
O O O O O r r O O O O
N N O N O tb r M co CO rn COO t Y cc
r
M m m o) ao
N
N (�
CO fes. N O N O O i
M t0 co O O O O Q Q m O N r r �-
CO � O t0 O N O O O) �' O tl') W coO4
O O O) fes. W aCD 4m t6 ul� te) � M � � O n � N ori
N N rn v rn •- co co o rn o00 00
� N r
� w q) O O O
co co
(00 t�J O N N. O O OV coOQ O d t0 co N t0
O I` I J V �- O O O O t�'1 t0 O co Of5 N M
iO O N V Co N M u i O r
LL.NN rn n m °° °<° m m v m
tm �- `- tp '� co f� tp N r„
CO
CC
:A
N
(U
d
V)
L}
a
O
to
�
to
�
C
C
CL
aa)
C
LZ
d
C
t6
N
H
°)
c
d
�
or
to
8"
:A
R
(U
m
V)
a
a
ti
to
�
z
:A
N
o
ti
to
c
�
CL
aa)
:A
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
School Planning and Shared Costs
By coordinating the planning of future schools with affected local governments, the
school district can better identify the costs associated with site selection and the
construction of new schools. Coordinated planning requires the School Board to submit
proposed school sites to the School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC)
for review and approval. The SPTAC consists of representatives from various
government agencies. Prior to the SPTAC review, t-hean affected jurisdiction may
coordinate with School District staff to perform its own technical review of thea site.
This analysis permits the School Board and affected local governments to jointly
determine the need for and timing of on-site and off-site improvements necessary to
support each new school.
Infrastructure Needs
Because Indian River County is undergoing significant infrastructure development,
analyzing the infrastructure needs of planned school sites is necessary. With this process,
shared funding for capital improvements for school sites can be determined according to
the responsibility of each party for each specific school site. Necessary infrastructure
improvements may include: potable water lines, sewer lines, drainage systems, roadways
(including turn lanes), traffic signalization and signage, site lighting, bus stops, and
sidewalks. The need for Tthese specific improvements afeis assessed for each planned
school at the time of site plan preparation. A ppr-oval , eifi, :*iefis eam. ,., ver Then. the
timing and responsibility for construction, as well as the operation and maintenance; of
required on-site and off-site improvements can be addressed through site plan approval
conditions. Any such improvements however, must be consistent should be in keeping
ee i g
with the financially feasible capital plan adopted by the School Board.
Recently, an infrastructure assessment was conducted for existing school facilities within
the County. That assessment indicated that except for sidewalks existing schools have
no infrastructure deficiencies. Although there are sidewalk deficiencies at some schools
the county has a sidewalk plan for major roadways. To implement that plan, the County
regularly applies for grants to address pedestrian safety near schools.
With respect to planned schools, only one specific future school site has been identified
at this time. Consistent with the above the Countv and. School District are in
negotiations for malting improvements for this site. Further. the Counts
Comprehensive Plan requires that new schools be located within the Urban Service Area
or contiguous to the Urban Service Area where urban services such as roads, water, and
sewer are currently available.
Other cost-effective measures should be considered by local governments during the
process of formulating neighborhood plans and programs and reviewing large residential
projects. During those processes, the County and the cities can encourage developers or
property owners to provide the School District with incentives to build schools in their
neighborhoods. These incentives may include, but are not be limited to, donation and
Community Development Department Indian River County
40
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
preparation of site(s), acceptance of stormwater run-off from future school facilities into
development project stormwater management systems, reservation or sale of school sites
at pre -development prices, construction of new school facilities or renovation of existing
school facilities, and provision of transportation alternatives.
Coordination
Tow -Florida Statutes require that the School District and the local governments Loin the
county -consider co -locating public schools and public facilities. The co -location and
shared -use of facilities provide important economic advantages to the County, School
District and local governments. During the preparation of its Educational Plant Survey,
the School District can identify co -location and shared -used opportunities for new
schools and public facilities. Likewise, co -location and shared use opportunities should
be considered by the local governments when updating their comprehensive plan;
schedule of capital improvements and when planning and designing new or renovating
existing libraries, parks, recreation facilities, community centers, auditoriums, learning
centers, museums, performing arts centers, and stadiums. Co -location and shared use of
school and governmental facilities for health care and social services should also be
considered.
As detailed in Figure 12.7, several co -location opportunities are available for existing
facilities. In Figure 1.2.7._'/2 mile school buffers are shown around each existing school
Within several of those buffers there are existing playgrounds. libraries, or community
centers. Those facilities located within a school
buffer are considered to be within.
walking; distance of the respective school and thus
provide the opportunity to be used by
students and/or staff of the schools For example
the North County Park located near
the Sebastian River Middle School provides an opportunity
for mutual benefit Oslo
Middle School, which is located adjacent to the South County Park also provides an
opportunity for benefit. Both of these examples are
listed within Table 12.16.
Middle schools_ and -high schools and the Alternative Education facility are particularly
well equipped to serve as community centers because of their capacity, parking, and
multi-purpose classrooms._ In fact, the Alternative Education facility is currently
extensively used by community groups In addition middle school and high school
gymnasiums are well equipped for youth sports programs As shown in Table 1.2.17, all
and pr-ivate efganizations eould utilize seheols for- meetings and events.
For each instance of co -location and shared use, the School Board and the County or
affected municipality must enter into an agreement addressing each party's liability,
Community Development Department Indian River County
41
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
operating and maintenance costs, scheduling of use, facility supervision, and other issues
that may arise.
As residential development occurs near school facilities, opportunities exist for the
County and School District to jointly plan for community focal points and parks.
Recently, the County completed planning efforts on the South County Initiative and the
West County Initiative. These initiatives involve several adjacent residential
development projects and the provision of pedestrian facilities, future school sites, parks,
and a connected roadway grid. Such coordinated planning between the School District
and the County ensures that proposed school sites will be consistent with land use plans
and regulations. Likewise, a co -location review by the School District of a proposed
County capital project will enhance co -location opportunities. The required coordinated
planning for co -location will additionally result in capital savings for the School District
and the County.
Table 12.16: Opportunities to Co -locate County or Municipal Parks Libraries and
Community Centers with Existing and Proposed Public Schools
R
School>nTeetied
ilea r Sctibcrl
P s'
Zibrairies.
TSCE tions' f t nt�ortunity
Oslo Middle School
NA
-
Existing
X
Oslo Middle School currently utilizes the
South County Park
Sebastian River Middle
NA - Existing
X
Sebastian. River Middle School currently,
School
utilizes the North County Park
Middle School "BB"
2009
X
Potential site for regional librarn
conjunction with proposed High School
"BB"
Middle School "CC"
2014
X
Potential environmental/nature trails
Middle
School
"DD"
2026
X
Potential to locate west regional park near
this site and proposed High School "CCC"
High School "BB"
2012-2014
X
Potential area for regional librarx in
conjunction with proposed Middle School
"CC" and proposed I ligh School `BB"
I ligh School "CCC"
2026
X
Potential to locate west re ional park near
this site and proposed Middle School
"DD''.
Community Development Department Indian River County
42
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.17: Opportunities to Use Existing and Proposed School Facilities for
County/Municipal Recreational Youth Programs and/or Community Group Activities
School
ch
Year.iSoal::
Yount °'
Pro .rains
Caimuuty
At tivtxes'
. AesctTt3tiions of Clltporturiity
Needed
G fford
Middle School
.NA - I4.xistintg
X
School
gymnasiums are currently used by
the County Recreation Department for
Oslo
Middle
School
NA - Existing
X
youth sports programs.
Sebastian
River
Middle
NA - Existing
X
School
Alternative Education
NA - E.•,xistin,
X
This facility is current] bein
y g
extensively used by community groups,
Gifford
Middle
School
"CC"
2014
X
School gymnasiums have the potential to
used by the County Recreation
Department for youthsports programs
Middle
School
"DD"
2026
Xbe
Community Development Department Indian River County
43
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
GOALS,
:TIVES,
'OLICIE
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT GOAL
Indian River County shall have a public school system that offers a high quality
educational environment, provides accessibility for all of its students, and ensures
adequate school capacity to accommodate enrollment demand.
OBJECTIVE 1: ADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES
By8I9Throu hout the plann.ing_period (2008 — 2030), there will be no deficiencies
within the Indian River County public school system.
POLICY 1.1: The County hereby adopts the LOS standards for public schools at 100% of
FISH permanent capacity.
POLICY 1.2: The County hereby adopts the School Board's current public school
attendance boundaries; as the School Service Areas Boundaries (SSAR). The SSAUs
exclude magnet and charter schools.
POLICY 1.3: The County and the School District, shall utilize the following procedures
for modifying SSARs:
a. The School District will transmit a proposed SSAH modification with data and
analysis to support the change to the Cities, the County, and the
To..hni .al n dvisefy Committee (SPT n r)Staff Working Group (S WG). Any
proposed change to the SSARs shall require a demonstration by the Seheel
Det -that the change complies with the public school LOS standard, and that
utilization of wheel--eapai is m imine greatest extent
passihletransportation costs, court approved desegregation plans and other factors
have been taken into account to ensure the maximum utilization of school
capacity to the greatest extent possible,
b. The County, the Cties, and the SPTACSWG will review the proposed
modification and send their comments to the School District within 45 days of
receipt of the proposed change.
c. The modification of the SSARs shall be effective upon adoption by the School
Board.
OBJECTIVE 2: SCHOOL CONCURRENCY REVIEW
After 2010, there will be adequate school facility capacity within the Indian River County
public school system to accommodate projected development at the adopted level of
Community Development Department Indian River County
45
service.
POLICY 2.1: The County shall not approve any non-exempt residential development
application for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, conceptual plans,
preliminary plats, site plans or their functional equivalents until the School District
&heel --has issued a School Capacity Availability Determination Letter (SCADL)
verifying available capacity.
POLICY 2.2: The County shall consider the following residential uses exempt from the
requirements of school concurrency:
a• SiRgle y-4f,ots and parcels of record +�� +,�� {� -
ema enti„di e be 3�ffles
effeeti
b le an
July 1, 2008. Ve
y crc ated prior to
b. Any new multi -family residential development that has a final
site plan approval or tte-its functional equivalent granted
devel
N '= prior to the eemmeneement date -of the SeheE)l Goneur-Feney
P-egramJuly 1, 2008.
c. Any amendment to any previously approved residential development that does not
increase the number of dwelling units or e the ehang„• _ _ units
(single4a"�fly to o � r f a �.
. otherwise does not increase the estimate
d. Age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18.
Exemption of an age restricted community will be subject to a restrictive covenant
limiting the age of permanent residents to 18 years and older.
LILY 2.3:
for
peen issued. 1 he following table identifies
for each development order. type
• A , 'nwirfinno, QC1 A Ill :.. ,_ _J ... .._ __1 11
Uonditional SCADL may li
the developer to provide suf
• A Final SCADL vests sc•hn
Previously issued Final SCADL
Community Development Department
L
faro.
�a acity. If a
that would be
,t the project.
IL shall not be
M
Indian River County
46
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
POLICY 2.34: The County, through its land development regulations, shall establish a
school concurrency review process for all non-exempt residential projects_ *ha -
exempt 'undepe pe'�n��. The minimum process requirements are described below:
a. A School Impact Analysis is submitted to the
County in coniunction with any residential develo ment application. (such as a
land use map amendment rezoning, site plan or preliminary plat)......The School
Impact Analysis indicates the location of the development number of dwelling
units and unit types (single-family multi -family, apartment; etc) and age
restrictions for occupancy, if ani
b. The County determines if the application is sufficient for processing and., when.
sufficient, transmits the application to the School District for review.
c. The School District reviews the application for available capacity and issues
either a conditional a-SCADL or a Final SCADL as allowed in Policy 3:
I. If capacity is available within the affected SSAB, the School District slag
issues a SCADL verifying available capacity. Issuance of a Conditional
SCADL identifying that adequate capacity exists at the time of capacity
evaluation does not guarantee that school facilities will be available at the
time of any subsequent concurrency review.
2. If capacity is not available within the affected SSAR, contiguous SSABs
are reviewed for available capacity.
3. If capacity is available in the contiguous SSABs, the School District shall
issues a SCADL verifying available capacity, noting the SSA with
cam.
4. If capacity is not available in the contiguous SSAAs, then the School
District shall issues a SCADL indicating that the development is not in
compliance with the adopted LOS and offers the developer a 90 -day
Community Development Department Indian River County
47
e160ment Order,
�vesting Allowed
Westin '
Llalt
1
Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Conditional
No
Ls�+ 4ilJ. V
No
Amendments and. Rezonins
2
Conceptual Development Plans
Conditional
No
No
3
Preliminary flats
Conditional
No
No
4
Final
Site Plans and Land
Conditional or
Yes
No
Final
Development Permits for Roads
Drainage and Utilities
5
Building
Permits
Final
Yes
Yes
Vesting is allowed for projects with a proportionate share agreement or an approved
developer's agreement for a major roadway improvement.
POLICY 2.34: The County, through its land development regulations, shall establish a
school concurrency review process for all non-exempt residential projects_ *ha -
exempt 'undepe pe'�n��. The minimum process requirements are described below:
a. A School Impact Analysis is submitted to the
County in coniunction with any residential develo ment application. (such as a
land use map amendment rezoning, site plan or preliminary plat)......The School
Impact Analysis indicates the location of the development number of dwelling
units and unit types (single-family multi -family, apartment; etc) and age
restrictions for occupancy, if ani
b. The County determines if the application is sufficient for processing and., when.
sufficient, transmits the application to the School District for review.
c. The School District reviews the application for available capacity and issues
either a conditional a-SCADL or a Final SCADL as allowed in Policy 3:
I. If capacity is available within the affected SSAB, the School District slag
issues a SCADL verifying available capacity. Issuance of a Conditional
SCADL identifying that adequate capacity exists at the time of capacity
evaluation does not guarantee that school facilities will be available at the
time of any subsequent concurrency review.
2. If capacity is not available within the affected SSAR, contiguous SSABs
are reviewed for available capacity.
3. If capacity is available in the contiguous SSABs, the School District shall
issues a SCADL verifying available capacity, noting the SSA with
cam.
4. If capacity is not available in the contiguous SSAAs, then the School
District shall issues a SCADL indicating that the development is not in
compliance with the adopted LOS and offers the developer a 90 -day
Community Development Department Indian River County
47
negotiation period for identification of mitigation options acceptable to the
School District.
d. The County and the School District shall review mitigation options during the 90 -
day negotiation period.
1. Mitigation options may include but are not limited to:
i. Contribution of land in conjunction with the provision of
additional school capacity; or
ii. Provision of additional Permanent Student Stations through the
donation of buildmL)s for use as a nrlmary nr n1torn.nflup li>rlMIntl
facility; or
Provision_ of additional Permanent Student Stations throe -h the
renovation of existing- buildings for use as learning facilities: or
iv. Construction of Permanent Student Stations or Core Ca achy• or
v. Construction. of a school in advance of the time set fortli in the
School District Five -Year Facilities Work Program or
vi. Construction of a charter school designed in accordance with
School District standards providing permanent School Capacityto
the District's inventory of student stations Use of a charter school
for mitigation must include provisions for its continued existence
including but not limited to the transfer of ownership of the charter
school property and/or operation of the school to the School Board
if requested and approved by the School Board
.For a. Conditional SCADL the School District shall identify the mitigation
options that may be acceptable to it The School District shall not enter
into an enforceable and binding; agreement with a developer as part of a
Conditional SCAM. Such an agreement may be entered into only in
coniunction with a Final SCADL
tiiv cx�
�3.If all mitigation options arc denied at the Conditional SCADL sta -e or if
mitigation is denied at the Final SCADL stage, the County must deny the
development application based upon no available school capacity.
e. The County shall not issue a building permit for a non-exempt residential unit
unless the unit is vested for school concurrency purr oses and the County
shall not vest approval of any Proposed Residential Development for such
Community Development Department Indian River County
48
f.
purposes until (i) confirmation is received from the School District that there
is sufficient Available School Capacity to accommodate the development and
(ii) impact fees have been paid
be
for
the
Proposed Residential Development has paid its impact fees and when the
Development Order for the Pronosed ResidPnriant ilovpinnrmr nt iav";rf.c
num
1 Di
unit
will
of
school type within the desiiznated school service areas
to
for
POLICY 2.45: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall review
developer proposed applications for proportionate share mitigation projects to add the
school capacity necessary to satisfy the impacts of a proposed residential development.
POLICY 2.56: The County shall, upon acceptance of a mitigation option identified in
Policy 2.4, enter into an enforceable binding agreement with the School District and the
developer.
POLICY 2.67: The County shall notify the School District within 10 working 4 -0 -days of
receiving payment of school impact fees and vesting school concurrency for any
residential development.
POLICY 2.8: The County shall notify, the School District within 10 working days of
issuance of a building permit for an exempt residential use and shall notify the School
District of each residential certificate ofoccupancy anc, issued
OBJECTIVE 3: COORDINATION
After 2008 all new public schools built within the County will be consistent with the
appropriate jurisdiction's future land use map designation, will be co -located with other
appropriate public facilities, and—will have needed supporting infrastructure, and when
possible will serve as community focal points .
POLICY 3.1: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall jointly determine
the need for and timing of on-site and off-site improvements necessary to support a new
school.
POLICY 3.2: The County shall enter into an agreement with the School Board
identifying the timing, location, and the party or parties responsible for constructing,
operating, and maintaining off-site improvements necessary to support a new school.
POLICY 3.3: The County shall encourage the location of schools near residential areas
by:
Community Development Department Indian River County
49
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
a. Assisting the School District in the identification of funding and/or construction
opportunities (including developer participation or County capital budget
expenditures) for sidewalks, traffic signalization, access, water, sewer, drainage
and other infrastructure improvements.
b. Reviewing and providing comments on all new school sites.
c. Allowing schools within all residential land use categories.
POLICY 3.4: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall seek
opportunities to co -locate public facilities with schools, such as parks, libraries, and
community centers, as the need for these facilities is identified.
POLICY 3.5: The County hereby designates the SPTAGSWG as the monitoring group
for coordinated planning and school concurrency in Indian River County,
POLICY 3.6: B�tt'� � 1, 2009, tThe County shall adopt school concurrency provisions
into its Land Development Regulations (LDR) by July I, 2008,
POLICY 3.7: The County, in conjunction with the School District and the municipalities
within the County, shall identify issues relating to public school emergency preparedness,
such as:
1. The determination of evacuation zones, evacuation routes, and shelter locations.
2. The design and use of public schools as emergency shelters.
3. The designation of sites other than public schools as long-term shelters, to allow
schools to resume normal operations following emergency events.
POLICY 3.8: The County shall advise the School District whether or not proposed
changes to the School District's Llong Range Public School Facilities Map are consistent
with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map Any changFes to the
School District's Long, Range Public School Facilities Map will be consistent with the
County's Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Ma,
OBJECTIVE 4: Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements
After 2008, the five-year schedule of capital improvements will include those projects
necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs.
POLICY 4.1: The County shall, no later than December 1 st of each year, incorporate
into the Capital Improvements Element the "Summary of Capital Improvements
Program" and "Summary of Estimated Revenue" tables from the School District's
Community Development Department Indian River County
50
annually adopted Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan prepared by the School Board and
submitted to the County by December of the previous year.
POLICY 4.2: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall annually review
the Public School Facilities Element and maintain a long-range public school facilities
map series, including the planned general location of schools and ancillary facilities for
the five-year planning period and the long-range planning period.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the Public Schools Facilities Element will involve numerous
activities. The most extensive of these will be the implementation of the provisions
contained in the Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency.
The Public School Facilities Element's implementation is contingent upon the
implementation of the other elements of the comprehensive plan.
Overall implementation responsibility rests with the County planning staff. The staff will
bear the primary role of executing the Interlocal Agreement. The planning staff must
also provide the local planning agency, the School District, and the Board of County
Commissioners the information and analysis upon which their actions and decisions will
be based. The plan implementation actions and responsibilities are shown in Table 12.14,
Table 12.148: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix
POLICY TYPE OF ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMING CAPITAL
# EXPENDITURE
Establish School Level of School District/
1.1 Service (LOS) Municipalities/ Planning 2008 No
Dept.
School District/
1.2 Establish SSARs Municipalities/ Planning 2008, then No
Dept. ongoing
School District/
1.3 Procedures to modify SSAB Municipalities/ Planning 2008, then No
Dept. ongoing
Approval of residential School District/
2.1 Municipalities/ Planning 2008 then
development p g ongoing
ng No
School District/
2.2 Residential exemptions Municipalities/ Planning 2008, then No
Dept. ongoing
Tapes of SCADLs and School District/
2
=3 Municipalities) Planning No 2008• then
vesting stades on oin,
Dent.
2'
School concurrency review School District/ 2008 then process Municipalities/ Planning
No
Dept. ongoing
Community Development Department Indian River County
51
Comprehensive Plan ME Public School Facilities Element
POLICY
TYPE OF ACTION
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
CAPITAL
#
EXPENDITURE
2 45
Proportionate share
School District/
2008, then
mitigation
Municipalities/
alities/ Planning
ongoing
No
Dept.
2'56
Enforceable binding
WNEW
School District/
2008 then
agreement
Municipalities/ Planning
ongoing
No
Dept.
2,67
School impact fees/vesting
School District/
2008, then
of residential development
Municipalities/ Planning
ongoing
No
Dept.
School
District and Countv
2.8
School District
2then 008,
`ongoing
notifications for issunae of
residential building permits
1\�l
Municipalities/ Planning
No
and C'O's.
Dept•
3.1
Infrastructure needs
BCC/municipalities/School
2008 then
WOMEN
identification
Board
ongoing
yes
3.2
School Board agreement on
BCC/municipalities/School
2008 then
off-site improvements
Board
ongoing
No
3.3
School sites near residential
BCC/municipalities/School
2008 then
No
SOMMEMEM
Board
ongoing
3.4
Co -location with public
School District/
WE
2008 then
SMWMWME
facilities
Municipalities/ Planning
ongoing
No
Dept.
3.5
SPTAC to monitor
School District/
2008 then
concurrency
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
ongoing
No
3.6
LDRs amended
WN
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
2008
No
School District/
3.7
Emergency preparedness
Municipalities/ Planning
2008 then
No
Dept.
ongoing
Consistency,
between
and
School District/
County's Comp Plan
33_8
Municipalities/ Planning
2008 then
No
School District's Lone
Ranee Public School
Dept.
ongoing
Facilities Map
Incorporate School District
4.1
capital improvement plan
School District/
2008, then
Yes (School
tables
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
ongoing
District)
4.2
Annual review of PSFE &
School District/
2008 then
long range map series
Municipalities/ Planning
ongoing
g g
No
Dept.
�Wi�r WAWA STRMWENAWnASO SsAN AMMEROMME^sN x?sVd&%=
EVALUATION AND M(
Community Development Department
G PROCED
Indian River County
52
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation: the plan must
also provide a mechanism for assessing its effectiveness. Generally, a plan's
effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which its objectives have been met. Because
objectives are measurable and have specific time frames, the plan's objectives are the
benchmarks used to evaluate the plan.
The planning department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the
Public Schools Facilities Element on a regular basis, which involves collection of data
and compilation of information regarding school capacity, and new residential
development. Formal evaluation of the Public School Facilities Element will occur based
on the schedule provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in
conjunction with the formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire comprehensive plan.
In addition to assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to
determine whether the Public School Facilities objectives should be modified or
expanded. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Public School Facilities
Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's
implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the
plan element.
FACommunity Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\Meetings\BCC\PSFE -
Proposed for Adoption.doc
Community Development Department Indian River County
53