HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-252A (13)Indian River County
2030 Comprehensive Plan
10"'a -. 10%
Indian River County Community Development Department
Adopted: October 12, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
BACKGROUND..........................................................................................2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS.............................................................................................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.......................................................................................................
9
Enrollment and Capacity...............................................................................................
9
Enrollment Projections................................................................................................
11
Student Population from 2007 through 2013..............................................................
16
Indian River County School Utilization...............................................................
17
Long Term Student Enrollment Projections................................................17
School District Capital Funding Sources....................................................................
18
ANALYSIS................................................................................................18
SCHOOLSERVICE AREAS.....................................................................................................
18
SCHOOL LEVEL OF SERVICE.................................................................................................
23
NeedsAssessment.......................................................................................................
23
ElementarySchools..............................................................................................
24
MiddleSchools.....................................................................................................
24
HighSchools.........................................................................................................
25
LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR NEW SCHOOLS........................................................................
25
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY.......................................................................................................
26
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROCESS.......................................................................................
27
PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION................................................................................
278
SCHOOL PLANNING AND SHARED COSTS.............................................................................
29
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.....................................................................................................
29
COORDINATION....................................................................................................................
30
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
POLICIES.................................................................................................34
PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................... 39
EVALUATION AND MONITORING
PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................41
Community Development Department Indian River County
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 12.1: Population Data, 1997 — 2009............................................................................... 3
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-2030.............................................................................. 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 2010 - 2014................................................................
5
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: School Year 2008/2009 School Enrollment and Capacity
.................................. 11
Table 12.7: Elementary School Student Enrollment Projections ............................................ 13
Table 12.8: Middle School Student Enrollment Projections .................................................. 14
Table 12.9: High School Student Enrollment Projections...................................................... 14
Table 12.10: Special and Alternative School Student Enrollment Projections ...................... 15
Table 12.11: Public School Student Enrollment Projections by School Type ....................... 16
Table 12.12: Planned Public Schools, Public School Additions & Land Area Needed......... 25
Table 12.13: Opportunities to Co -locate County or Municipal Parks, Libraries, and
Community Centers with Existing and Proposed Public Schools .................................. 31
Table 12.14: Opportunities to Use Existing and Proposed School Facilities for
County/Municipal Recreational Youth Programs and/or Community Group Activities 32
Table 12.15: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix ................................. 40
Community Development Department Indian River County
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 12.1: Approved and Potential New Residential Development ...................................... 6
Figure 12.2: Existing School Locations.................................................................................. 10
Figure 12.3: Elementary School Service Area Boundary Map ............................................... 20
Figure 12.4: Middle School Service Area Boundaries Map ................................................... 21
Figure 12.5: High School Service Area Boundary Map ......................................................... 22
Figure 12.6: Co -location Opportunities.................................................................................. 33
Community Development Department Indian River County
iii
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.
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 contain a data and analysis section that addresses:
• how level -of -service standards will be achieved and maintained;
• the interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to Section 163.31777, Florida Statutes;
• the 5 -year school district facilities work program adopted pursuant to Section
1013.35, Florida Statutes;
• the educational plant survey prepared pursuant to Section 1013.31, Florida Statutes,
and an existing educational and ancillary plant map or map series;
• information on existing development and development anticipated for the next 5
years and the long-term planning period;
• an analysis of problems and opportunities for existing schools and schools anticipated
in the future;
• an analysis of opportunities to collocate future schools with other public facilities
such as parks, libraries, and community centers;
• an analysis of the need for supporting public facilities for existing and future schools;
• an analysis of opportunities to locate schools to serve as community focal points;
• projected future population and associated demographics, including development
patterns year by year for the upcoming 5 -year and long-term planning periods; and
• anticipated educational and ancillary plants with land area requirements.
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 1997-2009, 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
thirteen -year period. Table 12.2 shows population growth projections and growth rates for
the County to the year 2030.
Table 12.1: Population Data, 1997 - 2009
Source: University of Florida Annual Population Studies and US Census Bureau 2009
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-2030
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009`
Indian River
Count
104,644
106,689
109,266
112,947
115,716
118,149
121,129
126,829
130,043
135,262
139,757
141,667
141,475
Growth
Rate %
9.43%1
8.92%1
9.23%
8.33%
7.36%
Fellsmere
2,469
2,549
2,593
3,813
3,901
4,044
4,173
4,284
4,322
4,628
4,687
5,108
5,183
Indian River
Shores
2,690
2,739
2,782
3,448
3,521
3,507
3,572
3,647
3,654
3,722
3,674
3,829
3,804
Orchid
45
60
150
140
161
216
256
304
302
307
303
305
305
Sebastian
14,475
15,115
15,662
16,181
16,796
17,425
18,275
19,365
20,048
21,666
22,426
22,924
22,722
Vero Beach
17,794
17,745
17,856
17,705
17,879
17,918
17,945
18,012
17,895
18,160
18,060
17,889
17,855
Unincoporated
County
67,171
68,481
70,224
71,660
73,458
75,039
76,908
81,217
83,822
86,779
90,607
91,612
91,606
Tota]
1 104,644
1 106,689
1 109,266
1 112,947
1 115,716
1 118,149
1 121,129
1 126,829
1 130,043
135,219
139,757
141,667
141,475
Source: University of Florida Annual Population Studies and US Census Bureau 2009
Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-2030
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida, 2009
Community Development Department Indian River County
3
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Indian River County
Population
130,041
142,300
155,000
169,300
183,400
196,900
Growth
12,259
12,700
14,300
14,100
13,500
Growth
Rate %
9.43%1
8.92%1
9.23%
8.33%
7.36%
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida, 2009
Community Development Department Indian River County
3
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Permit Activity/Projected 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 county and
municipalities for the period between 2001 and 2009. Table 12.3b identifies the increase in
total residential units from the 2000 Census to 2009.
Table 12.3a: Total Building Permits Issued Per Year
Building Type
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Single Family Units
1,361
1,484
2,050
3,168
3,426
2,813
1,104
615
249
Multi -Family Units
122
991
913
562
144
182
106
40
0
Mobile Home
Setups
49
42
52
68
91
12
9
7
5
Source: Indian River County Community Development Report, January 2010
Table 12.3b: Indian River County Total Residential Units
Residential Units
Census 2000
2009
Total Single Family Units
36,240
53,419
Total Multi -Family Units
14,792
18,295
Total Mobile Home Units
6,870
7,231
Total Housing Units
57,902
78,945
SourceAdian River County Community Development Report, January 2010.
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
significant decrease occurring in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The decrease in the number of
building permits issued during the 2006 - 2009 time -frame is associated with overbuilding
and an economic recession. Despite the reduction in the number of residential building
permits issued, the number of residential housing units constructed still increased. 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 2014 is expected to decrease and
then fluctuate, but remaining lower than during prior years.
Community Development Department Indian River County
4
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.4: Projected Building Permits 2010 - 2014
Source: Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), 2009.
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.
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
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Projected Annual
Population Chane
825
3,175
2,381
1,786
1,339
Projected Permits
372
1,430
1,073
804
603
Source: Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), 2009.
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.
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
Figure 12.1: Approved and Potential New Residential Development
New Residential Development Activity
Approximately 12,500 approved single family homes
J c
Approximately 4,300 approved multi -family housing units
• 0.75
Developments depicted in unincorpataied Indian River County have
applied for or obtained a Land Development Permit
o
Data obtained from the January 2007 Indian Nver County Community
o
Development Report and municipal planning departments. ibis map is
a
:,fanning purposes only and does not represent a legal document.
E
tended to serve as an aid In graphic representation only
o
� Vcro Bcad,
4
_
+ g
I o
Leeend
Approved Residential Developments Elementary Schools Municipalities
�
Pot rnnal [Jnira
— Fellsmrrc
• 0.75
— Indian Rivcr Shores
76 -175
Magnct Schools
o Orchid
176. 300
in
— Sebaati-
� Vcro Bcad,
301.600
Middle Schools
601 - 1,000
Sit School
0,001- 1,400
t.iva 1 c I.6 +. @
Major Roads
/VOctober
10,20D7
Community Development Department Indian River County
6
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
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
Total
Family
Family
Home
Students
Elementary
6,692
568
296
7,556
Middle
3,439
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
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.
Community Development Department Indian River County
8
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.
Community Development Department Indian River County
8
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 one new
elementary school. In addition, capacity providing capital improvements are associated
with the planned replacement of two elementary schools and the renovation of the Vero
Beach High School Freshman Learning Center.
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 CapacitX
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 22 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, the School District operates fourteen elementary schools, four middle
schools, two high schools, and two alternative education centers. These schools serve
nearly 16,000 students. Figure 12.2 shows the geographic locations of the public schools
operated by the School District. In Table 12.6, a breakdown of the enrollment and school
capacity for School Year 2008/09 is provided. The figures in Table 12.6 exclude charter
schools, because charter schools are not operated by the School District.
On an annual basis, school capacity figures are determined by the Florida Department of
Education (FDOE) and are based on the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH)
capacity analysis. To determine permanent FISH capacity at individual schools, the
School District utilizes FDOE's FISH capacity data, which includes district owned
"concretable" classrooms.
Community Development Department Indian River County
9
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Figure 12.2: Existing School Locations
Indian River County Exisitng School Locations
B rcva rd
aG
G
e L
MSnIN lT
A } A)
R,
t
� E
5oi
u
itl �
\�
Soba Clan Ri,,,r I l,II,
Fellsrtserc=Eltmcnrar' y°'----�-� ''
H Se span H`gh
t
-z
�l'ah:a'.'sct_�ytllUUl
Liber yiv gn�'r
Treasure Coast Eenrentary
yti 512�j
TH ST
S orm Grov idd
S c L u c ic
Legend
Wi��n-,.
Lam
Elementary Schools Middle Schools Municipalities
i FrRsrncrc
MagnerIndian
Schools i h Schools ® prcliid�"cr Shores
:Sebastian
Alternative and ESE Schools V.- BeA'
A Major P oads as
civac-
October 10, 2007
Note: Original Map prepared by CivaTerra, updated by IRC Planning Division, February 2010 to include Storm Grove Middle
Community Development Department Indian River County
10
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.6: School Year 2008/2009 School Enrollment and Capacity
SCHOOL NAME
Actual 2008-09
�COFTE'
ctual 2009-2010 Fish
CaPaCitV2
Elementary
Beachland Elementary
564
635
Citrus Elementary
602
757
od ertown Elementary
495
793
ellsmere Elementary
563
744
Glendale Elementary
466
743
Highlands Elementary
457
646
Liberty Elementary (Magnet)
541
678
Osceola Elementary (Magnet)
526
619
Pelican Island Elementary
467
68
Rosewood Elementary (Magnet)
529
561
Sebastian Elementary
553
695
Thompson Elementary
355
557
Treasure Coast Elementary
706
801
Vero Beach Elementary
517
707
Total Elementary
7341
9,620
Middle
Gifford Middle
1,325
1,432
Oslo Middle
1,076
1,270
Sebastian River Middle
1,414
1,707
Total Middle
3,815
4,
High
Sebastian River High
1,915
2,275
Vero Beach High
2,593
3,095
Total High
4,50_
5,370
Other
Alternative Education Gifford
79
328
abasso School
51
55
Total Other
130
383
Student Total
________ 151794
_________________________ 192782 11
Source: Indian River County School District Facilities Work Program, 2009-2010
Notes: (1) COFTE Capital Outlay Full Time Equivalent
(2) FISH — Florida Inventory of School Houses
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 project future student enrollment
and school capacity. To determine future school capacity needs, the School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
11
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 12.7 — 12.10 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
12
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.7: Elementary School Student Enrollment Projections
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
13
SY09/10***
SY10/11*
SY11/12*
SY12113*
SY13/14*
SY14/15
SCHOOL NAME
Beachland Elementary
581
555
105%
540
555
97%
548
555
99%
547
555
99%
547
555
99%
555
555
100%
Citrus Elementary
575
573
100%
623
573
109%
628
573
110%
640
573
112%
652
573
114%
650
573
113%
Dodgertown Elementary
482
608
79%
477
608
78%
494
608
81%
525
608
86%
568
608
93%
560
608
92%
Fellsmere Elementary
588
546
108%
554
546
101%
552
546
101%
585
546
107%
608
546
111%
620
546
114%
Glendale Elementary
476
634
75%
445
623
71%
462
623
74%
493
623
79%
539
623
87%
525
623
84%
Highlands Elementary
427
602
71%
456
584
78%
479
584
82%
520
584
89%
554
584
95%
570
584
98%
Liberty Magnet Elementary (B)
534
678
79%
540
688
78%
545
688
79%
547
688
80%
549
688
80%
540
688
78%
North Central Elementary (C.)
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
550
0%
0
550
0%
Osceola Elementary(Magnet)
535
558
96%
540
598
90%
542
598
91%
542
598
91%
543
598
91%
545
598
91%
Pelican Island Elementary
457
586
78%
560
592
95%
563
592
95%
585
592
99%
617
592
104%
590
592
100%
Rosewood Elementary(Magnet)
542
561
97910
542
561
97%
543
561
97%
541
561
96%
544
561
97%
544
561
97%
Sebastian Elementary
567
637
89%
591
637
93%
585
637
92%
599
637
94%
621
637
97%
620
637
97%
Thompson Elementary**
326
557
59%
364
557
65%
380
557
68%
394
557
71%
415
557
75%
400
557
72%
Treasure Coast Elementary
616
599
103%
536
599
89%
570
599
95%
597
599
100%
635
599
106%
675
599
113%
Vero Beach Elementary
534
559
96%
527
559
94%
543
750
72%
562
750
75%
573
750
76%
575
750
77%
Now—
Total
7,240
8,253
88%
7,295
8,280
88%
7,434
8,471
88%
7,677
8,471
91%
7,965
9,021
88%
7,969
9,021
88%
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
13
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.8: Middle School Student Enrollment Projections
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Table 12.9: High School Student Enrollment Projections
Source: Indian River County School District
SY 09/10 ***
SY 10/11 *
SY 11/12*
SY 12/13 *
SY 13/14 *
SY 14/15
SCHOOL NAME
zi
o
W
d
U
ti
�
zi
o
W
y
U
►�.
o
W
d
U
�
z:
o
W
C
U
a
zi
o
W
d
U
a
o
W
d
U
a
GiordMiddle
965
1,081
89%
1,001
1,081
93%
998
1,081
92%
979
1,081
91%
965
1,081
89%
975
1,081
90%
Oslo Middle
953
1,117
85%
870
1,117
78%
840
1,117
75%
825
1,117
74%
820
1,117
73%
850
1,117
76%
Storm Grove Middle
884
1,280
69%
914
1,200
76%
963
1,200
80%
963
1,200
80%
950
1,200
79%
980
1,200
82%
Sebastian River Middle
969
1,093
89%
997
1,149
87%
1,000
1,149
87%
990
1,149
86%
990
1,149
86%
1,000
1,149
87%
Total =
3,771
4,571
82%
3,782
4,547
83%
3,801
4,547
F84%
3,757
4,547
83%
3,725
4,547
82%
3,805
4,547
84%
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Table 12.9: High School Student Enrollment Projections
Source: Indian River County School District
*School b7v school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
14
SY
0.
SY09/10***
10/11*
SY11/12*
SY12/13*
SY13/14*
SY 14115
SCHOOL NAME
U
ti
ti
ti
ti
Sebastian River High
1,943
1,954
1,943
101%
1,983
2,023
98%
2,002
2,157
93%
2,047
2,157
95%
2,082
2,157
97%
21080
2,157
96%
Vero Beach High
2,771
2,690
2, 771
97%
2, 663
2, 771
96%
2,643
2, 771
95%
2, 688
2, 771
97%
2,709
2, 771
98%
2,720
2,771
98%
Alternative Education
178
122
178
69%
154
178
87%
155
178
87%
155
178
87%
155
178
87%
150
178
84%
(Gifford)
Total
4,892
4,766
4,892 97%
4,800
4,972 97%
4,800
5,106 94%
4,890
5,106 96%
4,946
5,106 97%
4,950
5,106 97%
*School b7v school enrollment forecast January 2009
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
14
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.11 summarizes the actual and projected student enrollment at alternative and non-public schools in Indian River County.
Table 12.10: Special and Alternative School Student Enrollment Projections
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009 (Revision expected Jan 2010)
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
15
a C
SY09/10***
SY
10/11*
SY11/12*
SY12/13*
SY13/14*
SY14/I5
SCHOOL NAME
W
FW,b,sso School
65%
54%
52%
56%
56%
56%
82
53
82
44
82
43
82
46
82
46
82
46
82
*School by school enrollment forecast January 2009 (Revision expected Jan 2010)
**COFTE Forecast July 2009
***Unofficial October enrollment count
Source: Indian River County School District
Community Development Department Indian River County
15
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.11: Public School Student Enrollment Projections by School Type
School T e
2018-19
2028-29
Elementary Schools
8,765
11,814
Middle Schools
3,675
4,925
High Schools
3,645
6,788
Other
150
100
Total
16,244
23,627
Student Population from 2009 through 2015
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 public
school forecast.
This process specified a regression model for each grade level as follows:
StudentSgddex,yeart = Const. + 8, * Studentsgrade x-1, year t-1 + N2 * population growth
This regression model projects 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
16
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 2013-14. These additional capacity
projects were used to balance future enrollment by redistributing students from their
existing schools to their future schools. Tables 12.7 — 12.10 shows the details of this
analysis.
Long Term Student Enrollment Projections
Long term student enrollment projections are provided in Table 12.11 and were prepared
to provide an estimate of potential school needs in the years beyond school year 2012-13.
Those projections are based on an assumed annual growth rate beyond the 2012-13
school year of 2.27% for elementary schools, 1.72% for middle schools, and 2.23% for
high schools. These percentages take into account fluctuations in the growth rate that the
County may experience. The assumed long term growth rates for public schools are 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, for instance, 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
elementary students, 1,214 middle school
between school year 2009-10
Community Development Department
projections show
students, and 2,022
and school
an increase of 3,561
high school students
year 2028-2029.
Indian River County
17
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 capital
programs. Currently, the Indian River County School District imposes the entire
allowable 2 mill levy. In 2005, Indian River County adopted a 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.
Currently, Florida Statutes restrict the School District's portion of state capital outlay
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).
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 were reviewed in light of projected
student growth and available revenue to finance planned capital improvements.
Generally, the analysis focused on whether existing and planned school capacity 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 (SSAs) to which school concurrency is applied when reviewing the
impact of new residential development on public schools. The SSAs are used to
determine whether adequate capacity is available to accommodate new students
generated from residential development.
Overall, there are two alternatives for establishing SSAs. One alternative is to establish a
district -wide SSA 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 all elementary schools in school year 2009/10, as identified in Table 12.7,
is 88%. This rate was calculated by dividing district -wide enrollment for all public
elementary schools by district -wide capacity for all public elementary schools. By
Community Development Department Indian River County
18
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 even though there may be no capacity at the elementary school
impacted by a new development project, because capacity is available on a district -wide
basis.
The other alternative is to establish less than district -wide SSAs. With this alternative,
SSAs are established using geographic areas based on streets, natural boundaries or
existing school attendance zones. Less than district -wide SSAs allow school capacity
determinations to be made at a local level. With school attendance zones as SSAs,
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 determined that the
SSAs will be less than district -wide.
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
19
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Figure 12.3: Elementary School Service Area Boundary Map
Community Development Department Indian River County
20
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Figure 12.4: Middle School Service Area Boundaries Map
Community Development Department Indian River County
21
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Figure 12.5: High School Service Area Boundary Map
Community Development Department Indian River County
22
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 to 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).
Prior to establishing a level of service standard, the School District must determine the
maximum capacity of the public schools. Tables 12.7-12.10 identify the capacity of all
public schools and their enrollment and utilization through school year 2014/15. The
current enrollment and capacity for each school are critical components in developing a
school concurrency system, because public school concurrency 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 or specialized classrooms such as art, music, lab, and other similar
rooms.
Since the number of student stations at a school is used to calculate the school's capacity,
the data detailed in Tables 12.7 — 12.10 are presented at the student station level. A
Community Development Department Indian River County
23
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 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, while schools
with a utilization rate greater than 100% are over -crowded.
Based on the data and analysis for school year 2009/10, current district -wide school
capacity utilization is at 88% for elementary schools, 82% for middle schools, and 97%
for high schools.
Elementary Schools
Fourteen elementary schools are currently operated by the School District. One additional
elementary school is proposed in the current Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan; that school
will open in school year 2013/2014, adding approximately 550 additional elementary
student stations. With the addition of this elementary school, the number of permanent
elementary student stations will be approximately 9,021. The enrollment projection for
the five-year planning period identifies a total of 7,969 elementary students by school
year 2014/15. The estimated district -wide utilization at the elementary school level will
then be approximately 88%.
As listed in Table 12.12, three additional elementary schools are needed between school
year 2014/15 and school year 2028/29. 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 three
new elementary schools along with planned additions to existing elementary schools will
add approximately 2,650 elementary school student stations to the School District's
overall available elementary school capacity.
Middle Schools
The School District currently operates four middle schools, all four of which are currently
below their FISH capacity. At present, the total number of district -wide middle school
student stations is 4,571. The utilization at each of these schools is currently at or below
89%.
One additional middle school is needed between school year 2014/15 and school year
2028/29. The new middle school will be located on at least a 40 acre site and will add
approximately 1,400 middle school student stations each to the School district's overall
middle school capacity. The anticipated location for this middle school is within the west
central area of the county.
Community Development Department Indian River County
24
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
High Schools
Currently, there are two high schools in Indian River County. These are Sebastian High
School and Vero Beach High School. Currently, there are 4,892 student stations,
including those at the Freshman Learning Center, at the high school level. The current
enrollment at the high school level is 4,766 students. Based on current enrollment, the
district -wide utilization at the high school level is approximately 97% for the current
school year. Additional concreatables will be added to the high school sites over the next
few years to maintain established level of service.
Between school year 2018/19 and school year 2028/29, one additional high school and
additions to existing high schools are needed. The anticipated location for the new high
school is somewhere within the west central area of the county. The planned student
capacity is 2,500 high school student stations at the new high school. An additional 600
high school student stations will be added to the County's existing high schools. The
new high school will be located on at least an 80 acre site.
Land Area Required for New Schools
Currently, the Indian River County School Board's policy is that schools be placed on
sites that are 20 acres in size for public elementary schools, 40 acres in size for public
middle schools, and 80 acres in size for public high schools. The minimum site sizes
allow adequate area for school buildings, off-street parking, student pick up areas,
physical education fields, mitigation areas, and buffers from bordering areas.
Table 12.12: Planned Public Schools, Public School Additions & Land Area Needed
Planned School
Planned Student Capacity
Year School Needed
Acreage Needed
Elementary "D"
750
2015-2019
20
Elementary "E"
750
2019-2028
20
Elementary "F"
750
2019-2029
20
Elementary Additions
200
2015-2019
NA
Elementary Additions
200
2019-2029
NA
Middle School "CC"
1,400
2015-2019
40
High School "BBB"
2,500
2019-2029
80
High School
Additions
600
2019-2029
NA
Community Development Department Indian River County
25
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 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 2010 - 2014 School District's Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan
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 is to update 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 School District's summary of capital improvements is
adopted on a yearly basis as part of the County's Capital Improvements Element. 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.
The School District's summary of capital improvements contains 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
mill ad valorem tax, along 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 1.5
mill tax will generate $116 million over the next five years. The Five -Year Capital
Facilities Plan Summary of Estimated Revenue, annually adopted into the County's
Capital Improvements Element, details the School District's projections for its revenue
sources over the next five years and the long-range planning period. A comparison of the
School District's Five -Year Summary of Capital Improvements and the School District's
Five -Year Capital Facilities Plan Summary of Estimated Revenue shows that the School
Community Development Department Indian River County
26
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 163.3180, 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 concurrency requires 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, 2008, 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, 2008, and age restricted projects.
For school concurrency purposes, the School District maintains 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 CO'ed units. Also
Community Development Department Indian River County
27
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
at the time of this update, the School District will revise capacity figures to reflect any
new schools added to the first three years of the five year capital facilities plan.
For each SSA, total capacity less total demand yields available capacity. For each
proposed development project reviewed, the School District will compare the proposed
project's school demand with available capacity to determine if there is sufficient
capacity to accommodate the project.
Proportionate Share Mitigation
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 (SSA) 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 Indian River County
28
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
(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 his 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.
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, an affected jurisdiction may
coordinate with School District staff to perform its own technical review of a 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 these specific improvements is assessed for each planned school
at the time of site plan preparation. Then, the timing and responsibility for construction,
Community Development Department Indian River County
29
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 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. That school will not be constructed for several more years. Consistent with
the above, the County and School District are in negotiations for making improvements
for this site. Further, the County's 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
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
Florida Statutes require that the School District and the local governments in 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 12.6, several co -location opportunities are available for existing
facilities. In Figure 12.6, 1/2 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
Community Development Department Indian River County
30
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 12.13.
Middle schools, 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 12.14, three existing middle
school gymnasiums are being used for County youth sport programs.
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,
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. During
the building boom that occurred between 2002 and 2006, 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 12.13: Opportunities to Co -locate County or Municipal Parks, Libraries, and
Community Centers with Existing and Proposed Public Schools
Community Development Department Indian River County
31
Year School
Parks
Libraries
Descriptions of Opportunity
School
Needed
NA - Existing
X
Oslo Middle School currently utilizes the
Oslo Middle School
South County Park
Sebastian River Middle
NA - Existing
X
Sebastian River Middle School currently
School
utilizes the North County Park
Middle School "CC"
2014-2019
X
Potential environmental/nature trails.
High School `BB"
2019 —2029
X
Potential area for regional library in
conjunction with Storm Grove Middle
School
Community Development Department Indian River County
31
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Table 12.14: Opportunities to Use Existing and Proposed School Facilities for
County/Municipal Recreational Youth Programs and/or Community Group Activities
Community Development Department Indian River County
32
Year School
Youth
Community
Descriptions of Opportunity
School
Needed
Programs
Activities
Gifford Middle School
NA - Existing
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 - Existing
X
This facility is currently being
(Gifford)
extensively used by community groups.
Middle School "CC"
2014-2019
X
School gymnasiums have the potential to
be used by the County Recreation
Department for youth sports programs.
Community Development Department Indian River County
32
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
Figure 12.6: Co -location Opportunities
Public Facilities with School Co -location Opportunities Map
3[}ri�C
Brevard
G 1�+9y t 41 "7
507
i
E M
H E A�sto.
E
1 y
512 TH ST
�St rtn Grove iddl " 6
57RDST
44TH $T1i �
45Y ST
AtS 1
yiAw 37TH ` �
16TH ST E
x
6� 16TH ST ibT - IITH SP
12TH ST
aT ST
ST STS 4
M STS G
\'t
DSLDR I',, 4
'e 13TH STSvF,, 4
x E ❑
SW Ssr 6
4
s
S r. L u r i e
a
9
Legend
Libraries E1l�emenrary Schools Middle Schools Municipalities
Oi y FrR"m re
Indian ftivcr 5hnrcs
Community Centers a ner Schools i Schools Q Orr hid
® Selasrian
Playgrounds Alrernative and ESE Schools Ancillary Planus We, Bea.li
A Major Roads
School Buffer (half -mule)
ru
Parks & Conservation Land dva l''l,'n' 0
October 10, 2007
Note: Original Map prepared by CivaTerra, updated by IRC Planning Division, February 2010 to include Storm Grove Middle
Community Development Department Indian River County
33
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
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
Throughout the planning period (2010 — 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 (SSA). The SSAs exclude magnet
and charter schools.
POLICY 1.3: The County and the School District, shall utilize the following procedures
for modifying SSAs:
a. The School District will transmit a proposed SSA modification with data and
analysis to support the change to the Cities, the County, and the Staff Working
Group (SWG). Any proposed change to the SSAs shall require a demonstration
that the change complies with the public school LOS standard, and that
transportation 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 SWG 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 SSAs shall be effective upon adoption by the School
Board.
OBJECTIVE 2: SCHOOL CONCURRENCY REVIEW
Through the time plan horizon, there will be adequate school facility capacity within the
Indian River County public school system to accommodate projected development at the
adopted level of service.
POLICY 2.1: The County shall not approve any non-exempt residential development
application for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, conceptual plans,
Community Development Department Indian River County
34
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
preliminary plats, site plans or their functional equivalents until the School District 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. Lots and parcels of record legally created prior to July 1, 2008.
b. Any new multi -family residential development that has a final site plan approval
or its functional equivalent granted prior to July 1, 2008.
c. Any amendment to any previously approved residential development that does not
increase the number of dwelling units or otherwise does not increase the estimated
number of students generated by the development.
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.
POLICY 2.3: Except for the exclusions allowed under Policy 2.2, no development
order shall be approved unless the appropriate SCADL verifying adequate capacity has
been issued. The following table identifies the type of concurrency certificate required
for each development order type.
• A Conditional SCADL is a determination that adequate school capacity is available
at the time of evaluation but does not vest school capacity. If applicable, a
Conditional SCADL may list feasible mitigation options that would be required of
the developer to provide sufficient school capacity to vest the project.
• A Final SCADL vests school capacity. A Final SCADL shall not be required in
conjunction with a building permit if the residential unit is already vested through a
previously issued Final SCADL.
' Vesting is allowed for projects with a proportionate share agreement or an approved
developer's agreement for a major roadway improvement.
Community Development Department Indian River County
35
Development Order
SCADL
Vesting Allowed
Vesting
Required
Required
1
Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Conditional
No
No
Amendments and Rezonin s
2
Conceptual Development Plans
Conditional
No
No
3
1 Preliminary Plats
Conditional
No
No
4
Final Site Plans and Land
Conditional or
Yes
No
Development Permits for Roads,
Final
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.
Community Development Department Indian River County
35
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
POLICY 2.4: The County, through its land development regulations, shall maintain a
school concurrency review process for all non-exempt residential projects. The minimum
process requirements are described below:
a. A School Impact Analysis is submitted to the County in conjunction with any
residential development 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, apartments, etc.), and age restrictions for occupancy, if any.
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 SCADL or a Final SCADL as allowed in Policy 2.3:
1. If capacity is available within the affected SSA, the School District 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 SSA, contiguous SSAs are
reviewed for available capacity.
3. If capacity is available in the contiguous SSAs, the School District issues a
SCADL verifying available capacity, noting the SSA with capacity.
4. If capacity is not available in the contiguous SSAs, then the School
District issues a SCADL indicating that the development is not in
compliance with the adopted LOS and offers the developer a 90 -day
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 buildings for use as a primary or alternative learning
facility; or
Community Development Department Indian River County
36
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
iii. Provision of additional Permanent Student Stations through the
renovation of existing buildings for use as learning facilities; or
iv. Construction of Permanent Student Stations or Core Capacity; or
v. Construction of a school in advance of the time set forth 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 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
if requested and approved by the School Board.
2. 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 SCADL. Such an agreement may be entered into only in
conjunction with a Final SCADL.
3. If all mitigation options are denied at the Conditional SCADL stage 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 purposes, and the County
shall not vest approval of any Proposed Residential Development for such
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.
f. The County shall be responsible for notifying the School District when a
Proposed Residential Development has paid its impact fees and when the
Development Order for the Proposed Residential Development expires.
g. The School District shall update its School Concurrency Database to reflect
the number of students that will be generated from the newly vested
residential unit, decreasing the number of available student stations for each
school type within the designated school service areas.
POLICY 2.5: 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.
Community Development Department Indian River County
37
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
POLICY 2.6: 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 2.7: The County shall notify the School District within 10 working 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 of occupancy issued.
OBJECTIVE 3: COORDINATION
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, 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:
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 SWG as the monitoring group for
coordinated planning and school concurrency in Indian River County.
Community Development Department Indian River County
38
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
POLICY 3.6: The County shall maintain school concurrency provisions in its Land
Development Regulations (LDR).
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 Long Range Public School Facilities Map are consistent
with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Any changes to the
School District's Long Range Public School Facilities Map will be consistent with the
County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
OBJECTIVE 4: Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements
The five-year schedule of capital improvements will include those school 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
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
bears the primary role of executing the Interlocal Agreement. The planning staff must
Community Development Department Indian River County
39
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
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 12.15.
Table 12.15: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix
POLICY
TYPE OF ACTION
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
#
1.1
Establish School Level of
School District/
2008
No
Service (LOS)
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
1.2
Establish SSAs
School District/Municipalities/
Ongoing
No
Planning Dept.
1.3
Procedures to modify SSAB
School District/Municipalities/
Ongoing
No
Planning Dept.
2.1
Approval of residential
School District/
Ongoing
No
development
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
2.2
Residential exemptions
School District/Municipalities/
Ongoing
No
Planning Dept.
2.3
Types of SCADLs and
School District/
Ongoing
No
vesting stages
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
2.4
School concurrency review
School District/
Ongoing
g g
No
process
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
2.5
Proportionate share mitigation
School District/Municipalities/
Ongoing
No
Planning Dept.
2.6
Enforceable binding
School District/
Ongoing
No
agreement
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
2'7
School impact fees/vesting of
School District/
Ongoing
No
residential development
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
School District and County
2.8
notifications for issuance of
School District/
Ongoing
g g
No
residential building permits
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
and CO's.
3.1
Infrastructure needs
BCC/municipalities/School
Ongoing
Yes
identification
Board
3.2
School Board agreement on
BCC/municipalities/School
Ongoing
g g
No
off-site improvements
Board
3.3
School sites near residential
BCC/municipalities/School
Ongoing
No
Board
3.4
Co -location with public
School District/
Ongoing
No
facilities
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
3.5
SPTAC to monitor
School District/
Ongoing
g g
No
concurrency
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
3.6
Maintain LDRs
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
Ongoing
No
3.7
Emergency preparedness
School District/
Ongoing
No
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
Consistency between
3.8
County's Comp Plan and
School District/
Ongoing
No
School District's Long Range
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
Public School Facilities Map
Community Development Department Indian River County
40
Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element
POLICY
TYPE OF ACTION
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
#
Incorporate School District
School District/
Yes (School
4.1
capital improvement plan
Municipalities/ Planning Dept
Ongoing
District)
tables
Annual review of PSFE &
School District/
4.2
long range map series
Municipalities/ Planning Dept.
Ongoing
No
EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROCEDURES
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.
FXommunity Development\Comprehensive Plan Elements\Public School Facilities Element\2010 Update\PSFE -Draft v3.doc
Community Development Department Indian River County
41