Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2020 (2)BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020 - 9:00 AM Commission Chambers Indian River County Administration Complex 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388 www.ircgov.com COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Chairman Susan Adams Vice Chairman Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Tim Zorc Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 1. CALL TO ORDER 2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 2.B. INVOCATION Pastor Chris Sloan, Good Shepherd Church of God 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dylan Reingold, County Attorney 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS 5. PROCLAMATIONS andPRESENTATIONS 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.A. Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2019 7. INFORMATION ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS NOT REQUIRING BOARD ACTION January 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6 7.A. 1st Quarter FY 2019/2020 Budget Report Attachments: Staff Report Reports at a glance 2019-2020 Qtrly Budget Report Q1 201920 revenue Qtrly Budget Report Q1 201920 expense 12-31-19 Expense Analysis Budget Amendment History 1920 8. CONSENT AGENDA 8.A. GRBK GHO Central Vero, LLC Request for Final Plat Approval for a Development to be known as Bella Vista Isles [SD -05-04-18 / 2004070335-84132] Attachments: Staff Report Location Map Final Plat Layout 8.B. Approval of Renewal of the Public Safety Communications System FX Software Services Agreement Attachments. Staff Report Software Agreement FY 19-20 8.C. Revision to Administrative Policy AM -704.1 Sick Leave Donation Attachments: Staff Report AM -704.1 Sick Leave Donation (markup) AM -704.1 Sick Leave Donation (final) 8.D. Revision to Administrative Policy AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution Attachments: Staff Report AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution 2020 (markup) AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution 2020 (final) 8.E. Approval of Florida Legislative Grant for Moorhen Marsh Low Energy Aquatic Plant System Attachments: Staff Report Legislative Grant FDEP Agreement LPA0018 Indian River County Grant Form 8.F. Work Order No. 13 - Morgan & Eklund, Inc. 2020 Beach Profile Monitoring Surveys (WINTER) Attachments: Staff Report MorganandEklund WO #13 Scope of Work Winter Monitoring Survey January 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6 8.G. Extension of Annual Maintenance of West Westlands Treatment Ecotech Consultants Inc. (RFP2018004) Attachments: Staff Report Sample Agreement 8.H. Agreement to Purchase and Sell Real Estate with Balquees, LLC Attachments: Staff Report Agreement to Purchase and Sell 8.I. Biosolids Rule Attachments: Staff Report 8.J. Children's Services Advisory Committee's Annual Report, FY2018-19 Attachments: Staff Report 9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 10. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10.A.1. Mandala Village, LLC's Request to Rezone Approximately 79 A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and RS -3, Residential (up to 3 units/acre) to PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Design and to Obtain Conceptual PD Plan Approval for a Project to Mandala Village [PD -19-01-01 / 2005120297-82906] (Quasi -Judicial) Attachments: Staff Report Location Map Aerial Excerpt from Draft 12/12/2019 PZC Minutes PDTND Rezoning Ordinance Conceptual PD Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS 12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development System with .1 Acres from Single -Family Neighborhood be known as January 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6 12.A.1. Consideration of Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report Attachments: Staff Report DRAFT Impact Fee Update Study Report DRAFT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE B. Emergency Services C. General Services 1. Human Services 2. Sandridge Golf Club 3. Recreation D. Human Resources E. Office of Management and Budget F. Public Works G. Utilities Services 12.G.1. St. Johns River Water Management District's Issuance of the Windsor Properties Inc. Consumptive Use Permit 270-5 Attachments: Staff Report 13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS 13.A. Demolition Lien - 4076 Old Dixie Highway (former Club Bali) Attachments: Staff Report Lien Itemization of cost for demolition 13.B. Request for Closed Attorney -Client Session Relating to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY v. TWENTY-TWO BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES LOCATED BETWEEN, AND INCLUDING, 9586 DOUBLOON DR., AND, BUT NOT INCLUDING, 1820 WABASSO BEACH RD., VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, 32963 (Case No.: 31 2018 CA 000881) Attachments: Staff Report 13.C. Disposition of Real Property Ordinance Attachments: Staff Report Disposal of Real Property 14. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS A. Commissioner Susan Adams, Chairman B. Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman January 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6 C. Commissioner Tim Zorc D. Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan E. Commissioner Bob Solari 15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS A. Emergency Services District B. Solid Waste Disposal District 15.B.1. Approval of Minutes Meeting of October 22, 2019 Attachments: 10222019 SWDD_Draft 15.B.2. Request to Approve Amendment No. 1 to CCNA-2018 Work Order No. 3 to. Geosyntec to Provide Consulting Services Associated with Phase I of the Former South Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan Attachments: Staff Report Geosyntec Amendment No. 1 to CCNA2018 WO No 3 15.B.3. Standardized Recycling Label License Agreement with Recycle Across America Attachments: Staff Report Sample Label License Agreement Sample Printing Agreement 15.B.4. Change Order No. 7 to Thalle (Bid #2018025) Attachments: Staff Report CDM Smith Letter of Recommendation C. Environmental Control Board 16. ADJOURNMENT January 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Except for those matters specifically exempted under the State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Board shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Board of any action on the agenda, including those matters on the Consent Agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which the Board is to take action which was either not on the Board agenda or distributed to the public prior to the commencement of the meeting. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County 's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at (772) 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Anyone who needs special accommodation with a hearing aid for this meeting may contact the Board of County Commission Office at 772-226-1490 at least 20 hours in advance of the meeting. The full agenda is available on line at the Indian River County Website at www.ircgov.com The full agenda is also available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, the Indian River County Main Library, and the North County Library. Commission Meetings are broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27 Rebroadcasts continuously with the following proposed schedule: Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 a.m., Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until 5:OOp.m., Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning, and Saturday at 12:00 Noon to 5:00 p. m. January 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEM Indian River County Inter -Office Memorandum Office of Management and Budget TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 14, 2020 SUBJECT: 1st Quarter FY 2019/2020 Budget Report FROM: Kristin Daniels Budget Director, Office of Management & Budget Following is the staff report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2019/2020. 1 Financial Indicators Snapshot - Dec 2019 to Budget Variance Year -to -Date Gas Tax (Fund 109) ao N V1 M N 0 O '-i - - 51.8%I 0 N 00 0 Q) l0 N -3.8% V 4z[ U Z 0 c -I 00 1-1 e l0 M I� r -I e V' V l0 01 M C' 0 u1 N: l0 [1)11><=111' 0 .-i N: Li 0 LO 1.1 l0 0 M 00 0 l0 4 Teases Change Current Month <--1aa co O s -I as 0l 00 M N .<:1 o l0 00 <=1 • I -6.4% a� -34.0% as o, O V) - .4csi -I N ,_- aa o�„o 4 N V M M 01 r> 01 L/1 4:1 1 -233.8%I Compared Variance Current Month Ln 4 n c-1 177.3% CO* hp, 01 Is - -38.8% a -1 O 01 l0 M l0 N N %--1l0 M N 00 as I~>> V 1 Compared to Prior Year 1 Change Year - to -Date Gas Tax (Fund 109) go M V l0 V -i e N 0 e V M * 01 O 5.8% -3.8% V 4z[ U Z 0 N N 71 : a 35.4% -27.4% 0, -7.4% Building Dept. 0 u1 N: l0 [1)11><=111' 0 .-i N: Li 0 LO 1.1 l0 0 M 00 0 l0 4 Teases Change Current Month .•• o,,, O CV SI co O s -I as 0l 00 M N 24.6% o l0 00 <=1 • I -6.4% -34.0% I-37.0% o, O V) - .4csi -I N ,_- aa o�„o 4 N V M M 01 r> 01 L/1 4:1 1 -233.8%I t 0 0. v ct 'Revenues Gas Tax (Fund 109) Optional Sales Tax (Fund 315) Half Cent Sales Tax Traffic Impact Fees (Fund 102) Impact Fees (Fund 103) I x Io I- ..-, N 0 ♦- Franchise Fees -TOTAL 'Recreation Revenues ' V 4z[ U Z GAC Recreation IG Building 'Profit & Loss Building Dept. Golf Course 15 0) LL ISWDD Shooting Range c O H ro E O u G1 c a z u 0 3 CO 0 Q N N A O : N t Cr, co '3 N 0' LL 001 -GENERAL FUND Comments/ Notes The county budgets ad valorem taxes @ 95% collection. Most are paid by November to receive the 4% discount Senior Resource Association grants not yet budgeted. Balance of payment from Sheriff for School Resource Officers expected to be received next quarter. Animal control and Radio Comm fines revenue is higher later in the year. ILag time in receiving licenses First quarter interest earnings higher than anticipated. Received FPL Disaster Grant in full. Cash forward reserves budgeted, but not actual Difference from 25% $37,924,403 00 ri V1 Ql Lr) W. CO 'Cr 01 m N in ($10,283) ($5,142) O1 V) N. U) i^/? 01 01 N O m N 00 00 O CO v $37,611,225 Percentage of Annual Budget g. io Vl 00 oN° a V CO o .i 00 al 00 .-1 \ u) '1 N N .-i LO o m N M 00 4 ei N 63.0% YTD Revenues $53,582,477 O 01 00 LO .-1 to 0 N. LO N N o m V? 0 O1 m 1/ O o Ni N Ln O N. V .--I i/? V m L011 N V1 V? $62,340,198 Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) 0 00 I.0 V1 .-i V? M .-i N .--1 i/? V W. Q V/ m Ni in OSO'LE$ ON N tfl V? N O moi . .-1 V? N .4 .mi LO V? $24,728,973 LU H l7 0 CO cr 011 N m N l0 V? LVO V1 00 V in. N LO CO N i/? .,-1 N rWI 1 V? 0 N 1 in 0 0 ON in $4,561,018 $24,524,923 ti 01 00 1-1 O1 W 01 IR Account Description 001031 Taxes 001033 Intergovernmental 001034 Charges For Services 001035 Judgments, Fines & Forfeits 1001036 Licenses 001037 Interest 1001038 Miscellaneous 1001039 Other Sources Grand Total D z D LL W u_ H a 0. 0 Z 0 O 0 Comments/ Notes The county budgets ad valorem taxes @ 95% collection. Most are paid by November to receive 4% discount. MSTU includes communications tax and business tax which makes this percentage lower than other funds. Lag time in receiving franchise fee payments- 2 months received in quarter Lag time in receiving 1/2 Cent Sales Tax- 2 months received in quarter Pool and recreation revenues increase in summer Code enforcement fines above budget. First quarter interest earnings higher than anticipated.1 Cash forward reserves budgeted, but not actual 1 Difference from 25% m co 000 0o0 LO ip V? oo CO N m to N N. emi in in O O V1 v m N O N LA n n in.0OD 01 0 oo Ln M to a O1 O N V1 to Percentage of Annual Budget 0 a DP N 21.4% 0 V1 01 N * O .--i N o 01 00 V1 0 O 00 N 00 V -- .i ri p O .i O Cr YTD Revenues N •-1 .-1-1 N. 01 V? V) 0 v i .N-1 01 e-1 V? $1,821,625 m oi m N VT o 0101 cri LO N 00 VI LA' Ln V? $3,437 1 so $13,816,824 Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) n V LO o m i/? .mi O R CN N V? 0 V V1 m N V? $280,422 0N. 000 LO O1 V? 11 00 h V) M V1 N an.LOO L�11 Ln m ,1 C11• N O 00' VT BUDGET 01 00 LA' 00 m Ni in. V1 0 00 V 01 00 V? N LO .-1 V m 011 VI. 00 LO .4 N .'4 N V? 11 N 00 .-i .-I O� N N N V? a .-i O m V? $2,414,231 co M m N mm cr V' m IR Account Description 004031 Taxes 004032 Permits And Fees 004033 Intergovernmental 1004034 Charges For Services 004035 Judgments, Fines & Forfeits 004037 Interest 004038 Miscellaneous 1004039 Other Sources Grand Total 0 0. E 0 U d G1 CI) CL Tu 0 Cl m 0 0. ce 'a Or Mc N >' L N CU N i Q1 0 V 111 TRANSPORTATION FUND Comments/ Notes Paving assessments entry completed at year end. Lag time in receiving constitutional and county gas tax - only 2 payments received in quarter. MPO salary reimbursement completed at year end. Paving assessments interest charged here until year end entry. First quarter interest earnings higher than anticipated. Lag time receiving reimbursements from municipalities for traffic maintenance, etc. reimbursements received at year end. Cash forward reserves budgeted, but not actual Cash forward reserves budgeted, but not actual O _ 0J o u C In ar N ar 5 00 O .--i .N�.. at N of N - ul 40 0CV .ti CO .r Oin n cr v N. l m n v 0 00 ni N i -I .4. +..... Percentage of Annual Budget N OV, N.-1 CO 0 M .-I 31 N m tOO NiDi CO .--1 00 co r -i YTD Revenues 44) m .� to t0 t0 01 a LT N to 0l L1 to ct N .n l0 0 N `" $2,775,2931 tO N 00 m M t/? Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) .m-1 00 Ni" .--I N L? Ln 00) t0 O t0 I. '^ m 0 M N N 000 t0 d .-1 to t�rl a M Ol to La a 00 O V1 cr L) $4,509,157 Drci CO o N V 01 N O 0 c -i al 0 N tan $373,825 $14,033,873 N en 0 .-i Department Description 1111032 Permits And Fees 111033 Intergovernmental 1111034 Charges For Services 111037 lnterest 111038 Miscellaneous 1111039 Other Sources Grand Total 114 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT Comments/ Notes The county budgets ad valorem taxes @ 95% collection. Most are paid by November to receive the 4% discount. Grant paid in lump sum amounts. ALS charges exceeding budgeted figures. False fire alarm revenue higher than budgeted. First quarter interest earnings higher than anticipated. Surplus sale revenue budgeted- no actual 1st qtr. Cash forward reserves budgeted, but not actual 2 a0i N 15 N .-1 CV mE.'i n N 00 0 N a t0 a O O N O Na)tn i/? Percentage of Annual Budget 0 W 000 28.2% o l N O q in CO o t00) eri N g N: N e O O 72.3% YTD Revenues $29,116,553 rn al a In -1 L1 .N -I N a 00 OD .--i to 101 N a LT m N 1r1 N to 1)) to w N N n op O m in Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) .Nt a O o 01 tn. 0 O N -.-1 to 111 0 N t0 e-1- LT 0 N LT 10 11 N N 0 N to .a-1 0 . -1m L $10,678,226 BUDGET $36,033,646 $55,000 0 0 rn a V? 0 0 In 0 0 N. in. 0 ON to a O N to N 0 0 N mi. a Department Description 114031 Taxes 1114033 Intergovernmental 1114034 Charges For Services 114035 Judgments, Fines & Forfeits 114037 Interest 1114038 Miscellaneous 1114039 Other Sources Grand Total O 00 m 01 00 N t0 V). U1 N Ul N 00 to 0 ca 0. E 0 U v 0. x 711 W u O a bA CO O 0. C1) CC b.0 • 'a c• J 00 >. o N N a1 C5 0 � N a } 1 Ly 001- General Fund Comments/ Notes External auditors' costs billed to BCC account upfront, then distributed to other departments. Lower salaries & benefits due to employee turnover. Maintenance contract payments due later in the year. Computer Software budgeted but not yet expensed. Newly added unfilled position. Community Transportation Coordinator expenses include grant funds that have not been received, so are not yet budgeted. [Lag time in reimbursement submittals. Painting of building. Annual renewals for entire year have been paid. Ordering of majority of yearly large print books for the elderly. All computers ordered for the year. Expenses to be incurred later in the year. Yearly subscription paid this quarter. 1 1Lagtime in reimbursement submittals. CRA payments are due in full in December. Contingencies budgeted, but not expended. Vacant position filled. 1 Travel, membership dues & registration fees occur later in the year. Difference from 25% Tr W N 00 Lo VT Lo N 01 oo .-1 VT 0 I.O. 01 V V l0 t/T m CO .-t N M .-1 in. N .=1 01 .-1 M V 1J - Ln N 111 LS 111 7 in. r- e-1 CO Ln .-i .-1 VT Lo Lf1 111 O V' VT 0o V O LO VT '=1 U1 00 N VT -- 1 $443_ 00 O N VT t CF 01 00 111 m VT Lo 00 01 o n .-1 VT CO .-1 M 00 CO LO V? LO N Lfl 00 N in. --- Lo 01 CO 111 VT --- 1: Up CO 00 14 m VT Percentage of Annual Budget e 0 V o 01 0 o M N 0 o 111 N 0 L D Ln N 0 CO N 0 CON M N 42.7% 0 LO .--1 28.6% 0 00 LO N 0 01 -1 N 25.8% 0 CO n N 0 LD ^ 0 01 01 01 0 01 N .-t .0\-1 0 N .0\-1 c -I N 23.5% 1 Z YTD Expenses In .- 1 N 01 N CO VT n 10 111 l0 ci N VT .-1 00 m N. N VT 01 O N Vl LO N VT V' N r-1 V' 1-1 VT O N .1 00 00 In tn. N m 1.0 01 01 0 VT V m LO .-1.-i N N VT N .--1 to N CO VT O .--1 N O 01 VT 01 V .--1 m e-1 VT L0 m 00 m .--1 VT $25,0831 N 0 N UJ Ln 1-1 VT $238,7361 LO .--1 N. N .--1 LO - - VT co 01 0 LD' .-1 .--1 in. 0 N 01 .-i m VT N N Ln 00 N .-i VT 01 VT Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) N 111 01 O N N VT $235,543 .--1 00 CO n .--1 VT 0 LO N Ol 111 N VT 10 In N .-1 Ln .--1 VT N .-1 CO .4 m LO VT N .-1 .-1 M V LO VT .-1 111 Cr r. N CO in. e-1 LO 01 O CO N in. N LO .-1 V CO VT O 0 0 Lri .--1 VT CO 01 CO m .-1 VT 00 01 01 N N N M Ln LO Ln .-1 In in 0 to 1, 01 Ill VT 01 N 0 .y In N N VT 01 1.0 LO ct V .-1 in. N .-1 00 N m VT 0 CO 00 LD M .-1 VT 0 VT REVISED BUDGET LD o 00 M 00 0 .-i VT .-1V s .-t N V' 01 VT N Ln 01 LD VF 01 mN 0 N CO 0 'i VT U1 0 Ln 0 1.0 t/T $2,525,2451 $2,572,447 m O 00 01 0 m Ii VT $1,123,844 01 V LO LO CO en 1J 0 O 0 O LO N $53,5721 m CO Ol .-i 01 VT .-1 .--1 LO N LO 0 N VT O 0 0 01 m N VT V .-1 .-t V 0 0 O7 VT $578,6761 l0 10 N .-I In .--1 VT 00 .--1 I11 1\ .Z1- In VT 0 VT Department Description 101 BCC Operations 102 County Attorney 1103 Geographic Info Systems Dept. 106 General Health 107 Communications/Emergency Svcs 109 Main Library 110 Agencies 1111 Medicaid 112 North County Library 1113 Brackett Family Library _ 1 114 Value Adjustment Board 1118 Ind Riv Soil/Water Conservation 1119 Law Library - 1128 Children's Services 137 Redevelopment Districts 199 Reserves 1201 County Administrator 202 General Services 1203 Human Resources 204 Planning And Development ru CO. C O U N c a 0. x W 7 U Q O cu 13 Y 1 O 0. cu G1 tO • CS m LL A O R Gl N N C � ca • N N 1}i 8 Comments/Notes Expenditures for Veteran's Council based on reimbursement. Expenses to be incurred later in the year during Summer months. Billed quarterly for staff from Health Dept. I Not processed until second qtr. (Vacant budgeted temp position. Maintenance expenses for Captain Forester not yet incurred Vacant position filled end of November. Travel occurs later in the year. Vacant position. Budgeted maintenance expenses to be incurred later in the year during heavier useage in summer. Vacant position filled beginning of November. Grant expenditures to be incurred later this year. Operating supplies budgeted but not occurred yet. Computer Service costs charged on a monthly) basis. Insurance charge done once a year in January. Auto insurance occurs next quarter. Vet bills I not as high as anticipated Delayed VoIP implementation date. Budget !amendment forthcoming. Expenditures based on reimbursement. 'Other professional services occur later in the year. Commission charged on Ad Valorem collections, most collected by December. Tax Collector returns excess fees at year end. First draw is 25% of budget per Florida Statutes. Expenditures based on reimbursement. Expenditures based on reimbursement. Expenditures based on reimbursement. Expenditures based on reimbursement. Difference from 25% 01 N O O N .-1 l0 1l1 0. 00 a, a N N 00 a Vl 00 N 00 0 N H .-1 lO 01 01 Di' 0.0 I/ON 00 0l 00 Vl 4.0 ($385,562) 00 CO N Ot 00 O 00 ."1 M 01 00 O CO N v 0 4.0. 01 N 01 N N N CO l0 lei: 01 V .i 00 00 O N N 00 01 Ol - l000 N V1 N $747 .-i 00 l0 (n 00 NN 03 01 CO l0 it N 00 a a .-i 0 01 00 N - Ol ,.1 CA N ($83,534)1 N 00 00 CO O lO N N 01 N 01 1.0 l0 r en VT $1,497,798 Percentage of Annual Budget o N 00 .-1 Ol a N o m O N e a Sr e-1 o CI) l 00 .H 0 O 01 0 NN N N 0 00 l0 .y 0 00 N 0 01 V r1 22.3% 1 o 0 V1 Ns a O o 01 N N 0 l0 10 01 0 0 N .s-1 0 ^ 00 01 V1 N t.13o NO o 0 l0 CO V V N N o l0 00 M e 0 O 38.2% I 7.6% o In M CO 00 l0 ry YTD Expenses 0l CO CO 00 Tr 03 $108,221 $543,657 00 .-1 01 a CO N 00 0 0 ll1 CO N 1� l0 01 tri a I/O N 00 l0 N a I/O $759,421 '-1 CO CO M 0. V? 1A a N Ql ci 00 $23,592 00 O .-1 a 01 .y N O N $128,748 a 01 0t N l0 I/O ..i0l a CO N a to 01 V) $276,7541 CO 01 6.. N N K1 I/O 00 'i CO 00 N 1-1 O N 00 O 00 IA 00 m" 1-1 I/O N CO 01 04 N 00 I/O O N a l0 00 N 01 N V .n en I/O 1l1 CO 00 O 00 .-1 N O N. I0 us ry es! LO CA Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) 01 1n 00 06 AD I/O $108,782'' $668,134 0 0 a O s I/O 00 CO N l0 a .A Cr 00 00 N r1 0 00 0001 00 1l1 n 01 I/O 00 Ol a a .-i .-.j I/O CO c-1 .i 00(0 I/O 1n 0) 01 N K1 to 0) O1 01 00 N 00 00 O 01 V 0l 01 to 01 N 01 N 00 N 0 M a 1l1 a 01 00 $41,263 00 1n 1. .-1 .l? 0 O1 CO C. 00 to 10 o 0 l0 IN N to l0 N a 0 0) M I/O $794,5061 $13,605,725 a 1n N 'V 0 a to a CO V1 fl1 00 00 $22,9221 $912 0. n 0) N 01 .'i I/O $24,728,973 REVISED BUDGET $275,437, $435,128 $2,672,535 0 0 AD .-f CO I/O Cr a 01 a 00.-1 .i All $451,534 .-1 I0 N a N N $4,579,935 0 00 it N CO M 1.4 0 00 1n 0l N .-i N 00 0) 00 Vl O .1 00 01 CO Cr l0 I0 00 I/O 1.0 e-1 00 .4 01 N I/O 0 N 00 .ti W 0) 00 N 1l1 0 Vl AD r1 I/O CO 01 O I, I/O 0 l0 to 01 n N tel 01a N O 10 0 ci ,..1 V1 0 00 .--I l0 0.1 e- V) $3,178,023 $54,422,898 -1 0 I: 0 0.0 '.j I/O I0 CO s 0 (4) CO I/O $91,6881 $3,647 l0 0 01 .1 IA a I/O N 01 CO LA n..1N 01 06. 01 N Department Description 206 Veterans Services 208 Emergency Management 210 Parks 211 Human Services 1212 Agriculture Extension 215 Parks/Conservation Lands 216 Purchasing 1220 Facilities Management 229 Management & Budget 237 FPL Grant 238 Emergency Mgmt. Base Grant 1241 Computer Services 1246 Risk Management 1250 County Animal Control 251 Mailroom/Switchboard 252 Environmental Control 283 Lagoon 1300 Clerk Of Circuit Court 400 Tax Collector 500 Property Appraiser 600 Sheriff 1700 Supervisor Of Elections 1901 Circuit Court 903 State Attorney 904 Public Defender 907 Medical Examiner Grand Total Budget to Actual Expense Comparison L O 0. cu a 1.01 N OJt ch N ^( >"v LL Comments/ Notes Seasonal operations at pool. Higher expenses (temp. employees) in summer. Seasonal operations at pool. Higher expenses (temp. employees) in summer. Some seasonal operations (summer camps) with higher expenses (temp. employees) in summer. Part time position vacancy. Other Professional Services to be expensed later in year. Capital items not yet purchased. Pro Shop supplies & clay targets less than budgeted. Position vacancies. (Vacant director position. Insurance charges for fund done once per year in January. Capital items not yet purchased. Some project budgets not rolled over until January Budget amendment forthcoming. 'Purchase order rolled over to incorrect fund. I Commission charged on Ad Valorem collections, most collected by December. Tax Collector returns excess fees at year end. Difference from 25% 00 .-1 CO lD 1 O 0000 tri, V? 1 O1 N V? ($47,412) ($34,437) Up N Ln 01 V? o 00 m d` 1 LD 00 O VT CO d' CA Lf) V? v 1.0 01 M 1I CO LA LC) i? N VT o ei V 01o0 N ID ei IA -v-1 CO 0; O ($419,554) Percentage of Annual Budget v O 14.3% 22.7% 0 ,moi es N L!1 22.5% 24.4% 0 N m O Q Z Q Z o0 238.7% 23.8% YTD Expenses 00 O 00 o e -i .--1 V? d' O1 0,d' O l0 .L/? CD 00 M N N V? CO 0 d' o 01 V? CT) N a-1 I� 00 a 1 V? N N d' tf) N r-1 V? N 00 O I� a-1 N. kr., V? in N Ln d` e-1 VT 1.0 l0 O d`N 00 N V? l0 CO l0 0 .--1 V? 00 Ln LO N a-1 V? siol d' Ln O N V? CO 00 al O 01 .- 1 i/? $8,188,3561 Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) $285,127 d' 1 NN O ci V? e-1 MNO d' N V? l0 00 d' x- 1 V? N Lf) N N01 V? 00 01dr 01 </?V? N 00 CO I.O.Le $65,4351 01 0 O� M O1 l0N N e -1V? V? 0 001 CO V? O o NN $8,607,910 REVISED BUDGET LD 0A d' e-1 %--I V? $427,177 N CO 00 01 V? CO LD N 00 Lf1 V? LO LID N te 00 00 N CO CAd' N N. N. V? $27,525,846 i-1 dr N l0 N V? l0 01 0 d' N e -i V? N. CA V) 0 LA V? 0 0 i/? e-1 01 CA 01 e-1 V? 0 0 O 00 V? $34,431,638 Department Description 104 North County Aquatic Center 105 Gifford Aquatic Center 108 Recreation 115 Intergenerational Facility 1116 Ocean Rescue 161 Shooting Range Operations 1199 Reserves 1204 Planning And Development 205 County Planning 1207 Environmental Plan/Code Enforce 210 Parks 1214 Roads and Bridges 1234 Telecommunications 400 Tax Collector Grand Total c 0 .- 1- 0. 0. E 0 U d c a Q x W To -. u U 0 aQ CO •t 0 0. CC }I QJ b m H >0 L N a N t ta �� V } LL LL 0 O N 0 0 O. c 0 F .i 11 Comments/ Notes Contingencies budgeted, but not expended. Insurance charges for fund done once per year in January. Multiple position vacancies. Capital items not yet purchased. Computer software lisence agreement to occur later in the year. Multiple position vacancies. Capital items not yet purchased. Capital items not yet purchased. Auto Insurance & computer software charged later in the year. Capital items not yet purchased. Difference from 25% ($273,783) m N -I N O N VI. n c -I 00 .-1 VT m 00 H Lc)O .-I VI. m N . rri N VT __($134,572) co v M Q1 C N V1 Percentage of Annual Budget 00 .-1 c-1 .-1 , N .--I 0 O OO1 (..1 0 VI .-I 0 00 N .--1 0 til N e-1 0 N t0i N YTD Expenses 0 N W N VT 01 ttD .-1 ,4 VT $72,574 N 0 N V) V VT 00 VI o V) VT V1 01 0101 m .--1 VT 00 001 ,IV1 0 01 VT Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) $492,523 m 0 V) .-1 N N VT 01 lD O 01 VT V1 CO VI. m N VT .--I 00 V 0 N in. N Otrt oi. VD N VT $4,509,157 REVISED BUDGET .-I 0 O N 01 .-I VT 0 N (Y) t0 00 00 VT tD N N l0 m Vt $2,943,2601 N N 0) .-1 CO N VT CO 0 co N 0 1-1 VT N t0 b 00 0 00 VT Department Description 199 Reserves 214 Roads And Bridges 243 Public Works 244 County Engineering 245 Traffic Engineering 1281 Stormwater 1Grand Total FY 2019-2020 lst Qtr. 114 Emergency Services District Comments/ Notes 5.7 pay periods out of 26 were paid in quarter. This is 21.9% of salaries rather than 25%. Multiple position vacancies. 5.7 pay periods out of 26 were paid in quarter. This is 21.9% of salaries rather than 25%. Multiple position vacancies. Insurance charges for fund done once per year in January. Capital expenditures not yet purchased. Payment to Division of Forestry made once per year, done in October. Commission charged on Ad Valorem collections, most collected by December. Tax Collector returns excess fees at year end. Difference from 25% ($845,610) ($284,637) N 00m r6. 00 LO VI ($314,524) 0 o O .--1 VT eo vi 111 .-1 ($1,971,136) Percentage of Annual Budget 0 CT ON 22.4% 0 N e - -I 0 V1 .N-1 %0'001 0 N M 0 Cr N N YTD Expenses $4,354,997 .-1 O m VT 0 t0 0 0 ul v N co n1 m .-1 0 001 0 O r:V 0 00 V? Quarterly Budget (25% of Total) N 0 t0 O 0 N V) VT La 00N l0 RO 01 t0 N VT .--1 O t0 .-j VT m 0V Q) N l0 VT 00 tY) in. N N R V 00 VT $10,678,226 REVISED BUDGET 01 N N O co O N VT $10,790,623 $6,400,716 N N t0 .-1 00 N VT N N tY) .-1 in. 00 00 0) 00 c-1 N VT $42,712,905 Department Description Salaries Benefits Operating !Capital Outlay Grants and Aids Other Uses !Grand Total 00 M a c - LL 00 c X coN O 1- 0 c 00 O C 0. 01 (0 0 0 C 01 0) 3 ated in November (0 0 111 0) O O 0) 21 0 raL 4000 00 V1 m 00 N I 00 Y ri 01 W c�-1 N EXF 01 0 i-1 M L p E 0 (6 v � U G c in 0 T f6 n C -0 Cr G1 0 (^ 0 = o • CL. 1n W A EXP ACCOUNT NAME 1- 0 0 00 DEPT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE 001-110-523-088990- 01 vs. one this FY 01 74% Two bills receiv 40 ti 40 01 00 211,633.78 J H 0 001 -111-564-033170- E N/A Accountin 0 Cr. ui 1n LO 0) C Z z 00 N o 00 O O 01 m N O al 40 400 00 O oo O Orn N 0 z 40 O N 00 00 m 40 O d m 0) T C E C 00 O Ln O 111 LcZ00 CO n 00 -1 O O 0 00 Ni01n 0 0 CCCR-CHILDREN IN CENTE 001 -128-569-088240- REGULAR SALARIES 001-215-572-011120 MAINTENANCE -COURTHOUSE 001-220-519-034611 O1 0) 10% Increase in bud 18% Increase in bud 1n 00 nal 00 ci 00 al N m N l0 al n ro N/A Baffle r O O O 0 LID N 000o0 o Cr; l0 M O O M N t0 1 (0" N N 0 O tD 00 O E 0) 0_ r-4 00 LD 01 01 v1 N 00 N 01 011 01 Cr O 0 (. 0 00 00 l0 al N N O n O N N 0N m M In H 40 (O 0 z U I- W O W w o z O 111 Z cZ w 0 LL J LL \ W Ln 001 -241-513-036992- 001 -600-586-099040- BUD TRANSF-SUPERVISOR ELECTION 001 -700-586-099110- MAINT-STRUCTURE EXCEPT BLDGS 004-161-572-034660 REGULAR SALARIES 004-205-515-011120 r-1 00 O M U1 40 N 00 03 00 O hase of 24 hour I 3 " Z Z Z O O1 40 M M M O al m m O O 1n 00 rnM 00 O O 01 CO CO BUDGET TRANSFER -TAX COLLECTOR 004-400-586-099070 102-151-541-066120-16009 103-109-571-066490-03028 sed road resurf C n 01 N 00 O 00 N O m 03 vi LO Ln 00 00 rn m ROAD RESURFACING 109 -214-541-053360- v0 00 O O 0 0 C C o -0 -0 -0 -0 v 0) EE 0) 0) Ol O1 O O 0 0 C C J d N n 00 al n m M Tr CON 01 m -ii 01 01 01 S 0 H F CC 01 cCwcC 109 -214-541-053360-16020 v J 01LO 00 m 00 O La LS O N m 00 co 01 oo LS 0 c-1 0 N ROAD RESURFACING 109-214-541-053360-18022 0 Z z O 0 0 (0 E Lfia0) T C O E O C 81% Increase M N 0)4-- (0 00 00 00 N In n N 01 N m al 00 00 01 IR BLVD & GRAND HARBOR INTER 109-214-541-066510-18025 m a; LO 00 0 Lncnm m 111 -244-541-036992- O dditional em C E 0) n 81% Increase in Inform c X 0) C Ol 0 0 c U 0 0) 00) O O 0 c 0 O ti M O 01 3 - LL a, } LL 0 01 LL 0 3 - 0 01 >LL 0 0011 u 0 011 LL o � 0 0) O= Z Z O N/A HUD Gran w N/A HUD Gran N Ln NI 0 CO N 0 0 M 001 O O O 00 Ni (0 00 00 O 00 00 n 0 00 H O M N 00 00 al l0 0 0 00 00 01 01al 00 0 0 01 V1 In M .--1 Ms 01-1 H n N O M 01 0 (/1 01 1n m N al M m ca v) 00 1n 0 0 0) 00 0 0 0 n N 0 .--1 mal O O O (0 00 00 0 00 0o n 0 N 00 a-1 m N 00 00 a) l0 O 0o 6 N 01 1n C CO 0 0 0) al n Ci Tf n N a) 00 � O u1 0 In m N 01 .-1 ti n 00 t!) 114 -120-522-012130- W m N 01LID WORKERS COMPENSATION 114-120-522-012140 O 0 Ln x U W 0 Lu F- 0 0 J W N 114 -120-522-036992- O 0 0 114 -120-522-066420- 0 0 0 0 0 O OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERV-DORIAN 128-144-572-033490-19028 00 SECTOR 5 BEACH RENOURISHMENT 128-144-572-066510-17001 SECTOR 3 BEACH RENOURISHMENT 128-144-572-066514-17001 COC TRA GRNT#FL0113L4H091806 136-163-564-036730-19803 O ALCOHOPE GRANT#FL0114L4H091811 136-163-564-036730-19804 0 NEW CHRONICS #FL0119L4H091811 136-163-564-036730-19806 N/A HUD Gran Ln 1n 00 0 COC TRA2 #FL0338L4H091805 136-163-564-036730-19807 w N/A HUD Gran O n r-1 M 0 Tr 00 m 0 CHRONICS #FL0360L4H091809 136-163-564-036730-19808 0 N/A HUD Gran O 01 tO 0) N 0 vi O1 N 0 FAMILY RENT #FL0380L4H091804 136-163-564-036730-19809 N/A HUD Gran O 00 1f1 M 0 N 00 m O NEW HORIZONS #FL0440L4H091807 136-163-564-036730-19811 co O 32470% On n 1n L-1 03 00 n 1n 00 00 0 O w 0) C U C 0 t2, 0) d O > Z Z Z Tr LO N N 10 e-1 00 N rn N1 O (0 CO Cr;' 00 0 oo of ooN 0 0 0 N SEBASTIAN HARBOR PRESERVE IMP 145-146-539-066390-18035 AIN CTR -CAP JACKIE ROBINSN T 308-162-575-066490-19024 AUTOMOTIVE 315 -120-522-066420- O O 0 z O Lri O n n 1n N O Lri 0 use renovations r U Z Ln 0 00 00 O N u- 0 00 00 O 00 0 0 315-214-541-066120-13009 315-220-519-066510-12009 0) (0 cc (0 C U C n O al N- L -1 c-1 m O O LO M m N N N OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 411 -255-534-033190- C bles to St. Luc LO Lfi (0 01M al 1n (0 l0 03 01 V1 00 u O1 v- 4-0 .E - C C E 0 h N E 0) 0) To O a m 00 00 LO 0 00 c n V1 N M line corrosion 309% Reclaimed wat 0 O M O M 00 M M 00 119,151.75 O 0 V1 0 al o e m m ai l0 01 O 00 00 N 00 -1 n to 00 m CO n L-1 .-1 -4 alri .-i OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 411 -255-534-033490- CONTRACTED LABOR SERVICES 441-233-524-033470 REGULAR SALARIES 471-219-536-011120 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 471-235-536-033190 U x U H W 0 Lu 1- cZ 0 tutn 471-235-536-036992 O) E O) 0) tO) 41 00)) 00)) Z Z Z Z O 00 00 0i N O 00 00 cri 15% 3 addit 0 m (0 N n 0) (0 (0 to M 0 N 01 n 00 0 0 CO 00 al OTOR REPAIR 471-235-536-044699-18510 ECYCLE PUMP CRWWTF REPAI 471-235-536-044699-19510 N REGULAR SALA 471-265-536-011120 0 0 N e-1 m E N co U N oc0 O f6 A Q g W c( N O C O G) uj N W i4 183% Accountin 21% 3 addit N 0) p a Z a Q Q Z Z Z Z Y 73 O 0 cement of 500 f LY oo1 N 3- D Z N 40 o 40i )0 o m O1 M N N 00 0l 0o )0 V Ol Ol m 00 0) al .-1 O M M M N V Ln ti OV N O O1 O moo N )0 00 N M 4000 N N O1 01 00 V V O1 T1 M O I.Z O of O U( 0 0) N H 4400 ' O O N O 4.4 01 40 )0 O mm N R o Oo -i n L7 40 0 a 471 -265-536-034210- REGULAR SALARIES 471 -268-536-011120 LIFT STATION REHAB 471-268-536-044699-1951 FEC PAYMENTS 471-269-536-034460 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV 471 -292-536-033190- FUND TRANSFERS OUT 472 -219-536-099210- 0 tion claims/settl � Y O 7 `1 m m u u > L/1 00 0 O 0 (0 00 0 V 1 N/A New acc 4 00 0) 40 0) V l- rn. a -I O ul O N Ol 0l 00 O m 00 O rn O 01 N H O In N V N 03 00 00 00 (0 0) 40000)1U1 41 00 ui Vl 01 00 Ln M 01 m 40 O N V O mom D N O O O v1 N R Ln V V 00 O N 0 40 M 40 N V 40 O 40 N 0 40 N O O O1 M 40 Oo O R of of 40 N N I, OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 501-242-591-033490 w U 0'. w Z 0 40 N w LL O 0c CL CC LU2 O 502 -246-513-033190 WORKERS COMPENSATION 502 -246-519-012140 LEGAL SERVICES 502 -246-519-033110- M INSURANCE CLAIMS 504-127-519-034580 FL BLUE ADMIN FEE 504-127-519-034588 0 N N c-4 01 m n N ti 01 0 STOP LOSS FEES 504 -127-519-034589- rity infrastructure artment added 0- N N 00 00 W 400 V 0 V1 N M 0-40 N <D 00 0- 400 N D LA N 40 0< n 01 rl REGULAR SALARI 505 -234-519-011120- DEPRECIATION 505 -241-513-036610- v O 4D 0- N N 4/1. 0 co00 40 40 Ln ti 0 O H FY 2019/2020 BUDGET RECONCILIATION October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020 Budget Approved Budget as of October 1, 2019 $ 367,725,135 Fund Item Description Projects Carried Forward from FY 2018/2019 001 General Fund/Purchase Order Rollover 004 MSTU/Purchase Order Rollover 108 Rental Assistance/Purchase Order Rollover 109 Secondary Roads/Purchase Order Rollover 111 Transportation/Purchase Order Rollover 114 Emergency Services District/Purchase Order Rollover 128 Beach Restoration/Purchase Order Rollover 140 Court Facilities/Purchase Order Rollover 315 Optional Sales Tax/Purchase Order Rollover 411 SWDD/Purchase Order Rollover 418 Sandridge/Purchase Order Rollover 471 Utilities/Purchase Order Rollover 502 Self Insurance/Purchase Order Rollover 63,658 14,931 30,012 97,232 420,222 509,622 56,468 15,969 484,734 3,859 7,578 453,504 16,065 2,173,854 Budget Amendment 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 Total Budget as of December 31, 2019 $ 369,898,989 11 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator THROUGH Roland M. DeBlois, AICP; Interim Community Development Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP; Chief, Current Development DATE: January 10, 2020 SUBJECT: GRBK GHO Central Vero, LLC Request for Final Plat Approval for a Development to be known as Bella Vista Isles [SD -05-04-18 / 2004070335-84132] It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 2020. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The Bella Vista Isles development is a single phase plat -over site plan project, consisting of 43 units, located at the southeast corner of 26th Street and 66th Avenue. The property is zoned RM -8, Residential Multiple -Family (up to 8 units/acre), and has an M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre) land use designation. The density for Bella Vista Isles is 5.36 units per acre. On April 28, 2005, the Planning & Zoning Commission granted major site plan and preliminary plat approval for the Bella Vista Isles development containing 64 residential units. The applicant subsequently obtained site plan release and constructed a substantial portion of the site improvement and 1 four unit building and then abandoned construction never receiving final plat approval. After construction was abandoned, the project was purchased by new owners, WCF2, LLC and GRBK GHO Central Vero, LLC. The new owners obtained approval for modification to the site plan and preliminary plat, which reduced the number of units from 64 to 43 units but does not substantially modify the site improvements. The applicant (GRBK GHO Central Vero, LLC) has submitted a final application that is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and now requests the Board grant final plat approval. As of this time, the applicant has built 88.2% of the required project improvements, and has "bonded - out" $279,397.65 in the form of cash for the remaining 11.8% of the required improvements. The applicant has submitted the following: 1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; 2. An Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements; 3. A Contract for Construction of remaining required improvements; and 4. A Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement. 12 The Board is now to consider granting final plat approval for Bella Vista Isles. ANALYSIS: Some, but not all, of the required project improvements have been completed. As provided for under the LDRs applicable to this final plat application, the applicant is proposing to "bond -out" the remaining 11.80% of required project improvements (drainage, landscaping, roadways, utilities). Public Works, Utility Services, and Planning have reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining project improvements. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Construction of Required Improvements. The proposed security arrangement, which represents 125% of the estimated cost to construct the required improvements, has been reviewed and approved by county staff. All improvements within Bella Vista Isles will be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities. Those utility facilities will be dedicated to and guaranteed to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department. In addition, a warranty and maintenance agreement will be required for the roads and stormwater improvements, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for Bella Vista Isles. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Final Plat Layout 13 LL 1 7' 65114� l N SS cc AV HIS9 6113 XIS IA V1136 oo-M o V ATTACHMENT #1 V7Va31VT O (a213O8NO V) Ay H199 gi 8 ia2l302tNODV)AV H199 8 s 8 8 PLAT BOOK: :fig 8 8 a i=s�W W 1 t Ba �W g�y< a §Ba=e� €�> 3�d�16�og OLidilR 3 yZo�ilsoapuo lX&:ani' sa S 'na cJ� a�6B J nn iNa 31,61 .01.1-30-IH91N YIDD 30Yd '0601 9'21'0 [Mk= 51.31 aiala lID6roM 0 603333 10 3x11 610011� — — '6'd'3'1'S 301,1 1 0309 1rdDOS 031 T30 C -Y AVM f0 105 030Y130 AVM 30-WJIb HUIOS, z� qa � Cb 6 r6 CO W It �o� d 57,ri% <624 -10 so 5 2 SHEET 2 OF 4 6..421 8 x340 ad'0 b'I .B. 101.,1, 1601 301.1 'DWI 810 13d 163x301.3 AOUIO SYd)6i3..OL03nd3531169 1UL131tY_MO ,01-819 390,86.685 331.05 6300 6- 3.3600 x340 ,1. [MU 3.fMVM10 a AVFI/1 3Y3331, _ �YM-Sl-1lOtl 3lYAltld 11380 V15N V1138 11.100 m� .0101 .8 11 103 30Y1rMOT --' 6110 001x03 A [3 ; 311 a' 1.2.33 01 y 01 An a 1110, 6101 3i 1110, 110, OZ 101 616 11. 101 ,. 101 101 ZY 101 .f" 55 101 Cr 101 6? 101 gg 5b iq 2 2R oak 30YdS 63.10 01 101 30 3x11 N110N` ,L9'80f 0690,80.694) 0 50;023.46 . 1 6146.1 a I 1 8 O 11 5 5 . 4100 [.v ram Y1118-105091 034 00,1.1 .ss. .+015703.)+3'0.7)1 0,m - 0)5,10.030,13 0x0,' ATTACHMENT #2 PLAT BOOK: CLERKS FILE NUMBER "�sQa1, LL 6 cv--41 1:2025 a ° ce % O d <62g co Z g 2 Wq� 0 0 '10'49'75 'SZ 3904 'Z 10008 1074 2134 717019 7-0 70103107 8(79 03003321 3NI7 .4023 30-10O/10 H1005 20 : As1✓<& 4 Ye 30YdS N3d0 ,Of'S19 390,56.695 1602 3004 '5991 '00'0 dad 14303503 l.11ltn 1063030 ,03 03091534 1100 01410 011001 33145 N3d0 8 10'600 0.01$1.695 Ra 3365000 Y 111110 153010 - (0'692 M,S1,20.69N AYM-d0-11tlIo 311.610 0d —'pP_ A/0 0 310810 VISV1 V1138 d LOn 11f.69N / y N-AS'8C— °°-.SI,S-oS 1 5290 3,61.21,6951.69' n . 8 kI 93 101 $? J g m 8 ,00'03 ,0003 „ R 9 3 6 _I V .0511 Lo 351,51.895 3,-1110 00Z tti SL 107 000 L 3,01.20.695 11[9 .o9n1 r I' I .0001 3,21,20.695 1 g801 101 ,0001 3,0110.695 1 s 02135 LC11 ,10521 3.21,01.665 9 ,90 01 3,21.51.695 8 03 101 00'11 3.21,20.695 .(I • a 101 . 1 ,� .6o'I< 3.2130.605 1 `881 I. 3'9.0031{ 1 U41 y i1.00'11 3.6110.605 1 �ogn 33107 8: 8r8 6 101 ,00101 3.21.20,695 665 1' .00'01 3.51,50.695 18 X11 0001 3,21.01.695 N ER 22 kE 1 zone 3.0IS0b95 21.20.6 13 101 10'11 3,61.29.602 000 00 11 3.21.21.695 8 n 03 101 d 0011 3,2156.695 - r9'0 .003 . R 61 Ol �8 ,.1 1.0011 12150.6951. 1 l 11 0 ,0'01 r a 0[J zt 517, o : `3 `,38 t b 8 m 810 R n w t m 010 t' n 1010 2 2' m 8: 0 8 : 6- w 5' R 3 E66252x66aaa h 8 2 0 h it : � €3€ h 8 8 .- 1-., a g$ n 8 0: 5 3 p .°n, r n 3 R R R r 1 1 s8gk8�888s• ::is �amg��m $$888 8t''s. 88 1.1 ^°2ka ^ ^ x10 a 8 c 5,. a 5 n E a a 3 8 8 az 82 ij �isyN 56 ,� 46 .01 s re�c./ Zo°°� F -N t' c Fy P' P� 0.0 00` 10 6 8 x 8+ h 8t. Y 8 8 r„ 2 2' 8 m s 3 B ' r': 5S. R 3 R; h 8 2 0 h it : � 3,R x �:^ a %, S E::- 8 R S :. 8 8 p .°n, r n 3 R R R r 1 1888888 E 2 8o t t •n 'n r : m' _ r t' b ; ., ry t - SS s 5S. ff' t 2 h 8 2 R h it R^ .111 Eg'S R'8 %, Y r •a' 8 R S :. 8 8 p .°n, r n 3 R R R r 1 1888888 88 $$888 8 R ^ ^ ^ ....'x gg^na it ._ N 'R%11n a as -6888E5886E666 glii ns!r ago 1 10 € 0.139 668 : �oaoo'�"00�006g10090�00 5 es 811 E8 WE Wm E=.'0.€< Ws=� EE0000EoEE0000000 00000g000mmg n0.'0..y Wo• -•"d W zgr. dire � ^ Jyat1 I� $ $$$ moo s EEa PEEEEEEEPEg ooa00000eoo oo nii6:o6.;Wt g6d6:�5gs o 0 3 3, .R tl Li; Z 3, u 8 G a 3, r S 8 3, 8 n R 8 a 8 8 9 1-2-I 13691Yd 6190 6,06-em66,1In,.6. Lori 169 6150.1,o.6roV34.ers .u. 66,E - 0.00,uICI0134133'6,.x' ATTACHMENT #2 PLAT BOOK: 1J 0 CLERK'S FILE NUMBER r '0'0'0'7'5 '9L 3090 0/ 90008 1970 113d 791/90 F-9 79931V1 e/1S 0309330 3017 AVM 30-1140/0 H1fOS .4600 3090 '5691 '89'0 Had 103993993 A117110 7993030 ,00 03103930 77990 0309 091001 ,00'019 3,90,56.695 33910✓ .0, 13 AO699 1 yy� 3:0 ! n30915 9310 � 3 AISC .0009 _9_10001 nl Sy � % 11.1 .002 1, 2 .00'191 0.04.00.6104 one 6,31.01,69N € ¢1 f.091 1 [t 107 I( 101 1 •0009 •.00'09 - i'i a u 0099 0 01,00,69NM F. 00'9 O 069 0.0139.6990 I J< 1 3nSZ 51.6990 ▪ 1(101,� (.±) otl n 09101 ^ (111)-3-n .9 14 b5...8 R O 9'69 ,,,e,,99.69,, 1 Fa- 8 gm .0099 0.01,01.609 109 .1904 M,SI,S 30907 S rn 0099 Jo. $ CC 107 8n W8 /9 I� 00 61' .00011 0.01,51.600 F' $ fC 101 8 n * . 1 .0011 0.01,09.000 1 N . 01'10 M,5931.69N e ,00'10 0.01.01.69N F8 90 101 ua 00 11 M.0131.600 1 .00 OL .00.01 188 2:1.4 g � LC 101 y�a y (111.)'31.9 j 6 00'11 0.013 . „ 9C 101I .0009 7.000 8 00'11 0.01.09.609 01 n 06 09 0.01,01.699 00 101 . '4.9099 0.01.50.699 00'10 0,01,60.69 9( 101 77 (101) 31 ,L .9939 3.0131.699 9 0.01.51 .009 3.01.09.6130 .0009 10 P0011031339 5 8E, 8 8 g! gn 8n a! 1 g m n 4 c S n m$ .$.$. .- t a n m Si m 00 2 9 9 5 h 90'7 : r S 9 S B 0 a a 8' f S ' t t g a ,6 P 8 P P N N 8 a 8 9 F 8 a .N ,N N M N 88 ; 8 8 0 991 'amp n,, 31 i E i l i§§ i l 8 B g AN x: 8 8" E 8- g s i 2 Z 90339 5 5 i, S' S S 5 h 7 h s n 7 ES J i 3 7 7 J 'J S .. E, r '0'0'0'7'5 '9L 3090 0/ 90008 1970 113d 791/90 F-9 79931V1 e/1S 0309330 3017 AVM 30-1140/0 H1fOS .4600 3090 '5691 '89'0 Had 103993993 A117110 7993030 ,00 03103930 77990 0309 091001 ,00'019 3,90,56.695 33910✓ .0, 13 AO699 1 yy� 3:0 ! n30915 9310 � 3 AISC .0009 _9_10001 nl Sy � % 11.1 .002 1, 2 .00'191 0.04.00.6104 one 6,31.01,69N € ¢1 f.091 1 [t 107 I( 101 1 •0009 •.00'09 - i'i a u 0099 0 01,00,69NM F. 00'9 O 069 0.0139.6990 I J< 1 3nSZ 51.6990 ▪ 1(101,� (.±) otl n 09101 ^ (111)-3-n .9 14 b5...8 R O 9'69 ,,,e,,99.69,, 1 Fa- 8 gm .0099 0.01,01.609 109 .1904 M,SI,S 30907 S rn 0099 Jo. $ CC 107 8n W8 /9 I� 00 61' .00011 0.01,51.600 F' $ fC 101 8 n * . 1 .0011 0.01,09.000 1 N . 01'10 M,5931.69N e ,00'10 0.01.01.69N F8 90 101 ua 00 11 M.0131.600 1 .00 OL .00.01 188 2:1.4 g � LC 101 y�a y (111.)'31.9 j 6 00'11 0.013 . „ 9C 101I .0009 7.000 8 00'11 0.01.09.609 01 n 06 09 0.01,01.699 00 101 . '4.9099 0.01.50.699 00'10 0,01,60.69 9( 101 77 (101) 31 ,L .9939 3.0131.699 9 0.01.51 .009 3.01.09.6130 .0009 10 P0011031339 5 8E, ,a 's: CONSENT INDIAN, RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jason Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Tad Stone, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: Maria Resto, Emergency Services Manager DATE: January 6, 2020 SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal of the Public Safety Communications System FX Software Services Agreement. It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County. Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On August 9, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved the public safety radio system P25 Migration Project. During the migration period, the county will be operating both the EDACS and P25 radio systems concurrently to maintain a public safety level of service, stable operations, and functionality until completion of the project. An integral part of the EDACS and P25 system is the FX Software. On September 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners approved Communications International as a sole source for the public safety radio system FX Software Services. The FX Software provides enhancements and corrections to public safety EDACS and P25 backbone and radio components. It also assures the County that any new generation radios, hand-held or mobile units, would seamlessly integrate into our communication network. The contract provided for renewal or extension of the contract in one (1) year increments for a total of five (5) years upon mutual consent of the parties. This base contract for services expired on September 30, 2019, and the proposed FY 2019/2020 contract renewal represents extension number one (1) of the original contract. The proposed FY 2019/2020 FX Software agreement will cover all necessary upgrades for the P25 system. The EDACS system will be covered under the same agreement at no charge until the EDACS system is taken out of service. 18 FUNDING: The FX Software is a budgeted expense and the funds are available in the General Fund/Communications/Computer Software account. There is no change in cost from the first year of service. Account Number Agreement Amount 00110719-035120 $95,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Public Safety Communications System FX Software Services Agreement with Communications International Inc. ATTACHMENT: 1. Software Agreement 2. Quote from Communications International 19 SOFTWARE FX AGREEMENT THIS SOFTWARE FX AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is hereby entered into between L3Harris Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, through its Communication Systems Segment with offices at 221 Jefferson Ridge Parkway, Lynchburg, VA 24501 ("L3Harris") and Indian River County, FL ("Subscriber") with offices at on the following terms and conditions: 1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT During the term of this Agreement, as set forth in Section 11, L3Harris agrees to provide Subscriber with the following: A. L3Harris Software Update benefits including software updates, documentation updates and other services, as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, for the software developed and provided by L3Harris and contained within the Subscriber's Designated L3Harris System(s) as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement; and B. L3Harris Security Update Management Service (SUMS) for the updating of security related patches, as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, to the Subscriber's Designated L3Harris System(s) as described in Exhibit Eshibita to this Agreement. 2. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. A. "Contract" means the Agreement for the purchase of the Designated System(s). B. "Current Software Release Levels" means the most recent Software release announced by L3Harris as being commercially available. "Commercially available" does not include interim releases provided as emergency fixes or software released for beta test or noncommercial or similar purposes. C. "Designated System(s)" means the L3Harris system(s) purchased by Subscriber and identified in Exhibit A to this Agreement. The Designated System does not include Third Party Software Products. Excluded Products or other systems to which the Designated System may be linked. D. "Enterprise Configuration" means a radio system level configuration that is capable of supporting large county, multi -county, regional or state-wide installations. E. "Excluded Products" means third Party Products contained in the customer's system that were not sold by L3Harris to Subscriber. F. "L3Harris Licensed Programs" means all L3Harris Software programs and associated documentation nonexclusively licensed to Subscriber by L3Harris for use solely with Subscriber's Designated System. G. "L3Harris Software Updates" means any commercially available corrections, modifications or enhancements to the Licensed Programs generally released and/or provided by L3Harris. H. "L3Harris Authorized Dealer" means an entity authorized by L3Harris to sell certain L3Harris products and systems as an authorized dealer in accordance with the provisions of a Dealer Agreement between L3Harris and such person or entity. I. "JAVA" Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert. An IAVA is an announcement of a computer application software or operating system vulnerability notification in the form of alerts, bulletins, and technical advisories identified by DoD-CERT, a division of the United States Cyber Command. J. "Optional Feature" means those L3Harris Software features, not currently contained in the Subscriber's Designated System, available for Current Software Release Levels that are available to Subscriber at an additional cost. 20 K. "Product Vulnerability Alerts" (PVAs) means security vulnerabilities reported against a product supplied by the L3Harris. Notifications of these PVAs are obtained from multiple sources; governmental, vendor, independent and open source databases. L. "PVA Evaluation" means the L3Harris's process for evaluation of a potential Product Vulnerability Alert affecting products provided by the L3Harris. M. "STIG" means Security Technical Implementation Guide. A STIG is a methodology for standardized secure installation and maintenance of computer software and hardware N. "Security Updates" means software updates that mitigate, address and/or resolve product security vulnerabilities in system components offered by the L3Harris. These updates may include Vendor Patches and/or Vendor Work-Arounds. O. "Security Update Distribution" means the L3Harris providing Security Updates to which the Subscriber is entitled under the terms of this Agreement, affecting components of the Subscriber's Designated System as defined in Exhibit A. P. "Software Updates" means all L3Harris provided software updates to either L3Harris designated SW system components or SUMS Software updates. "SUMS" means L3Harris's Security Update Management Service. L3Harris's automated patch management system that provides periodic, security -related software updates. R. "SUMS Software Updates" means periodic, security -related software, including but not limited to, operating system updates, antivirus signatures, and other security related Windows-based 3rd party updates (Adobe, Java, Flash). S. "Tech -Link" is the technical information section of L3Harris's web site. Access is restricted to authorized subscribers via user ID and password login. T. "Third Party Software Products" means software owned by a party other than L3Harris Corporation. U. "Vendor Patches" means software updates provided by third -party software vendors that mitigate, address and/or resolve PVA(s). V. "Vendor Work-Arounds" means configuration and/or procedural changes provided by third -party software vendors that mitigate, address and/or resolve PVA(s). 3. L3HARRIS SOFTWARE UPDATES Q. A. L3Harris Software Releases Included. With respect to each Licensed Program, and subject to the conditions of this Agreement, L3Harris will provide the Software Updates described belowduring the term of this Agreement. All Updates shall be shipped to Subscriber's Software FX contact designated in Exhibit A of this Agreement via protective packaging containing a quantity of programmed Software media necessary for Subscriber to fully implement the Software Updates within its Designated System. In addition, each shipment of Software Updates shall contain at least one set of Software release notes detailing the contents of the Software Update and providing installation instructions. i. Software Updates Upon Enrollment. As determined by the system audit described in Section 6.A.i. of this Agreement, L3Harris shall provide to Subscriber the Software Updates needed, if any, to bring the Licensed Programs within Subscriber's Designated System up to L3Harris' Current Software Release Levels. Such Updates will be provided at no additional cost to Subscriber provided Subscriber has enrolled in the Software FX program within the enrollment deadline specified in Section 9.A of this Agreement. ii. Subsequent Software Updates. During the term of this Agreement and subject to Subscriber's performance of its obligations, L3Harris shall provide to Subscriber Software Updates, released by L3Harris subsequent to Subscriber's enrollment in Software FX, for the Licensed Programs contained within Subscriber's Designated System. Such subsequent Software Updates may include: 21 a. Enhancements and/or corrections to existing features for all Designated System backbone components and/or radios; b. New features or improvements to existing features implemented via the system components already contained within Subscriber's Designated System. B. System Level Release Documentation: Prior to the general release of a major system release by L3Harris for L3Harris Licensed Programs, L3Harris shall make available a system level release document announcing the impending release, and detailing its contents and impact, if any, on any other L3Harris hardware or Software components. Subscriber acknowledges that older hardware may not have sufficient capacity for the operation of the Software Updates. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE REQUIRES L3HARRIS EITHER TO DESIGN UPDATES THAT REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH DESIGNATED SYSTEM HARDWARE OR TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HARDWARE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND SUBSCRIBER WAIVES ANY SUCH DUTY OR OBLIGATION BY L3HARRIS. 4. L3HARRIS SECURITY UPDATE MANAGEMENT SERVICE A. Security Update Distributions Inclusions. Subject to the conditions of this Agreement, L3Harris will provide periodic Security Updates described below during the term of this Agreement. All Security Updates shall be provided to Subscriber's contact designated in Exhibit A. Security Updates shall contain software necessary for the Subscriber to fully implement the Security Update within the Designated System and at least one set of Software release notes detailing the contents of the Security Updates and providing installation instructions. Security Updates Upon Enrollment. As determined by the system audit described in Section 6.A.i. of this Agreement, L3Harris shall provide to Subscriber the Security Updates needed, if any, to bring the Licensed Programs within Subscriber's Designated System up to L3Harris' current security software release levels. Such updates will be provided at no additional cost to Subscriber provided Subscriber has enrolled in the Software FX program within the enrollment deadlines specified in this Agreement. ii. Subsequent Security Updates. During the term of this Agreement and subject to Subscriber's performance of its obligations, L3Harris shall provide to Subscriber Security Updates that may include: a. Vendor Patches and/or Vendor Work-Arounds, enhancements, corrections and/or changes, made by third -party software vendors to software included in L3Harris provided products subject to the Subscriber's right to receive the third -party software. The Subscriber may be required to have currently executed services/support Agreement(s) with third -party vendor(s) separate from this Agreement. B. SUMS Product Features Summary. a. L3Harris will use reasonable efforts to monitor pertinent governmental, vendor, independent and open source databases for PVAs, IAVAs, STIGs and for any subsequent resolutions that affect products provided by L3Harris that are part of the Subscriber's Designated System. b. L3Harris will make every reasonable effort to verify that the PVA, JAVA, and STIG resolutions, Vendor Patches and/or Vendor Work-Arounds, do not adversely affect L3Harris' stated performance of the Subscriber's Designated System. c. L3Harris will provide Security Update Distributions to the Subscriber at periodic intervals targeting bi-monthly releases. The interval shall be determined solely by L3Harris. More frequent Security Update Distributions may be required to address urgent product security vulnerabilities. Security Update Distributions on other than a bi-monthly basis do not constitute a contractual default by L3Harris. d. L3Harris will provide Security Update Distributions in a means suitable for use on the target devices of the Subscriber's Designated System. Optional On -Site Support Services may be contracted by the Subscriber, outside of this Agreement, through L3Harris or L3Harris' Authorized Dealer as set forth in Section 6.A.iv. 22 e. Prior to the general release by L3Harris of any Security Updates, L3Harris shall make available a SUMS Product release document announcing the impending release, and detailing its contents and impact, if any, on any other L3Harris hardware or Software components. Subscriber acknowledges that older hardware may not have sufficient capacity for the operation of the Software Updates. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE REQUIRES L3HARRIS EITHER TO DESIGN UPDATES THAT REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH DESIGNATED SYSTEM HARDWARE OR TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HARDWARE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND SUBSCRIBER WAIVES ANY SUCH DUTY OR OBLIGATION BY L3HARRIS. f. L3Harris will provide with each Security Update Distribution a Security Release Notes document. This document will detail the PVA resolutions and/or mitigation addressed by this release, installation and installation recovery procedures and software and hardware compatibility information where applicable. Automated Security Update Distribution Services. Subscriber shall be responsible for providing the necessary hardware and licenses to run the automated distribution of Security Updates. This hardware shall be part of Subscriber's Designated L3Harris System or purchased at Subscriber's expense from L3Harris prior to the initialization of this Software FX Agreement. As set forth in Section 9.C. of this Agreement, it shall be the Subscriber's responsibility to complete the security update process on the target devices (e.g. rebooting the target devices) following the Patch Application instructions in the Release Notes accompanying each Security Update Distribution. Optional On -Site Support Services may be contracted by the Subscriber, outside of this Agreement, through L3Harris or L3Harris' Authorized Dealer as set forth in Section 6.A.iv. h. Assessment Reporting. For those PVAs monitored by L3Harris as stated in Section 4.B.a., L3Harris will provide responses assessing the effects of the monitored PVAs on the LMR system and stating L3Harris's recommendations for required actions. Access to the PVA assessments will be granted through Tech -Link, a restricted web site maintained by L3Harris. L3Harris does not guarantee assessment response time, but will make reasonable efforts to provide timely assessment responses. g. 5. SOFTWARE RELEASES NOT INCLUDED A. Software Releases Not Included. The following Software releases are not included within the terms of this Agreement: i. New Products. Any Software products released by L3Harris for which an earlier generation or release level is not already contained within Subscriber's Designated System. If Subscriber wishes to implement such Software products within its Designated System, it will need to license such products at the fees then in effect and purchase any necessary compatible hardware for operation of such Software. ii. Third Party Software. To the extent that such Third Party Software Products are available and compatible with the Designated System, L3Harris reserves the right to charge an additional fee for upgrades to software programs that are licensed by a third party for use with the L3Harris system yet are not the property of L3Harris. The Subscriber may be required to have currently executed services/support Agreement(s) with third -party vendor(s) separate from this Agreement. Subscriber must provide evidence of a current services/support Agreement at the L3Harris's request. 6. SOFTWARE SERVICES INCLUDED A. Services Included. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Subscriber's compliance therewith, L3Harris will provide to Subscriber the services described below. i. System Configuration Baseline and Documentation Update. As part of the initial enrollment process for Software FX, L3Harris may deem it necessary to conduct a system audit of Subscriber's Designated System(s) to be covered under this Agreement. If said audit is required, L3Harris, or its Authorized Dealer will conduct the audit. This audit will be used to verify Subscriber's first-year Software FX Fee 23 and to determine the Software release levels for Licensed Programs contained within Subscriber's System at the time of enrollment, together with any hardware updates necessary to accommodate Software Updates. ii. Installation Phone Support. Subscriber's Software FX subscription shall include telephone support by L3Harris' Technical Assistance Center (TAC) personnel with respect to the installation of Software Updates. Such support will be available during L3Harris' normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday, excluding holidays) and for a period of ninety (90) days from the date the Software Update is released to Subscriber. After-hours emergency support will be available through L3Harris optional System Maintenance services at prices then in effect, provided that Subscriber is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. iii. Upgrade Planning. If Subscriber is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement and its Designated System is classified as an Enterprise Configuration, L3Harris or its Authorized Dealer shall provide an annual consultation service to review L3Harris' planned Software releases and evaluate the operational and financial impact such releases may have on Subscriber's Designated System. If Subscriber is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement and its Designated System is classified below an Enterprise Configuration, upgrade planning is not included within the terms of this Agreement but can be obtained from L3Harris at the rates then in effect for such service. iv. On -Site Services. Initial Installation Services are optionally available, outside of this Agreement, through L3Harris or its Authorized Dealer provided that Subscriber is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. v. Tech -Link. Tech -Link is the restricted access, technical information section of L3Harris's web site. L3Harris will provide FX subscribers access, via user ID and password authorization, to FX and SUMS release documentation and downloadable distribution media. L3Harris will also provide additional authorization to allow subscribers to view PVA, JAVA, and STIG assessment recommendations described in Section 4.B.a. 7. SOFTWARE SERVICES NOT INCLUDED Services Not Included. The following services/products are not included within the terms of this Agreement: i. Hardware Upgrades. In the occasional event that a Software Update released requires a corresponding hardware change, Subscriber will need to purchase separately the compatible hardware required. L3Harris will endeavor to notify Subscriber in advance via the system level release documentation or, if applicable, via Software FX's upgrade planning service of any hardware changes needed in order to implement a Software Update. No such notice will be given for Third Party Software Updates or Excluded Products, and no hardware upgrade may be available. ii. Software Update Installation. Installation of Software Updates for terminal products, Software Updates for infrastructure, and Security Updates by L3Harris are not included, but such installations may be obtained from L3Harris or its Authorized Dealer at the rates then in effect for such service, provided that Subscriber is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. iii. Optional Support Services. Other Software support services Subscriber may require, including, but not limited to, training, customized software programming or troubleshooting through L3Harris's Technical Assistance Center are outside the scope of this Agreement but may be obtainable through other programs offered by L3Harris. 8. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION AND INSTALLATION All Software Updates shall be provided to Subscriber's contact designated in Exhibit A. In addition, each shipment of Software Updates shall contain at least one set of Software release notes detailing the contents of the Software Update and providing installation instructions 24 In the event any Software media contained within Subscriber's Designated System incurs damage, whether from acts of Nature or human error, L3Harris shall provide replacements for such Software to Subscriber at no additional charge, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9. CONDITIONS FOR SERVICE A. Enrollment Deadline. Subscriber agrees to enroll in Software FX no later than sixty (60) days after the earlier of: (i) the first expiration date of the warranty provided by L3Harris for any component of Subscriber's Designated System, or (ii) the first expiration date of the warranty provided by L3Harris for any of the Software within Subscriber's Designated System. If either such warranty already has expired when Subscriber is first offered the Software FX Program, Subscriber will be given a 60 -day grace period in which to enroll in Software FX. A Subscriber meeting the enrollment deadline will receive, at no additional charge as described in Sections 3.A.i. and 4.A.i of this Agreement; the Software Updates needed to bring its Designated System up to L3Harris's Current Software Release Levels to the extent the Designated System hardware is compatible with such Software Updates. B. Subscriber Contact. L3Harris requests that Subscriber identify its Subscriber Contact in Exhibit A. Subscriber shall designate a person with sufficient technical expertise to be able to interact knowledgeably with L3Harris's technical support personnel. To the maximum extent practicable, Subscriber's communications with L3Harris (with regard to the Software Updates provided under this Agreement) should be through the Subscriber Contact. C. Installation. Subscriber agrees to properly install the Software Updates provided by L3Harris in order of receipt from L3Harris. Subscriber understands that Software support provided by L3Harris is limited to L3Harris's Current and current minus 1 Software Release Levels of Licensed Programs for the Designated System. D. Media Labeling. Subscriber agrees that if it makes copies of any Software Update supplied by L3Harris, for backup purposes, Subscriber will reproduce any copyright notice and/or proprietary notice appearing on and/or in such Update and will label all copies with all information, including part numbers and revision levels, provided on the set of media provided by L3Harris. Nothing herein grants Subscriber any right to sublicense any Software or to distribute copies to any other person, and such sublicensing and distribution is expressly prohibited. E. No Modification of Software. Subscriber agrees not to modify, enhance or otherwise alter any Software unless specifically authorized in the user documentation provided by L3Harris with such Software Update or unless the prior written consent of L3Harris is obtained. Under no circumstance shall Subscriber create or permit the creation of any derivative work from any Software or the reverse engineering or replication of any Software. F. L3Harris' obligations under this Agreement are conditional upon Subscriber's compliance with the terms of this Agreement and any Contract then in effect between L3Harris and Subscriber. G. Delegation of Authority. The Subscriber hereby delegates, grants, and assigns to L3Harris, acting as the Subscriber's agent or to a person or entity authorized by L3Harris, all approval rights relating to the selection of Vendor Patches. All approvals given to third -party vendors by L3Harris acting as the subscriber's agent under the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be deemed as being granted by the Subscriber. 10. FEES, TERMS OF PAYMENT & TAXES A. SOFTWARE FX Fee. Subscriber agrees to pay L3Harris or its Authorized Dealer the Software FX Fee, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement, plus taxes pursuant to Subsection D below, for Software FX services provided during the term as defined in Exhibit A. B. Other Charges. Subscriber understands that if it chooses to delay its enrollment in Software FX beyond the deadline described in Section 9.A. of this Agreement, Subscriber will need to license, at the applicable fees 25 Release Levels, as well as any hardware which may be required to accommodate such Updates. C. Due Date. Subscriber's first-year Software FX Fee will be invoiced upon receipt of this Agreement signed by Subscriber. Payment will be due thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. Payment of all amounts due is a condition precedent to L3Harris providing any future Software Updates or other services. D. Taxes. In addition to all fees specified herein, Subscriber shall pay the gross amount of any present or future sales, use, excise, value-added, or other similar tax applicable to the price, sale or delivery of any products or services furnished hereunder or to their use by Subscriber, unless Subscriber shall otherwise furnish L3Harris with a tax -exemption certificate acceptable to the applicable taxing authorities. E. Discontinuance. Subscriber understands that if Subscriber discontinues and then subsequently resumes participation in the Software FX Program, Subscriber will be required to pay a re-entry fee for any benefits provided to Subscriber upon re-entry to the Software FX Program plus the Software FX Fee for the term then commencing. 11. TERM & TERMINATION A. Software FX services will be provided by L3Harris to Subscriber for a one-year term, as defined in Exhibit A to this Agreement, subject to prior payment in full of all outstanding fees and charges at the time of renewal and compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. B. L3Harris shall have the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice if Subscriber fails to pay any fees or charges due hereunder or if Subscriber commits any other breach of this Agreement or commits any breach of any applicable Software license Agreement for any Licensed Program being supported under this Agreement, any contract between Subscriber and L3Harris or any other obligation of Subscriber to L3Harris or any of its affiliates. C. L3Harris shall have the right to discontinue providing Software FX services (including Updates) for any Licensed Program supported under this Agreement. Software Updates may be discontinued at any time at L3Harris's discretion. Other services shall not be discontinued without at least ninety (90) days' prior written notice by L3Harris to Subscriber. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, as Subscriber's sole and exclusive remedy L3Harris will provide a pro -rata refund of Subscriber's annual Software FX Fee if L3Harris elects to discontinue providing Software FX services for any Licensed Program supported under this Agreement. D. Except as provided in Section 11.C. above, under no circumstances (including any termination of this Agreement) shall any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement be refundable once paid by Subscriber. 12. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH, L3HARRIS' TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE FX FEES PAID TO L3HARRIS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. 13. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, excluding its rules pertaining to conflict of laws. Subscriber consents to the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. By entering into this Agreement, L3Harris and Subscriber hereby expressly waive any rights either party may have to a trial by jury of any civil litigation related to or arising out of this Agreement. 14. NOTICES All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed validly given upon being hand delivered, or upon receipt if sent by facsimile, e-mail or if mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Subscriber at the address set forth in Exhibit A or to L3Harris Corporation at 221 Jefferson Ridge Parkway, 26 to the other in writing. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, EXECUTION AND MODIFICATION A. This Agreement contains the entire and only Agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and all prior representations and understandings in connection with the subject matter hereof are superseded and merged herein, and any representation or understanding not incorporated herein shall not be binding upon either party. B. This Agreement shall not become effective until signed on behalf of L3Harris by one of its officers or by an executive duly authorized by L3Harris's Vice President. No change, modification, ratification, rescission, or waiver of this Agreement or any of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon L3Harris unless made in writing and signed on its behalf in like manner. C. L3HARRIS DOES NOT ASSUME ANY OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES OTHER THAN THOSE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT, AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON (INCLUDING L3HARRIS'S RCE'S OR SUBCONTRACTORS OR SUPPLIERS) TO ASSUME FOR L3HARRIS ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. [Signature Page Follows] 27 L3HARRIS'" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives. L3HARRIS: L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS SEGMENT Indian River County, FL: By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: 28 L3HARRIS'" EXHIBIT A DESIGNATED SYSTEM 1. Term of Software FX Agreement. The services, as described in the Software FX Agreement to which this Exhibit A is attached, will be provided for the initial period beginning October I, 2019 and ending September 30, 2020 2. Designated System Fees. The Designated System(s) for which the Software FX Agreement will apply is (are): System Name System Classification FX Option FX Fee Indian River County, FL Software Managed Services MASS-BSN6J $95,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. All Notices and Software Updates under this Software FX Agreement are to be provided by L3Harris to Subscriber under this Agreement are to be sent to: Contact's Name: Company Name: Title: Address: (Do not use P.O. Boxes) Telephone: Email:. 29 CONSENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Jason Brown County Administrator FROM: Suzanne Boyll Human Resources Director DATE: January 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Revision to Administrative Policy AM -704.1 Sick Leave Donation BACKGROUND: Indian River County has established administrative policies outlining various policies, practices and procedures applicable to County employees. The policies are reviewed, and recommended revisions are presented to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (IRCBOCC) for consideration. Revisions to the Sick Leave Donation policy are recommended to reflect the following changes: • Clarifies the policy applies to "off the job" illness or injury • 12 months of employment to be eligible (cannot accrue required minimum balance in 6 months) • Provides for sick leave donations for approved intermittent absences for a regimen of treatment related to a serious medical condition upon approval by County Administrator or County Attorney if applicable. • Includes "reckless behavior" exclusion • Hour for hour basis vs. current conversion of hours based on pay rate. Donations are credited with each pay period. Hours that are unused are returned to donors. • Clarifies absences using donations also count towards FMLA entitlement • Places a cap of 8 weeks of donated time and an overall cap of 12 weeks to include employees own paid leave. Extensions may be approved by County Administrator or County Attorney as applicable based on operational needs. FUNDING: Funding for sick leave is provided in the applicable departmental budget. Adjustments will be made as time is donated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the revisions to Administrative Policy AM -704.1 Sick Leave Donation. 30 ATTACHMENTS: AM-704.1 Sick Leave Donation Policy (markup) AM-704.1 Sick Leave Donation Policy (final) , 31 In order to provide a source of income to employees who have an off the iobare illness or injuryed and require an extended absence from work, it is the policy of the County to permit employees to donate their accrued sick leave to and receive sick leave donations from other employees subiect to the following provisions. 1. Only p,a;entreqular full-time employees who have been continuously employed for at least six -twelve months are eligible to donate sick leave and to receive sick leave donations. Employees must be on leave (paid or unpaid or a combination of the two) a minimum of two consecutive weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week), or be authorized to receive donations for approved intermittent leave as approved by the County Administrator or County Attorney. if applicable, before they are eligible to receive donations. 2. All requests for sick leave donations must be submitted for approval through the department head to the Human Resources Department using the attached "Sick Leave Donations Request Form." Employees must provide the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form (available in Human Resources) before a request for sick leave donations will be considered. This medical certification will be placed in the employee's medical file. 3. Requests for sick leave donation may be initiated when it is expected an employee will exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave due to an extended or an on going intermittent absence from work related to a regimen of treatment. Employees must first exhaust their own sick and vacation leave in order to receive sick leave donations. 4. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to care for an ill or injured family member. 5. Employees who are absent due to an elective procedure unrelated to a serious or prolonged illness or injury are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 6. Employees who have been disciplined within the previous 12 months for chronically being absent from work or for abusing sick leave are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. The discipline must be documented in the employee's personnel file in the Human Resources Department. 7. Employees who are injured in an accident caused by their use of alcohol, controlled substances, e+ -illegal drugs, or reckless behavior are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 32 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY MANUAL RESOURCES AM -704.1 1/21/2020 SUBJECT PAGE SICK LEAVE DONATION 1 of 4 In order to provide a source of income to employees who have an off the iobare illness or injuryed and require an extended absence from work, it is the policy of the County to permit employees to donate their accrued sick leave to and receive sick leave donations from other employees subiect to the following provisions. 1. Only p,a;entreqular full-time employees who have been continuously employed for at least six -twelve months are eligible to donate sick leave and to receive sick leave donations. Employees must be on leave (paid or unpaid or a combination of the two) a minimum of two consecutive weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week), or be authorized to receive donations for approved intermittent leave as approved by the County Administrator or County Attorney. if applicable, before they are eligible to receive donations. 2. All requests for sick leave donations must be submitted for approval through the department head to the Human Resources Department using the attached "Sick Leave Donations Request Form." Employees must provide the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form (available in Human Resources) before a request for sick leave donations will be considered. This medical certification will be placed in the employee's medical file. 3. Requests for sick leave donation may be initiated when it is expected an employee will exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave due to an extended or an on going intermittent absence from work related to a regimen of treatment. Employees must first exhaust their own sick and vacation leave in order to receive sick leave donations. 4. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to care for an ill or injured family member. 5. Employees who are absent due to an elective procedure unrelated to a serious or prolonged illness or injury are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 6. Employees who have been disciplined within the previous 12 months for chronically being absent from work or for abusing sick leave are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. The discipline must be documented in the employee's personnel file in the Human Resources Department. 7. Employees who are injured in an accident caused by their use of alcohol, controlled substances, e+ -illegal drugs, or reckless behavior are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 32 8. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to supplement workers' compensation benefits. 9. Employees who donate their sick leave cannot reduce their sick leave balance to less than two weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week). 10. Employees who have given written notice of their intent to retire or resign are not eligible to donate sick leave. 11. Sick leave is-temav only be donated in hourly increments and will be credited on an hour -for -hour basis. . _ 12. Donations are credited to the recipient's sick leave account on an as -needed basis during the biweekly payroll process. Unused sick leave donations will be returned to the donor 13. Ail -Absences from work utilizing donated sick leave will lae-also count cd againot towards the recipient's annual leave entitlement under the Family and Medical Leave Act as long as the recipient's medical condition satisfies the Family and Medical Leave Act's definition of "serious health condition." 14. Generally, the sick leave donation process terminates upon the employee's return to work, and any future need for sick leave donations will require submitting another written request to the department head. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority, based on business needs, and meet the criteria established under this policy. 15. Employees who are able to continue working and who will be absent from work intermittently for a regimen of care related to their own serious medical condition under Family and Medical Leave Act _ _ _ _ • _ _ may continue-reseiviegreceive sick leave donations while on intermittent leave subject to prior approval by the County Administrator, County Attorney, if applicable, or designee. Medical certification of the duration of the regimen of care must be submitted to 33 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY MANUAL RESOURCES AM -704.1 1/21/2020 SUBJECT PAGE SICK LEAVE DONATION 2 of 4 8. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to supplement workers' compensation benefits. 9. Employees who donate their sick leave cannot reduce their sick leave balance to less than two weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week). 10. Employees who have given written notice of their intent to retire or resign are not eligible to donate sick leave. 11. Sick leave is-temav only be donated in hourly increments and will be credited on an hour -for -hour basis. . _ 12. Donations are credited to the recipient's sick leave account on an as -needed basis during the biweekly payroll process. Unused sick leave donations will be returned to the donor 13. Ail -Absences from work utilizing donated sick leave will lae-also count cd againot towards the recipient's annual leave entitlement under the Family and Medical Leave Act as long as the recipient's medical condition satisfies the Family and Medical Leave Act's definition of "serious health condition." 14. Generally, the sick leave donation process terminates upon the employee's return to work, and any future need for sick leave donations will require submitting another written request to the department head. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority, based on business needs, and meet the criteria established under this policy. 15. Employees who are able to continue working and who will be absent from work intermittently for a regimen of care related to their own serious medical condition under Family and Medical Leave Act _ _ _ _ • _ _ may continue-reseiviegreceive sick leave donations while on intermittent leave subject to prior approval by the County Administrator, County Attorney, if applicable, or designee. Medical certification of the duration of the regimen of care must be submitted to 33 Human Resources as a part of the medical certification process. The employee must first exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave before receiving sick leave donations. Routine intermittent absences from work related to chronic conditions do not qualify for sick leave donation. 16. An eligible employee may receive up to 8 weeks of donated sick leave (based on budgeted hours) within the twelve-month span 'beginning the first day of the donation period. However, the total paid leave absence including the employees own accrued sick and vacation leave as well as donated sick leave may not exceed 20 weeks unless approved in advance by the County Administrator. or County Attorney, if applicable. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority based on business needs. 17. Any employee who falsifies information; deliberately prolongs a medical leave under this program; attempts to buy, sell, or coerce individuals into donating hours; or abuses this program will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Jeseph A. BairdJason E. Brown DATE Formatted: No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2" ( Formatted: Indent Left: 0.2" 34 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY MANUAL RESOURCES AM -704.1 1/21/2020 SUBJECT PAGE SICK LEAVE DONATION 3 of 4 Human Resources as a part of the medical certification process. The employee must first exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave before receiving sick leave donations. Routine intermittent absences from work related to chronic conditions do not qualify for sick leave donation. 16. An eligible employee may receive up to 8 weeks of donated sick leave (based on budgeted hours) within the twelve-month span 'beginning the first day of the donation period. However, the total paid leave absence including the employees own accrued sick and vacation leave as well as donated sick leave may not exceed 20 weeks unless approved in advance by the County Administrator. or County Attorney, if applicable. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority based on business needs. 17. Any employee who falsifies information; deliberately prolongs a medical leave under this program; attempts to buy, sell, or coerce individuals into donating hours; or abuses this program will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Jeseph A. BairdJason E. Brown DATE Formatted: No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2" ( Formatted: Indent Left: 0.2" 34 SICK LEAVE DONATIONS REQUEST FORM Name of Employee: Dept./Division: Position Title: Date Absence Began or Will Begin: Expected Date of Return: *Specify duration of treatment regimen for intermittent absences (Ex: 1 day per week for 12 weeks): Authorized by Department Head: Date To be completed by Human Resources Has the employee provided the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form? (Requests for sick leave donations cannot be processed until Human Resources has this information.) Yes No Based on the Sick Leave Donations Policy, is the employee eligible to receive sick leave donations? Yes No If no, state reason: Human Resources Director Date "Donations for Intermittent Leave Must Have Approval by County Administrator: Signature Date 35 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY RESOURCES AM -704.1 1/21/2020 MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE SICK LEAVE DONATION 4 of 4 SICK LEAVE DONATIONS REQUEST FORM Name of Employee: Dept./Division: Position Title: Date Absence Began or Will Begin: Expected Date of Return: *Specify duration of treatment regimen for intermittent absences (Ex: 1 day per week for 12 weeks): Authorized by Department Head: Date To be completed by Human Resources Has the employee provided the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form? (Requests for sick leave donations cannot be processed until Human Resources has this information.) Yes No Based on the Sick Leave Donations Policy, is the employee eligible to receive sick leave donations? Yes No If no, state reason: Human Resources Director Date "Donations for Intermittent Leave Must Have Approval by County Administrator: Signature Date 35 In order to provide a source of income to employees who have an off the job illness or injury and require an extended absence from work, it is the policy of the County to permit employees to donate their accrued sick leave to and receive sick leave donations from other employees subject to the following provisions. 1. Only regular, full-time employees who have been continuously employed for at least twelve months are eligible to donate sick leave and to receive sick leave donations. Employees must be on leave (paid or unpaid or a combination of the two) a minimum of two consecutive weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week), or be authorized to receive donations for approved intermittent leave as approved by the County Administrator or County Attorney, if applicable, before they are eligible to receive donations. 2. All requests for sick leave donations must be submitted for approval through the department head to the Human Resources Department using the attached "Sick Leave Donations Request Form." Employees must provide the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form (available in Human Resources) before a request for sick leave donations will be considered. This medical certification will be placed in the employee's medical file. 3. Requests for sick leave donation may be initiated when it is expected an employee will exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave due to an extended or an on going intermittent absence from work related to a regimen of treatment. Employees must first exhaust their own sick and vacation leave in order to receive sick leave donations. 4. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to care for an ill or injured family member. 5. Employees who are absent due to an elective procedure unrelated to a serious or prolonged illness or injury are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 6. Employees who have been disciplined within the previous 12 months for chronically being absent from work or for abusing sick leave are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. The discipline must be documented in the employee's personnel file in the Human Resources Department. 7. Employees who are injured in an accident caused by their use of alcohol, controlled substances, illegal drugs, or reckless behavior are not eligible to receive sick leave donations. 36 8. Employees are not eligible to receive sick leave donations in order to supplement workers' compensation benefits. 9. Employees who donate their sick leave cannot reduce their sick leave balance to Tess than two weeks (75 hours for a 37.5 -hour week, 80 hours for a 40 -hour week, and 112 hours for a 56 -hour week). 10. Employees who have given written notice of their intent to retire or resign are not eligible to donate sick leave. 11. Sick leave may only be donated in hourly increments and will be credited on an hour - for -hour basis. 12. Donations are credited to the recipient's sick leave account on an as -needed basis during the biweekly payroll process. Unused sick leave donations will be returned to the donors. 13. Absences from work utilizing donated sick leave will also count towards the recipient's annual leave entitlement under the Family and Medical Leave Act as long as the recipient's medical condition satisfies the Family and Medical Leave Act's definition of "serious health condition." 14. Generally, the sick leave donation process terminates upon the employee's return to work, and any future need for sick leave donations will require submitting another written request to the department head. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority, based on business needs, and meet the criteria established under this policy. 15. Employees who are able to continue working and who will be absent from work intermittently for a regimen of care related to their own serious medical condition under Family and Medical Leave Act may receive sick leave donations while on intermittent leave subject to prior approval by the County Administrator, County Attorney, if applicable, or designee. Medical certification of the duration of the regimen of care must be submitted to Human Resources as a part of the medical certification process. The employee must first exhaust their accrued vacation and sick leave before receiving sick leave donations. Routine intermittent absences from work related to chronic conditions do not qualify for sick leave donation. 16. An eligible employee may receive up to 8 weeks of donated sick leave (based on budgeted hours) within the twelve-month span beginning the first day of the donation 37 period. However, the total paid leave absence including the employees own accrued sick and vacation leave as well as donated sick leave may not exceed 20 weeks unless approved in advance by the County Administrator or County Attorney, if applicable. Such approval will be solely at the discretion of management's authority based on business needs. 17. Any employee who falsifies information; deliberately prolongs a medical leave under this program; attempts to buy, sell, or coerce individuals into donating hours; or abuses this program will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Jason E. Brown DATE 38 SICK LEAVE DONATIONS REQUEST FORM Name of Employee: Dept./Division: Position Title: Date Absence Began or Will Begin: Expected Date of Return: *Specify duration of treatment regimen for intermittent absences (Ex: 1 day per week for 12 weeks): Authorized by Department Head: Date * * * * * * * * * * To be completed by Human Resources Has the employee provided the Human Resources Department with a completed "Certification of Health Care Provider" form? (Requests for sick leave donations cannot be processed until Human Resources has this information.) Yes No Based on the Sick Leave Donations Policy, is the employee eligible to receive sick leave donations? Yes No If no, state reason: Human Resources Director Date *Donations for Intermittent Leave Must Have Approval by County Administrator: Signature Date 39 CONSENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Jason Brown County Administrator FROM: Suzanne Boyll Human Resources Director DATE: January 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Revision to Administrative Policy AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution BACKGROUND: Indian River County has established administrative policies outlining various policies, practices and procedures applicable to County employees. At the January 7, 2020 BCC meeting, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners voted to update AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution policy to address using the County's email system. FUNDING: There is no budgetary impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the revisions to Administrative Policy AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution. ATTACHMENTS: AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution Policy (markup) AM -604.1 Solicitation and Distribution Policy (final) 40 POLICY: It is the policy of the County to prohibit solicitation and distribution on its premises by nonemployees except that nonemployees making solicitation or distribution of materials of a political nature may distribute materials or solicit signatures for petitions in a non -disruptive manner on County property but not within County buildings. Employee solicitation and distribution of materials may only take place as outlined below. COMMENT: 1. Solicitation on County premises shall not be allowed as a general rule because it interferes with the normal operations of the organization, is detrimental to discipline and efficiency on the part of employees, is potentially annoying to customers/clients, and may pose a threat to security. Any authorized solicitation which is found to interfere with the normal working operations of County government shall cease upon such a determination made by the County Administrator. 2. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes general fund drives by a limited number of charitable organizations. Managers and employees may volunteer to assist these organizations by conducting their drives. Other organizations shall be approved/disapproved by the County Administrator or County Attorney for solicitation within their own subordinate groups only. Each employee may decide whether or not to contribute. There will be no discrimination against employees because of their willingness or unwillingness to participate. 3. Employees, including the County Administrator, County Attorney, Assistant County Administrator, and County Commissioners, are permitted to engage in solicitations or distributions of literature for any group or organization, including charitable organizations, only in accordance with the following restrictions. a. The sale of merchandise is prohibited on County premises. b. Solicitation and distribution of literature are prohibited during the time either the employee making the solicitations or distributions, or the targeted employee is on duty. The term "on duty" does not include an employee's authorized lunch or rest periods or other time when the employee is not required to be working. c. Distributions of material dealing with solicitation or distribution of literature/information are prohibited in work areas at all times. This includes distribution of information using the County's email system. d. The distribution of literature in such a manner as to cause litter on County property is prohibited. 41 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY RESOURCES AM -604.1 1/21/2020 MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE Solicitation and Distribution 1 OF 2 It is the policy of the County to prohibit solicitation and distribution on its premises by nonemployees except that nonemployees making solicitation or distribution of materials of a political nature may distribute materials or solicit signatures for petitions in a non -disruptive manner on County property but not within County buildings. Employee solicitation and distribution of materials may only take place as outlined below. COMMENT: 1. Solicitation on County premises shall not be allowed as a general rule because it interferes with the normal operations of the organization, is detrimental to discipline and efficiency on the part of employees, is potentially annoying to customers/clients, and may pose a threat to security. Any authorized solicitation which is found to interfere with the normal working operations of County government shall cease upon such a determination made by the County Administrator. 2. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes general fund drives by a limited number of charitable organizations. Managers and employees may volunteer to assist these organizations by conducting their drives. Other organizations shall be approved/disapproved by the County Administrator or County Attorney for solicitation within their own subordinate groups only. Each employee may decide whether or not to contribute. There will be no discrimination against employees because of their willingness or unwillingness to participate. 3. Employees, including the County Administrator, County Attorney, Assistant County Administrator, and County Commissioners, are permitted to engage in solicitations or distributions of literature for any group or organization, including charitable organizations, only in accordance with the following restrictions. a. The sale of merchandise is prohibited on County premises. b. Solicitation and distribution of literature are prohibited during the time either the employee making the solicitations or distributions, or the targeted employee is on duty. The term "on duty" does not include an employee's authorized lunch or rest periods or other time when the employee is not required to be working. c. Distributions of material dealing with solicitation or distribution of literature/information are prohibited in work areas at all times. This includes distribution of information using the County's email system. d. The distribution of literature in such a manner as to cause litter on County property is prohibited. 41 4. Nonemployees are prohibited from soliciting funds or signatures, conducting membership drives, distributing literature or gifts, offering to sell merchandise or services, or engaging in any other solicitation or similar activity. 5. The County maintains bulletin boards to communicate County information to employees and to post notices required by law. These bulletin boards are for the posting of County information and notices only, and only persons designated by the Human Resources Manager may place notices on or take down material from the bulletin boards. 6. The County mail system is not intended for processing advertising or sales materials to employees unless the goods or services are related to the performance of their work duties. Materials received in the mail facility which are questionable will be challenged and the target employee may be asked to have the mailings stopped. 7. The County's email system is for County business purposes only and solicitation or distribution using the County's email system is prohibited unless authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator or County Attorney as provided in #2 of this policy. JOSEPH A. BAIRDJASON E. BROWN DATE 42 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY RESOURCES AM -604.1 1/21/2020 MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE. Solicitation and Distribution 2 OF 2 4. Nonemployees are prohibited from soliciting funds or signatures, conducting membership drives, distributing literature or gifts, offering to sell merchandise or services, or engaging in any other solicitation or similar activity. 5. The County maintains bulletin boards to communicate County information to employees and to post notices required by law. These bulletin boards are for the posting of County information and notices only, and only persons designated by the Human Resources Manager may place notices on or take down material from the bulletin boards. 6. The County mail system is not intended for processing advertising or sales materials to employees unless the goods or services are related to the performance of their work duties. Materials received in the mail facility which are questionable will be challenged and the target employee may be asked to have the mailings stopped. 7. The County's email system is for County business purposes only and solicitation or distribution using the County's email system is prohibited unless authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator or County Attorney as provided in #2 of this policy. JOSEPH A. BAIRDJASON E. BROWN DATE 42 POLICY: It is the policy of the County to prohibit solicitation and distribution on its premises by nonemployees except that nonemployees making solicitation or distribution of materials of a political nature may distribute materials or solicit signatures for petitions in a non -disruptive manner on County property but not within County buildings. Employee solicitation and distribution of materials may only take place as outlined below. COMMENT: 1. Solicitation on County premises shall not be allowed as a general rule because it interferes with the normal operations of the organization, is detrimental to discipline and efficiency on the part of employees, is potentially annoying to customers/clients, and may pose a threat to security. Any authorized solicitation which is found to interfere with the normal working operations of County government shall cease upon such a determination made by the County Administrator. 2. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes general fund drives by a limited number of charitable organizations. Managers and employees may volunteer to assist these organizations by conducting their drives. Other organizations shall be approved/disapproved by the County Administrator or County Attorney for solicitation within their own subordinate groups only. Each employee may decide whether or not to contribute. There will be no discrimination against employees because of their willingness or unwillingness to participate. 3. Employees, including the County Administrator, County Attorney, Assistant County Administrator, and County Commissioners, are permitted to engage in solicitations or distributions of literature for any group or organization, including charitable organizations, only in accordance with the following restrictions. a. The sale of merchandise is prohibited on County premises. b. Solicitation and distribution of literature are prohibited during the time either the employee making the solicitations or distributions, or the targeted employee is on duty. The term "on duty" does not include an employee's authorized lunch or rest periods or other time when the employee is not required to be working. c. Distributions of material dealing with solicitation or distribution of literature/information are prohibited in work areas at all times. This includes distribution of information using the County's email system. d. The distribution of literature in such a manner as to cause litter on County property is prohibited. 43 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY RESOURCES AM -604.1 1/21/2020 MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE Solicitation and Distribution 1 of 2 It is the policy of the County to prohibit solicitation and distribution on its premises by nonemployees except that nonemployees making solicitation or distribution of materials of a political nature may distribute materials or solicit signatures for petitions in a non -disruptive manner on County property but not within County buildings. Employee solicitation and distribution of materials may only take place as outlined below. COMMENT: 1. Solicitation on County premises shall not be allowed as a general rule because it interferes with the normal operations of the organization, is detrimental to discipline and efficiency on the part of employees, is potentially annoying to customers/clients, and may pose a threat to security. Any authorized solicitation which is found to interfere with the normal working operations of County government shall cease upon such a determination made by the County Administrator. 2. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes general fund drives by a limited number of charitable organizations. Managers and employees may volunteer to assist these organizations by conducting their drives. Other organizations shall be approved/disapproved by the County Administrator or County Attorney for solicitation within their own subordinate groups only. Each employee may decide whether or not to contribute. There will be no discrimination against employees because of their willingness or unwillingness to participate. 3. Employees, including the County Administrator, County Attorney, Assistant County Administrator, and County Commissioners, are permitted to engage in solicitations or distributions of literature for any group or organization, including charitable organizations, only in accordance with the following restrictions. a. The sale of merchandise is prohibited on County premises. b. Solicitation and distribution of literature are prohibited during the time either the employee making the solicitations or distributions, or the targeted employee is on duty. The term "on duty" does not include an employee's authorized lunch or rest periods or other time when the employee is not required to be working. c. Distributions of material dealing with solicitation or distribution of literature/information are prohibited in work areas at all times. This includes distribution of information using the County's email system. d. The distribution of literature in such a manner as to cause litter on County property is prohibited. 43 4. Nonemployees are prohibited from soliciting funds or signatures, conducting membership drives, distributing literature or gifts, offering to sell merchandise or services, or engaging in any other solicitation or similar activity. 5. The County maintains bulletin boards to communicate County information to employees and to post notices required by law. These bulletin boards are for the posting of County information and notices only, and only persons designated by the Human Resources Manager may place notices on or take down material from the bulletin boards. 6. The County mail system is not intended for processing advertising or sales materials to employees unless the goods or services are related to the performance of their work duties. Materials received in the mail facility which are questionable will be challenged and the target employee may be asked to have the mailings stopped. 7. The County's email system is for County business purposes only and solicitation or distribution using the County's email system is prohibited unless authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator or County Attorney as provided in #2 of this policy. JASON E. BROWN DATE 44 SECTION NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE ADMINISTRATIVE HUMAN POLICY RESOURCES AM -604.1 1/21/2020 MANUAL SUBJECT PAGE Solicitation and Distribution 2of 2 4. Nonemployees are prohibited from soliciting funds or signatures, conducting membership drives, distributing literature or gifts, offering to sell merchandise or services, or engaging in any other solicitation or similar activity. 5. The County maintains bulletin boards to communicate County information to employees and to post notices required by law. These bulletin boards are for the posting of County information and notices only, and only persons designated by the Human Resources Manager may place notices on or take down material from the bulletin boards. 6. The County mail system is not intended for processing advertising or sales materials to employees unless the goods or services are related to the performance of their work duties. Materials received in the mail facility which are questionable will be challenged and the target employee may be asked to have the mailings stopped. 7. The County's email system is for County business purposes only and solicitation or distribution using the County's email system is prohibited unless authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator or County Attorney as provided in #2 of this policy. JASON E. BROWN DATE 44 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM CONSENT TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka P.E., Public Works Director FROM: W. Keith McCully, P.E., Stormwater Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Florida Legislative Grant for Moorhen Marsh Low Energy Aquatic Plant System DATE: January 7, 2020 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Florida Legislature awarded Indian River County a $650,000 Legislative Grant for the proposed Moorhen Marsh Low Energy Aquatic Plant System, currently nearing final design. The facility will remove nitrogen and phosphorus from waters of the Indian River Farms Water Control District's North Relief Canal prior to discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. Based on a one-year pilot plant study, staff estimates that approximately 7,600 pounds of nitrogen and 1,250 pounds of phosphorus may be removed from the canal water annually. FDEP prepared the grant agreement (Agreement #LPA0018) and forwarded it to the County for review and execution. Staff has reviewed the Agreement and has no recommended revisions. FUNDING The predesign estimated project cost is approximately $8,705,000. The Legislative Grant will fund up to $650,000 of the project cost, which equals approximately 7.5% of the estimated project cost. Currently, the 19/20 approved Capital Improvement Element has $5,050,000 budgeted in 19/20 and $3 million budgeted in 20/21 in Optional Sales Tax/Public Works/PC North -Moorhen Marsh—Account #31524338-066510-16018. The Project also has a $1,500,000 Cost -Share Grant from St. Johns River Water Management District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Agreement #LPA0018 and authorize the Chairman to execute it on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS Legislative Grant FDEP Agreement #LPA0018 DISTRIBUTION Public Works Stormwater Division APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY 21, 2020 45 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Standard Grant Agreement This Agreement is entered into between the Parties named below, pursuant to Section 215.971, Florida Statutes: 1. Project Title (Project): Agreement Number: Indian River County North Relief Canal Aquatic Plant Project LPA0018 2. Parties State of .Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (Department) Grantee Name: Indian River County Grantee Address: 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Entity Type: Local Government FEID: 59-600674 (Grantee) 3. Agreement Begin Date: Upon Execution Date of Expiration: June 30, 2022 4. Project Number: Project Location(s): (ifdii different from Agreement Number) Lat/Long (27.6916, -80.4614) Project Description: The Grantee will construct a Regional Pollutant Removal Facility that will use naturally occurring aquatic plants to absorb and remove dissolved nutrients from the North Relief Canal. 5. Total Amount of Funding: $650,000.00 Funding Source? Award #s or Line Item Appropriations: Amount per Source(s): ® State ❑Federal LP (FY19-20), GAA Line Item 1657A $650,000.00 0 State ❑Federal 0 Grantee Match Total Amount of Funding + Grantee Match, if any: $650,000.00 6. Department's Grant Manager Grantee's Grant Manager Name: Zachary Easton or successor Address: 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Douglas Building, MS 3602 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Phone: (850) 245-2949 Email: Zachary.Easton@dep.state.fl.us Name: Keith McCully, P.E. or successor Address: 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 226-1562 Email: kmccully@ircgov.com 7. The Parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following attachments and exhibits which are hereby incorporated by reference: ® Attachment 1: Standard Terms and Conditions Applicable to All Grants Agreements 121 Attachment 2: Special Terms and Conditions 111 Attachment 3: Grant Work Plan t'/ Attachment 4: Public Records Requirements ® Attachment 5: Special Audit Requirements 0 Attachment 6: Program -Specific Requirements 0 Attachment 7: Grant Award Terms (Federal) *Copy available at https://facts.tldfs.com in accordance with §215.985, F.S. 0 Attachment 8: Federal Regulations and Terms (Federal) 0 Additional Attachments (if necessary): ® Exhibit A: Progress Report Form 0 Exhibit B: Property Reporting Form !4 Exhibit C: Payment Request Summary Form 0 Exhibit D: Quality Assurance Requirements for Grants 0 Exhibit E: Advance Payment Terms and Interest Earned Memo 0 Additional Exhibits (if necessary): DEP Agreement No. LPA0018 r. 6/20/18 8. The following information applies to Federal Grants only and is identified in accordance with 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1): Federal Award Identification Number(s) (FAIN): Federal Award Date to Department: Total Federal Funds Obligated by this Agreement: Federal Awarding Agency: Award R&D? ❑ Yes ❑N/A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement shall be effective on the date indicated by the Agreement Begin Date above or the last date signed below, whichever is later. Indian River County GRANTEE Grantee Name By (Authorized Signature) Susan Adams, Chairman Date Signed Print Name and Title of Person Signing State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection DEPARTMENT By Secretary or Designee Date Signed Trina Vielhauer, Director - Division of Water Restoration Assistance Print Name and Title of Person Signing ® Additional signatures attached on separate page. DEP Agreement No. LPA0018 v. 6/20/18 DWRA Additional Signatures Zachary Easton, DEP. Grant Manager Sandra Waters, DEP QC Reviewer 48 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO GRANT AGREEMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 1. Entire Agreement. This Grant Agreement, including any Attachments and Exhibits referred to herein and/or attached hereto (Agreement), constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to such subject matter. Any terms and conditions included on Grantee's forms or invoices shall be null and void. 2. Grant Administration. a. Order of Precedence. If there are conflicting provisions among the documents that make up the Agreement, the order of precedence for interpretation of the Agreement is as follows: i. Standard Grant Agreement ii. Attachments other than Attachment 1, in numerical order as designated in the Standard Grant Agreement iii. Attachment 1, Standard Terms and Conditions iv. The Exhibits in the order designated in the Standard Grant Agreement b. All approvals, written or verbal, and other written communication among the parties, including all notices, shall be obtained by or sent to the parties' Grant Managers. All written communication shall be by electronic mail, U.S. Mail, a courier. delivery service, or delivered in person. Notices shall be considered delivered when reflected by an electronic mail read receipt, a courier service delivery receipt, other mail service delivery receipt, or when receipt is acknowledged by recipient. If the notice is delivered in multiple ways, the notice will be considered delivered at the earliest delivery time. c. If a different Grant Manager is designated by either party after execution of this Agreement, notice of the name and contact information of the new Grant Manager will be submitted in writing to the other party and maintained in the respective parties' records. A change of Grant Manager does not require a formal amendment or change order to the Agreement. d. This Agreement may be amended, through a formal amendment or a change order, only by a written agreement between both parties. A formal amendment to this Agreement is required for changes which cause any of the following: (1) an increase or decrease in the Agreement funding amount; (2) a change in Grantee's match requirements; (3) a change in the expiration date of the Agreement; and/or (4) changes to the cumulative amount of funding transfers between approved budget categories, as defined in Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan, that exceeds or is expected to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total budget as last approved by Department. A change order to this Agreement may be used when: (1) task timelines within the current authorized Agreement period change; (2) the cumulative transfer of funds between approved budget categories, as defined in Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan, are less than twenty percent (20%) of the total budget as last approved by Department; and/or (3) fund transfers between budget categories for the purposes of meeting match requirements. This Agreement may be amended to provide for additional services if additional funding is made available by the Legislature. e. All days in this Agreement are calendar days unless otherwise specified. 3. Agreement Duration. The term of the Agreement shall begin and end on the dates . indicated in the Standard Grant Agreement, unless extended or terminated earlier in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions. The Grantee shall be eligible for reimbursement for work performed on or after the date of execution through the expiration date of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, Special Terms and Conditions. However, work performed prior to the execution of this Agreement may be reimbursable or used for match purposes if permitted by the Special Terms and Conditions.. 4. Deliverables. The Grantee agrees to render the services or other units of deliverables as set forth in Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan. The services or other units of deliverables shall be delivered in accordance with the schedule and at the pricing outlined in the Grant Work Plan. Deliverables may be comprised of activities that must be completed prior to Department making payment on that deliverable. The Grantee agrees to perform in accordance with the.ternis and conditions set forth in this Agreement and all attachments and exhibits incorporated by the Standard Grant Agreement. Attachment 1 1 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 49 5. Performance Measures. The Grantee warrants that: (1) the services will be performed by qualified personnel; (2) the services will be of the kind and quality described in the Grant Work Plan; (3) the services will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with industry standards and practices; (4) the services shall not and do not knowingly infringe upon the intellectual property rights, or any other proprietary rights, of any third party; and (5) its employees, subcontractors, and/or subgrantees shall comply with any security and safety requirements and processes, if provided by Department, for work done at the Project Location(s). The Department reserves the right to investigate or inspect at any time to determine whether the services or qualifications offered by Grantee meet the Agreement requirements. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, written acceptance of a particular deliverable does not foreclose Department's remedies in the event deficiencies in the deliverable cannot be readily measured at the time of delivery. 6. Acceptance of Deliverables. a. Acceptance Process. All deliverables must be received and accepted in writing by Department's Grant Manager before payment. The Grantee shall work diligently to correct all deficiencies in the deliverable that remain outstanding, within a reasonable time at Grantee's expense.: If Department's Grant Manager does not accept the deliverables within 30 days of receipt, they will be deemed rejected. b. Rejection of Deliverables. The Department reserves the right to reject deliverables, as outlined in the Grant Work Plan, as incomplete, inadequate, or unacceptable due, in whole or in part, to Grantee's lack of satisfactory performance under the terms of this Agreement. The Grantee's efforts to correct the rejected deliverables will be at Grantee's sole expense. Failure to fulfill the applicable technical requirements or complete all tasks or activities in accordance with the Grant Work Plan will result in rejection of the deliverable and the associated invoice. Payment for the rejected deliverable will not be issued unless the rejected deliverable is made acceptable to Department in accordance with the Agreement requirements. The Department, at its option, may allow additional time within which Grantee may remedy the objections noted by Department. The Grantee's failure to make adequate or acceptable deliverables after a reasonable opportunity to do so shall constitute an event of default. 7. Financial Consequences for Nonperformance. a. Withholding Payment. In addition to the specific consequences explained in the Grant Work Plan and/or Special Terms and Conditions, the State of Florida (State) reserves the right to withhold payment when the Grantee has failed to perform/comply with provisions of this Agreement. None of the financial consequences for nonperformance in this Agreement as more fully described in the Grant Work Plan shall be considered penalties. b. Corrective Action Plan. If Grantee fails to correct all the deficiencies in a rejected deliverable within the specified timeframe, Department may, in its sole discretion, request that a proposed Corrective Action Plan (CAP) be submitted by Grantee to Department. The Department requests that Grantee specify the outstanding deficiencies in the CAP. All CAPs must be able to be implemented and performed in no more than sixty (60) calendar days. i. The Grantee shall submit a CAP within ten (10) days of the date of the written request from Department. The CAP shall be sent to the Department's Grant Manager for review and approval. Within ten (10) days of receipt of a CAP, Department shall notify Grantee in writing whether the CAP proposed has been accepted. If the CAP is not accepted, Grantee shall have ten (10) days from receipt of Department letter rejecting the proposal to submit a revised proposed CAP. Failure to obtain Department approval of a CAP as specified above may result in Department's termination of this Agreement for cause as authorized in this Agreement. ii. Upon Department's notice of acceptance of a proposed CAP, Grantee shall have ten (10) days to commence implementation of the accepted plan. Acceptance of the proposed CAP by Department does not relieve Grantee of any of its obligations under the Agreement. In the event the CAP fails to correct or eliminate performance deficiencies by Grantee, Department shall retain the right to require additional or further remedial steps, or to terminate this Agreement for failure to perform. No actions approved by Department or steps taken by Grantee shall preclude Department from subsequently asserting any deficiencies in performance. The Grantee shall continue to implement the CAP until all deficiencies are corrected. Reports on the progress of the CAP will be made to Department as requested by Department's Grant Manager. iii. Failure to respond to a Department request for a CAP or failure to correct a deficiency in the performance of the Agreement as specified by Department may result in termination of the Agreement. Attachment 1 2 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 50 8. Payment. a. Payment Process. Subject to the terms and conditions established by the Agreement, the pricing per deliverable established by the Grant Work Plan, and the billing procedures established by Department, Department agrees to pay Grantee for services rendered in accordance with Section 215.422, Florida Statutes (F.S.). b. Taxes. The Department is exempted from payment of State sales, use taxes and Federal excise taxes. The Grantee, however, shall not be exempted from paying any taxes that it is subject to, including State sales and use taxes, or for payment by Grantee to suppliers for taxes on materials used to fulfill its contractual obligations with Department. The Grantee shall not use Department's exemption number in securing such materials. The Grantee shall be responsible and liable for the payment of all its FICA/Social Security and other taxes resulting from this Agreement. c. Maximum Amount of Agreement. The maximum amount of compensation under this. Agreement, without an amendment, is described in the Standard Grant Agreement. Any additional funds necessary for the completion of this Project are the responsibility of Grantee. d. Reimbursement for Costs. The Grantee shall be paid on a cost reimbursement basis for all eligible Project costs upon the completion, submittal, and approval of each deliverable identified in the Grant Work Plan. Reimbursement shall be requested on Exhibit C, Payment Request Summary Form. To be eligible for reimbursement, costs must be in compliance with laws, rules, and regulations applicable to expenditures of State funds, including, but not limited to, the Reference Guide for State Expenditures, which can be accessed at the following web address: https:/fwww.mvfloridacfo.com/Division/AA/Manuals/Auditing/Reference Guide For State Expenditures.pdf. e. Invoice Detail. All charges for services rendered or for reimbursement of expenses authorized by Department pursuant to the Grant Work Plan shall be submitted to Department in sufficient detail for a proper pre -audit and post -audit to be performed. The Grantee shall only invoice Department for deliverables that are completed in accordance with the Grant Work Plan. f. Interim Payments. Interim payments may be made by Department, at its discretion, if the completion of deliverables to date have first been accepted in writing by Department's Grant Manager. g. Final Payment Request. A final payment request should be submitted to Department no later than sixty (60) days following the expiration date of the Agreement to ensure the availability of funds for payment. However, all work performed pursuant to the Grant Work Plan must be performed on or before the expiration date of the Agreement. h. Annual Appropriation Continency. The State's performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature. This Agreement is not a commitment of future appropriations. Authorization for continuation and completion of work and any associated payments may be rescinded, with proper notice, at the discretion of Department if the Legislature reduces or eliminates appropriations. i. Interest Rates. All interest rates charged under the Agreement shall be calculated on the prevailing rate used by the State Board of Administration. To obtain the applicable interest rate, please refer to: www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/AA/Vendors/default.htm. j. Refund of Payments to the Department. Any balance of unobligated funds that have been advanced or paid must be refunded to Department. Any funds paid in excess of the amount to which Grantee or subgrantee is entitled under the terms of the Agreement must be refunded to Department. If this Agreement is funded with federal funds and the Department is required to refund the federal government, the Grantee shall refund the Department its share of those funds. 9. Documentation Required for Cost Reimbursement Grant Agreements and Match. If Cost Reimbursement or Match is authorized in Attachment 2, Special Terms and Conditions, the following conditions apply. Supporting documentation must be provided to substantiate cost reimbursement or match requirements for the following budget categories: a. Salary/Wages. Grantee shall list personnel involved, position classification, direct salary rates, and hours spent on the Project in accordance with Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan in their documentation for reimbursement or match requirements. b. Overhead/Indirect/General and Administrative Costs. If Grantee is being reimbursed for or claiming match for multipliers, all multipliers used (i.e., fringe benefits, overhead, indirect, and/or general and administrative rates) shall be supported by audit. If Department determines that multipliers charged by Grantee exceeded the rates supported by audit, Grantee shall be required to reimburse such funds to Department within thirty (30) days of written notification. Interest shall be charged on the excessive rate. Rev. 6/19/2019 Attachment 1 3 of 11 51 c. Contractual Costs (Subcontractors). Match or reimbursement requests for payments to subcontractors must be substantiated by copies of invoices with backup documentation identical to that required from Grantee. Subcontracts which involve payments for direct salaries shall clearly identify the personnel involved, salary rate per hour, and hours spent on the Project. All eligible multipliers used (i.e., fringe benefits, overhead, indirect, and/or general and administrative rates) shall be supported by audit. If Department determines that multipliers charged by any subcontractor exceeded the rates supported by audit, Grantee shall be required to reimburse such funds to. Department within thirty (30) days of written notification. Interest shall be charged on the excessive rate. Nonconsumable and/or nonexpendable personal property or equipment costing $1,000 or more purchased for the Project under a subcontract is subject to the requirements set forth in Chapters 273 and/or 274, F.S., and Chapter 69I-72, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and/or Chapter 691-73, F.A.C., as applicable. The Grantee shall be responsible for maintaining appropriate property records for any subcontracts that include the purchase of equipment as part of the delivery of services. The Grantee shall comply with this requirement and ensure its subcontracts issued under this Agreement, if any, impose this requirement, in writing, on its subcontractors. i. For fixed-price (vendor) subcontracts, the following provisions shall apply: The Grantee may award, on a competitive basis, fixed-price subcontracts to consultants/contractors in performing the work described in Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan. Invoices submitted to Department for fixed- price subcontracted activities shall be supported with a copy of the subcontractor's invoice and a copy of the tabulation form for the competitive procurement process (e.g., Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposals, or other similar competitive procurement document) resulting in the fixed-price subcontract. The Grantee may request approval from Department to award a fixed-price subcontract resulting from procurement methods other than those identified above. In this instance, Grantee shall request the advance written approval from Department's Grant Manager of the fixed price negotiated by Grantee. The letter of request shall be supported by a detailed budget and Scope of Services to be performed by the subcontractor. Upon receipt of Department Grant Manager's approval of the fixed-price amount, Grantee may proceed in finalizing the fixed-price subcontract. ii. If the procurement is subject to the Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act under section 287.055, F.S. or the Brooks Act, Grantee must provide documentation clearly evidencing it has complied with the statutory or federal requirements. d. Travel. All requests for match or reimbursement of travel expenses shall be in accordance with Section 112.061, F.S. e. Direct Purchase Equipment. For the purposes of this Agreement, Equipment is defined as capital outlay costing $1,000 or more. Match or reimbursement for Grantee's direct purchase of equipment is subject to specific approval of Department, and does not include any equipment purchased under the delivery of services to be completed by a subcontractor. Include copies of invoices or receipts to document purchases, and a properly completed Exhibit B, Property Reporting Form. f. Rental/Lease of Equipment. Match or reimbursement requests for rental/lease of equipment must include copies of invoices or receipts to document charges. g. Miscellaneous/Other Expenses. If miscellaneous or other expenses, such as materials, supplies, non-excluded phone expenses, reproduction, or mailing, are reimbursable or available for match or reimbursement under the terms of this Agreement, the documentation supporting these expenses must be itemized and include copies of receipts or invoices. Additionally, independent of Grantee's contract obligations to its subcontractor, Department shall not reimburse any of the following types of charges: cell phone usage; attorney's fees or court costs; civil or administrative penalties; or handling fees, such as set percent overages associated with purchasing supplies or equipment. h. Land Acquisition. Reimbursement for the costs associated with acquiring interest and/or rights to real property (including access rights through ingress/egress easements, leases, license agreements, or other site access agreements; and/or obtaining record title ownership of real property through purchase) must be supported by the following, as applicable: Copies of Property Appraisals, Environmental Site Assessments, Surveys and Legal Descriptions, Boundary Maps, Acreage Certification, Title Search Reports, Title Insurance, Closing Statements/Documents, Deeds, Leases, Easements, License Agreements, or other legal instrument documenting acquired property interest and/or rights. If land acquisition costs are used to meet match requirements, Grantee agrees that those funds shall not be used as match for any other Agreement supported by State or Federal funds. 10. Status Reports. The Grantee shall submit status reports quarterly, unless otherwise specified in the Attachments, on Exhibit A, Progress Report Form, to Department's Grant Manager describing the work performed during the reporting period, problems encountered, problem resolutions, scheduled updates, and proposed work for the next reporting Attachment 1 4of11 Rev. 6/19/2019 52 period. Quarterly status reports are due no later than twenty (20) days following the completion of the quarterly reporting period. For the purposes of this reporting requirement, the quarterly reporting periods end on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. The Department will review the required reports submitted by Grantee within thirty (30) days. 11. Retainage. The following provisions apply if Department withholds retainage under this Agreement: a. The Department reserves the right to establish the amount and application of retainage on the work performed under this Agreement up to the maximum percentage described in Attachment 2, Special Terms and Conditions. Retainage may be withheld from each payment to Grantee pending satisfactory completion of work and approval of all deliverables. b. If Grantee fails to perform the requested work, or fails to perform the work in a satisfactory manner, Grantee shall forfeit its right to payment of the retainage associated with the work. Failure to perform includes, but is not limited to, failure to submit the required deliverables or failure to provide adequate documentation that the work was actually performed. The Department shall provide written notification to Grantee of the failure to .perform that shall result in retainage forfeiture. If the Grantee does not correct the failure to perform within the timeframe stated in Department's notice, the retainage will be forfeited to Department. c. No retainage shall be released or paid for incomplete work while this Agreement is suspended. d. Except as otherwise provided above, Grantee shall be paid the retainage associated with the work, provided Grantee has completed the work and submits an invoice for retainage held in accordance with the invoicing procedures under this Agreement. 12. Insurance. a. Insurance Requirements for Sub -Grantees and/or Subcontractors. The Grantee shall require its sub -grantees and/or subcontractors, if any, to maintain insurance coverage of such types and with such terms and limits as described in this Agreement. The Grantee shall require all its sub -grantees and/or subcontractors, if any, to make compliance with the insurance requirements of this Agreement a condition of all contracts that are related to this Agreement. Sub -grantees and/or subcontractors must provide proof of insurance upon request. b. Deductibles. The Department shall be exempt from, and in no way liable for, any sums of money representing a deductible in any insurance policy. The payment of such deductible shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee providing such insurance. c. Proof of Insurance. Upon execution of this Agreement, Grantee shall provide Department documentation demonstrating the existence and amount for each type of applicable insurance coverage prior to performance of any work under this Agreement. Upon receipt of written request from Department, Grantee shall furnish Department with proof of applicable insurance coverage by standard form certificates of insurance, a self- insured authorization, or other certification of self-insurance. d. Duty to Maintain Coverage. In the event that any applicable coverage is cancelled by the insurer for any reason, or if Grantee cannot get adequate coverage, Grantee shall immediately notify Department of such cancellation and shall obtain adequate replacement coverage conforming to the requirements herein and provide proof of such replacement coverage within ten (10) days after the cancellation of coverage. 13. Termination. a. Termination for Convenience. When it is in the State's best interest, Department may, at its sole discretion, terminate the Agreement in whole or in part by giving 30 days' written notice to Grantee. The Department shall notify Grantee of the termination for convenience with instructions as to the effective date of termination or the specific stage of work at which the Agreement is to be terminated. The Grantee must submit all invoices for work to be paid under this Agreement within thirty (30) days of the effective date of termination. The Department shall not pay any invoices received after thirty (30) days of the effective date of termination. b. Termination for Cause. The Department may terminate this Agreement if any of the events of default described in the Events of Default provisions below occur or in the event that Grantee fails to fulfill any of its other obligations under this Agreement. If, after termination, it is determined that Grantee was not in default, or that the default was excusable, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of Department. The rights and remedies of Department in this clause are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. c. Grantee Obligations upon Notice of Termination; After receipt of a notice of termination or partial termination unless as otherwise directed by Department, Grantee shall not furnish any service or deliverable on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice. However, Grantee shall continue work on any portion of the Agreement not terminated. If the Agreement is terminated before performance is completed, Grantee shall be paid only for Attachment 1 5 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 53 that work satisfactorily performed for which costs can be substantiated. The Grantee shall not be entitled to recover any cancellation charges or lost profits. d. Continuation of Prepaid Services. If Department has paid for any services prior to the expiration, cancellation, or termination of the Agreement, Grantee shall continue to provide Department with those services for which it has already been paid or, at Department's discretion, Grantee shall provide a refund for services that have been paid for but not rendered. e. Transition of Services Upon Termination, Expiration, or Cancellation of the Agreement. If services provided under the Agreement are being transitioned to another provider(s), Grantee shall assist in the smooth transition of Agreement services to the subsequent provider(s). This requirement is at a minimum an affirmative obligation to cooperate with the new provider(s), howeveradditional requirements may be outlined in the Grant Work Plan. The Grantee shall not perform any services after Agreement expiration or termination, except as necessary to complete the transition or continued portion of the Agreement, if any. 14. Notice of Default. If Grantee defaults in the performance of any covenant or obligation contained in the Agreement, including, any of the events of default, Department shall provide notice to Grantee and an opportunity to cure that is reasonable under the circumstances. This notice shall state the nature of the failure to perform and provide a time certain for correcting the failure. The notice will also provide that, should the Grantee fail to perform within the time provided, Grantee will be found in default, and Department may terminate the Agreement effective as of the date of receipt of the default notice. 15. Events of Default. Provided such failure is not the fault of Department or outside the reasonable control of Grantee, the following non- exclusive list of events, acts, or omissions, shall constitute events of default: a. The commitment of any material breach of this Agreement by Grantee, including failure to timely deliver a material deliverable, failure to perform the minimal level of services required for a deliverable, discontinuance of the performance of the work, failure to resume work that has been discontinued within a reasonable time after notice to do so, or abandonment of the Agreement; b. The commitment of any material misrepresentation or omission in any materials, or discovery by the Department of such, made by the Grantee in this Agreement or in its application for funding; c. Failure to submit any of the reports required by this Agreement or having submitted any report with incorrect, incomplete, or insufficient information; d. Failure to honor any term of the Agreement; e. Failure to abide by any statutory, regulatory, or licensing requirement, including an entry of an order revoking the certificate of authority granted to the Grantee by a state or other licensing authority; f. Failure to pay any and all entities, individuals, and furnishing labor or materials, or failure to make payment to any other entities as required by this Agreement; g. Employment of an unauthorized alien in the performance of the work, in violation of Section 274 (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; h. Failure to maintain the insurance required by this Agreement; i. One or more of the following circumstances, uncorrected for more than thirty (30) days unless, within the specified 30 -day period, Grantee (including its receiver or trustee in bankruptcy) provides to Department adequate assurances, reasonably acceptable to Department, of its continuing ability and willingness to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement: i. Entry of an order for relief under Title 11 of the United States Code; ii. The making by Grantee of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; iii. The appointment of a general receiver or trustee in bankruptcy of Grantee's business or property; and/or iv. An action by Grantee under any state insolvency or similar law for the purpose of its bankruptcy, reorganization, or liquidation. 16. Suspension of Work. The Department may, in its sole discretion, suspend any or all activities under the Agreement, at any time, when it is in the best interest of the State to do so. The Department shall provide Grantee written notice outlining the particulars of suspension. Examples of reasons for suspension include, but are not limited to, budgetary constraints, declaration of emergency, or other such circumstances. After receiving a suspension notice, Grantee shall comply with the notice. Within 90 days, or any longer period agreed to by the parties, Department shall either: (1) issue a notice authorizing resumption of work, at which time activity shall resume; or (2) terminate the Agreement. If the Agreement is terminated after 30 days of suspension, the notice of suspension shall be deemed to satisfy the thirty (30) days' notice Attachment 1 6 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 54 required for a notice of termination for convenience. Suspension of work shall not entitle Grantee to any additional compensation. 17. Force Majeure. The Grantee shall not be responsible for delay resulting from its failure to perform if neither the fault nor the negligence of Grantee or its employees or agents contributed to the delay and the delay is due directly to acts of God, wars, acts of public enemies, strikes, fires, floods, or other similar cause wholly beyond Grantee's control, or for any of the foregoing that affect subcontractors or suppliers if no alternate source of supply is available to Grantee. In case of any delay Grantee believes is excusable, Grantee shall notify Department in writing of the delay or potential delay and describe the cause of the delay either (1) within ten days after the cause that creates or will create the delay first arose, if Grantee could reasonably foresee that a delay could occur as a result; or (2) if delay is not reasonably foreseeable, within five days after .the date Grantee first had reason to believe that a delay could result. THE FOREGOING SHALL CONSTITUTE THE GRANTEE'S SOLE REMEDY OR EXCUSE WITH RESPECT TO DELAY. Providing notice in strict accordance with this paragraph is a condition precedent to such remedy. No claim for damages, other than for an extension of time, shall be asserted against Department. The Grantee shall not be entitled to an increase in the Agreement price or payment of any kind from Department for direct, indirect, consequential, impact or other costs, expenses or damages, including but not limited to costs of acceleration or inefficiency, arising because of delay, disruption, interference, or hindrance from any cause whatsoever. If performance is suspended or delayed, in whole or in part, due to any of the causes described in this paragraph, after the causes have ceased to exist Grantee shall perform at no increased cost, unless Department determines, in its sole discretion, that the delay will significantly impair the value of the Agreement to Department, in which case Department may: (1) accept allocated performance or deliveries from Grantee, provided that Grantee grants preferential treatment to Department with respect to products subjected to allocation; (2) contract with other sources (without recourse to and by Grantee for the related costs and expenses) to replace all or part of the products or services that are the subject of the delay, which purchases may be deducted from the Agreement quantity; or (3) terminate Agreement in whole or in part. 18. Indemnification. a. The Grantee shall be fully liable for the actions of its agents, employees, partners, or subcontractors and shall fully indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Department and its officers, . agents, and employees, from suits, actions, damages, and costs of every name and description arising from or relating to: i. personal injury and damage to real or personal tangible property alleged to be caused in whole or in part by Grantee, its agents, employees, partners, or subcontractors; provided, however, that Grantee shall not indemnify for that portion of any loss or damages proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of Department; ii. the Grantee's breach of this Agreement or the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee. b. The Grantee's obligations under the preceding paragraph with respect to any legal action are contingent upon Department giving Grantee: (1) written notice of any action or threatened action; (2) the opportunity to take over and settle or defend any such action at Grantee's sole expense; and (3) assistance in defending the action at Grantee's sole expense. The Grantee shall not be liable for any cost, expense, or compromise incurred or made by Department in any legal action without Grantee's prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. c. Notwithstanding sections a. and b. above, the following is the sole indemnification provision that applies to Grantees that are governmental entities: Each party hereto agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the negligent or wrongful acts of its employees and agents. However, nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver by either party of its sovereign immunity or the provisions of Section 768.28, F.S. Further, nothing herein shall be construed as consent by a state agency or subdivision of the State to be sued by third parties in any matter arising out of any contract or this Agreement. d. No provision in this Agreement shall require Department to hold harmless' or indemnify Grantee, insure or assume liability for Grantee's negligence, waive Department's sovereign immunity under the laws of Florida, or otherwise impose liability on Department for which it would not otherwise be responsible. Any provision, implication or suggestion to the contrary is null and void. 19. Limitation of Liability. The Department's liability for any claim arising from this Agreement is limited to compensatory damages in an amount no greater than the sum of the unpaid balance of compensation due for goods or services rendered pursuant to and in compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Such liability is further limited to a cap of $100,000. 20. Remedies. Attachment 1 7 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 55 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to make Grantee liable for force majeure events. Nothing in this Agreement, including financial consequences for nonperformance, shall limit Department's right to pursue its remedies for other types of damages under the Agreement, at law or in equity. The Department may, in addition to other remedies available to it, at law or in equity and upon notice to Grantee, retain such monies from amounts due Grantee as may be necessary to satisfy any claim for damages, penalties, costs and the like asserted by or against it. 21. Waiver. The delay or failure by Department to exercise or enforce any of its rights under this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of Department's right thereafter to enforce those rights,nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right. 22. Statutory Notices Relating to Unauthorized Employment and Subcontracts. a. The. Department shall consider the employment by any Grantee of unauthorized aliens a violation of Section 274A(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If Grantee/subcontractor knowingly employs unauthorized aliens, such violation shall be cause for unilateral cancellation of this Agreement. The Grantee shall be responsible for including this provision in all subcontracts with private organizations issued as a result of this Agreement. b. Pursuant to Sections 287.133 and 287.134, F.S., the following restrictions apply to persons placed on the convicted vendor list or the discriminatory vendor list: i. Public Entity Crime. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a Grantee, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, F.S., •for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. ii. Discriminatory Vendors. An entity or affiliate who has been placed on the discriminatory vendor list may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity. iii. Notification. The Grantee shall notify Department if it or any of its suppliers, subcontractors, or consultants have been placed on the convicted vendor list or the discriminatory vendor list during the life of the Agreement. The Florida Department of Management Services is responsible for maintaining the discriminatory vendor list and posts the list on its website. Questions regarding the discriminatory vendor list may be directed to the Florida Department of Management Services, Office of Supplier Diversity, at (850) 487-0915. 23. Compliance with Federal, State and Local Laws. a. The Grantee and all its agents shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, including, but not limited to, nondiscrimination, wages, social security, workers' compensation, licenses, and registration requirements. The Grantee shall include this provision in all subcontracts issued as a result of this Agreement. b. No person, on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, or disability, shall be excluded from participation in; be denied the proceeds or benefits of; or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in performance of this Agreement. c. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. d. Any dispute concerning performance of the Agreement shall be processed as described herein. Jurisdiction for any damages arising under the terms of the Agreement will be in the courts of the State, and venue will :be in the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County. Except as otherwise provided by law, the parties agree to be responsible for their own attorney fees incurred in connection with disputes arising under the terms of this Agreement. 24. Scrutinized Companies. a. Grantee certifies that it is not on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or engaged in a boycott of Israel. Pursuant to Section 287.135, F.S., the Department may immediately terminate this Agreement at its sole option if the Grantee is found to have submitted a false certification; or if the Grantee is placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or is engaged in the boycott of Israel during the term of the Agreement. Attachment 1 8of11 Rev. 6/19/2019 56 b. If this Agreement is for more than one million dollars, the Grantee certifies that it is also not on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan, Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, or engaged with business operations in Cuba or Syria as identified in Section 287.135, F.S. Pursuant to Section 287.135, F.S., the Department may immediately terminate this Agreement at its sole option if the Grantee is found to have submitted a false certification; or if the Grantee is placed on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List, or Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, or engaged with business operations in Cuba or Syria during the term of the Agreement. c. As provided in Subsection 287.135(8), F.S., if federal law ceases to authorize these contracting prohibitions then they shall become inoperative. 25. Lobbying and Integrity. The Grantee agrees that no funds received by it under this Agreement will be expended for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature or a State agency pursuant to Section 216.347, F.S., except that pursuant to the requirements of Section 287.058(6), F.S., during the term of any executed agreement between Grantee and the State, Grantee may lobby the executive or legislative branch concerning the scope of services, performance, term, or compensation regarding that agreement. The Grantee shall comply with Sections 11.062 and 216.347, F.S. 26. Record Keeping. The Grantee shall maintain books, records and documents directly pertinent to performance under this Agreement in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) consistently applied. The Department, the State, or their authorized representatives shall have access to such records for audit purposes during the term of this Agreement and for five (5) years following the completion date or termination of the Agreement. In the event that any work is subcontracted, Grantee shall similarly require each subcontractor to maintain and allow access to such records for audit purposes. Upon request of Department's Inspector General, or other authorized State official, Grantee shall provide any type of information the Inspector General deems relevant to Grantee's integrity or responsibility. Such information may include, but shall not be limited to, Grantee's business or financial records, documents, or files of any type or form that refer to or relate to Agreement. The Grantee shall retain such records for the longer of: (1) three years after the expiration of the Agreement; or (2) the period required by the General Records Schedules maintained by the Florida Department of State (available at: http://dos.myflorida. com/l ibrarv-archive s/records-management/general-record s -schedules/). 27. Audits. a. Inspector General. The Grantee understands its duty, pursuant to Section 20.055(5), F.S., to cooperate with the inspector general in any investigation, audit, inspection, review, or hearing. The Grantee will comply with this duty and ensure that its sub -grantees and/or subcontractors issued under this Agreement, if any, impose this requirement, in writing, on its sub -grantees and/or subcontractors, respectively. b. Physical Access and Inspection. Department personnel shall be given access to and may observe and inspect work being performed under this Agreement, with reasonable notice and during normal business hours, including by any of the following methods: i. Grantee shall provide access to any location or facility on which Grantee is performing work, or storing or staging equipment, materials or documents; ii. Grantee shall permit inspection of any facility, equipment, practices, or operations required in performance of any work pursuant to this Agreement; and, iii. Grantee shall allow and facilitate sampling and monitoring of any substances, soils, materials or parameters at any location reasonable or necessary to assure compliance with any work or legal requirements pursuant to this Agreement. c. Special Audit Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the applicable provisions contained in Attachment 5, Special Audit Requirements. Each amendment that authorizes a funding increase or decrease shall include an updated copy of Exhibit 1, to Attachment 5. If Department fails to provide an updated copy of Exhibit 1 to include in each amendment that authorizes a funding increase or decrease, Grantee shall request one from the Department's Grants Manager. The Grantee shall consider the type of financial assistance (federal and/or state) identified in Attachment 5, Exhibit 1 and determine whether the terms of Federal and/or Florida Single Audit Act Requirements may further apply to lower tier transactions that may be a result of this Agreement. For federal financial assistance, Grantee shall utilize the guidance provided under 2 CFR §200.330 for determining whether the relationship represents that of a subrecipient or vendor. For State financial assistance, Grantee shall utilize the form entitled "Checklist for Nonstate Organizations Recipient/Subrecipient vs Vendor Determination" (form number DFS -A2 -NS) that can be found under the "Links/Forms" section appearing at the following website: https:\\apps.fldfs.com\fsaa. Attachment 1 9 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 57 d. Proof of Transactions. In addition to documentation provided to support cost reimbursement as described herein, Department may periodically request additional proof of a transaction to evaluate the appropriateness of costs to the Agreement pursuant to State guidelines (including cost allocation guidelines) and federal, if applicable. Allowable costs and uniform administrative requirements for federal programs can be found under 2 CFR 200. The Department may also request a cost allocation plan in support of its multipliers (overhead, indirect, general administrative costs, and fringe benefits). The Grantee must provide the additional proof within thirty (30) days of such request. e. No Commingling of Funds. The accounting systems for all Grantees must ensure that these funds are not commingled with funds from other agencies. Funds from each agency must be accounted for separately. Grantees are prohibited from commingling funds on either a program -by -program or a project -by -project basis. Funds specifically budgeted and/or received for one project may not be used to support another project. Where a Grantee's, or subrecipient's, accounting system cannot comply with this requirement, Grantee, or subrecipient, shall establish a system to provide adequate fund accountability for each project it has been awarded. i. If Department finds that these funds have been commingled, Department shall have the right to demand a refund, either in whole or in part, of the funds provided to Grantee under this Agreement for non-compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. The Grantee, upon such written notification from Department shall refund, and shall forthwith pay to Department, the amount of money demanded by Department. Interest on any refund shall be calculated based on the prevailing rate used by the State Board of Administration. Interest shall be calculated from the date(s) the original payment(s) are received from Department by Grantee to the date repayment is made by Grantee to Department. ii. In the event that the Grantee recovers costs, incurred under this Agreement and reimbursed by Department, from another source(s), Grantee shall reimburse Department for all recovered funds originally provided under this Agreement and interest shall be charged for those recovered costs as calculated on from the date(s) the payment(s) are recovered by Grantee to the date repayment is made to Department. iii. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, the above restrictions on commingling funds do not apply to agreements where payments are made purely on a cost reimbursement basis. 28. Conflict of Interest. The Grantee covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required. 29. Independent Contractor. The Grantee is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of Department. 30. Subcontracting. a. Unless otherwise specified in the Special Terms and Conditions, all services contracted for are to be performed solely by Grantee. b. The Department may, for cause, require the replacement of any Grantee employee, subcontractor, or agent. For cause, includes, but is not limited to, technical or training qualifications, quality of work, change in security status, or non-compliance with an applicable Department policy or other requirement. c. The Department may, for cause, deny access to Department's secure information or any facility by any Grantee employee, subcontractor, or agent. d. The Department's actions under paragraphs b. or c. shall not relieve Grantee of its obligation to perform all work in compliance with the Agreement. The Grantee shall be responsible for the payment of all monies due under any subcontract. The Department shall not be liable to any subcontractor for any expenses or liabilities incurred under any subcontract and Grantee shall be solely liable to the subcontractor for all expenses and liabilities incurred under any subcontract. e. The Department will not deny Grantee's employees, subcontractors, or agents access to meetings within the Department's facilities, unless the basis of Department's denial is safety or security considerations. f. The Department supports diversity in its procurement program and requests that all subcontracting opportunities afforded by this Agreement embrace diversity enthusiastically. The award of subcontracts should reflect the full diversity of the citizens of the State. A list of minority-owned firms that could be offered subcontracting opportunities may be obtained by contacting the Office of Supplier Diversity at (850) 487-0915. g. The Grantee shall not be liable for any excess costs for a failure to perform, if the failure to perform is caused by the default of a subcontractor at any tier, and if the cause of the default is completely beyond the control of both Grantee and the subcontractor(s), and without the fault or negligence of either, unless the subcontracted products Attachment 1 10of11 Rev. 6/19/2019 58 or services were obtainable from other sources in sufficient time for Grantee to meet the required delivery schedule. 31. Guarantee of Parent Company. If Grantee is a subsidiary of another corporation or other business entity, Grantee asserts that its parent company will guarantee all of the obligations of Grantee for purposes of fulfilling the obligations of Agreement. In the event Grantee is sold during the period the Agreement is in effect, Grantee agrees that it will be a requirement of sale that the new parent company guarantee all of the obligations of Grantee. 32. Survival. The respective obligations of the parties, which by their nature would continue beyond the termination or expiration of this. Agreement, including without limitation, the obligations regarding confidentiality, proprietary interests, and public records, shall survive termination, cancellation, or expiration of this Agreement. 33. Third Parties. The Department shall not be deemed to assume any liability for the acts, failures to act or negligence of Grantee, its agents, servants, and employees, nor shall Grantee disclaim its own negligence to Department or any third party. This Agreement does not and is not intended to confer any rights or remedies upon any person other than the parties. if Department consents to a subcontract, Grantee will specifically disclose that this Agreement does not create any third - party rights. Further, no third parties shall rely upon any of the rights and obligations created under this Agreement. 34. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction deems any term or condition herein void or unenforceable, the other provisions are severable to that void provision, and shall remain in full force and effect. 35. Grantee's Employees, Subcontractors and Agents. All Grantee employees, subcontractors, or agents performing work under the Agreement shall be properly trained technicians who meet or exceed any specified training qualifications. Upon request, Grantee shall furnish a copy of technical certification or other proof of qualification. All employees, subcontractors, or agents performing work under Agreement must comply with all security and administrative requirements of Department and shall comply with all controlling laws and regulations relevant to the services they are providing under the Agreement. 36. Assignment. The Grantee shall not sell, assign, or transfer any of its rights, duties, or obligations under the Agreement, or under any purchase order issued pursuant to the Agreement, without the prior written consent of Department. In the event of any assignment, Grantee remains secondarily liable for performance of the Agreement, unless Department expressly waives such secondary liability. The Department may assign the Agreement with prior written notice to Grantee of its intent to do so. 37. Execution in Counterparts and Authority to Sign. This Agreement, any amendments, and/or change orders related to the Agreement, may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument. In accordance with the Electronic Signature Act of 1996, electronic signatures, including facsimile transmissions, may be used and shall have the same force and effect :as a written signature. Each person signing this Agreement warrants that he or she is duly authorized to do so and to bind the respective party to the Agreement. Attachment 1 11 of 11 Rev. 6/19/2019 59 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Special Terms and Conditions AGREEMENT NO. LPA0018 ATTACHMENT 2 These Special Terms and Conditions shall be read together with general terms outlined in the Standard Terms and Conditions, Attachment 1. Where in conflict, these more specific terms shall apply. 1. Scope of Work. The Project funded under this Agreement is Indian River County North Relief Canal Aquatic Plant Project. The Project is defined in more detail in Attachment 3, Grant Work Plan. 2. Duration. a. Reimbursement Period. The reimbursement period for this Agreement begins on July 1, 2019 and ends at the expiration of the Agreement. b. Extensions. There are extensions available for this Project. c. Service Periods. Additional service periods are not authorized under this Agreement. 3. Payment Provisions. a. Compensation. This is a cost reimbursement Agreement. The Grantee shall be compensated under this Agreement as described in Attachment 3. b. Invoicing. Invoicing will occur as indicated in Attachment 3. c. Advance Pay. Advance Pay is not authorized under this Agreement. 4. Cost Eligible for Reimbursement or Matching. Requirements. Reimbursement for costs or availability for costs to meet matching requirements shall be limited to the following budget categories, as defined in the Reference Guide for State Expenditures, as indicated: Reimbursement Match Category O 0 Salaries/Wages Overhead/Indirect/General and Administrative Costs: ❑ ❑ a. Fringe Benefits, N/A. ❑ ❑ b. Indirect Costs, N/A. ❑ Contractual (Subcontractors) O 0 Travel, in accordance with Section 112, F.S. O ❑ Equipment O ❑ •Rental/Lease of Equipment ❑ O Miscellaneous/Other Expenses ❑ ❑ Land Acquisition 5. Equipment Purchase. No Equipment purchases shall be funded under this Agreement. 6. Land Acquisition. There will be no Land Acquisitions funded under this Agreement. 7. Match Requirements There is no match required on the part of the Grantee under this Agreement. 8. Insurance Requirements Required Coverage. At all times during the Agreement the Grantee, at its sole expense, shall maintain insurance coverage of such types and with such terms and limits described below. The limits of coverage under each policy Attachment 2 1 of 2 Rev. 6/14/19 60 maintained by the Grantee shall not be interpreted as limiting the Grantee's liability and obligations under the Agreement. All insurance policies shall be through insurers licensed and authorized to issue policies in Florida, or alternatively, Grantee may provide coverage through a self-insurance program established and operating under the laws of Florida. Additional insurance requirements for this Agreement may be required elsewhere in this Agreement, however the minimum insurance requirements applicable to this Agreement are: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Grantee shall provide adequate commercial general liability insurance coverage and hold such liability insurance at all times during the Agreement. The Department, its employees, and officers shall be named as an additional insured on any general liability policies. The minimum limits shall be $250,000 for each occurrence and $500,000 policy aggregate. b . Commercial Automobile Insurance. If the Grantee's duties include the use of a commercial vehicle, the Grantee shall maintain automobile liability, bodily injury, and property damage coverage. Insuring clauses for both bodily injury and property damage shall provide coverage on an occurrence basis. The Department, its employees, and officers shall be named as an additional insured on any automobile insurance policy. The minimum limits shall be as follows: $200,000/300,000 Adtomobile Liability for Company -Owned Vehicles, if applicable $200,000/300,000 Hired and Non -owned Automobile Liability Coverage c. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage. The Grantee shall provide workers' compensation, in accordance with Chapter 440, F.S. and employer liability coverage with minimum limits of $100,000 per accident, $100,000 per person, and $500,000 policy aggregate. Such policies shall cover all employees engaged in any work under the Grant. d. Other Insurance. None. 9. Quality Assurance Requirements. There are no special Quality Assurance requirements under this Agreement. 10. Retainage. No retainage is required under this Agreement. 11. Subcontracting. The Grantee may subcontract work under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Department's Grant Manager except for certain fixed-price subcontracts pursuant to this Agreement, which require prior approval. The Grantee shall submit a copy of the executed subcontract to the Department prior to submitting any invoices for subcontracted work. Regardless of any subcontract, the Grantee is ultimately responsible for all work to be performed under this Agreement. 12. State-owned Land. The work will not be performed on State-owned land. 13. Office of Policy and Budget Reporting. The Grantee will identify the expected return on investment for this project and provide this information to the Governor's Office of Policy and Budget (OPB) within three months of execution of this Agreement. For each full calendar quarter thereafter, the Grantee will provide quarterly update reports directly to OPB, no later than 20 days after the end of each quarter, documenting the positive return on investment to the state that results from the Grantee's project and its use of funds provided under this Agreement. Quarterly reports will continue until the Grantee is instructed by OPB that no further reports are needed, or until the end of this Agreement, whichever occurs first. All reports shall be submitted electronically to OPB at env.roinlaspbs.state.fl.us, and a copy shall also be submitted to the Department at legislativeaffairsafloridaDEP.gov. 14. Additional Terms. There are no additional terms under this Agreement. Attachment 2 2 of 2 Rev. 6/14/19 61 ATTACHMENT 3 GRANT WORK PLAN PROJECT TITLE: Indian River County North Relief Canal Aquatic Plant Project PROJECT LOCATION: The Project will be located on Indian River County property within Indian River County; Lat/Long (27.6916, -80.4614). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) is an impaired water body that has been. impacted by large discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus into the watershed. The increased nutrient loading can contribute to algal blooms and reductions to the IRL's water quality, impacting aquatic flora and fauna. Indian River County (Grantee) has identified that the construction of a Regional Pollutant Removal Facility for the North Relief Canal would mitigate further nutrient loading impacts on the IRL. Approximately 6,300 acres contribute stormwater runoff and groundwater seepage into the North Relief Canal. The Project will reduce nitrogen pollution to the IRL by approximately 7,614 lbs of total nitrogen, and reduce phosporous pollution by approximately 1,251 lbs of total phosphorous. The captured nutrients will be stored in harvested plant tissue and composted, and/or be used as cover material for the Grantee's landfill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Grantee will construct a Regional Pollutant Removal Facility that will use naturally occurring aquatic plants to absorb and remove dissolved nutrients from the North Relief Canal. The initial projected flow rate from the North Relief Canal into the RPRF will be an estimated 10 million gallons per day. The Project's main treatment module will be water lettuce scrubbers that will remove the majority of the nutrients and settleable suspended solids from the water. The water lettuce system will be followed by an algal treatment unit for reoxygenation and additional nutrient polishing of the water, and then followed by a final settling and wetland formation to offer additional detention time and further nutrient reduction. The Grantee does not anticipate that the funding under this Agreement will result in a fully completed project, so this Agreement will cover a portion of the work. TASKS: All documentation should be submitted electronically unless otherwise indicated. Task 1: Construction. Deliverables: The Grantee will construct a Regional Pollutant Removal Facility in accordance with the construction contract documents. Documentation: The Grantee will submit a signed acceptance of the completed work to date by the Grantee and the Engineer's Certification of Payment Request. Performance Standard: The Department's Grant Manager will review the documentation to verify that the deliverables are completed as described above. Upon review and written acceptance by the Department's Grant Manager, the Grantee may proceed with payment request submittal. Payment Request Schedule: The Grantee may submit a payment request for cost reimbursement no more frequently than monthly. DEP Agreement No. LPA0018, Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2 62 PROJECT TIMELINE & BUDGET DETAIL: The tasks must be completed by, and all documentation received by, the corresponding task end date. Task No. Task Title Budget Category Budget Amount Task Start Date Task End Date 1 Construction Contractual Services $650,000 07/01/2019 12/31/2021 Total: $650,000 DEP Agreement No. LPA0018, Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2 63 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Public Records Requirements Attachment 4 1. Public Records. a. If the Agreement exceeds $35,000.00, and if Grantee is acting on behalf of Department in its performance of services under the Agreement, Grantee must allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received by Grantee in conjunction with the Agreement (Public Records), unless the Public Records are exempt from section 24(a) of Article I of the Florida Constitution or section 119.07(1), F.S. b. The Department may unilaterally terminate the Agreement if Grantee refuses to allow public access to Public Records as required by law. 2. Additional Public Records Duties of Section 119.0701, F.S., If Applicable. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "contract" means the "Agreement." If Grantee is a "contractor" as defined in section 119.0701(1)(a), F.S., the following provisions apply and the contractor shall: a. Keep and maintain Public Records required by Department to perform the service. b. Upon request, provide Department with a copy of requested Public Records or allow the Public Records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119, F.S., or as otherwise provided by law. c. A contractor who fails to provide the Public Records to Department within a reasonable time may be subject to penalties under section 119.10, F.S. d. Ensure that Public Records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from Public Records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of the contract term and following completion of the contract if the contractor does not transfer the Public Records to Department. e. Upon completion of the contract, transfer, at no cost, to Department all Public Records in possession of the contractor or keep and maintain Public Records required by Department to perform the service. If the contractor transfers all Public Records to Department upon completion of the contract, the contractor shall destroy any duplicate Public Records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from Public Records disclosure requirements. If the contractor keeps and maintains Public Records upon completion of the contract, the contractor shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining Public Records. All Public Records stored electronically must be provided to Department, upon request from Department's custodian of Public Records, in a format specified by Department as compatible with the information technology systems of Department. These formatting requirements are satisfied by using the data formats as authorized in the contract or Microsoft Word, Outlook, Adobe, or Excel, and any software formats the contractor is authorized to access. f. IF THE CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, F.S., TO THE CONTRACTOR'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THE CONTRACT, CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT'S CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT: Telephone: (850) 245-2118 Email: public.services@floridadep.gov Mailing Address: Department of Environmental Protection ATTN: Office of Ombudsman and Public Services Public Records Request 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Attachment 4 1 of 1 Rev. 4/27/2018 64 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Special Audit Requirements (State and Federal Financial Assistance) Attachment 5 The administration of resources awarded by the Department of Environmental Protection (which may be referred to as the "Department", "DEP", "FDEP" or "Grantor'; or other name in the agreement) to the recipient (which may be referred to as the "Recipient'; "Grantee" or other name in the agreement) may be subject to audits and/or monitoring by the Department of Environmental Protection, as described in this attachment. MONITORING In addition to reviews of audits conducted in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F -Audit Requirements, and Section 215.97, F.S., as revised (see "AUDITS" below), monitoring procedures may include, but not be limited to, on-site visits by DEP Department staff, limited scope audits as defined by 2 CFR 200.425, or other procedures. By entering into this Agreement, the recipient agrees to :comply and cooperate with any monitoring procedures/processes deemed appropriate by the Department of Environmental Protection. In the event the Department of Environmental Protection determines that a limited scope audit of the recipient is appropriate, the recipient agrees to comply with any additional instructions provided by the Department to the recipient regarding such audit. The recipient further agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations, or audits deemed necessary by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Auditor General. AUDITS PART I: FEDERALLY FUNDED This part is applicable if the recipient is a State or local government or a non-profit organization as defined in 2 CFR §200.330 1. A recipient that expends $750,000 or more in Federal awards in its fiscal year, must have a single or program - specific audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F. EXHIBIT 1 to this Attachment indicates Federal funds awarded through the Department of Environmental Protection by this Agreement. In determining the federal awards expended in its fiscal year, the recipient shall consider all sources of federal awards, including federal resources received from the Department of Environmental Protection. The determination of amounts of federal awards expended should be in accordance with the guidelines established in 2 CFR 200.502-503. An audit of the recipient conducted by the Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200.514 will meet the requirements of this part. 2. For the audit requirements addressed in Part I, paragraph 1, the recipient shall fulfill the requirements relative to auditee responsibilities as provided in 2 CFR 200.508-512. 3. A recipient that expends less than $750,00 in federal awards in its fiscal year is not required to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F -Audit Requirements. If the recipient expends less than $750,000 in federal awards in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F -Audit Requirements, the cost of the audit must be paid from non-federal resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit mist be paid from recipient resources obtained from other federal entities. 4. The recipient may access information regarding the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) via the internet at www.cfda.Eov Attachment 5 1 of 6 BGS-DEP.55-215 revised 7/65 PART II: STATE FUNDED This part is applicable if the recipient is a nonstate entity as defined by Section 215.97(2), Florida Statutes. 1. In the event that the recipient expends a total amount of state financial assistance equal to or in excess of $750,000 in any fiscal year of such recipient (for fiscal years ending June 30, 2017, and thereafter), the recipient must have a State single or project -specific audit for such fiscal year in accordance with Section 215.97, F.S.; Rule Chapter 691-5, F.A.C., State Financial Assistance; and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General. EXHIBIT 1 to this form lists the state financial assistance awarded through the Department of Environmental Protection by this agreement. In determining the state financial assistance expended in its fiscal year, the recipient shall consider all sources of state financial assistance, including state financial assistance received from the Department of Environmental Protection, other state agencies, and other nonstate entities. State financial assistance does not include federal direct or pass-through awards and resources received by a nonstate entity for Federal program matching requirements. 2. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part II, paragraph 1; the recipient shall ensure that the audit complies with the requirements of Section 215.97(8), Florida Statutes. This includes submission of a financial reporting package as defined by Section 215.97(2), Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General. 3. If the recipient expends less than $750,000 in state financial assistance in its fiscal year (for fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, and thereafter), an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, is not required. In the event that the recipient expends less than $750,000 in state fmancial assistance in its fiscal year, and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, the cost of the audit must be paid from the non -state entity's resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from the recipient's resources obtained from other than State entities). 4. For information regarding the Florida Catalog of State Financial Assistance (CSFA), a recipient should access the Florida Single Audit Act website located at https://apps.fldfs.com/fsaa for assistance. In addition to the above websites, the following websites may be accessed for information: Legislature's Website at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cftn, State of Florida's website at http://www.myflorida.com/, Department of Financial Services' Website at http://www.fldfs.com/and the Auditor General's Website at http://www.mvflorida.com/audgen/. PART III: OTHER AUDIT REQUIREMENTS (NOTE: This part would be used to specify any additional audit requirements imposed by the State awarding entity that are solely a matter of that State awarding entity's policy (i.e., the audit is not required by Federal or State laws and is not in conflict with other Federal or State audit requirements). Pursuant to Section 215.97(8), Florida Statutes, State agencies may conduct or arrange for audits of State financial assistance that are in addition to audits conducted in accordance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes. In such an event, the State awarding agency must arrange for funding the fill cost of such additional audits.) PART IV: REPORT SUBMISSION 1. Copies of reporting packages for audits conducted in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F -Audit Requirements, and required by PART I of this form shall be submitted, when required by 2 CFR 200:512, by or on behalf of the recipient directly to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) as provided in 2 CFR 200.36 and 200.512 A. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse designated in 2 CFR §200.501(a) (the number of copies required by 2 CFR §200.501(a) should be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse), at the following address: Attachment 5 2 of 6 BUS -DEP 55-215 revised 7/k6 By Mail: Federal Audit Clearinghouse Bureau of the Census 1201 East 10th Street Jeffersonville, IN 47132 Submissions of the Single Auditreporting package for fiscal periods ending on or after January 1, 2008, must be submitted using the Federal Clearinghouse's Internet Data Entry System which can be found at http://harvester.census.gov/facweb/ 2. Copies of financial reporting packages required by PART II of this Attachment shall be submitted by or on behalf of the recipient directly to each of the following: A The Department of Environmental Protection at one of the following addresses: By Mail: Audit Director Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Inspector General, MS 40 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Electronically: FDEPSingleAudit(aidep.state.fl.us B. The. Auditor General's Office at the following address: Auditor General Local Government Audits/342 Claude Pepper Building, Room 401 111 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1450 The Auditor General's website (http://flauditor.gov/) provides instructions for filing an electronic copy of a financial reporting package. 3. Copies of reports or management letters required by PART III of this Attachment shall be submitted by or on behalf of the recipient directly to the Department of Environmental Protection at one of the following addresses: By Mail: Audit Director Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Inspector General, MS 40 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Electronically: FDEPSingleAudit(a,dep. state.fl.us 4. Any reports, management letters, or other information required to be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted timely in accordance with 2 CFR 200.512, section 215.97, F.S., and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, as applicable. Attachment 5 3 of 6 BGS -DEP 55-215 revised 7/251 5. Recipients, when submitting financial reporting packages to the Department of Environmental Protection for audits done in accordance with 2 CFR 200, Subpart F -Audit Requirements, or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) and 10.650 (non and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, should indicate the date and the reporting package was delivered to the recipient correspondence accompanying the reporting package. PART V: RECORD RETENTION The recipient shall retain sufficient records demonstrating its compliance with the terms of the award and this Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date the audit report is issued, and shall allow the Department of Environmental Protection, or its designee, Chief Financial Officer, or Auditor General access to such records upon request. The recipient shall ensure that audit working papers are made available to the Department of Environmental Protection, or its designee, Chief Financial Officer, or Auditor General upon request for a period of three (3) years from the date the audit report is issued, unless extended in writing by the Department of Environmental Protection. Attachment 5 4 of 6 BGS -DEP. 55-215 revised 7/258 EXHIBIT —1 s Agreement Consist of the Following: State Appropriation Category State Appropriation Category First Compliance requirement: i.e.: (what services of purposes resources must be used for) Funding Amount 64 W First Compliance requirement: i.e.: (what services of purposes resources must be used for) Funding Amount 69 Etc. Federal Program A CFDA Title Federal Program R CFDA.Title Federal Resources Awarded to the Recipient Pursuant to thi CFDA. Number CFDA Number Federal. Agency Federal Agency Federal Program A Federal Program B ti W = O trlE ea Vo First Compliance requirement: i.e.: (what services of purposes resources must be used for) Second Compliance requirement: i.e.:(eligibility requirement for recipients of the resources) W W First Compliance requirement: i.e.: (what services of purposes resources must be used for) Second Compliance requirement: i.e.: (eligibility requirement for recipients of the resources) W Etc. Federal Program A Federal Program R ti W = O trlE ea Vo Pursuant to this Agreement Consist of the Following Matching Resources for Federal Programs: State Appropriation Category 140047 State Appropriation Category Funding Amount 000`059$ Funding Amount CFDA Title Statewide Surface Water Restoration and Wastewater Projects CFDA Title A 37.039 A U O U State Resources Awarded to the Recipient Federal Agency Federal Agency Federal Program A N Federal Program B aT Pursuant to this Agreement Consist of the Following Resources Subject to Section 215.97, F.S.: State Appropriation Cate:o 140047 State Appropriation Category Funding Amount 000`059$ Funding Amount CSFA Title or Funding Source Description Statewide Surface Water Restoration and Wastewater Projects CSFA Title or Funding Source Description CSFA Number 37.039 CSFA Number State Fiscal Year O State Fiscal Year N O N aT 0 N State Resources Awarded to the Recipient State Awarding Agency Dept. of Environmental Protection, GAA Line Item 1657A State Awarding Agency State Program A Original Agreement State Program B O O v) 'O. F ¢ U u s 0 v5� obi •� ° 3 d a 0 N•.N., ) ,i)+•• d��oa=y ' C tq d x u ,•a O O (-4,a ti :� 0 wRI U C o X C sz RS a a 0 ai O U r 5OV uLL •ti b.0 cd U CO ,Y w OV 0 Na. w' °U OL I:4 O 0 a) d H N osC a�`" Q d ) o C e '4- --it L__.V e�r ti ' ao, Vj g ¢w -, CC C/1 vi .ocz i oU c a.��¢ ti h U .� a) G C = p " -0 C ca 01Z a E V V ti �'ia v ca �i C O O i C L U i E. co y S. L. � > b 0 .G Z o .a co o a u w E = � W '" cw"Cl ti Q N c's; 0 E o a ami aEi 2 d4 u 0 o 3 0.'° �q zs w 3viw w d E 4- O STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Exhibit A Progress Report Form DEP Agreement No.: LPA0018 _ Project Title: Indian River County North Relief Canal Aquatic Plant Project Grantee Name: Indian River County Grantee's Grant Manager: Keith McCully, P.E. Reporting Period: Provide the following information for all tasks identified in the Grant Work Plan: Summarize the work completed within each task for the reporting period. Provide an update on the estimated completion date for each task and an explanation for any anticipated delays or problems encountered. Add or remove task sections and use as many pages as necessary to cover all tasks. Use the format provided below. Task #: Task Title • Progress for this reporting period: Add Text • Identify any delays or problems encountered: Add Text Task #: Task Title • Progress for this reporting period: Add Text • Identify any delays or problems encountered: Add Text Indicate the completion status for the following tasks (if included in the Grant Work Plan): • Design (Plans/Submittal): 30% 0, 60% 0, 90% 0, 100% 0 • Permitting (Completed): Yes 0, No 0 • Construction (Estimated): This report is submitted in accordance with the reporting requirements of the above DEP Agreement numberand accurately reflects the activities associated with the project. Signature of Grantee's Grant Manager Date Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 Rev. 12/02/19 71 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Exhibit C Payment Request Summary Form The Payment Request Summary Form for this grant can be found on our website at this link: https://floridadep. gov/wra/wra/documents/payment-request-summary-form Please use the most current form found on the website, linked above, for each payment request. Exhibit C, Page 1 of 1 Rev. 12/02/19 72 GRANT NAME: GRANT # LPA0018 AMOUNT OF GRANT: $650,000 DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GRANT: Public Works CONTACT PERSON: Keith McCullyv. P.E. TELEPHONE: (772) 226-1562 1. How long is the grant for? 30 months Starting Date: 2. Does the grant require you to fund this function after the grant is over? Yes No 3. Does the grant require a match? If yes, does the grant allow the match to be In -Kind services? 4. Percentage of match to grant N/A 5. Grant match amount required -n- 6. Where are the matching funds coming from (i.e. In -Kind Services; Reserve for Contingency)? N/A — NO MATCH REOUIRED Yes X_ No Yes No 7. Does the grant cover capital costs or start-up costs? _� Yes If no, how much do you think will be needed in capital costs or start-up costs: $ (Attach a detail listing of costs) 8. Are you adding any additional positions utilizing the grant funds? If yes, please list. (If additional space is needed, please attach a schedule.) Yes No Acct. Description Position Position Position Position Position 011.12 Regular Salaries $ 0 Second Year $ $ $ 011.13 Other Salaries & Wages (PT) $ $ $ $ Fourth Year 012.11 Social Security $ $ Fifth Year $ $ 012.12 Retirement — Contributions 012.13 Insurance — Life & Health 012.14 Worker's Compensation 012.17 S/Sec. Medicare Matching TOTAL 9. What is the total cost of each position including benefits, capital, start-up, auto expense, travel and operating? N/A Salary and Benefits Operating Costs Capital Total Costs 10. What is the estimated cost of the grant to the county over five years? $n Signature of Preparer: Zeit! 1/2,ea€4 Date: 1/14/2020 73 Grant Amount Other Match Costs Not Covered Match Total First Year $ 650,000 $0 $0 $ 0 Second Year $ $ $ $ Third Year $ $ $ $ Fourth Year $ $ $ $ Fifth Year $ $ $ $ Signature of Preparer: Zeit! 1/2,ea€4 Date: 1/14/2020 73 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD MEMORANDUM CONSEN TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director THROUGH: James W. Ennis, P.E., PMP, Asst. Public Works Director FROM: Molly Klinepeter, M.S., Lagoon Plan Environmental Specialist SUBJECT: Work Order No. 13 - Morgan & Eklund, Inc. 2020 Beach Profile Monitoring Surveys (WINTER) DATE: January 7, 2020 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On October 4, 2016, the Board approved a contract with Morgan and Eklund, Inc. (M&E) for Professional Land Surveying and Mapping Services for a two-year term. The Board amended the Contract on October 18, 2016. The contract was renewed for an additional two-year term on October 4, 2018. M&E is the selected County Consultant for professional onshore/offshore hydrographic surveying services. The County's Beach Preservation Plan recommends semi-annual beach profile surveys in order to monitor the seasonal, summer and winter, fluctuations of the beach. Proposed Work Order No. 13 provides winter -time countywide hydrographic surveying (beach profile) services for the Sector 3 and Sector 7 Beach Restoration Projects and additional surveying to begin a 2020 countywide (22.4 miles) monitoring effort. Additionally, the winter 2020 Sector 7 beach profile survey will provide necessary data for the design of the upcoming Sector 7 beach re -nourishment project. All onshore and offshore beach profile surveys are conducted along the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Range Monuments at approximately 1,000 foot intervals (alongshore) and extend from the vegetated dune seaward to a location approximately -40 feet offshore (cross -shore). Only Sector 7 has additional quarter and half monument intervals to follow the physical monitoring requirements of the previous Sector 7 beach nourishment project. For project tracking purposes, Work Order No. 13 is divided into three (3) separate tasks. Task 1: Winter 2020 Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Monitoring Survey (R-15 to R- 60, 46 Onshore/Offshore Profile Lines) In 2012, the County completed construction of the Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project, which was subsequently repaired in 2015. The County has completed all Permit required post construction monitoring for the Sector 3 Project. However, hydrographic surveys of the project area must continue semi-annually to determine the long-term performance of the project and if infrastructure may be vulnerable to storm damage during years in between recommended beach projects identified in the Beach Preservation Plan. Task 1 includes all surveying (7.5 miles) 74 Page 2 2020 Winter Beach Profile Survey BCC Agenda Item January 21, 2020 required to provide baseline 2020 physical monitoring data for the upcoming Sector 3 Beach and Dune Project area. Task 1 totals a lump sum amount of $25,210. Task 2: Winter 2020 Sector 7 Project Monitoring (R -97-R-108 together with R-99.5, 100.5, 101.25, 101.5, 101.75, 102.25, 102.5, 102.75, 103.25, 103.5, 103.75, 104.25, 104.5, 104.75, 105.25, 105.5, 105.75, 106.5, and 107.5, 31 lines) In the spring of 2007, the County completed construction of the Sector 7 Beach Restoration Project and has completed all Permit required post construction monitoring for the Sector 7 Project. However, the County is currently under design for a re -nourishment project following three hurricanes leaving Sector 7 with significant storm damages. This area requires additional intermediate survey lines which were a part of the initial Sector 7 monitoring requirements. Task 2 includes all surveying (2 miles) required for annual monitoring of the Sector 7 Beach Nourishment Project area and for design of the re -nourishment project. Task 2 totals a lump sum amount of $17,030. Task 3: Winter 2020 Countywide Beach Monitoring (R-61 — R-96 and R -109-R-119, 47 lines) For the shoreline outside of the Sector 3 and Sector 7 beach projects, countywide beach profile surveys are necessary to identify areas of chronic beach erosion and determine if infrastructure may be vulnerable to storm damage. The beach profile surveys will then be used to determine appropriate projects to mitigate erosion as identified in the County Beach Preservation Plan, including the upcoming Sector 5 Beach Restoration Project. Task 3 includes the remaining countywide (9 miles) beach profile surveys. Task 3 totals a lump sum amount of $25,870. Please note: The Sebastian Inlet District (District), as part of their Inlet Management Plan, conducts semiannual beach profile surveys along the northern 5.6 miles of the County. The District continues to partner with the County and has agreed to provide their certified 2020 beach profile survey data to the County, resulting in a complete 22.4 mile countywide beach profile survey and a combined annual savings of approximately $30,000 to the County. FUNDING Funding for these tasks comes to a total lump sum fee of $68,110. Funding for the individual tasks are as follows: Task 1: Winter 20120 Sector 3 Semi -Annual Monitoring Survey (R -15-R-60) Funding for Task 1 is budgeted and available for physical monitoring of the Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project area in the Sector 3 Post Construction Monitoring fund, Account No. 12814472-033490-05054. Task 1 totals a lump sum amount of $25,210 Task 2: Winter 2020 Sector 7 Semi -Annual Monitoring (R -97-R-108 together with R-99.5, 100.5, 101.25, 101.5, 101.75, 102.25, 102.5, 102.75, 103.25, 103.5, 103.75, 104.25, 104.5, 104.75, 105.25, 105.5, 105.75, 106.5, and 107.5) 75 Funding for Task 2 is budgeted and available for physical monitoring of the Sector 7 Beach Page 3 2020 Winter Beach Profile Survey BCC Agenda Item January 21, 2020 Restoration Project area in the Sector 7 Beach Preservation Monitoring fund, Account No. 12814472-033490-05079. Task 2 totals a lump sum amount of $17,030. Task 3: Winter 2020 Countywide Beach Monitoring (R-61 — R-96 and R -109-R-119) Funding for Task 3 is budgeted and available for physical monitoring of non -project areas in the Beach Restoration Fund/Other. Professional Services, Account No. 12814472-033190. Task 3 totals a lump sum amount of $25,870. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation of staff is for the Board to approve Work Order No. 13 to the Professional Land Surveying and Mapping Services contract with Morgan and Eklund, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to sign two (2) copies of the Work Order on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENT Morgan and Eklund, Inc. Work Order No. 13 Scope of Work Winter Semi -Annual Coastal Monitoring Survey APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR: JANUARY 21, 2020 76 Board of County Commissioners Administration - Building A 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (772) 567-8000 FAX: 772-778-9391 Project: 2020 Beach Profile Monitoring Surveys (Winter) WORK ORDER NO. 13 (Hydrographic Surveying) FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ANNUAL SURVEYING and MAPPING/GIS SERVICES WITH MORGAN AND EKLUND, INC In accordance with Contract No. 1605 2018-2020 This Work Order No. 13 is in accordance with the existing AGREEMENT dated October 4, 2016 and as amended October 18, 2016, between Morgan and Eklund, Inc., (SURVEYOR) and Indian River County (COUNTY); This Work Order No. 13 amends the agreement as follows: SECTION I — PROJECT LIMITS This Work Order No. 13 is for the SURVEYOR to perform all related field and office Surveying and Mapping services in connection with the 2020 Beach Profile Monitoring Surveys (Winter); Florida Department of Environmental Protection Reference Monuments R-15 — R-119. SECTION II - SCOPE OF SERVICES As agreed upon between SURVEYOR and COUNTY, the SURVEYOR shall provide Professional Land Surveying services to complete all tasks as outlined in this Work Order No. 13; specifically detailed in the attached proposal Exhibit A. SECTION III — TIME FOR COMPLETION & DELIVERABLES/WORK PRODUCT 1. Project shall be completed as follows: a. 100% "Paper" review submittal (final review prior to request for final deliverables) shall be made within 90 calendar days of receipt of Notice to Proceed for review by County Staff prior to preparing the final submittal package. b. Time of FINAL project completion shall be within 10 calendar days of receipt of the County's review comments from the 100% "Paper Submittal". 2. Deliverables -The SURVEYOR shall provide the COUNTY: 77 a. 100% Phase Submittal for COUNTY review and comment. All submittals shall include one (1) paper "hardcopy" along with AutoCad Files and an ASCII file for all survey points. COUNTY shall strive to provide review comments within 10 calendar days of the preliminary submittal. b. FINAL Deliverables, one (1) paper "hardcopy" signed and sealed sets. Sheeted and model space (as applicable) AutoCad drawing file in release 2009 through Civil 3D 2013, PDF formats and an ASCII file for all survey points, all electronic files to be on CD. c. Survey set/sheets shall include a cover sheet with location sketch, survey certifications, related title and project number, survey notes, legend and abbreviations and plan view sheets. d. Work Product and digital versions are to be prepared and submitted so that the COUNTY or other consultants can readily use it for the design and analysis of the area, as defined. It shall contain all information necessary for third -party surveyor to independently recreate and/or utilize the survey work. It is acknowledged all final products become property of Indian River COUNTY and will be available for use by the public at large. e. The SURVEYOR'S work product shall meet or exceed the minimum standards as defined by Sections II, III and IV or the COUNTY will not approve the SURVEYOR'S request for payment. SECTION IV — COMPENSATION The COUNTY agrees to pay, and the SURVEYOR agrees to accept, for the above described services rendered as identified in Sections I, II, and III of this Work Order No. 13, for a total lump sum fee of $68,110. All and/or any additional services not described hereon shall be pre -approved by the COUNTY. Approved additional services shall be invoiced at the rates disclosed in the approved fee schedule with the SURVEYOR for the contract year(s) of October 4, 2018 through October 3, 2020. All invoicing shall include Work Order No. 13 (WO 13), Contract Number (1605). Payments shall be in accordance with the original Professional Surveying and Mapping Services Agreement, Contract No: 1605 with the COUNTY and as stated in Section II, III and IV hereon. The AGREEMENT is hereby amended as specifically set forth herein. All remaining sections of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect, and are incorporated herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these presents this day of 2020. 78 OWNER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Morgan and Eklund, Inc. (Signature) (Signature) Susan Adams, Chairman Approved by BCC ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller (Seal) Deputy Clerk. Approved: Jason E, Brown, COUNTY Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: William K. DeBraal, Deputy COUNTY Attorney John R. Morgan, President (Printed name and title) Witnessed by: (Signature) 79 Morgan & Eklund, Inc. 4909 US Highway 1 Vero Beach, Florida 32967 December 20, 2019 Indian River County. Coastal Engineering Division Attn: Mr. James Ennis, PE PMP 1801 27t Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: 772-388-5364 Fax: 772-388-3165 RE: 2020 Winter Semi -Annual Indian River County Coastal Monitoring Survey; Onshore/Offshore Profiles along FDEP Range Lines R-15 to R-119 together with Sector 7 Project Lines Dear Mr. Ennis: Morgan & Eklund, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the following proposal to furnish professional land and hydrographic survey services for the above referenced project. Beach profiles will include R-15 through R-119 together with the intermediate lines for Sector 7, a total of 124 beach profile lines. All data collected will be in accordance with the FDEP- approved Physical Monitoring Plan. Morgan & Eklund, Inc. will provide the County with beach profile data in ASCII file format together with AutoCAD drawings signed by the surveyor. The survey will be performed in January/February 2020 with drawings and reports completed in April 2020. Additionally, the landward occurrence of rock outcroppings will be identified along each profile line. In accordance with the scope of work as provided, I estimate our costs to be as follows: I. Winter 2020 Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Monitoring Survey (R-15 to R-60, 46 Onshore/Offshore Profile Lines) A. Establish and verify onshore horizontal/vertical survey control Chief Surveyor 2 hours @ $125/hr $ 250.00 80 Project Surveyor/Manager 8 hours @ $95/hr $ 760.00 Three Man GPS Crew (RTIUGPS) 12 hours @ $165/hr .$ 1.;980.00 $ 2,990.00 B. Upland/onshore profile with RTIUGPS and set hubs on line for nearshore (wading) survey Senior Survey Computer Technician 8 hours @ $85/hr $ 680.00 Field Operations Supervisor 12 hours @ $85/hr $ 1,020.00 Three Man GPS Crew (RTK/GPS) 24 hours @ $1.65/hr $ 3,960.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 3 days @ $85/day $ 255.00 $ 5,915.00 C. Wading profiles +3 NAVD88 to -7 NAVD88 Three Man GPS Crew (RTIUGPS) 24 hours @ $165/hr $ 3,960.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 3 days @ $85/day $ 255.00 $ 4,215.00 D. Offshore profiles -5 NAVD88 to -30 NAVD88 (46 lines) Field Operations Supervisor 2 hours @ $85/hr $ 170.00 Project Surveyor/Manager (Boat Operator) 24 hours @ $95/hr $ 2,280.00 Three Man Survey Crew 20 hours @ $125/hr $ 2,500.00 26' Parker Survey. Boat 2 days @ $500/day $ 1,000.00 Trimble DGPS 2 days @ $300/day $ 600.00 81 Motion Compensator 2 days @ $200/day $ 400.00 Digital Fathometer 2 days @ $85/day $ 170.00 Hypack Navigation Software & Computer 2 days @ $50/day $ 100.00 $ 7,220.00 E. Data reduction / drafting, FDEP format files and reports (46 lines) Chief Surveyor 2 hours @ $125/hr $ 250.00 Project Surveyor/Manager 20 hours @ $95/hr $ 1,900.00 Senior Survey Computer Technician 32 hours @ $85/hr $ 2,720.00 $ . 4,870.00 TOTAL I A-E $ 25,210.00 II. Winter 2020 Sector 7 (R-97 to R-108 together with R-99:5,100.5, 101.25, 101.5, 101.75, 102.25, 102.5, 102.75, 103.25, 103.5, 103.75, 104.25, 104.5, 104.75, 105.25, 105.5, 105.75, 106.5 and 107.5, 31 lines) A. Establish and verify onshore horizontal/vertical survey control Chief Surveyor I hour @ $125/hr $ 125.00 Project Surveyor/Manager 4 hours @ $95/hr $ 380.00 Three Man GPS Crew (RTI IGPS) 8 hours @ $165/hr $ 1,320.00 $ 1,825.00 B. Upland/onshore profile with RTK/GPS and set hubs on line for nearshore (wading) survey Senior Survey Computer Technician 4 hours @ $85/hr $ 340.00 Field Operations Supervisor 6 hours @ $85/hr $ 510.00 82 Three Man GPS Crew (RTKIGPS) 20 hours @ $165/hr $ 3,300.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 2 days @ $85/day $ 170.00 $ 4,320.00 C. Wading profiles +3 NAVD88 to -7 NAVD88 Three Man GPS Crew (RTK/GPS) 20 hours @ $165/hr $ 3,300.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 2 days @ $85/day $ 170.00 $ 3,470.00 D. Offshore profiles -5 NAVD88 to -30 NAVD88 (31 lines) Field Operations Supervisor 2 hours @ $85/hr $ 170.00 Project Surveyor/Manager (Boat Operator) 12 hours @ $95/hr $ 1,140.00 Three Man Survey Crew 12 hours @ $125/hr $ 1,500.00 26' Parker Survey Boat 1 day_ @ $500/day $ 500.00 Trimble DGPS 1 day @ $300/day $ 300.00 Motion Compensator 1 day @ $200/day $ 200.00 Digital Fathometer 1 day @ $85/day $ 85.00 Hypack Navigation Software & Computer 1 day @ $50/day $ 50.00 $ 3,945.00 E. Data reduction / drafting, FDEP format files and reports (31 lines) Chief Surveyor 2 hours @ $125/hr $ 250.00 83 Project Surveyor/Manager 16 hours @ $95/hr $ 1,520.00 Senior Survey Computer Technician 20 hours @ $85/hr $ 1;,700.00 $ 3,470.00 TOTAL II A-E $ 17,030.00 III. Winter 2020 Countywide Beach Monitoring (R-61 to R-96 and R-109 to R-119, 47 lines) • A. Establish and verify onshore horizontal/vertical survey control Chief Surveyor 2 hours @ $125/hr $ 250.00 Project Surveyor/Manager 8 hours @ $95/hr $ 760.00 Three Man GPS Crew (RTIUGPS) 12 hours @ $165/hr $ 1,980.00 $ 2,990.00 B. Upland/onshore profile with RTIUGPS and set hubs on line for nearshore (wading) survey Senior Survey Computer Technician 8 hours @ $85/hr $ 680.00 Field Operations Supervisor 12 hours @ $85/hr $ 1,020.00 Three Man GPS Crew (RTIUGPS) 28 hours @ $165/hr $ 4,620.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 3 days @ $85/day $ 255 00 $ 6,575.00 C. Wading profiles +3 NAVD88 to -7 NAVD88 Three Man GPS Crew (RTIUGPS) 24 hours @ $165/hr $ 3,960.00 Polaris Beach Vehicle 3 days @ $85/day $ 255.00 $ 4,215.00 84 D. Offshore profiles -5 NAVD88 to -30 NAVD88 (47 lines) Field Operations Supervisor 2 hours @ $85/hr $ 170.00 Project Surveyor/Manager (Boat Operator) 24 hours @ $95/hr $ 2,280.00 Three Man Survey Crew 20 hours @ $125/hr $ 2,500.00 26' Parker Survey Boat 2 days @ $500/day $ 1,000.00 Trimble DGPS 2 days @ $300/day $ 600.00 Motion Compensator 2 days @ $200/day $ 400.00 Digital Fathometer 2 days @ $85/day $ 170.00 Hypack Navigation Software & Computer 2 days @ $50/day $ 100.00 $ 7,220.00 E. Data reduction / drafting, FDEP format files and reports (47 lines) Chief Surveyor 2 hours @ $125/hr $ 250.00 Project Surveyor/Manager 20 hours @ $95/hr $ 1,900.00 Senior Survey Computer Technician 32 hours @ $85/hr $ 2,720.00 4,870.00 TOTAL III A-E $ 25,870.00 Not to Exceed Total Cost I -III $ 68,110.00 85 As always, Morgan.84. Eklund, Inc. is looking forward to working with you and Indian River County on this project. JRM:dmc J c+ Z. Mo 'gan, President Billing: project will be invoiced upon completion of each task 86 Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum Date: January 9, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Through: Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager Prepared By: Terry Southard, Operators Manager, Utility Services Rich Meckes, Wastewater Superintendent, Utility Services Subject: Extension of Annual Maintenance of West Wetlands Treatment System with Ecotech Consultants Inc. (RFP2018004) Description and Conditions: On January 9, 2018, on behalf of the Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS), Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were solicited for the annual maintenance of the West Wetlands Treatment System (WTS) at the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WRWWTF). The 169± acre WTS is made up of an influent deep settling pond, with overland flow through nine deep marsh cells and three shallow marsh cells, to a final storage outfall cell and is permitted a 4.0 million gallon per day (MGD) Average Annual Daily Flow (AADF) capacity. The original term of award was from February 1, 2018, through January 31, 2020, with an optional two-year extension available. The contract was awarded to Ecotech Consultants Inc. Staff has been satisfied with the performance under the contract and would like to exercise the option for the two-year extension. There will be no increase in the cost from the previous fiscal years. Funding: Operation and maintenance of the system is available and budgeted in the Utilities Wastewater 218 — Other Professional Services Account as shown below, which is within the Utilities Operating Fund. Utilities operating funds are derived by water and sewer sales. There is no change in the cost from the previous fiscal years. Account Description Account Number FY 19/20 Estimated Cost Utilities — Other Professional Services 47121836-033190 $32,000 87 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the two-year extension, as allowed in the current contract to Ecotech Consultants, Inc. Staff further requests that the BCC approve the sample agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute said agreement, after receipt and approval of the required certificate of insurance and after the County Attorney has approved the agreement as to form and legal sufficiency. Attachments: Sample Agreement 88 FIRST EXTENSION TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF WEST WETLANDS AT WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND ECOTECH CONSULTANT, INC. THIS FIRST EXTENSION of the. Annual Maintenance of West Wetlands Agreement by and between Indian River County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, (hereinafter called IRC) and Ecotech Consultant., (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). IRC and CONTRACTOR, (the Parties) agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Parties entered into the Annual Maintenance of West Wetlands Agreement (the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the initial term of the Agreement was for two years, beginning on February 1, 2018, and allowed for one two-year extension; and WHEREAS, the requirements for an extension have been satisfied and, the Parties desire to execute the First Extension to the Agreement. With the following addition, Article 11 is amended to add Item F as follows: TERMINATION IN REGARDS TO F.S. 287.135: CONTRACTOR certifies that it and those related entities of CONTRACTOR as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List, created pursuant to s. 215.4725 of the Florida Statutes, and are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. In addition, if this agreement is for goods or services of one million dollars or more, CONTRACTOR certifies that it and those related entities of CONTRACTOR as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, created pursuant to Section 215.473 of the Florida Statutes and are not engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria. OWNER may terminate this Contract if CONTRACTOR is found to have submitted a false certification as provided under section 287.135(5), Florida Statutes, been placed on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, or been engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria, as defined by section 287.135, Florida Statutes. OWNER may terminate this Contract if CONTRACTOR, including all wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, and parent companies that exist for the purpose of making profit, is found to have been placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or is engaged in a boycott of Israel as set forth in section 215.4725, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, conditions, promises, covenants and premises hereinafter, the Parties agree as follows: The Agreement between the Parties is hereby extended from February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2022 89 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, IRC and CONTRACTOR have executed this First Extension this _ day of , 2020. OWNER: CONTRACTOR: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD Ecotech Consultant, Inc. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Susan Adams, Chairman By: Printed Name:. Title: Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court (CORPORATE SEAL) and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Witness: Approved: By: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator 90 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney DATE: January 13, 2020 SUBJECT: Agreement to Purchase and Sell Real Estate with Balquees, LLC On June 18, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners approved an Agreement to Purchase and Sell Real Estate with Balquees, LLC for a 10.55 acre unimproved parcel at a price of $474,750. The property lies on the north side of 45th Street between 43rd and 59th Avenues and is zoned IL, Tight industrial and abuts Custom Marble and Granite to the west. To accommodate the future planned improvements to 45th Street, the County needs to acquire this parcel for stormwater treatment and compensatory storage purposes for the project. The proposed improvements will include relocating the current two-lane road with (2) two 12 -foot lanes, (2) two 5 -foot bike lanes and a 6 -foot sidewalk. In addition, there will be a dedicated westbound left turn lane added at the 58th Avenue intersection. After the Agreement was approved by the Board in June, the County had a Phase I Environmental Assessment performed on the property. A Phase I Assessment provides details on the previous uses of the property and site inspections, but no testing. The Phase I Assessment showed evidence of possible contaminates on the property, so a Phase II Assessment was conducted and testing on the possible contamination was performed. Results of the tests were negative for contaminates and the report concluded that the property could be used for stormwater treatment and compensatory storage purposes as planned by the County. By the time the results of the Phase II Assessment were completed, the Agreement had expired so the Parties entered into a new agreement removing any environmental contingencies and providing a closing 30 days from the date of approval by the Board. The Agreement to Purchase and Sell is attached to this memorandum. The County obtained an appraisal of the property indicating a value of $450,000.00, and the Board approved a purchase price of $474,750.00 for the 10.55 acre property in June. That price remains unchanged and the current contract keeps the purchase price for the property at $474,750.00. FUNDING Funds for this expenditure are budgeted and available from Traffic Impact Fees/District II/ROW/45th Street/58th to 43rd Avenue. Account # 10215241-066120-17028. 91 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve the Agreement to Purchase and Sell Real Estate with Balquees, LLC for $474,750.00 for the 10.55 acres of property located at 4710 45th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32967, and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Board. ATTACHMENT Agreement to Purchase and Sell 92 AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE AND SELL REAL ESTATE BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND BALQUEES, LLC THIS AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE AND SELL REAL ESTATE ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of January, 2020, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("the County"), and Balquees, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("the Seller) who agree as follows: WHEREAS, the County is purchasing right-of-way and stormwater treatment pond sites for future reconstruction of 45th Street between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue; and WHEREAS, Seller owns property located at 4710 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32967 (Property). A legal description of the property is attached to this agreement as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS in order to proceed with reconstruction plans, the County needs to purchase the Property to be used as right-of-way, stormwater treatment and flood plain compensation; and WHEREAS, the County contacted the Seller to purchase the parcel of approximately 459,558 square feet or 10.55 acres of property as depicted on Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, the County is currently purchasing property/right-of-way from willing sellers: and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, conditions, promises, covenants and premises hereinafter, the COUNTY and SELLER agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above recitals are affirmed as being true and correct and are incorporated herein. 2. Agreement to Purchase and Sell. The Seller hereby agrees to sell to the County, and the County hereby agrees to purchase from Seller, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement that certain parcel of real property located at 4710 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida and more specifically described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A", fee simple, containing approximately 10.55 acres, all improvements thereon, together with all easements, rights and uses now or hereafter belonging thereto (collectively, the "Property"). 2.1 Purchase Price, Effective Date. The purchase price ("Purchase Price") for the Property shall be $474,750.00 (Four Hundred Seventy -Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars). The Purchase Price shall be paid on the Closing Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which the County shall have approved the execution of this Agreement, either by approval by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners at a formal meeting of such Board or by the County Administrator pursuant to his delegated authority. 93 3. Title. Seller shall convey marketable title to the Property by warranty deed free of claims, liens, easements and encumbrances of record or known to Seller; but subject to property taxes for the year of Closing and covenants, restrictions and public utility easements of record provided (a) there exists at Closing no violation of any of the foregoing; and (b) none of the foregoing prevents County's intended use and development of the Property ("Permitted Exceptions"). 3.1 County may order an Ownership and Encumbrance Report or Title Insurance Commitment with respect to the Property. County shall within fifteen (15) days following the Effective Date of this Agreement deliver written notice to Seller of title defects. Title shall be deemed acceptable to County if (a) County fails to deliver notice of defects within the time specified, or (b) County delivers notice and Seller cures the defects within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice from County of title defects ("Curative Period"). Seller shall use best efforts to cure the defects within the Curative Period and if the title defects are not cured within the Curative Period, County shall have thirty (30) days from the end of the Curative Period to elect, by written notice to Seller, to: (i) to terminate this Agreement, whereupon shall be of no further force and effect, or (ii) extend the Curative Period for up to an additional 90 days; or (iii) accept title subject to existing defects and proceed to closing. 3.2 This agreement is contingent upon a "clean" Phase 1 Environmental Assessment of reasonable notice by the County. At the conclusion of the Phase 1 Assessment, the 4. Representations of the Seller. 4.1 Seller is indefeasibly seized of marketable, fee simple title to the Property, and is the sole owner of and has good right, title, and authority to convey and transfer the Property which is the subject matter of this Agreement, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 4.2 From and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, Seller shall take no action which would impair or otherwise affect title to any portion of the Property, and shall record no documents in the Public Records which would affect title to the Property, without the prior written consent of the County. 4.3.1 There are no existing or pending special assessments affecting the Property, which are or may be assessed by any governmental authority, water or sewer authority, school district, drainage district or any other special taxing district. 5. Default. 5.1 In the event the County shall fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, the Seller shall, at its sole option, be entitled to: (i) terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the County at or prior to the Closing Date and thereupon neither the Seller nor any other person or party shall have any claim for specific performance, damages, or otherwise against the County; or (ii) waive the County's default and proceed to Closing. 5.2 In the event the Seller shall fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, t014 County shall, at its sole option, be entitled to: (i) terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the Seller at or prior to the Closing Date and thereupon neither the County nor any other person or party shall have any claim for specific performance, damages or otherwise against the Seller; or (ii) obtain specific performance of the terms and conditions hereof; or (iii) waive the Seller's default and proceed to Closing: 6. Closing. 6.1 The closing of the transaction contemplated herein ("Closing" and "Closing Date") shall take place within thirty (30) days following the execution of the contract by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The parties agree that the Closing shall be as follows: (a) The Seller shall execute and deliver to the County a warranty deed conveying marketable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and in the condition required by paragraph 3. (b) If Seller is obligated to discharge any encumbrances at or prior to Closing and fails to do so, County may use a portion of Purchase Price funds to satisfy the encumbrances. (c) If the Seller is a non-resident alien or foreign entity, Seller shall deliver to the County an affidavit, in a form acceptable to the County, certifying that the Seller and any interest holders are not subject to tax under the Foreign Investment and Real Property Tax Act of 1980. (d) The Seller and the County shall each deliver to the other such other documents or instruments as may reasonably be required to close this transaction. 6.2 Taxes. All taxes and special assessments which are a lien upon the property on or prior to the Closing Date (including ccpt current taxes which are not yet due and payable) shall be paid by the Seller. 7. Personal Property. 7.1 The Seller shall have removed all of its personal property, equipment and trash from the Property. The Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to County vacant and in the same or better condition that existed at the Effective Date hereof. 7.2 Seller shall deliver at Closing all keys to locks and codes to access devices to County, if applicable. 8. Closing Costs; Expenses. County shall be responsible for preparation of all Closing documents. 8.1 County shall pay the following expenses at Closing: 8.1.1 The cost of recording the warranty deed and any release or satisfaction obtained by Seller pursuant to this Agreement. 8.1.2 Documentary Stamps required to be affixed to the warranty deed. 95 8.1.3 All costs and premiums for the owner's marketability title insurance commitment and policy, if any. 8.2 Seller shall pay the following expenses at or prior to Closing: 8.2.1 All costs necessary to cure title defect(s) or encumbrances, other than the Permitted Exceptions, and to satisfy or release of record all existing mortgages, liens or encumbrances upon the Property. 9. Miscellaneous. 9.1 Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Venue shall be in Indian River County for all state court matters, and in the Southern District of Florida for all federal court matters. 9.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to this transaction and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oral, between the Seller and the County relating to the subject matter hereof. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be effective only if in writing and executed by each of the parties. 9.3 Assignment and Binding Effect. Neither County nor Seller may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. The terms hereof shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9.4 Notices. Any notice shall be deemed duly served if personally served or if mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or if sent via "overnight" courier service or facsimile transmission, as follows: If to Seller: If to County: Charles E. Garris, Attorney 819 Beachland Boulevard Vero Beach, FL 32963 Indian River County 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Attn: Land Acquisition/Monique Filipiak Either party may change the information above by giving written notice of such change as provided in this paragraph. 9.5 Survival and Benefit. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each agreement, representation or warranty made in this Agreement by or on behalf of either party, or in any instruments delivered pursuant hereto or in connection herewith, shall survive the Closing Date and the consummation of the transaction provided for herein. The covenants, agreements and undertakings of each of the parties hereto are made solely for the benefit of, and may be relied on only by the other party hereto, its successors and assigns, and are not made for the benefit of, nor may they be relied upon, by any other person whatsoever. 96 9.6 Attorney's Fees and Costs. In any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. 9.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each one of which shall constitute an original. 9.8 County Approval Required: This Agreement is subject to approval by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners as set forth in paragraph 2. 9.9 Beneficial Interest Disclosure: In the event Seller is a partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust, or any form of representative capacity whatsoever for others, Seller shall provide a fully completed, executed, and sworn beneficial interest disclosure statement in the form attached to this Agreement as an exhibit that complies with all of the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 286.23 prior to approval of this Agreement by the County. However, pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 286.23 (3) (a), the beneficial interest in any entity registered with the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission, or registered pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, whose interest is for sale to the general public, is exempt from disclosure; and where the Seller is a non-public entity, that Seller is not required to disclose persons or entities holding less than five (5%) percent of the beneficial interest in Seller. 97 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BALQUEES, LLC BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS a Florida Limited Liability Company Susan Adams, Chairman Omar D. Hussamy, Managing Member Approved by BCC Date ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk Approved: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney 98 EXHIBIT "A" INDIAN RIVER FARMS CO SUB PBS 2-12 E 10.55 A OF TR 15 (OR BK 424 P - P 72) LESS R/W PER OR BK 69 PG 515 Commonly known as: 4710 45th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32967 Parcel ID Number: 32-39-21-00001-0150-00002.0 99 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney DATE: January 13, 2020 SUBJECT: Biosolids Rule BACKGROUND. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is conducting rule making for Chapter 62- 640 Florida Administrative Code (FAC) to address recommended actions of the Biosolids Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) following their review of management practices and potential nutrient impacts related to the land application of Class B biosolids. Per the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (Board) direction, Indian River County has submitted comments on the proposed rule. The rule needs to be approved by the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC). The next ERC meeting is scheduled for January 29th. It appears that the FDEP may have missed the deadline for presenting its proposed rule to the ERC at that meeting. The next ERC meeting would be on February 26th. Generally, ERC meets in Tallahassee or at locations throughout the state. Staff recommends that the Board authorize attendance at the applicable ERC meeting by Board members, the County Administrator, the County Attorney and County staff so that the County's position can be presented to ERC. RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney's Office recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize Board members, the County Administrator, the County Attorney and County staff to attend the applicable ERC meeting, so that the County's position can be presented to ERC. 100 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA ITEM Assistant County Administrator / Department of General Services CONSENT AGENDA Bcc Meeting 01 21 2020 1._ Date: To: January 14, 2020 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator From: Leigh Anne Uribe, Human Services Director Subject: Children's Services Advisory Committee's Annual Report, FY2018-19 DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS: Children's Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) met on January 13, 2020 and approved the Children's Services Annual Report for 2018-19. The Annual Report provides the following information: • Names of members of CSAC, the Grant Review Subcommittee and the Needs Assessment Subcommittee ■ An overview of the history, mission and goals of the advisory committee ■ A synopsis of funds awarded and expended for children's services • A year-end report on each agency and program funded through CSAC RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board accept the Children's Services Advisory Committee's Annual Report for October 1, 2018 — September 30, 2019, as submitted. ATTACHMENT: Children's Services Advisory Committee's Annual Report, FY 2018-2019. A copy of this report can be viewed online or at the Board of County Commissioner's Office. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY 21, 2020 101 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM PUBLIC HEARING PD REZONING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP; Interim Community Development Director THROUGH: John W. McCoy, AICP; Chief, Current Development FROM: Ryan Sweeney; Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: January 6, 2020 SUBJECT: Mandala Village, LLC's Request to Rezone Approximately 79.1 Acres from A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to 3 units/acre) to PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design and to Obtain Conceptual PD Plan Approval for a Project to be known as Mandala Village [PD -19-01-01 / 2005120297-82906] It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 2020. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: This is a request by Mandala Village LLC, through its agent Knight, McGuire & Associates, Inc., to rezone approximately 79.1 acres from A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and RS -3, Residential Single - Family (up to 3 units/acre) to PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design. As part of the rezoning request, a conceptual PD plan has been submitted for review and approval (see attachment 5). The subject site is located at the northwest corner of the 58th Avenue/53`d Street intersection (see attachment 1). The purpose of this request is to secure a zoning district and an approved conceptual PD plan that allows development of a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project containing a mixture of residential, commercial, lodging, recreational, and open space uses. The project, as proposed, consists of 88 single-family units; 111 multi -family units; a 100 -room hotel; a neighborhood commercial area; a community center; and recreational/common area amenities. Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Recommendation: At its meeting of December 12, 2019, the PZC voted 5-1 to recommend that the BCC approve the project with all staff recommended conditions. During the PZC public hearing, Commissioner Polackwich indicated the he would not be voting in favor of the project based on his concerns that the 100 -room hotel component seems incompatible with surrounding uses in the area (see attachment 3). Please see the PD Rezoning Analysis section of this report for staffs explanation of the project's compatibility with the immediate and general surrounding areas. Board of County Commissioners Review: The Board of County Commissioners is now to review the application, conduct a public hearing, and make a final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PD rezoning request and the accompanying conceptual PD plan. 102 Planned Development Rezoning: The overall project site contains ±84.62 (gross) acres, with ±66.58 acres inside the Urban Service Area (USA) and ±18.04 acres outside the Urban Service Area. As allowed under the County's TND policies and regulations, the developer is proposing to rezone the entire area to PDTND. Based on Section 915.21 of the County's land development regulations (LDRs), the developer is required to go through the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process to secure approval for the proposed TND project. If the subject application is approved, the entire site will be rezoned to PDTND and will be governed by the approved conceptual PD plan. The PD Zoning District Generally: In the past, the County has reviewed and approved PD rezonings involving both residential and non- residential projects. Those include: Wal-Mart/Sam's, Vero Beach Square, Ansley Park, Arbor Trace, Old Orchid Groves, Waterway Village, Pointe West, Providence Pointe, and Liberty Park. Similar to this proposal, Pointe West, Sunnyside Up, Providence Pointe, and Liberty Park are PDTND zoned projects designed for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Unlike standard zoning districts, PD districts have no specific size or dimensional criteria. Instead, the PD district is based on the underlying land use plan designation for density, use, and compatibility, with allowances for development of TNDs to be located on portions of the project site that lie outside the Urban Service Area. In the PD zoning district, setbacks and other typical zoning district criteria are established on a site -by -site basis through approval of a conceptual PD plan that is adopted as part of the PD rezoning ordinance. The conceptual PD plan, which in this case includes a TND design, serves as the zoning standard for the site. A PD rezoning requires the submission of a binding conceptual PD plan that, along with certain PD district requirements, limits uses and sets forth specific development standards for each project site. Thus, a PD rezoning allows a unique PD district that is consistent with the site's underlying land use designation(s) and applicable land use policies to be developed for each project site. In this case, the conceptual PD plan proposes up to 199 residential units and commercial, lodging, civic, recreational, and open space uses within a TND layout. Aspects of the proposed conceptual PD plan, including satisfaction of the TND design standards listed in LDR Section 915.21, are addressed in the "plan analysis" section of this report. The PD Rezoning Process: The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as follows: STEP 1. Rezoning and Conceptual PD Plan Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff and by the PZC. Final action taken by the BCC. STEP 2. Preliminary PD Plan/Plat (combination of site plan and preliminary plat) Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the PZC. Must comply with the approved conceptual PD plan and any conditions imposed by the BCC at the time of PD zoning approval (Step 1). 103 STEP 3. Land Development Permit (LDP) or LDP Waiver: Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of subdivision improvements (road, utilities, drainage). STEP 4. Building Permit(s): Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of buildings. STEP 5. Final PD Plat Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the BCC. STEP 6. Certificate of Occupancy: Issued by staff (after inspections) for use and occupancy of buildings. The developer is seeking approval of Step 1 at this time. Once a conceptual PD plan is approved, only minor modifications to the conceptual plan may be approved at a staff level. Any changes proposed to an approved conceptual PD plan that would significantly reduce setbacks (by more than 20%), intensify the site use (e.g. increase the maximum number of units), or reduce compatibility elements (e.g. reduce buffering) may only be approved via a process involving public hearings held by both the PZC and the BCC. Proposed PD District for the Project Site: For this project, most of the site (79%) is located inside the Urban Service Area, with only the western portion located outside the Urban Service Area. Because this is a TND project, the TND criteria outlined in Section 915.21 of the County LDRs control the allowed uses and density of the subject property. As with all TNDs, the proposed PD zoning district and corresponding conceptual PD plan set limits on the type and location of specific uses allowed, the intensity and location of development, and the dimensional criteria for various blocks, tracts, and lots. Generally, the commercial uses allowed will be the uses listed as permitted uses in the CL, Limited Commercial zoning district. Those commercial uses are proposed to be located at the eastern end of the overall development, in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the 58th Avenue/53rd Street intersection. Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain standards related to uses, compatibility (buffering), infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria and open space apply to all PDs. Those standards are set forth in Chapter 915 (P.D. Ordinance) of the County LDRs. Based on the proposed conceptual PD plan and Chapter 915, the proposed PD district for the subject site contains the special elements identified in the tables below. The tables list various uses by zoning district (Table 1) and the development parameters (Table 2) for comparison purposes. Table 1: Use Table 104 DISTRICTS USES ALLOWED PROPOSED PD DISTRICT RS -3 DISTRICT A-1 DISTRICT Single -Family Permitted Permitted Permitted Multi -Family Permitted Not Allowed Not Allowed Personal Services Permitted with Conditions Limited to PD Accessory Limited to PD Accessory 104 Note: All non-residential uses are controlled by the TND criteria outlined in "plan analysis" section of this report. Table 2: Development Parameters DEVELOPMENT PARAMETER DISTRICTS USES ALLOWED PROPOSED PD DISTRICT RS -3 DISTRICT A-1 DISTRICT Commercial Uses Permitted with Conditions Limited to PD Accessory/CN Commercial Uses Limited to PD Accessory/CN Commercial Uses Retail Permitted with Conditions Limited to PD Accessory Limited to PD Accessory Office (medical & professional) Permitted with Conditions Limited to PD Accessory Limited to PD Accessory Health and Fitness Permitted with Conditions Limited to PD Accessory Limited to PD Accessory Institutional Uses Permitted with Conditions Special Exception and Administrative Permit Special Exception and Administrative Permit Place of Worship Permitted with Conditions Administrative Permit Administrative Permit Hotel Permitted with Conditions Not Allowed Not Allowed Note: All non-residential uses are controlled by the TND criteria outlined in "plan analysis" section of this report. Table 2: Development Parameters DEVELOPMENT PARAMETER PROPOSED PD DISTRICT RS -3 A-1 Estate Lot Cottage Lot Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF 2,400 SF* 12,000 SF 200,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 50' 50 80' 150' Minimum Lot Frontage 40' 40' 30' 60' Principal Structure (Non -Garage) Setbacks Front 10' 5' 25' 30' Side 5' 0' 15' 30' Rear 25'15'** 4.5' 25' 30' Garage Setbacks Front: Front Loaded 19' 5' 25' 30' Front: Side Loaded 6.5' 5' 25' 30' Side 10'/0'*** 0' 15' 30' Rear 25'/5'** 4.5' 25' 30' Pool/Deck/Screen Enclosure Front 0' 0' 25' 30' Side 0' 0' 15' 30' Rear 0' 0' 10' 10' Maximum Building Coverage per Lot 60% 70% 30% 20% Minimum Open Space per Lot 25% 25% 40% 60% Minimum Open Space Overall Project 49.5% 49.5% 40% 60% Minimum Street Right -of -Way Width 40' 40' 50' 50' Minimum Street Right -of -Way Radius 25' 25' 45' 45' 105 Notes: * Cottage lots will be created via the plat -over site plan process ** 25' rear setback for perimeter lots / 5' rear setback for interior lots *** 10' side setback if attached to principal structure / 0' side setback if detached from principal structure **** All multi -family building locations will be controlled by the preliminary PD plans PD REZONING ANALYSIS: Existing Zoning and Land Use Pattern: The overall project site is +84.62 (gross) acres and consists entirely of abandoned citrus groves. The eastern +66.58 acres are located inside the Urban Service Area, with +31.41 acres zoned A-1 and +35.17 acres zoned RS -3. All of the property inside the Urban Service Area has an L-1 land designation, which allows up to 3 units/acre. The western +18.04 acres are located outside the Urban Service Area and are zoned A-1. • North of the project site is the North Relief Canal. Most of the properties across the North Relief Canal are inside the Urban Service Area, have an L-1 land use designation, and are zoned either RS -3 or A-1. Most of the RS -3 properties are developed with conventional single-family homes, and the A-1 properties are developed with single-family homes and accessory buildings (e.g. pole barns or detached garages). • East of the project site is the 58th Avenue. The properties across 58th Avenue are zoned PD, and are developed with single-family homes as part of the Waterway Village PD. • South of the project site is 53rd Street. Most of the properties across 53rd Street are vacant, are zoned PDTND, and are part of the Providence Pointe PDTND project. The conceptual PD plan for Providence Pointe was approved on August 20, 2013; however, project construction has not commenced. There are also a few A-1 properties across 53rd Street that are not part of the Providence Pointe PDTND project, and those properties are developed with single-family homes and accessory buildings. • West of the project site is a ±18 acre vacant parcel that is outside of the Urban Service Area and is zoned A-1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan and must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Those include agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and residential densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions that the County will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the County, policies provide the basis for all County land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives. 106 Land Use Policy 5.3: Indian River County zoning districts shall permit a variety of residential building and development styles. Note: The proposed rezoning and conceptual PD plan provides a variety of residential buildings and housing choices within the project that differ from most existing residential subdivision developments. In fact, this project is specifically designed to provide a special "TND Lifestyle", with a variety of housing and work choices in an integrated, planned community. In addition, the buildings will comply with the special design guidelines required by the County's PD regulations. Land Use Policy 5.5: Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD zoning district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to maximize open space and conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate recreational facilities, and incorporate a mix of uses. Note: The proposed PDTND zoning implements this policy by providing a mixture of uses, including open spaces and recreation uses, within a TND design that provides an alternative to a conventional single use project. Land Use Policy 9.3: Indian River County shall maintain plans along roads that serve as entranceways to the County and along other roads, as determined by the County. The County shall continue to implement the recommendations of the Other Corridor Plan and the SR 60 Corridor Plan. Note: The entire development, including residential portions of the project as well as the commercial components, will be subject to architectural design guidelines consistent with the Corridor Plan criteria. Land Use Policy 18.3: To facilitate TND projects east of I-95 that are partially outside but adjacent to the Urban Service Area, and to continue to preserve the agricultural and natural character and function of the area, the county shall allow portions of TND projects to be located outside of the Urban Service Area. A minimum of 60% of the total project density shall be derived from the portion of the project located within the Urban Service Area. Density shall be calculated and allowed based upon: • the land use designation underlying the portion of the project within the Urban Service Area; and • 1 unit/acre for project property located outside of the Urban Service Area. Note: The rezoning and conceptual PD plan is consistent with this policy and approximately 92% of the maximum allowable density is derived from the portion of the project located within the Urban Service Area. Also, the project layout provides a 50' Urban Service Area buffer and estate lots in the area outside of the Urban Service Area. While the referenced policies and objectives are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based on that evaluation, staff determined the proposed PD district and accompanying conceptual PD plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 107 Compatibility with Surrounding Areas: Compatibility is an important consideration in any PD rezoning request. In this case, it is important to consider compatibility of the proposed project with properties in the immediate area, and those within the general area. Immediate Area: The properties along the eastern third of the north project boundary are developed with conventional single-family homes, the middle third are ±5 acre parcels developed with single-family homes and accessory buildings, and the western third consists of a±10 acre single-family parcel and a±20 acre vacant parcel. The project site is separated from the properties to the north by the North Relief Canal that lies within a ±250' wide canal ROW. To ensure compatibility, the PD regulations require a 25' wide Type "B" buffer along the north project boundary for all properties inside the Urban Service Area, and the proposed conceptual PD plan and conceptual landscape plan provide the required 25' Type "B" buffer (see attachments 5 and 6). The County LDRs require a 50' Type "A" buffer along north project boundary for all properties outside the Urban Service Area, and the proposed conceptual PD plan and conceptual landscape plan provide the required 50' Type "A" buffer (see attachments 5 and 6). The properties east of the project site are developed with single-family homes as part of the Waterway Village PD. The project site is separated from the properties to the east by 58th Avenue, and the PD regulations require a 25' wide Type "B" buffer along the east project boundary. The proposed conceptual PD plan and conceptual landscape plan provide the required 25' Type "B" buffer (see attachments 5 and 6). Most of the properties south of the project site are vacant and are part of the Providence Pointe PDTND project. The project site is separated from the properties to the south by 53`d Street, and the PD regulations require a 25' wide Type "B" buffer along the south project boundary. The proposed conceptual PD plan and conceptual landscape plan provide the required 25' Type "B" buffer (see attachments 5 and 6). The property immediately west of the project site is a ±18 acre vacant parcel that is outside of the Urban Service Area and is zoned A-1. The County LDRs require a 50' Type "A" buffer along west project boundary, and the proposed conceptual PD plan and conceptual landscape plan provide the required 50' Type "A" buffer (see attachments 5 and 6). Based on input provided during the PZC public hearing, staff is providing additional compatibility analysis for the 100 -room hotel portion of the project with the immediate surrounding area. Generally, hotel or lodging uses are common within a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project, and have been included in other County -approved TND projects such as Pointe West and Providence Pointe. However, neither hotels have been constructed within those projects. For the proposed project, the hotel site is located internal to the overall project layout, is set back approximately 450' from 58th Avenue, and is set back approximately 650' from the nearest existing or proposed external residential unit. Also, the hotel is subject to the typical 35' building height limitation provided for all commercial and multi -family portions of the project. Lastly, the hotel building and site is required to be fully compliant with all of the "Other" Corridor special development regulations. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the hotel portion of the project is compatible with the proposed TND project, and the immediate surrounding area. 108 General Area: The project site is located in central Indian River County, just west of 58th Avenue. The area around the project site has experienced significant residential development in the past 20 years mostly through large residential projects like Vero Lago and Waterway Village PD. Most of the commercial development that serves the general area is located within the existing SR 60 corridor between 43rd Avenue and 66th Avenue, or the newer commercial development area located at 53rd Street and US Highway 1. It is staffs position that the proposed TND design will provide additional residential development that is consistent with the immediate area, as well as limited commercial uses integrated into the project (e.g. office, personal services, retail) that will serve the general project area. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with the immediate area and is consistent with the existing development pattern of the general project area. Concurrency Impacts: A conditional concurrency certificate has been issued for the project. Concurrency is discussed in more detail in the PD Plan Analysis section of this staff report. Environmental Impacts: Environmental issues are addressed in the PD Plan Analysis section of this report. PD PLAN ANALYSIS: 1. Project Area: 84.62 acres (gross) 5.52 acres (53rd Street ROW dedication) 79.10 acres (net) 2. Zoning Classifications: Current: RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to 3 units/acre) and A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit / 5 acres) Proposed: PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design 3. Land Use Designations: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and AG -2, Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) 4. Commercial Area: 5. Total Units: 2.68 acres or 3.4% of the net project area Maximum (allowed under TND policies): 217 Proposed: 199 Note: The maximum number of units and the density calculations are based on the gross project acreage prior to any right-of-way (ROW) dedication, and reflect a density credit for the ROW that is to be dedicated. To meet County requirements, the developer is dedicating a total of 5.52 acres for 53rd Street, and the ROW dedication requirements are discussed in more detail later in this report. 6. Density: Maximum: 2.59 units/acre Proposed: 2.52 units/acre 109 Derived from inside USA: 199 units or 92% Required (minimum): 130 units or 60% Note: The maximum density calculation is based on a weighted average of the L-1 designated portion of the project site (66.58 acres) and the AG -1 designated portion (18.04 acres). Per the TND criteria, at least 60% of the project density must be derived from inside the USA and a residential density of 1 unit/acre was utilized for the AG -1 portion of the site located outside the USA. 7. Open Space: Required: 44.0% Proposed: 49.5% Note: The minimum required open space calculation is based on a weighted average of the L-1 designated portion of the project site and the AG -1 designated portion. 8. Recreation Area: Required: 5.93 acres Proposed: 9.25 acres Note: Recreation areas include a clubhouse with a pool, walking trails around the stormwater system, several common area/recreation tracts, and all of the littoral zone areas. 9. Phasing: The developer provided a conceptual phasing plan that generally defines two phases. Phase 1 will include the project's primary driveway connection to 53rd Street, the primary east to west internal subdivision road, and all of the project's stormwater pond. Phase 2 is broken into multiple sub -phases that can "connect" to the primary infrastructure provided with Phase 1, and can be developed based on market demand for the various project components (i.e. single-family residential, multi -family residential, or limited commercial). 10. Utilities: The project will be served by public water and sewer service provided by County Utility Services. The County Department of Utility Services and the Department of Health have approved these utility provisions. 11. Parking: The developer has committed to providing the number of parking spaces required by the County's parking regulations for all proposed uses. Under those regulations, the developer may, at a future date, prepare a shared parking study for the commercial area to justify lower rates. Such rates, if requested, will require Planning and Zoning Commission approval. Any such shared parking study will need to comply with LDR parking regulations in Section 954.08(2). Staff anticipates that there will be shared parking among the various commercial area uses and will encourage use of the parking study option during review of preliminary PD plans. 12. Stormwater Management: The project's conceptual stormwater design proposes an interconnected stormwater system and one large stormwater management tract to manage runoff generated by the project as well as offsite runoff generated by the proposed paving of 53rd Street. Through the final PD plat process, the stormwater tract will be dedicated to the property owners' association, and stormwater easements will be dedicated to the County to connect the 53rd Street drainage to the stormwater management tract. Public Works has accepted the project engineer's certification of the project's conceptual stormwater design. The final design will be reviewed and approved by Public Works via the land development permit (LDP) review process. 110 13. Traffic Circulation: The conceptual PD plan provides a total of 4 connections to a proposed extension of 53rd Street, and those include a primary full -movement connection, a right-in/right-out connection near the commercial area (east end), a gated, one-way egress connection at the midpoint of the project, and a stabilized emergency access connection at the far west end of the project (see attachment 5). The primary full -movement connection will be served by a westbound right -turn lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and the right-in/right-out connection will be served by a westbound right -turn lane. The internal roadway system is designed as a modified grid system that provides internal access to the various components of the project, including several roundabouts. All internal streets are proposed to be privately maintained by and dedicated to a property owners' association. However, the public will have access to the limited commercial portion of the project site, and the hotel site. All access points and the internal circulation plan has been approved by Traffic Engineering and Fire Prevention. The dedication and improvements section of this report provides a list of traffic improvements required to be provided by the project, and those improvements have been determined based upon a traffic impact study submitted by the applicant and approved by Traffic Engineering. Responsibilities for and timing of required improvements and conditions may be outlined in further detail in a future Developer's Agreement. That agreement may include additional improvements and conditions, and must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to preliminary PD plan approval for Phase I of the project. 14. Required Dedications and Improvements: a. Right -of -Way Dedication for 53rd Street: The County's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 53rd Street as an arterial roadway that requires 200' of ultimate right-of-way (ROW). However, the required ROW width may be reduced based on roadway design (i.e. curb and gutter) and roadway drainage being handled by the project's internal stormwater system. The developer has coordinated with Public Works, and has agreed to a roadway design that requires 150' of road ROW. That roadway design and ROW width is consistent with the current design and alignment of 53rd Street on the east side of 58th Avenue. Currently, 30' of road ROW exists along the project's entire 53rd Street frontage. Therefore, the developer has agreed to dedicate an additional 120' of ROW for 53rd Street along the project's entire 53rd Street frontage. It should be noted that a 120' ROW dedication has already been completed for the eastern ±1,290' of the project's 53rd Street frontage. That ROW dedication was coordinated between the current owner/developer, the previous owner, and the County, and was executed when the current owner/developer purchased the property. The ROW dedication for project's remaining ±2,000' of 53rd Street frontage must be completed prior to the issuance of an LDP for Phase 1 or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). b. Roadway Paving for 53rd Street: Currently, 53rd Street is an unpaved dirt road west of 58th Avenue, and is a 4 -lane, "boulevard" style arterial road east of 58th Avenue. The developer is required to construct 53rd Street as a 4 -lane road from 58th Avenue to the project's primary driveway connection to 53rd Street, and then transition down to a 2 -lane road to the west end 111 of the project site (see attachment 5). The final design of 53rd Street will be reviewed via the LDP process for Phase 1. The timing of the 53rd Street improvements will be further outlined prior to preliminary PD approval for Phase 1 or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). c. Turn Lane Improvements for 53rd Street: The following turn lane improvements are required for 53rd Street as outlined in the project's approved traffic impact study, and depicted on the conceptual PD plan. The timing of the 53rd Street turn lane improvements will be further outlined prior to preliminary PD approval for Phase 1 or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). • Westbound right -turn lane at the project's full access connection to 53rd Street • Eastbound left -turn lane at the project's full access connection to 53rd Street • Westbound right -turn lane at the project's right-in/right-out connection to 53rd Street d. Drainage for 53rd Street: The developer has coordinated with Public Works, and has agreed to accept stormwater runoff generated by the paving of 53rd Street. The stormwater design for 53rd Street will be reviewed via the LDP process for Phase 1 or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). e. Right -of -Way Dedication for 58th Avenue: The County is currently designing a 58th Avenue widening project between 49th Street and 57th Street. The developer has agreed to dedicate ROW for 58th Avenue in order to accommodate the final design of the 58th Avenue widening project. However, the final dedication width will not be determined until all survey and design work has been completed. Therefore, the developer will need to obtain Public Works approval on the final 58th Avenue ROW dedication prior to preliminary PD approval for Phase 1. The 58th Avenue ROW dedication must be completed prior to the issuance of an LDP for Phase 1 or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). f 53rd Street Sidewalk: A 5' wide sidewalk is required along the site's 53rd Street frontage. The final design of the 53rd Street sidewalk will be reviewed and approved via the LDP for each phase, and must be constructed prior to the issuance of a C. of C. for each respective phase or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). 58th Avenue Sidewalk: A 5' wide sidewalk is required along the site's 58th Avenue frontage. The final design of the 58th Avenue sidewalk will be reviewed and approved via the LDP for each phase, and must be constructed prior to the issuance of a C. of C. for each respective phase or as outlined in a future Developer's Agreement (if applicable). h. Internal Pedestrian System: The development will have an extensive sidewalk and community trail system to facilitate pedestrian access through the project for residents and users of the project's public areas. The pedestrian system will connect to the external pedestrian system on 53rd Street. Portions of the community trail and internal sidewalk system will be constructed with each phase. All sidewalks will be included in the LDP for each phase, and will need to be constructed along the frontage of common areas and individual lots in accordance with the requirements of LDR Section 913.09(5)(b)2. g. 112 i. Streetlighting: Streetlights are required and proposed, and will be maintained by the property owners' association. Additional streetlight details will be provided with the preliminary PD plan, and the final design of the streetlights will be reviewed via the LDP for each phase. >• Green Space and/or Recreation Area: At least 7.5% of the total site area must be set-aside as dedicated common green space and/or recreation area. For this project, the developer proposes to provide 9.25 acres of recreation area, which is 12.9% of the site. The recreation areas include a clubhouse with a pool, walking trails around the stormwater system, several common area/recreation tracts, and all of the littoral zone areas. 15. Concurrency: As required under the County's concurrency regulations, the developer has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve this project at the time of the determination. 16. Landscape and Buffering Plan: The developer has provided a conceptual landscape plan that meets the criteria of Chapter 926, and is sufficient for conceptual PD plan approval (see attachment 6). A detailed description of each required perimeter buffer is provided above in the PD Rezoning Analysis section of this report. Preliminary landscape plans will be reviewed and approved with each preliminary PD plan, and final landscape plans will be reviewed with the land development permit plans for each phase. The final landscape plan must be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a land development permit for each phase. 17. Environmental Issues: • Uplands: Since the site is over five acres, the County's native upland set-aside requirement potentially applies; however, County Environmental Planning staff has determined that no intact native upland plant communities exist on the project site. Therefore, no native upland set-aside requirements apply to the proposed development. • Wetlands: County Environmental Planning staff has determined that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject site. Therefore, no wetlands criteria apply to the proposed development. • Tree Mitigation: The majority of the project site is former citrus groves. However, there are small portions of the site that are partially wooded with a mixture of palm, hardwood, and non -hardwood tree species. Mitigation is required for removal of any native hardwood trees over 12" DBH and cabbage palms with 10' or more of clear trunk. All invasive exotics will be removed during development. Additional tree mitigation details will be provided with the preliminary PD plan for each phase. The developer must obtain Environmental Planning staff approval of the final tree protection and mitigation plan, prior to the issuance of an LDP for each respective project phase. • Listed Species/Bald Eagles: There is an active bald eagle's nest located on the south side of 53rd Street within the Providence Pointe PDTND project site. The applicant has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and has determined that there are no physical development limitations (e.g. conservation areas or buffers) required for the Mandala Village project site. However, there are construction activity limitations during nesting season that will apply to a small portion of the project site within 660' of the nest. 113 18. Public Benefits: For all PD projects, applicants must identify the public benefits that the project will provide in exchange for requested waivers or incentives being sought by the applicant. For the proposed project, the public benefits provided over and above a conventional development plan are as follows: • Right -of -Way Dedication for 53rd Street: The developer has agreed to dedicate 5.52 acres of right-of-way (ROW) for 53rd Street without compensation. Although the developer is receiving density credit for the ROW dedication, they will not seek impact fee credits or other forms of monetary compensation. The 53rd Street ROW dedication is a public benefit above and beyond a less extensive dedication that would be typical of a conventional project. • Drainage for 53rd Street: The developer has agreed to accept stormwater runoff generated by the paving of 53rd Street, which will lessen the County's obligation construct stormwater treatment facilities within the County ROW or acquire additional private property. • Public Access: Certain interior streets will be privately dedicated but open to the public, and will provide access to the limited commercial area and the hotel site. The proposed TND design will offer limited commercial and personal services that are accessible to the residents within the project as well as residents of nearby residential projects. • Lakeside Amphitheater: The applicant will provide a lakeside amphitheater that will be accessible to the public during public events. 19. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Criteria: Section 915.21 of the County LDRs outline the following TND criteria: a. The minimum contiguous project site area shall be forty (40) acres. Note: The project site is 85.62 acres, and exceeds the 40 acre minimum. b. Land shall be under unified control, and it shall be planned and developed as a whole in a single development or as an approved series of developments or neighborhoods. The project shall be approved under the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process. Note: The developer controls the entire 85.62 acres and is pursuing the PD rezoning process, a process which requires a PD plan for the overall project. c. In order to disperse traffic by offering many alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites, the street network shall consist of a grid or modified grid pattern and shall accommodate vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent streets, sidewalks, and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites. Note: The conceptual PD plan proposes a modified grid system throughout the project site with roundabouts at key intersections and an extensive sidewalk/pedestrian system. The project design provides multiple connections to 53rd Street but is restricted from extending roadways to the north and east. 114 d. No more than ten (10) percent of blocks shall have a block with a perimeter measuring one thousand eight hundred (1,800) feet or more. Within commercial and mixed use areas, no block face dimension shall exceed four hundred (400) feet. Blocks may be defined (divided) by streets or major pedestrian paths. Note: None of the residential blocks measure more than 1,800' in length, and no commercial area block face exceeds 400'. e. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and pathways. Note: The development will have an interconnected system of streets, sidewalks, and community trails, as depicted and noted on the conceptual PD plan. f. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. Note: The proposed modified grid system, on street parking in certain areas, traffic calming designs, and pedestrian system meet this policy. The project design accommodates a future transit stop located along 58th Avenue, and that location has been approved by MPO staff as a potential future transit stop location. g. Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. Note: Street trees will be provided along all streets, as noted on the conceptual landscape plan, and will be specified in the streetscape design that will be a part of each preliminary PD, plan. h. Streets and adjacent buildings shall be sited and designed to encourage interactions between the street and buildings through the use of amenities such as reduced building setbacks, "build -to" lines, front porches, stoops, rear and side yard parking lot and garage locations, and other means. Note: The conceptual PD plan incorporates most of the above -referenced design elements to encourage interaction between streets and adjacent buildings and/or common areas. Projects shall decrease the prominence of front yard driveways, garages, and parking lots through one (1) or more of the following: Mid -block alleys, garages located toward the rear of lots, rear and side loaded garages, garages which are not the predominant architectural feature of the front elevation of buildings, off-street parking at the rear of buildings, and restricted driveway connections to streets. Note: For the residential areas, the conceptual PD plan provides a mixture of rear and side loaded garages, detached garages, and on street parking. In the commercial area, buildings will front streets that have on -street parking, streetscape improvements, and sidewalks. The project shall be designed as a compact or clustered development. Projects may include the following mix of uses occurring together in close proximity: 115 • Single-family residential units; • Accessory dwelling units; • Multiple -family residential units; • Commercial and work place uses; • Civic and cultural uses; and • Open space. Note: The proposed development contains all of the above -referenced uses, and the project's design provides for a mix of uses located in close proximity to each other. Those uses are integrated together into a traditional neighborhood and commercial village design. k. The following ratios shall apply to land uses within the project: • Community open spaces open to the public, such as squares, plazas, or parks, shall comprise a minimum of five (5) percent of the total project area. Note: The conceptual PD plan provides approximately 7% of community open spaces open to the public. • Civic uses, such as post offices, churches, community centers, pavilions, meeting halls, schools, day care centers, and cultural facilities shall comprise a minimum of one (1) percent of the total project area. Note: Approximately 4% of the project area will be devoted to civic uses. • Residential uses shall comprise a minimum of fifty (50) percent and a maximum of eighty (80) percent of the total non -conservation and non-agricultural project area. Note: Residential uses comprise 55% of the total project area. • Commercial and office uses located on residentially or agriculturally designated land shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total land area designated on the land use plan as residential and agricultural. Note: Approximately 3.4% of the total project land area (designated residential and agricultural) will be used for commercial and office purposes. 1. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed, and strongly encouraged, around designated town centers, main streets, mixed-use centers, and central squares and greens. Note: The office building and smaller retail buildings are proposed to have one -bedroom and/or studio apartments on the 2nd and/or 3rd floors. m. Each project must have at least one (1) center consisting of a public square, town center, or mixed use area. A project may have more than one (1) center. In addition, a center may be located on an adjacent site (outside the TND project) if the TND project is integrated into the 116 adjacent center and rights are secured for access to the center by TND project residents. The TND project shall be designed so that a center is within a one -quarter -mile walking distance from fifty (50) percent of the TND project's residential units and within one -half -mile walking distance from seventy-five (75) percent of the TND project's residential units. Note: The project design provides a single/primary public square with 70% of the project's residential units within 1/4 mile walking distance, and 100% of the project's residential units within 1/2 mile walking distance. n. To accommodate increased pedestrian use, fifty (50) percent of sidewalks in public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall have a minimum unobstructed width (clear and passable for pedestrians) of at least seven (7) feet. Note: All of the sidewalks (100%) within the commercial area and public square will be a minimum of T wide. o. On -street parking shall be allowed within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas. Note: On -street parking is proposed throughout the commercial and multi -family areas. p. q. Off-street parking lots within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall be provided only at the rear of buildings. Note: All buildings within the commercial area and public square front on a street or major pedestrian system, with parking located at the rear or to the side of buildings. The center shall accommodate space for at least one (1) transit stop and a civic building. Note: The conceptual PD plan proposes 1 transit stop and a lakeside amphitheater that will function as a civic structure and be open for public events. The transit stop has been reviewed and approved by MPO staff. r. Project edges located outside the Urban Service Area shall be established and designed for environmental, agricultural, recreational, or other open space uses. Note: The project design provides a project edge along the western project boundary, and that project edge "wraps" a portion of the northern project boundary where adjacent sites are located outside of the Urban Service Area. s. Public buildings, such as schools, churches, post offices, and community centers, shall be provided in prominent, accessible locations within the project. Such locations generally are at the termination of streets, the perimeter of the neighborhood center, or the frontage along a designated main street of a neighborhood or adjacent thoroughfare plan road. Note: The amphitheater will be located on a lake front tract on the perimeter of the public square, and will be accessible to the public during public events. 117 t. TND projects located entirely within the Urban Service Area shall receive a ten -percent density bonus above and beyond the maximum density provided under the project site's land use designation. TND projects may be approved as receiving sites for density transferred from agriculturally designated lands subject to the conditions and limitations in Future Land Use Element Policy 6.8. Note: The subject project is located partially outside of the Urban Service Area. Therefore, the project is not eligible for a density bonus. u. For TND projects located east of I-95, a portion of the project may be located partially outside but adjacent to the Urban Service Area. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total project density shall be derived from the portion of the project located within the Urban Service Area. Density shall be calculated and allowed based upon: • The land use designation underlying the portion of the project within the Urban Service Area; and • One (1) unit/acre for project property located outside the Urban Service Area. Note: As demonstrated in the density calculations section of this report, the project density satisfies this requirement. All conditions recommended by staff have been accepted by the developer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design (PDTND) rezoning and the conceptual PD plan, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the preliminary PD plan for Phase I, the developer shall: a. Obtain Public Works approval of the timing of the project's required 53rd Street improvements, including turn lane improvements, or enter into a Developer's Agreement for those improvements. b. Obtain Public Works approval of the final determination for the project's required 58th Avenue ROW dedication, or enter into a Developer's Agreement for the 58th Avenue ROW dedication. 2. Prior to issuance of a land development permit for Phase 1, the developer shall: a. Dedicate the required road right-of-way for 53rd Street without compensation, as shown on the conceptual PD plan. b. Dedicate the required road right-of-way for 58th Avenue without compensation, or as outlined in a Developer's Agreement. c. Obtain Public Works approval of the final design of the project's required 53rd Street improvements including the external sidewalk, final turn lane configurations, and the 58th Avenue/53rd Street intersection improvements, or as outlined in a Developer's Agreement. 118 d. Obtain Public Works approval of the final design for the stormwater improvements required to accept stormwater runoff from 53rd Street, or as outlined in a Developer's Agreement. e. Obtain Public Works approval of the final design of the project's external 58th Avenue sidewalk, or as outlined in a Developer's Agreement. f. Provide a final design, acceptable to Traffic Engineering and MPO Staff, for the project transit stop. 3. Prior to issuance of a land development permit for any respective phase, the developer shall: a. Obtain Planning staff approval of the final landscape plan for the respective phase. b. Obtain Planning staff approval of the final streetlighting plan for the respective phase. c. Obtain Environmental Planning staff approval of the final tree protection and mitigation plan for the respective phase. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for Phase 1, the developer shall construct all required 53rd Street improvements from 58th Avenue to the project's full access connection, or as outlined in a Developer's Agreement. 5. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for any project phase or sub -phase, the developer shall construct required improvements such as sidewalks and buffers that are tied to that specific phase or sub -phase, or otherwise guarantee completion of the improvements as provided for in the LDRs. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial 3. Excerpt from Draft December 12, 2019 PZC Minutes 4. PDTND Rezoning Ordinance 5. Conceptual PD Plan 6. Conceptual Landscape Plan 119 i lhiH.S9NIN) AV H195 Cr) o d 8 I Qi of 1- v^ Subject Site 8 � �ti, Alt- a:. _ a. L J� 'L ' 1C a 747 4 r. 1 a s 4 •7 -41;:\ • �j 3 .rw •s. , - ,,4•1,144' ry M i a' .`4" • µ' S * .k , ., r x •yt = R �..... a • 11,, I R'°13, l4 , Mr. Scott Rodriguez, along with Mr. John McCoy, Chief of Current Development, answered questions from the commissioners regarding the proposed project. Mr. Alan Polackwich disclosed that in the 1980's, his family entered into litigation with FPL and that the issue was resolved after several years. He added that it would not prohibit him from making a fair decision regarding this request. This disclosure was not challenged. ON MOTION BY Dr. Jonathan Day, SECONDED BY Mr. Jordan Stewart, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve staff recommendations on this Quasi -Judicial matter. Public Hearings Chairperson Mr. Todd Brognano read,the following into the record: (A7Man a a age uTlPDTN eques o rezone approximha ely 73:1) (acres from A 1 agri Iui raI f ti to one unit acres aii VRS3 (3, reside ial single- amity07U-three units per acre)' o PDTN1J) (Planne "D'e`velopmentIra�ciTional�Neigh-borhood�Design, an rob in concepfua1-Planned-Develop (PD)Tplan approva tor a) rolect to b known as Man�ala\71l a1 ge. The prolec proposes single- ami1y uni s,�1�� mulTi�ami y uni s, a -room o e , neighaorhooi) (commercial) area, Q (ommunity�cen er, and) Fe -Cif -ea area amenities. Locatedf The northwestcorner) o e 58 )(Avenue ) 5 )(Siree in en rsecfion. March ala Vit al ge, L C) (Owner. 1ZnighT71\71Muire) (Associates, Inc., Age�n Zonings: A T) gricultural717up o one uni per ive acres =RS -3 ResiaeTn ial) (Sing e-Famly uree uni p o ts peran acre)"Laccn -13§-6--DTgiT-Mi-or-77) "G=1�grucultural��up o one uni per ive acres) andT 1 Low ) ensity Residen ial71�u o Three units per acre):Densi y _. - (1=O1 OT /SI 1 • 4 •i. •uasRJUIi iaf]) (Chairperson 1\71r: T551 Brognano asd�edihe Commissioners o reveal any (ex -1 ---Me communica lion withth ae p ican or any confli" that would not allow (them o ma e an un iased7eciTion. Themem ers sfa�edihat 1e hadrot-ha'd) any ex -par e communiction. 122 esecre dry a mihis�erea-fhhe t timonial oma h to (hose present -Thy -15) wishea-io speak attonig's meeting on this ma er. (Mf Ryan Sweeney, Senioranner ourren eve opment, revie ) (inTorma ion) (regarding) (tai) reques Q rezoning an) (gave) ® ower oink resen a ion, copies of which ar1e inhe oar o oun y ommissioners) ((aCC) Office. He recommende�c a e ommissioners recommend -that th ) (BCC approve fhe PD rezoning an concep ua pan for (Mlandala Village war)) (the con iiions Iisredin the s aff re d (Mr. Ryan Sweeney and -Mr. John McCoy answered questions from the) ommissioners regardm" g the proposed prole- . Chairperson 1\7r: TUUd Brognano opened- he public hearing. • ro of -1-J Tefoper Mr Reichard-Bid'alosky gave aower oink presentation, copies�o which are on file in the Board o oun y ommissioners (1BCCj Office, (detailing�ea ures o e propose developmen a emphasizes wellness as well) (as energy efciency,. (RepresenEng t1i ii9C ia' nWf eigh�orhoodl s a io visory oar-) (Nleosep� (Fafnir)) (President) [fj (Blacks wan (Consulting (Oa) (ManagementoW rpion, expressed his support for the proposedWd-a) Fajacenproper y owner -r. Thomas Lewis voice is concerns regar ing (hi-�s o s property va ue and increased -traffic as a result—Ur—the proposed) 1573ject7IVIC ar— McCoy an Win oun y orney r. i11-DeBraal respond7d) y reviewing road development planspran7foTthe area.) • �jacen prope y owner r Norman Niere' nberg inquire as fo rezoning") no ifica io" n poficiesfhe size o he commercial area oflhe project, limits on hours) (bf opera ion orbust esseswft1 i the eve opmen roa improvements a`n�d) (traffic sigpala.) • (Chairperson iaa-Brognano closea�he pub�fic hearing_ FT) (Bill) arad) alao=b rated) on (time) erames (fa) roa) improvemen s (surrounding -the proposed -development and remi 9 e?V he commissioners thea ) (tits reques is or a concep ua pan approval') (Commissioner MrA a'I n Polackwich'indica e ha e wou a not be vo ing) m avor o`f e proje bar his concerns that the '1DU-room hot I component) (seemsincompatil5le with surrounding uses in -the area) 123 ON MOT1OWBY-1Vfr. Jiri an ewa ; SE INDEWBY (fir. (Jona an ay he(Mb-Fib—erg) (To e (6=1) (D (ap_prove) s a) (recommendations (l OW) uasi- (J i ficial) er. (Mr.) (A an (Po1acR-0ii) was hr je opposing vo e. B. CEMEX Construction Materials, Florida, LLC Request to Rezone +/- 6.13 acres from A-1 to IG; +/- 15.85 acres from A-1 to CH; and +/- 4.78 acres from IG to CG (RZON96030244-85706) Chairperson Mr. Todd Brognano asked the Commissioners to reveal any ex-parte communication with the applicant or any conflict that would not allow them to make an unbiased decision. The members stated that they had not had any ex-parte communication. The secretary administered the testimonial oath to those present who wished to speak at tonight's meeting on this matter. Mr. William Schutt, Chief of Long Range Planning, reviewed information regarding the request for rezoning and gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file in the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Office. He recommended that the Commissioners recommend that the BCC approve this rezoning request. Mr. William Schutt and Mr. John McCoy, as well as Mr. Roland DeBlois, Interim Community Development Director, answered questions from the Commissioners regarding the proposed rezoning. Mr. Bruce Barkett, Representative for the Applicant, clarified details of the proposed rezoning and offered to answer questions. Chairman Todd Brognano opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Lobes, Chief Executive Officer of Moorings Yacht and Country Club, owner of Hawks Nest Gold Course that is adjacent to the proposed rezoning area, asked for the case to be tabled until he has opportunity to speak with the applicant. Representing Hawks Nest Golf Course, Mr. Jeff Bittner voiced his concerns about land uses that could negatively impact the golf course. He 124 ORDINANCE NO. 2020 - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -3, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE) AND A-1, AGRICULTURAL -1 (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO PDTND, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN, FOR APPROXIMATELY 79.1 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58TH AVENUE, NORTH OF 53RD STREET, AND .SOUTH OF THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL AND DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, held a public hearing and subsequently considered this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: THE EAST ONE HALF OF TRACT 14, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL No. 32391700001014000002.0 AND PARCEL No. 32391700001014000003.0 TOGETHER WITH: TRACT 15, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS THE NORTH 125 FEET FOR CANAL RIGHTS OF WAY OF NORTH RELIEF CANAL, INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET FOR 53rd STREET ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 125 Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2020 - PARCEL NO. 32391700001015000001.0 TRACT 16, LESS THE NORTH 125 FEET FOR CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3058, PAGE 293, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL NO. 32391700001016000001.0 is changed from RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to 3 units/acre) and A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design, with the general project layout as depicted in the attached conceptual PD plan (Exhibit A). All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Indian River Press Journal on the 5th day of January, 2020, for a public hearing to be held on the 21' day of January, 2020, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Susan Adams Vice Chairman Joseph E. Flesher Commissioner Tim Zorc Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Susan Adams, Chairman 126 Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2020 - ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller BY: Deputy Clerk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Roland M. DeBlois, AICP; Interim Community Development Director 127 Attachment 4 . { 1144 sliq I `v II i I -,� 11 Attachment 4 GrCSaw)..,-^^T—'.�riC2MciT ivr., >xwsvri..x%;>x.�i z z U W J W C 1- 0 0 z Z a5 3 \c vpnt 4 Z 0 Ww Lu S O 2 a E s ru MIN JIM a Mie E ••r U c9 CI4 P-1 tU 4.1 c.) Choi 4u ct o ct• .~moo CCS Board of County Commission January 21, 2020 Planned Development (PD) Rezoning Process Preliminary PD Plan/Plat tual PD Plan U 0 .i .- O N 4.4 PZC Approval PZC Recommendation BCC Approval lat is approved by BCC •Final PD P1 Location Map 4i%I SCA/M) Ay 1 North Relief Canal ISL_ Omand q18 401 M Q • � � Z��� • .._ , 1 f w to A o ' c' a) " cu . - 7i cA� o O a, o O tb Z E o a) r..o ..-., CAC -1 p COE . • . . . . . 111 multi -family units Resort hotel Limited commercial area Lakeside amphitheater • Various open space, common areas, and clubhouse/recreation a) once tual PD Pla i•l !l'4; 4C+ '1M N , ] 200,000 SF - VD Principal Structure (Non -Garage) Setbacks k k Garage Setbacks' k 30' m m Pool/Deck/Screen Enclosure 30' k <0I k\k .N VD 41k $ R56 om,m C`4 . Q A- G N 25' -n 41 25' 0 k\ m# k r©® 0 G at -over site plan process. ' rear setback for interior lots. al structure / 0' side setback if detached vill be controlled by the preliminary PD plans PROPOSED PD DISTRICT Estate Lot Cottage Lot. 2,400 SF* 0S QS/ QG6\. 5 0' 5¢\� ,' 44% % — 6,000 SF \ 40' SOT Q * ea \\ƒ; {� 3 WI b¢\ 44% 40' VI Minimum Lot Size / . / § Minimum Lot. Frontage # _ / Rear Front: Front. Loaded Front: Side Loaded , / � s 2 Front ° / 04 Maximum Building Coverage per Lot Minimum Open Space per Lot. Minimum Open Space- Overall Project Minimum Street Right -of -Way Width Minimum Street Right -of -Way Radius Notes: Cottage lots will be created via the p1 ** 25'rear setback for perimeter lots / 5 *** 10' side setback if attached to princip ****' All multi -family building locations w ) •- V trz,too ;.1 —�.. anuand 1/////1., t011. t 1;i1==ipyp+-alfa kw h+rkT, iAb4uSQ'uAlbf1; a +v dt.ww.HY.e:eK.vOfM'iAYA2.2PF "?�lAr cp M a) ct 0.ii 0 aj U P .0 O rZ4 P4 E -1Q a) N 4--) �+ U c • • • I andsca e & Bu eying Pla •- z N 4.740 •- Public Benefits LA aI O Q al M 4) N O . O N ▪ U O M ,4 .4•v) 'Ct CA E (1) "Zi 4 --+to v Z a) 0 ct ,c ,-. o E 8 .r.0 c24 C2I P. Lt . . . • H . A A PZC Action e ct -A= —4., ,.. a) c) a i -E) o 0 C1.1 • o ...i U E U O o v a) 7i • ct -48•o E 5 U' ( O o N N .-72) cA .51 7- 1,d P-4 °.).4 1 N ;._, 0 P-1 a) ,-c-4t rg tO N �' cc 0 cc cll E Ct — o N r � ▪ cu'— 8 U 17), al ct o O � H o H A A A Staff Recommendation 53rd Street and 58th Avenue ROW dedications 53rd Street and 58th Avenue sidewalks Final design and location of transit stop • • • • • • • Richard Bruce From: Christine Adonetti <cradonetti@gmail.com> Sent:. Monday, January 20, 2020 2:28 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning at 58th Avenue and 53rd Street - Vero Beach CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear City Commissioners: I am writing to you today regarding the proposal to re -zone the property at 58th Avenue and 53rd Street in Vero Beach. My husband and I along with all of our neighbors and friends in nearby communities are extremely upset and displeased that the re -zoning of this land is under consideration. We all purchased homes in the developments near and along 58th Avenue because it is a quiet, residential area. One of the things that attracted us to Vero Beach was the prudent decision making regarding development. We believe it would be a mistake and certainly not prudent to allow commercial/mixed use development in this area. This kind of development will negatively impact our residential communities with increased traffic, noise, litter, pollution, potential crime, etc. and will most certainly decrease the values of our homes and make this area less appealing to reside in. There are plenty of other areas in Vero Beach that are more appropriate for commercial/mixed use projects. It is difficult to comprehend why our commissioners, who supposedly have the best interests in mind for their citizens, would allow such a project to be approved within a residential area. Please strongly consider the concerns of all of us who live in this area and please do not approve this re -zoning development project. Thank you for listening - we hope that you will keep our best interests in mind so we can continue to be proud to live in Vero Beach. Sincerely, Christine Adonetti Resident of Waterway Village 1 1,30-'5V Ed Offutt From: nancyalderman@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:55 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: rezoning for Mandala Village CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioner Flescher, I just wanted to say thank you for your NO vote and understanding of the many problems this project will cause. Too bad the other commissioners don't have more vision about how the area develops. This came to my attention only a couple of days ago and I did not have time to research and see all of the other ways this project will affect this area with rental property and commercial activities. It is not good. As much as I love where I live and it's location, it is obvious that I will have to move in the upcoming future. Thank you again for your vote. Nancy A Alderman 5620 Corsica Place Vero Beach, FL 32967 1 /U0 -/S. Ed Offutt From: nancyalderman@comcast.net Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:50 PM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: Rezoning for Mandala Village f CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. January 20, 2020 RE: Rezoning for Mandala Village Dear Commissioner Flescher, Please vote NO! What appealed to me when I bought my home in the north part of Vero is the small town and rural feel — having horses across the street and listening to the cows in the morning, still having dark night skies and wide open spaces in my native Florida to enjoy while having many other amenities and major commercial businesses within 10 minutes. I don't look forward to increased traffic not only from the residents but transient traffic from a 100 -room hotel. Nor do I look forward to the additional noise and light pollution and any other negative consequences this project would bring. Please don't destroy the beauty and the allure of this area. Don't let us start looking like South Florida. I don't think this project in this location makes for a very good Comprehensive Land Use plan. I am completely against rezoning of this property for this type of use. It does not fit here, commercial property, a hotel, in a clearly residential and agricultural area for many miles around. Keep the hotels on major thoroughfares, US1, SR60, but not in residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Nancy A Alderman 5620 Corsica Place Vero Beach, FL 32967 1 1 3O -j% Richard Bruce From: Nick Algiero (FIRST BROKERS SECURI) <nalgiero@bloomberg.net> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 3:03 PM Subject: 58th Street Zoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. To Whom it May Concern: I would like to express my extreme displeasure in the county commissioners plan to rezone the property at the northwest corner of 58th avenue and 53rd street. Vero Beach has always been known for having a conservative approach to expansion. While, more housing will always be expected, the idea of putting rental apartments, retail and a hotel in the middle of our nice residential neighborhood is not conservative and certainly not in the best interest of its current residents. Increased traffic, noise and litter will cause a decline in our home values and make the area less desirable. People come to Vero because they don't want to live in places like West Palm and Boca where building is haphazard and out of control. Lets keep retail and hotels where they make the most sense which is US1 and Route 60. There is plenty of open space on both roads for them. I doubt any of you would want a Best Western or a Wawa across the street from where you live. Thank you, Nick Algiero Isle of Waterway Village resident This communication and all or some of the information contained therein may be confidential and is subject to o ur Terms and conditions. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and pap er copies and notify the sender immediately. Unless specifically indicated, this communication is not a confirma tion, an offer to sell or solicitation of any offer to buy any financial product, or an official statement of First Bro kers Securities LLC. Non-Transactable Pricing Terms and Conditions apply to any non - 1 /3D- g transactable pricing provided. All terms and conditions referenced herein available at;www.fbsterms.com. Pleas e notify us by reply message if this link doesn't work. 2 Aso '/q Richard Bruce From: s alien <s_d_allen@att.net> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 3:51 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Regarding the issue of rezoning the northwest corner of 58th Ave. and 53rd St. Dear County Commissioners, After reading the proposal to change the current zone from Residential/Agricultural to 88 single family units, 111 multi -family apartments, Commercial property to include a 100 room hotel, community center and unspecified amenities, I was absolutely appalled that such a consideration would even be addressed. The negative impact such a development would have on the residents, living choice and environment would be horrendous. Consider, 58th Ave. is a two lane highway, already congested which will be increasingly congested when the Divosta, Bent Pine, 49th & 58th Ave, et al developments are completed. Then there is the issue of need (CON, Certificate of Need) to be considered. Again, not a viable requirement in the area since within a 2-4 mile radius you have commercial stores (gas station with a post office substation, grocery store, two pharmacies, fitness center, numerous restaurants and a Springhill hotel), as well as single family homes, townhouses and condominiums available. To subject the area to a high density, high volume housing development with an added commercial mix on a two lane road is not logical. There are not many counties in this State, let alone this country, that do not strive to increase their revenue, believe me this is not the way to do it. First of all, the tax base/assessment will readjust lowering the value of current homes and property in the area while increasing the need for county services, and, of course, a new road. Commissioners, as full time residents of Vero Beach, we ask you respectively to NOT APPROVE the rezoning of the northwest corner of 58th Ave. and 53rd St. Sincerely, Robert and Sandra Clary Bent Pine Residents 2 Richard Bruce From: Denis Alumbaugh <d3105213@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 3:48 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: proposed zoning change CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ms Adams, Mr Flescher, Mr Zorc, Mr O'Bryan, Mr Solari Please oppose the requested zoning change for the parcel located at 58th Ave and 53Rd St. Vero has seen too much thoughtless development threatening to ruin the ambiance that once existed. This residential area is not an appropriate location for rental properties, hotel or commercial development. It is zoned agricultural and should remain as such. There is adequate commercial land available for a development like the one proposed for this property. Vero needs leaders who have the foresight and integrity to maintain our much needed open land and restrict the unacceptable development of these diminishing parcels. Please be one of these leaders and reject the requested zoning change. Thank You Denis Alumbaugh Resident Vero Beach 1 /30 A Richard Bruce From: LYNNE ANDERSON <Ia9603@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 9:14 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: rezone NO CAUTION: This message_ isfrom anexternal source. Please use caution, when opening attachments or clicking links_ Dear Mr. O'Bryan, Please vote NO to rezone the residential/agricultural area to a commercial area located at 58th Street and 53rd Avenue in Vero Beach. Regards, Lynne Anderson Waterway Village 1 /3©-013 Richard Bruce From: William Bell <bonmanblue@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 1:01 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: 58th and 53rd development Vero Beach CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. We live in the Vero Lago area next to the Bent Pine golf course. We just bought our home less than a year ago and love the peaceful and stress free setting of this area. We strongly disagree to this ridiculous idea of putting a hotel, apartments, gas station etc.. at 58th and 53`d St.. There are far better areas to put commercial properties, than this quiet , off the beaten path area. C'mon, we are turning Vero Beach in to a city of tire stores, mattress stores and apartments. We don't need another gas station, or nail salon. We need nice areas of town, that keep it desirable to all of us that have worked our entire lives to live here. NO, NO, NO to this decision and shame on anyone that's wants to turn Vero in to a dirty little Cocoa Beach city. We will be there to voice our opinion on Tuesday . Sincerely, William Bell Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 /30 - Richard Bruce From: adriana bitter <yaned0l@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:06 AM To: Peter D. O'Bryan CAUTION: Thisxmessage is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links., VOTE NO NO NO to destroying the life style we have chosen when moving to the area of 58th Ave & 57th st. Commercial & cluster housing belong on route 60 or hwy 1. Adriana Bitter 1 /30 qC Richard Bruce From: Adriana Bitter <yanabitter@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 12:12 PM To: Bob Solari Subject: 58th Ave Attachments: Reference.docx CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links.. Richard Bruce From: Winston Bow <jwinstonbow@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:33 AM To: bsolari@ircgov.co; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning from Residential to Residential & Commercial, 58th AVE & 53rd Street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioner:. I am writing to express my view that you should not approve the rezoning of the subject property to permit any commercial operations. The introduction of commercial operations on 58'th will result in significantly increased traffic flows which has negative implications for the residents of the many housing communities on 58' th Ave. Sincerely' AvriIle and James Bow 5735 Turnberry Lane Vero Beach 32967 /3© -011 Kim Moirano From: Ken Bradley <KenBradley@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 12:36 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning of Agricultural to Mandala Village TND Attachments: Mandala Village -Staff Report (82906).pdf CAUTION This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. To: • Susan Adams - sadams@ircgov.com 772 226 1442 • Joseph Flescher - jflescher@ircgov.com 772 226 1919 • Tim Zorc - tzorc@ircgov.com 772 226 1919 • Peter O'Bryan - pobryan@ircgov.com 772 226 1440 • Bob Solari - bsolari@ircgov.com 772 226 1438 ?? RE: Rezoning of Agricultural to Mandala Village TND ?? Please review the 2030 Indian River County Future Land Use Map • http://www.irccdd.com/Zoning Maps/Color/spc-compplan.pdf ?? The subject property is located within the 2030 Indian River County Future Land Urban Service Boundary Line. • Approval will push the USAB Boundary 10 years or more before anticipated • There is more than enough undeveloped land outside the Boundary with zoning that already allows higher density development • Until these higher density vacant in -fill parcels are developed, outside the USAB Lines, the Urban Service Area Boundary Lines should not be violated. ?? If there is a valid reason and need in Vero Beach for this type of development, I suggest rezoning the Indian River Mall or other in -fill parcels to allow a TND, NOT agricultural and low density land that should NOT be developed for many years in the future. • Development for the sake of development is not a good reason. • Approval of this type of development is the first step in continuing to push the Urban Service Area Boundary Lines and approval will also encourage other developers to make application to do the same and soon we with have the uncontrolled urban sprawl that we see in Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties ?? 1 13 0 Wig' As a current single-family homeowner, registered voter and taxpayer, I vehemently and completely oppose any rezoning of the subject parcel from Agricultural to a TND including the proposed: • Single Family 88 Units • 111 Multi -Family Units (Apartments) • 100 Room Hotel (Transient) • Commercial ?? It is time to say NO and hold the line until at least 2030 and until the in -fill higher density parcels in the county are completely developed • If not now, where will it stop? • Do we really want to look like Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties with uncontrolled growth? ?? Thank you for your consideration ?? Ken Bradley 772-538-9981 KenBradley@mindspring.com 5238 Turtle Creek Circle Vero Beach, FL?? 32969 ?? 2 Ed Offutt From: Sheri Cook <scook@efccl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:24 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: Development CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr. Flescher, Thank you for serving our community and your deliberations on its development. I understand you will be considering the development of property at 58th Avenue and 53rd Street. We live in that area, and I am concerned that 58th Avenue is not adequate to accommodate the increased volume of traffic a high density development would produce. It was disappointing that the recent improvements to 58th did not include some form of central turn lane, as we are often stopped waiting for someone to make a left turn. We also attend a church which is down 58th, and turning left out of the parking lot can involve a lot of waiting. I can only believe that these incidents will increase exponentially if high density or commercial developments are added to the 58th/53rd property. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Sheri Cook Director of Special Ministry http://blog.efccl.org/leadershio/ http://www.efccl.org/ 1 /30 Kim Moirano From: Michael Cosgrove <mgcosgrove@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:42 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning of 58th Ave. and 53rd Street parcel. CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners, I am opposed to the rezoning of the parcel on 58th Ave. and 53rd street. Please vote against this amendment on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. There is plenty of available already designated commercial space in the county, there is no need for more in a residential area. Good examples of growth, the Dunkin Donuts and Big Shots which have been opened on Route One. Commercial, hotels and stores, will add noise and litter to our neighborhood. Have you seen 49th street and 53rd street? Litter on one side and cement/gravel on the other side and our streets are rarely cleaned. I moved to Vero Beach because it wasn't congested like south Florida. I understand we are growing and I am comfortable with the growth if it is done thoughtfully, this situation is poorly thought out. The investors make money and leave and the residents get stuck with a bad situation. Please vote NO. Regards, Mike Cosgrove 5365 Dominica Street Vero Beach, FL 32967 mgcosgrove@icloud.com (845) 743-3454 1 /aoJ` Richard Bruce From: Michael Cosgrove <mgcosgrove@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:51 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Re: Rezoning of 58th Ave. and 53rd Street parcel. CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Commissioners, Thank you for your time today. I made a statement today which I feel was misunderstood, I apologize. I appreciate the work of our public officials, it is a constant negotiation which can be difficult. All my encounters with county officials have always been positive, such as, DMV for driver's licenses, residency, the police academy and the folks I corresponded with regarding this issue. New York and Fort Lauderdale are great but keep Vero Beach the paradise that it is, thank you for your effort. Regards, Mike Cosgrove 5365 Dominica Street Vero Beach, FL 32967 mgcosgrove@icloud.com (845) 743-3454. > On Jan 16, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Michael Cosgrove <mgcosgrove@icloud.com> wrote: > > Dear Commissioners, > I am opposed to the rezoning of the parcel on 58th Ave. and 53rd street. Please vote against this amendment on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. > There is plenty of available already designated commercial space in the county, there is no need for more in a residential area. Good examples of growth, the Dunkin Donuts and Big Shots which have been opened on Route One. > Commercial, hotels and stores, will add noise and litter to our neighborhood. Have you seen 49th street and 53rd street? Litter on one side and cement/gravel on the other side and our streets are rarely cleaned. > I moved to Vero Beach because it wasn't congested like south Florida. I understand we are growing and I am comfortable with the growth if it is done thoughtfully, this situation is poorly thought out. The investors make money and leave and the residents get stuck with a bad situation. Please vote NO. > Regards, > Mike Cosgrove > 5365 Dominica Street > Vero Beach, FL 32967 > mgcosgrove@icloud.com > (845) 743-3454 1 Richard Bruce From: Susann Costa <suscosta@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 1:29 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Cc: arthureis@comcast.net Subject: ReZoning Commissioners Meeting CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners, My husband and I are residents of Isles at Waterway Village and our property abuts 58th Street. We have recently been notified of the upcoming County Commissioners Meeting on Tuesday, Jan 21 at 9:00 a.m. regarding zone changes and plans for single and multi unit dwellings,commercial properties and a hotel. Unfortunately we will be unable to attend but wish to voice our opposition in this communication to be entered in the record at the meeting regarding the zone change that is being requested and also the development in general at this location. There already is a lot of traffic and noise that is the result of this traffic. There also has been a lot of ongoing construction of new communities along 58th Street and 53rd. as you know.This creates noise pollution from construction vehicles and air pollution with the construction dust etc. We would suggest that the Indian River Mall with its empty stores ,available parking and location would be a much more suitable fit for a huge development such as the one proposed. The disruption of the quality of life and neighboring property should be seriously considered. This is a lovely area now and development of this size and scope would totally change the flavor of our neighborhood as it is today.lt does NOT belong in this location. Please consider our thoughts along with our other neighbors who oppose this zone change and development. Thank you Best regards, ' Susann and David Costa Isles at Waterway Village 4989 Corsica Square Vero Beach,FL. 32967 1 /30-33 Richard Bruce From: • Richard Bruce Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 9:22 AM To: BCC - Office Subject: JOYCE & LOUIS COSTANZA-CONSTITUENT CALL Good Morning, I received a call this morning from Joyce Costanza, 772-562-0206. Mrs. Costanza and her husband would like to speak with the commissioners on the Zoning issue on 58th 'and 53`d. She stated that she has deep concerns on the community and wanted to voice her opinion to the commissioners or the county administration on the subject. V/r Mr. Richard Bruce Commissioner Assistant District 4/5 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street, Bldg. A Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 226-1440 Fax: (772) 770-5334 PLEASE NOTE: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from County officials regarding county business are considered to be public records and will be made available to the public and the media upon request. Your email messages and email address may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure. 1 l 3o - 9 Richard Bruce From: joyce <joyce@joycetdavis.com> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 6:29 PM To: Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning of 58th Ave and 53rd Street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Bob Solari: I am a resident of the Bent Pine Community and am very opposed to the Rezoning of the area at the corner of 58th Ave. and 53rd Street. Such a change will cause too much congestion for this location. The loss of Agriculture or Residential use will impact the entire area of homes in the area. The a large apartment building and a 100 room hotel will make the intersection dangerous for all residents. This type of construction is better suited for the Route 60 area. The Commissioners should also think of the number of residents that will have to deal with getting to the Hospital or to doctor appointments once the trains come in great numbers over 53rd street. The 53 rd street will be backed -up for blocks, if more development is allowed in the proposed rezoning area. Sincerely, Joyce T. Davis Magnolia Lane Vero Beach, FL 32967 1 J30 -3S- Richard Bruce From: joyce <joyce@joycetdavis.com> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 6:19 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: Rezoning from Residential to Residential & Commercial, 58th AVE & 53rd Street CAUTION:. This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Peter O'Bryan, 1 am a resident of the Bent Pine Community and am very opposed to the Rezoning of the area at the corner of 58th Ave. and 53rd Street. Such a change will cause too much congestion for this location. The loss of Agriculture or Residential use will impact the entire area of homes in the area. The a large apartment building and a 100 room hotel will make the intersection. dangerous for all residents. This type of construction is better suited for the Route 60 area. The Commissioners should also think of the number of residents that will have to deal with getting to the Hospital or to doctor appointments once the trains come in greatnumbers over 53rd street. The 53 rd street will be backed -up for blocks, if more development is allowed in the proposed rezoning area. Sincerely, Joyce T. Davis Magnolia Lane Vero Beach, FL 32967 1 )30-34. Ed Offutt From: Luther Eubanks <Ilejaxhome@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:31 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Peter D. O'Bryan; Tim Zorc; Bob Solari Subject: Mandala Village, LLC -- request to rezone CAUTIUN: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Commissioners: Please consider denying or tabling item 10 A at tomorrow's meeting. Let me immediately plead ignorance regarding this particular project. I do not know how long this project has been in the works, the history of the project to date, nor the general direction the County envisions for future development within the County. Having been involved in land planning and architecture in Florida since 1972, I feel I have a fairly sound background in developments of this type and in properly integrating projects into their context. What troubles me about this project is that it is presented as basically a stand-alone project. This type of development is more appropriate as part of a more urban context rather than being plopped down in a low density area. Even the wide diversity of product types is troublesome. All other aspects of the project aside, that is going to make it a very "hard sell". There may be marketing data that supports such a mixture but I would very surprised. While there may be some logic to the overall site plan (transitioning from hotel and commercial use along 58th Avenue to single-family homes on the west end), the limited number of any one particular product and the apparent inability to respond to market conditions is going to create a marketing nightmare and may result in portions of the project being unfinished for years to come -- even possibly never completed. Keeping some of the designated features leased is going to be a HUGE problem. If this project were Phase I of a much larger integrated project (or series of coordinated projects), I might have fewer objections. I am not at all opposed to the concepts of TND development. This is a case of the wrong project in the wrong location and premature use of a concept that is possibly ten or twenty years down the road for this portion of Vero Beach. Based on online message board activity, there will likely be a large (and probably quite vocal) group of individuals in attendance. If you want to allow audience input, that would help dispel any feeling that this is a "done deal". If you are of a mind to approve this project and the rezoning, I urge you to reconsider. If you have doubts as to its appropriateness and viability, I applaud your insight and concern for our community. Luther Eubanks Florida Architectural Registration #7340 Luther Eubanks, architect 4187 56th Lane Vero Beach, FL 32967 (954) 683-3363 cell 1 /30-j 7 Richard Bruce From: ROBERT FACTORA <rfactora@snet.net> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:58 PM To: Joseph E. Flescher; Susan Adams; tzorc@ircgon.com; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Tuesdays Vote - Rezoning from Residential to Residential/Commercial - 58th Ave and 53rd street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use cautionwhen opening attachments or clicking links. Commissioners, My wife and I own a home in The Isles at Waterway Village (across the street from the proposed new development). We have reviewed all the attachments that were part of the Tuesday Morning agenda. We realize that Vero Beach/Indian River County is growing and has many great attributes to offer new home buyers. We cannot stop the growth but we can question how these new developments will effect our present standard of living. I have no problem with the residential part of the development but I do question the need fora 100 room hotel and the other commercial parts of the development. I fully agree with Commission Mr. Alan Polackwich when he indicated he would not vote in favor of the project based on his concerns that the 100 room hotel component seems incompatible with surrounding uses in the area. I urge all of you vote NO on the proposed rezoning if the hotel remains within the project scope. Hotel/Motels should be built in existing commercial zones such as along Route 60 and Route 1. Thank you for your dedicated service to Indian River County. Robert and Carol Factora 5134 Formosa Circle Vero Beach, Florida 32967 1 /30-30- Richard Bruce From: rjfava@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:59 PM To: Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning 58th Avenue & 53rd Street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioner Solari, This email is written to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of this parcel from its current zoning of Agriculture or Residential to Residential and Commercial to include multifamily rental, hotel and commercial areas. This massive change will result in substantial traffic congestion on 58th Avenue, hazardous intersection conditions and irreparable damage to the area's environment and tranquility. I urge you to vote no on this proposal. Sincerely, Richard Fava 1 /30 -39 Richard Bruce From: Will Gaudreau <chateaugaudreau@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:26 PM To: Susan Adams; jflesche@ircgov.com; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Cc: Henry Kalt; F Wroblewski; Beth Millan; Anita Venner; Arthur Eisdorfer; ANGELO RAGONESE; bobragonese@gmail.com; Seth Burgess; Kim S; Deb Gaudreau Subject: Rezoning of the property at the NW corner of 58th Ave and 53rd St. CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. There is plenty of property in this county on which to construct hotels and apartments and convenience stores. We already have an abundance of residential development with the Lakes, the Cove, the Isles, the Bent Pine expansion(s), the development at 58th Ave and 49th Street. My wife and I are OPPOSED. If we wanted "West Palm" caliber growth anddevelopment, we'd have moved THERE 5 years ago. Thanks for considering the impact to the quality of life for the existing residents currently enduring longer traffic waits, deteriorating roadways, increased noise and nuisance issues. We finally have found a compelling reason to vote for our county commissioners. See you at the polls. William J. Gaudreau Debra L. Gaudreau 5197 Eleuthra Cir, Vero Beach 517-315-1037 1 Richard Bruce From: Rhonda Gelbach <rgelbach@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 11:01 AM To: Peter D. O'Bryan; Tim Zorc; Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Bob Solari Subject: Re Zoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am reaching out to you today in regards to the proposed development at Northwest corner of 58th Avenue and 53rd Street in Vero Beach. I am a resident of Waterway Village and have several concerns based on the information provided. • What type of apartments are planned? Senior living? Price point? Who is the developer? • Is there any area in the vicinity already established like this to compare • Why do we need a mixed use community in this area • Will the proposed community have the same standard as we do here in Waterway: such as landscaping, cleanliness, parked vehicles, etc Not sure why there is a need for a hotel in this area. • I would not want any type of development that would decrease the value of my homes and the homes of my neighbors. I am in favor of community development of single family homes. The people are normally more established and less transient. I originally picked this area and specifically Waterway Village due to the upkeep included in the gated community. The homes and yards are kept neat and clean, keeping the values up. It is a great place to come home to and promote the area. Please vote NO if the rezoning includes hotel and apartments. Sincerely Doug & Rhonda Gelbach i Richard Bruce From: debra gundersen <bargun99@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 6:15 PM To: Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning vote CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Solari, Please vote no on the rezoning vote next week. I am a resident of Vero Lago and I do not want our community to start to look like Ft. Lauderdale. Thank you, Emil Barbosa Sent from my iPad Richard Bruce From: kathy hirsch <kashkathy@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 11:40 AM To: Susan Adams; jfischer@ircgov.com; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; bsolari@irc.com Subject: Rezoning of 58th Ave. and 53rd Street Parcel CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners, I am opposed to the rezoning of the parcel on 58th and 53rd street. Please vote against this amendment on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. There is no need for more commercial space in a residential area. Commercial, hotel, and stores will add noise, litter and congestion to our neighborhood. The litter on 49th and 53rd street is rarely cleaned. I moved to Vero Beach because the zoning seemed to be under control and the mixture of commercial and residential was well thought out. I realize that growth is inevitable but it still needs to be well thought out. I don't feel this situation is for the benefit of the residents but for the benefit of the investors, allowing the area to be down graded. PLEASE VOTE NO. Sincerely, Kathleen Hirsch 1 13'9 Ed Offutt From: Lynn Judge <lynnmjudge@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 11:29 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: Rezoning of 53rd & 58th CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please do not vote for the rezoning of the property at 53rd & 58th to residential and commercial. Many of us moved to this area because of the limited development. There are so many properties already being developed that we don't need more housing, and conveniences are within easy reach. Please don't let this happen to our little corner of Vero. Thank you, Lynn and Matthew Judge 1 130-� Richard Bruce From: Katie Kutschinski <katiekut@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 8:07 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: rezoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr. O'Bryan, My husband and I are firm in our opinion that the northwest comer of 58th Ave & 53rd street NOT be rezoned from residential to residential and commercial. The county has upgraded 66th Ave and has abandoned its plan to upgrade 58th Ave. Rezoning the density would not be a wise choice for our area. We all residential and that is one of the big reasons we have moved here. We sincerely hope that you vote no on this issue. Ron and Katie Kutschinski 5790 Glen Eagle Lane Bent Pine i Igo -cls' Richard Bruce From: David Levasseur <davidlevasseur62@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:07 PM To: Bob Solari; Peter D. O'Bryan; Tim Zorc; Joseph E. Flescher; Susan Adams Subject: 58th Avenue Rezoning: CAUTION:This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. To the Indian River County Commission. I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal to rezone the parcel on the northwest corner of 53rd Street and 58th Avenue from Residential -Agricultural to Commercial. Sufficient acreage for hotels, commercial businesses, convenience stores, gas stations and the like already exist in Vero Beach and Indian Rivers main commercial thoroughfares such as US Route 1, SR 60, Indian River Boulevard etc. I fail to see any benefit of locating these commercial entities in an otherwise peaceful Residential -Agricultural setting. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend tomorrows meeting due to an out of town medical matter. Should you wish to speak with me directly, I would be happy to have that conversation. David Levasseur Isles of Waterway Village 5203 Eleuthra Circle Vero Beach, FL 32967 (912) 856-1696 1 /36 -q, Richard Bruce From: Gail Levasseur <glevass2000@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 11:39 AM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Proposed Rezoning at 58th and 53rd! CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential- PLEAS DO LEAVE IT THAT WAY!!!! I know you are bombarded with emails, so I will keep this short. There is more than enough undeveloped land in Vero Beach that is zoned for commercial development. The Mall is truly on life support and could be used with enough land and plenty of parking. Thank you. Gail Levasseur 5203 Eleuthra Circle Waterway Village Sent from my iPad 1 10o-47 Ed Offutt From: Margaret Libera <Libera5@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:25 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: 58th rezone CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please do Not rezone 58 and 53. It will destroy an already too dense residential area and turn 58 into another 60 which is plenty ugly. Thank you Sent from my iPad. Ed Offutt From: jodi lockwood <jodiclockwood@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:01 AM To: Susan Adams; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Joseph E. Flescher; Bob Solari Subject: MANDALA - VOTE NO isexternal source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. CAUTION: This message from an _-_ Please do not approve the proposed Mandala Project. Today there is no commercial activity north of 20th Street on 58th Ave and we want to keep it this way. We do not need a grocery store, gas station, post office, movie theatre, hotel, or other commercial buildings. We have many of these amenities 3 miles away on US 1. Do not disrupt our residential neighborhoods by adding these — this will impact traffic, litter, light and air pollution near our families. This will take away the peaceful neighborhood that surrounds us now, which is why we bought in Waterway Village. I understand adding residential housing, but PLEASE do not approve the commercial aspects of this proposal. 1 J3O-4, Kim Moirano From: Harry Lutz <threefer2@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:21 AM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Subject: Mandala Village Zoning Vote- January 21, 2020 CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. IRC Commissioners, I am a resident of The Isles at Waterway Village located at 58th Ave. & 53rd St. The residents in my community are overwhelming against the re -zoning proposal to change the current zoning from agricultural/ residential to residential/ commercial. The re -zoning will also include 111 multi- family units (apartments). In addition to commercial, we do not want apartments in our area. These will only increase the neighborhood density. Who knows, in the future the complex owners may apply and be granted "section eight" status. I implore the Commission to vote NO against the Mandala Village Zoning Proposal on Jan 21. Harry Lutz Resident- Isles at Waterway Village 1 13o 60 Richard Bruce From: Kevin Lynch <krlynch23@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:00 AM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; Peter D. O'Bryan; Bob Solari Cc: Betty Lynch Subject: Rezoning of Intersection @ 53rd Street & 58th Avenue CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear County Commissioners, As residents of Vero Beach and property owners of two homes in the Bent Pine Community my wife Betty and I are strongly opposed to the rezoning of residential property around the intersection of 53rd Street and 58th Avenue. If approved the proposed changes will have an adverse impact on the existing communities around the intersection including Bent Pine, Waterway Village, Vero Lago and others under construction. Additionally, there are many other areas for possible development in reasonable proximity that are already zoned for commercial development. Vero Beach is a great place to live and to work. This is your opportunity to ensure that we grow is a responsible way and maintain the character, charm and density that we all love and appreciate. Sincerely, Kevin R. Lynch 1 /3© S'/ Richard Bruce From: John McCallum <johnmccallum59@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 12:44 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: Proposed rezoning of 53rd and 58th. CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello, As a resident of Indian River County for the last decade (living in Bent Pine), I would like it to be known that I am completely opposed to the rezoning of the property at the NW corner of 58th & 53rd Avenue for several reasons, among them: There is already ample (and underused) commercial development, and land nearby on US Highway 1 around 53rd street. There is no need for a "resort hotel", OR a concert venue at this location, we already have the County Fairgrounds down the street. There is already massive housing currently being developed within Bent Pine Preserves, with more on the way, as well as other areas nearby. The traffic ramifications during construction and afterwards will be severe, and there is no coherent plan being offered. The development company executives do not live in the area, and obviously could care less about the people that do. What will be the impact on the eco -system in this area? It will of course have a NEGATIVE impact. The 58th street repaving was a massive inconvenience adding a 50% increase to travel time and travel distance. Why suffer this again (so soon afterwards). Adding 100+ rental units In this exclusively residential single family home area, and an "extended stay" motel, will do nothing but deteriorate the neighborhood and attract transients to this family based area. This project absolutely belongs on SR60 near the Indian River Mall. A local Mall which, need you be reminded is failing. This is what happened to West Palm Beach, and this will absolutely devalue the properties and destroy our quiet way of life in this area. John McCallum / O-6 Kim Moirano From: Michael Mikita <mrmikita@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 1:11 PM To: Susan Adams Subject: Re proposed zoning changes 'CAUTION Thismessage is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am a resident at 2866 St Barts Square here in Vero Beach and have been since 2008. I am Completely and steadfastly opposed to this type of change. I did not purchase a home here to be assaulted with changes like this which would immediately add a great deal of congestion and sigiricatly diminish the value of my home and living here. Please do not allow this ridiculous proposed change to pass. Period. Michael Mikita 2866 St Barts square Vero Beach, Fl. 32967 mrmikita@gmail.com 561 289 7290 1 /3o-53 Richard Bruce From: propmaster1927@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:03 PM To: Bob Solari; Peter D. O'Bryan; Tim Zorc; Susan Adams Subject: Re: Rezoning Information CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear County Commissioners: Regarding tomorrow morning's meeting on the rezoning of the land parcel on 58th Avenue and 53rd Street, my wife and I would also like to present our opposition to the proposed rezoning from residential/agricultural to multi -family, hotel and retail. That is absurd! 58th Avenue for many, many years has been a calm and peaceful agricultural and residential area of the county. We love the atmosphere here and are extremely concerned that if the land is rezoned to allow for commercial and retail development, in very short order, our small oasis will morph into an extension of US1, or even worse, Route 60. For most of us, we do not share the view that more and more, ever increasing subdivisions are a source of ever increasing tax revenues, ripe for the plucking. Rather, we moved to Indian River County and Vero Beach to escape from the tentacles of south and central Florida's excessive development. When is enough - enough? There are still many, many communities that haven't fully recovered, many that still haven't been fully built out as a result of the collapse of the housing market a decade ago. Bristol Bay up on the corner of US1 and 510 is still laying abandoned, more than 13 years after site work first started. There are many others. Please, keep these portions of Vero and Indian River County in a manageable form and vote NO on the requested rezoning change. Very Respectfully Yours, Bill Miller 5785 Magnolia Lane Vero Beach, FI. 32967 Rezoning from Residential to Residential & Commercial, 58th AVE & 53rd Street The following information is being forwarded to me by my community association in Bent Pine.... I would ask that you please, please, please NOT go forward with any proposal that would include anything other than single family residential zoning! PLEASE! I can assure you that I would attend the meeting this coming Tuesday, were it possible. I would ask that you accept this as my best attempt to be there. Yours truly Malcolm Sanderson 5780 Magnolia Lane Vero Beach 772 766 1227 The county is looking to rezone the northwest corner of 58th Ave & 53rd street from residential to residential and commercial. The county commissioners will be voting to make this change on Tuesday morning. The meeting is on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9am, Location - County Commission Chambers, County Commission Complex, at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach. The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential (up to 3 units per acre). The proposed change is for 88 single family units, 111 Multi -Family units (apartments), 100 Room Hotel, Commercial Area and community center and amenities. 1 /3o Please attend the meeting if possible and voice your opinion about this change or, email/call our commissioners prior to the meeting and voice your opinion. Commissioners: Susan Adams - sadams(a�ircgov.com 772 226 1442 Joseph Flescher - jflescher©ircgov.com 772 226 1919 Tim Zorc - tzorcircgov.com 772 226 1919 Peter O'Bryan - pobryan cni ircgov.com 772 226 1440 Bob Solari - bsolari(a�ircgov.com 772 226 1438 There is more than enough undeveloped land within areas zoned for commercial development -in Vero Beach. Do we need high density structures built in our residential areas (apartments, Hotels)? Do we need more traffic and litter due to a gas station, convenience store, grocer, pharmacy, etc. Please inform your neighbors and surrounding communities of this upcoming vote and, please voice your opinion. 2 /30 -675' Kim Moirano From: Deborah Mirdamadi <dxm7.psu.edu@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 7:24 PM To: Susan Adams Subject: Rezoning ;CAUTIONmmThis message,is from an external source. Please use caution,when opening attachments or clicking links. I am in favor of rezoning area on 53rd to residential, high density and commercial. Another hotel with restaurant, Lowe's and Dollar store would be nice along with proposed community center, spa, .... PS - Roads do need to be considered before building begins, which developers could help shoulder that cost. If there is too much opposition to that location, how about at 53rd and route 1 near the newer Publix and IRBLVD? Get Outlook for iOS Sent from my iPad 1 /3o -.51. Kim Moirano From: Deborah Mirdamadi <dxm7.psu.edu@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:24 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher; Susan Adams Subject: Residential to multi -use CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am in favor of rezoning of the land off 53rd street to be partial commercial use. Thank you Sent from my iPad 1 /30-67 Richard Bruce From: Mirdamadi, Deborah Ann <dxm7@psu.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 7:19 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: rezoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. PS - Roads do need to be considered before building begins, which developers could help shoulder that cost. If there is too much opposition to that location, how about at 53rd and route 1 near the newer Publix and IRBLVD? Get Outlook for iOS Get Outlook for iOS i /3U 5-P Richard Bruce From: Mirdamadi, Deborah Ann <dxm7@psu.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 7:15 PM To: tzorc@ircgiv.com; probryan@ircgov.com; Bob Solari Subject: Re: Rezoning CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. PS - Roads do need to be considered before building begins, which developers could help shoulder that cost. If there is too much opposition to that location, how about at 53rd and route 1 near the newer Publix and IRBLVD? Get Outlook for iOS From: Mirdamadi, Deborah Ann Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:01:54 PM To: tzorc@ircgiv.com <tzorc@ircgiv.com>; probryan@ircgov.com <probryan@ircgov.com>; bsolari@ircgov.com <bsolari@ircgov.com> Subject: Rezoning Tim Zorc - tzorc@ircgov.com 772 226 1919 Peter O'Bryan - pobryan@ircgov.com 772 226 1440 Bob Solari - bsolari@ircgov.com 772 226 1438 I am in favor of rezoning property at 53rd to be residential, high density and commercial use . Thank you Get Outlook for iOS 1 /3059 Kim Moirano From: James Nelan <treeagentjim@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:11 PM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc Cc: James Nelan Subject: rezoning 58th Ave. 53rd St CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners, My wife and I are residents of The Isles at Waterway Village which is a wonderful community adjacent to the subject property with a proposed re -zoning interest. I am contacting you to express our firm wish that you will Not allow this rezoning to take place as the developer has proposed. The surrounding community's are moderate density developments. The proposed development would allow for a much higher density of multi -family units and a 100 room Hotel. I am certain that the greater majority of homeowners in and around our community acknowledge that development of open surrounding acreage will take place. However, we do not want the residential feel of this beautiful area to be commercialized with Hotels, Gas stations, movie theaters, convenience stores, etc. All of these commercial interests are readily accessible now in commercially zoned areas. Please vote NO to the high density proposal and others that may come forward in the future. Thank you, Jim & Janet Nelan Isles at Waterway Village 1 /30 Ed Offutt From: JUDY ORCUTT <jjorcutt@bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:44 AM Subject: October 2019 Results : Florida Atlantic University - Center for Environmental Studies CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. FAU Survey Regarding Florida Residents Concerns About Climate Change http://www.ces.fau.eduices-bepi/oct-2019.php 1 /30 -(f Richard Bruce From: Gary Rackers <gary@rackersequipment.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:53 AM To: Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning of property at 58th and 53rd Attachments: notes.docx; ATT00001.htm CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. 1 Regarding the proposed development at Northwest corner of 58th Avenue and 53rd Street in Vero Beach. I am a resident of Waterway Village and have several concerns based on the information provided. • The addition of apartments and a hotel in that small area will bring an influx of people in a concentrated area. • What type of apartments are planned? Senior living? Price point? • Who is the developer? • Is there any area in the vicinity already established like this to compare • A mixed use area is not conducive to the current standard of living • What standards will be required of the community such as landscaping, cleanliness, parked vehicles, etc • Why is a hotel needed in this area? • Don't want anything that will de value my home I am in favor of community development of single family homes. The people are normally more established and less transient. I originally picked this area and specifically Waterway Village due to the upkeep included in the gated community. The homes and yards are kept neat and clean, keeping the values up. It is a great place to come home to and promote the area. Please vote NO if the rezoning includes hotel and apartments. Sincerely, Gary Rackers /30 1J Richard Bruce From: Malcolm Sanderson <malcolmsanderson@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 4:47 PM To: Bob Solari; Peter D. O'Bryan; Tim Zorc; Susan Adams Subject: Rezoning Information CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Rezoning from Residential to Residential & Commercial, 58th AVE & 53rd Street The following information is being forwarded to me by my community association in Bent Pine.... I would ask that you please, please, please NOT qo forward with any proposal that would include anything other than single family residential zoning! PLEASE! I can assure you that 1 would attend the meeting this coming Tuesday, were it possible. I would ask that you accept this as my best attempt to be there. Yours truly Malcolm Sanderson 5780 Magnolia Lane Vero Beach 772 766 1227 The county is looking to rezone the northwest corner of 58th Ave & 53rd street from residential to residential and commercial. The county commissioners will be voting to make this change on Tuesday morning. The meeting is on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9am, Location - County Commission Chambers, County Commission Complex, at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach ,The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential (up to 3 units per acre). The proposed change is for 88 single family units, 111 Multi -Family units (apartments), 100 Room Hotel, Commercial Area and community center and amenities. Please attend the meeting if possible and voice your opinion about this change or, email/call our commissioners prior to the meeting and voice your opinion. Commissioners: Susan Adams - sadamsircgov.com 772 226 1442 Joseph Flescher - jflescher@ircgov.com 772 226 1919 Tim Zorc - tzorc(cDircgov.com 772 226 1919 Peter O'Bryan - pobryan(a�ircgov.com 772 226 1440 Bob Solari - bsolari a(�ircclov.com 772 226 1438 There is more than enough undeveloped land within areas zoned for commercial development in Vero Beach. Do we need high density structures built in our residential areas (apartments, Hotels)? Do we need more traffic and litter due to a gas station, convenience store, grocer, pharmacy, etc. Please inform your neighbors and surrounding communities of this upcoming vote and, please voice your opinion. 1 Richard Bruce From: Stott, Liz <Liz.Stott@informa.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 12:55 PM To: Peter D. O'Bryan Subject: Rezoning 58th & 53rd Street - Urging a NO VOTE please CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Peter — We are writing to express our displeasure at the proposed Rezoning at the northwest corner of 58th Ave & 53rd street and URGE YOU TO VOTE NO (please). The proposed Rezoning would take this parcel from residential to residential and commercial. The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential (up to 3 units per acre). The proposed change is for 88 single family units, 111 Multi -Family units (apartments), 100 Room Hotel, Commercial Area and community center and amenities. We bought here at Waterway Village, because we loved the farmland, cattle and horses that are adjacent to us, providing a lovely, quiet way of life. We believe this HUGE, HIGH DENSITY development — which if approved — would be far more than Residential (3 units per acre) will result in much more traffic, litter (gas station), potential car accidents, noise - and will greatly disrupt our quiet way of life and Negatively affect our Property Values. There is more than enough undeveloped land within areas zoned for commercial development in Vero Beach. FOR INSTANCE, the BEST alternative would be The Indian River Mall — which has died on the vine and is an albatross sitting there. I intend to be at the meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important topic. Elizabeth and Edward Stott 5186 Formosa Circle Vero Beach, FL 32967 Liz Stott Strategic Accounts Manager Endeavor Business Media 1 Design Engineering PH: 857-636-9737 Liz.StottPinforma.com Machine Design Linked In Alternate Contact: Patti. PetroC3informa.com (216)931-9893 Information Classification: General 1 /30 -fir Kim Moirano From: Stott, Liz <Liz.Stott@informa.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 12:50 PM To: Susan Adams Subject: Rezoning 58th & 53rd Street - Urging a NO VOTE please CAUTION: This message is from an external source: Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links: Dear Susan — We are writing to express our displeasure at the proposed Rezoning at the northwest corner of 58th Ave & 53rd street and URGE YOU TO VOTE NO (please). The proposed Rezoning would take this parcel from residential to residential and commercial. The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential (up to 3 units per acre). The proposed change is for 88 single family units, 111 Multi -Family units (apartments), 100 Room Hotel, Commercial Area and community center and amenities. We bought here at Waterway Village, because we loved the farmland, cattle and horses that are adjacent to us, providing a lovely, quiet way of life. We believe this HUGE, HIGH DENSITY development — which if approved — would be far more than Residential (3 units per acre) will result in much more traffic, litter (gas station), potential car accidents, noise — and will greatly disrupt our quiet way of life and Negatively affect our Property Values. There is more than enough undeveloped land within areas zoned for commercial development in Vero Beach. FOR INSTANCE, the BEST alternative would be The Indian River Mall — which has died on the vine and is an albatross sitting there. I intend to be at the meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important topic. Elizabeth and Edward Stott 5186 Formosa Circle Vero Beach, FL 32967 Liz Stott Strategic Accounts Manager Endeavor Business Media 1 Design Engineering PH: 857-636-9737 Liz.Stott@ informa.com Machine Design Linked In Alternate Contact: Patti.Petro@informa.com (216)931-9893 Information Classification: General 1 Richard Bruce From: Stott, Liz <Liz.Stott@informa.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:01 PM To: Bob Solari Subject: RE: Rezoning 58th & 53rd Street - Urging a NO VOTE please CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Bob — where do I send a Hard Copy letter to? I'm afraid it will not get there in time — especially with Monday being a Holiday... Thank you, Liz Liz Stott Strategic Accounts Manager Endeavor Business Media 1 Design Engineering PH: 857-636-9737 Alternate Contact: Patti.Petro(a3informa.com (216)931-9893 Information Classification: General From: Bob Solari <bsolari@ircgov.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 2:55 PM To: Stott, Liz <Liz.Stott@informa.com> Subject: Re: Rezoning 58th & 53rd Street - Urging a NO VOTE please Hard Copy please. Bob Sent from my iPad On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:56 PM, Stott, Liz <Liz.Stott@informa.com> wrote: CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Bob — We are writing to express our displeasure at the proposed Rezoning at the northwest corner of 58th Ave & 53rd street and URGE YOU TO VOTE NO (please). The proposed Rezoning would take this parcel from residential to residential and commercial. The current zoning is for Agriculture or Residential (up to 3 units per acre). The proposed change is for 88 single family units, 111 Multi -Family units (apartments), 100 Room Hotel, Commercial Area and community center and amenities. 1 We bought here at Waterway Village, because we loved the farmland, cattle and horses that are adjacent to us, providing a lovely, quiet way of life. We believe this HUGE, HIGH DENSITY development — which if approved — would be far more than Residential (3 units per acre) will result in much more traffic, litter (gas station), potential car accidents, noise — and will greatly disrupt our quiet way of life and Negatively affect our Property Values. There is more than enough undeveloped land within areas zoned for commercial development in Vero Beach. FOR INSTANCE, the BEST alternative would be The Indian River Mall — which has died on the vine and is an albatross sitting there. I intend to be at the meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important topic. Elizabeth and Edward Stott 5186 Formosa Circle Vero Beach, FL 32967 Liz Stott Strategic Accounts Manager Endeavor Business Media I Design Engineering PH: 857-636-9737 Liz.Stott@informa.com Machine Design Linked In Alternate Contact: Patti. Petro(Jinforma.com (216)931-9893 Information Classification: General 2 /3o ---4e Richard Bruce From: Sam Stryker <samstryker@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 7:33 AM To: Susan Adams; Joseph E. Flescher; Tim Zorc; pobrayan@ircgov.com; Bob Solari Subject: Rezoning 58th Ave & 53rd Street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please vote against the rezoning of 58th Ave and 53rd Street. As residents of the area we do not need or want commercial development and the accompanying traffic in our vicinity. Traffic on 58th Ave is already very heavy and the intersection at 20th Street is one of the busiest in Vero Beach. Sam Stryker samstryker@aol.com 1 4309 Richard Bruce From: Bob Solari Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 3:44 PM To: Richard Bruce Subject: Fwd: Rezoning 58th Ave & 53rd Street Richard: Please pull out any emails regarding rezoning at 58th Ave and 53rd Street and make copies of them that I can give to the Clerk at Tuesday's meeting. Thank you. Bob Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Sam Stryker <samstryker@aol.com> Date: January 18, 2020 at 7:32:39 AM EST To: Susan Adams <sadams@ircgov.com>, "Joseph E. Flescher" <jflescher@ircgov.com>, Tim Zorc <tzorc@ircgov.com>, "pobrayan@ircgov.com" <pobrayan@ircgov.com>, Bob Solari <bsolari@ircgov. com> Subject: Rezoning 58th Ave & 53rd Street CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links.' Please vote against the rezoning of 58th Ave and 53rd Street. As residents of the area we do not need or want commercial development and the accompanying traffic in our vicinity. Traffic on 58th Ave is already very heavy and the intersection at 20th Street is one of the busiest in Vero Beach. Sam Stryker samstryker@aol.com Kim Moirano From: Jennifer Vail <jiffer52@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:11 PM To: Susan Adams Subject: 53rd and 58th streets CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Adams, My husband and I moved to Vero Beach on a full-time basis 3 years ago. One of the reasons that we chose to live in Bent Pine was because of the lack of traffic and congestion in this area. Although we both certainly understood the necessity for "changes"...there certainly seemed to be other undeveloped land within zones areas set aside for commercial development, so we were not concerned with it happening out on the corner of 58th and 53rd streets. Although my husband has passed away, he would certainly oppose this particular change...as I do. I strongly object to re -zoning this particular plan of making this area both residential and commercial. Please listen to your constituents in this area....) have not heard of anyone who would support this plan. I may be reached at the above email if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Jennifer L. Vail (Mrs. Alan W.) 1 )30 -W Ed Offutt From: John Warren <jackwarren8269@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 11:05 AM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: Mandala Village Project CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please be informed of my opposition to a zoning change regarding the above referenced project and the hearing on 1/21/2020 at 9:00 AM on the same. Thanks in advance John L Warren The Isles at Waterway Village 4936 Corsica Square Vero Beach, FI 32967 772-584-9371 Sent from my iPhone 1 /c30 — 7v3 Ed Offutt From: Richard Weghorn <richardweghorn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 6:58 PM To: Joseph E. Flescher Subject: RE: Rezoning the NW corner of 58th Ave. & 53rd. St. from Residential to Residential & Commercial (CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Flescher We wish to voice our STRONG OBJECTIONS to the captioned proposal. We moved to Bent Pine 15 years ago because it was a very quiet and serene community surrounded by fields for cows & horses to graze. During the 15 years, additional developments were created (Waterway Village, Vero Lago and more homes in Bent Pine. Our peaceful world has already changed, would be completely destroyed and the value of our home severely impacted. The only ones to benefit are the developers. There are many other areas in Vero Beach that could be developed instead. We urge .you to VOTE NO to the current proposal. Respectfully, Richard and Janina Weghorn /30-73 Ed Offutt From: Craig Wright <craig@algorithmconsultants.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:11 PM To: Joseph E. Flescher Cc: Mom; Wendy Subject: Fwd: Mandala Village CAUTION: This message is from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Joseph, It's been a long time since we talked, so I'm sure you don't remember me, but years ago, we ran into each other numerous times when I was the CFO of National Oil & Gas. I wanted to pass along my family's message about our disappointment with the proposed rezoning requested for Mandala Village. 58th east of 60 is already getting close to the point where it's over -developed. The proposal for Mandala Village is completely excessive. If you remember, Divosta said they would also build a shopping center, etc., but they never did. Granted, they did a great job developing 53rd, but their developments alone are getting excessive... My family lives in Waterway Village, so a development like Mandala Village would render 58th inadequate for the resulting traffic and dramatically increase traffic noise and render the minor widening of 58th inadequate for the resulting traffic - which is ironic as that was why I understood 66th was widened. I strongly oppose the density that's proposed for Mandala Village and urge you to vote against the proposal as it exists now. Please call me if you can so we can catch up and perhaps we can even have lunch here at my place - the Boulevard Tennis Club. My personal cell is 772-321-4151. I look forward to catching up, and please let me know what I can do to "loudly" object to the proposed Mandala Village. Thanks and regards, Craig A. Wright 4360 Doubles Alley Drive #204 Vero Beach, FL 32967 Forwarded message From: GEORGE WRIGHT <gfwright74@comcast.net> Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:00 AM Subject: Fwd: Mandala Village To: Wright, Craig <craig a algoritlunconsultants.com> This is awful. 1 Original Message From: Arthur Eisdorfer <president@iwwvhoa.com> To: gfwright74(a,comcast.net Date: January 14, 2020 at 12:25 PM Subject: Mandala Village Dear Isles Residents: Mandala Village is a proposed mixed use development diagonally across the intersection of 58th Avenue and 53rd Street. That developer has asked Indian River County to rezone approximately 79 acres of the site. The Isles HOA was notified because of our proximity to the site. The County is holding a public hearing regarding the rezoning on Tuesday, January 21st at 9 am. Additional details are contained in the attached notice. Mandala Village Public Hearing.pdf Arthur Eisdorfer, President The Isles at Waterway Village Homeowners Association If you wish to reply to this email, please include your name, your Isles address and contact information. This email is intended for the members of the The Isles at Waterway Village Homeowners Assoc. only. Please direct queries on this email to managera(�iwwvhoa.com. You may modify your subscriptions to these email broadcasts by changing your preferences on the Membership/Web tab in your online member profile The Isles at Waterway Village Homeowners Assoc. is professionally managed by AR Choice Management, Inc.. /3D -%u5" INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Bill Schutt, AICP Chief, Long Range Planning DATE: January 12, 2020 SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 21, 2020. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On March 26, 2019.the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a contract with Tindale - Oliver. and Associates, Inc. (TOA) to update six (6) of the County's impact fees (excludes Correctional Facilities, Solid Waste Facilities, and Library Facilities), update the local growth rate and the availability of "buy down" revenue used in the Affordable Growth model, and evaluate the County's three separate transportation impact fee benefit districts (north, central, and south county). A draft version of that report has been completed and is attached to this agenda item for BCC review (Attachment 1). The purpose of this staff report is to provide an overview of the proposed Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report, to identify recent changes to impact fee requirements and allowances, to highlight some key differences between the current draft report and the prior 2014 Impact Fee Update Study Re ort, and to identify potential policy decision making_points for BCC consideration [(highlighted in yellow in this agenda item). TOA will provide additional detail and an overview with a PowerPoint presentation at the BCC meeting on January 21' and may identify additional policy decision points for BCC consideration. ANALYSIS The draft Impact Fee Study Update Report provides the technical basis for updating the County's impact fees. Consistent with state requirements, the most recent available data is used as a foundation for the calculation of the fees. This includes but is not limited to data obtained from a 131 current facility inventory for each impact fee category, calculation of current weighted population (permanent, plus weighted seasonal), calculation of current functional population (weekly 24 hour population), estimates of cost of current facilities and calculations of per unit cost to the county for expanding those facilities (cost component), and calculation of capital facility expansion related revenue credits attributed to new development. In Indian River County and in many communities throughout Florida, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is used to establish base impact fee rates. As noted in the report, "a consumption - based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. A consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that does not generate sufficient revenues to correct existing deficiencies". Credits are factored in to account for the value of future tax contributions of new development for capacity expansion projects. These safe guards, in effect, protect the County from overcharging for impact fees and serves to protect the County from legal challenges for overcharging for impact fees. Recent Changes to State Impact Fee Law Since the last impact fee study update, there have been some notable changes to impact fee requirements and allowances from the state legislature. In 2019, House Bill (HB) 207 changed the impact fee act to clarify that: 1. Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and 2. Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless reasonably connected to the impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. Also in 2019, HB 7103 was adopted that addressed multiple issues, including affordable housing impact fees. Per that HB, the County may now waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the revenue loss. The HB also requires outstanding developer impact fee contribution credits to increase proportional to any impact fee increase enacted by a local government. Affordable Growth and Policy Discount Impact Fee Reductions for Non -Residential Uses With the last impact fee study in 2014, the BCC adopted reduced impact fees using policy discounts and affordable growth calculations that calculated the County's ability to use other revenue sources for capital expansion projects to reduce impact fees. The BCC was concerned about the job market and wanted to encourage new and existing businesses to expand in the County. At that time, building permit records showed that non-residential building permit activity had significantly dropped during the Great Recession and it was not re -bounding as much as anticipated. As a result, the BCC focused a higher impact fee percent reduction amount on non- residential impact fees than on residential impact fees. 132 Commercial and Industrial building permit activity since the start of the Great Recession is shown in the graph below. As can be seen, building permit square footage for commercial/industrial buildings has fluctuated, with an initial high in 2008 of 538,513 new square feet of commercial/industrial building area that significantly dropped to a low in 2010 with a total of 60,566 new square feet of commercial/industrial building area. Since 2010, the County's total annual permitted commercial/industrial building square footage has fluctuated and rebounded to a point in 2018 that has now surpassed the high the county saw in 2008 (over 560,000 square feet of new commerciaUindustrial building area was permitted in 2018). 'OLICY DECISION POINT: Whether or not to keep or modify overall policy and affordable growth reductions for all commercial/industrial land uses. The various proposed policy and affordable growth reductions are reviewed in greater detail on the next few pages with BCC; decision points noted. 600,000 500,000 400,000 a 0 300,000 u_ m iT 200,000 ch 100,000 0 Indian River County Total Square Footage of Commercial/Industrial Permits Issued 2008 - 2018 538,513 561,579 r 439,443 289,049 345,260 319,541 246,128 63,566 104,505 90,803 170,904 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Proposed Impact Fee Schedule The proposed impact fee schedule (Attachment 2) includes a comparison of the 2014 adopted impact fee rates (reduced/affordable growth calculations) to both the calculated full (100%) 2019. impact fee rate and the proposed 2019 reduced impact fee rates. The proposed 2019 impact fee rates apply reduced/affordable growth percentage reductions to specific impact fee categories similar to the 2014 impact fee study (higher reductions from non-residential versus residential impact fee land uses). Without the policy and Affordable Growth discounts, impact fees in Indian River County would be significantly higher. For instance, the current adopted Single Family 133 (Detached) - 1,501 to 2,499 square foot impact fees are $8,623 and for a restaurant it is $13,693 per 1,000 square feet of building area. If the County were to adopt the actual current calculated impact fees for that size home the impact fees would be $17,512 and for the restaurant the impact fees would be $46,545 per 1,000 square feet of building area. Proposed Affordable Growth and Policy discount percentage reductions by impact fee category along with potential policy decision points are noted in the below summary table. Short explanations in list format with BCC decision points are provided after the table. As noted in the impact fee report, in all cases, the level of discount for each impact fee category is a policy decision and the fees could be at any level between the levels calculated and 100%. Proposed Impact Fee General Affordable Growth and Policy Discount Percentages (% of 100%) Overall Land Use Public Buildings Emergency Services Law Enforcement Parks & Rec. Transportation Public Education Residential 50% 100% 40% 40% 75% 28% Non- Residential 26% 100% 40% NA 45% NA 1. Public Building impact fee rate of 50% for residential categories and 26% for non- residential categories is presented in a two-step percent reduction in the impact fee schedule because affordable growth projections did not support the same with this impact fee update. To achieve the same reduction amounts as in 2014, a 50% policy discount was first applied, followed by an Affordable Growth discount for non-residential uses that brought down this impact fee category for non-residential uses to 26%. LOS: Adopted LOS is lower than achieved LOS. Adopted LOS is used in the impact fee report. POLICY DECISION POINT: For the Affordable Growth Strategy, the BCC could adopt an 80% impact fee rate across all land uses, which would maintain the adopted LOS. The BCC could also alternatively adopt a 92% impact fee rate for residential uses, which would eliminate the fee for non-residential uses! 2. Emergency Services impact fee rate of 100% for all categories. LOS: Adopted LOS is lower than achieved LOS. Adopted LOS is used in the impact fee report. [POLICY DECISION POINT: Consistent with the Affordable Growth strategy, the report cotes that "if historical and programmed levels of non -impact fee funding are continued,' the County could stop collecting this fee completely and continue to maintain the LOS".fl 3. Law Enforcement impact fees reduced from 100% in 2014 to 40% in the proposed 2019 schedule. 134 LOS: Achieved LOS is lower than adopted LOS. Per the impact fee report, new development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided. Achieved LOS is used in the impact fee report. POLICY DECISION POINT: For the Affordable Growth Strategy, the BCC could adopt, a 45% rate specific to residential if the BCC desires to eliminate this fee for non-residential usesa. 4. Parks and Recreation impact fees reduced from 69% in 2014 to 40% in the proposed 2019 schedule. LOS: Achieved LOS is lower than adopted LOS. Per the impact fee report, new development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided. Achieved LOS is used in the impact fee report. POLICY DECISION POINT: For the Affordable Growth Strategy, the BCC could adopt anywhere between a 1.00% and 40% impact fee rate and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. For a 2,000 square foot home, the parks and recreation impact fee reduced b3% 40% as�proposed is $819. The full 100% parks and recreation impact fee rate would be $2,0481 5. Transportation impact fees reduced from 100% for residential in 2014 to 75% for residential in 2019 (this proposed reduction attempts to soften the calculated doubling of this impact fee for residential, recognizing the high cost of housing currently in the market place). LOS: As stated in the impact fee report "the County's adopted LOS standard (LOS "D" for all roads) is lower than the current achieved LOS. Under the current methodology, even with the full impact fee, unless the County uses other revenue sources, the current achieved LOS for the system will deteriorate and more congestion will be experienced. Unless the available funding for transportation capacity increases significantly in the future, the County will allow the LOS to degrade faster with a lower fee compared to the travel conditions that could be better maintained with the full fee." OLICY DECISION POINT: the 75% reduction for residential is a recommendation ut if the BCC does not want to reduce or would like to reduce more, that is possible and hould be discussed with TOA at the BCC meeting 6. Educational Facilities impact fee rate of 28% (Educational Facilities impact fee applies only to residential land uses). LOS: Achieved LOS is lower than adopted LOS. Per the impact fee report, new development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided. Achieved 135 LOS is used in the impact fee report. 'OLICY DECISION POINT: Per TOA, for the Affordable Growth Strategy, the BCO could adopt anywhere between 45% and 100% impact fee rate and still maintain the adopted LOS standard (45% is based on other historic funding sources continuing ands rojected annual growth rate of 0.7%). However, based on conversations with school istrict staff regarding school trends (anticipated reduction in growth of student population ith charter schools and the ability to shift students to other schools with more capacity), it is recommended that the previous 28% impact fee rate used in the 2014 impact fee study maintained. For a 2,000 square foot home, the 28% educational facilities impact fee, ould be reduced from $1,702 to $1,310E - Other notable differences between the proposed draft impact fee schedule and prior (current) adopted impact fee schedule are: 1. Some Land Use categories changed due to the release and in some cases reclassification of uses within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, published in 2017 (see pages 4 — 5 of the Impact Fee Study Update Report for highlights). 2. The ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition adjusted the trip generation rates for land uses. Old trip count data was removed and replaced with new trip count data. In the case of some land use types, such as warehousing and industrial, trip generation rates decreased (less people working at a location due to more automation) and, when factored into the impact fee calculations, had the effect of lowering the impact fee rate from what it would be under the previous ITE Trip Generation Manual edition. 3. Addition of two new single-family land use categories with reduced or eliminated impact fees to help facilitate the construction of new affordable housing. While not a specific directive of the BCC at the original outset of this study, the BCC did separately request that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) study the affordable housing issue and develop recommendations to present to the BCC. One of the recommendations that the AHAC has agreed to by consensus is to support the reduction of impact fees for affordable housing. That recommendation was expected to be brought to the BCC along with other recommendations all at the same time with completion of the AHAC's work sometime later this year. However, with that work expected to be completed after the conclusion of the impact fee study, staff felt it important to include the AHAC's recommendation as part of the attached proposed DRAFT Impact Fee Study Update Report. In this case, the proposal includes the addition of: 136 a. a single-family home of less than 1,000 square foot land use category with a $0 impact fee (would not include accessory dwellings to help prevent waiver from benefiting owners of vacation rentals); and b. a single-family home between 1,000 square foot and 1,500 square foot for low and very low-income households land use category with a 50% reduced impact fee. This fee category is intended only for non-profit housing providers that would verify incomes on the County's behalf and have enforcement mechanisms to maintain and monitor affordability (e.g. deed restrictions, lease agreements, etc.). With respect to the less than 1,000 square foot single-family home category, TOA has advised that the County may exempt certain land uses from paying impact fees if they have a 'de-minimis" impact (less than 5% of impact fee collections). In the case of single-family homes of less than 1,000 square feet in size, TOA reviewed Property Appraiser's records and found that since the year 2000, they represent just 0.3% of all single-family homes built in the County (meets the less than 5% requirement). For the 50% reduction of fees for the proposed single-family home between 1,000 square foot and 1,500 square foot for low and very low-income households category, the County, through passage of HB 7103 in 2019, has the ability to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing. While those regulations allow for reductions or waivers for housing of all types for very low (below 50% of area median income), low (between 50% and 80% of area median income), and moderate (between 80% and 120% of area median income), the current recommendation is to restrict the benefit to a 50% waiver to just single-family homes for very low and low-income households. For Indian River County this would translate into an income for a household size of 4 persons to below $32,500 for the very - low income category and $52,000 for the low income category (the moderate income category cap is $78,000 for a household size of 4). OLICY DECISION POINT: Whether or not to keep, modify, or delete the ecommendation for the "de-minimis" waiver of impact fees for single family homes of less than 1,000 square feet and whether or not to keep, modify, or delete they ecommendation for the 50% waiver for very low, and low income households between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in size (under air)f Proposed Residential Impact Fees as a Percentage of Median Home Sale Price With respect to the cost of impact fees and housing, the next page contains a table comparing the proposed 2019 reduced impact fees to the median single-family home price for Indian River County. For single family homes greater than 1,000 square foot in size (excluding the affordable housing category), the proposed 2019.reduced impact fees are between 3.9% and 4.5% of the median home sale price for Indian River County. 137 Residential Land Use Category Proposed 2019 Reduced Impact Fee Rate Median Home Sale Price Oct 2019. % of Median Home Price Single Family (Detached) - Less than 1,000 sf $0 $248,000 0.00% Single Family (Detached) - 1,000 to 1,500 sf (LowNery Low Income) $4,423 $248,000 1.78% Single Family (Detached) - 1,000 to 1,500 sf $8,842 $248,000 3.57% Single Family (Detached) - 1,501 to 2,499 sf $9,843 $248,000 3.97% Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sf and greater $10,993 $248,000 4.43% Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 levels) $6,374 $248,000 2.57% Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) $5,133 $248,000 2.07% Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) $4,120 $248,000 1.66% School Impact Fees During the development of this impact fee study, County staff coordinated with and met with School district staff to discuss challenges that the School District faces with changing enrollment and loss of public students in part to increased educational choices for parents and school -aged children (e.g. addition and expansion of charter schools). From those meetings it was determined that there are projects planned for which impact fees are needed. This includes a planned new wing at the Sebastian River Middle School to replace portables. As noted in the impact fee study update report, it is the School District's long-standing policy to use portable stations only as a temporary solution to accommodate increases in student population. The School District's policy is to provide the necessary permanent student stations in the long term through permanent construction. School District staff have been invited to attend the January 21, 2020 BCC meeting to be available to answer any questions and to provide more information should the BCC request. Transportation Benefit Districts With the impact fee study update, TOA was asked to review the County's current three transportation impact fee benefit districts and make a recommendation to keep the current three benefit districts or to reduce to two or one countywide benefit district. That review and copies of a current traffic impact fee benefit district map and proposed traffic impact fee benefit district map are on pages 75 — 78 of the Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report. In this case, TOA recommends that the County reduce the number of transportation impact fee benefit districts from three to two. As proposed, the two benefit districts will divide the county roughly in half, into a northern district and a southern district. Per TOA, these proposed new districts will meet legal requirements to track and allocate collected transportation impact fee funds to transportation projects that will provide a proportional benefit to the feepayer and will bring the majority of the City of Fellsmere into the northern district. It is also noted as a major benefit to the county that with just two districts, there will be less restrictions on where those funds can be used (larger area), which will make it 138 easier for the County to expend transportation impact fee funds on road capacity expansion projects. SUMMARY The proposed Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report and associated impact fee schedule is legally defensible and incorporates past and recent policy directives from the BCC. There are various points in the report that identify opportunities for BCC direction to modify previous policy and to acceptor modify additional recommendations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Review the draft report; 2. Provide direction to the consultant and county staff on desired policy revisions and/or edits to the Draft Impact Fee Study Update report; 3. Provide direction to staff on whether or not any additional meetings are desired to review the draft report or an updated version of the draft report, and authorize staff to proceed as appropriate in scheduling and conducting those meetings; 4. Authorize staff to draft an ordinance for adoption of the proposed new impact fee schedule and for any needed text revisions to the County's impact fee regulations; and 5. Authorize staff to advertise for a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the new impact fee schedules and any related ordinance changes, with the date of that public hearing to be after any BCC related concerns and requests are addressed. ATTACHMENTS 1.) Draft Impact Fee Update Study Report 2.) Draft Proposed Impact Fee Schedule F:\Community Development\Impact Fee\Impact Fee Studies \2018 Update\REPOR'I\Proposed Report January 2020\BCC Agenda Item for 1-21- 20 - Draft Report v3.docx Tindale )(Oliver planning 1 design 1 engineering Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Report January 3, 2020 Prepared for: Indian River County Community Development — Planning 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960 ph (772) 226-1237 Prepared by: Tindale Oliver 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813) 224-8862 fax (813) 226-2106 E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com 0343003-00.19 140 Attachment 1 DRAFT Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 Methodology 1 Legal Standard Overview � ' 2 Land Use Changes 4 II. PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1'+ 6 Facility Inventory / `.\ 6 Service Area and Population 9 Level of Service 9 Cost Component - \ 10 Credit Component \ 10 Net Impact Cost `- 13 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee 14 Affordable Growth Strategy '\ 15 Public Buildings.,lmpact Fee'Schedule Comparison 16 III. EMERGENCY SERVICES\ ) - 18 Facility Inventory, \ , 18 Vehicle and Equipment Inventory 20 Service,Area and Population ` \ \ 21 Level of;Service 21 Cost Component 23 Credit Component• - 24 \ . \/ Net Impact Cost 27 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule 27 Affordable Growth Strategy 29 Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 29 IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT 31 Facility Inventory 31 Service Area and Population 33 Level of Service 34 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co? y Imp�Ctacn vicil ntt y DRAFT Cost Component 35 Credit Component 36 Net Impact Cost 38 Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule 38 Affordable Growth Strategy 40 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 41 V. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES 43 Land and Recreation Facilities Inventory ' 43 Service Area and Population 45 45 Cost Component % �• \ 47 • Credit Components 51 Net Impact Cost'R` �.. \• 53 • Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee,Schedule 54 i ti, Affordable Growth Strategy '' 56 Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 56 t VI. TRANSPORTATION \ 58 Demand Component '`- 59 Cost Component \ \ ` 61 Credit Component 67 / Cale lated_Tra`nsportation impact Fee'''. 70 Affordable Growth Strategy� ` 72 TTransportation Imp ct Fee Schedule Comparison 73 Benefit Districts Review , \ ��� 75 VII. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES` . 78 Facility Inventory, ! 78 Service Area and \Enrollment 79 Facility Service Delivery 79 Cost Component 80 Credit Component 86 Net Impact Cost per Student 90 Student Generation Rate 91 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule 93 Affordable Growth Strategy 95 Level of Service Tindale Oliver Indian River C y January 2020 ii ImpActtt t1fT12tl t y DRAFT Educational Facilities Impact Fee Comparison Schedule 95 Appendices: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix 1: Appendix J: Population —Supplemental Information Building and Land Values -Supplemental Information Transportation Impact Fee — Demand Component Transportation Impact Fee — Cost Component Transportation Impact Fee — Credit Component Transportation Impact Fee — Calculated Impact Fee Schedule Educational Facilities Impact Fee — Supplemental'Information Administrative Fee `� Master Fee Schedules — Full Calculated -Fee Rates \�\' Master Fee Schedules—Staff Recommended Fee Rates, \ Tindale Oliver January 2020 iii p Indian River C y Im �ttacen�ty DRAFT I. Introduction Indian River County initially implemented a Transportation Impact Fee in 1986 in response to high growth levels. In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved impact fees for eight additional program areas. The most recent technical study that is the basis of the current impact fee schedules was completed in 2014. Following this study, the County suspended the correction facilities, solid waste, and libraries impact fees. At this time, to comply with the Impact Fee Ordinance requirements and to reflect most recent data/the County is interested in updating impact fee technical studies for the following service areas: • Public Buildings / • • Emergency Services • Law Enforcement • Parks & Recreation Facilities • Transportation • Educational Facilities Indian River County has retained Tindale Oliver (TO) to prepare an update study to reflect changes to the cost, credit, and'demand components since the 2014 study. In addition, this study includes an update Of the "affo dable growth" calculations that take into account the existing development's ability'to absorb new growth and calculates the level of possible policy discounts without reducing the level, of service -This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of updated impact,fees. Methodology• , In developing the County's impact fee program, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is`also,the County's adopted methodology and is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit in the case of all impact fee program areas with the exception of transportation and educational facilities. In the case of transportation, vehicle -miles of travel is used, and in the case of educational facilities, student generation rates are used. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, the consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that does Tindale Oliver January 2020 1 Indian River Coyat,y ImpaAttlaCf1MtgAte dl DRAFT not generate sufficient revenues to correct existing deficiencies. As such, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future tax contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same service. Legal Standard Overview f In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply'with thedual rational nexus" test, which f requires that they: ff \ \ • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and, • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through estal;lishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another_ planning document/Master Plan \ `• / J In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its ♦ , jurisdiction -§ 163.31801(2);,F1. Stat: The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological-Iimitations —did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type 7 from being funded with impact,fees. The Act did specify procedural and methodological prerequisites;.such as the requiremeht of,the fee being based on most recent and localized data, a 90 -day requirement for fee changes,'»and other similar requirements, most of which were common to the practice already. \ More recent legislation.,further'affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the following: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90 -day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with Tindale Oliver January 2020 2 Indian River Co a Impal�ttFacllme nt i DRAFT impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.31801 (5)(f), Florida Statutes. • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: 1. Impact fees cannot be collected priorjo.building,permit issuance; and 2. Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the ex enditure is reasonably connected .to ,-or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact erierated bythe•new residential and commercial p g construction. \� \, f , • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of'impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, theeoutstanding impact fee credits for developer .contributions should also be increased. This requirement will operate prospectively. This bill also'allowed local governments to w ive/r educe impact fees for affordable housingprojects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. \ \ i - The following paragraphs provide further _detail on the generally applicable legal standards applicable; here. ▪ `. `, Impact Fee Definition • An impact\fee.is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is,.designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. A Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established Tindale Oliver January 2020 3 Indian River Couttiyy Impact Attaciiment "I DRAFT for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. Authority to Impose Impact Fees in Indian River County • Indian River County is a non -charter county. o A non -charter county derives its auth_ority from the state constitution and o A non -charter county may adopt ordinances that are not. inconsistent with general o A non -charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that'do not conflict with municipal ordinances. \ • The fiscal burden of providing countywide services`must be borne by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the.:county. This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for impact fee calculations for each fee inthe following sections, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area, level of service,(1OS), cost; -credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County a'nd othersources, as -indicated. statutory sources; law; and \. Land Use Changes \ •.\ As part of this update study,/the following land uses were revised/added/removed from the Indian River County's impact fee schedules to reflect the most recent data on demand variables. Multi -Family Housing The current transportation impact fee schedule includes "multi -family (apartment) 1-2 stories", "multi -family (apartment) 3+ stories", "residential condominium/townhouse" and "high-rise condominiums" land uses. ITE 10th Edition has realigned these uses, creating a combined "multi- family housing" category, with differentiation in trip generation rate based on the number of Tindale Oliver January 2020 4 Indian River Cou t/ ImpAttiaccnment'dl DRAFT stories. This change is incorporated into the impact fee schedule, shown by Land Use Code (LUC) used by ITE: • LUC 220 (multi -family, low-rise, 1-2 floors) — includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have one or two levels (floors). • LUC 221 (multi -family, mid -rise, 3-10 floors) — includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors). Public Park \\/ The current impact fee schedules include LUC 412, general recreation, which was removed from ITE 10th Edition. In its place, the schedule includes the following:`- \, • LUC 411: Public Park (measured per acre) �` Gas Station w/Convenience Market - \ i �\\ The current transportation impact fee schedule includesti"gas/service station with or without car wash" and "gas/service station with convenience market"'land uses. ITE 10th Edition has realigned these uses and added an additional "super" convenience_ land use, with differentiation in trip generation rte based`on the size of the convenience: market. This update was incorporated into the impact fee schedule, shown by Land Use Code (LUC) used by ITE: • LUC 944: Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft • LUC.-945:-Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000 to 2,999 sq ft • ,LUC 960: Gas,Station w/,Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft This re -alignment eliminates .the need. for LUC 853 (convenience market w/gasoline) and therefore, this use was removed to simplify the County's impact fee schedule and reduce any potential confusion'in terms ofclassifying new development. High -Cube Transload & Short -Term Storage Warehouse The current transportation impact fee schedule includes LUC 152, high -cube warehouse/distribution center, which is removed from ITE 10th Edition. In its place, the schedule will include the following: • LUC 154: High -Cube Transload & Short -Term Storage Warehouse (measured per 1,000 sq ft) Tindale Oliver January 2020 5 Indian River Co Impktttacnment DRAFT II. Public Buildings Public buildings impact fees are used to fund the land purchases and capital construction and expansion of facilities required to support the additional government service demand created by new growth. There are several major elements associated with the development of the public buildings impact fee. These include: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population /7 • Level of Service /f , i • Cost Component �'' • Credit Component _ \! • Net Public Buildings Impact'Cost \ • Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule �'\ \\\ • Affordable Growth Strategy \. �\' \ • Public Buildings'I`mpact Fee Schedule Comparison �. Facility Inventory \ The public facilities;inJentory'�includes facilities -that are primarily for the provision of essential county,ser�vices such as health, emergency management, court -related and other administrative services,'and'do not includesany of th'e buildings included in the calculation of other impact fees. \ According to information providedlby Indian River County, the County has approximately 587,700 square feet of general pablic facility space. This includes the square footage of both primary and support buildings. Support facilities are defined as trailers, facilities without air-conditioning, or facilities that are unlikely to be occupied by personnel. Table 11-1 shows a summary of the public buildings inventory and the current value of buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 434,500 square feet of primary building space and 153,200 square feet of support space. Tindale Oliver January 2020 6 Indian River Coyatd Impk tacnmen DRAFT Building value of the facilities included in the inventory is estimated based on insurance values, building cost trends over the past five years, and cost information obtained from other jurisdictions. This analysis resulted in an estimate cost of $240 per square foot for primary buildings, $100 per square foot for the fleet management facility and transportation bus hub, and $50 per square foot for the parking garage. In addition to building value, land values were estimated for future land purchases. Land value is determined primarily through a review of the value of parcels where the current public buildings are located, as reported by the Indian Riverunty, Property Appraiser, land value trends over the past five years based on Indian River County Property Appraiser estimates, and an analysis of vacant land sales and values in Indian�Rlver County. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $100,000 per acre. Additional information on land and building value estimates is,included in Appendix B. \`� t `, Tindale Oliver January 2020 7 Indian River Coil Impart,€acnmen Building Square Building Land Total Building and Description Year Builtill Ill Acreage()) Value(2) Value(3) Value(4) Feet Value Value Land Primary Buildings 0 00 0 M N. 0 M N 0 0 N r-1 00 LO O1 V? 0 00 10 00 u -)O1 O 00 VT 0 O O 1- O N tn. 0 O O O N Vl Vl V} 0 Cr 0 N c1' N N L} 0 N N O1 I. 0 00 v} 0 O O 00 n r -I l!1 N 0 O O N N Tr 0 O O L(100 l!1 111 cFin in. $518,000 p N p,l CO M sO M H Support Buildings o O O N M o O O 00 M 01 b V? O O M 01 N 01 ei V? p p M 0., H •I4. Total - All Buildings \ 1. 587,6411 57.761 $112,803,4201 _ $5,776,0001 $118,579,4201 0 0 O e4 N lA 0 0 O O O1.-1 r-1 0 0 O R N 0 0 O r-1 03 V? 0 0 O l0 N ,-I V? 0 0 O le 00 N 0 0 O N CO In 0 0 O 00 M m V? $477,000 0 0 O Vl M N $14,000 p p p ^ p M H 0 0 O 00 t!1 ri $149,000 0 0 O N l0 M p p p 41O b br-I O. 0 O co $42,502,080 0 O N .1 m N 0 00 10 .--i 9o0, N j 0 O 0 l0 o V? 0 O 0 a - �ih 0 V 0' . - c- 'i!? 0 -,N I-1 I� a V? 0 O 0 O 00 V? (0 \ C 0 O 0 O m $504,000 ozr'LLZ'zor$ 0 O 0 O .^-I 0 O 0 01 N $1,567,300 p p ry? is N H 00 14 N O1 in. N I, ,Lfll 0 al" `rti 7- .-i iN c -I r0O O l0 r -I ri / l0 00 N 5.82 00 M <rn -1V' I. Is, / v).4-1' M N / '' ri O ^ p <.j 00 In <4 1.49 N l0 M 01 b vs N Ol', o 0, 0 m -s-I 01 ' m ( \ I� O o l0 \� �, ` 0 o .:1-m W \ 0 in 00 '.-1J '/'/ r -I, N ,--1.o /00' 31,238 0 0 l0 r-1 CO \ C 18,000 0 0 .-1 N 434,488 O 0 N. e -I' 135,780 m ISI LO l!1 ri , I / (y y? ey M u, H \. / 2007 01 CI11 al 01 l.0 a Varies 2012 2006 2007 m 2002 0 001 �= ,, ./ " 7 _ O IN t t/ CH, O ` ', 2004 Unit Cost(6) ti, New County Admin. Building Complex Health Department Building Courthouse -Judicial Complex(5) Administration Annex Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities Transit Admin. Building Supervisor of Elections Sub -Annex (43rd Ave) Emergency Operations Center Old Humane Society Building North County Office - Sebastian Corners Retail Center 1612 20th St - Commercial Building Subtotal -- Primary Buildings f Go Line Transportation Bus Hub Courthouse - Judicial Complex Parking Garage Fleet Management Facility Subtotal -- Support Buildings ''ss,N• ; \\ 13 C (9 3 L 3 .O C O • (9 4-' L a) O O. 0) '^ s 113 t L 4-, 4_ 0) t O L m X -e) O Q O./ 5I- Q N t Q 3 t 0) v 43 In v 0) > O_ 0) O > O OL •J u V? 4-'0) a. [0 X'O L) vL L 00 Q t (0 ) tIO Q U • O) (0 C (0 L L (0 00mMI E C Y X O •L ` o O. CO C L a a) (0 o 4La,'O' a 3 ' i:'' . Q oo ,_ ai, 4-. (Y1 9n (6 o'- Q.) L 3 4-ia) Y -:•.l 3 Ci � Q..... J .Q 0) /4",i1':" O�"rO 0 J Na3 f 0 0 C/ .,6O > JN •-j 4-onavrNa (9 > v � ov}fv '> N Om 4! Z (0 -O E 0 3 U (0 U >' 0) y(9,, C L V1 42 -0 3 O (0 0) 13 c u c E 3 g f) 0) .I] of •3 u Q E o -0 L o_ Y a) 3 (0 3 L 0) L E U Y N U 4 Q voowu) W 1- r-1 N M CYl!1 l0 o i,C O) 43)CC '6 LL•4 0 0.43C Q E 00 43J CD O N (9 (0 C C 1- DRAFT Service Area and Population Indian River County provides general government services throughout the county. As such, the proper benefit district is the entire county. In this technical study, the current 2019 weighted and functional population estimates are used. Because simply using weighted (permanent, plus weighted seasonal) population estimates does not fully address all of the benefactors of government services, the "functional" weekly 24-hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses. Functional population accounts for residents, visitors, and workers traveling in and out of ,the county throughout the day and calculates the presence of population at the different/land uses during the day. Appendix A provides further detail on the population analysis conducted. `\ . / Level of Service \ \ ` \ rn\ Based on the information provided by the Count'Nridian'River County's 2O19'current level of service (LOS) is 2.67 square feet bf primary public buildings facilities per weighted seasonal resident. Table 11-2 presents the calculation of the achieved;105 and the adopted LOS standard per weighted and functional resident. As shown, the achieved LOS is 2.77 square feet per functional resident, wh'ch measures the investment the community has made into public buildings infrastructure The adopted LOS standard indicates the service level intended in the future. Given that the edopted\L0S standard is lower than the achieved LOS, the adopted standard is used_for the impact fee calculations. '\ Table 11-2 \, Current'Level of Service (2019) Variable Population(1) \ Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings)12i Achieved LOS (Square footage per Resident)i3i Adopted LOS Standard (Square Footage per Residents)i4i Year 2019 Weighted Functional Population Population 162,787 434,488 2.67 1.99 156,931 434,488 2.77 2.06 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population and Appendix A, Table A-11 for functional population 2) Source: Table 11-1 3) Public buildings square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide weighted/functional population (Item 1) 4) Source: Capital Improvement Element of the 2030 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan adopted December 4, 2018 for adopted LOS standard per weighted population (1.99). This standard is converted to the LOS standard per functional population by using the ratio of achieved LOS per weighted vs. functional population (Item 3). Tindale Oliver January 2020 9 Indian River Co Impktttacnment DRAFT Although the LOS is measured in terms of building square feet per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the LOS is shown as the level of investment or dollar value of capital assets per resident, which reflects the investment made by the community to date. For impact fee calculation purposes, the County's adopted LOS standard is $480 per resident for public buildings. As presented later in this report, the achieved LOS increased to $521 per resident due to the changes in impact fee variables since 2014, which should be reflected in the impact fee ordinance. Cost Component The cost component of the study evaluates the cost oftcapital'items, including buildings and land. Table 11-3 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to. $273 per square foot of primary buildings, and $562 per functional resident. Table 11-3 Total Impact Cost per FunctionalResident Variable Total Building Value4~'-. Figure $112,803,420 Percent of Total(8) 95% Total Land Valuei2\'\ $5,776,000 5% Total Building and Land Value(3)\; $118,579,420 100% / l4) - . Primary_Building Square;Footage --- 434,488 Total Building and Land Value per Square -Foot`:, $272.92 Adopted LOS Standard \.Bldg Sq,,Ft'per Functional Resident(6) 2.06 Totali'lmpact Cost per Functional Residentl71 $562.22 1) Source: Table II -1 2) Source: 'Table >II -1 3) Sum of buildingvalue (Itemi1) and land value (Item 2) 4) Source: Table'll-�1 `. / 5) Total building and .Iarid:vlue(Item 3) divided by primary building square footage (Item 4) 6) Source: Table 11-2 7) Building and land value per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by building square footage per functional resident (Item 6) 8) Distribution of total cost Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development, a review of the funding sources used for public buildings capacity expansion projects is completed. The purpose of this review is to determine Tindale Oliver January 2020 10 Indian River Coilit ImpAt igcl meat' I DRAFT any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities and land. It should be noted that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, or operations expenses, as these types of expenditures do not add capacity and should not be considered for impact fee credit. Capital Expansion Credit To calculate the capital expansion credit per functional resident, funding sources for capacity projects completed over the past five years and those programmed over the next five years are reviewed. Based on this analysis, a credit for non-impactfee funding is provided in Table 11-4, which results in an average annual credit of $2.19 per functional resident. \ / \ \ ti \\ \ Tindale Oliver January 2020 11 Indian River Coli ImpaAt,iacWIlaitg1'l dl Description()) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Optional Sales Tax: 00 0 IN I� 0 .4 1.4 .a V n 10. LA O r.1 M N VT Total -Public Buildings $187,785 $0 $31,4901 $2,115,935, $2140751 $250,0001, $150,0001 $150,0001 $150,000 $150,000 $3,397,2851 N n 01 00 N O M V1 AI Cn Al N N 0 0 0 O In ."I H Total Public Buildings Capital Expansion Expenditures per Year") / 1' / -, --0 A i O. 0o. To 0 0 0 Iii A 0 0 0 0 A d Q Annual Public Buildings Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(4) 0 0 0 O N N N L 0 0 O Ln .-I N , , 0 0 0 N AA ' ' 0 0 N l // \ \ 0 N 'N N o N a O i0 0 v N IA 00 N N. CO AlN i LFiberoptics New Courtroom Facilities North County Offices At Sebastian Corners > m < c X a) 0 a) a) N 0_ Q a▪ ' > )a co X u m io C 0 C c a C C a C C ra Q co . a) .) a) a) 00 a) 00 U CO U CO L L L 1- = = a) a) V) • Q N Q DRAFT Net Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table 11-5 presents the calculation of the net public buildings facilities impact cost per functional resident. The first section of Table 11-5 identifies the total impact cost as $562 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the capital improvement -,,credits for the public buildings facilities impact fee resulting in approximately $40 per functional resident. / , The net impact cost per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident of $562 and the total credit of $40`per functional resident. The result is a net impact cost of $522 per functional resident, whichalso represents the LOS measure for impact \`\ fee calculation purposes. Table 11-5 `, • Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Impact Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) $562.22 Capital Expansion Credit Capital Expenditure,per;Functional Resident(2) $2.19 ;Capitalization Rate, �`\, `\ 2.5% \Capitalization Period'(in years) \ 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident' $40.35 Net Impact Cost Net Impact;Cost per/Functional Resident(4) 1 $521.87 1) Source: Table'II-3 2) Source: Table ; 3) Average annual capital expenditure per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 2.5% for 25 years 4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less total capital expansion credit per functional resident (Item 3) Tindale Oliver January 2020 13 Indian River Coy Impart,€acnme DRAFT Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Table 11-6 presents the calculated public buildings impact fee schedule developed for Indian River County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously shown in Table 11-5. Changes to the cost and credit components increased the fee by almost 10 percent compared to the 2014 full calculated rates. The remaining changes are due to the fluctuation in the demand component. Table 11-6 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule %Change from Functional ITE LUC Land Use Impact Resident Calculated Adopted Fee Adopted to Unit Coeffidentlo Fee(2) at 50%/26%M Calculated Feel') RESIDENTIAL: %Change 2014 from 2014 to Calculated 2019 lsl Fee (Full Calculated 1 Fees (Full)IO 210 Single Family(detached) \ \ \ \ -Lessthan 1,500 sf du i DRAFT Table 11-6 (continued) Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule % Change from %Change Functional 2014 from 2014 to ITE LUC Land Use Impact Resident Calculated Adopted Fee Adopted to Calculated 2019 Unit Coefficient`" Fee") at 50%/26%131 Calculated Feel') Fee (Full)15) Calculated Fees (Full)l61 GOVERNMENTAL: 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.56 5814 5203 301.035 5778 4.6% 590 Library - 1,000 sf 2.62 51,367 5220 521.4% $845 61.8% 571 Jail bed 0.17 $89 $174 -48.9% $667 -86.7% MISCELLANEOUS: 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.81 $423 - 5111 281.1% 5427 -0.9% 610 Hos •ital 1,000sf 5673 . $171 293.6% 5658 2.3% 640 Veterina Clinic 1,000 sf 1.41 5736 - 5317 132.2% $1,219 -39.6% 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.37 $193 . 564 201.6% 5245 -21.2% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.19 $2,709 , $747 262.7% $2,871 -5.6% Elementa School Private, K-5 student r r: $42 $8 425.0% $29 44.8% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.d9 $47 '` $9 422.2% $34 38.2% 530 Hi:h School Private,9-12 student ,-'0.09 $47 "`, 510 370.0% $38 23.7% 540/550 Universi /Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 7 0.10 $52 \ 513 300.0% $48 8.3% 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf / 0.42 5219 '� 579 .. 177.2% $302 -27.5% 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-12 for residential and transient land uses and Appendix A, Table A-15 for non- residential land uses \\ 2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional`resident (Table II -5) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land use \\//, 3) Source: Indian River County Planning,Division. Residential fees were adopted at 50% and non-residential fees were adopted at 26% of the full calculated rate. Fees shown ado ndt.include administrative fee. 4) Percent change from the adopted impact fee rate (Item 3) to thecalcalat,ed fee (Item 2) 5) Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update, Final Report, September 26, 2014. Rates shown do not include administrative fee. \ \ 6) Percent change from the 2014 full impact fee rate (Item 5) to the calculated impact fee (Item 2) Affordable Growth Strategy\\ ��: ` '--•._ Basedron the data shown,in Table'11,4, the County is using an average of $340,000 per year of sales tax revenues. During, lthe next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent county ide. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of public buildings impactfee calculated, if the historical and programmed levels of non- impact fee funding were tor) be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 80 per -Cent for/jail , land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in the calculations. Ifthe County decides to charge the residential land uses at 92 percent, the fees for non-residential land uses could be eliminated while maintaining the adopted LOS standard. These calculations assume that the sales tax will continue to be available over the next 25 years. If available revenue sources for public buildings capital projects change significantly, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. Tindale Oliver January 2020 15 Indian River Co Impact Fee DRAFT Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing Indian River County's public buildings impact fee schedule, the County's calculated and adopted impact fee schedules were compared to the adopted fee schedules of nearby jurisdictions or those with similar population levels. Table 11-7 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver January 2020 16 Indian River Coy Impact Attacnment i c N 1 co 0 - cu cu .O a) U = N 41 a) 4.0 CO CD 0. E DA c CO -a a a) C '-y T N O O •3 N V1 O U O O '.( .--1 U1 m VT N t0 in. V t0 VT CD in. V ,m 01' VT / 1011 N LT 0 t0 �m VT ''-, .--1 N VT .--1 ei CO VT N N V1 VT 03 V1 C VT CO V1 V VT .n -00 ' L -->. 00 0 3 N V/ O L.) C - - T .N-1 RIC O 03 7 N O 0 OC T C> (o c 0 C{ O O N m 0 _ � 'T 41 C .�-I 0 O NO 0 // %00i %00i %00I %OOt V 01 .-1 VT 00 CO IA' VT 0£L'L$ 01 r -I VT 0 00 01 VT $182 .4i m VI. $551 $554 coN Q NI CO - I in. V1 m VT / .-1 Ao VT e-1 t0 VT N 0 ,4 .n 01 u.) m V T $620 In N N VT N co N VT $4,633 F--/ 3 '.Z. a. .-1 . C ' 0 C.I. N. U r° '-? V --1 s 0 oN 0 0 _ CU- CU " Cr 3 .�-1 O u L O N N al co 4-,U LL C 100% I 49% r "� 2100% 1111 V. V .-4 V T ; 00 m VT O m N / O' m .kn / V1- N ".••1 4/ .-1- 0 m VT N m V1 VT co N V) 4.4 a t l N rj N 01 n V). 0 VT 00 an 1-I CO VT O CO VT CO .m-1 VT 1 V1 CO VT CO N VI. 3 0 '• a) v . N Q a! a--1 .2 D o ON C ¢ A iim 0) V -A 01 i (a G) • v co j IU I t0 iNI o o Ln Q Z t0 V1 VT $2961 $285 c-1 ,i in 1-1 '.o N VT ta0 VN VT $788 CO VT ID 0 Vj VT Land Use Unit(2) Date of Last Update Assessed Portion of Calculated(') 4.0 C v N (U CC Single Family (2,000 sf) du Non -Residential: 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sfgla 1,000 sf 1,000 sf Light Industrial Office (50,000 sq ft) Retail (125,000 sq ft) Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru s -D OA a) 7 -. O 4 4.4 U -0 U 0) _ COC7 a) a - Ir O) 0 L C 4, \ a- 0 t_ o v N 0 y., CO C .D a) -0 Q a)O > 'D (o (o s a) > t_ co cu 3 N te) w au LLTO 00 C a) C 7 in a) Q 7. "a ? O / i O / v o m / c c c °3 j' c (a as (co a c ? aiv -0 coc c u-) i 7 7 4-, 'a c LJ O /X U- v 0 .. 1. -OD +-; a) E / / a. 40 C C n) N U 3 v c U Cf ay ,' C c ate) cpm ,cu c- 4- v amp E E E,,t .(;OJ t7i Qi,�ry co (O 0 , O j+. 4_• C al / 0 . �' a)' c) a) J E > a>i a) E a E w�, E to v f OSA to '"" 4 C6.1 ha C Ll a+ to (0 > C/(O C co Vi E a.+ iE - c C p N 2/(O E (o Q IE 2 °c --c OA s 8 d E E yL 3 'c U O`'N OC O OrL7 IZO >r C U O p U p c7L�U>' C yy �C Q ta)-` 0 c 7p NUCCV7OLO :4-, . 2 ._ O OD U a) on C O' N cc N U U C U c CU - .0 O C -. C O V) L (0 C .0 u +' X M (o (a p i 7 ._1' c O J {n U C d L as 0 (O WC a)0.1.....00(..)2e v N a) 3 a) a) a) v 0) a) a, a) a) v N -D U U U U U U U U U U U O_ C 11 7 7 fl. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 N C 7 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 CO "O V1 N V) V1 V1 V) V1 if) N V1 • - a, E 0) co .- I 1-1 N M a In tap n 00 01 .- 1 .1 1.1 Tindale Oliver January 2020 DRAFT III. Emergency Services This section provides the results of the Emergency Services impact fee analysis. Several elements addressed in this section include: • • • • • • • • Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level of Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Emergency Services Impact Cost Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule 'Comparison These elements are summarized in'the remainder of this section. '\ Facility Inventory \\\ Table III -1 presents pie building ' nd land inventory associated with the Emergency Services for Indian River County.\Tfie,County, currently has a total of 15 fire/EMS stations. The value of buildings and land are based°on recent -'construction and estimates for future stations, insurance values o ,the existing facilities, a n \ "Value-ofparcels where existing stations/buildings are located, vacant' land sales and&values of ,parcels with'siml'ar characteristics, and information obtained y \ \, ..� \, \ from other jurisdictions. \ \ � \ \\ As shown, the total*building vaiue\amounts to approximately $29.5 million. The building values are estimated at $300 -per square foot for fire stations and $150 per square foot for Training Tower and temporary' stations. The land value is estimated at $100,000 per acre, which results in a total land value of $3.8•million. Using these cost estimates results in a total building and land value of $33.2 million. A more detailed explanation of building and land value estimates is included in Appendix B. • Tindale Oliver Indian River Co N January 2020 18 ImpaAtt aciimefi 0 0 V V1 N .-t M LA 0 0 00. N N .0 N N 00S'bS0'£$ 0 0 O 0 Vl a N N 0 0 01 M O V1 N 1I 0 0 0 N e-. N 0 0 O t0 .--1 N 1//'a--1 0 0 01 N N o1 i/) 0 0 00 0 N 0; N to 0 0 O a 0 n .--1 to $2,243,800 0 0 CO Lt ei kg. V ? 0 0 00 Vi a V1 N 46 0 0 00 O f\ a M N 0 0 O tD t0 N to 0 0 tD O 0l M ' 0 0 .-4 t� a N MLA 0 0 0 0 0 ti 4/1• CO \ C 0 0 0 N 01 in 0 0 0 N N N 1/t 0 0 0 co'a .--i N t/l 0 0 0 a N to 0 0\ o o N N to CO C 0 0 0 o 0 .--1 in. 0 0 0 tri 0 N to 0 0 0 o0.4 a to 0 0 0 to .--1 in. 0 0 0 o 0 a to 0 0 0 .-i N M to 0 0 o o a 01 t/1 00005$ ro \ C $3,761,000 0 0 a V1 N N M 1-6 0 0 00 O M 111 N t/? 00S'Z8L'Z$ 0 0 0 N M N N N f/ / 006'6SZ'Z$\ $924,000 0 0, 0 AO' e-1 N N - 0 -.0 01 N .1, CO N t/? 0 0 CO to N N N 1/ 0 0 0 l0 Vl t.130 N 1/ 0 0 00 N, 01 N IA $2,215,800 0 0 03 N N N to 0 0 00 O m in N N 0 0 O to .-1 N 61--6ai 0 0 t0 O 01 M 0 O .-1 t0 00 a N N n, 01 n, N1 Land Value per Acre(8) , W - o j M a. 0 00 /n r.) 01' 7,440 7,533 "1 3,080 r 1,440 6,243 00 m 1,:: 0 to in N 1D' COLD , m M. N - N 8,436 1,440 2,604 N 0 .-i 0 .-I Building Value per Square Foot`') (0 \ _-..O N 0l ,` / ;:. N N N \ 2.181 i 2.44 0'' N (Ni / / s -(0 \ C, .I I / O 0 .-i in .O (- 6.481 .--1 .A .--1 4.001 .-1 N M 9.40 O lr) O (0 \ C N t0 n M 10 CO 01 N 2007 1 N 0 O N N 0 O N N 0 O N 4.0 00 0l .-1 2015 01 01 01 e'i 0, 0 0 N tD 01 01 .-i 2001 2009 to .-1 0 N 2017 to .-. 0 N 00 O 0 N, Total 1500 Old Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach, FL 32960 3301 Bridge Plaza Dr, Vero Beach, FL 32963 2900 43rd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1500 9th St SW, Vero Beach, FL 32962 6580 Old Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach, FL 32967 101 South A1A, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1891 90th Ave, Vero Beach, FI 32966 1115 Barber St, Sebastian, FL 32958 1640 US 1, Sebastian, FL 32958 62 North Broadway, Fellsmere, FL 32948 2555 93rd St, Vero Beach, FL 32963 3620 49th St, Vero Beach, FL 32967 4330 4th St, Vero Beach, FL 32968 \ 16780 26th St, Vero Beach FI 32966 `. 9470 County Road 512, Sebastion, FI 32958; 4225 43rd Avenue, Vero Beach; FL 32967 Fire Station l(s) 1Fire Station 2 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 Fire Station 6 Fire Station 7 (Temp)(s) Fire Station 8 Fire Station 9 Fire Station 10 Fire Station 11 Fire Station 12 Fire Station 13 Fire Station 14 Fire Station 15 (Temp) Training Tower(6) 00 O C t (0 (0 ' a so O (0 Y 15 C 05 (p ° C > O C •- -0 on 0) '� 0) 3 Y Q C U 7 N 4- f_ 7 N v a v / / f �a / U 0 O e-1 •C t_ in 0.7).. 4-, O t O C Y tX CO .-E _,... _vi- > ° • a. a) E ui CL 22f0 v ti - (0)p r' O ra ° o 0- C �o -C-1 .0 a Om /> .(0 to I" Z7 01 .� 0) O ,-0>. . r° 0) cal 3 1 O (0 .0 > O 0 >. '0 O — 'O / N' N Y ' e-1 _ 7 4,,a v -8 E N 4.4Y 7 -4J °'++ ° E fO Q p . -C 0) -p U E y a) p Y i_+ a, 4-, -C 0) r0 > 1 c 313 E (o '3 E • 0) G) 0>.0 N "O > CO '- U C 0 u 0.0 0) (0 to -0 (o C .n Crw — '...(7' 'O 0) C oo — ° 41 4_ 7 tn 7 !o ui c__a o O 03 > - '0 E lJ • 0 7 E 3) c 4 c N 03 v Z v) H-1 H� e-1 N M a V) tD N co o vin C TIE .62 c 1,0 a U 4-J C (a 0 E Tindale Oliver 01 ei DRAFT Vehicle and Equipment Inventory In addition to land and buildings, the Indian River County emergency services inventory includes the necessary vehicles and equipment required to perform its services. As presented in Table III - 2, the total vehicle cost is approximately $25.3 million. Table III -3 presents the equipment inventory and related costs for Indian River County, which amounts to approximately $5.1 million. Table III -2 Vehicle Inventory Values Description Ladder Truck Units(' 2/ Unit Cost") $1,30000 Total Value(2) \. $2,600,000 Quint / 2 ;' $850,000 \ \$1,700,000 Brush Truck 8.. $225,000 \ $1,800,000 Dive Rescue Unit '1 \ $175,000 \$175,000 3,000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 \ '', /$350,000 $350,000 Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 $300,000 $306;000 Marine Fire Boat 1 \ $150,000 $150,000 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 1'$40;000 $40,000 Fire Engine____18 $600,,000_$10,800,000 Ambulance N, 19 $350,000 $6,650,000 Staff Vehicles' `\ `' 24 $30,000 $720,000 Total \ \\ $25,285,000 1) Source: Indian,River County_ f-''2j`Units multiplied by unit_cost \ \ • \ Tindale Oliver January 2020 20 Indian River Colr2ty ImpaAtt€acflmen l DRAFT Table III -3 Equipment Inventory Values Description Turnout Gear Total Units(1) 290 Unit Cost(1) $3,500 Total Value(2) $1,015,000 Lifepack 34 $32,000 $1,088,000 Radio (portable) 130 $4,000 $520,000 Radio (vehicle) 80 $5,500 $440,000 Stretcher 15 $18;500 $277,500 Thermal Imager 15 ,$10,205 $153,075 MSA 135 / $6;250 $843,750 Airbag 15 / / $3,835 $57,525 Spreader, Cutter 22 /` '-" $31,200 , $686,400 K12 20 $1,433 . \., $28,660 Suction Unit ' ' $1,000 \ $15,000 Total \ \ r $5,124,910 1) Source: Indian River County 2) Unit cost multiplied by total units / f \ Service Area and Population Emergency services ate provided by the County in the unincorporated areas and most municipalities. ThecTown of Indiat River Shores, however, maintains its own fire department. Therefore, the proper'benefit district for emergency services is the entire county excluding the Town of Indian•River Shores, For -impact -fee calculations, the current 2019 countywide functional population estimate, excluding Indian River�Shores, is used, which is provided in Appendix A, Table 'A-11. Because simply using weighted (permanent plus weighted seasonal) population estimat s does not fully address all'the, benefactors of emergency services, the "functional" weekly 24-hour population approach is\used to establish a common unit of demand across different land use.Functional population accounts for residents, visitors and workers traveling in and out of the county throughout the day and calculates the presence of population at • different land uses during th day. Appendix A provides further explanation of the population analysis conducted. Level of Service Typically, level of service for emergency services is expressed in terms of stations per 1,000 residents. Using this method, Indian River County's current level of service (LOS) is 1 station per 10,548 residents or 0.095 stations per 1,000 residents. The County's adopted LOS standard is Tindale Oliver January 2020 21 Indian River Co r�tY ImpAtt ac 1m4Atii �+ DRAFT 0.089 stations per 1,000 residents. Since the adopted LOS standard is lower than the achieved LOS, the adopted LOS standard is used in the impact fee calculations. As mentioned previously, LOS needs to be measured using functional population to capture all residents, workers, and visitors that benefit from emergency services. In terms of functional population, current achieved LOS is calculated at 0.098 stations per 1,000 functional residents and the adopted LOS standard at 0.092 stations per 1,000 functional population. Table III -4 -"\ Current Level of Service (2019) Year 2019 Variable Weighted Functional Population Population Populationi1l158,218 ' ,, 153,430 Number of Stations(�) 15 '`, \� 15 Population per Station(3) �`- \`,, /\10,548 \ "10,229 LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)141 0.095 \•0,098 Adopted LOSS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)i51' ` 0.089 0.092 11 Source: Aonendix A. Table A-1 for weighted seasonal rinnulatinn and Annendix A Table A-11 for functional population 2) Source: Table 1114- 3) Population (Item 1) divided by the number of fire stations (Item -2) 4) Number of stations (Item'2) divided by the population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 5) Source:\Adopted LOS standard of 0.089 per weighted population is from Capital Improvement Element Of the 2030 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan adopted _ on -December 4,2018/This standard is converted to the LOS standard per functional f population by using the ratio -of achieved LOS per weighted vs. functional population /' (Item 4) \ • Although`the-LOS is measured,.in terms'of stations per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the LOS is shown as the level of investment or dollar value of capital assets per .resident, which reflects the investment made by the community to date. For impact fee calculation purposes, the County's adopted LOS standard is $201 per resident for emergency services facilities and equipment. As presented later in this report, this LOS decreased to $173 per resident for residential land uses and $190 per resident for non-residential land uses due to the changes in impact fee variables since 2014, which should be reflected in the impact fee ordinance. Table 111-5 compares the levels of service for other Florida counties as well as the state of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2018 for the service area of all entities. Tindale Oliver January 2020 22 Indian River Coil Impact tam tchenl DRAFT Table III -5 Level of Service Comparison (2018) Jurisdiction St.Lucie County Service Area (l) Population (2018) 302,432 Number of Stations (2) 17 Residents per Station (3) 17,790 LOS (Stations) per 1,000 Residents) (4) 0.056 Osceola County 233,608 17 13,742 0.073 Citrus County 135,008 11 12,273 0.081 St. Johns County 218,006 18 ,,-, 12,111 0.083 Okeechobee County 35,559 /3 11,853 0.084 Martin County 129,357 / 11 e 11,760 0.085 Hernando County 185,604 ! ; 16 ,`, 11,600 0.086 Charlotte County 177,987 / ,�\' . 16 \., \, 11,124 0.090 Collier County 329,501 /' 30 .'\, \\10,983 0.091 Indian River County 147,617 15 9,841 0.102 Brevard County 217,902 '; \- 33 - X6,603 0.151 Highlands County _ 102,525 -`-, \ %21 :' 4,882 \ 0.205 1) Source: BEBR April 1, 2018 Final Population Estimates 2) Source: County websites and the US Fire Administration; National Fire Department Census 3) Service area population (Item 1) divided by the number of station (Item. 2) 4) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by the service area population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 Cost Component Table III -6 summarizes'th&total current value of land, buildings, and equipment for emergency services, including:— ` / ��. • Fifteen stations with,a'total asset value of $33.2 million for buildings and land, \and $30.4 million\for vehicles and equipment, for a total asset value of $63.7 ‘'million; and `� • An'average value of $4.2 million per station. In addition, Table III -6 presents the total impact cost per functional resident for emergency services in Indian River County, which is calculated by multiplying the net asset value per station by the LOS (stations per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000. The total impact cost for emergency services provided by the County is $390 per functional resident. Tindale Oliver January 2020 23 Indian River Coil Eee U Impact tacnmen DRAFT Table III -6 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Building Value(i) Figure $29,486,100 Percent of Total(9) 46% Land Value(2) $3,761,000 6% Vehicle Value(3) $25,285,000 40% Equipment Value(4) $5,124,910 8% Total Asset Value $63,657,010 100% Number of Stations(5) / / 15 Cost per Station(6) $4,243,801 Adopted LOS Standard(7) !f0:092 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(8) $390.43 1) Source: Table III -1 2) Source: Table III -1 3) Source: Table III -2 4) Source: Table III -3 5) Source: Table III -1 6) Total asset value divided by the number of stations`(item.5) 7) Source: Table III -4 \ 8) Cost per station (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) d vided'by 1,000 9) Distribution'ofcost \ " Credit Component \ To avo d' vo erchargi g ne development for the emergency services impact fee, a review of the capital funding program.for emergency services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determineany potent alNrevenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion\of-capital facilities, land; vehicles, and equipment included in the inventory. It ` should be noted 'that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, or operations expenses, as these types of expenditures cannot be funded with impact fee revenue. Capital Expansion Credit To calculate the capital expansion credit per functional resident, funding sources used for historical capacity projects and those programmed in the CIP are reviewed. During the time period from 2014 through 2023, the County has allocated an average annual non -impact fee funding of $1.7 million toward fire/emergency services capital facilities through the Emergency Services District Fund and Optional Sales Tax Revenues. The annual capital expansion Tindale Oliver January 2020 24 Indian River Co ImpaAttl'im lace Covey Imp DRAFT expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same time period in order to calculate the average capital expansion credit per functional resident. As presented in Table III -7, the result is an average annual expansion credit of $11 per functional resident. According to the County's CIP, 81 percent of the Emergency Services District Fund's source revenue is from ad valorem taxes. Therefore, an adjustment factor was applied to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes per dwelling unit. The adjustment factor is estimated based on the average taxable value of new homes built over the past five years to that of all homes. As presented, in the case of residential land uses, the total adjusted revenue credit per functional resident resulted in $1 / \ Tindale Oliver January 2020 25 Indian River Coy Impktttacniment i Descriptionili 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Emergency Services District Fund M O CO N 00 N V?N Cr N 01 t0 N 0 Vr 52,316,573 O O o O O 0 N to $1,264,984 0 O o O IA .-I Vf R N M O M 0 l0 V) Optional Sales Tax Revenues O O o 0 U1 M N 000`055$ 0 0 o O IA M N N 14 a Di 011 01 WI to N CO N O N tD N to 5618,635 C Ol 00 00 00 a O N 04 'Total Capital Expansion Expenditures 1 -5284,3861 $1;525,9541•, $24;2571 53,538,1381 5791,5301 53,618,6351 $3,725,000 $350,000 $0 $800,000 $16,519,208 .1 N m .i IJ IO •" 1 VT 151,920 N 00 I VT N .-1 N 0 N N Credit Adjustment Factor") 1.30 N .-1 tan N 00 .i N i i i 0 t)) i 5550,000 . 0 0o t14 N N 0 0 O 00 VT 'Total Emergency Services Expansion Expenditures per Year izl Average Annual Functional Population(3) 'Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident Portion Funded with Ad Valorem Tax RevenuesT! \ Portion Funded with Non -Ad Valorem Revenues(6) Adjusted Capital Expansion Credit per Resident (Ad Valorem Porion Only)T \ Total Adjusted Capital Expansion Credit 1pi* :Residentl9j O to O to 0 +n /4 f` / o o O O to • • • o 0 o O to O to N N N VT /' / / y / y O' N N N N h $1,500,000 f O 0 O to .-1' 4/? � i '\ .t.. 0 0 o .y VT 00 .014 N 0 00 4014 , 1 VT Ina O14 N. \ ` \ ' 0 0 14 ti V! / J 4m 0 -'.-1 .oil 440 tto a N V) MO 00 .--1 N VT N n O1' u01 V / Y.: i i \ \ M 14 N 1"4 V) �e ' COen tD aO UDn '` 4/1 01 M N N. N N Ol V1 M M n N . . -0 tD Ol u1 VT . .Cr 01 n in O N N M CO M CO 1" 00 1-1 a Ol N VT L^ v.M IN $24,2571 51,525,954 t14 01 tn.' LA .-1. VT tn.' -$284,386 M A:' CO VT V) Automotive: Med Unit - Additional Automotive: Fire Engine - Additional Emergency Services Station 15 Emergency Svcs Station 7 Property Fire Station #13 HazMat Truck Subtotal 1 1Ambulance Med Unit Fire Pumper Y C 10 4- 800 MHz Upgrade Fire Station #14 Station 15 Property 0 O. •0 3 h N E LL VI Y 3 uIn mY . E E Q) m +-, CU Y N `� I▪ P- -=. C U % 0 .40'O v > N (0 V a >. 0. 0 X oN ice- Q) mwstf'E) CL GE) Y o E _o - 3 u 4w m E C O .� a o ▪ E iOOs Q) oo ice. 4-, CO 7 • 'O IIE'r Q) O • CCOAOC((00)OQ1Ww• H0`°4- ° Q) p �E�1•C ,c,Eoo d >. i1 Q L `) • O to 0 O CU > • Q) > _ CU > C I.,.v_ >. E a .� Y co Y_ �'_c (:i -a\_. a •3 i`"E. 1) y, to CD Q:\`cc Q) `1X 0) p — 3 "p ! O -o y_ ,� }, c N LA 0)) v 0) / 4_ E v3_ Y c p 0) � � 'D O (0 '0 Q) Q) Q) \3 L Q) C C C _c O_ O e-1 .o Q, OA N IA a--1 C •4 Y L N ♦-, • Q Q Q_ O 4-' p+ c x x X v 01 -o 3 0) .0 0) N 0 w C U f6 H M (o c 0 a ✓ a Q m L v > U X u U O p C CG f0 =p c to co x U O CO tn c O Q) p ,' Q) 4-- C - C 0. C O(0 4-• (O ' C R o. C(CO w Y C a Q oc (0: v au a) to iii ao CU (1) E La_, O - v ;° .� o. r)r)atQ tQ H Q U e- I N M V1 40 N 00 01 O (1• ")= U W 4_ • 3▪ � > CE U f6 Qu• a,(� � LL� C Q E Tindale Oliver 1.0 N January 2020 DRAFT Net Impact Cost Table III -8 summarizes the net impact cost per functional resident, which is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. The resulting net impact cost is $173 per resident for residential land uses and $190 per resident for non-residential land uses, which also represent the relevant LOS measure for impact fee calculation purposes. Table III -8 Net Impact Cost Variable Impact Cost (1) Impact Cost Revenue Credits Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident' % $390.43 Capital Expansion Credit Capital Expenditure per Resident(2) \\ �\ / �`, \ -Residential Land Uses \ / $11.82 -Non-Residential Land Uses \ $10.87 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in -years) 25 Total Capital Expansion Credit per Resident:l31 Capital Expansion.Credit - 'Residential Land Use $217.78 Capital Expansi n;Credit - Non -Residential Land Use $200.27 Net Impact Cost (4) -Residential° Land -Uses\ '\ ' " '--, $172.65 ti -Non-Residentil<Land Use's` \\'' $190.16 1)\Source: Table III -6 \ 2) Source: Table III -7 �! 3) Average annual capital expenditure credit (Item 2) for a capitalization rate of 2.5% over 25 years 4) Total inipact.cost (Item 1) less total capital expansion credit (Item 3) \ I Calculated Emergency Serrir c sImpact Fee Schedule Table III -9 presents the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule developed for Indian River County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously presented in Table III -8. Changes to the cost and credit components resulted in a decrease of approximately 15 percent for residential land uses and 5 percent decrease for non-residential land uses. All other fluctuations are due to the changes in the demand component. Tindale Oliver January 2020 27 Indian River Co Impktttacnment DRAFT Table III -9 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Functional Impact Calculated Adopted ITE LUC Land Use Resident Unit Coefficientlll Fee(23 Fee(3) RESIDENTIAL: Percent Change } 210 Single Family (detached) - Less than 1,500 sf du 1.34 $231 $290 -20.3% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.61 $278 $314 -11.5% - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.81 $312 $348 -10.3% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du /-`0.88 $152 $181 -16.0% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du / 1.03 $178 $197 -9.6% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310 Hotel room: 's, 1.01 $192 $131 46.6% 320 Motel room \ 0.84 $160 $121 32.2% 252/260 Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) /lied-'' \.0.99 $188 $185 1.6% OFFICE & FINANCIAL: 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.20 $228 $229 -0.4% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf ; 1,000 sf 1.72 $327 $334 -2.1% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In ` 1,000 sf ,.- 1.03 $196 , $449 -56.3% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In `1,000 sf / ‘, 1.49 $283 \ $459 -38.3% 710 General Office Building 1,000 sf : 0.89 $169 \• $201 -15.9% 760 Research & Development Center' 1,000 sf 1.03 $196 . $171 14.6% INDUSTRIAL: 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf \ \ 0.46 $87 $101 -13.9% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf \ 0.11 $21 $56 -62.5% 151 Mini -Warehouse ,- _ 1,000 sf \ 0.04 $8 $12 -33.3% 154 High -Cube Transload and Short -Term Storage 1,000 sf 0.09 $17 $28 -39.3% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.50 $95 $139 -31.7% n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.56 $297 $312 -4.8% n/a Sand Mining . \ acre 0.20 $38 $40 -5.0% RETAIL: 820 , Shopping Center/Retail, 1,000 sfgla 1.51 $287 $477 -39.8% 944' Gas Station .w/Convenience Market <2,000 sf -. fuel pos. 1.46 $278 $385 -27.8% 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sf. fuel pos. 1.78 $338 $385 -12.2% 960 Gas Station w/Con'venience Market 3,000+ sf 'fuel pos. 2.02 $384 $385 -0.3% 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales`, \• 1,000 sf 1.57 $299 $296 1.0% 932 Restaurant \ , 1,000 sf 5.57 $1,059 $1,365 -22.4% 934 Fast' Food Rest w/Drive-Thru , \., 1,000 sf 9.70 $1,845 $1,792 3.0% 850 Supermarket, 1,000 sf 2.41 $458 $413 10.9% 942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 sf 1.67 $318 $302 5.3% 947 Self -Service Car Wash / service bay 0.96 $183 $175 4.6% 890 Furniture Store \. `-' 1,000 sf 0.32 $61 $46 32.6% RECREATIONAL: 430 Golf Course hole 0.84 $160 $217 -26.3% 492 Racquet Ball/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 2.41 $458 $622 -26.4% 412 Public Park acre 0.05 $10 $40 -75.0% 491 Tennis Court court 1.40 $266 $636 -58.2% 420 Marina berth 0.13 $25, $38 -34.2% GOVERNMENTAL: 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.56 $297 $326 -8.9% 590 Library 1,000 sf 2.62 $498 $354 40.7% 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.25 $238 $280 -15.0% 571 Jail bed 0.17 $32 $175 -81.7% Tindale Oliver January 2020 28 Indian River Coy ty Impact Fee acnmeni/ i DRAFT Table III -9 (continued) Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Functional Impact Calculated Adopted Percent ITE WC Land Use Resident Unit Coefficient,', Fee") Fee(3) Change(4) MISCELLANEOUS: 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.81 $154 $179 -14.0% 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.29 $245 $276 -11.2% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 1.41 $268 $511 -47.6% 560 Church 1,000 sf fes 0.37 $70 $103 -32.0% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen ,/ ' 5.19 $987 $1,204 -18.0% 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student / ` 0.08 $15 $12 25.0% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student' 0.09 $17 $14 21.4% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student , \ ' 0.09 $17 $16 6.3% 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer stud ,student `, 0.10 $19 $20 -5.0% 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-14 for residential a'n' Appendix A; Tab e A-15 for non-residential land uses 'ti 2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table III -8) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land `use\ , \ 3) Source: Indian River County Planning Division. Rates showniio,not include administrative fee 4) Percent change from the adopted impact fee rate (Item 3)'to the calculated fee (Item 2) Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown -in Table\III-7, the County is using an average of $1.65 million per year of Emergency Services District Fund,and sales tax revenues. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected.to grow,at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent countywide, excluding Indian i er Shores�Although the Cou ty`may charge the maximum amount of emergency service`s impact feecalculated,\if.,the,historical,and-programmed levels of non -impact fee funding were tb,k a\continued, the �Gounty-could stop collecting this fee completely and continue to maintain the LOS used in the calculations. These calculations assume that the sales tax will continue to beiavailable over next 25+ years. If available revenue sources for emergency services capital projects change significantly, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a 'policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section 'and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Indian River County's emergency services impact fee schedule, the County's calculated and adopted impact fee schedules were compared to the adopted fee schedules of nearby jurisdictions or those with similar population levels. Table III - 10 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver January 2020 29 Indian River C0/11 Impact ttacnment 0 d Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison O b O 0 r 00 N 8 8 O a 0 O a 2 Residential: 03 01 H al N N N N N IA A.N m N 00 N 14 v 17. O O 2 LL UG O m G a 2 3 01 N O 14 N 0, H tO H 0 N CO N 00 00 N m N H N W N N N O 0) n N 1.4 8 N to 03 N V) N H n O' .N An. a 4. .d H R rnN CO N O N M N m V1 LO N 0 N W N N N N N N m N 0o N 0 N CO 03N n H n N ON N n ID N n N N ID 0 14 00 00 0 O CO 0 O ri co 4.4 8 O 0 c 000 J Q O O 4L-1. 0 H 0 0 N 01 K 0 F 00 c (O Fast Food w/Drive-Thru L CD O 3 r 0 E 0 0 A UI L / 2 to 41 m > a N11 f :/ f4% v u a c c'k `/, w !'m C 'm-\\lr u C 3 °w c E °1 LL / j v m m v w LL '` v w ; 2 N Y m E°W U C C LL ' d a ° EE N z E c 0 u t E w a c C a ti C E ti C 'w° c 8c ro 80 «S a Ova tnvov4,2a Q ma °' E c E w E ill:0i a wao.yoEo°Ev°'^Iw°''m>y> m0 cOo C Ej c N C 1960 m E m d} E m E! LL c y I° tC c c Z• U S a n U g O` f m % c °'2Ec°oV °;a 8 �. c >o VVUVa.E mY o v-8 V N v 7- c O D O m C O.2 -° N?;q .1 E E C ti 9, 3 '2-1-.,T1 LL V Q S SO VN m m 3 a 11 > > > > > > > > > > > > 0(0000000000000 i E N N m a m to n co m o00 .-4 N .`-$-1 ..44 M DRAFT IV. Law Enforcement This section discusses the analysis used in developing the law enforcement impact fee. Several elements addressed in this section include: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component //� • Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost / `•\ • Calculated Law Enforcement Impact FeeSchedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Cornparison These elements are summarized throughout this section. Facility inventory / The facility inventory for the`County's law enforcement services includes land, buildings, equipment, and vehicles. 'Accordirng to information provided by the Indian River County Sheriff's Office (IPSO) --ander Indian River 'County, law enforcement related capital assets include approximately 82;500 square`feet of building space and approximately 13 acres of land. Table IV -1 presents this information. ' \ , \ Building value, isestimated based on recent construction and estimates for future buildings, • insurance values•of'existing buildings, and information from other Florida jurisdictions. Land value is based on thelandvalue trends in Indian River County since the last study, value of parcels where existing buildings•are located and an analysis of vacant land sales and values. Additional information is provided in Appendix B. Tindale Oliver January 2020 31 IndianRiverCo p�t4 Imp aAt,Facnmen d1 0 1 J ami (moo a) co �3 - CO 4.+ Primary Buildings $8,378,080 0 N. v.)N i/? O Ln N t/? 0 oo 0 N N 00 m O1 < V? 00 m m C-4 r.1 t/? O ao N O� m N Support Buildings O v d• t/? O m N ri t/1 O Lr 1 ,- .--1 VT O N 00 lD e-1 t? $17,573,360 00 0 V 00' m N 0 VD M.4 in. 0 V) in. < Z N/A I00T'£Z$ 0 V1 tD in. OSL'Z$ 0 . t0 . r�-1 to V> V1 ri L1 0 0 l0 ri VD 0 O 00 O' cn ,.o 4/I. 0 O 0 anf om/► t 00 0 l0 Oi Cr)CO n VT 0 0 V Li) to 0 0 O N N 00 00 O .-I V? l0 m 01 Q Ll• 0 00 O ri t/1 $3,436,320 00 t0 ri t/► O N N N ,1 ri t/} 0 0 O rrii tR O N ri r- 111 r -I' t/? $16,882,560 $205 Land Value per Acrei9i 6.88 0.43 ri N O / < \l\ Z w ../ Q Z // N -d' O %—i N ri VI 0 O 2.03 ,--IN N O r•I ri 12.56 Building Value per Square Foot(8) \ 47,552 N 122,501 /`N. N 32 464°'' 47,552 32,464 33,3321 0 Nin I000',T` 00 / _.-I 01 ri ON Ol - 14,318 2641 V1 CO Cr) 0 0 ri N N M .-i 82,517 Ql Z N Cr; r' Cr) Z 2003 Z Z ON ON Z m Z u !Sheriff's Administration Building General Services Building Sheriffs Crime Scene Evidence Addition Courthouse Security Courthouse Civil Process SunSky Office Space Aviation Facility ! (1) roo CO 1Sheriff's Fleet Compound (Storage Bldg/Maintenance Shed Crime Scene Building Total Appendix B provides further detail. (2) OD (0 O O 0) O" 3 v. 722,../... > v N 0) 0) 1Z O o /E/(' E 'D N!N 0) N / ,E C_ s O / .U . '6 �-•'` --2 —1 O fu (0 , v • -• wz @,.• 7,....•‘::3). � O To O` `c 0 E• m 0) 0) 0c0)J � / 7 01 / /—O O a /OO' O 'Q -05 / ! '0 y_ 0 n a , 70 w,=.Q=,3 � �� @o'.L . 4.o _o 0 m > a 00 �o v N E 0) 0) u2��0,� . co •>_ c v S a) C° > Cr D O Q) - O _cs• 3 X_ N • aD N> 0) 0) c0 a0 a) 0) 0) C L U • 01 C = OA 0) as '-, c0 - U C Q. "6 O • c0 .� C "O Q • O 0) UN 0) (00 '' ▪ 4— OD .0 0) 0)) 7 U 0 c0 0 n Q E 0 o E a i° '5 7 N cc Z 0 Q in Q H N ri N m - V) LC) I-4 CO Cr. DRAFT In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the Indian River County Sheriff's Office also has the vehicles and equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table IV -2 summarizes the equipment and vehicle inventory. Table IV -2 Equipment and Vehicle Inventory Description Vehicles Units(1) 278 Unit Value(2) / ,$23,255 Total Value(3) $6,464,865 Vehicle/Radio Equipment 2,757 " C, $1,741 $4,799,238 Weapons 650 \ \ $393 $255,305 Office Equipment / ; 1 $100,084 $100,084 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment j 14 $24;830 \ $347,623 Electronic Equipment \ \ 1 $326,862 , \`, $326,862 Computer Equipment \\ \`.,1 ,,f $5,324,482 '',$5;324,482 Misc. Equipment \1'' 42,277,308 $2,277,308 911 Center Equipment 79 ti \ $3,060 $241,724 Total Equipment Value ,` , \ $20,137,491 1) Source: Indian/River County 2) Calculated by dividing total value by number of units 3) Source: Indian River County,, Service Area and Populatin\ Indian/River County provides law\enforcement-Services to the unincorporated areas of the county. 'Municipalities within the county,have their own police departments. As such, the proper benefit distric for law enforcement is`the-unincorporated county. In this technical study, the current 2019 we ghted and functional population estimates are used. Because simply using weighted (permanent plus weighted seasonal) population estimates does not fully address all of the benefactors of law enforcement services, the "functional" weekly 24-hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses. Functional population accounts for residents, visitors and workers traveling in and out of the county throughout the day and calculates the presence of population at different land uses during the day. Appendix A provides further explanation of the population analysis conducted. Tindale Oliver January 2020 33 Indian River Copy ImpaAttiaeecl6datee DRAFT Level of Service Based on sworn officer counts provided by Indian River County, as well as, population estimates produced in Appendix A, the 2019 level of service (LOS) is 1.73 sworn officers per 1,000 weighted seasonal residents, while the adopted LOS standard is 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Table IV - 3 presents the calculation of the existing LOS as well as the adopted LOS standard. While the 2019 LOS is 1.73 sworn officers per 1,000 weighted seasonal residents, in order to calculate the law enforcement impact fee, the LOS needs'to be calculated in terms of sworn officers per 1,000 functional residents. As shown in Table IV-3,,the current achieved LOS of law enforcement services is 1.92 sworn officers per 1,000functional-,residents, while the adopted LOS standard is 2.32 officers per 1,000 functional 'residents. Given\t}at the achieved LOS is lower \s\ than the adopted LOS standard and new development cannot be charge'd,for a higher LOS than what is being provided, the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. \ Although the LOS is measured in 'terms of officers per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the LOS is shown as the level of investment or dollar value of capital assets per resident, which reflects the investment made by the community to date. For impact fee calculation purposes, the County's adopted LOS standard'is $274 per resident for law enforcement facilities. As presented later in this report, the LOS increased to $304 per resident due to the changes in impact fee variables since 2014, which should be reflected in the impact fee ordinance..- - TabieJV-3 Level of Service (2019) Variable Population(1) Number of Officersl2l,. LOS (officers per 1,000 residents)(3) Adopted LOS Standard (officers per 1,000 residents)i4i Year 2019 Weighted Population 107,439 186 1.73 2.09 Functional Population 96,637 186 1.92 2.32 1) 2) 3) 4) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for unincorporated weighted population, and Table A-11 for unincorporated functional population Source: Indian River County Sheriff's Office Number of officers (Item 2) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 Source: Adopted LOS standard of 2.09 per weighted population is from Capital Improvement Element of the 2030 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan adopted on December 4, 2018. This standard is converted to the LOS standard per functional population by using the ratio of achieved LOS per weighted vs. functional population (Item 3). Tindale Oliver Indian River Co / 1 January 2020 34 Impaattieeecl.Jpdaatte tiNdl DRAFT Table IV -4 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian River County and other Florida counties. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for all jurisdictions because a functional population analysis has not been completed for these entities. The LOS comparison is based on the permanent population for 2018, as this is the most recent population data available for all jurisdictions. As presented in this table, the Indian River County's LOS is on the high end of other communities. Table IV -4 / •� Adopted Level of Service Comparison_(2018) Jurisdiction Collier County Service Area Population (2018)1�1 329,909 Number of Officers(2) ' 313 LOS 1,000 (Officers per Residents)(3) ; '\ 0.95 Citrus County 145,721 195 '`ti \ 1.34 Charlotte County 158;500 \ /215 '', `\-. 1.36 Hernando County- 177,194 \ \ / ` 246 , • 139 St. Johns County 218,008 ' 323 L48 Martin County 136,227 \ \208 1.53 Highlands County 77,619 \135 1.74 Osceola County - -.,_ 233,608 4.16 "\\ 1.78 Indian River County 100,719 186 1.85 Okeechobee County's \ 35,559 77 2.17 Brevard County 1 .`, 236,396 566 2.39 St. Lucie County\ 73,263 206 2.81 /1) Sou ce:.,FDLE Criminal Justice-Agency`rofile Report, 2018 (Sheriff's Office) 2) Source: FDLE Criminal Justice Agency Profile Report, 2018 (Sheriff s Office) ' 3) Source: Permanent population (Item 1) divided by the number of officers (Item 2) divided by 1,000 \\ Cost Component \ �ti \ 1 \ The cost component oft the sturdy evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment �Table IV -5 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to approximately $202,700 per sworn law enforcement officer. Table IV -5 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost was calculated as the total capital cost of approximately $202,700 per officer multiplied by the LOS of 1.92 officers per 1,000 functional residents divided by 1,000. As shown in the following table, the total impact cost per resident is approximately $389 for law enforcement facilities. Tindale Oliver January 2020 35 Indian River Couf' I fitl Imp ktt aClll'Tleny DRAFT Table IV -5 Total Impact per Functional Resident Variable BuildingValue(1) Figure $16,882,560 Percent of Total (9) 45% Land Value(2) $690,800 2% Vehicle and Equipment Value(3) $20,137,491 53% Total Asset Value(4) , $37,710,851 100% Number of Officers(5) / 186 Total Asset Value per Officer(6) // ,. $202,747 Level -of -Service (Officers/1,000 Functional Residentsr) ' \ 1.92 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident($),/ \, `- $389.27 11 Source: Table IV -1 / 2) Source: Table IV -1 3) Source: Table IV -2 4) Sum of building value (Item 1), land value (I et m 2), and vehicle/equipment value (Item 3) 5) Source: Table IV -3 - \ '\/ _ y 1 / , 6) Total asset value (Item 4) divided by number of officers (Item 5) 7) Source: Table IV -3 8) Total asset value per officer (Item 6) multiplied by LOS (Item 7) divided by 1,000 9) Distribution of cost Credit Component 7 To avoid overcharging ne i developrnent, a review of the capital funding allocation for law enforcement services -15 completed. The purpose of this review is to determine any potential revenuegenerated by future development -that its likely to be used for capital facilities, land, vehicle,'-and.;equipment expansion of the law enforcement program. Revenue credits are then applied agai.nstthe total cost; per functional resident so that new development is not charged twice for capital,revenue contributions used to expand the law enforcement program. To calculate the capital expansion expenditure credit per functional resident, capital expansion projects completed over the past five years and future planned projects of the next five years are reviewed. Next, the total capital expansion expenditure per functional resident is calculated by dividing the average annual expenditures of $441,300 by the average annual functional population from 2014 through 2023. This calculation results in $4.61 per functional resident and is presented in Table IV -6. Tindale Oliver January 2020 36 Indian River Coy Impact�Fee Update Stu tacnmen Tis O F M 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N N n 0 o N H N vs eo N Q CQ. N ---C Q m 0 4'1. W 0N 0 0 0 .0. 0 N o G Ill o 1,i CS VLACO IA NN N Sheriff - Public Safety Complex Plans- - - $59,282 ; - �4 559,282 Sheriff Aviation Project - - 5200,000 51,118,560 ,- - , 4 - - - - 51,318,560 Total Capital Expansion Expenditures 1 $485,520L $01 $259,2821 $1,118,5601 ) $01 ' ,_$01, $01 $2,550,0001 $01 $01 $4,413,362 m CO e; O' N .- WO IR r~O O N Average Annual Capital Expansion Expendituresi2 -/ Average Annual Functional Population° Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Residenti°l 0 0 0 O LA N N , , \_ . r . . 04 co N Crime Scene Building- Expansion Sheriff Facility Expansion Needs - Design/Construction O Q L 0_ CU (0 CC N.u cc 9 . i (0 C 3 YO C o 0 L C 'C O (0 O) 0 N 0_ L (0 R 0 >. C > L 0 0) O Y c a L o o >• > o 5 ° 0) 0 N C" E o Y N C C 0CD CL CI) X C 4) 3 Y "O 0 w •00) c L 0- /0 0) X 0. > 4) @ C (A V: a m \. U 7 _ -0 0) > 3 H m > m Q 3 X U OE OSA C C'Es CU > Q (0 0) 0) O) 00 U 0 0 (0 0 3 O) (n V) N < a -i N m �' Tindale Oliver January 2020 DRAFT Net Impact Cost The net impact cost per resident is the difference between the Cost Component and the Credit Component. Table IV -7 summarizes the calculation of the net impact cost which amounts to approximately $304 per resident and represents the relevant LOS measure for impact fee purposes. Table IV -7 Net Impact Cost per Resident; Variable Impact Cost Impact Cost Revenue Credits Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(" $389.27 Capital Expansion Credit Capital Expenditure per Functional Resident(2)\ \\/ \ \$4.61 Capitalization Rate \. ( 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) \ \ 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(3) \ $84.94 Net Impact Cost Net Impact(Cost'per Functional Resident(4) I $304.331 1) 2) Source: Table JV -5 Source: Table IV -6 \ J Present Value of\annus credit peri esident (Item 2) over capitalizat oinrate of,2.5%/ `'�' `-e , (r4) f Total impact;cost.per functional resident.(Item,1) less total capital expenditure credit (Item 3) a 25 -year period with a t\ \ \\ Calculated,CaimEnforcement impact Fee Schedule A law enforcement impact fee /1'schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land P uses and is illustrated‘in Table1V-8. The changes in cost and credit components increase the fee by approximately 10 percent;,Remaining fluctuations are due to the changes to the demand component since 2014. Tindale Oliver January 2020 38 Impart tacl'lment 1 Indian River Coe date Sti d DRAFT Table IV -8 Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Impact ITE LUC Land Use Unit RESIDENTIAL: Functional Calculated Adopted Resident Coefficient hl Fee(2) Fee) Percent Changei4 210 Single Family (detached) - Less than 1,500 sf du 1.33 $405 $400 1.3% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.61 $490 $436 12.4% - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.80 $548 $485 13.0% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du f 0.92 $280 $249 12.4% 240 Mobile Home / RV (Tied Down) du ,/ 0.92 $280 $244 14.8% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310 Hotel room/ \ 1.01 $307 $178 72.5% 320 Motel room ' `• 0.84 5256 $164 56.1% 252/620 Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) died" x•0.99 $301 $252 19.4% OFFICE & FINANCIAL: 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or Tess / 1;000 sf 1.20 $365 $312 17.0% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf '\ \1,000 sf 1.72 $523 $455 14.9% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In ". 1;000 sf .., 1.03 $313 $611 -48.8% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In '1,000.0 / ) 1.49 $453 \$625 -27.5% 710 General Office Building 1,000 sf' / 0.89 $271 \ $274 -1.1% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf ' 1.03 $313 $233 34.3% INDUSTRIAL: 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf \ \ 0.46 $140 $137 2.2% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf \ 0.11 $33 $77 -57.1% 151 Mini-Warehouse/Storage -, 1,000 sf ''0.04 $12 $16 -25.0% 154 High -Cube Tran`sload andShort-Term Storage 1,000 sf 0.09 $27 $38 -28.9% 110 General Light Industrial \ ,, 1,000 sf 0.50 $152 $189 -19.6% n/a Concrete Plant ,\ ; acre 1.56 $475 $425 11.8% n/a Sand Mining \ \ acre 0.20 $61 $55 10.9% RETAIL: 820 ., Shopping Center/Retail-; _ `- 1,000 gsf 1.51 $460 $650 -29.2% 944 Gas Station-w/Convenience Market <2,000 sf, ..fuel pos. 1.46 $444 $523 -15.1% 945 , Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sf. fuel pos. 1.78 $542 $523 3.6% 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sf fuel pos. 2.02 $615 $523 17.6% 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales\ \ N 1,000 sf 1.57 $478 $403 18.6% 932 Restaurant • \ \ , 1,000 sf 5.57 $1,695 $1,858 -8.8% 934 FastFood'Rest w/ Drive-Tfiru 1,000 sf 9.70 $2,952 $2,439 21.0% 850 Supermarket,,_ 1,000 sf 2.41 $733 $562 30.4% 942 Automobile.Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.67 $508 $411 23.6% 947 Self -Service Car,Wash / service bay 0.96 $292 $238 22.7% 890 Furniture Store \ '' 1,000 sf 0.32 $97 $63 54.0% RECREATIONAL: 430 Golf Course hole 0.84 $256 $296 -13.5% 492 Racquet Ball/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 2.41 $733 $847 -13.5% 412 Public Park acre 0.05 $15 $55 -72.7% 491 Tennis Court court 1.40 $426 $866 -50.8% 420 Marina berth 0.13 $40 $52 -23.1% GOVERNMENTAL: 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.56 $475 $444 7.0% 590 Library 1,000 sf 2.62 $797 $482 65.4% 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.25 $380 $381 -0.3% 571 Jail bed 0.17 $52 $238 -78.2% Tindale Oliver January 2020 39 Indian River Co e Impart tacnme DRAFT Table IV -8 (continued) Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Functional Impact Calculated Adopted ITE LUC Land Use Resident Unit Coefficient,,; Fee) Fee) MISCELLANEOUS: Percent Change) 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.81 $247 $244 1.2% 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.29 $393 $375 4.8% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 1.41 $429 $696 -38.4% 560 Church 1,000 sf , . 0.37 $113 $140 -19.3% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen ,%5.19 $1,579 $1,639 -3.7% 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student, 0.08 $24 $16 50.0% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student \ , 0.09 $27 $19 42.1% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student,- \ \0.09 $27 $22 22.7% 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer ystudent \ 0.10 $30 $27 11.1% 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf 0::42 $128 $173 -26.0% 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-13 for residential land •uses and Appendix A, Tab`Ie,,A=15 for non-residential land uses 2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact � st'per functional resident (Table IV -7) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land use 3) Source: Indian River County Planning Division. Rates shown do not include administrative fee. 4) Percent change from the calculated impact fee rate (Item 2) to`theadopted fee (Item 3) Affordable Growth Strategy_ Based on the data shown in Table,IV-6, the County is using an average of approximately $440,000 per year of sales tax revenues. During the next 25 years, unincorporated Indian River County is expected to-growat an average -annual rate -of 1.5 percent. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of law enforcement irnpact fee calculated, if the historical and programmed levels Of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximateIy,40 percent for all land,uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in the calculations. If the.County decides to charge the residential land uses at 45 percent, the fees for n n -residential land uses could be eliminated while continuing to maintain the adopted LOS standard. These Calculations assume that the sales tax will continue to be available over the next 25 years. If available revenue sources for law enforcement capital projects change significantly, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co t January 2020 40 Impa�ttiaclldatet�Jcf DRAFT Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's law enforcement impact fee schedule, the County's calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedules of nearby or similar jurisdictions. Table IV -9 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver January 2020 41 Indian River Cougttty ImpaAttigcl 71@tl dl Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 01-1 00 0 0 N N O O \o 0 0 0 0 1-1 z v 7 7‘;') 0 t d° w 0) M CA N 40 r-. N 00 00 n co N N N 0 N N to N 0 01 N 0 00 v C in Non -Residential: CA N 0 m CA Ul CA 04 N N 0) N 111 .r N 00 N v s N co N N N zZ zZ. zZ w- Z N 1' N N N N N N Iss 07 N tfl N N N 0,1N n co N M N m N N rn 0 CO co M N 0 LA N co N CA CA CO N 0 m v L 00 O Y a) ()) (a a) s- 73 0) O .4 N N O 0 0 0 N 00 0 0 M LA N O 0 N N an 0 0 c .0 m a 0 0 O Q 4-- 0 73 U) Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru o c a) a) JD 73 a) a) > c (0 1-6 t E >' O (o 0 E a) d a) co 0 0) 0) LL a) t i, :47) on a)_ 00 (a •VI co LL 3 u ✓/ F ] U > 0 (a 3 (a c / o U c 2 co U L 'O Zri 0 x 1'1 cv E d N ;i3 o U w i E / X •)i +, h c o, ° c 4 - kJ' w 2 'E a) a D (La a) E / ` c v) .coJ :J0. m ,' v p , E. N a/ t CO C ' U- a) w0) 1 0 p 0 c •' Lai 0 v E EE•- a) .o 0o Y (^ L L fL E\N,F_ U o O !ny 4:,c > `-I c v im-, i. 0) c CO0 M OP C ✓ v c 0 E (0 Y,/c E 0)r � 14 ° E v c °'Y (o 0 O C t' a) V C/pw,c v a). m c E a) o_ a °,.- J CO CO 3 Y '- o. a) }' /p vi 0 G� Q u 0 c �p - 4) a) Y O To c O Y, > u/c a) u N w'•� �+ v c v:E f W > a) •c 0 ' E. a, a) E 0 0 0 aE) E v c a) °0° 0 / >- o0 c iD 00 c -0mc / (o X on - E c Q o0 Q cco (a E >al _co E LL .E a1:3,� 4, cf _cw -o c d EO c u f0 O Y o� c Y 0 3 co a u 3. L ,a, a o `0 ca c O (94.e,> - Ln �- Q ° 3 3 L V Y ° (co i o °° C 3 L 0)0c S U U 3 0 O O 4-,W> 0 3 p 0 �n O V ^ E> cc 7 0 o 7 U c c a) C 3 c 0 v, L ca c L 3 DQ a) N 4- 3 N c — ' Y O (0 -p L :I'L0 N _ (6 c' a) F- c 0 0 0 2 2 2 v) °) 41)) > -06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O-'- " 7 3 0 7 3 7 7 0 WO o 3 0 0 0 0 0 00:53,S),?), 0r O."O N V) V) V) V) t./) V) C e -I N M VI l0 N CO Q) O4 DRAFT V. Parks & Recreation Facilities This section addresses the analysis used in developing the parks and recreation impact fee. Several elements addressed in the section include: • Land and Recreation Facilities Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • • • • / • Net Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Cost \\�` Affordable Growth Strategy /` ` \ „" Calculated Parks and Recreation Facilities, Impact Fee Schedule\ Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison\' These elements are summarized throughout this section. Land and Recreation Facilities Inventory According to information provided Indian River County, the County owns 29 parks located in the unincorporated county. In addition, there are five parks where the facilities are county - owned, but the --land is not owned by the county. As such, only the facilities in these parks are included -in the inventory. Parks that are owned by the County but located in cities are excluded since the impact fee is collected only.in the unincorporated county. Finally, recreation facilities that generate;revenue (such as,golf courses and the shooting range) are also excluded from the inventory. `Indian River County•parks`and recreational facilities can be classified into three different types; depending on'; the population and areas they serve, and types of amenities offered. The Recreation and,Open Space Element of the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes definitions of�eachfpark type. Table V-1 provides the parks and recreation inventory used as the basis for the impact fee. Tindale Oliver January 2020 43 Indian River Cov ImpartFeeAttacnnt "i 0 c O w u v K c 1— cc a « .. . t. 000.. n n =r 000 c0 E$ 0 0 0 0 « .. n 0 e LL n ,, e. m $ 8 $ n QQ x 8 $ $ .: 2 c „ 8 0 _ . SE o a 2 N« oa .. .-I1Qy 0.... g$ 8 g 8 8 8 0088 o 5 7. o o � JR 0 ...... d 000N d, 8 r A E 0 2 2 n n N•y 0 0 .. LL s m 8 0 E v g 8 ,d / E.v' 0 0$ 2 A. �, m ..• 7 E t“,.. B t c c a a a a a rc c z z z a c z c c z a a z z,. CC V s c K C K 6' 2 2 « t 3 8 - §•' z 3 N 3 N u u o u t u o t Z 3 m L u t t' u u m 2 A 3 L S 3 3 S d 3 u t l 3 a Z t u 0 L 3 u u E- E- u u E' 0 828888888888a " .. a n n m " ' 2 8 $ m 4 « $ $ o n 8 .. n 8 .. 8 $ $ .n ^ $ .. - m 45' Street Dock IAmbersand Beach Park Blue Cypress Lake Park Boat Islandl°I C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area"' CR -512 Recreation Ataxic' Dale Wlmbrow Park Donald MacDonald Park Gifford Park Golden Sands Park Grovenor Estates Park Helen Hanson Park Hosie -Schumann Park IRC Fairgrounds IRC Parks Maintenance Facility IRC Shooting Range"' Joe S. Earman Park IKiwanis-Hobart Park MLK Park North County Regional Park"' Oslo Road Boat Ramp Pine Hill (Lone Pine) Roseland Community Center Round Island Beach'Park Round Island Park West Sebastian Canoe launch Park South County Regional Park (Tracking Station Beach Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Complex) Wabasso Beach Park Wabasso Causeway Park Wabasso Island River Park Wabasso School Park West Wabasso Park Total (County Owned) Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks TOTAL a DRAFT Service Area and Population Indian River County provides parks and recreation facilities and services in the unincorporated areas of the county. The municipalities located within Indian River County provide these facilities and services within their respective jurisdictions. As such, the proper benefit district is the unincorporated area of Indian River County. Appendix A, Table A-1, provides the estimated unincorporated area population for 2019 and the projected unincorporated area population through 2045. Parks and recreation impact fees are charged only to residential land uses. As such, the weighted seasonal population per housing unit •used''to measure demand from each residential land use, which is presented in Appendix A, Table A73. Level of Service f' \ The current LOS for all county -owned and maintained neighborhood, community and regional parks in unincorporated county is 5.09 acres per 1;00.0 residents. Table; V-2 presents the calculation of the current LOS for each park type included in the inventory, as well as Indian River County's adopted LOS standard of 6.61 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee cannot -charge new growth at a rate to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, i there needs to be a commitment.to continue providing the LOS used in the impact fee calculation, which is typically achieved through the adopted LOS standard. For impact fee calculation purposes, this -study used'theiower of the_two figures to provide a conservative approach. With this approach, - the c Trent achieved LOS'is`used. in the calculation of the parks and recreation \ , `� impact fee. '•L, \\ `' \ Although the<LOS is measuredln terms fires per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the LOS is shown as the level of investment or dollar value of capital assets per resident,which reflects the investment made by the community to date. For impact fee calculation purposes, the County's adopted LOS standard is $836 per resident for parks and recreation facilities. As presented later in this report, this LOS increased to $879 per resident due to the changes in impact fee variables since 2014, which should be reflected in the impact fee ordinance. Tindale Oliver January 2020 45 Indian River Co g Impktttacnme ns DRAFT Table V-2 Current Level of Service (2019) Variable 2019 Unincorporated Population(1) Figure 107,439 Current Number of Acres -- Regional Parks(2) 511.27 Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(3) 4.76 Current Number of Acres -- Neighborhood and Community Parks(4), 35.38 Current Neighborhood & Community Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(5) 0.33 Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(6) 7 5.09 Adopted Total Parks LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Reside its)(7)\ \ , 6.61 11 Source: Aonendix A. Table A-1 for unincornorated weighted seacnnal nnnulatinn 2) Table V-1 3) Current regional parks number of acres (Item 2) dividedby the unincorporated,population (Item 1), divided by 1,000 residents 4) Sum of current neighborhood parks acreage and current communityparks acreage \\ 5) Current neighborhood/community parks number of acres (Item,4) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1), divided by 1,000 residents , 6) Sum of current regional parks LOS (Item 3) and current neighborhood/community parks LOS (Item 5) 7) Source: Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Capital'Imp`rovement Element, adopted December 4, 2018 Table V-3 presents a'comparison of the parks and recreation adopted LOS standards of other Florida counties to Iridian -River County's achieved LOS and adopted LOS standard. Based on this comparison, Indian River,County's LOS -and adopted LOS standard are in the mid-range of the \ \ required. acreage per 1,000 residents in'other communities. \1 \ • Tindale Oliver January 2020 46 Indian River Co t Impart tachme nod DRAFT Table V-3 Level or bervice Comparison Jurisdiction Brevard County(�) LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(1) 3.00 Martin County(3) 3.00 Collier County(4) 3.90 Hernando County(5) / 4.00 Charlotte County(6) / , 4.43 Indian River County (Existing)(') 5.09 Okeechobee Countef' . "J 44 5.50 Indian River County (Adopted)(9) 6.61 St. Lucie Countyli°l \ \\7.50 Highlands County(11) \'\ ' . /\, 10:00 Osceola Countyl12l - \ 'f' ' 10.00 Citrus County(13) \ , \ 13.00 St. Johns County(14) \ \t 28.00 Average (excluding IRC) \ '\, 8.36 1) Adopted LOS standards that typically include community and regional parks 2) \ Source: Brevard County Comprehensive Plan 3) Source: MartinCounty FY 2019 Capital Improvement Plan 4) Source CoIlier/County Growth Management Plan S) .Source:..Her ando County 2040 Comprehensive Plan 6) Source: Charlotte County -Parks -and Recreation Master Plan 7) `Souree: Table.V-2 ) 8) Source: Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan , \< \ 9) SourceHndian River,County 2030 Comprehensive Plan \\10) Source: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan \ 1I1) Source: Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan N12)'Source: Osceola County Comprehensive Plan 13) Source: Citrus County Comprehensive Plan 14) Source: St Johns County 2025 Comprehensive Plan - Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Tindale Oliver January 2020 47 Indian River Co Update Impart tFee achn '� ticr DRAFT Land Cost The land value analysis takes into consideration land value trends in Indian River County over the past five years, recent purchases, current land value of the existing parks as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser as well as an analysis of recent sales of vacant land similar in size and location to Indian River County's parks. Based on this analysis, an average land value of $55,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations. Appendix B provides the data used for this analysis. �\ The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost of the land. Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/pavingScosts are also considered. These costs can vary greatly, depending on the type of,services `offered at each park. Based on information provided by the County, as well as information from similarly sized jurisdictions and park types, basic landscaping, site preparat1 n,rand irrigation co tswe\ estimated and are presented in Table V-4. \ Table V-4.\ `r Land Cost per Resident -. Variable Land Purchase Cost per ACr-ei1i\ Figure $55,000 Landscaping, Site,Preparation, and Irrigation Costs (per acre)Izl $5,000 Utilities and Paving '(per acre) 3$20,000 Total Land Cost -per Acro(4), ` $80,000 Regional Parks LO$'(acres per ).;000 Residents)(S) 4.76 Land -Cost per Resident-Regional'Park Component' $380.80 Neighborhood/Community•Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents)Isl 0.33 Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhoo`d/Community Park Component') $26.40 Land Cost per Resident - All Parks(8) $407.20 1) Source: AonendiiX,B , 2) Source: Indian River County 3) Source: Indian RiverCounty 4) Sum of land cost (Items 1), landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs (Item 2), and utilities and paving costs (Item 3) 5) Source: Table V-2 6) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by regional parks LOS, divided by 1,000 7) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS, divided by 1,000 8) Sum of land cost per resident for regional parks (Item 6) and neighborhood/community parks (Item 7) Tindale Oliver January 2020 48 Indian River CnImptUpdate ime DRAFT Recreational Facility Value The second step in calculating the total cost for parks and recreation services in Indian River County involves estimating the current value of recreational facilities. When available, the value for the parks facilities and equipment is estimated based on recent construction by the County. When recent cost information was not available, unit costs from the previous study, County's insurance reports and recent costs for similar facilities from other jurisdictions were used. As presented in Table V-5, the total recreational facility value'isy$3.3 million for neighborhood and community parks and $74.4 million for regional parks„fora combined total of $77.8 million, including facilities, equipment, and architecture and engineering (A&E) costs. \ f • Tindale Oliver January 2020 49 Indian River Cou ImpenAttacrimt t "I DRAFT Table V-5 Recreational Facility Value Facility") Description Basketball Court Unit court Unit Valuel4 555,000 Community Count") 5 Parks Total Value141 $275,000 Regional Regional Count's) 5 Parks Total Value16) $275,000 Total Cost") $550,000 Boat Ramp ramp lane 5100,000 0 $0 18 51,800,000 51,800,000 Canoe Launch launch 5188,000 1 5188,000 4 $752,000 5940,000 Community Center sq ft $250 1,401 5350,250 6,006 51,501,500 51,851,750 Dune Walkover walkover $43,000 0 50 7 $301,000 5301,000 Fishing Pier linear foot $550 30 $16,500 305 5167,750 5184,250 Jogging Trails mile 5150,000 1.0 /5150,000 5.5 $825,000 5975,000 Lifeguard Tower tower 525,000 0 / 7 $0 5 5125,000 5125,000 Maintenance Facility sq ft $200 0 $0 8,850 $1,770,000 51,770,000 Multi -Purpose Bldg sq ft $250 /0 `,. 50 112,800 528,200,000 528,200,000 Olympic Aquatic Center center $7,500,000 L. 0 !' '$0 1 $7,500,000 57,500,000 Picnic Pavilion pavilion 540,000 / \ 5 5200,000 ., 54 52,160,000 52,360,000 Playground181 playground $90,000/$150,000 ' 5 $450,000 ' 8 51,200,000 51,650,000 Restroom sq ft ,$250 , 550 5137,500 \, 12,300 $3,075,000 53,212,500 Soccer Field field 5325,000 " 0 $0 \ 10 53,250,000 53,250,000 Softball Field field $500,000 '�, 2 $1,000,000 \,12 `, $6,000,000 $7,000,000 Swimming Pool (Recreational) pool $4,500,000 \ 0 ,,r'\ 50 1 \-$4,500,000 54,500,000 Tennis Courts court 550,000 \ \ 1 f' $50,000 4 \ . 5200,000 5250,000 Volleyball Court court $8,500 \ 1 " / 58,500 3 \ 525,500 $34,000 Facilities and Equipment Value ,$2,825,750 $63,627,750 $66,453,500 Architecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 17%(91 , \$480,378 $10,816,718 $11,297,096 Total Facilities and Equipment Valuel") \$3,306,128 $74,444,468 $77,750,596 Total Number of Acres(11)\. 3$:38 511.27 546.65 Facilities and Equipment Value per Acre" ' $93,446 $145,607 $142,231 Level-of-Service1131 / 0.33 4.76 5.09 Facilities and Equipment Value per Resident1141 \ \ $30.84 $693.09 $723.93 1) Source: Indian River County 2) Source: Based on recentconstructi.on,information from previous studies for Indian River County as well as information -from -other Florida jurisdictions-', r 3) Source: Table -V-1 �`� \ ! -� 4) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the num number of units per, facility (Item 3) 5) Sour e: Table V-1 \ ` .,� \ 6) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by.the numbertaf units per facility (Item 5) 7) Sum of totalvalue for community'parks (Item 4) and the total value of regional parks (Item 6) 8) Unit values for playgrounds vary by type. Discussions with representative at Indian River County indicated neighborhoodplaygrounds are valued at $90,000 while regional playgrounds are valued at $150,000 9) Facility and equipment'value multiplied by 17% based on information provided by Indian River County 10) Sum of the facilities and equipment value and the architecture, engineering, and inspection cost (Item 9) for each park type \ ; 11) Source: Table V-1 12) Total facilities and equipment value (Item 10) divided by the total number of acres (Item 11) for each park type 13) Source: Table V-2 14) Facilities and equipment value per acre (Item 12) multiplied by the level of service (Item 13) divided by 1,000 Tindale Oliver January 2020 50 Indian River Co M Impa�Gt,€acllme t i DRAFT Total Impact Cost per Resident Table V-6 presents the total impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in Indian River County. Using the current achieved LOS, as previously presented in Table V-2, the cost for neighborhood/community parks in Indian River County is $57 per resident and the cost for regional parks is $1,074 per resident, for a total cost of $1,131 per resident. Table V-6 Total Impact Cost per Resident Variable Total Land Value per Resident(1) Total Facility Value per Resident(2) Total Impact Cost per Resident(3) Park Type Neighborhood/ Regional Community ,\$26.40 ,' $30.84 $57.24 $380.80 "$693.09 $1,073.89 Total $407.20 $723.93 $1,131.13 1) Source: Table V-4 2) Source: Table V-5 \\ `\ \\. ./ \ 3) Sum of land value per resident (Item 1) and the facility valueper resident (Item 2)', ' \ Credit Component To avoid overcharging new -development for the capital cost of,providing parks and recreation services, a review of!the-capital''f`nding program for the parks and recreation program was completed. The purpose of this review was to estimate any future revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, which will be used to fund the expansion of capital facilities and land related to -the Indianiver- County's parks and recreation program. As mentioned `.. previously,,the credit component Aces not include any capital renovation, maintenance, or operations expenses, as t hese types\of expenditures do not add capacity and should not be considered\for impact fee credit. Capital Expansion Credit Capital expansion expenditure credits per resident were calculated based on non -impact fee revenue funding for capital expansion projects over the past five years and programmed for next five years. To calculate the capital expenditure per resident, the average annual capital expansion expenditures are divided by average population for the same period. As shown in Table V-7, the average annual expenditure over this ten-year period amounts to approximately $1.5 million. To calculate the revenue credit per resident, the average annual expenditure is divided by the average population for the same time period. As shown, this figure amounts to approximately $14 per resident per year. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cou}5t, dly January 2020 51 ImpaAttiaClJpmeniy Description") 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Optional Sales Tax o 0 o 0 to Cr N in. to 01 O1 06 m V? 0£6'£0T'8$ $224,983 a 01 01 a 00 0 V? .i $425,027 CO to to o V vt N m N. o 01 aUll $323,933 t0 a CO m V V* to 0 fV '^ $34,635 m N m a an. o.1 0 O 0 0 N N m .4 N .4 ea -1 Vf Fairgrounds Improvement Fund o 0 0 0 to v`-4 o 0 0 0 VI .Ni. O 0 0 o 0j T' a-1 N M ,i',i' N in .ani 1- m a-1 r; M C11-1 Vf n as V is O 00 t0 -1 .m01' N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 0 VS 1 1 0 Vr 0 V> Total Parks and Recreation Capital Expansion Expenditures per Year") Average Annual Population - Unincorporated County(3)' y Average Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Resident ',' / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .0 V► 1 $250,000 0' 00 0 0 In N V1 0 o 0 in N V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -UT 0 0 OO O -1 V? 1 0 0 O N H V! 0 0 0 O 111 to 1 1 1 1 !/0N 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O N 0 1 O 1, V). 1 .1.41./ 0 0 0 Vf $2,450,000 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 / / 1 \ 1 1 0 0 0 O v N 4" 1 1 0 V 0 0 0 O a N' 1 1 1 N,\\ N t0 N V? t 1. / 01 0 N': a/? 1 _ a 01 .1 N V! $205 $34,635 $4,379 1 00 C N Vf 1 Vf 00 O n 4? 1 \ ' 0 CO lD' 00 m V? 1 _ . $245;2501 - /1 - o1 N N 00 to to m 0 O ey N m 1 .-1 0 O N N VS 1 1 1 1 CO .-1 ,I 1f1 00 .-1 . vi 1 - 1 0 if). m .-1 e-1 Lfl 00 .-1 . -4.41- ►1 ' 1 03 CON t0 LO CO 1.6 V? 1 03 lf1 03 N CO Vi 1 CO to 0 41' .4 IV1.. 01 a O CO V? M 01 N I.O. 1 1 1 1_ i 1 $7,969,3491 1 / f 1 lt0 • /' - a CO Qj 01 n V! 1 COal CO u? N .y06 00 V? 1 1 V N 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 ico 1- - / (00 •M 'V 1• 1 / / SS0 M tcrs ? 1 1 lm0 .-1 1, cl- N VS COCO1 01 V NI N VT N t0 ,1 VT 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1. 00 N•- 1 _ /cn / O N 00 00 a0/> Dodgertown Gifford Park Bleachers/Storage Containers Intergenerational Facility South County Regional Park - Multi -Purpose Field CIP Sporting Clay Course Gifford Park Ball Field Improvements MLK Walking Trail Hunter Education Classroom South County Park General Use Field Conservation Areas Improvements Lost Tree Island Dock - Irma Victor Hart Parking/Drain Imp Wabasso Scrub Area Improvements Dale Wimbrow Park & Donald Macdonald Improvement/Campground Enhancement Subtotal - Optional Sales Tax Fairgrounds Midway Restroom Fairgrounds RV Camping Expansion Subtotal - Fairgrounds Improvement Fund''. Total ., m E 0) C 0 f0 3 0. 0 a To 3 C f0 0) 00 roa o co CUCL 411 (0 • .0 v O > a--1 0) t N cu / Q y 0)) L• ) +� • Y '0 '0 C c a) 0) 0. 0. X X 0) 0) C C _O 0 ( a"1 ' C 1 C c a • a 3 0) - 0) U co Fes- co Y 1 0) 3 Q • X f0 cO l0 t0 • 3 N 3 C Q. C a C Q, C • (0 < co v .. a) U) on 0) o0 U ._ i 03 3 - 01 3 0) O Q c� Q CON D U to C a) L CU -• 0E 0 E N N - O O O N a) (0 as C C DRAFT Net Impact Cost The net parks and recreation impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table V-8 summarizes the calculation of the net parks and recreation cost per resident for both neighborhood/community and regional parks. The first section of Table V-8 identifies the total impact cost as $1,131 per resident for all parks. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits rthe parks and recreation impact fee, totaling approximately $252 for all parks. The net impact cost per resident is the differenbetween the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $879. per resident for all parks, which also reflects the relevant measure of LOS forimpact fee calculation_. purposes. Table V-8 / Net Impact Cost per Resident Revenue Variable, Cost Credits Impact Cost Total4mpact Cost per`Resident(li $1,131.13 Capital Expansion Credit —Capital Expansion/Credit per-Resident(2) $13.68 Capitalization Rate t ',` 2.5% Capitalization P,eriod:(in'years) ' . - 25 Capital Expa sion Credit,per,Resident(3) $252.09 Net Impact Cost Net mpact Cost O'er Resident(4) $879.04 1) SOurce:\Table V-6' 2) Source:Table V=7 3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years 4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total expansion credit per resident (Item 3) Tindale Oliver January 2020 53 Indian River Co lk Impktttacnme t DRAFT Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table V-9 presents the calculated parks and recreation impact fee schedule developed for residential land uses. Changes to the cost and credit component result in an increase of 5 percent compared to the full fee calculated in 2014. The remaining changes are due to the fluctuations in the demand component. As previously mentioned, only residential development within unincorporated Indian River County is assessed a parks and recreation impact fee. Tindale Oliver January 2020 54 Indian River Cou5tt�y! ImpaAt aclriment i t V N cu V co 0. E C 0 co U OJ CC C Vl Y a 0 cu i -e ea v Residential 00 r -i 4.11 N to 0 0 1A 0 N V1 8.5% 00 Cr 1,0 r-1 00 N 01 r-1 e-1 0 ei e-1 N ei e-1.- iVT VI. VT VT VT VT O g 53.7% \\ 52.4% O V1 LA N m f: m m V) U1 / .m M N 01 m, 74 .6- m•cr 01 (.0 N v N i-9 r•i ei VT VT VT 00 a CIO t40 Cr 0 al e-4 e 4 ei N N ti e-1 VT 1/1. VT V• VT CO .00 00 CO CO O O 0 0 c N oi N -01 N .O 01 N. 01 N CO 00 CO 00 00 V. V. VT VT V. m m 2.61 m ct 01 m m m r-1 N 12t t -i np 0 c c c a v v v Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) Multi -Family Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) (L) 0) w a) Y -. Y N E f0 a) .c U C 0 N fC• E'06 v Z-7-41/ / c 0 L ✓ vs Di 61 0) Y /a N OL 0 O0 M Cu N E 0) N C ` 0) CO N Y E '~ E .0 NNUa. y a3 W. oE ' - U j a L 0 ID 00 V� C O) LI Y ` v c p ;2E v o f6 uL c C .=...a... TO f13 c w O00 N (0 T F_ M 0 -0 ,1"). Q 4- 4.? y 3_ 4_ O H a U Em V N — L. E Q v1 s_x 00 > E CLOW go) 0) d v(0 c CO c Q. D_ -p L .0 Q I- Y = 0 L) U U 41 ai 4E" U a) U 0C) 3 3 N 7 i 7 L 0 o v o a) o a) N In Or N 0_ (1) 0 r-1 N M Ln l0 N DRAFT Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Table V-7, the County is using an average of $1.46 million per year of Fairground Improvement Fund and sales tax revenues. During the next 25 years, unincorporated Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of parks and recreation facilities impact fee calculated, if the historical and programmed levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 40 percent for all residential land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in/the calculations. These calculations assume that the sales tax will continue to be available over the'next 25 years. If available revenue sources for parks and recreation capital projects cha ge_significantly, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and'could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section4nd.100 percent and still:maintain the adopted LOS standard. ` ` Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County sparks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison`of the impact fee rates adopted by for surrounding counties and other jurisdictions throughotuFlorida \Table V-10 presents this comparison. • \�� Tindale Oliver January 2020 56 Indian River Cov5% Impacttacnme Table V-10 Calculated Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 N 0 to N P, N 0 N N O 0 0 u, 0 0 0.1 cn N 1.0 06 h to 0 0, 00 e-1 0, e -I .1 N .-7 N N 0, 0, N tO 0, N t0 0, n iA n .ti N n 0, N m CO V, V, 03 0N a H 00 h CO N N VI CO to N 03 t0 N , N 0, N U1 n 1.13 H 0 N 0, 0- N 0 N 0 O N 0, N t0 z 000 N 10 to a 0, 06 0 0.1N N Date of Last Update Assessed Portion of Calculated") 0- 0 00 .E LL 0 E S a 0 0 O r 0) to (0 0) U c 0) a L a 0 c a a .O 0) > 0 L "a >- c (oE /7. 0 0 LLff -15 c / a -o (c0 To /a�/' E :n a. O E L M O "_ /(O e a U O i 01 L Q) U LO 040 >. 4-, . (O LT VI (0 f0 O0 a (O ^� -o tv .f / 0) Y f>6 3 � ro \ / / n (o a c -o CO /' fl- c 3 a) CO % a/ C 73 O 5' X Y V; /, v g c E ms„ o -o C i N C C 9 f (n r'Ct../L v17.° O 40, C a) Q_' .. o > > ' 7 (00 n) D }' E a Iii E a) E .a E c Q 3 c E O E 1:-.> �,d v v O ,-' U U Q. 2 0 t U i co C C .0 _ 4E' y a (a o a" a a� i C U. a CU E t E a E oo a ,�.n. LO L O •C E J•t N _, - c n a) O .O an) O_ as Cci, CI. s" CO ,E u J C 40 -6 c f0 CC CU a .)Q. O E a •� Es a r a co a) 0a) o i C C t 1 CI .� U (0/ a V, a� 0. E C r 0 0 CO a0 0 '',0 a)) " C eL a.a 0 �, n ac, �. c a E o E o >> a E ,c a � :bo > 3 a) a E o on °) ;fO a •R 00 .0 U f0 a 00 O (O a>•'EE '24:9 ...:2 E n E 2 u_ c a l� 0 ,� u 3 a o�O�a,/J C c' o 03 0 c c >. o c U U 7 �' 3 3 C c c t0 ` Q C o O o. cn >> v o o _0 0 O L) U U a y 3> Gr G; U U C C m c a t c c c O to L (0 mo C o L v ., 3 d0 a) CO t3 77- 3 °) c t t a o n O C fo p Q ; — L 00 t0 U a ai ai if) if) ai ai if) if, ai ai ai ai a >- -0 000000000000 U �� L L L L L L L L L L L O_ — 7 7 3 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 3 3 a o 7 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o OC O_ -0 V, V, V, V, V, V, N V, V, V, N V, o ri N Cf V, LO N CO01 c -1M -I m epi Indian River DRAFT VI. Transportation This section summarizes the analysis used to update Indian River County's transportation impact fee schedule and includes the following subsections: • Demand Component • Cost Component / ., • Credit Component / ; • Calculated Transportation Impact Fee :f \ • Transportation Impact Fee Comparison `, :' �\ • Benefit District Review /f. • Affordable Growth Strategy As in the case of the other impact fee program\areas,, the methodology; used for the transportation impact fee study' follows a consumption -driven approach in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane -mile �f the roadway network. Included in this document is the 'necessary support material used in the calculation of the transportation impactfee \The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: ` N,/ % _ '� \\ [Demand x Cost] — Credit = Fee The "demand'; for travel placed on a't ansportation system is expressed in units of Vehicle -Miles of Travel (VMT) (daily vehicle`trip generation rate x the trip length (in miles) x the percent new trips [of total trips] x\person-trip factor) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. Trip generation represents the'average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The "cost" of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle -mile of roadway capacity. Consistent with the current adopted methodology, the cost is based on recent roadway costs for county and state facilities. The "credit" is an estimate of future non -impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to provide roadway capacity expansion. The impact fee is considered to be an Tindale Oliver January 2020 58 Indian River Coln' ImpAtttac`fimen�VVdi DRAFT "up front" payment for a portion of the cost of a lane -mile of capacity that is directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule, that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the new development activity over the next 25 years. These credits are required under the supporting case law for the calculation of impact fees where a new development activity must be reasonably assured that they are not paying, or being charged, twice for the same level of service. The input variables used in the fee equation are as follows: f\ Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Percent new trips ,f • Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor\ Cost Variables: • Cost per vehicle -mile • Capacity added per lane mile Credit Variables: \, • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Presen"t vvor-th `�, /, . • ,Fuel, efficiency, '\ \\\, - • "Effective days per -.year Demand Compone N Travel Demand. Travel demand is the amount of a transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development activity. Demand is calculated using the following variables and is measured in terms of the vehicle -miles of new travel (VMT) a unit of development consumes on the existing road system. • Number of daily trips generated (Trip Generation Rate = TGR) • Average length of those trips (Trip Length = TL) Tindale Oliver January 2020 59 Indian River Coo Impkt,tUpdate acnmen DRAFT • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system and is captured by new development (Percent New Trips = PNT) As part of this update, the trip characteristics variables were obtained primarily from two sources: (1) trip characteristics studies previously conducted throughout Florida (Florida Studies Database), and (2) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (10th edition). The Florida Studies Database (included in Appendix -C) was used to determine trip length, percent new trips, and the trip generation rate for>several land uses. In addition, Tables C-8 through C-11 provide a comparison of the changes.tb the demand variables used in the 2014 study and this update study. This variable is used to recognize that inte sr tat `highway and toll facility improvements are funded bythe State(specifically, the Florida Department of Transportation) using earmarked State and Federal funds. Typically, transportation imp ctaffees are not used to pay for these improvements and the portion of travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system is usually eliminated from the total travel for each use. To calculate the int state and tollll (I/T) facility discount factor, the loaded highway networks file was generated for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v4 (TCRPMv4). A select link analysis was -conducted for l.trafficanalysi zones located within Indian River County in order to differentiate trips with an'origiin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin'or destination within the county, \ \ Currently, intersstate and toll facilities within the study area include Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike (SR 19): -The limited access vehicle -miles of travel (Limited Access VMT) for trips with an origin and/or destinationnWithin the County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total VMTwas calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within the study area for all roads, including limited access facilities. Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor The I/T adjustment factor of 10.9 percent was determined by dividing the total limited access VMT by the total study area VMT for the 2040 Cost Feasible network. By applying this factor to the VMT for each land use, the reduced VMT is then representative of only the roadways which are funded by impact fees. 1 The "loaded highway network" refers to the final model roadway network with traffic volumes assigned (or loaded) to each model roadway link. Tindale Oliver January 2020 60 Indian River Call& Impact,fUpdate Stud/ DRAFT Cost Component County Roadway Cost This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity expansion improvements in Indian River County. In addition to local data, bid data for recently completed/ongoing projects and recent construction bid data from roadway projects throughout Florida were used to supplement the cost data for county roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four components: design, right of -way (ROW), construction, and construction engineering/inspection (CEI). Design and CEI Design costs for county roads were estimatedat 11 percent of coristruction phase costs based on a review of recent local cost data and cost -data, from recent roadway/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail isprovid d in Appendix D,'Tables D-2 and D-3. CEI costs for county roads were estimated at 9 percentof construction phase costs based on a review of recent local cost data and cost data from recent roadway/transportation impact fee studies throughout FI fids.- Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-9. Right -of -Way \ The ROW cost reflects the total costof-the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross section`width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, to build a new road. Th\s-factor-ms determined through a review of the ROW -to -construction cost ratios for upcoming county improvements in Indian River County. For county roadways, the ROW factors ranged from 14 to'32 percent:with an average of 22 percent. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost fo,r county roads was calculated at 20 percent of the construction cost per lane mile., This represents a conservative estimate when compared to ROW -to - construction ratios observed ,in other communities throughout Florida, which average approximately 42 percent: Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Tables D-4 and D-5. Construction The construction cost for county roads was based on recently completed projects and future estimates in Indian River County and in other communities in Florida. A review of construction cost data for Indian River County since 2012 identified two completed/ongoing capacity expansion projects and four future improvements that will start construction within the next five years: Tindale Oliver January 2020 61 Indian River Coltt Impkttiac`fimeAte di DRAFT • Oslo Rd Ph. III from 43rd Ave to 58th Ave • 66th Ave from SR 60 to 49th St • CR 510 from CR 512 to W. 82nd Ave • 37th St from Indian River Blvd to US 1 • 66th Ave from 49th St to 69th St • 66th Ave from 69th St to 85th St The construction costs for these local improvements ranged.from $1.44 million to $5.91 million per lane mile with a weighted average cost of $2.54 million pet -lane mile. In addition to the local / projects, recent improvements from other counties throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample size. This review included oyer/ 164 lane miles. f lane addition and new road construction improvements with a weighted average cost of approximately $2.91 million per lane mile. Additional data is provided in Appendix D,Table D-7. '`, \\‘ Based on a review of these data sets, a construction cost of $2.80 million per lane mile was used in the impact fee calculation for urban design (curb & gutter),improvements. This cost reflects the weighted average of the local improvements and the improvements from other Florida .2 communities. To determine the cost per lane mile for county roads with rural -design characteristics (open drainage), the-relationship.between urban and rural roadway costs from the FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates (LRE)Z,was-'revieviied.Thased-on these cost estimates, the costs for roadways with ruraldesign characteristics` were estimated at approximately 74 percent of the costs for roadways\with urban -design characteristics. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table D-1. • \ l To determine the weighted average cost for county roadways, the cost for curb & gutter and open drainage roadw yswJere weighted based on the distribution of cost feasible improvements included in the Indian River -2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. As shown in Table VI -1, the weighted average county roadway construction cost was calculated at approximately $2.65 million per lane mile, with a total weighted average cost (design, ROW, construction, CEI) of $3.71 million per lane mile for county roadways. 2 This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver January 2020 62 Indian River Col ImpAt tac`nmenf i DRAFT Table VI -1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads Cost Phase Design(1) Urban Design $308,000 Cost per Lane Mile Rural Design(s) $228,000 Weighted Average(6) $291,000 Right-of-Way(2) $560,000 $414,000 $529,000 Construction(3) $2,800,000 $2,072,000 $2,647,000 CEI (4) $252,000 ,$186;000 $238,000 Total Cost $3,920,000 ,/$2,900,000 $3,705,000 Lane Mile Distribution(7) 79% f ' \ \21% 100% 1) Design is estimated at 11% of construction costs 2) Right -of -Way is estimated at 20% of construction Costs \ 3) Source: Estimate for urban design (curb & gutter) based on a review of,data in Appendix D, Tables D-6 and D-7 \ 4) CEI is estimated at 9% of construction costs ~� 5) Open drainage costs are estimated at 74% of th'e.cu'rb &eg utter'costs \\\ \ 6) Lane mile distribution (Item 7) multiplied by the design, right-of-way, construction, -and CEI phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile 7) Source: Appendix D, Table D-11 Items c and d A�� \\ Note: All figures rounded to nearest $000 State Roadway Cost' �'• This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated th_state roadswitthvrespect,to transportation capacity expansion improvements in Indian River County: Imaddition tolocal'dat ;bid data for recently completed/ongoing projects and recent construction bid data from roadway projects throughout Florida were used to supplement'the cost data for state roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity `. '\ project was`separated into four .,components: design, right-of-way (ROW), construction, and construction engineering/inspection (CEI). Design and CEI Design costs for state roads Were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data from recent road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table D-3. CEI costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of recent cost data from road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table D-9. Tindale Oliver January 2020 63 Indian River Coyt» Impart,€acnmennf' 'i DRAFT Right -of -Way The ROW cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. Given the limited data on ROW costs for state roads in Indian River County and based on experience in other jurisdictions, the ROW cost ratio calculation for county roads was also applied to state roads. Using this ROW -to -construction ratio of 20 percent, the ROW cost for state roads with urban design characteristics is approximately $760,000 per lane mile. - Construction A review of construction cost data for state road projects built in Indian River County since 2012 did not identify any recent improvements. However, 10'improvements were identified from other communities in FDOT District 4, with a weighted°average cdst of $4.45 million per lane mile. In addition to the District 4 projects, recent improvements fron "other counties throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample•size.`This review included over 393 lane miles of lane addition and new road construction improvements with a weigI ted''average cost of `/ approximately $3.71 million per lane mile. When both samples were combined, the resulting data set included over 436 lane miles with a weighted average, construction cost of $3.79 million per lane mile. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table' -D-8. For the impact fee calculation, -a, construction cost of $3.80 million per lane mile was estimated for urban design (curb&`gutter) state roadways. \ j To determine the cost, per lane ,mile for state roads with rural -design characteristics (open drainage),.the relationship between4urban and,rural roadway costs from the FDOT District 7 Long RangeEstimates (LRE)3was reviewed:`\Based on these cost estimates, the costs for roadways with rural -design characteristics,.were ''estirnated at approximately 74 percent of the costs for roadways with"urban-design characteristics. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table D-1. , To determine the weighted,average cost for state roadways, the cost for curb & gutter and open drainage roadways were weighted based on the distribution of Indian River County roadways included in the 2040 LRTP's Cost Feasible Plan. As shown in Table VI -2, the weighted average roadway construction cost was calculated at approximately $3.59 million per lane mile, with a total weighted average cost (design, ROW, construction, CEI) of $5.10 million per lane mile for state roadways. 3 This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver January 2020 64 Indian River Co95ty ImpAt,€acrmenta,' DRAFT Table VI -2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads Cost Phase Design() Urban Design $418,000 Cost per Lane Mile I Rural I Design(s) $309,000 Weighted Average(6) $395,000 Right-of-Way(2) $760,000 $562,000 $718,000 Construction(3) $3,800,000 $2,812,000 $3,593,000 CEI(4) $418,000 ,5309,000 $395,000 Total Cost $5,396,000 /$3,992,000 $5,101,000 Lane Mile Distribution(') 79% ( , \ \21% 100% 1) Design is estimated at 11% of construction costs \ 2) Right -of -Way is estimated at 20% of construction costs 3) Source: Appendix D, Table D-8 for urban /design (curb & gutter) 4) CEI is estimated at 11% of construction costs \. 5) Open drainage costs are estimated at 74% of'the curb & gutter,costs \ 6) Lane mile distribution (Item 7) multiplied by the'design, right-of-way, construction, and CEI phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average; cost per lane mile 7) Source: Appendix D, Table D-11 Items c and d \ . \ Note: All figures rounded to nearest $000 \ �. \ Summary of Costs (Blended Cost`Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for county and state roads is presented in Table VI -3. The resulting weighted'a erage cost of approximately $4.31 million per lane mile was utilized as the roadvvay cou st inpt in the calculation of�the transportation impact fee rates. The weighted average costperincludes county"and'state roads and is based on the projected 2040 \ '\ VMT distribution between county and*state roads from the TCRPM v4. Tindale Oliver January 2020 65 Indian River Coy Impktttac` imenn i DRAFT Table VI -3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects Cost Type Design County Roads( $291,000 ' State Roadsl2} $395,000 County and State County Ro1 $336,000 Right -of -Way $529,000 $718,000 $610,000 Construction $2,647,000 $3,593,000 $3,054,000 CEI $238,000 $395,000 $306,000 Total $3,705,000 $5,101;000 $4,306,000 Lane Mile Distribution(4) 57% , �,, 43% 100% 1) Source: Table VI -1 2) Source: Table VI -2 \ 3) Lane mile distribution (Item 4) multiplied -by the individual component costs for county and state roads and then added together t6 develop a weighted averagest,per lane -mile 4) Source: Appendix D, Table D-10 \, _‘,. \ Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the transportation impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane -mile of roadway constructed. The vehicle -miles of capacity.(VMC) is an estimate of capacity added per lane mile, for countyand state roadway improvements'in,the 2040 LRTP. As shown in Table VI -4, each lane mile -will add approximately 8,600 vehicles. Additional detail is provided in Appendix D, Table D' 11: Table VI -4 Weighted Average Vehicle -Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile Source Cou nty,Roads State Roads, \ Total Lane Mile Added(1) 86.26 8.64 94.90 Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added(1) 733,916 86.832 820,748 Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(3) VMC Added per Lane Mile(2) 8,508 10,050 8,600 1) Source: Appendix D, Table D-11 2) Vehicle -miles of capacity added divided by lane miles added 3) Total VMC added (Item 2) divided by total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity The roadway cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle -mile of capacity. As shown in Tables VI -3 and VI -4, the cost and capacity for roadways in Indian River Tindale Oliver �p January 2020 66 ImpaAttacriment' 1 Indian River Co 0 Fee date Std DRAFT County have been calculated based on recent local and statewide improvements. As shown in Table VI -5, the cost per VMC for travel within the county is approximately $501. The cost per VMC figure is used in the transportation impact fee calculation to determine the total cost per unit of development based on vehicle -miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle - mile of travel that is added to the roadway system, approximately $501 of roadway capacity is consumed. Table VI -5 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity Added Source County Roads State Roads Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile(1) $3,705,000 $5,101,000 $4,306,000 Average PMC Added per Lane Mile(2) 8,508 ;10,050 8,600 Cost per PMC(3) \$435.47 '\ $507.56 $500.70 1) Source: Table VI -3 \ 2) Source: Table VI -4 3) Average VMC added per lane mile (Item 2) divided by cost per lane mile (Item 1) Credit Component Capital Improvement Credits The credit component of the,impact fee -accounts for the County and State funding sources that N are being expended'on roadwaycapacity expansion (excluding impact fee funds). This section summarizes the calculation s,utilized'to develop the credit component of the impact fee. \ Additional details are provided in Appendix E. The present value of the portion of non -impact fee revenues generated by new development over a 25 -year period`(etimated life of a structure as well as when roadways are likely to need significant maintenance/r`ehabilitation) that is expected to fund capacity expansion projects was credited against the cost and the system consumed by travel associated with new development. In order to provide a connection to the demand component, which is measured in terms of travel, the non -impact fee dollars were converted to a fuel tax equivalency. Tindale Oliver January 2020 67 Indian River Co itww ImpaAttiacnenf DRAFT County Credit As shown in Table VI -6, Indian River County spends the equivalent of 12.1 pennies on transportation capacity -expansion projects funded with non -impact fee revenues, including sales tax and fuel tax revenues. Additional detail is provided in Appendix E, Table E-2. State Credit As shown in Table VI -6, state expenditures for transportation capacity projects in Indian River County were reviewed and a credit for the capacity -expansion portion attributable to state projects was estimated (excluding expenditures on limitediaccess facilities). The review, which included 10 years of historical expenditures, as well as six (6) years of planned expenditures, indicated that FDOT's transportation spending generates'a credit•of 15.1 pennies of equivalent gas tax revenue, annually. The use of a 16 -year period for developing a state credit accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over. short time periods. Additi�onal detail is provided in Appendix E, Table E-3. f� In summary, for transportation, Indian River County\allocates 12.1 pennies, while the State , spends an average of 15.1 pennies, annually. A total credit'of 27.2 pennies or $24 million per year was included in the transportation impact fee calculation t recognize the future capital revenues (25 years) that are expec ed to be generated by new development from all non -impact fee revenue sources This credit'reflects the most recent available data for transportation expenditures from County.and Sta`,tesources. \ \' \ `-\.,/ ,, <� ---Tabley1-6 "Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue Credit County Revenues(') State Revenues(2) Total Average Annual Expenditures $10,874,786 $13,497,702 $24,372,488 Value per Penny(3) $896,847 $896,847 Equivalent Pennies per Gallon(4) $0.121 $0.151 $0.272 1) Source: Appendix E, Table E-2 2) Source: Appendix E, Table E-3 3) Source: Appendix E, Table E-1 4) Avg annual expenditures divided by the value per penny (Item 4) divided by 100 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co nty January 2020 68 Impact,€ee Upda elSt DRAFT Present Worth Variables Facility Life The facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway. Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might,bebonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 2.5 percent was used in the transportation impact fee calculation`based on information provided by the County. Lv;`;�,, ( 1\\ The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled,per gallon,of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use. This variable is used in the calculation of the credit component of the Fuel Efficiency transportation impact fee. Appendix E, Table E-7 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency,,value based on the following equation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. „ ' ,, / ,_ N.,, �--,„ Fuel E {z'czenc`V.MT w — VMT Vehicle\ �✓ y ti Roadway Type ' \ `'•>`,,\\ `\\ `t - MPGVehicleType / Roadway Type `. `• ti . , The methodology\uses non -interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger, cars and other 2 -axle, 4 -tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e single -unit, 2 -axle, 6 -tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a "weighted" fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing fleet mix of traffic on non -interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2017. Based on the calculation completed in Appendix E, Table E-7, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 18.92 miles per gallon. Tindale Oliver January 2020 69 Indian River Cor t Impact tUpdate acrimen I DRAFT Effective Days per Year An effective 365 days per year of operation was used for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that non -impact fee contributions are adequately credited against the fee. Calculated Transportation Impact Fee i \ Detailed impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix F, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees forthe individualland uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix F,illustrates the following: / \ • Demand component variables (trip rate, trip,length, and percentnewttrips); • Total impact fee cost; - \���.,, \. • Annual capital improvement credit; \ ` • Present value of the capital improvements credit;\ \ • Net transportation impact fee rates; • Current adopted ,Indian River County impact fee rates; and, • Percent difference betvveen��the calculated impact fee and the current adopted impact fee. \\\\ \ / It should be noted.that the `�netimpact-fee `'illustrated in Appendix F is not necessarily a recom'rnended fee, but instead represents the technically calculated impact fee per unit of land use that couldbe charged • in;In`dian River County. For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for one of the land use categories' In;the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the \ \f single-family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the impact fee schedules included in Appendix F. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost — Capital Improvement Credit Tindale Oliver January 2020 70 Indian River Conty Impart FeeUpdatet DRAFT Where: Total Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips] /2) x (1 — Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor) x (Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity) Capital Improvement Credit = Present Value (Annual Capital Improvement Credit), given 2.5% interest rate & a 25 -year facility life Annual Capital Improvement Credit = ([Trip Rate x Total Trp Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (Effective Days per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in th s`document however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee,forthe single-family detached residential land use category (2,000 sq ft): \ \ � • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation r t;,nvehicle-trips/day (7.81) • Assessable Trip Length = the average trip length on collector roads or above, for the category, in vehicle -mixes (6.62). • Total Trip Length ,= the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added tothe triplength to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads.including local roads (6.62 + 0.50 = 7.12) i • %New Trips= -.adjustment factor,to'account for trips that are already on the roadway '(100%) • Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate'*.length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double -counting of travel generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination • Interstate/Tol`Facility :Adjustment Factor = adjustment factor to account for travel demand occurring on'interstate highways and/or toll facilities (10.9%) • Cost per Lane Mile -unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane -mile ($4,306,000) • Average Vehicle -Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,600) • Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle -miles of capacity consumed per unit of development. Cost per lane mile divided by average capacity added per lane mile Tindale Oliver January 2020 71 Indian River CoyQttt ImpaAtt€aCClmenrtidly DRAFT • Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "1," and a number of periods, "n;" for 2.50% interest and a 25 -year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 18.4244 • Effective Days per Year = 365 days • $/Gallon to Capital = the amount of equivalent gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.272) • Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.92) rte. Transportation Impact Fee Calculation /,' Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated,f ror the single-family residential detached (2,000 sf) land use category as follows: Single Family Transportation Impact Fee Rate (Table F-1): ``�` Total Impact Cost = ([7.81 * 6.62 * 1.0] /2) * (1` -0.109) * ($4,306,000 /8,600)' $11,533 Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 *. ($0.272 /18.92) = $146 Capital Improvement Credit = $146 * 18.4244 = $2,690 \ Net Transportation Impact Fee = $11,533 — $2,690 = $8,843 Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Table "'VI -6 and "Appendix. ,(,`inaddition to impact fees, the County uses a combination of fuel tax-and,sales,_tax�,revenues-to fund the transportation system. In terms of affordable<growth calculations\it is important to note the following. Consistent with the methodology used by many Florida jurisdictions, impact fee calculations are based on the adopted LOS standard, which is lower than the current achieved LOS. In other words, under the current methodology, even with the full impact fee, unless the County uses other revenue sources, the current achieved LOS for the system will deteriorate and more congestion will be experienced. It is Indian River County's policy to conduct a link -by -link capacity analysis and ensure that no link drops below LOS standard D. When the fee is calculated using the current achieved LOS, it amounts to $20,400 for a mid-size single family home, compared to $8,843 per home calculated using the adopted LOS standard. As such, the standard methodology used for transportation impact fees results in fee levels that slow down the degradation of the Tindale Oliver January 2020 72 Indian River Coyq Impapt, acumen DRAFT system but do not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the existing conditions when they are better than the adopted LOS standard. The credit calculations suggest an annual investment of $10.9 million by the county for transportation capacity. Even with this funding, the above describe fee differential exists. Unless the available funding for transportation capacity increases significantly in the future, the County will allow the LOS to degrade faster with a lower fee compared to the travel conditions that could be better maintained with the full fee. On the other hand, if the County makes the policy decision of accepting a higher level of congestion where the adopted LOS standard approaches to the achieved average LOS (i.e., half the roads operate better than LOS D while the,other,-half operateworse), the County could use the annual investment amount to reduce the/ fees. During the 2014'study, the County adopted an average LOS standard of D for all roads for impact fee purposes, and'thsstudy continues to use this standard. _ \ \ / Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison A comparison of calculated fee schedule to the current adoptedrfee"by land use is presented in Table VI -7 for selecti nd ` uses. A summary of:calculated impactfee rafesfor all land uses is presented in Appendix F, Table F-1. Tindale Oliver January 2020 73 Indian River Co t ImpacttFactlme nsI LD tA N 0 N 00 0 0 O " 0 O O w Ltle, 00 c 0 O 0. v 'FA; Residential: O N LO 0- a0l0 N N -1 M 1 O1 a0 N N N N N al 0 LO H N N O1 N l0 N N 00 '..1 N N 1� tri• N N N CO 0 N N 1.O1 O h 00 00 N .ti ,N 00 00 C 00 N N 01 'i 00 00 M M .L4 N or O 00 N N 00 N N N 03 0.1 N N 4. .4 N CIO 1.11 VCO n N N N 0 v V n N N O m O N 1) 00 N 00 N CO.Lrs N co 00) N N 0 N N N1. (00 N '-1 N N 0 M N Ln O N N N rn N e-1 N N O N 10 O N 10 A N N O CO 00 N n •0 N n 01 N 8 N 01 ry 0 N m v N 00 00 raN c0 cnN CO ./N co ri N 00 .ti N 4 O N T f n 00 CO N n 00 N / '•1 N n m n N O1 M N M CO 0 N 00 ti 03 (13 N CO 1/1O N N O O N N (0 N 'y M N N N 00 M N N 0) N l0 a an N 40 N N 10 al N N O1 N 0) 1n O N m N 0 8 '•i 0 8 ri a N 8 N 0 0 N 0 0 7 0) c 00 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 Ni 40 00 C v 0 4, 00 t 1- 0) 7.0 0 O a N O E O 0 °u c W O e�. 00 0 v/ d I E 01 9 m T 0 0 E W 9 L 1`� lA � O u � C W O o a y o `m c ry E p a a c c LL K � w � a E N C c d r$2 g sE v wd 0 m A o E t v1 E m = v01i w ot c y 0 .0+- 3 r c w •> > w LLop00a wv °ac c u ' •E ° y m. c r T o c o c o ac' m o .. a U L°on.c xa Om 1S° �• _�' ' c � lF�at cc tc OC o 12AUVc3'Zoo-g cj U> i U Vvv « • 5 K NtVcL 21,aC7mNU581Si'V1 • • v u u u u u u u m w u u a 0>> o 0 o 0 0 0 0>> • ,0 .o n m m .ter .. .m. .d. DRAFT Benefit Districts Review As part of the transportation impact fee update study, the existing benefit district boundaries were reviewed. As shown in Map VI -1, there are currently 3 districts. Based on a review of geographic barriers/features, travel distances, historical impact fee collections and expenditures, municipal boundaries, and the location of planned capacity improvements, a reduction to two districts is proposed, as illustrated in Map VI -2. This new boundary would align with the southern boundary of Township 32S and the northern boundary of Township 335, generally following 53rd Street, going due east and west from the existing portion of 53rd Street. / To ensure the new boundaries continue to complywith the Iegal requirement to convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer, the travel fdistance from the center of each existing and proposed district alignment was measured. For the existing alignment; the.northern district had a distance of 3.00 miles, the central district hada•,distance of3. � miles, and \thsouthern district .*` had a distance of 2.25 miles. With the new alignmentssthe northern district s\distance would increase to 4.00 miles and the southern district's distance would increase to 4.50 miles. In both cases, the distance to the district boundary is Tess than the average trip length of single family homes (6.62 miles), which suggests that the fee payers are likely'to use the roads improved with impact fee revenues en with the larger benefit districts. As illustrated in Maps, Vi -1 and\';VI-`,2, the majority of the CIE and LRTP Cost Feasible Plan improvements- are _located'eat oft -95, with all improvements located east of the City of Fellsmere. f Therefore, the discussion of district boundary re -alignment was focused on east county, where the proof of benefit would'come into -play. The recommended two -district alignment creates a more even distribution of plannedimprovements between the districts. \\ \s \, r i In addition, the current alignment divides Fellsmere unevenly between two districts, whereas the re -alignment would'place over 90 percent of the city's parcels into a single district. As a result, this reduction from three to two districts continues to ensure that the fee payers are receiving the associated benefit, while increasing the average funds of each district when compared to the division of funds across three districts. These larger pools of impact fee revenues better match the level of improvements contained with each benefit district. Tindale Oliver January 2020 75 Indian River Coy Imps tti Clflmetq 4 cc DRAFT VII. Educational Facilities Educational facilities impact fees are used to fund the acquisition of land, capital construction and expansion of facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional school facility demand created by new growth. This section presents the results of the educational facilities impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated school impact fee rates. Several elements addressed in this section include: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population ,r^ • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Impact Cost per Student • Student Generation Rate • Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule • Affordable Growth -Strategy • Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison Facility Inventory 4 1 The Indian -River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all school-age residents ofIndian River, County. As such, this analysis will consider all public elementary;.;middle, and high school level -facilities and the students attending these facilities located throughout.and living within Indian River County. The District currently operates 19 traditional public schools that serve the students of Indian River County and its municipalities, including 13 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The District's current traditional school inventory (excluding charter, alternative or adult education) is provided in Appendix G, Table G-1. Tindale Oliver January 2020 78 Indian River Caitty ImpaAt,Facnmen DRAFT Service Area and Enrollment The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all Pre -Kindergarten thru 12th grade (PK -12) students throughout the entire county. Attendance boundaries can be redrawn to balance school enrollment with available school capacity and therefore can serve different geographic areas over time. As such, the appropriate impact fee district for public schools is countywide. Table VII -1 presents the historical student enrollment since 2007/08 school year. The annual percent change for the enrollment is presented, as well as a three-year average to account for any random fluctuations. Table VII -1 illustrates an ,overall slight 'decline in student enrollment with the exception of the current enrollment year. 7 Table VII -1 Indian River County Enrollment 1) 'Source: Indian River County School District 2) Percent charge from one year to the next 3) Average change over the past three years Facility Service Delivery The Indian River County School District inventory was reviewed to understand the District's design characteristics. Consistent with the input received from the District during the most recent technical study, this inventory is considered to represent typical design characteristics of future schools. Tindale Oliver January 2020 79 Indian River Col Impart dAttacimen I School Year 2007-08 Enrollment(1) 16,238 Annual % Change(2) = Three -Year Average(3) * - 2008-09 ; -- . 15,664 -3.5% \ - 2009-10- - -.; *'\ 15,582 -0.5% N., - 2010,11 15,436 -0.9% - 2011.-12., 15,488 0.3% -1.7% 2012-13 '\ / - ` 15,446 -0.3% -0.4% 2013-14 \ . , -.15;37.7 -0.4% -0.3% 2014-'15 ` \ '\ 15;337 -`_ -0.3% -0.1% 20151\16 \ \ \\ 15,201 ' -0.9% -0.3% 2016-17\ '` \ *15,032 -1.1% -0.5% ` 2017-18 \. ;, \14,958 -0.5% -0.8% 2018-19 15,157 1.3% -0.8% 1) 'Source: Indian River County School District 2) Percent charge from one year to the next 3) Average change over the past three years Facility Service Delivery The Indian River County School District inventory was reviewed to understand the District's design characteristics. Consistent with the input received from the District during the most recent technical study, this inventory is considered to represent typical design characteristics of future schools. Tindale Oliver January 2020 79 Indian River Col Impart dAttacimen I 602,411 DRAFT Table VII -2 illustrates the facility service delivery in Indian River County, which is 146.6 net square feet per permanent student station for elementary schools, 140.1 net square feet per permanent student station for middle schools, and 162.1 net square feet per permanent student station for high schools. The weighted average facility service delivery based on all three school types is 149.6 net square feet per permanent student station. Reference to net square feet pertains to the most recent figures published per the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Report for the District. /\` Table VII -2 Facility Service Delivery Description Permanent Net Square Footage(1) Permanent Student Capacity(2) Net Square Feet per Student Station Capacityi3i Elementary 1;180,777 8,053 146.6 School Type Middle 4,299 ,-.,140.1 High 839,343 \ '\ 5,179 162.1 Weighted Average 2,622,531 17,531 149.6 Source: Indian River County School District (IRCSD) 1) 2) Source: Indian River County School District; Indicates per`manen't capacity after FISH ad stment 3) Permanent net square footage (Item 1) divided by permanent student station capacity (Item 2) \ \ The service delivery is based on the permanent student stations because it is the School District's policy to use portable tations}only as a temporary solution. This pproach is also consistent with the methodology used in the 2014, technical study, which is the basis of the current adopted impact fee schedule.\Por-.table stations will always be used at some level since they provide valuable flexibility to addres\temporaryand locational increases in enrollment. The School District' policy is -to, rovide the necessarypermanent student stations in the long term. Cost Component \\ The capital costs of,providing',educational facilities includes three components, including the school facility cost, transportation cost, and ancillary facility costs. This section addresses each of these components. \, Facility Cost per Student Station The first step in determining the cost of providing public schools to Indian River County residents is to calculate the facility cost per student station. Several cost components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a school, including architectural/civil design/site improvement costs; construction costs; furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) costs; and the cost to purchase the land. Each component of the school facility cost is described in more detail in the following subsections. Tindale Oliver Indian River Ca42,ty January 2020 80 ImpkttFa Wilait Arti d Iy DRAFT Construction and Non -Construction Facility Costs To determine the administration, architect/site improvement, construction, and FF&E costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, the following information was evaluated: • Construction cost trends observed since 2014; • Insurance values of existing schools, which provide a conservative estimate since more permanent parts of the structures, such as the foundation, etc. are typically not insured; and �f • Information obtained from other jurisdictions regarding,recently built schools. Detailed information on cost estimates is included in -Appendix G.`\ Table VII -3 presents the cost per square foot figures for each,cost component by school level. For illustration purposes, Table VII -3 also presents ,the„Weighted average figure for each cost component based on the mix of existing stations for each school type. t Land Cost For each school type,,the land cost per square foot is estimated at $55,000 per acre. This cost per acre is based primarily on a review of the land value of existing school sites, vacant land sales and values of similarlysized and zoned parcels as well as land value trends observed in Indian River County: Further detail on,the land' value analysis is documented in Appendix G. i The land cost per square foot of building by school type was developed based on the acres per 1,000 permanent net building square,feet for existing stations. The resulting land value figures used for each,type of school are presented in Table VII -3. Overall, the total school facility cost estimates range from $29,481 per permanent station for elementary schools to $40,403 per permanent station for high schools. In 2016, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 7029, requiring that beginning July 1, 2017, school districts may not use funds from any other sources for new construction of educational plant space that exceeds the statutory maximum cost per student station. The legislation also required the Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) to conduct a study of the cost per student station. EDR report was completed in January 2017. Two primary recommendations of the report included: Tindale Oliver January 2020 81 Indian River Ca924y ImpaAtt acnment DRAFT • Use of cost per square foot as the unit cost as opposed to cost per student station in setting limits for school construction, as this approach aligns with the conventional method of estimating costs in the construction industry and allows for design differentials; and • Recognition of cost variations by geographic region. The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) continues to use the,indexed 2006 construction cost figures until January 1, 2020. By January 2020, the FDOE will/develop a revised statewide average construction cost per station, which will be indexed going forward. FDOE will collaborate with EDR to select an industrywide accepted construction'cost:index. In the absence of any adjustments, existing Student Station Cost Facors published by FDOE are used to develop alternative cost estimates. These cost figures, include constructionar` ;chitectural/design, and FF&E costs but exclude land costs. The FDOE ost-factors were last updated in 2006 and have \.. been indexed since using Consumer Price Index. Table,V.iI-3 presents a comparison of the local student station cost estimates (excluding land) against,the'maximum cost per student station published by the FDOE, which ranged from $24,932 for elementary schools to $34,081 for high schools. In other words,_the estimated local cost per stude t,station weighted average is approximately 15 per.,than the FDOE average weighted: cost greateper station. Given these requirements, impact fee calculations in this report use the student station cost figures published by FDOE, which result i \ore conservative impact fee levels. \ ,,. \, Tindale Oliver January 2020 82 Indian River Co Impact AtFee acrlmen DRAFT Table VII -3 Facility Cost per Student Station Variable Net Square Feet per Student Station Capacity(') Elementary School 146.6 Middle School 140.1 High School 162.1 Weighted Average Existing Permanent Capacity(2) 8,053 4,299 5,179 17,531 School Facility Cost Components: Architectural/Civil Design/Site Improvement Cost per Net Sq Ftj31 $27.00 $28.80 $34.20 $29.72 Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft(4) $150.00 $160.00 $190.00 $165.10 FF&E Cost per Net Sq Ft(5) $12.00 j' $12.80 $15.20 $13.21 Land Cost per Net Sq Ft(6) $12.10 i ) $9.85 $9.85 $11.33 Total Facility Cost per Net Sq Ft(7) $201.10 i $211.45 $249.25 $219.36 Total Facility Cost per Student Station(8) $29,481 . \ $29,624 $40,403 $32,816 Total Facility Cost Excluding Land Cost per Student Station(') +$27,707 \ \$28,244 $38,807 $31,121 DOE Cost per Student Stationl10l ,/ \$23,158 ",. $25,008 $32,484 $26,367 DOE Cost per Student Station with Land Value(11) 'f /$24,932 $26,388 $34,081 $27,992 1) Source: Table VII -2 i 2) Source: Table VII -2 ` \' 3) Estimated at 18% of construction cost. See Appendix`G for•further detail 4) Construction cost is estimated to range -from $150 per net square foot to $190 peren t•square foot. Detailed information on cost estimates is included in Appendix G. ' 5) Estimated at 8% of the construction cost. See Appendix G for further detail. 6) The land cost per square foot for each school type is based on thetacreage per 1,000 permanent square feet for future schools at a cost of $55,000 per acre. Further information is included in Appendix G. 7) Sum of the school facility cost -per net square foot (Items 3 thru 6) •� 8) The net square feet per permanent•student station (Item 1) multiplied by the total school facility cost per net square foot (Item 7) for each respective school type. Weighted average is based on the distribution of existing stations for each school 'type (Item 2). 9) Sum of School Facility Cost Components(Items 3 through 5) multiplied by Net Square Feet per Student Station (Item 1) 10) Student' Station Cost Factors published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) on July 31, 2019. 11) FDOE'Student Station Cost (Item 10) plus the land cost per NSF (Item 6) multiplied by Net Square Foot per Student Station (Item 1)-,• q \ • Total Facility Cost per Student `, L The total facility impact cost per -student' for each school type is based on the facility cost per student station figurs,derived� in Table VII -3 and is typically calculated by dividing the cost per student station by the,ratio of`current student enrollment to available capacity. The adjustment of multiplying the cost perstudent station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity converts the cost per student station to a cost per student. In addition, this calculation accounts for the current available permanent capacity and adjusts the costs accordingly. If there is available capacity (e.g., currently more permanent student stations than students), then the total facility cost per student increases because the cost of building this additional capacity is being recouped. Similarly, if there are currently more students enrolled than available capacity, the cost per student is adjusted downward. Tindale Oliver January 2020 83 Indian River Coylty Impact Fee cnl DRAFT In the case of Indian River County, although there is available capacity countywide, because the District's adopted LOS standard is 100 percent, the cost per student station calculated in Table VII -4 also represents the facility cost per student. Table VII -4 Total Impact Cost per Student — FISH Net Square Feet Variable Elementary Middle High School School School Facility Impact Cost per Student Weighted Average Facility Cost per Student Station111 //$24,932 $26,388 $34,081 $27,992 Adopted LOS Standard (2) / 100% 100% 100% 100% Final Ratio of Permanent Capacity to Enrollment Used for Impact Fee Calculationsl3 \100% 100% 100% 100% Total Facility Impact Cost per Student(4) (- ,' '$24,932 $26,388 $34,081 $27,992 1) Source: Table VII -3 2) Source: Indian River County School District \ 3) Based on the adopted LOS standards (Item 2) r `ti 4) Facility Cost per Student Station (Item 1) multiplied by Final Ratio of PermanentCapacity (Item 3) \ \\. Although the School District's adopted LOS standard./is measured in termaof stations to enrollment ratio for planning purposes, for impact fee -purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per\student, which reflects the capacity investment made by the School District for schools and other related capital assets. The adopted LOS standard for impact fee -purposes is $24,114 per student. As shown later in this section, this net cost per student to,$20,709 per student due to the changes in impact fee variables since 2014, which should be reflected in the impact fee ordinance. \ Total Cost per Student �\. In addition, to the facility cost per,student calculated in Table VII -4, the total facility cost per student includes two additional cost\components: the capital costs associated with providing transportation services and ancillary facilities. Both cost components are calculated on a per - student basis and are.not dependent on school type. Each of these additional cost components is discussed in the following paragraphs. Transportation Costs The first additional capital cost component is the cost of providing transportation services to students. The District currently owns 114 buses used for student transportation and has approximately 131 support vehicles. The average cost is estimated at $102,000 per bus while the average cost per vehicle is estimated at $22,000. These figures result in a total transportation capital value of $14 million. The total value of the transportation fleet is divided by the District's enrollment for schools included in Appendix G, Table G-1, as well as the District's alternative Tindale Oliver January 2020 84 Indian River Co �t,�y{ Impkt,Eacr tgAt 1 DRAFT school students, as this is the total existing student population benefiting from services provided by the District's transportation fleet. The resulting cost is $944 per student for transportation services, as presented in Table VII -5. Ancillary Facilities Costs The other additional capital cost component is for the ancillary facilities that are necessary for the District to provide support services for students, schools, transportation services, and administrative personnel. The District currently has approximately 118,000 net square feet of permanent ancillary facilities for transportation, maintenance, warehouse, and administrative functions. Leased facilities are not included in this square footage. The ancillary facility cost per student is based on the existing inventory, which is valued at $22.6 million, including $21.9 million for buildings and $726,000 for land. Based on the current enrollment, the ancillary facility value is $1,477 per student, as presented in Table VII -5. As with the transportation cost, the ancillary facility value is divided by the enrollment to the traditional and alternative schools to account for any administrative support provided to alternative school students at these facilities. Table VII -5 Transportation and Ancillary Facility Cost per Student Description Figure Transportation Services Cost per Student Total Current Value of Transportation Services(�) $14,438,885 Current Enrollment(2) 15,299 Total Transportation Services Cost per Student(3) $944 Ancillary Facility Cost per Student Building Value for Ancillary Facilities(4) $21,868,665 Land Value for Ancillary Facilitieslsl $726,000 Total Current Value for Ancillary Facilities(6) $22,594,665 Total Ancillary Facility Cost per Student(') $1,477 1) Source: Indian River County School District 2) Source: District enrollment from Table VII -1 plus alternative school students. The total value of the District's transportation fleet is divided by this larger enrollment figure to account for the total student population that benefits from services provided by the District's transportation fleet. 3) Total value of transportation services (Item 1) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2) 4) Source: Indian River County School District 5) Acreage of ancillary buildings multiplied by $55,000 per acre. Detailed information on cost estimates is included in Appendix G. 6) Sum of the building value (Item 4) and land value (Item 5) of the District's current inventory of ancillary facilities 7) Total value for ancillary facilities (Item 6) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2) Tindale Oliver January 2020 85 Indian River Co l4 Inn Update part tachnt 1 DRAFT Credit Component To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for construction of future student stations, any non -impact fee revenue that will be generated by new development and that will be used towards the capital expansion of school facilities must be included as a credit to reduce the total cost per student. It is important to note that a credit for school impact fees is not given for revenue generated by new development that is used for capital renovation of existing educational facilities or for maintenance or operational costs. f Based on a review of the District's capacity addition expenditures over the past five years and / .7\\. planned expenditures over the next five years, it has been determined that, in addition to impact fee revenues, Indian River County School District uses local cap al ad tax revenues to fund the capital expansion of school facilities. Because the District has previously utilized COPs for capacity expanding projects, a credit for the remaining debt service payments is also given. ‘\\,/ Capital Expansion Credit The capital expansion expenditure credit per student is calculated by dividing the total amount of revenue used for capital expansion projects by the average enrollment during this ten-year period. As presented.,in Table:VII6, the average annual expe ditures for the 10 -year period amounted to approximately $2.55 1 million with a revenue credit of $163 per student. Since majority of the historical'and future expenditures are funded with ad valorem tax revenues, an adjustment factor was applied/to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes-perwellingvunitcocmpared to existing homes. The adjustment factor was estimated,based on the•aver.�ge'taxable value anew homes built over the past five years to that \ \ of all homes\As presented•in Table VIII -6, the total adjusted revenue credit per student resulted \ in $210 annually per student oyr $3,372 per student over the next 25 years. \\:/fir' Tindale Oliver January 2020 86 Indian River Co,9Vi Impart tacnmen Stud/ Description') 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Total 1.5 -Mil Local Capital Tax /11: $631,234 O1 oO N. m R N L11 C 0 01 111 Al IA 01 M CO m 111 tO v1 10 OC1 M N N0. t? $3,022,4261 0 0 0 an N 0 0 O 00 IA V? $3,547,0001 01 O ei n In m N N Other Sources (2): - V No. t l o O e-1 t? t7LL'S00`t$ $24,576,813 $2,457,681 15,0581 e-1 N 'M0 ,-1 t? M N to ei N CO 10 N 0 en 01 �' 0 N U! I, e -I O- N N a to ^ m V1 N N N M t? i 1 i i 00 0 O LA t? i 0 0 o IA of i 0 ift Total Expansion Expenditures $631,234 $437,609 $11,134,548 $223,996 $0 $3,272,000 $355,000 $705,221 $2,817,205 $5,000,000 Average Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures(2) Average Enrollment(3) Capital Expansion Credit per Studen1)4). ' i\ \. \ - Portion Funded with Ad Valorem Taz„Revenues)s) \„ `' . - Portion Funded with Other Revenues�)\_ �Z Ad Valorem Credit Adjustment Factor(') ti `. Adjusted Capital Expansion Credit per Student (Ad Valorem Portion'Only))8) Total Adjusted Capital Expansion Credit per Student(9)\ Capitalization Rate(w) ,s, 1 Capitalization Period, Years(") \,' f1 Present Value of Capital Expansion Credit per Student112) 0 N N. -I 00 0 N o N n ri CO ear t? In 1 1 1 1 1 e1 N N 11) o LA 1 .1 0 0 0 O O N ey N N L O N. I of / i / 000 i? N N i? 01 M 1l / j y 0 N N 0 1.4 N iN / 111111111,0 f / f 0 fV N N N N V Q/-. MSD M tmn, P N p IA I, O r-1 n O !.j O1 Tr IA . i . . . . 01 v IA 0 m N e y CA ‘13ttO t N m N , O y vv ti Osceola Magnet School - Addition of Cafeteria Treasure Coast ES - Classroom Building Addition Citrus ES - Addition of Cafeteria JA Thompson Admin Center - New Admin Office Citrus ES - Addition of Classroom Glendale - Cafeteria Expansion/Renovation Sebastian River Middle - Cafeteria Site Improvements - Districtwide Security Enhancements - Districtwide Subtotal -1.5-Mil Local Capital Millage JA Thompson Admin Center - New Admin Office Subtotal - Other Sources .O 0 L 0) 0 /0 N T ei 0) t L 0 0) 7 N Y U L C N O) Q O 0) O C L O u c c0 Y Q C X 7 N O �o U F, N La - • co ei u - CC io > c 3 v ca c c co F - 'v 00 a) u co u L L L Q ei NI 01 c co Tindale Oliver N 00 January 2020 -o _ O � v E a v c +_' 0 Y (O C N QJ a CO 0. VI E L CO L -) a co � Y � O L -a >. Yai t!) (O U N w C CO Y OL C • CD > C O 1 E f / a ,)IF 7 O� / cc Y E Lr")Q Y E v U u CU s._ 4a) U -0Y a)(I) tn M to _ 4',,,o /Y N Y 7 / til r E 7 •'>. O a1, c/a"a O ✓r CO CU Vs y : c\ Ln E 7 4, (0 70 �� m o m a.)E U ,Y x > 0 `n E ate' 4\ LToE a) > Ql tin co i° X> w'—' � �E �. f CO Y "O — N C a)\, > N L N 7 -O �� CO LY to 7 0 C O 0 '3 a) c a) c > "O O > LJ •D Ili 4C1). cu 'O L 7 C (X6 N (O L •3 O -0E a) Y to 4' -o -C(?) o@ a 3 N v N L. C a a> N -O U 7 a) c N Y Y X a': .0 O ...=, a) to Y 4,N CU a) 03 CD°J E '3 c v c •7Yv) vv v4- C 0) L_ E CD y LO v c a a CO c- �- o Q +' 7 a) > to X v C C C CL a N CO L a) ti, a1 O a .0 C U -O L-0 Y a) Y O0 Y Y U Tu L 7 C •N to C to C O ...,-,- CL C L u CU O- N CO X co a•s.D E w X Y Y (c0 4-j _c Y +�•+ a' N L .0 O_ •C U O Q Y u ' Ei2u X Y t U CO O O O Y de N 3 v •tn 0 'tn a L 4 O c .._ c (o y'' CO aJ C (a 4.4 (o 0 a) -O 7 Y Q C X.. S fL6 0 CO _ CD a) E a) Y Y CU Y I -13a) .e a a E , E Q a U Q Ce ct V) lD r•-•00 O) O� e -i N -i Tindale Oliver DRAFT Debt Service Credit per Student The District has been using COPs and other types of bonds to pay for a portion of the capacity expansion projects. Given that there is still an outstanding debt service on these, a credit is calculated for future debt service payments related to capacity expansion projects. A revenue credit is calculated for the remaining portion of each outstanding COP/bond issue used to fund capacity expansion projects. The remaining payments were brought back to present value, based on the remaining number of years and annual interest rate of each respective issue. The credit for debt service resulted in $4,871 per student./The,District uses local capital outlay millage to pay the debt service; therefore, an adjustment factor was applied to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes per dwelling unit. \\ As presented in Table VII -7, the debt service credit'is $6,332 per student: It is important to note that in order to comply with recent legislative changes, if the School Districtdecides to use impact fee revenues to retire debt, the District should document carefully the capacity projects that \ were built with the funds. Table VII -7 Debt Service Credit Certificates of Participation 2014A COPS Issue ., \ 7 $34,854;250 $29,485,000 14,843 $1,986 2016A COPS Issue \"' ,, , ' „ 8 . °. $32,944,000 $28,800,195 14,817 $1,944 20166 COPS Issue`,, \. `., 6 ; `, $9,137,250 $7,730,000 14,843 $521 2010A QSCB Issue, \, 10 $10,560,126 $6,229,193 14,834 $420 Total Debt Service Credit per Student ; $4,871 Ad Valorem Credit Adjustment Factor(6) 1.30 Adjusted Debt Service Credit.per Student(') $6,332 1) Source: Indian River County School District 2) Source: Indian River County School District 3) Present value of the total remaining payments due, based on the interest rate of each payment and the number of years of remaining payments 4) Source: Table VII -1. For purposes of calculating the debt service credit, enrollment for 2020 through 2035 is based on annual growth rates published by the Florida Department of Education for Indian River County. 5) Present value of total remaining payments (Item 3) divided by the average annual enrollment over the life of the remaining payments (Item 4) Tindale Oliver January 2020 89 Indian River Coy Impact ,Fee acrlmeni i DRAFT Net Impact Cost per Student The net impact fee per student is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VII -8 summarizes the three-step process used to calculate the net impact cost per student for public schools in Indian River County. First, the total impact cost per student is determined. This is the sum of the weighted average facility impact cost per student from Table VII -4 and the transportation and ancillary facility cost • ~\ i Second, the total revenue credit is determined. � i s\th esum of the capital expansion expenditure "cash" credit per student from Table VI116 and the debt service revenue credit per student from Table VII -7. f//) , Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit er student. The resulting` figure of $20,709 per \„/ .' ., student is also the relevant measure of LOS for impact calculation purposes.-- Table VII -8 Net Impact Cost per Student\ components per student from Table VII -5. f Total Impact Cost Per Student Facility Impact,Costhl $27,992 `Transportation; Impact Cost(�) $944 Ancillary,Facility Costl, $1,477 Total Impact'Cost per-Studentl4l $30,413 �. Capital` Expansion Credit Per Student Capital Expans on "Cash" Credit(5) $3,372 Debt Service Credit ' $6,332 Total Revenue Credit per Student(7) $9,704 Net Impact Cost Per Student Net,impact Cost per Student(8) $20,709 11 Source: Table VII -4 2) Source: Table VII -5 3) Source: Table VII -5 4) Sum of total facility impact cost per student (Item 1), transportation service cost per student (Item 2), and ancillary facility cost per student (Item 3) 5) Source: Table VII -6 6) Source: Table VII -7 7) Sum of the capital expansion "cash" credit per student (Item 5) and the debt service credit per student (Item 6) 8) The net impact cost per student is the total impact cost per student (Item 4) less the total revenue credit per student (Item 7) Tindale Oliver January 2020 90 Indian River Co cy ImpaAt,tacnmenN DRAFT Student Generation Rate The number of students living in a household typically varies depending on the type of residential housing. Therefore, school impact fees are typically assessed based on the specific student generation rates for different types of residential land uses. To determine SGR by residential category, a Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to Zink each student address to its respective parcel in the Indian River County Property Appraiser's database in order to generate the number of stunts per unit for the current school year. This analysis included the following information: % \ • Indian River County and Indian River County, School District provided geocoded student addresses for students attending those/schools listed iri'Appendix G, Table G-1 as of October 2018. (' • Indian River County Property Appraiser 2019 tax year parcel 'database was used to determine residential categories.\ `\ '�, The development of the SGR analysis is a two-step process. First, using the 2019 Tax Year parcel file provided by the Indian River County Property Appraiser's,Office, parcels were selected for the single family, mult.igamily, and mobile home categories. This.provided the total number of units in each category. (Age restricted units were excluded from this total. Second, geocoded \ student address data were grouped by residential category and summed. Finally, the number of students ere-divided by the total number of units in each residential category. Table VH 9,presents the.total number of students>and total number of units by each residential \ \ category that\were used to determine'.the SGR. The resulting SGR by residential category represents the number of students anticipated to occupy a dwelling unit over the life cycle of the home. Additionally, Table VII-110\\\ncl/odes an alternative grouping of residential categories to recognize that smaller apartments arid -all condos house fewer students. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot,4 January 2020 91 ImpaAttiee (Jpmentdl DRAFT Table VII -9 Student Generation Rates Land Use Traditional Schools Total Housing Number of Students per Units(1) 1 Students(2) Unit(3) Single Family 53,459 12,080 0.226 Multi -Family 20,455 1,896 0.093 Mobile Home 6,849 ,r 680 0.099 Total/Weighted Average 80,763 / 14,656 0.181 1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser r� f 2) Source: Indian River County School District -�. 3) Number of students (Item 2) divided by the number.of units .(Item 1) for each residential type \ N Tindale Oliver January 2020 92 Indian River Cote Impact Attacnmen i DRAFT Table VII -10 Student Generation Rates - Alternative Land Use Traditional Schools Total Housing Number of Units(1) 1 Students(�) Students per Unit(3) Single Family 53,459 12,080 0.226 Apartments 5,588 1,601 0.287 -Less than 499 sf 207 ,r., 12 0.058 -500 to 749 sf 910 '163 0.179 -750 to 999 sf 2,289 / 523 0.228 -1,000 sf or greater 2,182` x ' \ '-903 0.414 Condominium 14867; \295, 0.020 Mobile Homes r°/ 6,849 680 �\ 0.099 Total/Weighted Average \'. 80,763 14,656 ' 0.181 1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser . �. 2) Source: Indian River County_Property Appraisers' ,% 3) Number of students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for each residential type Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule To determine the calculated'school impact fee for every residential land use under each fee schedule scenario, t'he net impaa. cost per student is multiplied by the student generation rate. The resulting impact fee'le cels are presented in Table VII -11. Table VII -12 shows the impact fee levels for alternative-resid nti l grouping, \_\ \\ • \i Tindale Oliver January 2020 93 Indian River Cal,y Imps tiacumen l Table VII -11 Residential: 00 m N Cr) a -I 100% $3,665 -44% N N N 00 O m t6 N t/? t/? 0 1.11 0 a0 n 00 /' J. , ?� LO 0 f\Vt t/? 0000 N 1/1 LO al 0 O O N O N o o 0 N N N 0.226 0.093 0.099 a a a Ea ro a) ao c in Multi -Family Mobile Home Y Y C CU a N 0. 0 0 CO u CL a v �� a) • .2 ami i Q 4'>_ Y U n `r a, Q QJ attO 0) .c .v .. • ,E a � Y !6 • d Y (0 • 4.+ NO = CCD • a) 0)U• "• C Y L C L C a) O 0) 00 > ) O 5 c a_ v C` a) C 00 05 v L ra C 0 C W :a ca m $ H a c u.E u N C 41 c N c 05)05)05) 0 0 i L c°n c'n o0 ) 0- a Colv m E 4.0) m a) E N aka N a1 Y -Q O CO u To al 4- a) 46., a) a h Y a) Y• 0 f6 t"' °▪ Q O/ CU E CO a) a+a)_.; Y Y: 0 u = aJ 0 3 Y 0. 4- CL O t1 4-I N m d' L l LO N DRAFT Table VII -12 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule - Alternative Land Use Residential: Unit Net Impact Cost Students per Unit11)per Student(2) Total Impact Fee13l Single Family du 0.226 $20,709 $4,680 Apartments du 0.287 , $20,709 $5,943 -Less than 499 sf du 0.058 / $20,709 $1,201 -500 to 749 sf du 0.179 /`' ( $20,709 $3,707 -750 to 999 sf du 0.228 ! r'\ \$20,709 $4,722 -1,000 sf or greater du 0.414 , 'f,$20;709 $8,574 Condominium du /6.020 $20;709 $414 Mobile Homes du `,,, 0`099 $20,709 $2,050 1) Source: Table VII -9 \ \\ 2) Source: Table VII -8 3) Students per unit (Item 1) multiplied by the net impact cost per student (Item 2) ',/ • `.. \ Affordable Growth Strategy r. \ Based on the data shown in Table VII -6, the School District is using an average of $2.5 million per year of capital millage,revenues.During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to e grow at an,average annual rate'of 1.3 percent, although the enrollment growth is likely to be lower ,Giventhis,_,a .growth-.rat,e of 0.7 percent is used for affordable growth calculations. i Although the County rnay`charge, the maximum/amount of educational facilities impact fee calculated, if the historical\and prog ammed levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County couldadopt the'impact fee at approximately 45 percent for residential land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in the calculations. If available revenue sources for/educational facilities capital projects change significantly, these calculations need to be`r `issed. 'Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's school impact fee program, a comparison of the calculated single family school impact fee for Indian River County to the Tindale Oliver January 2020 95 Indian River Co t ImpAac ttt`riment' DRAFT single family school impact fees adopted by other counties throughout Florida has been prepared. Table VII -13 presents this comparison. Table VII -13 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison County(1)2 Miami -Dade County Date of Last Update() 1995 Adoption z Percentage("Fee(2) 100% / Adopted Single Family Impact : $2,448 Fee @ 100%(3) $2,448 Citrus County 2014 50%,/ - $1,261 $2,522 Hernando County 2005 50% $2,133 $4,266 Hillsborough County 2004 _92% ' `, $4,000 $4,348 Volusia County 2013 ,% 67% `\. $3,000 $4,483 St. Johns County 2018 , 100% `$4,725 $4,725 Flagler County 2004 \ ., 76% $3;606 \ $4,756 Indian River County (Calculated)(4) 2019 N/A N/A $4,680 Nassau County -2017 \10‘0%,-/ $5,431 \ c-, $5,431 St. Lucie County(5) 2009 100% 7 $6,529 $5,447 Lee County(5) 2015 45% ` \ , $2,605 $5,484 Martin County 2006 100% \ \ $5,567 $5,567 Indian River County (Current)(4) 2014 28% $1,702 $6,077 Manatee County '` 2017 100% \ $6,127 $6,127 Palm Beach County ', 2019 N/A $4,237 $6,956 Marion County(5)h 2006 48% $3,967 $7,375 Sarasota County-- \� \. ,/ 2015 , 26% $2,032 $7,835 Orange County. _ _ \ 2016, '' _ 100% $8,784 $8,784 Pasco County , 2017. 79% $7,128 $9,028 Broward.County(6) \ '\ \\ 2017 N/A $6,888 $9,049 Clay County., '�, 2009 77% $7,034 $9,096 Lake County ''ti ' 2015 ' 100% $9,324 $9,324 Brevard County \, '\- 2015 50% $5,097 $10,193 Polk County \. 2015 50% $5,242 $10,484 Collier County(5) f' 2015 67% $8,790 $11,164 Osceola County 2017 100% $11,823 $11,823 Seminole County 2017 73% $9,000 $12,322 1) Fees in counties tagged with an asterisk (*) are currently suspended 2) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with County representatives and Table VII -11 for Indian River County 3) Represents the full calculated fee from each respective technical study 4) Source: Table VII -11 5) Fees are indexed annually 6) Rates shown under Single Family Impact Fee at 100% (Item 3) reflect most recent on-going technical study Tindale Oliver January 2020 96 Indian River Coilp ImpAttacnment DRAFT " Appendix A N Popul`ation: Supplemental Information \ \ • 240 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix A: Population With the exception of the transportation and educational facilities impact fees, all impact fee programs included in this report require the use of population data in calculating current levels of service, performance standards, and demand and credit calculations. With this in mind, a consistent approach to developing population estimates and projections is an important component of the data compilation process. To accurately determine demand for services, as well as to be consistent with Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, not only the residents, or permanent population of the County, but also the seasonal residents and visitors were considered. Seasonal residents include visitors and,part-time\ residents, which are defined as living in Indian River County for less than six months each year»Therefore, for purposes of calculating future demand for capital facilities for each impact fee program area, the weighted seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. References to \ population contained in this report pertain to ,,the, weighted seasonal -pdpulation, unless otherwise noted. Indian River County provides all of the services areas includediri the impact fee program countywide, with the exception -of the following three program areas: • Law enforcement;' which. is only provided in unincorporated county; • Parks and recreation services, also provided only in unincorporated county; and • Emergency, services, hich are provided countywide with the exception of the Town of Indian:River Shores. \• '\ > ' Given the_, differences in services areas, population estimates are provided separately for these three areas. `. ? Table A-1 presents`the population trend for Indian River County. The projections indicate that the current weighted `seasbnal population of the County is approximately 162,800 and is estimated to increase to 211,400 by 2045. Based on these estimates, the County's projected population growth rate averages 1.0 percent per year between 2019 and 2045. Tindale Oliver January 2020 A-1 Indian River Co 4 Impktttacnme t' DRAFT Table A-1 Weighted Seasonal Population Trends and Projections Year 2000 Indian River County") 119,351 Unincorporated Indian River County(2) 75,723 IRC, Excluding Indian River Shores") 115,707 2001 121,732 77,277 118,028 2002 124,110 78,824 120,426 2003 126,869 80,523 123,128 2004 131,175 84,000 , , 127,403 2005 134,573 86,741 / 130,792 2006 139,121 89,255 / / 135,292 2007 143,177 92,824\ , 139,413 2008 145,212 93,90'5 ; \ \ 141,287 2009 145,356 94,014/ '\ \141,452 2010 145,854 / 96,546 , 1'41,732 2011 146,325 / 96,955 142;202 2012 147,118 Y . /97,447 142,967 \_ 2013 147,266 \, \97,465 143,1'09 \ 2014 148,710 \\ 98;280 / \ 144,530 \ `,. 2015 151,212 100,037 / ,/ 146,997 \.. 2016 154,281 104207 ' 150,018 2017 156,970 103,9471 `\ 152,610 2018 159,987 106,134 \ \ 155,553 --2020 165,651 109,330 \ -\161,001 2021 "-'•1167,985 110,871 \ 163,270 ,2022.- , 170,488 112,522 165,702 \2023 \173,029 114,199 168,172 2024 \ 175,607 115,900 170,679 2025N N, 178,259 117,651 173,256 2026 \ \,`180,273 '-`-,, 118,980 175,213 2027 \, 182,383-". 120,372 177,263 `2028`5• \ 184,516 --,_ '121,780 179,337 2029, , : 186,674 '-='123,205 181,435 2030 \ \ 188;819\ 124,620 183,518 2031 • " \ 190,537 , \ 125,755 185,189 , 2032 \ .192,271 \ / 126,899 186,873 `\ 2033 194,020 128,053 188,574 \. 2034 195,786 129,219 190,291 \2035, 1, 197,554 130,386 192,009 2036 \ / ,198,996 131,337 193,410 2037` ; 200,449 132,296 194,822 2038 ' 201,912 133,261 196,244 2039 203,385 134,234 197,676 2040 204,922 135,248 199,170 2041 206,213 136,101 200,424 2042 207,512 136,958 201,687 2043 208,819 137,821 202,958 2044 210,135 138,689 204,237 2045 211,447 139,555 205,512 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-16 2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-17 3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-18 Tindale Oliver January 2020 A-2 Impag,tac lmeni 1 Indian River Co l# date St d DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the impact fee calculations are the following: • Single Family; • Multi -Family; • Mobile Home. Tables A-2 through A-4 presents the number of persons per housing type for the residential categories identified above in Indian River County for each associated impact fee area. The tables present the persons per housing unit by each housing type based on weighted seasonal population. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. Table A-2' \\ Persons per Housing Unit by\Housing Type (Countywide4017) Single Family Housing Type Population") Housing Units(2) 120,416. " / 52,438 Ratio(3) Population / Housing Units(4) 2.30 - Less than 1,500 sf - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or greater 83% 1.91 100% 2.30 112% 2.58 Multi -Family 24,485 \ 19,736 Mobile Home 9,270 \6,205, 1.24 1.49 Weighted Average 154,1711 78,379 1.97 1) Source: 2017 American `Commuriity Survey (ACS), 5 -Year Estimates, Table B25033 (adjusted for seasonal population) 2) Source: 2017 ACS, 5 -Year Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios d7eloped-based on nati`onal`PPH data derived from the 2017 American Housing Survey 4) Population (Item. 1) divided by'housing unifs-(402). Single family residential tiers are adjusted by the ratios developed using the 2017 AHS data,(Item 3). \ \ �\ '`.TTable A-3 Persons per Housing Unit by Housing Type (Unincorporated Indian River County, 2017) Single Family Housing Type Population") Housing Units(2) 78,526 33,740 Ratio(3) Population / Housing Units(4) 2.33 - Less than 1,500 sf - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or greater 83% 1.93 100% 2.33 112% 2.61 Multi -Family 16,582 12,444 Mobile Home 6,390 4,757 1.33 1.34 Weighted Average 101,4981 50,941 1.99 1) Source: 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), 5 -Year Estimates, Table B25033 (adjusted for seasonal population) 2) Source: 2017 ACS, 5 -Year Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2017 American Housing Survey 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). Single family residential tiers are adjusted by the ratios developed using the 2017 AHS data (Item 3). Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co t ee date ST c A-3 ImpattFaCllm@n DRAFT Table A-4 Persons per Housing Unit by Housing Type (Indian River County Excluding Indian River Shores, 2017) Housing Type Single Family Housing Populations')(2) Units 117,046 49,939 Ratio") Population / Housing Units") 2.34 - Less than 1,500 sf - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or greater 83% 1.94 100% 2.34 112% 2.62 Multi -Family 23,522 ,..18,392 Mobile Home 9,270 / 6,205 1.28 1.49 Weighted Average 149,8381/ 74,536 2.01 1) Source: 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), 5 -Year Estimates, Table B25033 (adjusted for seasonal population) 2) Source: 2017 ACS, 5 -Year Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived,f or m the 2017 America Housing Survey 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item2). Single family residential tier care adjusted by the ratios developed using the 2017 AHS data (Item 3). \ Functional Population Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis,'is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that`demand for certain facilities is generally proportional/to the_presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to\simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Function' population is -the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 2'4�hour--day, 7 -days,' week basis.`A perso`n-living and working in the community will have the functional,population coefficient.\of4.0. A person living in the community but working t elsewhere may spend only 16`;hours pe? -day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends.for-a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128 -hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week).'A personcommuting into the County to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50 -hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population needed to be served. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Coit ee date A-4 ImpaAtttac lment di DRAFT This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992)4. By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future years can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional p pulation is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Indian River County's functional`population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was conducted. \Tables A-5 and A-6 ' present this analysis for the County._ Based on thisanalysis, people in the County, on average, spend 16.5 hours each day at their place of residence: This corresponds to approximately 69 percent of each 24-hour day at their place of residence\and,the other 31 percent away from home. �\ Table A-5 Population & Employment Characteristics Variable Total workers,livirig,inIndian River County(l) Figure 53,515 (2) , ' Total Census\Populatio`n (2010) 138,028 Total workers as a‘percerit\of population(3) 38.8% School age population (5-17j/ears) (2010)(4) 19,444 School age populationas a percent of population(5) 14.1% Populatiori'net ofrworkers and school age population(6) 65,069 Other population as a percent of total population') 47.1% 1) Source: Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), 2010 2) Source: 2010 U.S Census, Table P-1 3) Total workers (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2) 4) Source: 2010 U.S Census, Table QT -P1 5) Total school age population (Item 4) divided by 2010 population (Item 2) 6) Total population (Item 2) Tess total workers (Item 1) and school age population (Item 4) 7) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 6) divided by population (Item 2) 4 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992) Tindale Oliver Indian River Co rat ky January 2020 A-5 Impact€ee Update St y DRAFT Table A-6 Residential Coefficient for 24 -Hour Functional Population Hours at Percent of Population Group Residence") Population") Workers 13 38.8% Effective Hours") 5.0 Students 15 14.1% 2.1 Other 20 47.1% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence(4) 16.5 Residential Functional Population Coefficients) 69.0% 1) Estimated / 2) Source: Table A-5 /'\\ 3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by the percent of,population (Item 2) 4) Sum of effective hours (Item 3) /s \,-' 5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24 '\ �''. The resulting percentage from Table A-6 is used in,the calculation of the residential coefficient �• \` \ for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented'in Table A-7. \ \i . i / Non -Residential Functional Population \ \ Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses,\developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing estimated functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating,functional 'resident population, which is now widely used in the industry. This method uses trip generation/data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Tindale Oliver's Trip Characteristics Database, information of passengers per vei icle'workers'per veh cle; l gth of time -spent at the land use, and other variables. \\\ . \ N „, ~' \ �.,, �'�,` Specific calculations include: s • Total one-way trips per. employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors peri pct unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker -hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Coslay ee date St d A-6 Impart i Clln1en DRAFT Table A-7 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential uses in Indian River County, which are used to estimate the 2019 functional population for all service areas in Tables A-8, A-9, and A-10. Tindale Oliver January 2020 A-7 ImpaAt taciiment' d1 Indian River Co aty ee date a) ea H H CUU 0 U c 0 fQ Q 0 a CO 0 U c LL a L cu w O _ C m b n 0 .. 0 C O F w _ CO 3 0 OU LL a v of M Ci .+ N 0 O N 0 .I N 0 N N 0 et N .-I N N 0 OL5'0 NO 0 (1) Assumed (2) Trips per employee represents all trips divided by the number of employees and is based on Trip Generation 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017) as follows: ITE Code 110 at 3.05 weekday trips per employee, Volume 2 - Industrial Land Uses, page 11 ITE Code 140 at 2.47 weekday trips per employee, Volume 2 - Industrial Land Uses, page 58 ITE Code 150 at 5.05 weekday trips per employee, Volume 2 - Industrial Land Uses, page 77 ITE Code 710 at 3.28 weekday trips per employee, Volume 2 Office Land Uses, page 12 ITE Code 730 at 7.45 weekday trips per employee, Volume 2 Office Land Uses, page 180 ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from Volume 2 - Retail Land Uses, page 138. Trips per retail employee from the following table: Assumed Sq Ft per Trips per Weighted Retail Scale Center Size Trip Rate Employeea'I Employee Share Trips Neighborhood <50k sq.ft. 50 75.05 802 60 45.0% 27.00 Community 50k -250k sq.ft. 250 44.84 975 44 35.0% 15.40 Regional 250k -500k sq.ft. 500 35.92 1,043 37 15.0% 5.55 Super Reg. 500k -1000k sq.ft. 1,000 28.78 676 19 5.0% 0.95 Sum of Weighted Trips/lk sq.ft. - - - 48.90 (3) Trip per employee (Item 2) multiplied by 0.5. (4) Journey -to -Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1.32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip (5) Daily Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1.38 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.73 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip (6) [Daily occupants per trip (Item 5) multiplied by one-way trips per employee (Item 3)] - [(Journey -to -Work occupants per trip (Item 4) multiplied by one-way trips per employee (Item 3)] (7) Typical number of days per week that indicated industries provide services and relevant government services are available. (8) Table A-7 for residential and the equation below to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land -use categories except residential includes the following: ((Days per Week x Employee Hours in Place) +. (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trio x Days per Week) (24 Hours per Day x 7 Days per Week) (9) Trips per employee for the services category is the average trips per employee for the following service related land use categories: quality restaurant, high -turnover restaurant, supermarket, hotel, motel, elementary school, middle school, high school, hospital, medical office, and church. Source for the trips per employee figure from ITE, 10th ed., when available, or else derived from the square feet per employee for the appropriate land use category from the Energy Information Administration from Table B- 1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey, 2003. (10) Includes Federal Civilian Government, Federal Military Government, and State and Local Government categories. (11) Square feet per retail employee from the Energy Information Administration from Table B-1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey, 2003 ,:-..0 _ n u k a 0 0 0 0 ui 0 0 0 0 ui 0 0 ui 0 0 ri 0 0 ui 0 0 is 0 0 r-: v o. .- o a o 1 'c 0 " 0 co' o. _a V ' — O 2 c CP C c n n=a F > > E CI w" rs — U o. a o t= E c = 2 y o a. a � E v H m � v C 8 3 w a � a o 2 o 0 0 .-1 0 0 .-i 0 0 ri 0 0 0 0 .. 0 u0 .. 0 0 ri 0 0 -ri 0 0 "i 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0i 0.4 �f. CO , 1 CO C o . vi 0 1 _CO.4 W M CO M CO M CO .M CO-, CO ;M N N M N M N N CO N CO N CO N CO N CO N O .Q F ` V ''_ .4 .. .y- .4, N -.4 e .. m N O CO ul O M 2.47 ut O ill 0 O U 48.90 3.281 28.38 7.451 o 0 of 0 0 of 0 of 0 0 ai 0 ai 0 of of 0 of of \ Z OTT 140 O .. N .. 820 0 N Q Z 730 Natural Resources Construction m � 5 1Transportation, Communication, Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade rnance, Insurance, Real Estate Services19l Governmentlt01 DRAFT Table A-8 Countywide Functional Population (2019) Population Category 2019 Weighted Population Indian River County 1 Baseline Data(1)Coefficient(2) 162,787 Functional Functional Resident Population(3) 0.690 112,323 Employment Category Natural Resources 3,467_ 0.379 1,314 Construction 5,7,25 0.271 1,551 Manufacturing/2,310 0.270 624 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities % 2,377 `, 0.271 644 Wholesale Trade / ` " ' 1,126 -. ` 0.272 306 Retail Trade / 10,368 ` \ 1.124 11,654 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ( 11,227 \ `ter 0.292 3,278 Services 39,978 " \ 0;570 22,787 Government Services532 -' 0.451 2,450 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 44,608 2019 Total Functional Population(5) 156,931 1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2019 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Table A-7 - 3) Functional populations -calculated by multiplying the Indian River County baseline data (Item 1) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) ' \ 4) The total employmentpopulation by,category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total .functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population / \ \ \ ' \ \\ Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co sl* date 5T d A-9 Impakt ecli ment i DRAFT Table A-9 Unincorporated Indian River County Functional Population (2019) 2019 Weighted Population 107,439 0.690 74,133 Employment Category Natural Resources 2,150 0.379 815 Construction 2,691 'I • 0.271 729 Manufacturing • ,809 0.270 218 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities /1,093 \ 0.271 296 Wholesale Trade ,, ‘., . 721 \\ \, 0.272 196 Retail Trade ,/ 5,495 ' , \ 1.124 6,176 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 4,154 \ ` , 0.292 1,213 Services .„ ` . 21,188 \\\ 0:570 12,077 Government Services , `�.. 1,738 �, X0.451 784 Total Employment by Category Population°� • / \ , % 22,504 2019 Total Functional Populations 1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2019 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Table A-7 '\ 3) Functional population is calculated -by multiplying the Indian River County Unincorporated baseline data (Item 1) by the functional resident coefficient`'(Item 2) 4) The total employment population by,category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural,reources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum-of.the residential functional population and the employment functional population- • Tindale Oliver Indian River Co }a,y January 2020 A-10 Imps gcVia DRAFT Table A-10 Indian River County, Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population (2019) Population Category 2019 Weighted Population Indian River County Excluding IRS (1) 158,218 Functional Resident Coefficient(2) 0.690 Functional Population(3) 109,170 Employment Category Natural Resources 3,467 _ 0.379 1,314 Construction 5,64/ ' 0.271 1,521 Manufacturing 24310 , 0.270 624 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 2,377; `\ 0.271 644 Wholesale Trade f \1\--. 1,126'\,, \, 0.272 306 Retail Trade % ,, 10,368 \ \'\ 1.124 11,654 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ,/ 11,002 ` `e, " 0.292 3,213 Services \ \ 39,578., \ '0.570 22,559 Government Services _ `, '\ 5,3.7.8 :� `0.451 2,425 Total Employment by Category Population(4) \ / "_,, 44,260 2019 Total Functional Population(5) ``� \ 153,430 1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2019 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Table A-7 - \� \\ 3) Functional population is'calculated.by multiplying the Indian River County, excluding I data (Item 1) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) 4) The total employment,population bytategory is the sum of the employment figures categories (e.g., natural`resoarces, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional populations.the`sum-ofthe,residential functional population and populratio ` \` �.. Table A=11 presents the County's an ual functional population figures from 2000 through 2045, ndian River Shores baseline from the nine employment the employment functional based on the 20.19 functional population figure from Tables A-8 through A-10, and the annual population groWth'rates from the'population figures previously presented in Table A-1. 1 Tindale Oliver January 2020 A-11 Indian River Co Impkttiacnmentd�I DRAFT Table A-11 Indian River County Functional Population (2000 - 2045) Year 2000 1) Indian River County(i) 115,157 Functional Population Unincorporated Indian River County( 2) 68,070 IRC Excluding Indian River Shores(3) 112,484 2001 117,460 69,499 114,734 2002 119,809 70,889 117,029 2003 122,445 72,449 119,604 2004 126,608 75,564 123,790 2005 129,900 78,058 /127,132 2006 134,317 80,322 - 131;454 2007 138,212 83,535 ,/ 135,398 2008 140,147 84,537/ '.. 137,158 2009 140,287 84,622'.• 137,295 2010 140,708 86,907., 137;570 '`,, 2011 141,130 / 87,255 137,983, 2012 141,836 / ' 87,691 138,673 \. 2013 141,978 \ '87,691 138,812 2014 143,398 `•.88;393 `140,200 2015 145,836 89,984, / 142,583 2016 148,753 91,964 " ,/ 145,577 2017 ' 151,282 93,527 \ , ` 148,052 2018 154,156 95,491 \ "•... 150,865 2019 156,931 96,637 153,430 2020 159,756 98,376 \ 156492 2021 161,993 99,753 158,379-,_ ,/" 2022 164,423 101,249 160,755 `. 2023 .. \ 166,889 102,768 163,166- 2024 '169,392 104,310 165,613 • 2025 `,. .171,933 105,875 168,097 `. 2026 r 173,824 107,040 169,946 `2027\ ,' 175,910, 108,324 171,985 2028 .478,021 ` 109,624 174,049 2029 \ 180,157`. "-_110,939 176,138 2030 ` 1182,139 .. 112459 178,076 ',2031, \ 183,778 113,168 179,679 2032 ••, 185,432 114,187 181,296 2033, 1874101 \_ 115,215 182,928 2034 `,. :, 188,785. 116,252 184,574 2035 ' .. 190,484 117,298 186,235 2036 191,817 118,119 187,539 \, 2037 ; 193,160 118,946 188,852 '2033% 194,512 119,779 190,174 `. 2039 195,874 120,617 191,505 2040 ,. 197,441 121,582 193,037 2041 198,626 12 2, 311 194,195 2042 199,818 123,045 195,360 2043 201,017 123,783 196,532 2044 202,223 124,526 197,711 2045 203,436 125,273 198,897 Table A-8for 2 01 9 Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. 2) Table A-9 for 2019. Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. 3) Table A-10 for 2019. Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co ee date l A-12 ImpgtigCti meAt DRAFT Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population coefficient estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As mentioned previously, different functional population coefficients need to be developed for each impact fee service area to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Tables A-12, A-13, and A-14. �The,average number of persons per housing unit in Indian River County was calculated for the single family, multi -family, and mobile home land uses, based on information obtained from'the'2017,ACS. Besides the residential land uses, Tables A-12, A-13, and A-14 also include transient land uses, such ,as hotels, motels, assisted living facilities (ALF), and nursing homes.( As' mentioned prebusly, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fe service areas to be analyzed. Secondary sources, such as Indian River County,Chamber of Comrr a e,and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, ALF, and nursing home land uses. ` • Non -Residential Land Uses `\ t A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table A-15 presents basic assumptions ;and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per -impact unit, one-way trips.per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons 'etc.) per impact unit visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non- -., residential land uses.'The\fi al`column in the -table shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the t select impact�fee,programs and will be Used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the'select impact fee schedules. ti / �- Tindale Oliver Indian River Coli dy January 2020 A-13 Impart, ee ljpme r Residential: Single Family (detached) N r. o C 3 O ei vN ry ry Q e d O A a . . l N n N m m m m G / .m-1 Ory{; J r O / . / / / /'' N N N .-1 10 N / IsTT w N .-1 m ,CO, O' ......4 V f �', l . / l I -I 01 .-1 2.301 03 V1 N IN .-i V rl .�-1 N N N O .-1 1 1 OTZ 210 O N N N 0 1.4N 240 310 0 01 252/620 7 SI 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v E ° o room v 0 a Less than 1,500 sf 1,500 to 2,499 sf 1 2,500 sf or greater (Multi -Family 1 O 2 d d N 'Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) 1 ti O a` u 0 0 a W g E E 0 N V 0 E V K O E 0 O j lir/ /(/� , � /r a1 Jt fff /// / `/' o c U c U ca a)CD c a E Table A-13 Residential: Single Family (detached)• Less than 1,500 sf 1 du .1 210 11.931 -1 �`__ - -� -I -I - _ -I -I _ 1.33 03 OOO .-i .-i 03 03 o 0 Transient, Assisted, Group: Hotel 1 room 1 310 1 2.19[ __-72%I 1.581 121. ', 0.581 91 71 1.01 CO 0 0 0 in rr m tri o .-i • N b WT01 in CO .I o A' 0 n 2.33 2.61 CO m 06 ,-i .-1 . o N .-1 O O N N N N N 0 N N O N 320 252/620 np np np np room bed _ 1,500 to 2,499 sf 2,500 sf or greater Multi -Family Mobile Home Motel Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) Residential. Single Family (detached) Less than 1,500 sf 1 du 1 210 1 1.941 -I : -I. \ -I -I -1 -I 1.34 VD W .-i . 0.88 1.03 Transient, Assisted, Group: Hotel 1 room 1 310 1 2.191 '72%1 1.581 121 \ 0.581 91 71 1.01 o CO o 0 N n m mm .--i 0 G .y� /1 /'I .N-1 �� Ln � .y p,. N /(. st N 90 Tr tD n N N CO a .-i .-1 m 8 N .-1 210 210 N O N NN O N 320 252/620 np np v "0 room bed _ 1,500 to 2,499 sf 2,500 sf or greater Multi -Family Mobile Home Motel Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) w 8 Q 0 ▪ C, in ✓ 8 O n a 0 104 E E m E E V d E U V 0 E E 0 Tindale Oliver January 2020 V E 8 P. �.. 8 sa 0 er 3 o W $ gADD , ..4 o INDUSTRIAL _-.. .. ._ 140 Manufacturin. 1 000 s( 3.93117E 10th Edition 1 — 2.47L ! 1.591 r 1.971 91 1.46! 1.29! 1.001 SI 0.46 odd OE0 95'2 ... .. n LA .4 2.41 0.05 GOVERNMENTAL 732 'Post Office _ 1 1,000 st d1. / 103.94117E 100dldition _kI - 2&371, 4.101 51.971 91 1.271 61.901 0.251_- 51_1.56 671 hall 1 bcd 11 \ 1.00117E 10th Edition (Adjusted) 1 - 2.301 0.431 0.501 91 1.271 0.211 1.001 71 0.17 MISCELLANEOUS - o� ooaoNoee- t 843 E 5 a 14Q . = g El �z 8 • g k 1.8 $ E i C N efl8 2. r F ;111 A mER t .,-' . r S E t i ' r '§ L' _- LS c o W t 3 ` m. t c 5a55a $n ^ 5 �o LE Ntan s<g Ko�swSe°o° 8>'8 aE�5rcRo ,EE ss108022 $g mNNNw,� N,.mN�m rv�nnrvn-rvry rvnrvnn ,.� �nrvnnNN..N,. 8888M� .. .. .: d d '^88 .-;,'.0, .. .. 88828�8888 o 000.rod.+oo ;8888 o.. .. .. .. 88 N.. o88888888z1 o.. .. ..-.NnnNd ..n mg ar o808 8 D M����FM2P ...... - '.". S 88p Ren m6 N. N�8rv* Ngo 8x8 D.. I" ...4.4 w 4.4.. ., ...4 ry J ..i.4 nk '.i M' .. w a .1.rv. .933 .J � r.4..1.... ff a s a m a a m m m e a a ag .. ^. 4 d Vi a yV n8 oo f' 4 . fry .i ..mg888 888*P ' mi^ NNmo ry / r- Nn \ aiPP .. .. '^ N 28 F.. *'"ti ws mN ry '�v^0o8. mNd .4.4.4 rJ n.JMam �a ,,,Ego .. .no xea888^ NNu4d.v: ^Si.4 .ado .ns%a .: a o0 o 28A488d^8 rJ N.2Dnoo d.. ai���P m < 880888 a *aSw rvrvnN�<n �m `a Qs< m ry s 8 Na ry 8 Cis'33n*r PP P8 FL Studies Blend Ft/ITE10th.__-_ ss g g - ITE 10th Edition (Adjusted) BtendFL/1TE 10th_. ITE 10th Edition Blend Ft/RE 10th 1 ITE 10th Edition ITE 10th Edition F caps b t ' {-5 5 S t= {raw b Blend F2/th Blend 67/176171 1,001 $s C Blend Blend Fl/ITE10th.. ITE 10th Edition l • RE 10th Edition (Adjusted) RE 10th Edition_ !vc,,l., b t = t RE 10th Edman 1TE 10th Edldoi1. P. C`a a t" w t f coc e E ' 1_.{{,, e RE 10th Edition ,r ITE 10th Eddion i Regression analyses ITE 10th Edition )Adjusted) 8n n�7im.. m8 °'� " '� ?888 m P^ mg:4 �wm�a 848.m.a *8P mm oiJ 88 nm ,Q 28$38888 vd„ nnnv 55�255�2Q52 6b6E256 55�255�2p52 QQQQQQ ZS66 n $ s pp S3 pp5Q�5Q�QQQQQQ S! H! QQ !; r : Qx Q� 2525 QQQQQQQQ 2SE6S bi � pp i 2f Q v 5 8oEY n8a 8 IGeneml Offce Bulling I Research & Development Center IBank/Savings Walk.In Bank/Savings Drlve40 8 f Nigh -Cube Transloed and Short -Term Storage Warehouse (General Light Industrial Concrete Plant Sand Mining Eg8 41 cb; g ry 33E 3 c 8 m o 6 z Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/Drlve.Thru LSuromobiket Automobile Care Center 3 R 3 88 Racquet Ball/Health Ctub/Dance Studio Public Park Direly Government 0t02 Complex Day Care Center Hospital „ 6 Movie Theater w/MatInee Elementary School (Private, 0-1) u .,,8...51 _d g University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students Fire & Rescue Station nn$mm q4°O ^. ..7c mgigoSm.mgiE - ee §:1 Fn mu�8$3 urvi�numi R v o o o N c DRAFT Table A-16 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Countywide Year 2000 Permanent l Population"'(2) 112,947 Seasonal, Occasional, Recreational 6,404 Total Weighted Season Population (3( 119,351 2001 115,200 6,532 121,732 2002 117,450 6,660 124,110 2003 120,062 6,807 126,869 2004 124,137 7,038 131,175 2005 127,352 7,221 /134,573 2006 131,656 7,465 ,/ 139,121 2007 135,494 7,683 / 143,177 2008 137,420 7,792 "145,212 2009 137,557 7,799./ 145,356 2010 138,028 / 7,826 145,854 2011 138,694 / 7,631 146,325 2012 139,446 / .' 7,672 147,118 2013 139,586 7,680 147,266 2014 140,955 \., 7,755 148,710 2015 143,326 ' . 7;886 /151)212 2016 _ 146,410 ',7,871 / 154,281 2017. 148,962 8,008 156,970 2018 151,825 8,162 " 159,987 2019 154,482 8,305 162,787 2020 157,200 8,451 N. 165,651 2021 159,542 8,443 167,985 2022 161,919 8,569 170,488 '2023 164,332 8,697 173,029 , 2024 166,781 8,826 175,607 2025 ` 169,300 8,959 178,259 2026 171,281 8,992 180,273 2027. 173,285 9,098 182,383 2028 -- -175,312 9,204 184,516 ' 2029 _-_ 177,363 9,311 186,674 2030 179,400 "`.. 9,419 188,819 \2031•. 181,033 ; �. 9,504 190,537 2032 '\ 182,680 '� : 9,591 192,271 2033', 1..184,342 9,678 194,020 ".2034 \ 186,020 9,766 195,786 2035 ''•.187,700 9,854 197,554 2036 189,070 9,926 198,996 1.2037 190,450 9,999 200,449 2038 191,840 10,072 201,912 j 2039 193,240 10,145 203,385 2040 194,700 10,222 204,922 2041 195,927 10,286 206,213 2042 197,161 10,351 207,512 2043 198,403 10,416 208,819 2044 199,653 10,482 210,135 2045 200,900 10,547 211,447 ti 1) Source: 2000 through 2019 is the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). For 2020 through 2045 BEBR, Volume 52, Bulletin 183, April 2019 (Medium -Level Projections). Interim years were interpolated. 2) Source: Seasonal Population based on the Indian River 2030 Comprehensive. The figures are weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in the County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 months divided by 12 months = 0.42) 3) Sum of permanent population (Item 1) and seasonal population (Item 2) Tindale Oliver Indian River CoAktly day January 2020 A-18 Impktt aciime DRAFT Table A-17 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Indian River Coun Un' Year 2000 Permanent Population�i 71,660 ty incorporate( Seasonal, Occasional, Recreationalili 4,063 Total weighted Season Population(3) 75,723 2001 73,130 4,147 77,277 2002 74,595 4,229 78,824 2003 76,202 4,321 80,523 2004 79,493 4,507 84,000 2005 82,087 4,654 ,/ 86,741 2006 84,466 4,789 /_ ' 89,255 2007 87,843 4,981 92,824 2008 88,866 5,039 / `93,905 2009 88,969 x5,045 ' 94;014 2010 91,366 / 5,180 96,546 2011 91,899 j. .5,056 96,955 2012 92,365. ,/ 5,082 97,447 2013 92,382 .. y 5,083 97,465 2014 93,155 \ \ 5,125 ;98,280 2015 94,820 \ 5;217 /100,037 2016 - 96,993 '5,214 _ / 102,207 2017 98,644 5,303 -' ';103,947 2018 100,719 5,415 , \ 106,134 2019 101,958 5,481 107,439 2020 103,752 5,578 -\109;330 2021 105,298 5,573 110,871 . 2022 106,867 5,655 112,522 2023 108,459 5,740 114,199 \2024. 110,075 5,825 115,900 2025 , 111,738 5,913 117,651 2026 _ 1 113,045 5,935 118,980 2027 . 1 114,368 6,004 120,372 2028 ' "115,706 6,074 121,780 • 2029' `,117,060 _ 6,145 123,205 2030 118,404 • \ 6,216 124,620 2031 ". 119,482 \ '1 6,273 125,755 2032., .\, 120,569 "' 6,330 126,899 2033 1 \121,666 6,387 128,053 '2034 ',_ 122,773 6,446 129,219 2035 123,882 6,504 130,386 't• 2036 124,786 6,551 131,337 2037 125,697 6,599 132,296 j 2038 126,614 6,647 133,261 2039 127,538 6,696 134,234 2040 128,502 6,746 135,248 /2041 129,312 6,789 136,101 2042 130,126 6,832 136,958 2043 130,946 6,875 137,821 2044 131,771 6,918 138,689 2045 132,594 6,961 139,555 1) Source: 2000 through 2019 is the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). For 2020 through 2045 BEBR, Volume 52, Bulletin 183, April 2019 (Medium -Level Projections). Interim years were interpolated. 2) Source: Seasonal Population based on the Indian River 2030 Comprehensive. The figures are weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in the County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 months divided by 12 months = 0.42) 3) Sum of permanent population (Item 1) and seasonal population (Item 2) Tindale Oliver Indian River CoyNcfy January 2020 A-19 Imp cu eeu ime i DRAFT Table A-18 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Indian Ri r Shores ver County, Year 2000 Excluding Permanent Population''' 109,499 Indian Seasonal, Occasional, Recreational Ixl 6,208 Rive Total weighted Season Population'3' 115,707 2001 111,695 6,333 118,028 2002 113,964 6,462 120,426 2003 116,521 6,607 123,128 2004 120,567 6,836 127,403 2005 123,774 7,018 130,792 2006 128,033 7,259 / 135;292 2007 131,932 7,481 / 139,413 2008 133,706 7,581 141,287 2009 133,862 7,590 141,452 2010 134,127 : '7,605 141,732 2011 134,786 ,, 7,416 142,202 2012 135,511 / ;' 7,456 142,967 2013 135,646 / 7,463 143,109 2014 136,993 \ 7,537 144,530 2015 139,331 \ \ 7,666 146,997 2016 142,364 \ 7;654 ,150,018 2017 - 144,824 7,786 / 1-52,610 2018 147,617 7;936 -155,553 2019 150,146 8,072 158,218 2020 152,787 8,214 \, 161,001 2021 155,064 8,206 `163,270 2022 157,374 8,328 165,702 2023 159,719 8,453 168,172 ' 2024 162,100 8,579 170,679 2025 164,548 8,708 173,256 N2026 , 166,473 8,740 175,213 2027 ' 168,421 8,842 177,263 2028 170,391 8,946 179,337 2029 --�_ 172,385 9,050 181,435 /2030 174,364 9,154 183,518 2031 `--175,952,_ 9,237 185,189 2032 177;552 `,.., 9,321 186,873 `2033 ` - 179,168 `-. : 9,406 188,574 2034 - \� 180,799 9,492 190,291 2035 ' :; \182,431 9,578 192,009 \ 2036 \ 183,763 9,647 193,410 2037 "185,104 9,718 194,822 2038 186,455 9,789 196,244 2039 187,816 9,860 197,676 2040 189,235 9,935 199,170 2041 190,427 9,997 200,424 2042 191,627 10,060 201,687 2043 192,834 10,124 202,958 2044 194,049 10,188 204,237 2045 19 5, 261 10,251 205,512 1) Source: 2000 through 2019 is the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). For 2020 through 2045 BEBR, Volume 52, Bulletin 183, April 2019 (Medium -Level Projections). Interim years were interpolated. 2) Source: Seasonal Population based on the Indian River 2030 Comprehensive. The figures are weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in the County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 months divided by 12 months = 0.42) 3) Sum of permanent population (Item 1) and seasonal population (Item 2) Tindale Oliver Indian River CatiQty }�d�y January 2020 A-20 Impkklee rMtg i I DRAFT Appendix B(' .. /Building and Land Valdes: Supplemental Information 261 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix B: Building and Land Values This Appendix provides a summary of building and land value estimates for emergency services, law enforcement, public buildings, and parks and recreation impact fees. Information related to cost estimates for transportation is included in Appendix D and for educational facilities in Appendix G. Building Values f \ To estimate building and recreational facility value,-tlie follovving information was reviewed: • Recent construction by Indian River County, as applicable, • Cost estimates for future facilities; \\ \\\ F \ • Insurance values of existing facilities; • Cost increases observed since the 2014 technical study; and • Data from other jurisdictions for recently completed facilities. The following paragraphs provide a summary for each service area. ; Public Buildings \ / Public costs can vary. significantly depending on the design and amenities. For example, as shown in Table B-1; the. County's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is a significantly more expensive building than general administrative buildings. This analysis estimates the current marginal cost�of'types of faciliti s,the Cou ty is likely to building in the future. More specifically, the following analysis is used in;estimating public buildings cost. • The 2014 technical study estimated the cost of primary buildings at $210 per square foot and the cost of support buildings at $50 per square foot. A review of construction costs trends published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) suggested that construction costs increased by 15 percent since then. Applying this increase to the 2014 study estimates results in approximately $240 per square foot for primary buildings and $60 per square foot for support buildings. • The current insurance values of primary buildings average $230 per square foot with contents, approximately $85 per square foot for support buildings (excluding the parking garage), and $40 per square foot for the garage. It should be noted that insurance values Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-1 Indian River Call Impart m tacnen DRAFT tend to be conservative estimates because insurance companies exclude the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts of the structure since they would not have to be rebuilt if the structure was damaged or lost. • Tindale Oliver supplemented the local data with cost estimates utilized in recently completed public buildings impact fee studies. This analysis reviewed data from studies conducted between 2016 and 2019, which ranged from $150 per square foot to $250 per square foot for primary buildings, and $85 per square foot to $100 per square foot for support facilities. Given this information, this study uses $240 per square foot;for primary buildings, $100 per square foot for support buildings (excluding garage)>and $50 per. square foot for the parking garages. Table B-1 provides a summary of this information. In'the---case of EOC, because the County is unlikely to build another similar facility, this building is valued atthe estimated cost for \ /; Table B-1 \ Public Buildings -- Building Cost primary buildings. Source/Variable Primary Buildings (Cost per Sq Ft) 2014 Study Estimateill $210 2014 Estimate Indexed(2) $242 - Support Facilities (Cost per Sq Ft) $50 $58 ENR Building Costindex (2013-19) (3) 15% - i 2019 insurance Values: l41 Office/General Buildings \, �` Building Value per Sq Ft ''- $193 Content Value Total Value per Sq Ft per Sq Ft $36 $229 EOC \. \, \,* ``, $475 $104 $579 Parking Garage �, ` $42 $0 $42 Support`Buildings $68 $19 $87 Recent Impact Fee Studies_ (2016-2019): Primary Buildings` '\ / Cost per Sq Ft $150- $250 Support Buildings \ $85-$100 Used in the Study - Public Buildings - Primary Buildings Cost per Sq Ft $240 - Support Buildings (Excl Garage) $100 - Support Buildings (Garage) $50 1) Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) 2014 estimate (Item 1) indexed using ENR index (Item 3) 3) Source: Engineers News -Record 4) Source: Indian River County Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-2 Indian River Coo cry ImpAttiee melt I DRAFT Emergency Services For emergency services building cost estimates, the following analysis was used. • The 2014 technical study estimated the cost of fire stations at $260 per square foot. A review of construction costs trends published by ENR suggested that construction costs increased by 15 percent since then. Applying this increase to the 2014 study estimates results in almost $300 per square foot. • Since the last technical study, the County built two new stations: Station 13 in 2015 and Station 14 in 2017. The cost of these stations ranged from $310 per square foot to $330 per square foot. i • Indian River County is planning to build a new station (Station 15) over the next five years. The estimated cost of this station is $300"per, square foot.\ • The current insurance values of fire stations average $220 per square foot with contents, and approximately $115 per square footfor-. supportzbuildings. Itshould be noted that insurance values tend to be conservative estimatestecause insurance'companies exclude the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts of the structure since they would not have to be rebuilt if the structure was damaged or lost. • Tindale Oliver supplemented the local data with cost 'estimates utilized in recently completed fire%EMS. ;im.pact fee studies. This analysireviewed data from studies conducted between 2017;artd 2019, which ranged from $250 per square foot to $350 per square foot for fire,station construction, and $130 per square foot to $250 per square foo _for"support facilities.' Given this'information,'building cost estimates of $300 per square foot for stations and $150 per square foot for,support facilities are used for impact fee calculation purposes. Table B-2 provides a summary ofinformation considered indetermining these figures. Tindale Oliver January 2020 8-3 Indian River Coot ImpaAtt acumen cif DRAFT Table B-2 Emergency Services Building Cost Source/Variable Fire Station Cost per Square Foot 2014 Study Estimated) $260 2014 Estimate Indexed (2) $299 Square Footage 7,416 Cost per Sq Ft $312 Cost $2,314,110 ENR Building Cost Index (2013-19) (3) 15% Recent Construction:(4)Year Built - Station 13 2015 - Station 14 2017 / , /'$2.791,430 8,436 $331 i ,, \ \ 1 Upcoming Construction: i61 / i� - Station 15 12020 ' $2,400,000 \ 8,000 $300 \\ I 2019 Insurance Values: (6)Building Value Content Value per Sq Ft per Sq Ft Fire Stations $197 \ \ $25 1\\ Total Value per Sq Ft $222 Support Buildings $87 \\ \ $29 $116 1 Recent Impact Fee Studies (2017-2019): 1 I Fire Stations Cost per Sq Ft $250 - $350 Support Buildings \ � �_ $130- $250 f Used in the Study`` Emergency Services `,. - Fire,Stations \ \ \ \ Cost per Sq Ft $300 - Support Buildings \ \, IN \ $150 Source:�Indian River County,Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) 2014 estimate. (Item 1) indexed using ENR index (Item 3) 3) Source: Engineers'News-Record' 4) Source: Indian River County 5) Source: Indian River-County,f 6) Source: Indian River County 1) Law Enforcement Facilities The following analysis was conducted for law enforcement building cost estimates. • The 2014 technical study estimated the cost of primary law enforcement buildings at $200 per square foot and $50 per square foot for support facilities. A review of construction costs trends published by ENR suggested that construction costs increased by 15 percent Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-4 Indian River Coy ac men tr�t�r l DRAFT since then. Applying this increase to the 2014 study estimates results in approximately $230 per square foot for primary facilities and $60 per square foot for support facilities. • Since the last technical study, the County built the Aviation Building at a cost of $160 per square foot. • The estimates provided for the Sheriff's Master Plan ranges from $225 per square foot to $300 per square foot depending on building type for hard construction cost only. • The current insurance values of primary buildings average $165 per square foot with contents, and approximately $85 per square foot for,support buildings. As mentioned previously, insurance values tend to be consevative estimates because insurance companies exclude the value of the foundation nd_oer thmore permanent parts of the r structure since they would not have to be built if the structure was damaged or lost. / • Tindale Oliver supplemented the local/data' with cost estimates utilized in recently completed law enforcement impact fee studies. This analysis reviewed data from studies N conducted between 2017 and 2019, which ranged from,$200 per'square foot to $300 per square foot for fire station construction, and,$100'persquare foot fore, upport facilities. \\ Given this information, building cost estimates of $240 pe'r square foot for primary buildings and $120 per square foot for support facilities are used for impact'feecalculation purposes. Table B- 3 provides a summary,yof information considered in determining these figures. Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-5 Indian River Co day` ImpaAtt€acnment I DRAFT Table B-3 Law Enforcement Building Cost Source/Variable Primary Buildings (Admin/Offices) (Cost per Sq Ft) 2014 Study Estimate" $200 2014 ' Estimate . Indexed(2) $230 Support Facilities (Cost per Sq Ft) 1 $50 $58 ENR Building Cost Index (2013-19) (3) 15% Recent Construction: IHJ Year Built Cost - Aviation Building 2014-2018 C ; $2;279;742 Square Footage 14,318 Cost per 1 Sq Ft $159 Upcomin • Construction: (5) ,r \ \ - New HQ Building (Hard Cost) < $28,529,400 \ s'95,098 $300 - New Support Facility (Hard Cost) 1 \ `` $5;719,500 '\25;420 $225 - New Firearms Training Facility (Hard Cost) tie /$6,705,600 27;940 $240 - Total/Weighted Average ' , $40,954,500 148,458 $276 \ \ Project Soft Costs: `�,, ' - Professional Fees'' , 10% of hard cost "` - FF&E Allowance- , ' -, . \ $25 per square foot - Technology Ailovvance \ ` $20 per square foot - Site Development Allowance, $150,000 per acre 1 - Permit an- d Impact'Fees(if req) ---,. TBD 1 2019 Insurance Values: (6) Building Value per Sq Ft Prin ary,Buildings (Admin/Offices) \ \ $134 Content Value per Sq Ft $33 Total Value per Sq Ft $166 Suppori,Buildings \ :\, $68 $15 $83 Recent Impact Fee Studies (2017 2019): 1 Cost per Sq Ft Primary Buildings \\f $200- $300 Support Buildings \ $100 Used in the Study Law Enforcement - Primary Buildings (Admin/Offices) 1 ; Cost per Sq Ft $240 - Support Buildings i $120 1) Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) 2014 estimate (Item 1) indexed using ENR index (Item 3) 3) Source: Engineers News -Record 4) Source: Indian River County 5) Source: Indian River County Sheriff's Master Plan 6) Source: Indian River County Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co r ee date S B-6 Impattac`fimen d 1 DRAFT Recreational Facilities Similar to other facilities, recreational facility values are based on the following: • Construction cost of recently built facilities; • Insurance values of existing facilities; • Facility values obtained from other jurisdictions; and • Discussions with the County staff. The resulting estimates are presented in Table V-5, earlier in this report. Land Values For each impact fee program area, land value were determined based on;the following analysis, as data available: \ • �. 1�. • Recent land purchases or appraisals for thereI tedinfrastructure (if"any) • Land value of current inventory as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser • Vacant land value trends since 2013 in Indian River County; • Value of vacant,Fand by size and by land use; and • Vacant land sales between 2015 and 2019 by size and by land use. Public Buildings-- f% The fo';llowing was considered in estimating theland value for public buildings: • Sine 2014, the County purchased 0.28 acres of land for courthouse expansion. Due to the location of these parcels, the cost was extremely high, at $1.6 million per acre. As such, this,purchase is rot considered to be representative of future land purchases for public building, /1l • The 2014 studyused' a land value estimate of $90,000 per acre. Based on the estimates provided by Indian'River County Property Appraiser's (IRCPA) Office, vacant land values increased by 10 percent since then. Applying this increase results in a cost of almost $100,000 per acre. • The value of parcels where current public buildings are located averages $71,000 per acre. Property Appraiser land value estimates for governmental entities tend to be on the low end since these properties are not subject to property tax and the values are not always updated to reflect the market conditions. (IRCPA); Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-7 Indian River Cali Impact tamen DRAFT • Vacant land sales of similarly sized parcels (up to 6 acres) between 2015 and 2019 ranged from $20,000 per acre to $180,000 per acre for all vacant land use types. As shown in Table B-4, these prices were higher for commercial properties. • Similarly, the value of vacant land reported by the Property Appraiser ranged from $17,000 per acre to $110,000 per acre for all vacant properties, shown in Table B-5. Given this information, an average land value of $100,000 per acre is determined to be a reasonable estimate for public buildings impact fee calculation'purposes. Emergency Services - \ The land value estimate for emergency services -facilities is basedibn the following: \ • The County has not purchased any new; parcels for emergency'services since the last technical study. However, there are plans o purchase, a parcel at an\estimated cost of $400,000 per acre. • The 2014 study used a land value estimate of $-60,000 per acre. Based on the estimates provided by Indian River County Property Appraiser,' (IRCPA) Office, vacant land values� increased by 10 percent since then. Applying this increase results in a cost of approximately/$65,000 per acre. • The value of\parcels where current fire stations are located averages $49,000 per acre. Property Appraiser land value estimates for governmental entities tend to be on the low end since these properties are pat -subject to property tax and the values are not always updated to -reflect the market conditions:., • Vacant land sales ofsimilarrly, sized parcels'(up to 6 acres) between 2015 and 2019 ranged from $20,000 per acre to $180,000,per acre for all vacant land use types. As shown in Table B-4these prices ranged from $70,000 per acre to $260,000 per acre for commercial •• Similarly, the value of vacant land reported by the Property Appraiser ranged from $17,000 per acre to $110,000 per acre for all vacant properties, and $75,000 per acre to $123,000 per acre for commercial properties, as shown in Table B-5. properties`, , Given this information, an average land value of $100,000 per acre is determined to be a reasonable estimate for emergency services impact fee calculation purposes. Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-8 Indian River Co ImpAt tacnmel) n DRAFT Law Enforcement The land value estimate for law enforcement facilities is based on the following: • The County has not purchased any new parcels for law enforcement facilities since the last technical study and future facilities are expected to be constructed on land already owned by the County. • The 2014 study used a land value estimate of $50,000 per acre. Based on the estimates provided by Indian River County Property Appraiser'skIRCPA) Office, vacant land values increased by 10 percent since then. Applying'this'increase results in a cost of approximately $55,000 per acre. • The value of parcels where current law enforcement, buildings are located averages $50,000 per acre. Property Appraiser land value estimates for governmental entities tend to be on the low end since these properties are not subject to property tax and the values are not always updated to reflect the niarket conditions. • Vacant land sales of similarly sized parcels (iipto,6,acres) between 2015 and 2019 ranged from $20,000 per acre to $180,000 per acre forall :vacant land use types. As shown in Table B-4, these prices ranged from $70,000 per ac'r'e,t0$260,000 per acre for commercial properties. . \ \ • Similarly, the value of vacant land reported by the Property Appraiser ranged from $17,000 per acre to $110,000 per acre for all vacant properties, and $75,000 per acre to $123,000 per acre for commercial properties, as shown in Table B-5. Given this information; DRAFT these properties are not subject to property tax and the values are not always updated to reflect the market conditions. • Vacant land sales of similarly sized parcels (up to 25 acres) between 2015 and 2019 ranged from $20,000 per acre to $150,000 per acre in unincorporated county for all vacant land use types. As shown in Table B-4, these prices ranged from $20,000 per acre to $140,000 per acre for residential properties in unincorporated county. • Similarly, the value of vacant land reported by the Property Appraiser ranged from $17,000 per acre to $95,000 per acre for all as well as residential vacant properties in unincorporated county, as shown in Table B-5. Given this information, an average land value of,$55;000'per,acre is determined to be a ti reasonable estimate for parks and recreational, fa is Iities impact fee` calculation purposes. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot' January 2020 B-10 Impact €eee Update pda e to DRAFT Table B-4 Vacant Land Sales (2015-2019) Vacant Land Sales (2015-2019) Size Cost per Acre I Average Median Countywide -- All Land Uses: Count - 0.05 to 4 acres $177,070 $92,593 1,415 - 4.01 to 6 acres $39,460 $20,305 90 - 6.01 to 15 acres $29,222 $22,962 32 - 15.01 to 25 acres $31,278 $19,02 " 6 Unincorporated County -- All Land Uses: f" - 0.05 to 4 acres $147,610 ,/$58,957 812 - 4.01 to 6 acres $29,997 $20,305 ',, 88 - 6.01 to 15 acres $29,222 ' $22,962 -; ` 32 - 15.01 to 25 acres $35,250 $22,785 �' \-. 5 Countywide -- Commercial: \. `. `` - 0.05 to 4 acres $242,934 \ $160;287 51 - 4.01 to 6 acres - $93,434 ,\ `$7.2,742 6 Unincorporated County -- Commercial: - 0.05 to 4 acres $257,180 $185,714 29 - 4.01 to 6 acres $93,434 $72,742 \. 6 Countywide -.- Residential: ` ``- 0:05 to 4'acres $173,027 $91,667 1,355 `-.4.01 to 6 acres y $34,843 $19,902 82 - 6:01 to,15 acres_._ $21,562 $19,876 26 ,: 15.01,to'25 acres_ `--.$33,078 $16,019 5 Unincorporated County; Residential: - 0.05'to 4 acres\ $138,569 $56,897 777 - 4.01 to 6,acrest , $24,270 $19,902 80 - 6.01 to'15'acres \ `�, $21,562 $19,876 26 - 15.01 to 25. 'acres $38,541 $38,409 4 Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Tindale Oliver January 2020 B-11 Indian River Colgty ImpaAttlacnmeni/�i DRAFT Table B-5 Vacant Land Values (2019) VacantlILand Values (2019) Size I Value per Acre Count Average Median Countywide -- All Land Uses: - 0.05 to 4 acres $109,050 $68,807 12,976 - 4.01 to 6 acres $26,120 $17,000 388 - 6.01 to 15 acres $33,512 $15,686 216 - 15.01 to 25 acres $30,232 $16,575 ". 41 Unincorporated County -- All Land Uses:// - 0.05 to 4 acres $94,925 /$56,805 8,908 - 4.01 to 6 acres $25,726 S. $17,000 \\ 374 - 6.01 to 15 acres $32,266 \, $25,000 \ ",. 202 - 15.01 to 25 acres $29,245 $17,062 \ "\ 37 Countywide -- Commercial:\ \ \\ \ - 0.05 to 4 acres $123,220 \ $94;417 943 - 4.01 to 6 acres - $81,591 \ ` $74,052 33 Unincorporated County -- Commercial:. , - 0.05 to 4 acres $104,540 $74,054 558 - 4.01 to 6 acres $88,113 $74,052 \ 29 Countywide` - Residential: '•, i-' 0.05 to 4 acres, $108,608 $66,328 11,888 '- 4.01,to 6 acres '. $20,572 $15,300 344 - 6`01 to,15 acres__ . $25,270 $11,050 158 ,� 15.01to25'acres_q x•$27,327 $14,025 34 Unincorporated County --Residential: -0:05 to. 4 acres $94;759 $55,540 8,267 - 4.01' to 6 acres'\ , $20,035 $17,000 335 - 6.01 to' 15 acres ', \ $24,242 $21,250 150 - 15.01 to 25 acres '' $25,709 $17,000 31 Source: Indiab River County Property Appraiser Tindale Oliver Indian River Coll 1,y January 2020 B-12 Impart €ee Upme DRAFT Appendi c\ \� Transportation Impact Fee: Demand Component 274 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix C: TIF - Demand Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor Table C-1 presents the interstate and toll facility adjustment factor used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. This variable is based on data from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (TCRPM) v4 model, specifically the 2040 vehicle -miles of travel. It should be noted that this adjustment factor excludes all exter-nahto-external, trips, which represent traffic that goes through the study area, but does notfnecessarily stop in`the study area. This traffic is excluded from the analysis since it does not comefrom development`within the county. The I/T adjustment factor is used to reduce the VMT that the transportation impact fee charges for each land use. \\ \ Table C-1 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustrne t•Factor Roadway Interstate`/Toll Facilities Other Roads\.. Total (All Roads)___ Total`(I nter'state/Toj FRoads) VMT (2040) 395,274 3,218,018 3,613,292 395,274 VMT 10.9% 89.1% 100.0% 10.9% Source: TCRPM:v4, 2040 Cost Feasible Plan Single Family,Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering As part of this study, the single:: family' residential trip generation rate tiering was included to reflect a three-tier analysis to ensure equity by the size of a home. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on\"the ;comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. In addition;,an, analysis was completed on the travel behavior of low-income households. This analysis'utilized data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip -making characteristics of households in the United States. Table C-2 presents the trip characteristics being utilized in the proposed transportation impact fee schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2017 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income levels. In addition, the 2017 AHS database was used to compare median annual Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-1 Indian River Coy Impa�t,tacnmenf 1' DRAFT family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. Table C-2 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics Calculated Values Excluding Tiering Single Family (Detached) Trip Rate 7.81 Assessable Trip Length 6.62 Daily VMT 51.70 Source: Florida Studies for LUC 210 included in this Appendix. The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables C-'3 through C-5. First, the data shown in Table C-3 presents the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in the three housing tiers. As shown, the average income for housing units between 1,500 square feet and 2,499 square feet in size ($70,622) is higher than the overall average income for the U.S. ($59,840). Table C-4 presents the median household income levels for low and very low-income levels in Indian River County. Next, as shown in Table C-5, 'annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS incomedata from Table C-3 and the Indian River County SHIP definitions for low income (<$31,950)f� Table C-3 •; . `\'/Annual Income by Housing Size 2017 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size Less than 1,500 sf, 1,500to'2 ,499 sf 2,500 sf or more Average of All Houses Annual Income(1) $47,441 $70,622 $87,984 $ 59,840 \`Source: American Housing Survey for the United States in 2017 1) Weighted average annual income for each tier Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-2 Indian River Co ImpaAttFee ratetii DRAFT Table C-4 Indian River County SHIP Definitions Indian River County SHIP Definitions Median Income Low/Very Low Income(�) $65,000 $52,000 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2019 Income Limits; SHIP (4 -person household) 1) Defined as 80% of the median income To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it/is necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $47,441 annual income category. First, it is determined that the average annual household VMT for this income le el..is 17,6781 -piles. This figure is compared to the overall average annual VMT per household n the U.S. an{d,n rmalized to the average of the $59,840 (18,493 miles) category to derive ratio of 0.956 as show �in Table C-5. This figure is then normalized to the $70,622 (19,713 miles) category, as this tier corresponds to the average .\ trip generation rate of 7.81 presented in Table C 2, eulting in a ratio of 0.897 1 � Next, the normalized ratio is applied to the daily VMT for'the average rage single family housing unit size (less than 1,500 square feet) to generate a daily VMT of'46.37\for the new tier, as shown in Table C-6. This daily rT-figure.is then divided by the proposed\assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typicaltrip rafeof7.00 trips per day. Table C-5 NHTS :Annual_ MT -by Income Category 2017 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income j Annual VMT/HH Days Daily VMT Ratio to Mean Normalized to 1.066 Average of $26,000 13,252 365 36.31 0.717 0.673 Total (All Homes) 18,493 365 50.67 1.000 Average of $47,4411 \ 17,678 365 48.43 0.956 0.897 Average of $70,622 \, \ 19,713 365 54.01 1.066 1.000 Average of $87,984 \ \_/` ' 22,430 365 61.45 1.213 1.138 Source: 2017 National Household. Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-3 Indian River Colipity ImpaAtttacLOtgAte di, DRAFT Table C-6 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Single Family (Detached) Assessable j Ratio to Trip Rate�l� Trip Length(2) Daily VMT(3) Mean(4) Low/Very Low Income 5.26 6.62 34.79 0.673 Less than 1.500 sf 7.00 6.62 46.37 0.897 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.000 2,500 sf or larger 8.89 6:62 58.83 1.138 1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tiered single family land use category 2) Source: Table C-2 3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) multiplied by total daily VMT forr the -1,500 to 2,499 sq ft tier for each tiered single-family land use category 4) Source: Table C-5 f i incorporation ofd e\trip generation rate tiers for the on the County's,calculated transportation impact fee Table C-7 Net Transportation Impact Fee by Single Family L d Use Tier Table C-7 illustrates the impact that the single family (detached) land use have schedule. ti Impact of Tiering on Trip Rate Assessable Daily VMT Net Fee(2) Fee Schedule Trip Length Single Family (Detached) Low/Very Low Income ` ''5.26 6.62 34.79 $5,961 Less than 1,500 sf ` `,,, ' , , 7200 6.62 46.37 $7,923 1;500.to 2,499 sf ` \. \< 7:81 6.62 51.70 $8,843 2,50Qsf'or larger \ \ . ..,<8.89 6.62 58.83 $10,070 1) Source: Table C-6 (Item 1), 2) Source: Appendix F, Table F-1 Florida Studies Trip Cha 'acteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database developed by Tindale Oliver includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 25 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. Tindale Oliver estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in an impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co ee date S C-4 Imps tti&ed tont DRAFT (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (loth edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses rid at all access points for non-residential land uses. t -'` The trip length information is obtained through origin -destination ur-veys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended\to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys_were used to -estimate average trip length'by land use. \ � The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each"trip collected through the origin - destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. Land Use 151: Mini -Warehouse Location Size (1,000 s/( Date Totals aTrip Length Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period 74 length Percent New Trips VNIT Source Orange Co, FL 2006 1:23 Orange County Orange Co, 71. Orang6Co, FL: 84.7 2096, 1.39 Orange County 93.0 '.2006 1.51 Orange County Orange Co,FL 107.0 2007 Orange County Orange Co, 71. 77.0 2009i. 2.18 Tindale Outer Orange Co, R ' 93.7 2012 1.15 Tindale Oliver Total Site 545.0 ITE 780.0 Blended total 1,325.0 15 Avenge Trip Length: nfa Weighted Avenge Trip length: n/a Weighted Percent New Trip Average: Weighted Average Tdp Generation Rate: 1.47 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.51 Blend of FL Studies and 176 Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.49 Tindale Oliver Indian River Cody January 2020 C-5 ImpkttFe e`fime DRAFT Land Use 210: Single Family- Detached Location Size / Units Date Total a Interviews Tdp Gen Rate Tlme Period aTrip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Thee Period Tdp length Percent NewTrips VMT Source Gwlnnett Co, GA - 12/1318/92 42 . - 5.80 5.20 5.40 30.06 - Sarasota Co, FL 31.32 Street Smarts Gwlnnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - `, - 5.40 - 6.10 - - Marion Co, FL 32.94 Street Smarts Sarasota Co, Fl 76 Jun -93 70 70 10.03 - 6.00 31.53 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marion Co, Fl 60.18 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, Fl 79 Jun -93 86 86 9.77 3.43 4.40 23.87 - Marlon Co, FL 42.99 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun -93 75 75 8.05 - 5.90 31.41 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 47.50 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 152 Jun -93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 39.42 - Marlon Co, FL 62.42 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun -93 123 123 6.85 5.94 4.60 32.43 - Lake Co, FL 31.51 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 97 Jun -93 33 33 13.20 - 3.00 35.76 - Lake Co, FL 39.60 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun -93 146 146 6.61 2.62 8.40 36.60 - Lake Co, FL 55.52 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 393 Jun -93 207 207 7.76 6.00 5.40 48.54 - lake Co, FL 41.90 Sarasota County Hernando Co, Ft 76 May -96 148 148 10.01 9a -6p 4.85 14.63 - Hernando Co, FL 48.55 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 128 May -96 205 205 8.17 9a -6p 6.03 24.34 Tlndale Oliver Hernando Co, Fl 49.27 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co FL 232 May -96 182 182 7.24 9o.6p 5.04 28.19 - Orange Co, FL 36.49 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 301 May96 264 264 8.93 9a -6p 3.28 - Orange County Orange Co, FL 29.29 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, Fl Aug -14 Oct -97135 O-97 230 - 5.30 9a•Sp 7.90 • - Hernando Co, FL 41.87 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, Fl 142 Oct -97 245 - 5.20 9a -Sp 4.10 30.48 - Hernando Co, FL 21.32 Tlndale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 150 Oct -97 160 - 5.00 9a•5p 10.80 33.51 - Pasco Co, Fl 54.00 Tindale Oliver Chadotte Co, Fl 215 Oct•97 158 - 9a-69 9a -Sp 4.60 e • •7.60 Pasco Co, FL 34.96 Tindale diver Charlotte Co, FL 257 Oct -97 225 - 7.60 9a•Sp 7.40 14.97 - Total5110 Total Size ITL) 56.24 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 345 Od•97 161 Weighted AvengeTdp Length: 5.10 - 7.00 9a -Sp 6.60 - 46.20 Tindale Oliver Chadotte Co, FL 368 Oct -97 152• 6.60 9a -Ip / 5.70 37.62 Tlndale Oliver Chadotte Co, FL 383 Ott -97 516 - 8.40 9a -5p / 5.00 - 42.00 Tlndale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 441 Oct -97 195• 8.20 98 -Sp / 4.70_ - 38.54 Tlndale Oliver Chadotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct -97 348 - 9a-50 8.00 `. •6.10 48.80 Tlndale 011ver Collier Co, Fl 90 Deo99 91 - 8a-69 -. 11.40 •12.80 105.92 Tlndale Oliver Collier Co, FL 400 Dec -99 389 7.80 0a -6p 6.40- \ - 49.92 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, Fl 49 Apr -02 170 - 6.70 '., 74'67 ! 10.20 '0. . - 68.30 Tlndale Oliver Lake Co, FL 52 Apr -02 212 - 10.007a ` -6p 7.60 -- 76.00 Tindal, Oliver Lake Co, FL 126 Apr -02 217 - 8.50! 70-67 8.30 ". -. 70.55 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 55 Apr -02 133 - 6.80 -88-69 8.12 55.22 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 60 Apr -02 106 - ,7.73 64•6p 8.75 , 67.64 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 70 Apr -02 188 - c 7.80 - 8a -6p 6.03 - • 07.03 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, Fl 74 Apr -02 188 - `.. 8.18 8a -6p 5.95 - � 48.67 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 189 Apr -02 261 - '7.46 \ 8a -6p 8.99 - n 67.07 Tlndale Oliver Marlon Co, FL 102 Apr -02 167 - 8.02 78-6p 5.10. - _ 40.90 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 105 Apr -02 169 - 7.23 ', \, 7a -6p .7.22 1. - -- 52.20 0 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 124 Apr -02 170 - 6.00 )8-67 .'729 - - 44.03 • Klmley-Horn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 132 Apr -02 171 .. - 7.87 7.6p . 7.00 r - 55.09 Klmley-Horn &Assodates Marlon Co, Fl 133 Apr -02 209 - 8.04 ••. 7.6p 4.92 - 39.56 •- - Kimley-Horn & Assodates Citrus Co, FL 111 0.1-03 273 - 8.66 7a -6p 7.70 - 66.68 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 231 Oct -03 155 - 5.71 7a -6p C 082 - 27.52 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 306 Oct -03 146 - 8.40 7a -6p `. 1.94 - 33.10 Tlndale 011ver Citrus Co, FL 364 Oct -03 345 - 7.20 7.6p 9.10 - 65.81 Tlndale Oliver Claus Co, Fl 374 Oct -03 248 - 12.30 7a -6p `- 6.88 0. - 84.62 Tlndale 01Iver Lake Co, FL 42 Dec -06 122 - 11.26 5.56 `- - 62.61 Tlndale Oliver Lake Co, FL 51 Dec -06 346 - 18.22 9.46 •- 172.36 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 59 Dee -06 140 - 12.07 - 10.79 `. . - 130.24 Tlndale Oliver Lake Co, FL 90 Dec -06 190 - 9.12 - 5.78 • ., 52.71 Tlndale Oliver Lake Co, FL 239 Dec -06 385 - 7.58 - 8.93 - 67.69 Tlndale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 232 :,Apr -07 516 • - 8.02 78-69 8.16 "- - 65.44 Tlndale Oliver Hernando Co, R 95 - Apr -07 - 256 •- - 8.08 7a -6p 5.88 - 47.51 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 90 Apr -07 338. - - 7.13 7a -6p 5.86 - 41.78 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 58 441-07 153 • - 6.16 7a -6p 8.39 - 51,68 Tlndale 011ver Collier Co, FL 74 i Mar -08. 503 - 12.81 7a.6p 3.05 - 39.07 Tlndale Oliver Collier Co, Fl 97 Mar -08. 512 r - 8.78 78-6p 11.29 - 99.13 Tlndale Oliver Collier Co, FL 315 Mar -08 1,347 r - 6.97 78-69 6.55 - 45.65 Tlndale Oliver Collier Co, FL 42 Mar -08. 314 ! _ - 9.55 70-6p 10.98 - 100.86 Tlndale 01Iver Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Average Tdp Length: 6,79 WOlghted Avenge Trip Length: 6.62 Note: Georgia studies are not Included In summary 11,19110 We ghted Average Trip Generation Rata, `Land Use 220/221/222: Multi -Family (Low-, Mid-, High -Rise 7.131 location ,,, "E ' Site / Units -Total Date .V., ''- int...Jews aT5l9 length Interviews Tdp Gen Rate Tlme Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMI' Sour. ce Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun -93 , 42 t 42 . 5.78 - 5.20 - 30.06 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL " 243. Jun -93 , 36 36 `, 5.84 - - - - Sarasota County Marion Co, FL -` 214 . Apr -02 .175 175 6.84 - 4.61 - 31.53 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marion Co, Fl 240 Apr -02 174 174 6.96 - 3.43 - 23.87 Klmley-Horn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 288 •. Apr -02 175 175 5.66 - 5.55 - 31.41 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 80 4 Apr-02 175 175 5.73 - 6.88 - 39.42 KlmleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 500 Apr -02 170 170 5.46 - 5.94 - 32.43 Klmley-Horn & Assodates Lake Co, FL 250 0. Dec -06 %135 ' 135 6.71 - 5.33 - 35.76 Tindale 011ver Lake Co, FL 157 -0,0-06'. .0 265 265 13.97 2.62 - 36.60 Tlndale Oliver Lake Co, FL 169 Dec -06 212-' - 6.09 - 6.00 • 48.54 Tlndale Oliver lake Co, FL 226 Dec -06 301 - 6.74 - 2.17 • 14.63 Tlndale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr -07 '-- , 456 - 4.09 - 5.95 - 24.34 Tlndale Oliver Hernando Co, Fl 176 Apr -07 - 332 - 5.38 - 5.24 - 28.19 Tlndale Oliver Orange Co, FL 364 Nov -13 - - 9.08 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 108 Aug -14 - - 5.51 - - - • Orange County Hernando Co, FL 31 May -96 31 31 6.12 9a -6p 4.98 - 30.48 Tindal, Oliver Hernando Co, FL 128 May -96 128 128 6.47 9a -6p 5.18 • 33.51 Tlndale Oliver Pasco Co, Fl 229 Apr -02 198 198 4.77 9a-69 - •- 7114ale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 208 Apr -02 353 353 4.24 9a -6p 3.53 14.97 Tindale Oliver Total5110 Total Size ITL) 4,575 3,631 Avenge Tdp Length: 4,27 Weighted AvengeTdp Length: 5.10 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Cosl ee date C-6 Impktttacnment 1 DRAFT Land Use 240: Mobile Home Park Location Size / Units Date Total0 OTrip length Tdp Gen Rate Time Period Trip tengt Interviews Interviews Percent New Trips OMT _ Source Marlon Co, FL 67 141-91 22 22 5.40 48hrs. 229 12.37 Tindale Oliver Marlon Co, FL 82 Jul -91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 40.18 Tindale Oliver Marlon Co, FL 137 Jul -91 22 22 3.10 24hr. 4.88 15.13 Tlndale Oliver Sarasota Co, FL 996 Jun -93 181 181 4.19 4.40 1&44 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 235 Jun -93 100 100 3.51 5.10 17.90 Sarasota County Marlon Co, FL 188 APr-02 147 3.51 24hr. 5.48 19.23 KImleyHom & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 227 Apr -02 173 2.76 24hr. &80 24.29 KimleyHorn & Assodates Marlon Co, FL 297 Apr -02 175 4.78 24hr. 4.76 22.75 Kimley-Horn & Assodates Hernando Co, 9. 1,892 May -96 425 425 4.13 9a -6p 4.13 17.06 Tindale Oliver Total She 4,121 9 1,303 Weighted Average Tdp Generation Rate: 4.17 Land Use 252: Retirement Community/Senior Adult Housing - Attached Location Sire / Units Date Total a aTrlp length Tdp Gen Rate Time Period Tdp length Percent New Trips ' VMT Interviews Interviews Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct -91 726 726 2.46 24hr. 3.28 • 8.07 Source Tindale Oliver Total Sire 208 1 ITE 5@¢ 6 Blended total 690 Avenge Trip Length: 3.28 Weighted Avenge Trlp length: 3.28 W Ighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facilit /Assisted Living Facili 2.46 3.70 3.93 Location Size / Units Date Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug -89 Palm Harbor, FL 200 Oct -89 Total v p Tdp length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Interviews interviews 25 19 't 3.50 ' 9an-Spm 2.20 79.0 • \. 7.70 58 40 gam -Spm 3.40 69.0 • Source Tindale Oliver Tindale Oliver Total Size ITE Blended total 272 3&@ 660 460 2 2 83 Average Trip Length: 2.80 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: 3.08 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6 W Ighted Average Tdp Generation Rate: Land Use 310: Hotel 3.50 bution Size (Rooms) Date iota) v Interviews v Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Thee Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug -89'--"-1.-134 106 12.50 7-11./3-7p 6.30 --79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 114 Olt -89 - 30, 14 7.30 12.7p 6.20, 47.0 21.27 Tlndale Oliver Orange Co, FL 123 4 1997 - \ 6.32 - - 'li - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 120 1997 / 9. - - \• 5.27 - • - Orange County Orange Co, Fl. 146 1 1997 =\• 7.61 - - •- Orange County Orange Co, FL 252 1997 - \ 5 - 5.63 - - •- Orange County ' Orange Co, FL 172 r. .1997,. - i 6.36 - - •- Orange County Orange Co, FL 170 `1997 ' - i' - 6.06 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 128 1997 - E . 1 6.10 - • - - Orange County Orange Co, Fl 2001997•- __1 - ,/ _ 4.56 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL .--rc-172-,� 1998 -k \ -/ -\ 2.78 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL ,- 130 1998 - -- -. - '. 9.12 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL.' • 106 '• '-.19981.. ' / - -7.34 - - - Orange County Orange Co;FL. .- 98 `t. 1998 `0 - - 7.32'r. - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL.. 120 `... 1998 \, - ..... 5.57 \ - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL . 70 '1999. \ - '>,. * _ - I:SS4.81 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, P1- �.~ 123 1999 '\ - k ', • `� - - - - Orange County Orange Co; FL \ 123 1999 c ? - 3.70 - - - Orange County Orange Co, FLr 211 2000 , -• \ - •- y 2.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL \ -. 144 2000 \ - - i- 7.32 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL \ -105 2001 \- - 5 5.25 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, Fl \ 891, 2005... t . - "s 5.69 - -• - Orange County Orange Co, Fl \ 1,564 `., 2005 1 - t - 5.88 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 210 \ 2006 4.88 - - -• Orange County Orange Co, FL 1499` 2006 - 4.69 - - -• Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 \' :\ - - - 4,74 - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 148 , _ ', - J- - 7.61 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, Fl 160 ' / - - 6.19 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 130 k k/ - - 4.29 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 130 - - r - 3.40 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 -'t - 7,66 -•_ - Orange County Orange Co, FL 100 - \ - - 7.37 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 190 - ` - - 4.71 - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,501 2011 - - 3.50 - - - - Tlndale Oliver Orange Co, FL 174 2011 - - 7.03 - - • - Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 238 2014 • - 4.05 - - - Tlndale Oliver Total Size 10,184 21 164 ITE 325 6 Average Trlp Length: 6.25 Weighted Avenge Trip length: 6.26 Blended total 11,060 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 W Ighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of 8/Studies nd TlE Average Trip Generation Rete: 5.31 8.36 5.55 Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-7 Indian River Co ty ImpaAtt€acnment I DRAFT Land Use 320: Motel location Size (Rooms) Date Totals 8 Trip Length Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate ' Time Period Tdp Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct -89 46 24 100-29 2.80 650 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct -69 32 22 12p -7p 3.80 690 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct -69 26 22 2p -7p 5.20 84.6 Tindale Oliver Total 5&e Location Pinellas Co, FL Pinellas Co, FL 222 3 104 ITE 654 6 Size (Screens) 8 Date Oct -89 Total 8 interviews 151 w Tdp Avenge: 76.6 Land Use 444: Movie Theater p eTdprwlenee4:gth Tdp Gen Rate Tlme Period Tdp Length Percent New Trips VMT Source mt 116 113.10 26-8p 2.70 770 235.13 12 Sep -89 122 116 63.40 26-8p 1.90 950 114.44 Tindale Oliver Tindale Oliver Total Size 20 2 273 Blended total 26 Weighted Avenge Trip length: 2.22 Weighted Percent New Tdp Avenge: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Tdp Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and FTE Average Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 492: Health/Fitness Club 83.28 220.00 114.83 Location Tampa, Fl. Size (1,0000) Date Mar -86 Total a Interviews 33 4 Trip length interviews 31 Trip Gen Rate Time Period Tdp Length Percent New Trips VMT 1 7.90 \ 94.0 Source Klmley-Horn & Assodates Total Size ITE 37 33 Avenge Trip length: 2/a Percent New Trip Avenge: \ Land Use 565: Day Care Center 94.0 Location Size (1,080 al) Date Total Interviews 1Tdp length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Tdp tench Percent New Trips VMT Interviews Pinellas Co. FL 5.6 Aug -89 94 - 66 6699 7a -6p-. ./ 1.90' 700 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep -89 179 134 66.99 2.10 75.0 105.51 \ Tindale Oliver Tampa, FL Mar -86 28 25 2.60 89.0 Kimley-Horn & Assodates Total Size ITE Blended total Location Lakeland, FL 15.6 .235.0 150.6 Size (Beds) 120 Date ♦Mar -90 2 301 27 Avenge Trip Length: 2.20 Weighted Avenge Trip length: 2.03 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 73.2 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Tdp Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and!TE Average Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 620: Nursing Home Totals aTrip Length Interviews interviews 74 L' 66 66.99 47.62 49.63 Trip Gen Rate lime Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source 2.86 11a -4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale Oliver Total Size 120 ITE Q¢Q Blended total 600 Laotian 5t. Petersburg, FL Clearwater, FL Clearwater, FL Total Sire ITE 111.0 25.0 1 74 3 Size (1.000 sf) Date 7.0 3 0 6 4.0 3.0 • Land Use 640: Animal Hospital/Veterina Clinic L59 2.59 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 89.0 W Ighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL5tudiea nd FTE Avenge Trip Generation Rete: Total Interviews 2.86 3.06 3.02 'Trip Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip tench Percent New Trips VMT Source Interviews 21.50 Tindale Oliver Sep -89 2.0 44.00 1.90 700 Tindale Oliver Aug.89 1.90 70.0 TIndale Oliver Avenge Trip tench: 1.90 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: 1.90 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 31.14 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.50 Blend 01 E151041es and RE Avenge Tdp Generation Rate: 2420 Land Use 710: General Office Building Location Size 10000 sf) Date Total a Interviews 'Tdp Length Trip Gen Rate lime Period Trip Length Percent New Tdps 5641 Source Interviews Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun -93 14 14 46.85 11.30 529.41 Sarasota County Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec -92 4.30 5.40 Street Smarts Gwinnett CO, GA 180.0 Deo92 3.60 5.90 Street Smarts Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 ON -89 431 388 18.49 70-59 6.30 900 104.84 TIndale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep -89 291 274 7a -5p 3.40 94.0 TIndale Oliver Total Size 742.1 5 736 ITE 11,286,0 66 Avenge Trip Lanch: 6.46 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: 5.15 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 92.3 Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-8 Indian River Co men fl y ImpaAtt€ac�ri"i DRAFT LUC 720: Small Medical/Dental Office Building: 10,000 sf or Less Average (excluding Site 4) 11.84 11.99 Tampa, FL Mar -86 33 26 79.0 Kimley-Horn & Associates Palm Harbor, FL 14.6 Ort -89 104 76 33.98 9a -5p 73.0 156.27 Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL Nov -89 34 30 57,20 9a -4p 1.20 88.0 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 58.4 May -96 390 349 28.52 9a -6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 28.0 May -96 202 189 49.75 9a=6p ' 93.8 282.64 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct.97 186 49.50 '9a -5p 4.60 92.1 209,67 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct -97 186 31.00 91-5p 3.60 ' 81.6 91.04 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct -97 324 9a -5p 83.5 109.68 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct -03 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov -03 340 40.56 8-6300 6.20 232.33 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec -03 20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 50.6 2009 Orange County Orange Co, FL 23.5 2010 16.58 - Tindale Oliver Total Size 298.6 11 763 ITE 672.0 28 Blended total 970.6 Collier Co, FL 14.1 May -99 Average Trip length: 5.07 Weighted Average Trip length: 5.55 55 33.48 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9 8a -6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 66.0 May -99 43 11.53 8a -6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 211.1 May -99 284 17.91 8a -6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale Oliver Total Size 291.2 ITE 6.288.0 Blended total 6,579.2 3 16 Average Trip length: 4.90 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.65 Tampa, FL - 'Mar -86 527.. 348- - - 66.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa FL . - Mar -86 170 - - - 1.70 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa, FL- - Mar -86' 354 269 - - - 76.0 - Klmley-Horn&Associates Tampa, FL - - Mar -86 .144- - - 2.50 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates St. Petersburg, FL'. ', 1,192.0 Aug -89 384298 - - lla-7p 3.60 78.0 - Tindale Oliver 5t. Petersburg, FL L- _' 132.3 Sep -89 400 368 77.00 10a -7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale Oliver Largo, FL 425.0 Aug -89 .' 160'. 120- 26.73 10a -6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale Oliver Dunedin, FL -: 80.5 ', Sep -89 '276 . 210 `- 81.48 9a -5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 '.. Sep -89 485 388 - 9a -6p 3.20 80.0 - Tindale Oliver Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct -89 674' 586 - - - 87.0- Tindale Oliver Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 '. Jul -91 - - - - - 1.30 74.0- Tindale Oliver Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 ' 'Jul -91 - - - - 1.30 73.0 - Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1- Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL - .. Aug -91 . . 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 - Tindale Oliver Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep -92 300'. 185 - 12a -6p - 61.6 - King Engineering Associates, Inc. Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep -92 300 192 - 12a -6p - 64.0 - King Engineering Associates, Inc. Gwlnnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec -92 . - - 46.00 - 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts Gwlnnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec -92- - 27.00 - 8.50 84.0 192.78 Street Smarts Sarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun -93 58 58 122.14 - 3.20 - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun -93 65 65 51.53 - 2.80 - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co FL 157.5 Jun -93 57 57 79.79 - 3.40- - Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun -93 62 62 66.79 - 5.90- - Sarasota County Hernando Co FL 107.8 May -96 608 331 77.60 9a -6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct -97 - - 73.50 9a -5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 191.9 OR -97 - - 72.00 9a -5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 51.3 OR -97 - - 43.00 9a -5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale Oliver lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr -01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FI. 72.3 Apr -01 444 376 65.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr -02 222 - 145.64 9a -5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co FI. 75.8 Apr -02 134 - 38.23 9a -5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 185.0 001-03 - 784 55.84 8a -6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov -03 - 390 54.50 8a -6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec -06 359 359 46.96 - 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 159.9 Dec -06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 35.9 Dec -06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale Oliver Total Size 5,757.5 7,536 Average Trip Length: 2.66 Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-9 Indian River Col ti DRAFT 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 t 2.00 Q, 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 200 400 600 '`- 800 1000 Square F otage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 `l ` Figure C-1 LUC 820: Retail/Shopping Center — Florida Curve Trip Length Regression Figure C-2 ti \ LUC 820: Retail/Sh'opping Center — Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression 90% •/ '` `• 1200\ \ 1400 1600 80% 70% a60%. 50%\ z 40% a U 30% 20% 10% 0% _ Regression Equation: v = 0.08141n(x) + 0.243 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 1200 1400 1600 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Cos tt ee date d C-10 ImpaAttEacflmen' • Regression Equations: <100,000 sq ft: y = 0.7284x^0.2405 100,000+ sq ft: y = 0.0012x + 2.1686 Figure C-2 ti \ LUC 820: Retail/Sh'opping Center — Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression 90% •/ '` `• 1200\ \ 1400 1600 80% 70% a60%. 50%\ z 40% a U 30% 20% 10% 0% _ Regression Equation: v = 0.08141n(x) + 0.243 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 1200 1400 1600 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Cos tt ee date d C-10 ImpaAttEacflmen' DRAFT Land Use 840/841: New/Used Automobile Sales Location Site (1,000 sf) Date Total o aTrip length i Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT 5ounse Interviews Interviews St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct -89 152 120 9a -5p 4.70 • 794 Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL 43.0 Oct -89 136 106 29.40 9a -Sp 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, R 13.8 1997 35.75 Orange County Orange Co, FL 34.4 1998 23.45 Orange County Orange Co, FL 66.3 2001 28.50 Orange County Orange Co, FL 39.1 2002 10.48 Orange County Orange Co, FL 116.7 2003 22.18 Orange County Orange Co, FL 51.7 2007 40.34 L -TEC Orange Co, Fl 36.6 15.17 Orange County Orange Co, FL 216.4 2008 13.45 Orange County Total Site 618.0 8 288 ITE (840) 648.0 18 17E1841) j${1 14 Blended total 1,294.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.04 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 840)1 27.84 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 841): 27.06 Bland of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generedon Rata: 24.58 Land Use 850: Supermarket Location Site MOCK)1!) Date Total p 4Trip Length . Trip Gen Rate Time 004od Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Interviews Interviews Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug -89 163 62 106.26 9a -0p 2.08 56.0 123.77 TIndate Oliver Total Site 62.0 163 ITE 170.0 Blended total 232.0 Average Trip Length: 2.08 Weighted Averap Trip Length: 2.08 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 890: Furniture Store 106.26 106.78 106.64 location Site (1,000 s1) Date Largo, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 Tampa, FL 16.9 Jul -92 Total 8 Interviews 64 68 0TripInterviews Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Sours 34 ' 4.63 -' 525 \ - \ Tindale Oliver *< - \ Tindale Oliver 39 7.38 55.7 Total Site ITE Blended total 31.90 IUD 810.90 2 19 132 Avenge Trip Length: 6.01 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: 6.09 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2 Land Use 912: Drive -In Bank location Site (1,000,1) Total oTdp length Trip Gen Rate 71018 Period Trip Length Percent New Trips Interviews VNIT Source Tampa, FL Mar -86 17\ 2.40 Klmley-Horn & Associates Tempa, FL Mar -86 -.`<. 211 h. 54.0 Klmley.Horn & Associates Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug -89 113 ' 52 9a -6p 5.20 46.0 Tindale Oliver Largo, Fl 23 Sep -89 129, 5 94 1.60 73.0 nndaie Oliver Seminole FL 45 \ Oct -89 Tindale Oliver Marlon Co, FL 2.3 \ lun-91 69 5. 29 24hr. 1.33 42.0 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 3.1 Jon -91 \ 47 1 32 24hr. 1.75 68.1 Tindale Oliver Marlon Co, P1 25 1uI-91 57 ,4 26 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 448.913 162/ , 96h, 24hr. 0.88 59.3 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL Aug -91 \ `116 54 1.58 46.6 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL Aug -91 3.. 142 2.08 47.9 Tindale Olney Hernando Co,,L' May.96 `. 164. 41 9a -6p 2.77 24.7 Tindale Oliver Marlon Co, FL Apr -b2 24hr. 3.55 54.6 Klmley-Horn & Assodates Marion'Co, FL 2.7 \.May -02 \. 501 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Klmley-Horn & Ass0datel Total Size ITE Blended total 25.2 9 1,407 147.0 21 172.2 149.7 Avenge Trip Length: 2.38 Weighted Average Trip length: 2.46 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 We ghted Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.66 100.03 102.66 Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-11 Indian River Co V Impakt iae cement DRAFT Land Use 932: High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant location Size (1,000 sl) Date Total a Interviews a Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen gate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Hernando Co, FL 6.2 1996 242 175 187.51 9a -6p 2.76 72.5 375.00 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 8.2 1996 154 93 102.71 9a -6p 4.15 60.2 256.43 Tindale Oliver 5t. Petersburg, FL 5.0 1989 74 68 132.60 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 243.98 Tindale Oliver Kenneth City, FL 5.2 1989 236 176 127.88 4p -730p 2.30 75.0 220.59 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 5.2 2002 114 88 82.47 9a -6p 3.72 77.2 236.81 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 5.8 2002 182 102 116.97 9a -6p 3.49 56.0 228.77 Tindale Oliver Orange Co FL 5.0 1996 - - 135.68 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7 1996 - - 132.32 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.2 1998 - - 18.76 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.0 1998 - - 126.40 - - - - Orange County Orange Co FL 4.6 1998 - - 129.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.4 1998 - - 147.44 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 6.7 1998 - - 82.58 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 2000 - - 95.33 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.2 2000 - - 98.06 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.4 2001 - - 91.67 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.6 2001 - - 145.59 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.5 - - - 100.18 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 - - - 62.12 - 46.0 - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 10.4 - - - 31.77 - - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.9 - - - 147.70 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 8.9 2008 - - 52.69 - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7 2010 - - 105.84 - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.5 2013 - - 40.46 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.0 2015 - - 138.39 -. - - Orange County Total Site 194.9 21 1,102 ITE 250.0 50 Average Trip Length: 3.07 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.17 Blended total 444.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 934: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window 98.67 112.18 106.26 Wanton Size (1,000 st) Date Total Interviews a Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMF Source Tampa, FL - Mar -86 61 - - - 2.70 - - - - Klmley-Horn & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar -86 306 - - - - 65.0 - Klmley-Horn & Associates Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug -89 81 48 502.80 11a -2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 4.30 Oct -89 456 260 660.40 1 day , -", 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale Oliver Tarpon Springs, FL - Oct -89 233 114 - la -7p h 3.60 49.0 - Tindale Oliver Marion C0,11 1.60 Jun -91 60 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91'. 53.3 466.84 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 4.00 Jun -91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. '. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 66 44 - - 1.91 66.7 - Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 118 40 - - 1.17 t. 33.9 - Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May -96 - - - 136 82 311.83 9a -6p 1.68 ' "60.2 315.27 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 3.13 May -96 168 82 547.34 9a -6p 1.59 . 48.8 425.04 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 8.93 '1996 ' - - 377.00 - - - - Orange County Lake Co, FL 2.20 ,' Apr -01 ' --':376 252 934.30 - 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 3.20 Apr -01 171 182 654.90 - - 47.8 - Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 3.80 - Apr -01 188'' 137 353.70 - 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 2.66 - Apr -02 100 46 283.12 9a -6p - 46.0 - Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 2.96 ''.Apr -02 . 486 164 515.32 9a -6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr -02 168 120 759.24 9a -6p 1.89 ' 71.4 1024.99 Tindale Oliver Total Size ITE 48.8 13 4,463 201.0 67 --__.-...._... Average Trip Length: 2.11 Weighted Average Trip length: _ 2.05 _ _ Blended total 249.8 34,0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9 We'ghted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Tdp Generation Rate: Land Use 942: Automobile Care Center 530.19 470.95 482.53 Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total a Interviews OTHp Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips 0MF Source Interviews Largo, FL Sep -89 37.64 9a -5p 2.40 88.0 79.50 Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2/3-4/90 94 9a -5p 3.07 760 Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2/3-4/90 110 74 9a -5p 2.96 67.0 Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3.4/90 132 87 9a -5p 2.32 66.0 Tindale Oliver Lakeland, FL 5.2 .Mar -90 24 14 9a -4p 1.36 59.0 Tindale Oliver Lakeland, FL Mar -90 42 9a -4p 2.44 78.0 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov.92 41 39 2-6p 4.60 LCE, Inc. Orange Co, FL 36.6 15.17 Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.0 46.43 Orange County Total Size 86.2 6 519 ITE 102.0 6 Blended total 188.2 151.1 Location i Size (1,000 sf) Date largo, FL 0.6 Nov -89 Average Trip Length: 2.70 Weighted Average Trip length: 3.62 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2 We ghted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (adjusted): Blend of FL Studies nd r7E Average Trip Generation Rate: Land Use 944: Gasoline/Service Station Total a a Trip Length Interviews Interviews 70 14 22.14 31.10 28.19 Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length , Percent New Trips VMT Source 8am-5pm 90 23.0 Collier Co, FL Aug -91 168 40 1.01 23.8 Tindale Oliver Tindale Oliver Total Size 0.6 1 238 ITE LUC 944 (vfp) 144.0 18 ITE LUC 945 (vfp) 90.0 5 Average Trip Length: 1.46 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.90 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co ee date Sl C-12 ImpactFee DRAFT Land Use 947: Self -Service Car Wash location Ooe (Bays) Date Total 4 pTrip length Trip Gen Rate Time period Trip Leingt Interviews Interviews Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 10 Nov -89 111 84 8ari-5pm 76.0 Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL Nov -89 177 103 10am-Spm 1.30 61.0 Tindale 01her Collier Co, FL 11 Dec.09 304 30.24 2.50 57.0 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 8 lan-09 186 22.75 1.96 72.0 Tindale Oliver Total Site 29 3 778 Total Site (TGA) 19 2 ITE 5 1 Blended total 24 Avenge Trip Length: 1.94 Weighted Avenge Trip tench: 2.18 Weighted percent New Trip Avenge: 67.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 27.09 ITE Average Tdp Generation Rate: 108.00 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 43.94 Demand Variable Changes Since the County's last demand component update in 2014, the`trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL), and percent new trips (PNT) has changed for several land uses. These variables were updated based on additional data included in the Florida Studs Database and the use of the ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Reference Report. Table,C-8 presents the VMT change while Tables C-9 through C-11 provide detail on each individual input variable. r 4 \ \ ; Tindale Oliver Indian River Co N,y January 2020 C-13 Impart geek of i dl DRAFT Table C-8 Percent Change in Gross VMT and Net VMT of Impact Fee Land Uses LUC land Use Unit i GVMF GVMF %Change Explanation 2014 2019• RESIDENTIAL ... ... ... :f.-': 003VMT NET VMT XChan 2014m 2,,,,,,,ge i . . .. 210 Single Family (Detached) - LowNery Low Income du 20.69 17.41 -15.9% TGR update, see Table C-9 17.11 15.51 -9.4% Single Family (Detached) - Less than 1,502 sf du 20.69 23.17 12.0%789 update, see Table C-9 t 17.11 20.64 20.6% Single Family (Detached) - 1,501 to 2,499 sl du 25.85 25.85 0.0% No change .. 21.38 23.03 7.7% Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sf and greater du 30.45 29.43 .3.3% TOR update, see Table C-9 25.18 26.22 4.1% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du - - •n/a - - 220 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 levels) du 16.83 18.67 10.9% TGR update, see Table C•9 , 13.92 16.63 19.5% 221 Multi•Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) du 16.83 13.87 .17.6% TGR update, see Table C-9 13.92 12.36 -11396 240 Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) du 9.59 9.59 0.0% No change 7.93 8.55 7.8% 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 3.51 3.93 12.0% TGR update, see Table G9 i 2.90 3.50 20.7% LODGING: .. 310 Hotel roorn 13.14 11.47 -12.7% TGR update, see Table C-9 - 10.87 10.22 -6.096 320 Motel room 9.41 5.60 -405% TGR update, see Tabte C-9 7.78 4.99 -35.9% RECREATION: - - 411 Public Park Me 5.24 1.81 -65.5%759 & TI. update, see Tables C-9 and C-10 h 4.34 1.61 -62.9% 420 Marina boat berth 8.82 7.18 -18.694 TGR update, see Table C-9 - 7.29 6.40 -12.2% 430 Golf Course hole 106.47 90.50 -15.0%789 update, see Table C-9 88.05 80.64 -8.496 444 Movie Theater w/Matlnee screen 104.16 112.17 7.7% TGR update, see Table C-9 86.14 99.94 16.0% 490 Tennis Court court 93.67 73.39 -21.7% TGR update, see Table C-9 77.47 65.39 -15.6% 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 79.71 83.51 4.8%TGR update, see Table C-9 65.92 74.40 12.9% INSTNUTIONS: 520 Elementary School (Prlvate, 6.5) student 2.22 2.50 12.6%TGR & TL update, see Tables C-9 and C-10 1.83 2.23 21.9% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 3.13 2.82 -9.9%TGR, TL & P07 update, see Tables C-9, C-10, and C-11 j 2.59 231 .3,1% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 3.31 3.02 -8.8% TGR & Ti. update, see Tables C-9 and C-10 2.74 2.69 -1.8% 540/550 University/lr College (Private) student 5.96 5.96 0.0% No change 4.93 5.31 7.7% 560 Church 1,000 sf 15.99 12.23 -23.5%TGR & TL update, see Tables C-9 and C•10 13.22 10.90 -17.5% 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 53.26 36.77 -31.016 TGR update, see Table C-9 , 44.05 32.77 -25.6% 571 1ai1 bed 13.03 2.37 -81.8% TGR update, see Table C•9 10.76 2.11 -80.4% 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf 4.85 11.12 129.3%766, TL & PNT update, see Tables C-9, C-10, and C-11 4.01 9.91 147.1% 590 library 1,000 sf 158.23 202.71 28.1% TGR update, see Table C-9 130.86 180.62 38.0% MEDICAL - - ,. 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 33.69 27.68 -17.896 TGR & PNT update, see Tables C-9 and C-11 ! 27.86 24.66 -11.5% 620 Nursing Home bed 3.18 3.48 9.4% TGR update, see Table C-9 2.63 3.10 17.996 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 95.14 43.20 -543% TGR & PNT update, see Tables C-9 and C-11 78.66 38.49 31.1% OFFICE: - 710 General Office 1,000 sf 26.13 23.07 i-11.7%TG6 update, see Table C-9 • 21.61 20.56 -4.9% 720 Medkal Office/OInIc 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 s1 58.85 58.85 0.0% No change 4867 52.44 7.7% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,0001q ft 1,000 s1 85.75 84.27 .' -1.7% TGR update, see Table C-9 70.92 75.08 5.9% 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 97.51 93.68 -3.996 TGR update, see Table C-9' \ 80.64 83.47 3.5% 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 s1 66.14 8030'-- 21.7% 759 update, see Table C3 \ i 54.70 71.72 31.1% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 19,42 26.96 •. 3&8% TGR update, see Table C-9 ' 16.06 24.02 49.6% RETAIL - - h - 820 Retail/Shopping Center 1,000 sfgta 41.15 3737 3.7% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables C-9, C•10, and C-11 34.03 33.48 -1.696 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 51.33 44.66 -13.094 TGR update, see Table C-9 42.45 39.79 -6.3% 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 60.21 62.11 3.2% TGR update, see Table C-9 , 49.79 55.34 11.1% 890 Furniture Store 1,0170 sl 832 10.36 24.5% TGR update, see Table C-9 6.88 9.23 34.2% SERVICE: - -- _ ._. _ _ 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 68.63 33.60 -51.0% TGR update, see Table C•9 56.76 29.94 -47.3% 912 Bank/Savings Odve-In f 1,01105,. 90.15 58.09 -35.6% TGR update, see Table C-9 74.56 51.75 -30.696 932 Restaurant /' "1;000 sf ,. 131.22 119.58 -8.9% TGR update, see Table G9 108.52 106.55 -1.8% 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 9 1,000 sf', 7 303.79 286.86 -5.6%706 update, see Table C-9 251.23 255.60 1.7% 942 Automobile Care Center •, .. 1,000 sf ..44.87 36.74 -18.1% TGR update, see Table C-9 37.11 32.73 -11.896 944/946 Gas/SeMce Station with & without Car Wash V fuel pos. 6- - - n/a - - - 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market o2,000sq ft L. fuel pos. ,• 634.38 37.58 9.3% TGR update, see Table C-9 28,43 33.49 17.8% 945 Gas Station w/Convenlenoe Market 2,0002,999 sq It fuel tabs.` - 34.38 `.-. 44.87 30.5% TGR update, see Table C-9 28.43 39.98 40.6% 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000. sq It ''., fuel pos. 34.36 50.37 46.5%76R update, see Table C-9 r 28.43 44.88 57.9% 947 Self -Service Car Wash ,� . . service 'ay \ 32.57 \32.57'.. 0.0% No change 26.93 29.02 7.8% INDUSTRIAL 110 General Ught Industrial \ `. 'L 1,000 sf ! 16.51 11.75 -28.8% TGR update, see Table C-9 13.66 10.47 -23.4% 140 Manufacturing '7 \ 1,000'51 n 9.05 9.31 2.9% TGR update, see Table C-9 7.48 8.30 11.0% 150 Warehousing r \ 1,000 sf'• 8.43 '•. 4.12 -51.1% TGR update, see Table C-9 6.97 3.67 -47.3% 151 Minl-Warehouse .\ 1,000 sf i, 3.07. .'2.41 -21.5% TGR & R update, see Tables C-9 end C-10 - 2.54 2.14 -15.7% 154 High -Cube Transload/Storage '''s`! 1,000 of 3.96 332 -16.6% TGR update, see Table C-9 " 3.29 2.96 -10.0% Ma Concrete Plant \ -. acre 1. 36.96 36.96 0.0% No change 30.56 32.93 7.8% n/a Sand Mining 3 aael 4.74 4.74 0.094 No change 3.92 4.22 7.7% 1) The Net VMT Includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2014 report = 17.3% reduction 2) The Net VMT includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2019 report =10.9% reduction - Gross VMT = TGR a TL a PNT / 2 - Individual variables are shown in Tables C-10 through C-12 Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-14 Indian River Cay Impalfacflmenl DRAFT LUC Land Use RESIDENTIAL: Table C-9 Percent Change in Trip Generation Rate of Impact Fee Land Uses Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate 2014 2019 96 Change Explanation 210 Single Family (Detached) - Low/Very low Income du 6.25 5.26 -15.8% New tier Single Family (Detached)- Less than 1,500 sf du 6.25 7.00 12.0% NHTS/AHS udpate Single Family (Detached) -1501 to 2,499 sf du 7.81 7.81 0.096 No change Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sf and greater du 9.20 8.89 -3.496 NHTS/AHS update 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du Land use re -alignment, see below 220 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 levels) du 6.60 7.32 10.996 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition, land use re -alignment 221 Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) du 6.60 5.44 -17.696 Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition, land use re -alignment 240 Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) du 4.17 4.17 0.096 No change 252 Assisted Care Living Fadlity (ACIF) bed 2.97 3.33 12.1% Updated TGR In ITE 1001 Edition LODGING: 310 Hotel room 6.36 5.55 -12.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition & new FL Studies 320 Motel MOT 5.63 3.35 -40.596 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition RECREATION: 411 Public Park acre 2.28 0.78 -65.8% land use re -alignment (previously LUC 412) 420 Marina boat berth 2.96 2.41 -18.6% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 430 Golf Course hole 35.74 30.38 -15.096 Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 106.63 114.83 7.7% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 490 Tennis Court Court 38.70 30.32 -21.7% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition (previously used LUC 491) 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 32.93 34.50 4.896 Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition (adjusted) INSTITUTIONS: • 520 Elementary School (Private, 6-5) student 1.29 1.89 46.596 Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 1.62 2.13 31596 Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 1.71 2.03 18.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 540/550 University/Jr College (Private) student 2.00 2.00 0.096 No dsange 560 Chords 1,000 sf 9.11 6.95 -23,7% Updated TGR in 1TE 10th Edition 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sl 71.88 49.63 /-31.0% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 571 fall bed 550 1.00 -81.8% Updated TGR in ITE 1001 Edition (adjusted) 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf 5.40 4:40 -11.196 Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition (adjusted) 590 Ubrary 1,000 sf 56.24 /72.05 •'\'2&1% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 13.22 • 1/410.72 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 620 Nursing Home bed 2:76 r 3.02 9.4% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 40.12 f 24.20 -39.7% Updated TGR In RE 1001 Edition & new FL Studies OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 11.03 1, 9.74 Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq N or less 1,000 sf 23.83 \ "23.83 i 0.096 No change `,• \ Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.72 \ 34.12 Updated TGR I -ITE 10th Edition 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 108.19 103.94 -3.9% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 27.92 33.98 Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 8.11 11.26 38.8% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition RETAIL: 820 Retail/Shopping Center �r-- ,_1,000 sfgla 42.70 37.75 -11.6% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales . 1,000 sf 28.25 24.58 -13.096 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition, blend 840/841 & new FL Studies 850 Supermarket `5,000 sf 103.38 106.64 3.2% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.06 6.30 24.596 Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition SERVICE: 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In '',.. 1,000 121.30 59.39 -51.096 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition (adjusted) 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In '1,000 sf 159.34 102.66 -35.6% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 932 Restaurant . 1,000 sf • 116.60 106.26 -8.9% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition & new FL Studies 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru .� 1.. '.1,000 sf '511.00 482.53 -5.6% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 942 Automobile Care Center \ \ 1,000 if, 34.43 • 28.19 -18.1% Additional FL Studies added 944/946 Gas/Service Station with&without Car Wash 1. \ fuel pos. " Land use re -alignment, see below 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market c2,000 sq R '5 -fuel pos.`.. \ 157.33 172.01 9.396 Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition, land use re -alignment 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Maiket. 2,000-2,999 sq ft i foe! pos. • 1 157.33 205.36 30.5% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition, land use re -alignment 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market3,000n sq N ]fuel pos. 157.33 230.52 46.5% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition, land use re -alignment 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 43.94 0.096 No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Ught Industrial 5,. `� 1,000 st 6.97 4.96 -28.8% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 140 Manufacturing \ ,1,000 sf 3.82 3.93 2.996 Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 150 Warehousing 5. 1,000 sf 356 1.74 -51.196 Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.15 1.49 -30.7% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition & new FL Studies 154 High -Cube Transload/Storage 1,000 sf 1.68 1.40 -16.7% Land use re -alignment (previously LUC 152) n/a Concrete Plant acre 15.60 15.60 0.0% No change n/a Sand Mining acre 2.00 2.00 0.0% No change - See Appendix F for additional information Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-15 Indian River Cody' DRAFT Table C-10 Percent Change in Trip Length of Impact Fee Land Uses LUC Land Use Unit Trip Length Trip Length % Change Explanation 2014 2019 RESIDENTIAL: •; - .V «....,, r;..-.._. 210 Single Family (Detached) - Low/Very Low Income du 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - Less than 1,500 sf du 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - 1,501 to 2,499 sf du 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sf and greater du 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du Land use re -alignment, see below 220 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 levels) du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 221 Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 240 Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) du 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 3.28 3.28 0.0% No change LODGING: - - 310 Hotel room 6.26 6.26 0.0% No change 320 Motel room 4.34 4.34 0.0% No change RECREATION: 411 Public Park acre 5.11 5.15 0.8% Updated to be same as LUC 710 420 Marina boat berth 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course hole 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change 444 Movie Theaterw/Matinee screen 2.22 2.22 0.091 No change 490 Tennis Court court 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS: - -:, - .. . , 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 4.30 3.31 -23.0% Updated to reflect more current data 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 4.30 /3.31 -23.0% Updated to reflect more current data 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 4.30 / 3.31 -23.0% Updated to reflect more current data 540/550 University/Jr College (Private) student 6.62 ` / 6.62 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf 3:90 \3.91 0.3% Updated to reflect more current data 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf '.2.03 ^. 2:03 0.0% No change 571 Jail bed ./ `515 5.15., 0.0% No change 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf / .' 2.02 5.15 •155.0% Updated to be same as LUC 710 590 Library 1,000 sf/ / 6.62 6.62 .\ "0.0% No change MEDICAL: - - • 610 Hospital 1,000 sf l\ '.. 6.62 /\ 6.62 0.0% No change 620 Nursing Home bed \ 2.59 a /2.59 0.0% No change 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 1 '•5.10 - 5.10 0.0% No change OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 5.15 " \ 5.15 0.0% No change 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 5.55 ‘',5.55 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq -ft-., 1,000 sf 5.55 -5.55. 0.0% No change 732 Post Office 1 \ 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 ` 0.0% No change 733 Government Office Complex `� • 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change 760 Research & Development Center \ _ '. 1. t 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change RETAIL: 820 Retail/Shopping Center _ . ._ ` \, 1 1,000.sfgla 2.64 2.69 1.931 TL based on average size in ITE 10th (450k sf) 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales,/. \, 1,000 of w_ 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket j ` . i` '- '\ 1,000 sf-. \ , 2.08 2.08 0.0% No change 890 Furniture Store \ ' \ � \, '.1,000 sf ,...' 6.09 6.09 0.0% No change SERVICE:911 Bank/Savings Walk -In '`. \ \ \ '1;000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In '. \ \ 'r, 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 932 Restaurant ". \ 1,000sf 3.17 3.17 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru \, 1,000 sf 2.05 2.05 0.0% No change 942 Automobile Care Center \ \ / 1 1,000 sf 3.62 3.62 0.0% No change 944/946 Gas/Service Station with & without Car Wash ' fuel pos. Land use re -alignment, see below 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 1.90 1.90 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 1.90 1.90 0.0% No change 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 1.90 1.90 0.0% No change 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 2.18 2.18 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: - - - - 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.096 No change 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.10 3.51 13.2% Updated to reflect more current data 154 High -Cube Transload/Storage 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change n/a Concrete Plant acre 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change n/a Sand Mining acre 5.15 5.15 0.096 No change - See Appendix F for additional information Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-16 IndianF�Riiver Cosj Impart "I DRAFT Table C-11 Percent Change in Percent New Trips of Impact Fee Land Uses LUC %New %New Land Use Unit Trips Trips %Change Explanation 2014 2019 RESIDENTIAL: :. _1, _. ....-:,...-. ,• •-i''. '..- em £;'!" S7'4-.-.,7, r . ' 210 Single Family (Detached). Low/Very Low Income du 100% 100% 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - Less than 1,500 sf du 10096 100% 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - 1,501 to 2,499 sf du 100% 100% 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sf and greater du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du land use re -alignment, see below 220 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 levels) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 221 Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 240 Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 72% 72% 0.0% No change LODGING: - -... .. .. .. �. 310 Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0% No change 320 Motel room 77% 77% 0.0% No change RECREATION: 411 Public Park acre 90% 90% 0.0% No change 420 Marina boat berth 90% 90% 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course hole 90% 90% 0.096 No change 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 88% 8896 0.0% No change 490 Tennis Court court 94% 94% 0.0% No change 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 94% 94% 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS:' 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) , student 80% 80% 0.0% No change 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 90% 80% -11.1% Updated to reflect more current data 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 9096 /90% 0.0% No change 540/550 University/Jr College (Private) student 90% / 90% 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf 90% 5.90% 0.0% Na change 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 73% . -. 7396 0.0% No change 571 Jail bed ,-,92% 92%-, 0.0% No change 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf f _ . 8996 9096- \ 1.1% Updated to be based on LUC 710 590 Library 1,000 sf f 85% 85% \, , '0.0% No change MEDICAL: - -•610 Hospital 1,000 sf '‘. `. 7796 _ 78% 1‘.3% Updated to reflect more current data 620 Nursing Home bed '1 -89% 7 , 89% 0.0% Nothange 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf .,+93%! .770% -24.7% Additional FL Studies added OFFICE: .- - - - .. . ..... ... .... .. 710 General Office 1,000 sf 92% ♦ ''. 92% . 0.0% No change 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 8996 '1, '89% 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 89% \89% 0.0% No change 732 Post Office ,.r- --. 1,000 sf 35% 35% '., 0.0% No change 733 Government Office Complex 7 r -r .. 1,000 sf 92% 92%'' 0.0% No change 760 Research & Development Center ( 7 \ '. 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change • RETAIL .. ... -. 820 Retail/Shopping Center ti•„ \ 1,000 sfgla 73% 74% 1.4% PNT based on average size in ITE 10th (450k sf) 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales __ `,. `r,f 1,060sf 79% 79% 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket / _- '+.- 1,0000 ' 56% 56% 0.0% No change 890 Furniture Store / I `•, ‘, \ 1,000 sf`, .'N. 54% 54% 0.0% No change SERVICE: 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In.` -. 's \ '-'.1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In \ w. \ _\ 1,000 sf, 46% 46% 0.0% No change 932 Restaurant \ . 3.. . 1,000 sf 71% 71% 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru '., t' 1,000 sf 58% 5896 0.0% No change 942 Automobile Care Center \ . \ i 1,000 sf 72% 72% 0.016 No change 944/946 Gas/Service Station with & without CarWash ,/ - fuel pos. Land use re -alignment, see below 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft / fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 6896 68% 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL:110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 154 High -Cube Transload/Storage 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change n/a Concrete Plant acre 92% 92% 0.0°% No change n/a Sand Mining acre 92% 92% 0.0% No change - See Appendix F for additional information Tindale Oliver January 2020 C-17 Indian River Cay ImpAttacnmennt Sru DRAFT \'- , \\ Appendix D. Transportation Impact Fee: Cost Component 292 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix D: TIF - Cost Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the transportation impact fee update. Supporting data and estimates are provided for all cost variables, including: • Design • Right -of -Way • Construction • Construction Engineering & Inspection • VMT Distribution • Roadway Capacity Curb & Gutter vs. Open Drainage \ ,-,'\ \ \ / ti4 Due to a lack of available roadway construction data fortiu ral-design (open drainage) roadways, the cost per lane mile for these types of roads is calculated using an adjustment factor. This factor is based on the ruraI-to-urban design cost ratio from the' ost recent District 7 Long Range Estimatess provided by FDOT. Based on the LRE, the costs for pen drainage roadway capacity expansion (new road construction or lane addition) is approximately 74 percent of the construction costs forcurb and gutter (urban) roadway improvements. Table -D-1 Curb`& Gutter (Urban)/Open Drainage (Rural) Cost Factor Improvement Cost per Lane Mile Rural Design Urban Design Ratio \ 0-2 Lanes $3,190,321 $5,001,730 64% '\ `0;4 Lanes $2,571,116 $3,517,494 73% `0-6'Lanres $2,182,686 $2,843,061 77% 2-4 Lanes $3,707,679 $4,601,110 81% 4-6 Lanes $4,072,695 $5,179,613 79% Average $3,144,899 $4,228,602 74% Source: FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates, 2019 'This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver January 2020 D-1 Indian River Coli§ty 4431 DRAFT Design County Roadways The design cost factor for county roads is estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor is determined based on a review of design -to -construction cost ratios from future projects in Indian River County and from previously completed transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. For local estimates, design and CEI are grouped, ranging from 16 percent to 26 percent, with a weighted average of 19 percent. For county roadways from throughout Florida, the design factors ranged from 8 percent. to 14 percent with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this study, the d sign 'cost for county roads is calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Theuse of\11\percent reflects that the local data has grouped design and CEI into a single cost. item. CEI costs �e reviewed later in this \ '\\\ �1 ,/ appendix. State Roadways \ \ The design cost factor for state roads is estimated as'a,percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor is determined based on a review of'design-to-construction cost ratios from previously completed transportation impact fee studies througli'out Florida. As shown in Table w \ D-3, recent design factors ranged from 10 to 11 percent with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this turfy, the\cle'sign cost for state roads is calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane\mile. \ \\ \\ t \, Tindale Oliver January 2020 D-2 Impkttt&LA) nt' 1 Indian River Cot ee date St d N LL 00 0. E O y d t0 I- 'O A C 0 0 0 07 W 0 0 v 00 0) co CC m c 1.,, 2 N 01 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 to t o 0 ae p• y. • o" c 0 LA0.AA 3 v 0ea co 00 o 000 ,i U} 0 0 a. 0 N V? 0 O 0 0 6 00 0lC a 00 N .1 V} V! I000'OOL'Z$ 0 0 u1 ono N H p00'S05'Z$ O 0 O 4 N 000'L68'Z$ 000'620'£$ O O O -o M N 1 O O O 10 M V} .^. 00 N uo ..4 O 0_ 01 c CO '0 N N O cono ' 14 N .t` (h - CO'" ,_� V} 0 'a tO N N N v/ $240,000 $196,000 0 0 0 O n N N 0 0 0 tO .. CO N 0 0 0 00 N 00 V} 0 0 0 n N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Ol M .. M M VI. V} 0 0 0 00 V en V} . . O 0 0 ul 00 M N 1A I4 AA \0 00 N N O00'0.0000000000co O N, C d` c 0 L 0 0 j J 0 f t, 0 0 i• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1%0T 00 00 .. 0 N y`0 fl• "' • O La =• c 3 to 0 0O 00 0 .: 0 0 LA N N 0 0 0 0 00 N ' $2,200,000 $1,598,000 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 to 0 N 000'OOT'Z$ ` ' $1,668,000 O O 00 0 0 of 00 n 0000 N N 0 O O in CO N `. • $2,542,0001 0 Oat 0 o 00 tv1 00 00 qii fen} (.j O K Z. c m 3. V d 0 0 0) m 0 .. 0 N V n lO M N V? V} 0 0 0 00 m .. *4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tT N u1 N .-I V} N 0 0 0 O t\ N N 0 0 0 N d' N V} :O 0 0 -O 'H N v -O O 0 n ,to '.. V} O O O O' 0 0 'V:.0 N' V 'N M V} N .0 O'0 0 O N N .A O 0 tT CO' tV AA e O O 0 'M 'O N V} O 0.N u1 04) •0O M V} M' 0 R 00 N N Osceola v 00 c ro O Hernando Charlotte Indian River Collier v > v L Sumter c O co i Palm Beach Hillsborough St. Lucie Lo 0 Orange \ �., 13i o 0 m a AD 0! > N N 0 0 N N CO .. O N CO 00 .-I 0 O N N u1 0 N IA .-I O N V1 .. O N u1 0 N ul lO 0 0 N N N 0 N n 0 N 00' 0 N co 0 N DRAFT Right -of -Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new road construction, build a new road. County Roadways For impact fee purposes, the ROW cost for county roads is estimated as a percentage of the / construction cost per lane mile. To determine the ROW cIost factor, Tindale Oliver conducted a review of local projected ROW acquisitions along capacity expansion projects in Indian River County and reviewed ROW -to -construction cost rat os;fromrre cent transportation impact fee studies from other counties in Florida. As shown in Table D-4, \RQW\cost estimates from four Indian River County improvements indicated a, weighted average `construction cost ratio of \ \ approximately 22 percent. -•, As shown in Table D-5, the ROW -to -construction factor for recent studies throughout Florida , ranged from 32 percent to 60 percent with an average of 42percent. Based on a review of these two data sets and discussions with county staff, ROW costs'are'calculated at approximately 20 percent of the construction costs. State Roadways Similar to county ,roadssthe• ROW cost -of state roads is estimated as a percentage of the construction. cost per tape mile. Given the limited data on ROW costs for state roads in Indian River County, the ROW-to`construction ratios from several recently completed transportation impact` fee studies throughout Florida are reviewed. As shown in Table D-5, the ratios for state \. \roads ranged\from 32 percent to 60 percent with an average of 43 percent. However, for purposes of thiupdate study, the ROW cost is estimated at 20 percent of the construction cost per lane mile for state roadways based on the local county road data shown in Table D-4. Tindale Oliver January 2020 D-4 ImpaaAtaecCTteiStIndian River Cd i lanes Lane Miles Construction ROW to IRC# Roadway From To Date Status Feature Length Added Added ROW Cost Cost Construction Ratio - CR 510 CR 512 W. 82nd Ave 2022/23 Future Estimate Add 2 Lanes 2.25 2 4.50 $3,607,904 $26,598,086 14% ICR 510 IW. 82nd Ave 158th Ave 1 2022/23 'Future Estimate (Add 2 Lanes 1 3.00 1 2 1 6.00 1 $11,239,6721 $50,225,4101 22% 1230 137th St 'Indian River Blvd IUS 1 1 2022/23_[Future Estimate !Add 3 Lanes I 1.86 1 3____]_____ 5.57 I $2,000,0001 $8,000,0001 25% 1505B 66th Ave 69th St 85th St 2022/23 Future Estimate Add 3 Lanes ,r-., 2.40 3 7.20 55,000,000 $15,415,922 32% Total / ' r' 23.27 $21,847,576 5100,239,417 22% 01 LL o. C" c: cu ff/d cc v m O 012 O a v a 0 c 0 w 8 f0 LL 0 0 3 0 r 00 0 iO C C1 CC.C O o N .-I a ° 0 a a 0 N.00 a 0 a a 0 N M 0 t0 M o a CrO a 40 o a a o 0 UT 45%I q c to 0 c N M 0 M 'Cr C. « ` O ` C 0 ti 3 v 0 ' 0 n Cr 00 N VT 0 0 V N 0 N N 0 0 O 0 a N N 0 0 tD 1- 1- N VT 0 0 O 0 N N V? 0 0 00 CO n N UT 0 0 0 00 O 0 t0 00 0 N N Vr N 0 0 0l N 0 M VT 0 h CI 00 N VT I000'OOL'E$ • 0 0 O 0 of AI VT T. M M 40 N VT O o C «�? 10 ,LID � `C oo.. 'al LA 00 .1 VT 0 tD of 0 Cri00 00 N 0 0 0 03 .N1 V/ 0 0 0 H. 00 1.....) N f� 0 0 0 M t0 N 0 0 0 LiC0 0 O VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. COM N M .-I N N 01 VT 0 0 0 M M H VT 0 0 0. CO a a HI N 0 0 0 N 01 M HI N . 0£6`i£t`T$ 000'802 I$ 0 rs 0, 0 C C; J 0 00. .-1 .v1 a a \ � 0 a 0 00 a 0 N Cr 0 N M 0 LAo Ma 0 0- a 1n 00 a 0 0 1n 45%I 0 0 a 40%I 35% ( N a CL tit • O `v1 o C > j R 13R 0 0 0 0 00 0 .-+ 0 0 t0 a N N N VT 0 0 0 0 co 00 .-I N 0 0 0 S. O N0,. N „.„0,1 $1,598,0001 (000bOL'Z$ N 0 0 0 tri 0000000000000000 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 .1 l0' N n) UT N 0 0' 0 of 100 .-1 VT 0 0 0 N co N VT 0 0 0 o N N N 0 0 0 00 01 •lV VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .ri 0 V1 v.,M N M VT UT 0 01 00 1D N O C « C 0 0 O O U C x 0 0 0 00 CO COo 0 o , , VT T V 0 0 .-i 000 N 0 0 v M o e1` VT 0, 0 v1. 00 to N 0 0 01 t0 03 4 0 0 CO •O n VT' 0 0 0 0 0i. '0 a 0 ,0 o VT'N •r" VT .0 0 r? N n VT, /' 0 0 00 a a `04-. V/T t 0 0 •0 •Ot rn 1N 0 0 v 'V1 rn VT $1,017,000 \ $1,208,000 $968,258 c 0 o v Osceola Orange (Hernando Charlotte 13o N w ._ O U 01 m Sumter Marion Palm Beach w` I s no a H M St. Lucie �. Clay Orange Collier Average 2 01 N N 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000 M 01 0 M 0 0 a 0 0 v1 0 0 LA 0 0 1.4 00 0 e-. 0 0 of .-I 0 t0 .-1 0 h 1-1 0 00 0 0 CO CO 0 0 0 0 DRAFT Construction County Roadways The construction cost for county roads (curb & gutter, urban section design) is based on Indian River County projects and the cost of recent projects in other communities in Florida. As shown in Table D-6, the review of construction data (completed/ongoing and future estimates) resulted in a weighted average cost of $2.54 million per lane mile. In addition to Indian River County improvements, recent/bid/completed projects from other communities throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the ,sample size of data. This review, as shown in Table D-7, included approximately 16klane miles,of improvements across 12 different counties, averaging $2.90 million per Jane mile. As show in Table D-6 and Figure 0-1, the average cost per lane mile has been.steadily increasing in the past few years, far exceeding the average\ ver\the entire time period`($2.90 million). Figure D-1 illustrates the range of'construction costs''per year as well as providing the annual average of the entire sample. Figure D-2 goes a st p,f rther, providing two different trend lines,based on the set of statewide data. The "reduction of sample,", trend shows how costs have been increasing in more recent years by starting with theaverage of all projects (from 2012 to 2018) and then gradually removing an earlier year--of_sample,data:., Conversely, the "cumulative sample" shows how each additional year of cost datahasimpacted the.weighted average as the sample size has increased. As shown, costs are continuing to�increase'over-\time, and use to multiple years results in a larger sample with a relatively conservative cost estimate. �\ N� \ \ To increase the ample size of data, the weighted average cost from the local Indian River County projects and the projects, from/'throughout Florida is calculated. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $2.80'million per lane mile is used in the impact fee calculation for county roadways. Calculation details: Table D-6 = 43.87 lane miles and a total cost of $111,300,561 Table D-7 (excluding Indian River County) = 164.22 lane miles and a total cost of $477,112,458 Combined data sets = $588,413,019 / 208.09 lane miles $2,828,000 per lane mile Tindale Oliver Indian River Coliqd January 2020 D-6 ImpaAtt ee Uoda e 0 0 w LL C Construction Cost — Indian River County Local Roadway Improvements Source: Indian River County Public Works Department o aid) ZE c „U asc 45 O N 0 O 0 O L • O • N O E O n N C 0) a o. N ra45 0 tx 0 0 0 v° 0 0 2 0 0 4-) o m C 2 C 23 O C y U A 1ni1 b N 52,968,948 51,406,967 52,964,077 51,219,241 55,511,704 51,273,801 - O o V1 53,190,554 52,258,065 54,280,660 51,994,386 o n co N nLi e r Of N N 55,073,941 53,334,063 52,695,107 52,202,143 01 gniLo a l0 iD O H N 40 0 1D O N .A 52,670,788 52,988,778 _ 54,346,536 52,026,493 54,189,779 $2,763,440 orv$w 00 00 CO N N V1 ap O0 N CO V�1 4.41 53,645,781 54,878,049 52,906,373 52,926,856 52,905,325 $3,336,424 $3,602,296 c U CO O v N 01 co n1 4 6 N CO 0. N N LA cp to 6 COCO N 4.4 55,276,057 53,413,874 58,818,727 53,821,404 1G c0 0 V 1 58,805,928 556,000,000 517,122,640 5438,765 58,616,236 54,283,842 $35,354,230 57,002,038 516,003,504 1OOp ui 6 n .moi N p N O 6 10 O I f LA LAO ni 00 CA 0. N V n 01 LA o 00 00 Al N a 1 N 546,942,585 519,535,391 $18,435,028 $3,758,279 Op nO vi o a CO At V 1 N 510,332,0001 53,746,796 orO a LO S 0 O N N o. ao vi 01 00 1D YI N V. $477,112,458 571,199,297 $46,613,706 00 ia v c Q c 3 ton g N lc g l6 6.4 n m N. 1.60 3.00 10.16 4.68 2.76 24.80 4.00 o e n mr 605 1 1.38 4.80 6.22 2.80 m g i N g N vv 0 N e~ m 1 o o 4.40 1.36 3.54 4.30 ovin ..o 0.84 4.10 oe 1::aosy .ter 164.22 21.34 12.94 .,-0 d d c9 374 N N N a N a N N Al N N N N N a N N Al N N N Al N N\ N N r4 N a a N N N N N N N N M N M 4, H .�-1 0 .-1 M pp 0 0 M n1 W N C G 000 N O G .y N a 01 00'1 N pp . 0 7.1 6 .. v01 6 0 Al0O. N 6 .4 e t40 O O N .-1 a 01 .-i 0000400--4003,0101413r401,3 b 0 N .1 1n• 10 .4 N 10 N ci a N 6 N O .-1 ni O O O N C C 0 V V C C C 0 0 0 V V V c p cc n ion, 7 5 cc a 7 7 c c a a 7] c c c e a erococo 7 7 j> c c .n j>>> c c n c c a a 7 c c c a a a o> j 1 cc a n 5 7 a a a h J a rotor.," 7 5 7>> c c a a 7 c c aroma) o J> c c a a > c c s 7> c c a c j> c a j Total, excluding Indian River County District 4 ONLY District 4, excluding Indian River County a a 2222222222222-2220 Al N a a N 0 a a Al 0 a N a N 0 Ata 13 a N a U N V N V 0 0 a Z...1. a 2222222,42 N N N a a Al N N a O N Cr a or r4 a.a o N Cr a 0 2 N N Cr a 0 0 O 0 1O a 2 o a N Cr Cr 22222 N N Cr Cr N N a N r 9 V C0 C0 V .0 0] m 13 .0 m m .c3 13 13 00 'm m f o L Ol m L o m 01 00 9 m 6 '0 O a -m m 01 V 9 m OB 'O 00 m 0O V 00 m m V O m O1 V a m m a 9 Si 01 0000000010 m m m OO m m m L. > AlN N N AlN f0V N N N or N N N N N N N N -N N N 01 01 -At N 01 01 c0V N X 01 '00 01 N N N M a N N s a N N a 00 00 001 a a N N a a 001 At N 00 N Al J1 l0 N N 10 N N N 0• h N 001 00 N 58th Ave I 49th St Duff Rd US 17 N. of Peruvian In N. of Florida's Turnpike Starkey Rd SR 7 Hiawassee Rd FL Turnpike SR 50 Malabar Rd Green Blvd SW 200th Ave \ NW 27th Ave a ¢ — R 3 7 a (,Chickasaw Tr Desoto Blvd /0) v¢ 3,.. 3,,a to cc vii r 6 O Gatewood Dr t. N of CR.559A•&-56.599__ Nof SR 415 / • /`. / f ,3 ere ii x '^ LL V US 17/92', \ \ S Westwodd, Blvd Derbyshire -RA, E. of SR 5 (US 1) Elkcam Blvd + 1-4 in Deland,' Taborfield Ave Century Ave Whirley Ave From 43rd Ave 0 et >. o K —T. 1n t..9 US 98 S. of SR 40 N. of SR 710 W. of Lyons Rd E. of Royal Palm Beach Blvd Ocoee -Apopka Rd SR 528 SR 408 S. of Foundation Park Blvd Golden Gate Blvd US 41 NW 35th Avenue Rd NW 27th Ave US 301 N take Underhill Goldenrod Rd Wilson Blvd Mauna Loa Blvd Selvitz Rd IOId 50 Pace Rd & Nof CR 559A (Courtland Blvd C` Overstreet Rd / J (Sheldon Dr _ Pine Tree Tr \ N Westwood Blvd Jimmy Ann Dr/Grand Reserve. "\ W. of South 25th St Providence Blvd MLK Blvd Delmar Ave Poinsettia Ave Suncoast Pkwy Description Oslo Rd Ph. III 66th Ave Kathleen Rd (CR 35A) Ph. II Bartow Northern Connector Ph. 1 Tymber Creek Rd Jog Rd West Atlantic Ave 60th St N & SR 7 Ext. Clarcona-Ocoee Rd John Young Pkwy Econlockhatchee Tr Babcock St Collier Blvd (CR 951) SW 110th St NW 35th St NW 35th St C -466A, Ph. III Rouse Rd lake Underhill Golden Gate Blvd (Bee Ridge Rd IW Midway Rd (CR 712) ,N Hancock Rd Ext. CR 655 & CR 559A Howland Blvd CR 535 Seg. F Citrus Park Extension Ernie Caldwell Blvd International Dr LPGA Blvd W Midway Rd (CR 712) Howland Blvd Oran:e Cam. Rd Reams Rd CR 466A, Ph. IIIA Van • ke Rd 15 a 0 s .1 .1 N a a a N N Vf N N 00 N v1 N N N .-1 v1 0• .1 a N N N 01 N .9 N N a N 00 N 00 c 2 K O U Indian River _ Polk Polk Volusia Palm Beach Palm Beach Palm Beach Orange Orange Orange C W W 8u Marion Marion Marion Sumter Orange Orange Collier Sarasota St. Lucie Lake Polk Volusia O m 0 C D d = Polk Orange Volusia St. Lucie Volusia Volusia Orange Lake Hillsborough Source: Data obtained from each respective county (Building and Public Works Departments) Construction Costs — County Roads 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ci O O O ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 R LD L!1 cr' M N ,-i in. V? in. to N V? VT V} • Yearly Average N u OJ O G Source: Table D-7 o Ln C U v � ,_ 4--...' c L. v u.a13 c a E Tindale Oliver January 2020 Leto LL Construction Cost Trend — County Roads 011 O N 00 0 N 0) O_ 1° 0> E E N J N 0) d o o 0 0 O O o ton a (n 0 0 O O O 0 m O O O 0 0 N LT 0 O 0 o O inin O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o to 0 to N .-I .-i N • . Source: Table D-7 Tindale Oliver 0 N O N (0 3 c f0 1 DRAFT State Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent state roadway capacity expansion improvements did not identify and local improvements. Therefore, improvements from FDOT District 4 and from other communities throughout Florida were reviewed. As shown in Table D-8, a total of 77 projects from 34 different counties were identified, totaling over 439 lane miles of improvements with a weighted average cost of $3.84 million per lane mile. Of these improvements, 11 projects were located in District 4, accounting for approximately 45 lane miles with a weighted average cost of $4.68 million per lane mile. i f As shown in Table D-8 and Figure D-3, the average cost per lane mile has seen a slight increase since 2012 and shows a wide range of costs, reachingoven$12 million per lane mile for an improvement in 2014. Figure D-3 illustrates the range of construction costs per year as well as providing the annual average of the entire sample. \ \, Figure D-4 provides two different trend lines based-on`the,set of statewide data \The "reduction of sample" trend shows how costs have been increasi ig in more recent years by starting with the average of all projects (from 2012 to 2019) and then gradually removing an earlier year of the sample data. Conversely, the "cumulative sample" shows howach additional year of cost data has impacted the weighted average as the sample size has incre s d. As shown, there was a significant cost increase from 2012'to 2014 and since then costs have remained relatively stable. Based on a review_of these;improVements,throughout Florida, a state roadway construction cost of $3.80/million per' lane \mile ,was estimated and used in the transportation impact fee \\ \ \ `. \ calculation. Tindale Oliver January 2020 D-11 Indian River Coittx Impact Attachment "I co d a m O LL 00 O L O d t 0 £ O c d E m 0 a co co0 co ♦c/I O O O_ 7 Y O V ,. .Qi O d O cc In..m +3 c an~HNN C 1 O L, et m m .N. h H 54,885,241 54,710,315 $3,276,098 $9,660,524 $2,106,8651 $1,285,509 0 °tl Q M M 0r Na ^ n tD W N mN $2,225,456 $2,566,295 CO .Qr O n to to 01 O. 52,063,157 $4,698,083 54,353,305 53,450,566 $6,972,036 56,741,516 $3,292,648 $3,993,571 52,486,158 $8,568,384 53,028,472 54,413,236 58,948,266 59,511,196 54,299,864 52,731,813 $3,361,909 $6,694,336 LO ro tO r IT 0101 Vr ) .1 $5,478,444 53,484,875 52,545,197 54,867,413 $4,347,287 52,878,238 N Q ill CO. VS 0101 N N $4,677,578 $2,294,930 «0 m U ; 0 C O V Mr m W W r M CO 1/) N I o um tD N 01 10 1, VI N 539,444,222 $8,694,472 IN N 1 . O mnNLei Ie. N CO ni ni to N CO KI O . O a a N N 510,111,333 512,189,5331 514,242,918 517,707,436 528,089,660 56,592,014 CO0 Q 1 O m of r O e O o i N N 515,758,965 $8,488,393 510,318,613 566,201,688 $23,707,065 514,935,957 $4,872,870 $30,674,813 518,473,682 53,177,530 .to COt0 ID Q 0 r.-1 m vl CO CO rQQmn .+ .+ N .n m m O Q01O u m N .-. . N .n CO0 O of CO r N Q CON H $7,593,742 516,584,224 r Cr CO 0 Q CO n NccnQ OO 0C0 CO CO ulm_ .N N 1/1 516,187,452 537,089,690 534,256,621 $37,503,443 542,712,728 522,773,660 $26,475,089 532,129,013 CO vt Vr 9 d 9 C a 5 COm01Q Q O M O N O O p Om 5.80 8.04 0 00Qmwom .' O O O N W O !: ri CO O M .-i IN N 1.48 9.82 3.74 ID CO min 'I ni 6.10 0.72 O t0 0 00.000000 ry N O N CO. 2.54 2.28 2.90 3.98 tr. m tG r 7.88 13.03 7.26 7.60 0 OOn.nomNo ao ul N a Ca Q J Q N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N N N N N N IV N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N r N n N m .. .. O N p O 3 O M N m m. N . O Q .- O 0 4' M M Q N .i G Q VA N G .i Q a G Q pp W of -i . n 0 N OM M O O N .. O b 2 Al V O 2 Q V N N .. .. O m .. .4 ti G M M 0 N M D iW nM ON fV M c a 5>> c c a a c c 2 a 7>> c c a a 7 c c n n m 7> c c a a 7 c c s a 7� c c a a$ 7>>>>� c c a c c a a.6 a c a N 7 c c n a$ 5'5 c c a 7 c n a 7 m a a$ m m a m ...00 c c a .2.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.012.632.0.2.0 c c 7 c c 555'5=5 c -m.55 'n t c -m5 c c E t0 .O. « E. N Q Q 0 0 N N t0 t0 0 0 Q Q b 10 0 0 y Q N V 0«« O N Q tO 2 N O t0 Q 0 0 Q N 0 tO 0 0 Q Q LO Q 0 0 Q N Q Q 0 0 N N Q Q 0 0 N N Q tO 0 0 N Q Q Q 0 0 N N Q LO 0 0 O Q t0 Q . 0 Q N t0 t0 0 0 Q Q t0 N 0 0 Q O Q 0 0 0 N Q Q 0 0 2. N Cr t0 Q Y Y O N tO Q Y V Q N tO t0 YO Y Q Q t0 Q Y Y Q N Q Q Y Y N 0 N 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 T IN N N IN IN N N 01 N N N N N N N N N N N M In M m In I.m 00et Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q � ul N n NNNNNNNNN uul N uN o N10 LOn W. of Radio Rd Reed Ellis Rd 0.3 miles N. of Acorn Lake 5. of Countryside Blvd W. 46th St W. of CR 587/Mariner Blvd W. of Good Homes Rd Old Jennings Dalton Lane U5 27 Hanson St [Rangeline Rd W. of Australian Ave 5. of Barry Rd SR 540 r.of Cidco Rd pans Rd W. of Chiquita Blvd Fee Ave N. of Fowler Ave SR 739 Eau Gallie Blvd E. of Old Cheney Hwy NE 80th Ave W. of Mapp Rd 40th St N. of Fillmore St W. of Ruben Ln IS. of Atlantic Blvd W. 84th St W. 65th St Sarasota County Line Pelican Park (1-95) Heard St 'E. of West Oaks Mall Collier County Line Bird Bay Dr W Old Jennings Rd N. Boundary Rd Nova Rd Conway Rd Budinger Ave N. of Lake Louisa Rd Lake Mary Blvd E. of SR 607 (Emerson Ave) E. ofSR415 S. of SR 94 (SW 88th St/Kendall Dr) E. of Santa Barbara Blvd Seminole Co. Line Reed Ellis Rd N. of CR 576/Sunset Pnt W. 23rd St US 19 (SR 55) E. of West Oaks Mall Oakleaf Plantation Pkwy Birchwood Pkwy CR 833 Winkler Ave 1-4 W. of Congress Ave N. of Ritchie Rd N. of CR 540A N. of Pine St NW 18th St Burnt Store Rd Melbourne Ave S. of Tampa Bypass Canal Littleton Rd Sarno Rd E. of CR 425 (Dean Rd) NE 34th Ave _ Turnpike/Martin Downs Blvd 5. of 118th Ave N. of Hallandale Beach W. of Still Quarters Rd ,Pompano Park Place 65th St 53rd St Enterprise Dr Airport Rd CR 760A (Nocatee) SR 429 (Western Beltwayj_ Lee County Line Gulf Coast Blvd 5. of Branan Field Horse Landing Rd Eastern Ave Lee Vista Blvd Aeronautical Blvd N. of Boggy Marsh Rd Shepard Rd W. of SR 9 (I-95) Mellonville Ave S of SW 136th St Description SR 84 (Davis Blvd) SR 415 SR 415 US 19 (SR 55) SR 823/NW 57th Ave SR 50 (Cortez Blvd) SR 50 SR 23 SR 80 m o.. CO n H H SR 434 SR 710/Beeline Hwy US 27 US 98 (SR 35/SR 700) SR 5 (US 1) Andrews Ave Ext. SR 78 (Pine Island) SR 507 (Babcock St) SR 41 (US 301) U5 41 Business Apollo Blvd SR 50 (Colonial Dr) SR 70 CR 714/Indian St 43rd St Extension SR 7 (US 441) I512 200 (A1A) Andrews Ave Ext. SR 823/NW 57th Ave SR 823/NW 57th Ave U5 41 (SR 45) SR 243 (11A N Access) US 17 SR 50 SR 82 (Immokalee Rd) SR 45A (US 41) (Venice Bypass) ' .moi IA 0 0 SR 500 (U5 192/441) 5R 15 (Hofner Rd) 5R 500 (US 192/441) SR 25 (US 27) SR 15/600 SR 614 (Indrio Rd) SR 46 SR 977/Krome Ave/SW 177th Ave .y O N M r tO r N N .-I .. .. In Q .. 00 0 Q .-I N r .i ut N ti Q r Q N Q tO t0 .4 N .. ul .. .. N N ut ut Ill In N Q In t0 N t° >° > Pinellas Miami -Dade Hernando Orange Clay Hendry Hendry Lee Seminole Palm Beach d a Brevard Broward _ Lee Brevard Hillsborough Lee Brevard Orange [Okeechobee Martin N v m ,_ v a s m Nassau Broward Miami -Dade Miami -Dade Charlotte Duval Desoto Orange Hendry Sarasota Clay Putnam Osceola Orange illU v v 6 3 Seminole St. Lucie Seminole Miami -Dade .c 00 0 00 0 0 h73 cu .c 00 'Fs E c c o 5 E 001J o E 00 00 cc v):1 0 c c 0 1 . t ,.,5 0.1 E 3 ,.... ul . r: 82 r4 00 1,0 52,890,672 56,731,616 56,252,226 53,100,657 $3,168,280 53,637,094 53,268,401 $4,327,192 52,733,406 53,504,175 IN , . co r, 01 ni ui CO N to- tor N .4 ct.i 6 .1 6 to o 00 N 6 ui no n tor n •-.1 01 r-: ui 55,803,080 52,567,162 $6,663,866 53,381,764 56,864,987 54,172,272 51,716,003 54,882,267 $3,783,755 54,452,157 , c_f 8 51,303,999 524,415,701 543,591,333 CO 0 6 6 6 cot 01 03 ce r: f`• ., $28,078,366 511,112,564 533,319,378 514,541,719 541,349,267 527,677,972 0 ID rl 6 IA ton 515,646,589 545,162,221 550,444,444 518,768,744 ID .0 ui cf. co sr 0 0 6 6 no 6 . ID ui 6 6 ur 530,374,141 511,188,337 M11 .4. 01 r: ci of. 0 o N tot uo at ...Z CA 0 50/ 0. MI 5, CC 6 toi 6 t u: 6 6 co: 7.72 3.40 r ui .-i 6 .4 ur ut 6 6 cti ri co'. 2.78 2.38 6 ri 7.28 6.52 6 6 en "I. 00 4, 13 0.1 CU C 10 CO 0 '.. .0 N CV .1 IN N V. 00 .4 N 04 .4 541 .4 N N rot N IN N N N N CA N .4 rot 04 N IN r.,, .,?., r.,., CI 0. I, I, C••• . , I, 0 01 I, 0 I, . 0 Cr N . ,I 01 04 01 01 0 0 Mt 1.0 6 6 •:1- g ,3 uf: c .6 0 cccacccccccaccccccccccccccc co to co DDDDD==MDDDD0DDDDD7707077D0 to co ra to at to to co co to to to co co to co to co to to to to Miami -Dade 6 59997 (Krome Ave) SW 312 St _- _ . SW 232nd St --.... 2019 2 to 4 Urban Duval 2 Jax National Cemetery Access Rd Lannie Rd 2019 0 to 2 Urban Pasco 7 SR 52 W. of Suncoast Pkwy ,[-- E. of SR 45 (US 41) ' . 2019 4 to 6 Urban Total \ '‘ , District 4 ONLY , ',... E t- :C2 ut tor 6 IN CI N uo 6 .1 cl • tot Tr 0 0 ur ut 0 N 6 l0 cr ry ,. ID .4 '" N , . ID '.4. totrur .4. .4 tt, cr ut rt.. <1. .4- rt LE, LO nt .4.0%7N0 tor lel ,.. 0, > ...101.01.0..,,,,, 010000000000000000000000 N N rot cu ru rt cot n r rot ru r N N r 03030303C000,0003C001010101 N N PC IN r‘l IN . - '1,1 N ‘ r r 0000 ru ru SW 45th St E. of SR 5 (US 1) S. of CR 672 (Balm Rd) W. Jump Ct Tang -o -mar Dr N. of Baldwin (Bypass) N. of W. 3rd St NW 103rd St E. of Putnam Co. Line [E. of Walton Co. Line e !Jenks Ave E. of CR 579 (Morris Bridge Rd) E. of Round Lake Rd / Shader Rd . Forest Hill Blvd Leon Co. Line SR 9 (1-95) Overpass CR 44 (W Fort Island Tr) N. of NW 199th St Premier Pkwy and N of S Snake CR Canal E. Park Rd E. of CR 427 (Maitland Ave) Gulf Coast Blvd US 41 @ Ayers Rd N. Oregon St (Wekiva Section 7B) Griffin Rd W. of S. 25th St SR 674 W. Green Acres St Emerald Bay Dr S. of Baldwin 5. of W. 9th St NW 74th St E. of US 301 CR 30F (Airport Rd) E. of CR 2312 (Baldwin Rd) E. of CR 577 (Curley Rd) W. of SR 500 [SR 50 (Colonial Dr) W. of Lion County Safari Rd N. of SR 267 S. of 58 70 W. Jump Ct 'SR 860 (NW 183rd St) N. of NW 199th St and 5 of NW 203 St W. of SR 39 (Paul Buchman Hwy) E. of 1-4 Center Rd Suncoast Pkwy Orange Blvd Description SW 30th Ave CR 712 (Midway Rd) SR 43 (US 301) SR 55 (US 19) SR 30 (US 98) SR 201 SR 35 (US 17) NW 87th Ave/SR 25 & SR 932 SR 20 (SE Hawthorne Rd) 59 30 (US 98) SR 390 (St. Andrews Blvd) SR 54 59 46 (US 441) 59 423 (John Young Pkwy) SR 80 SR 369 (US 19) SR 713 (Kings Hwy) SR 55 (US 19) SR 847 (NW 47th Ave) SR 847 (NW 47th Ave) 'CR 580 (Sam Allen Rd) SR 414 (Maitland Blvd) SR 45A (US 41) (Venice Bypass) CR 578 (County Line Rd) SR 46 f • t nt. . ...,4 H6 tor tor r 0. I, CV . 1.0 N no rto r in In tot no ut n . 1.0 I, CA . 1.-. . Broward St. Lucie Hillsborou:h Citrus Walton Duval Hardee _ Miami -Dade Alachua Okaloosa Bay Pasco Lake Orange Palm Beach Wakulla St. Lucie Citrus Miami -Dade Miami -Dade Hillsborough Ora nge Sarasota Hernando Seminole , 0 00 E 0 0 *.c E :E 00 fo" 0 0 0 2 - 0 0 6. Construction Costs — State Roads • N • • O • • a O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O 6 O 06 oo 0 O 0 O O O O I- N O W l0 V N Q 1-1 O 0 0 0 00 O N O N • Projects • Yearly Average N 1-10 Source: Table D-8 o C U L > -OE c n E Tindale Oliver January 2020 etoLL Construction Cost Trend — State Roads Q S4, 0 O O N ri O a O 0 O O O O O d O o � 0 M N N' 1.4 to to 0 0 rn O 00 e-1 O N N O N 0 O V1 0 O N awmaCumulative Sample N Q E 0) L Y 0 Y 0) 0 a (▪ 0 O 1 - OJ N � T °1 • c O • O\� a: 0) v > N N L � b.0 O ea Q 2 0) Q- M c O — c N '6 c '0 L1 c EU1 IA Y M13 N II (0 N 11 Cl W ti O ECV 113 eL E N COE N Source: Table D-8 445 c > O 1� (0 u v • E cu U Tindale Oliver Ln 6 0 N 0 N (0 c CO DRAFT Construction Engineering/Inspection County Roadways The CEI cost factor for county roads is estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined based on a review of CEI -to -construction cost ratios from local projects and from previously completed transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. As previously discussed for local estimates, design and CEI were grouped, ranging from 16 to 26 percent, with a weighted average of 19 percent. As -shown in Table D-9, recent CEI factors ranged from 3 percent to 17 percent with a weighted average of 9 percent. For purposes of this study, the CEI cost for county roads is calculated sat 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. ` f' N State Roadways The CEI cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined based on areview„,of CEI'to-construction` cost ratios from previously completed transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. A`s"shown in Table D-9, recent CEI factors ranged from 10 percent to 11 percent with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this study, the CEI cost for state roads`was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Table D-9 • CEI Cost FactorforrCounty and State Roads — Recent Impact Fee Studies Year County County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile) State Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile) CEI Constr. CEI Ratio CEI Constr. CEI Ratio 2012 2013 2013 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2017 2017 2018 Osceola Hernando Cha`rlotte\. IndianRiver'•. Collier Brevard Sumter Marion Palm Beach Hillsborough St. Lucie Clay Collier \, $265,140 5178,200 $220,000 $143,000 $270,000 5344,000 \ $2,651,400 10% $313,258 $2,847,800 $147,000 /550,000 $108,000 \ $261,000 $198,000 $191,000 $315,000 Average $206,949 `$1,980,000 9% $2;200,000 10% $1,598,000 9% $2,700,000 10% 52,023,000 17% 52,100,000 7% 51,668,000 3% 51,759,000 6% 52,897,000 9% 52,200,000 9% 52,385,000 8% $3,500,000 9% $2,281,646 9% 11% $222,640 $2,024,000 11% $240,000 $2,400,000 10% $196,000 51,776,000 11% $270,000 52,700,000 10% 5316,000 52,875,000 11% $250,000 $2,505,000 10% $227,000 $2,060,000 11% $333,000 $3,029,000 11% $319,000 $2,897,000 11% $341,000 $3,100,000 11% n/a 5385,000 $3,500,000 11% $3,412,898 $31,713,800 11% Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida Tindale Oliver Indian River Co t January 2020 D-16 ImpagttaCf1171e t I DRAFT VMT Distribution by Roadway Table D-10 presents the VMT breakout by roadway jurisdiction, based on data from the TCRPMv4 model. The distribution between state and non -state roads is used to calculate the weighted average cost per lane mile used in the transportation impact fee calculation. Table D-10 VMT Distribution Roadway State VMT (2040) 1,362,114. % VMT '` 42.9% County 1,702;302. ;" 53.7% Local (City) 4108,717. '\ 3.4% Total (All Roads) /3,173,133 `\100.0% State / 43%. City/County 7' 57% Source: TCRPMv4 Roadway Capacity \\ As shown in Table D-11, the average capacity per lane milels based on the projects in the 2040 Long Range Transportation -Plan's Cost Feasible Plan. This listing Of, projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Indian River County. The resulting weighted aaverage capacity per lane mile of approximately 8,600 was used in the transportation impactfee calculation. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co }ea ty January 2020 D-17 Impafit gcllJpme Coit I c N 0. w o. d 0 c A 0 t 0 N 0. 1 • c D m d �- .0 d a_ cc 00 J 0 0 N c 0 0 u d m Jurisdiction Description From To Improvement Length Lanes Lane Miles Curb & Gutter or Initial Future Added Vehicle Miles of Added Added Open Drainage Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Added Cost Feasible Plan uo Ill O Ci N n 01 OO omo Ip Ip D1 CO 86,850 93,624 28,577 79,162 CO 0 Tr 0 < cri ..1 N 01 Q O O1 Vi N CO n 37,471 820,748 733,916 86,832 674,948 145,800 Oni n IOD n N m 10 O N ID V1 0 (5(5nonn M co a6 0 01 N 0 0 M no r O1-:" .i N 0 0 m m n 01 01 0 0 aom 10 m O C1 01 01 0 0 ao m U1 IA C V N 04 0 0 moo 10 N a Ti 04 04 0 oo N Ti. 0 New Road Construction: _ `,. `-' 29.90 3236 (e) Lane Addition: r / -�, i, 65.00 6854 (f) VMC Added per lane Mile: N N n m M N I11 T IOO O N D1 .-1 Di 01 10 1101 O N O1 .y .i M M W N 1I1 m Ti Y1 .i 111 W W Ill N v v .-1 01 0 W N N Ti a 04 04 COO V1 a .y na^uv 15,390 15,930 14,580 39,800 14,580 14,580 0 0 a1 N 0 0 0 0 0 X X 10 m O * 3C m .+ n N Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter Open Drainage Open Drainage Open Drainage 01 O< . . m LO . . m m 0 CO I, 0no 0 m m . . M n o m . . N tri m 0 . . C O no `/7 /� 01 m . . V1 T f n 0 . . CO m 0 0 . . n N N CO N N N CO N N N 'N / 7 N N County I82nd Ave I69th St Laconia St INew Roadway 0 to 2 Lanes. `. 1 .2.57) I 2 Total (All Roads): County Roads: ti State Roads: . \ Urban (Curb & Gutter) Section Design: Rural (Open Drainage) Section Design: 'CO 00mm01"immoCOv0 IU O ei ' e IA V1 r M \ 54 10 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 canes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes New Roadway 0 to 2 Lanes ! Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes .., New Roadway 0 to 2 Lanes New Roadway 0 to 2 Lanes f New Roadway 0 to 2 lanes INew Roadway 0 to 2 lanes\ Intracoastal Waterway 26th St 58th Ave 53rd St CR 510 Barber St 74th Ave US 1 66th Ave 182nd Ave lOslo Rd 69th St Nv m In o c: U O 1-95 CR 510 Willow St 49th St 58th Ave 66th Ave 58th Ave 66th Ave 12th St 26th St CR 510 43rd Ave Oslo Rd US 1 1CR 512 66th Ave 12th St 26th St/Aviation Blvd 53rd St 53rd St 74th Ave 82nd Ave County County T c a J N O V County County County County County County County County a 0 V K C r DRAFT Appendix,E .. Transportation Impact Fee: Credit Component 311 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix E: TIF - Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Local fuel taxes that are collected in Indian River County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2C/gallon) j \ f • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel,fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution. • The State allocated 80 percent of this tax/to Counties:after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. / \_ t • The 20 percent surplus can be used tosupport the road construction 'program within the • county. - \ \!r `\ • Counties are not required to share the proceeds,of this tax with their municipalities. \\\. 2. County Fuel Tax (1C/gallon) • Tax applies to,e'very.net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County's reliance on ad valorem taxes. • Proceeds are to`be'used for transportation -related expenses, including the reduction of bond—ir debtednness incurred -for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include ;acquisition of rights-of-way.;,the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction ofbonid,indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. • Counties are not required'to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. \ \ 3. 1st Local Option Tax (up/to' 6C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. Tindale Oliver January 2020 E-1 Indian River Conty Impact ttac`nme t DRAFT Each year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2018- 19 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Indian River County for the current fiscal year. Table E-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated,for the various types of fuel taxes. It is estimated that approximately $897,000 of annual revenue will be generated for the County from one penny of fuel tax in Indian River County. For/'se in the impact fee calculation, the fuel tax revenue data is used to calculate the value \penny (per gallon of fuel) that is used to estimate the "equivalent pennies" of other revenue sources used to fund transportation. Table E=1 '-1 Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated,t Capital Programs,for Indian River County & Municipalities, FY 2018-19111 Tax Amount of Levy Total Distribution per Gallon Distribution per Penny Constitutional Fuel "fax .„ $0.02 $1;849843 $924,922 County Fuel'Tax,, $0.01 $816,959 $816,959 1st Local Option (1-6 cents). ', $0.06 $5,404,820 $900,803 Total $0.09 $8,071,622 We ghted Average per Penny(2) ` ` .. $896,847 1) Source: Florida.. Legislature's Office of- Economic and Demographic Researci .http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-government/reports/ -- 2) The weighted average .distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total distribution and dividi;'thatvalue by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100) t Capital Expansi n,Credit �. A revenue credit for the`apnual'expenditures on roadway capacity -expansion projects in Indian River County is presented below. The components of the credit are as follows: • County capital project funding • State capital project funding The annual expenditures from each revenue source are converted to equivalent fuel tax pennies to be able to create a connection between travel by each land use and non -impact fee revenue contributions. Tindale Oliver January 2020 E-2 Indian River Co rityy ImpactFUc acrlme t I DRAFT County Capital Project Funding A review of Indian River County's recent historical expenditures and 5 -year planned expenditures shows that transportation projects are primarily being funded by fuel tax and the local government infrastructure sales tax revenues. As shown in Table E-2, a total fuel tax equivalent revenue credit of 12.1 pennies was given for transportation capacity -expansion projects funded with non -impact fee revenues. Table E-2 County Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies Source Projected CIE Expenditures (FY 2019-2023)(1) Historical Expenditures (FY 2014-2018)(�) Total Cost of Projects $85;070,039 $23.677,816 '.$108,747,855 Number of Revenue from Equivalent Years 1 Penny(3) Pennies(4) 10 $896,847 $896,847 $896,847 $0.190 $0.053 $0.121 1) Source: Table E-5 2) Source: Table E-4 3) Source: Table E-1 4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 2) divided by 100 State Capital Project Funding In the calculation of the'equivalent pennies of fuel tax from the State, funding on transportation capacity -expansion projects spanning a 16 -year period (from FY 2009 to FY 2024) were reviewed. This included capacity expansion projects such as lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements; interchanges, traffic signal projects, etc. The use of a 16 -year period, for purposes of developing a state credit -for roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable -credit, as it accounts,for the volatility in-FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. The total cost of the,transporta,tion capacity -expansion projects for the "historical" periods and the "future" period'. • FY 2009-2013 work' plan equates to 19.6 pennies • FY 2014-2018 work plan equates to 8.3 pennies • FY 2019-2024 work plan equates to 17.0 pennies The combined weighted average over the 16 -year period of state expenditure for capacity - expansion roadway projects results in a total of 15.1 equivalent pennies. Table E-3 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table E-6. Tindale Oliver January 2020 E-3 Indian River Cot Impktt aCtli'il@ilfdl DRAFT Table E-3 State Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies Source Projected Work Program (FY 2019-2024)(1) Cost of Number of Revenue from Projects Years 1 Penne) $91,263,112 6 $896,847 Equivalent Pennies(5) $0.170 Historical Work Program (FY 2014-2018)(2) $37,015,551 5 $896,847 $0.083 Historical Work Program (FY 2009-2013)(3) $87,684,576 5 $896,847 $0.196 Total $215,963,239 , \ 16 $896,847 $0.151 1) Source: Table E-6 / 2) Source: Table E-6 3) Source: Table E-6 4) Source: Table E-1 ~ ` 5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny,(Item2) divided by 100 ti ; Tindale Oliver January 2020- E-4 Indian River Cori Impa�Fttlacl1me t i CO i"1 O >- LL O 4, Tr O N >- 2.1 0) -' c 0) 0. W c 0 c co fl. W 0. f0 U co co 0 cc f0 v 1 O 4-. x c 0 U .62 0) c Total $1,062,484 N N m o I-1 Cr e-1 VT $1,223,739 $1,205,337 Cr V1 O COO VT N 01 m ID O1 tA• 0 0 00 N a .1 i? Tr m N Vi 01 VT tO N N tD uT a u1 0 r: .-1 .-1 .-1 VT tO N N o N R-1 M. Cr V1 N e 0 N V) N m 0 N CO IA 0 V1 N .-i VT N 00 N tO' N N VT 0 it) 01 I: V1 O 00 N $3,364,8511 t0 U3 00 cf 0 Cr VT M Vl N O' N N 0 0 O1 com- .-i VT V101 N 00 Cr N to N Cr t01 0 N V) u m CO P' r1 to N IA 00 Qi ei N V? e-1 Cr m N t0 111 M. N ill Cr m N i? ill t m 0 o 0 N to $767,843 N V1 .-i N N VT t0 O1 N 00 N N VT $254,212 IA N N o 1-1 N VT N V) N Qi Cr V1 $443,476' $23,677,816 CO .-1 N 0 VT 0 VT 0 V) 0 VT 0 V? a 00 0 .1 0 V? 0$ 00 V1 0 m 0 t/? 0 in 0 VT N m 0 n N V? 0 ut .-1 -i O V) N O m N 00 .-i 01 m N' M. 0 V) 0 VT 0 UT 0 V) 0 VT in CO 00 N VT N m Cr 00 V' VT 0 V) N m m M SEO'00Z$ Cr V1 in m Om VT N N in .i .N-1 1.4 0 V? 0 VT 0 0 V N tn. $49,257 $443,476 $4,334,873 0. O N O V) 0 N 0 M. 0 N $694 N L/1 crrOl Ol .-1 N VT 0 O N 01 V) / \ $35,815 0 to / 0 VT / 1 000 m 00 Cr O .-1 VT $144,568 VT 0 V) 0 I.A. Cr m .-1 O t0 N VT $58,536 CO 0 C - W 01 t/? CO V1 m N V1 VT W V tO O -1 VT V N CO on LA l V? N N 0 O e I V) 0 V) 0 .-1 1-1 CT VT 0$ 0 VT $0 Cr) 00 N CT 10 C VT so 1-1 . -1 e-1 00 .-1 N V) 0 VT $33,325 0$ 01 VN 0 N N N t0 m N V? tt)4-N N 0 VT - $o \ so 0 V? / 0 LO CO to t0 01 al mtN 0 O 01 O1 M. 0 VT 0 VT .1 N N N .1 1/) $15,888 t0 00 (JD 01 to 0 1/ \ so 0 M. / 0 Cr, .-1 m / N ,Cr V1 i.6 V? N 00 V1 N M. 0 M. 0 VT 00 Cr al n ii- N m m 01 0 M. 0, CY m t0 V? t0 t0 ill 00 tm 0 V . 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT V1 00 0 O M. $254,212 $0 0 V). 01 Mi $2,337,252 N O N O VT so CO en N A 0 i1 to IM IN m- \ . 0 VT ,- ` / V1 0 10 Q -t/) 0 V) t0 01 N V1 -4 00 to O M V) i Cr CO N .4 V). / .O VT + r- 0 VI N .1 r4 U? 0 V) 0 to N 00 N tD .-1 N VT LO O N V in t/T t0 N al O N .--1 N CY N in 0 0 00 N .-1 VT $8,254 m t0 O N CO V) 0 N O N cr VT 0 V? / 0 V1 ul Q 1.0 V) V1 N N m V1 N V? LA N .-1 O N V) 0 VT 0 VT 0 V? 0 V? 0 VT 0 V) 0 V? 01 ani $2,531,686 a N0 Cr 00 Cr (N0 O .-1 VT N .1 m O� V eti VT ei .0'e-1 cr. N VT ZL0'SOZ'i$ $0 0 m V? so mO1 N .-I v V! 1 $0 m to .N -I V? O V) O V1 N N VT O V? O T VV) O 00 ei .-1 0ml N N VT $244,929 N 0 00, omo N VT O V) O V? $0 O 14 1 O V) $o 0 VT / 0 VT / 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 V? 01 t/N V1 00 00 O N N el VT Description Right of Way - 66th/12th - 4th 12th St/27th Ave Intersection 13th St SW @ 58th Ave Bridge Oslo Rd from 43rd Ave to 58th Ave 1st St SW/27th Ave Intersection 1st St SW/43rd Ave Intersection Traffic Controllers Traffic Fiber Optics 26th St/Aviation from US 1 to 43rd Ave 16th St/20th Ave Intersection Misc Intersection Improvements 66th Ave/CR 510 Intersection Improvements CR 512/Seb Riv Mid School 1-95 Right of Way - 26th St from 43rd to 58th Ave ROW 66th Ave from 12th St to SR 60 ROW 66th Ave from SR 60 to 49th -St ROW 43 Ave from 18th to 26th St \ ROW 66th Ave from 49th t6 65th'St• (Traffic Signal - 45th/58th Ave \ Oslo Rd/66th Ave Intersection ' \ ROW - 45th St/Left Turn Ln @ US 1, \ i 41st St/US 1 -,Left Turn Lane.. _I 58th Ave/37th Stleft Turn- Ln �.. \ ROW - 49th St& US 1 Intersection \ Aviation/20 Ave -Intersection \, 1 69th St Left Turn Lane at US 1 �. ROW - 26th St from 58th to 66th ROW - 66th Ave from 65th,to 83rd 1st St SW/66th Ave Intersection Round Island Riverside Improvements 1 ROW 43rd Ave from 12th to 18th \ 21st St SW & 27th Ave Intersection CR 510/CR 512 to 58th Ave 37th St & IR Blvd Intersection 5 N 0) m 'Q O N d 0 02033 03024 05004 05012 05014 05017 05018 e-1 m O V1 0 05032 05063 06004 CO O O t0 0 06011 06021 06040 06041 07806 13004 13005 m 1-1 O m e-1 ey O O Cr e-1 15006 O e-1 O to e-1 15018 15022 t0 O O t0 e-1 01 O O t0 e-1 N e-1 O tD .-1 16015 16034 N O 0 N e-1 ill e-1 0 N e-1 .-1 .--1 0 01 .1 TOTAL ia c a) E ro t 0. a) O O U .0 d >- c O U a) Io v c N O Tindale Oliver U) W January 2020 Indian River County — Capital Improvements Element, FY 2019 to FY 2023 7. O 1- O 0 0 0 If1 N in 0 0 0 0 V1 O1 I VT 0 0 0 o 0 u1 N VT 0 0 0 O' V1 N in $7,227,000 0 0 O o 0 111 o N VT $2,000,000 $2,647,385 0 91 N C N .-1 N' N 0 O' 0 I1 A N VT $1,000,000 00 00 O o VI M N VT O o 0 V VT 0 0 0 0 V1 N N VT 000'000'L$ $750,000 000'00ti'i$ 0 0 0 o 0 0 N VT 000'008'ti$ N 00 M M 1f1 CO.'i N VT N 00 o1 N O o1 N N 0 0 O VI N 1/1 VI N 000'008$ 0 0 0 O' 0 O M' 4/ 0 0 0 0 0 V1 M N 0 0 0 0 0 N .-1 VT $650,000 11 M O 0 N. 0 N 00 in. M N N0 0V) 0 N LL O N O 0 o 00 N VT O 0 o N V1 O VT 0 0 .4 0 M VT O 1/ O VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 VT 0 V1 0 V1 0 in 0 0 0 0 $0] $o] 0 V) 0 V/ 0 V1 1000'005'4$ 000'Oso'z$ 0 $600,000 0 00 o N VT 0 0 o N VT 0 0 o 1 Ur $13,261,0001 al N .y N 0 T LL t0A 0 0 O O 0 VT 0 0 O' O Lit VT 0 0 o u1 t^/T 0 0 l0 l N in �l/) iO/). 0 0 Vi N CO $0 O 0 o 0 O N VT N VOi VT 0 0 o O tn V) $0 N V0f 50 VT 000'OOS'0$ 0 0 V1 N V1 VT VO? 0 0 0 O tO VI 0 0 0 V1 al Vf 0 0 0 V1 NI VT 0 0 o 0 l -i VT 0 0 OD l0 VI N in N o OV1 o N }% LL O VT 000'OOL$ o V) 0 in 0 00 00 V! I- -_ sJ O VT V1 N to M 'y V/ / 0 VT l` 0 00 to h VT 0 VT .� , 000'oss'i$ O V T O VT $0 0 00 o N V1 0 00 IOi1 CO VT 0 Vf 0 V) 0 VT ,"1 0 01 00 M 00 V) O VT O I $600,000 O 0 0 0 ..-1 VT $200,000 0 0 0 1/1 .i VT to H 0 M 1 N N 0 al 01to 'i N L.L.1 0 Vf ` 0 O 0 o N V) 0 VT , 0 VT f 0 O 0 o IA N\ N 0 O 0 `o 0 0' N 0 o 0 o 0 0 N 0 M 00 d` 0 Io VT 0 VT 0 0 0 o IA IN VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VT l 0 0.4.4 0 0 0 V T V 0 [00'00L'i$ 0 14000 0 0 0 V1 N VT fT 0 0 0 V1 V ,VT % 0 0 o 0 O N [0'005'V$ N lD N Qi 00 m V1 01 of O1 00 l0 O N 0 VT 0 VT $600,000 0 0 0. o 0 O V! 0 0 0. o 0 N N $150,000 CO 00 0 M to O N 01 00 'i 0 N LL 0 0 0 o in N VT 0 VT 0 V) -, 0 V1 \. 0 0 0 O u1 N VT 0 0 0 O 0 V7 s 4/TV) ` $i,1ioo,000 0 0 O o o M N 0 01 N 7 ei .-i N N. sol 0 VT f 1 0 00 0 0, o .V VT 0 0 'o' o In VT 0 0 0 o in V1 VT 0 VT 0 0 0 o IA N UT 0 0 0 0 o .-1 VT 0 VT 0 0 0 o o M VT Vf 1-4 .-i V L13 V ,i` VT 0 04/1000000 0 o V1 l0 VT 0 0 0 0 0 CO VT 0 0 0 0 ID VT 0 0 0 0 0 'i` N 0 0 0 0 N VT 0 0 0 IA .--I VT t / IA a 00 N 00 V1 N VT Project Title 26th St/43rd Ave Intersection 26th St/43rd Ave to 58th Ave, four/five lanes (1 mile) 26th St/58th Ave to 66th Ave, four/five lanes (1 mile) 17th St SW, 27th Ave to 43rd Ave (Includes Bridge) 37th St 5 lane Roadway - US 1 to IR Blvd 43rd Ave/SR 60 - 18th St to 26th St - 4 lanes 43rd Ave/49th St to 53rd St, three lanes (0.5 miles) 45th St Improvements (43rd Ave to 58th Ave) 45th St/Left Turn Lane at US 1 (GNP Action 7.3) 49th St & US 1 intersection Improvements 53rd St widening from 58th Ave to 66th Ave 900 foot 4 -lane Segment 153rd St widening west of 58th Ave to 66th Ave 1,545 foot 2 -Lane Segment plus upgrade to 4 lanes 1 53rd St widening west of 58th Ave to 66th Ave 2,745 foot 4 -Lane Segment Signalized 58th Ave at 49th St (GNP Action 10.2) 58th Ave/SR 60 Intersection 58th Ave - North of 26th St Misc. Right of Way Acquisition 58th Ave - 33rd St and 37th St left turn lanes 58th Ave 49th - 53rd St - 4 lanes 58th Ave 53rd - 57th St - 4 lanes i" 1 58th Ave Resurfacing, 57th St to CR 510 (includes left turn lanes at 69th St) �, 1 66th Ave, 49th St to 69th St, four lanes (2.5 miles) Includes side streets & side street bridges 1 166th Ave, 69th St to 85th St, four lanes (2.0 miles) Includes side streets & side street bridges 1 Indian River Blvd @ Grand Harbor-Signalization \ 1 Misc. Intersection Improvements Misc. Right of Way Acquisition Traffic Controllers Traffic Fiber Optic .' `•a, 1 TOTAL [ \. \ _ \, r\ • d T 0 0 L 0) c 'D c N 0 7 0 In N N 0 0 O Y £ GD O a 0 3 T O V d L C a c 0 m 0 0 o. c t= 0 w t 0. d O m 0 o 5�no�u "" 'O`oo�wm " �J » n a w5.."...'rnu"maw" n ^ o a n n S. ".n Z a Q"m4R<^l c o$^ g n R ...dil N e ^.�R^. m. led ^ �e4 a g$ -1., e A q: -d-J.a A g q E .n S S S." 4 """aaaaaaaagaaaaaaaaaaagaaaaaaaaaaaaaggagagaaagaagggav, agaaagaaaaaagaaagaagasaggaaaaaaaaoaasaaaaagaaaamaasgspgpro aaaaaaagaaagaaaaagaggraaaaaaaaaaa:aaagaaaapgpaaamagakgg4go g 6 a E Zi agagaaaaaaggagaagaaaaagaaaagaagaagaaaaagaaEagg$ggaagggaq " g aaagaaaagaaaaaaa,gagggaaaaaaaaaagaggggaaasaaagaag»gaga aaaaaaaaaggagaag gag $aaxagaagaaaaaaaaamas-aasaaa:aagaaaa;t sE, s aaaaaaaasgagaaaguaEAagagagaggaagaEga„ as mem aaaaeaaaaaaaass �� gag aaaaaaaaa aag»gggraaaaaaaaa " ggagag$aggaa »: N$ as a Sag " aaaaaaa baa Nagagaaagaaaaaggag;aaaaaaagaggagsa-magaaaaaaaaaaaaagax o aaaaag$aaaagmaaaaxaaaaaaagagaaazAagaaga,aaaaaaagax aaaaagaaaaxgogaaaaagaaaaggasa " aa 8 agaaaaaaaaaaaagaga A , "sa.6gaaaagagaagagaaaaaaaagaaage:aagaaaaaagaaaaaagaaaaag6 g N " $ 3 " aaaaagaaoAA A aaagaa:ag$6a N &S as aa aaa gaga 2 aaaaaaaaaaa _ a aNNB aaaaa4aaggx,agaaaaaogg " " s" " aaagaagaaaaaaagaaagagaaagga 5 '_� a gagaaaaaoa4aaaaaaoa.Avaaaggagasgagagaa aaa gagaaaa N macre aEgaavaagaagaaagEgagaaaaaaaaaagaagaaaaagaaagE "g » a "s RR 5 S<<<<<4 A�OLO ES O IANESB RECONSTRUCT GGG>;G GGGGGG 04400i„-„g� 5555354`..-'4555 "hh�� GGG GGG gag NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION z = Gh6 ,913 -o. 04-52 GGi GCgQ � _ t= E!gW F ? oc'88 F oa-- 8g2 35 g ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT TRAFFIC SIGNALS h�h� , 4-4535 B?soo6 'n5GSSS�z`< 'win ngGGA" IMERSfCTION IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING I NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION 002_o_oFo.8 a. 55coog <<= 'g 4 g 2.$ LL� gV P068/ENRO STUDY TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE giE w F .AiZ NAN S g - o F F ISR-60/05CEOLA BLVD FROM MP 19M0 TOW IAS/MP 22.5 SR -60 C DIA BLVD FROM MP 14,634 TO MP 19.00 0^ ' FF 4 $K"mm_.,`k� SR -60 FROM MP 3.38 TO MP 7.444 SR -60 FROM MP 0.75 TO MP 3.38 I'„UARIVER COUNTY ENHANCE TRAFFK SIGNALSYSTEM DIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGMOES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADES 9R60/0SCEOLA BLVD FROM W. OF 82ND AVE/CR-609 TO 66TH AVE/CR.615 ? A 3 m gWo80R Qpi OaFuCm c2 =roz'ogsgm oGF" e p0 i6.5,7:.4 ' 2- L 2.oo2 g�;1, a r ®F oo A 8g F i2 INDIAN RIVER COVNTYIPASIGNALMAINTLOPERNTIONSONSTATF NWY SYSTEM INDMN RNER CTY IPA SIGNAL MAINTENANCE A OPSON STATE HWY SYSTEM o W o 6m s 30 511-5/US1 FROM 53RD STREET TO CR -510 SR -5/U5-1 FROM 69TH STREET TO CR -S10 Ite,� $�., e o �po s 66TH AVENUE FROM 49TH STREET TO 69TH STREET 66TH AVE FROM 69TH ST TO CR-510/85TH ST 22”o a � , LL5OO o i"55 ERE 5` g w z c SR - AL REPAIR FROM HURRICANE MATTHEW CR -510510 FROM 58TH AVENUE TO SR.S/USI g�'zee ZG o rz3LL iO Ju Ng nN rr Al witA:.mAiSr ^A 0 AE~ae9 ss:aaaaae:va:aa::a::aaaeava RA..70HFiir a aeamd qa„ Tyr .RRA,5S 5as39 -e Source: FDOT, District 4 CO cn s— (1) c c X CI) IJJ LL 8 0 a) ao 0) 1- 14i cc N 00 . @.) — 2 > a) > CO Other Arterial Rural I 320,839,000,000 1 46,784,000,000 1 367,623,000,000 Other Rural 302,342,000,000 31,207,000,000 333,549,000,000 Other Urban 1,566,682,000,000 95,483,000,000 1,662,165,000,000 Total 2,189,863,000,000 173,474,000,000 2,363,337,000,000 Ln to OJ )... . " 0 i" Ln a) .g ! a) 0 re) CU r.1 otal Mi ea:e an. Fue c o E c o *E 7:11)E 00 0. N 00 N ni 00 at Cc1 00 ea '.0 N Ccl r -I CV' a ons @ 6.5 m. a ons @ 22.3 m.::1 21,584,937,565 7,197,538,462 14,387,399,103 Other Arterial Rural 18,359,014,143 4,801,076,923 13,557,937,220 14,689,692,308 70,254,798,206 Other Urban 26,688,307,693 98,200,134,529 To 4-, 0 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2017, Section V, Table VM -1 Tindale Oliver 00 January 2020 Published March 2019 TABLE VM -1 SUBTOTALS LIGHT DUTY LIGHT DUTY SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLE YEAR ITEM VEHICLES MOTOR BUSES VEHICLES LONG SINGLE UNIT COMBINATION ALL MOTOR ALL LIGHT 6 TIRE OR MORE SHORT WP!'," CYCLES WeTRUCKSIse TRUCKS i VEHICLESIZI AND COMBINATION VEHICLES TRUCKS • Motor -Vehicle Travel: (millions of vehicle -miles) 2017 Interstate Rural 142,445 1,128 1,775 44,928 10,103 52,171 187,373 62,274 252,550 2017 Other Arterial Rural 228,664 2,661 2,109 92,175 16,814 29,970 320,839 46,784 372,393 2017 Other Rural 213,923 2,728 1,986 88,419 16,563 14,644 302,342 31,207 338,262 t0 N t00 01 567,210 1,681,932 2,249,142 3,212,347 01 CONN 00 00 N N al .-1 11 C 0 0 V1 V) r1 0 0 01 01 1- n-1 M lft t 0 .-i 0 H (1) The FHWA estimates national trends by using State reported Highway Performance and Monitoring System (HPMS) data, fuel consumption data (MF -21 and MF -27), vehicle registration data (MV -1, MV -9, and MV -10), other data such as the R.L. Polk vehicle data, and a host of modeling techniques. (2) Light Duty Vehicles Short WB - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WM) equal to or less than 121 inches. Light Duty Vehicles Long WB - large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches. All Light Duty Vehicles - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles regardless of wheelbase. (3) Single -Unit - single frame trucks that have 2 -Axles and at least 6 tires or a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 10,000 Ibs. (4) Starting with 2009 VM -1, vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (N NTS) and the annual R.L. Polk Vehicle registration data; For single unit truck and heavy trucks, 1 motor vehicle mile travelled =1 person -mile traveled. (5) VMT data are based on the latest HPMS data available; it may not match previous published results. 140,265 61,844 95,483 157,328 297,593 .1-1 N al 01 N N .-1 M M 00 N OM1 V1 1: 01 .1-I 00 M LID 01 I!1 00 1n/1 n M N 810,554 N 00 N O ..n 000 t0 tD 1111 N 2,066,824 2,877,378 00 00 N tri LSA O V1 N ct CO 00 .ti .-100 N N 10 a .-1 01 00 .n-1 01 N c-1 e0-1 V1 M N N In Ono 01 43,228 41,478 84,705 0 01 00 .-1 03 N 01 00 N .-1 n 01 0 00 00 .-1 ,-I Lill 01 M O M 00 00 01 0 1.0 43,480 18,617 54,006 72,622 O ..-1 Lei .-1 .-1 Oat 01 tL1 M 01 Q1 M 00 N -1 O .-1 to .-i .-i 1x11 00 01 01 01 LA .-i 0 t0 .ti V ' n 225,522 99,803 331,253 431,0561 Ono L!1 to 001 CO o. to 01 00 01 --Z 0 M to .4 00 1. to 1: M 1 <11 t0 V1 n `1 5,870 00 L.0 N o n oo 11,358 n 01 1: .-1 .r N M 00 on .-1 V1 nV1 c-1 0 N t0 M M M O V1 M N o M N M n N .-1 111 l0 u3 01 Vl N' LD 01 0 .4 .-1 M 0 t0 M e-1 01 00 .-1 O 04 cl. 01 Vl e-1 n 00 N'1 . M N 01 CO 01 01 N N 00 CO. 10 00 01 011 0 00 585,032 400,339 1,235,430 01 O N V101 t00 . 2,220,801 M ,.NC.. rn al .M t0- o V .-1 -1N 01 al 01 (vj 01 N n r1 01 N 00 N N N All Rural Interstate Urban Other Urban All Urban Total Rural and Urban1se Number of motor vehicles registered1�1 Average miles traveled per vehicle Person -miles of travel(4) (millions) Fuel consumed (thousand gallons) Average fuel consumption per vehicle (gallons) Average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed 2017 11 .-1 0 N n '1 0 N 2017 2017 0. '1 0 N n 01 0 N n .-1 0 N n ri 0 N n r1 0 N n ..i 0 N Tindale Oliver q1 w DRAFT Appendix\F\, /Transportation Impact Fee: r". Calculated Impact Fee Schedule 321 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix F: TIF - Calculated Impact Fee Schedule This Appendix presents the detailed impact fee calculations for each land use in Indian River County's transportation impact fee schedule. Tindale Oliver January 2020 F-1 Indian River Co ry ImpaAt,iacnme ns Equivalent Gasoline Tax Unit Cost per Lane Mile: 54,306,000 Interstate/Toll Fa4Oty Adjustment radon. 10.9% 55 per gallon to capital: 50.272 Average VMC per lane Mile: 8,600 Cost per VMC: 5500.70 FadIty life (years): 25 County Revenues: 50.121 Fuel Effdency. 18.92 mpg Interest nate: 250% State Revenues: 50.151 Effettiveda •er an 365 Trip Annual Capital Net 2014 Full Current Assessable Total Percent,loot RE LUC land Use Unit Generation Tap Rate Source Trip Length Source %New Trips Source Net VM1'�Impact Cost Capital Imps. Improvement Transportation Transportation %Change Transportation %[Range Rale Trip length Trip length Now Trips Tax Credit Impact Fee Impact Fee. Impact Fee. RESIDENTIAL: LODGING: Blend ITE 10th \ \ 310 Hotel room 5.55 & 1151udles 6.26 6.76 FL Studies 66% `.6106,41 s 10.22 $5,115 565 52198 $3,917 52,156 82% 5970 304% RECREATION: . ` jI jI 411 Public Park acre 0.78 RE 10th Edition I-_ 5.15 `� Lj-._ 5.65 I ': Same as LUC 710 f 90% I Based on LUC 710 I 1.61. I 5806 L 510 5184 5622 5859 -28% _ 5387 61% INSTIMIONSL ` r l 50%of LUC 210. Based on LUC 710 520 Elementary School (Private, 6.5) student 1.89 RE 10th Edition 3.31 ' `.. 3.81 - • Tavel Demand Model BO% (adjusted)• 2.23 51,116 515 5276 5840 $364 131% 5164 412% i'i. V. .n x N ' N 7fi .,. w S'y �n wt '^ .�. n H r e a m N h m �i '^ F. w V. § 'c w N 3. w N S i 3 N S o a 2,,. n d s N nN, ii g n n 2 p 7. �� 3 5 R m n n n N x 2 N m �' /r fn/a 4 Ti Based on LUC 710 m Based on LUC 710 (adjusted)• Based on LUC 710_ _ o B 0 m Same as LUC 710 2 m 6 A gf •n 2 _ d �. ,. LL FL Studies LUC 220[221L222, � GQ P. PI_ d 721 d _ G AI fE 2? iEG/,ir 2/ ' 3 r R 50%0f LUC 210. Tavel Demand Model C B 5 Same as LUC 210 Midpoint of LUC 710 & LUC 820 _Opp. Cj Same as LUC 710 I Same as WC 710 n n n $ $ N m lad �ri .4 j�ui �I1 i : m n d n 1 m m m m 9 m m n ut r/ `Vi m m .1 n in — FL 5Ndies (NIRS, 0465, Census) FL Studies (MRS, ANS, Census) w x — RE 10th Edition s 7.1 m ITE 10th Edition s — ! c tg RE 1016 Edition _ 5 5 Blend RE 10th & FL Studies ITE 10th Edition (Adjusted) ITE 10th Edition (Adjusted) N g m m N e m n N m A 2 n 8 f, .5 o a a o 0 o a a s b gN !S S a 75 5 && E LL Sue _ a 5 2 E u u A g .6 E W su a` 5 E 2' E ,: u$ a Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1.2 levels) ,. g _r E 3 f c ky t u 2 ; n I u ' a — 2 2 c i C _ u [Movie Theater w/Matinee Tennis Court V i p G F d 21 2 i Unlversity/lunlor College (Private) 6 Day Care Center _ = N Table F-1 (continued) d d VI 1.1 0. E 0 0 t a.0 fC 7 X E Em eE E E - z xs r _ 5 i e I Ol N S M a. a' E n 5 8 r c $ MEDICAL 610 Hospital 1,001/42 L10.72 I RE_10lh Edition I 6.62 I 7.12 I Same as LUC 210 1 78% I Midpoint LUC 720 LUC 310 W I 24.66 I.512,347 5156 52,874 - 09,473 55,551 71% - $2.498 - 279% e� X OFFICE: ._. _ 710 General Office _ - 1,000 sf 9.74ITE 10th Edition_._ I 5.15 I 5.65 1 FL Studies 1 _-92%" I FLSIudIes I 20.56 510,394 5133 52,450 57,841 04,257 8496 01,916 309% 5 u m� 5 5 X � RETAIL- - AppendlxCFi&C-1 Appendix C: Fig. C-2 820 Retail/Shopping Center 1,000,fgt 37.75 RE 10th Edition 2.69 �, 3.I19 . (850k sfgl� 74% (450k sigh) 33.48 $16,762 5234 $4.311 $12,451 $6,360 96% 52,862 335% x � & X SERVICE: _ ... RE 10th Edltlon I 911 Bank/Savings Walk-In61 1,000 sf 59.39 (Adjusted) 2.46 :2.96_ '-Same as WC 912 46% I Same as LUC 912 29.96 514,991 $212 53,906 $11,063 $10,511 - 6% -__ 54,730 __- 134% 6 , 6, X m X a� X x e� X INDUSTRIAL 110 General tight Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 RE 10th Edition 5.15 5.65 I Same as LUC 710__ I --_92% I Same as LUC 310 li0.47 55,242 $68 $1,253 $3,989 $2,681 4991 $1,206 231% @ x 6 8 e 6 f 6 ffi g T X� 1 �t .44 N m r Nv. Q r d .n .n .n d H a a H H N N H h r am x ! x gcl a a & n x x~ e , x al a `I .n S N $ S.a , N . , s m aa rm. R mn ',7. n R 8 a 'n m •m m S 9 S. L\ _ /70 G '. •'1 me as LUC 710 x C G G C C , C G G C G S G i E a i �' Same as LUC 710 I f \,6 6/6'6 I f 5 5 g x 5 f f f f 6 G I Same as WC 630 (Appendix C) - e n e 3 E 3 E I Same as LUC 770 (Appendix C) J c .2 G f—f n' 1 d ,x : rG n fa > d G c G ....�...._ G a _ G Same as LUC 944 I E Same as LUC 710 ? 8 d 8m N N 8 " o { r rN i ' m 7 '-3 6 ry a3 .\ 1 rJ n �N 1 G m.. t„ m. - - Blend RE 100 & FL Studies RE 10th Edition ITE 10th Edition W 5 t II Blend RE 101h 8 FL Studies__ t ...t w 6 t- 7 G ±..,.., t-' G E Blend RE 10111 I & FL Studies t„ G m� e S W s t W s t Blend RE 10th & ft Studies RE 10th Edition 3 8 31 8 8 AIR 0. 8 8 '4.' n .. e n e m E c z _ A E > Medical 000ne/Clinic 10,000 sq It or less Medical ORlce/alnlc greater than 10,000 sq ft 8 2 8 Govemment Office Complex Research & Development Center < E 2 I K 3 3 A a Fast Food Restaurant w/Odve-Thru Automobile Care Centel p uu Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq R Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,0001 sq ft H & 23 p E is n $ $ i qd 2 E a m N 8i A i q 4 R 45 0 o N G1 0 3 C g Table F-1 (continued) 41U.\ / Toj / .., § § ! § < | § § § ! i \ ; . b\ s - \ / ..: 7 ! ! } \ } \ \ \ / ) \ B !T.§ 5 _ Same as LUC 710 F.' Same'as LUC 710 Same as LUC 710 § a ?) . : Average of LUC 710 & I LUC 820 (SOk sq ft) Same as LUC 710 Same as LUC 710 Same as LUC 710 ITE 10th Edition Blend ITE 10th & FL Studies ® Previous IRC Study \ z ; ! F. \ ! ( k ( | ( \ Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Transload/Storage - Concrete Plant \ DRAFT • rte. Appendix -G.., Educational Facilities Impact Fee: \ Supplemental Information \� • 326 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix G: Educational Facilities Impact Fee This appendix presents the inventory of traditional public schools in Indian River County as well as an explanation of building and land value estimates used in the impact fee calculations. School District Inventory The current inventory of traditional public schools in Indian River'County is presented in Table G- 1. Table G-1\ Indian River County School District Existing Schooi,Inventory Schools Grade Permanent Capacity Student Stations Permanent FISH Permanent (after Net Square .<:: ,, FISH capacity*,, Footage Elementary Schools Beachland Elementary PK -5 \ K 536 536 104,943 Citrus Elementary PK -5 \ \\ 786 786 97,163 Dodgertown Elementary PK -5 \ '584 584 117,305 Fellsmere Elementary PK -5 \ 769 , 769 106,101 Glendale Elementary ;f PK -5 612 '' 612 71,638 Indian River Academy / \ PK -5 442 442 57,077 Liberty Magnet `` PK -5 666 666 105,793 Osceola Magnet \}. PK -5 517 517 80,232 Pelican Island Elementary \ \ 1 PK -5 556 556 65,124 Rosewood Elementary 1 ` ' -- ' r_ PK -5 515 515 82,314 Sebastian/Elementary -- 'ti \ _ PK -5 637 637 85,825 Treasure Coast Elementary'. ° -, SPK -5 ' 637 637 100,802 Vero Beach Elementary `,, `, `\, \ PK -5 796 796 106,460 Subtotal - Elementary Schools ' \, \ 8,053 8,053 1,180,777 Middle Schools Gifford Middle School \ 6-8 1,136 1,022 135,033 Oslo Middle School ', \. i 6-8 1,140 1,026 152,045 Sebastian River Middle School. J 6-8 1,119 1,007 147,539 Storm Grove Middle School\., ',, / 6-8 1,382 1,244 167,794 Subtotal - Middle Schools 4,777 4,299 602,411 High Schools Sebastian River High School 9-12 2,440 2,318 350,927 Vero Beach High School (Main Campus) 9-12 2,200 2,090 355,792 Vero Beach High School (Freshman Learning Center) 9-12 812 771 132,624 Subtotal - High Schools 5,452 5,179 839,343 Grand Total - All Schools 18,282 17,531 2,622,531 Source: Indian River School District Tindale Oliver January 2020 G-1 ' Indian River Cow�t,,yy ImpaAtt€acnmeCl dl DRAFT Building Construction Costs To determine the construction and non -construction (administration, architect/site improvement, furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), etc.) costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, the following information was evaluated: • Construction cost trends since the 2014 study; • Insurance values of the existing schools; and • School cost information from other Florida counties: i ti \ The following paragraphs provide further detail on,this research and analysis. Construction Cost r N There has not been any new school construction, in Indian River County s nce the last technical study. Industrywide cost trends suggest an increase approximately 13 pe cent since then. Applying this cost index to the estimates used in the 2014 study results in a construction cost of $164 per net square foot to $210 per net square foot. The insurance values of existing -school buildings range from approximately $150 per net square foot for elementaryschools to$194,per net square foot for high schools. Table G-3 summarizes data obtaifned from the Florida Department of Education for schools built in 2011,through 201,72 -As shown, the average construction cost ranges from $152 per net square foot forelementary schoolsto $188 per net square foot for high schools. \ Given this data and information, `construction cost of new schools is estimated at approximately $150 per net square•foot for elementary schools, $160 per net square foot for middle schools, and $190 per net squa e,foot for high schools. In addition to construction cost, the architectural, design, site preparation (including on-site improvement and traffic control costs), and FF&E costs (including technology) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Indian River County and other jurisdictions. As shown in Table G-2, these costs are estimated at 26 percent of the construction cost. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co 1 G-2 Impfttt ee dae aC`fimtenS� t DRAFT Table G-2 School Building Cost Analysis — Indian River County Estimated School Construction Cost(�): Percent of Construction Cost 2013 IRC Other FL Study(1) Jurisdictions(6) , 10% 7% - FF&E, \ \ 7% 9% - Site Preparation 10% - Elementary Schools 2013 25% Used in the Study': -, $145 2019 9% - FF&E $164 - Middle Schools 2013 2019 9% Total $175 26% $198 - High Schools 2013 , $185 $210 - ENR Building Cost Index(2) 2013-2019 /" 13% Insured Values of Buildings:(4) / \\ �\ - Elementary Schools /2019' $150 - Middle Schools ` 2019 \ $176 - High Schools '-'2019, \\. \ $194 Construction Cost: Other Florida Jurisdictions(5) \ \ /' ‘ , \ - Elementary Schools 2011- 2017. $152 - Middle Schools 2011- 2017 t. $158 - High Schools 2011- 2017 $188 Used in the Study:- — - \ '\ - Elementary Schools 2019 $150 - Middle Schools ' \ ` 2019 $160 - High Schools \\, 2019 $190 Other Building Cost Components: - ArchitecturaI/Civil Design �'�, \ Percent of Construction Cost 2013 IRC Other FL Study(1) Jurisdictions(6) , 10% 7% - FF&E, \ \ 7% 9% - Site Preparation 10% 9% Total 27% 25% Used in the Study': -, - Architectural/Civil Design 2019 9% - FF&E 2019 8% - Site Preparation 2019 9% Total 2019 26% 1) Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) Source: Engineering News Record 3) Estimated school construction cost in 2013 (Item 1) increased by ENR Index (Item 2) 4) Source: Indian River County School District 5) Source: Table G-3 6) Source: Tables G-4 and G-5 Tindale Oliver January 2020 G-3 Imps tigc linenS' Indian River Co p ee date T d' DRAFT Table G-3 Construction Cost Analysis - Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions Year Opened District Type Elementary Schools: Facility Name Construction Cost Net SF Student Construction Stations Cost per NSF 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 89,652 843 5142 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary 514,882,021 82,062 873 5181 2011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy 517,019,155 120,015 856 $142 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary 511,795,072 99,704 817 5118 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 84,972 762 5136 2012 Alachua Elem Meadowbrook Elementary $12,388,973 97,000 760 $128 2012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 110,495 796 5156 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve 516,021,554 129,936 1,050 5123 2012 Orange Elem SunRidge Elementary ; $10,031,097 66,645 842 $151 2012 St. Johns Elem Palencia Elementary $12,677,682 102,314 738 5124 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary • 513,854,183 98,842 764 $140 2013 Orange Elem Sun Blaze Elementary $10,269,207 64,410 832 5159 2013 Orange Elem Hackney Prairie Road Area Elementary, $11,261,094 . 75,189 856 5150 2013 Palm Beach Elem Gove Elementary $28,528,459 129,500 924 $220 2013 Palm Beach Elem Galaxy Elementary 522,515,045 108,674 605 5207 2014 Orange Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) $8,633,484 . 79,038 832 5109 2014 Orange Elem John Young ES (Replacement), ' 58,810,724 '79,038 832 $111 2014 Orange Elem Pineloch ES 59,343,280 82,167 830 5114 2014 Orange Elem Dr. Phillips ES '.58,150,993 69,297 660 $118 2014 Orange Elem Spring Lake ES • $9,768,510 70,056 627 $139 2014 Orange Elem Washington Shores ES (Replacement) ` - • 510,068,768 77,692 684 $130 2014 Orange Elem Little River ES $8,202,194 61,570 500 $133 2014 Orange Elem Wheatley ES (Replacement) , -$9;153,883 77,207 560 5119 2014 Palm Beach Elem The Conservatory School of North Palm Bea 521,499,851 117,529 753 5183 2014 Pasco Elem Schrader Elementary $10,620,622 75,826 498 5140 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $13,630,632 94,121 950 $145 2015 Orange 'Elem Eagle•Creek Elementary $9,248,244 79,374 832 5117 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $9,394,386 81,664 832 5115 2015 Orange . Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) 59,286,970 82,167 830 5113 2015 Orange ' ; Elem Clay Springs Elementary 511,675,199 83,149 950 5140 2015 Orange Elem ; . Lake Weston Elementary 510,026,192 85,716 762 5117 2015 Orange Elem._ Lovell'Elementary „ 510,246,051 81,129 828 5126 2015 Palm Beach Elem Glade View Elementary $14,554,646 64,153 403 $227 2015 Palm Beach Elem Rosenwald Elementary 511,841,132 51,261 328 $231 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary 517,016,823 84,005 1,084 $203 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary 513,673,880 92,876 950 $147 2016 ° Orange Eleni'., Millennia'Gardens.Elementary 510,659,959 87,011 837 $123 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park ES , 510,966,573 76,035 664 5144 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") 514,362,434 69,308 882 $207 2016 Washington Elem Kate Smith Elementary School $20,670,897 107,316 993 5193 2017 Orange . Elem Bay Lake Elementary 512,290,816 90,383 837 5136 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary 514,863,889 72,193 920 5206 2017 Volusia , Elem Pierson ES 516,659,475 92,030 694 $181 2017 Orange Eleni. Engelwood Elementary 512,340,163 87,296 837 $141 2017 Orange Elem Ivy Lane Elementary $12,088,430 81,488 660 $148 2017 Orange Elem , • Laureate Park Elementary 512,791,307 93,174 837 5137 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods Elementary 513,397,484 94,502 837 5142 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES 511,683,841 78,726 663 5148 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES 512,427,300 79,888 664 5156 2017 Orange Elem Rock Lake ES 513,247,608 79,968 653 $166 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $13,342,673 94,753 837 5141 2017 Orange Elem Westpointe ES $9,667,395 41,456 232 $233 2017 St Johns Elem Picolata Crossing Elementary 519,392,791 82,066 871 $236 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary 516,714,559 76,260 966 5219 2017 Nassau Elem Wildlight Elementary School $16,099,092 77,837 661 $207 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary 54,671,335 27,889 458 $167 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $17,500,400 139,413 991 $126 Total/Weighted Average --Elementary Schools $743,466,236 4,857,437 43,837 $153 Total/Weighted Average-- Elementary Schools: Excluding Indian River County $711,074,522 4,670,518 41,957 5152 Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co r Fee Update S� G-4 Impktttacnment 'v DRAFT Table G-3 Construction Cost Analysis - Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions (Continued) Year Opened , District Type Facility Name Construction Cost Net SF Student Construction Stations Cost per NSF Middle Schools: 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 521,182,866 183,190 1,605 5116 2011 Polk Middle Boone Middle 517,900,963 69,921 305 5256 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle 515,918,884 126,770 820 5126 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education Center 55,538,155 34,581 182 5160 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle 518,921,534 94,660 993 5200 2012 Lee Middle Hams Marsh Middle 523,750,925 164,662 1,345 5144 2012 Orange Middle Lake Nona Middle $1023,455 149,897 1,328 5113 2012 Orange Middle SunRidge Middle 323,617,116 152,436 1,352 5155 2013 Monroe Middle Horace O'Bryant 530,596,297 196,598 1,217 5156 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $21,224,724 144,356 1,210 5147 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Ridge Academy 521,116,642 144,356 1,210 5146 2016 Orange Middle Wedgefield K-8 School \ $20,111,884 126,697 1,171 5159 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy $33,560,797 139,764 1,652 $240 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle 541,138,637 207,471 1,573 5198 2017 Orange Middle OCPS Academic Center for Excellence 530,678,582 \ '247,297 1,335 5124 2017 Orange Middle Innovation i 522,320,667 \ 174,939 1,355 5128 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle \ \, 524,333,075 '173,016 1,363 5141 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle 522,812,870 184,815 1,363 5123 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School 519,084,925 92,830 751 $206 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $5,312,830 12,538 272 $424 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK -8 532,270,798 148,030 1,350 5218 Total/Weighted Average -- Middle Schools $468,316,626 2,968,824 23,752 5158 High Schools: 2011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center 58,889,147 42,608 262 5209 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High 519,407,910 100,366 825 5193 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High 561,755,842 258,700 1,828 5239 2011 Lake High Lake.Minneola High 546,988,193 ' 294,664 1,932 5159 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy 55,499,975 43,024 347 5128 2011 Orange `\_ High Evans High Replacement 555,507,691 289,061 2,599 5192 2011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior $26,374,234 140,940 2,039 5187 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior 519,522,053 101,466 1,236 5192 2011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts 529,136,512 157,446 1,510 5185 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior 524,323,662 112,017 800 5217 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS 57,192,325 35,137 603 $205 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technolot $9,303,705 78,845 800 5118 2012 St. Lucie High Lincoln Park Academy 510,928,736 93,703 978 5117 2013 Martin High Martin County High 57,623,316 63,601 703 5120 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School 551,569,511 220,839 1,475 5234 2017 Dade \ High Miami Carol City Senior High 562,462,106 343,261 2,860 5182 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School 533,542,921 166,282 1,145 5202 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High 541,025,203 195,271 2,208 5210 2017 Dade `\ `High Maritime & Science Technology Academy 513,994,875 51,815 1,124 $270 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $4,553,211 19,212 475 $237 2017 Pinellas `High '`,., , Palm Harbor University High $9,983,642 46,650 525 5214 2017 St Johns High Nease High 510,658,296 48,081 510 $222 2017 Orange High \. Windermere HS $54,879,598 375,515 2,898 5146 Total/Weighted Average -- High Schools 5615,122,664 3,278,504 29,682 $188 Total/Weighted Average (All Schools) 51,826,905,526 11,104,765 97,271 5165 Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co V Update S� G-5 FeeImparacllmeni i DRAFT Table G-4 Architectural/Civil Design and FF&E Cost Analysis Year Opened 2011 District Broward Indian Type High River County and Other Facility Name Lanier James Education Center Florida Architect & Eng. Fees 51,075,459 Jurisdictions Ratio of Architect & Eng. Fees to Construction Cost 12% Furniture & Equip. 51,304,137 Ratio of FF&E to Construction Cost 15% 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $1,968,893 10% 5994,719 5% 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $944,273 7% $674,842 5% 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $6,502,129 11% 52,676,408 4% 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $1,621,628 11% 51,899,236 13% 2011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $1,682,415 10% 52,861,931 17% 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 5880,709 / ', 4% $4,279,500 20% 2011 Lake High Lake Minneola High $3,030,934 6% $6,483,383 14% 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $453;761' 8% 5427,114 8% 2011 Orange High Evans High Replacement 53,568,884 : 6% 53,743,130 7% 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary /5812,505 \ 7% 51,081,762 9% 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" I . 5858,671 \ 7% 51,298,389 11% 2011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior !\, '$853,483 \. 3% 52,360,389 9% 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior / ` 51,462,146 \ `, 7% 53,124,050 16% 2011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts / " 51,042,674 \ \4% 52,330,971 8% 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior / 5875,094 \ 4% 52,267,250 9% 2011 Polk Middle Boone Middle \ $1,080,157 -'.6% \, 51,331,348 7% 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle \ \ $1,709,689 . 11% \ 5700,000 4% 2012 Alachua Elem Meadowbrook Elementary \ \ $1,010,997, '1, 8% \, `$1,974,896 16% 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education Center \, \$561,233 . f 10% \ $734,057 13% 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS \ $684,965 ` 10% ' 5757,496 11% 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle \$867,900 5% $1,122,762 6% 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technology 5762,932 8% 5919,966 10% 2012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $1,476,006 9% 51,342,512 8% 2012 Lee Middle Hams Marsh Middle $721,076 \ 3% $1,814,273 8% 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve 5214,042 \ 1% 51,487,461 9% 2012 Orange Elem Sud -Ridge Elementary $580,395 \ \ 6% $951,358 9% 2012 Orange Middle' Lake Nona Middle, $1,277,253 '' .' 8% $1,795,567 11% 2012 Orange Middle SunRidge Middle $1,137,698 5% $1,591,755 7% 2012 St. Johns Elem Palencia Elementary ' 5956,170 8% $1,500,000 12% 2012 St. Lucie High\ Lincoln Park Academy . 51,623,543 15% $3,246,193 30% 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary 51,098,766 8% $1,555,729 11% 2013 Marion Elem Legacy Elementary $675,267 7% 51,680,825 17% 2013 Martin,- High Martin County -High 51,274,200 17% 5419,893 6% 2013 Monroe -Middle' Horace0'Bryant . " 53,221,414 11% 51,320,362 4% 2013 Orange , Elem. SurC Blaze Elementary , $587,445 6% 51,035,369 10% 2013 Orange Elem HackneyPrairie Road Area Elementary ' 5890,931 8% 51,057,127 9% 2013 Palm Beach Elem Go`ve Elementary 51,871,815 7% $917,852 3% 2013 Palm`Beach''. Elem Galaxy Elementary '\ 51,595,664 7% $790,823 4% 2014 Orange ". \, Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) \ $636,833 7% 51,235,140 14% 2014 Orange "\ \ Elem John Young E5 (Replacement)\ $644,485 7% 51,037,820 12% 2014 Orange • Elem Pineloch ES `. $632,269 7% 51,048,977 11% 2014 Orange \ Elem, Dr. Phillips ES', $837,933 10% $835,624 10% 2014 Orange Elem ` Spring Lake ES 5646,909 7% 5874,049 9% 2014 Orange Elern Washington Shores ES (Replacement) 5591,793 6% $964,395 10% 2014 Orange Elem ` Little River ES 51,212,762 15% 5705,810 9% 2014 Orange Elem Wheatley ES (Replacement) 5740,790 8% 5803,731 9% 2014 Palm Beach Elem The Conservatory School of North Palm Beach 51,746,723 8% 5781,394 4% 2014 Pasco Elem Schrader Elementary 5741,224 7% 5781,652 7% 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary 51,117,623 8% 51,614,056 12% 2015 Orange Elem Eagle Creek Elementary $503,008 5% 51,168,200 13% 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $454,954 5% 51,168,200 12% Tindale Oliver January 2020 G-6 ImpaN,tacrimeni 1 Indian River Co t ee date S f DRAFT Table G-4 Architectural/Civil Design and FF&E Cost Analysis Year Opened 2015 Indian District Orange Type Elem River County and Other Florida Facility Name Ocoee ES (Replacement) Jurisdictions Architect & Eng. Fees $669,660 (Continued) Ratio of Architect & Eng. Fees to Construction Cost 7% Furniture & Equip. $1,039,087 Ratio of FF&E to Construction Cost 11% 2015 Orange Middle Clay Springs Elementary $619,675 5% 51,265,087 11% 2015 Orange High Lake Weston Elementary $557,676 6% 51,395,286 14% 2015 Orange Elem Lovell Elementary $532,470 5% 51,258,788 12% 2015 Palm Beach Middle Glade View Elementary 51,142,611 8% 5661,409 5% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary $942,748 8% $593,229 5% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary 51,442,401 � 8% $2,095,402 12% 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $1,492,491' " 7% $2,200,000 10% 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Ridge Academy $856,884 4% $2,200,000 10% 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $6,488,215 - 13% 53,010,405 6% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary $1;159,221 ' 8% 51,494,022 11% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary / 5715,680 \ 6% $1,414,425 12% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary .- \ 5766,295 . \ 7% $1,115,037 10% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") `\ $993,089 \, 7% $1,594,261 11% 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy / ./ 51,235,864 \ 4% $3,060,826 9% 2016 Washington Elem Kate Smith Elementary School / 51,799,321 9% $1,567,022 8% 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary.. $781,268 N. 5%, 50 0% 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle - Bid 52,513,897 '6% \ $3,300,000 8% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary \ \, 5660,780 -�,., 6% . \ 51,129,925 11% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield \ 52,153,131 \ 11% \ $1,787,827 9% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary \ \$636,009 ,' 5% \ $1,365,945 11% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES \ 5659,183 5% 51,284,730 10% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES \$599,596 5% 51,204,983 10% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES 5782,369 , 6% 51,110,974 8% 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $693;404 \ 6% 51,226,272 10% 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES 5581,863 \ 5% $972,235 8% 2017 Orange Elem Rock Lake ES 5672,601 \ \ 5% 51,235,894 9% 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES` -., $780,745 \ 6% 51,262,836 9% 2017 Orange 88 / OCPS Academic Center for Excellence 52,342,381 \ -' 8% 52,174,838 7% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle \ 51,954,764 9% 51,789,440 8% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle 52,460,335 10% 51,776,313 7% 2017 Orange Middle, Carver Middle 51,519,638 7% 51,743,238 8% 2017 Orange High Windermere HS $4,993,625 9% $3,600,435 7% 2017 St Johns Elem PicolataCrossing Elementary , 5711,881 4% 51,613,190 8% 2017 Pasco,---- "Elem BexleyElementary \.. 51,176,816 7% $1,795,991 11% 2017 Nassau Elem"" Wildlight Elementary School ---. " 51,649,044 10% 52,457,873 15% 2017 Broward ' Elem Rivergla des Elementary \_ \ 5303,332 6% 5412,293 9% 2017 Hamilton Elem ` Hamilton County,Elenientary School ". 1 51,677,527 10% 51,825,273 10% 2017 Calhoun, Middle Atha Public School \ \ 51,436,603 8% 51,205,972 6% 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs 8-8 \ \ 5417,315 8% 5304,755 6% 2017 Holmes` , Middle Bonifay PK -8 \ \ \ 52,870,562 9% 52,616,795 8% 2017 Dade ` High Miami Carol City Senior High\ 55,273,339 8% $4,534,318 7% 2017 Levy \ -High Williston Middle High School 51,849,055 6% 5672,515 2% 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High 52,712,972 7% 54,004,683 10% 2017 Dade tiHigh'. Maritime& Science Technology Academy 51,052,669 8% $815,189 6% 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $267,393 6% $507,388 11% 2017 Pinellas High :. Palm Harbor University High 51,034,481 10% 5825,000 . 8% 2017 St Johns High NeaseHigh $828,000 8% 5898,000 8% 2018 Orange Elem Westpointe Elementary $860,457 9% $1,549,090 16% Total/We ghted Average 5134,339,858 7% 5159,842,379 9% Total/Weighted Average (Indian River County Schools ONLY) 51,476,006 9% 51,342,512 8% Total/Weighted Average (Excluding Indian River County Schools) 5132,863,852 7% $158,499,867 9% Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available Tindale Oliver Indian River Collyy y January 2020 G-7 Impact,FeeeCllMte1}1 I DRAFT Table G-5 Site Development Cost Analysis Year Opened 2011 District Broward Indian Type High River County and Other Facility Name Lanier James Education Center Florida Jurisdictions Construction Cost 58,889,147 Site Development 5918,943 Ratio of Site Development to Construction Cost 10% 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High 519,407,910 51,362,604 7% 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary 512,696,116 51,802,689 14% 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High 561,755,842 $7,904,370 13% 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary 514,882,021 51,361,500 9% 2011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy 517,019,155 5200,000 1% 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 521,182,866 . $0 0% 2011 Lake High Lake Minneola High 546,988,193 . ' 5454,710 1% 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy 55,499,975 51,300 0% 2011 Orange High Evans High Replacement /$55,507,691 52,151,931 4% 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary / 511,795,072 , $0 0% 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" 511,598;590 52,313,586 20% 2011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior / \ F $26,374,234 , \ $0 0% 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior. -, 519,522,053 50 0% 2011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts / . 529,136,512 \ \ 50 0% 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior 524,323,662 \ \ 50 0% 2011 Polk Middle Boone Middle \ 517,900,963 ' '50 0% 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle \, \. 515,918;884 51,717,116 \ 11% 2012 Alachua Elem Meadowbrook Elementary `-, ". $12;388,973 586,278 \, 1% 2012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,196,000 7% 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education' Center 55,538,155 $479,652 9% 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS \ 57,192,325 $0 0% 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $18,921;534 $0 0% 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technolo 59,303,705 $0 0% 2012 Lee Middle Hams Marsh Middle $23,750,925 \. 52,100,258 9% 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve 516,021,554 ". 51,367,613 9% 2012 Orange Elem ,- SunRidge Elementary 510,031,097 \ ' 51,296,632 13% 2012 Orange Middle Lake Nona Middle\ 516,923,455 $0 0% 2012 Orange Middle SunRidge Middle 523,617,116 51,051,252 4% 2012 St. Johns Elem\ Palencia Elementary ` $12,677,682 $0 0% 2012 St. Lucie High Lincoln Park Academy; 510,928,736 57,901,452 72% 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary _ 513,854,183 5415,026 3% 2013 Martin' High, Martini County High- -. ',. 57,623,316 5536,994 7% 2013 Monroe - - - -Middle Horace O'Bryant . \ $30,596,297 $2,740,572 9% 2013 ,, Orange Elem- Sun -Blaze Elementary 510,269,207 $658,487 6% 2013 ' Orange Elem Hackney. Prairie Road Area Elementary. 511,261,094 $657,635 6% 2014 Orange, Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) $8,633,484 51,188,410 14% 2014 Orange \ Elem John Young ES (Replacement). 58,810,724 $1,438,471 16% 2014 Orange' \ '. Elem Washington Shores ES (Replacement) 510,068,768 51,395,463 14% 2014 Orange \ '-Elem Wheatley ES (Replacement) -'-' 59,153,883 51,083,517 12% 2014 Orange , Eleni Pineloch ES 1 $9,343,280 $1,409,183 15% 2014 Orange 'Eleni\ Dr. Phillips ES' 58,150,993 51,850,611 23% 2014 Orange Elem Spring Lake ES 59,768,510 51,276,130 13% 2014 Orange Elem ` Little.River ES $8,202,194 $1,142,327 14% 2014 Pasco Elem Schrader Elementary 510,620,622 51,217,102 11% 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $13,630,632 51,766,622 13% 2015 Orange Middle Clay Springs Elementary 511,675,199 52,096,813 18% 2015 Orange High Lake Weston Elementary 510,026,192 51,719,879 17% Tindale Oliver January 2020 G-8 Indian River Cott Imp f tL acnment'd'� DRAFT Table G-5 Site Development Cost Analysis Year Opened 2015 Indian District Orange Type Elem River County and Other Florida Facility Name Lovell Elementary Jurisdictions Construction Cost $10,246,051 (Continued) Site Development 5851,121 Ratio of Site Development to Construction Cost 8% 2015 Orange Elem Eagle Creek Elementary $9,248,244 $1,934,060 21% 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $9,394,386 $1,649,461 18% 2015 Orange Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) 59,286,970 $1,470,388 16% 2015 Palm Beach Middle Glade View Elementary $14,554,646 $1,652,065 11% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary 511,841,132 51,853,846 16% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $17,016,823 . $1,478,220 9% 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy 521,224,724 .' $0 0% 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Ridge Academy $21;116,642 $0 0% 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School 451,569,511 $7,169,846 14% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary 1/ $13,673,880 53,025,879 22% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary \ 512,290,816 \ 52,371,208 19% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary 7 \ '' 510,966,573 \ 51,682,616 15% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W') ` r' 514,362,434 • \$1,213,282 8% 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy i / 533,560,797 ` \ $0 0% 2016 Washington High Kate Smith Elementary School 520,670,897 '•$2,568,867 12% 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary \ 514,863,889 51,425,699 10% 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle- Bid \ '-, $41,138,637 $2,468,318 ,, 6% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary \ \ 510,659,959 51,802,063 \ 17% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield School K-8- \ \$20,111,884 $3,151,392 \ " 16% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary \\ 512,791,307 $1,229,287 10% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES \$12,340,163 51,389,126 11% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES $12,08030 $1,526,111 13% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES 513,397,484 $1,358,748 10% 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $11,683,841 \ $1,525,138 13% 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES---, $12,427,300 . $1,629,450 13% 2017 Orange Elem ,. Rock Lake ES \ 513,247,608 \ / $2,685,941 20% 2017 Orange Elem` Ventura ES _\ $13,342,673 52,458,354 18% 2017 Orange K8 OCPS Academic Center for Excellence $30,678,582 $1,503,611 5% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle • $22,320,667 51,856,965 8% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $24,333,075 $3,047,594 13% 2017 Orange _ Middle Carver Middle / -,,,,_ 522,812,870 $3,648,736 16% 2017 Orange" High., Windermere HS — " 554,879,598 58,003,699 15% 2017 Pasco - -- Elem Bexley Elementary \ 516,714,559 51,481,772 9% 2017 , Nassau' Elem", Wildlight ElementarySchool ", N. 516,099,092 54,423,526 27% 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary --.. / $4,671,335 5671,049 14% 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $17,500,400 51,241,320 7% 2017 Calhoun \ Middle Atha PublicSchool \. \ $19,084,925 51,389,719 7% 2017 Hillsborough `. Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 \ \ 55,312,830 $0 0% 2017 Holmes \ Middle Bonifay PK -8 \ $32,270,798 51,489 0% 2017 Dade . High Miami Carol City Senior High $62,462,106 57,753,194 12% 2017 Levy High \ Williston Middle High School $33,542,921 51,773,603 5% 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High 541,025,203 58,217,342 20% 2017 Dade High \ Maritime & Science Technology Academy $13,994,875 $335,946 2% 2017 Osceola High Poincii,a High' $4,553,211 5414,907 9% 2017 Pinellas High Palm Harbor University High $9,983,642 52,306,147 23% 2017 St Johns High Nease High $10,658,296 $0 0% 2018 Orange Elem Westpointe Elementary 59,667,395 51,422,408 15% Total/Weighted Average $1,718,309,905 $159,324,641 9% Total/Weighted Average (Indian River County Schools ONLY) $17,243,103 $1,196,000 7% Total/Weighted Average (Excluding Indian River County Schools) $1,701,066,802 $158,128,641 9% Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co t ee date S� G-9 Impar €acnmeni 'i DRAFT Land Value Analysis To estimate the current land value the following analysis is conducted: • Land value trends in Indian River County; • A review of current market value of land from the Property Appraiser database where the existing schools are located; and • Vacant land sales of similarly sized and zoned properties; and • Vacant land values of similarly sized and zoned properties. `� r� School land value was estimated at $50,000 peacre'in 2014�\Vacant land value increase estimates obtained from the Indian River County -Property Appra ser`suggested an increase of 11 percent since then. Applying this increase to :the 2014 cost estimate•results in a value of approximately $55,000 per.acre. The value of sites where existing schools are located average approximately $23,000 per acre; however, typically land value estimates for non -tax paying parcels tend to lag in terms of the ``ti value adjustment. • In terms of vacant land :value and sales information for similarly sized parcels, there was limited information for larger parcels. Given these; figures,, an ,average value of -$55,000 per acre is used for impact fee calculation purpos s sTable G-6 summarizes thi-informat on. - • Tindale Oliver Indian River Co Ty January 2020 G-10 ImpattEac`Jimef'i DRAFT Table G-6 Land Value Estimate Variable Year Average Value Land per Acre Estimated Land Value(1) 2013 $50,000 - Vacant land value increase(2) 2014-2019 11% Indexed Land Value(3) 2019 $55,717 Value of Current Parcels:(4) - Elementary .2019 ' $33,101 - Middle ,.', 2019 $12,658 - High ( 2019 \ $19,943 - All Traditional Schools / ,\ — 2019\. '•\ $23,007 Value of Vacant Land: (4) Countywide - Residential 1 , \�� - 10 to 15 acres ' 2019 $24,255 - 15.01 to 40 acres _ /2019'' $27,327, Vacant Land Sales: (4) Countywide - Residential - 15.01 to 25 acres 2015-2019 $33,078 Used in the Study- ' -. 1 2019 ., . : $55,000 1) Source: Indian River,County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) Source: Indian RiveriCounty Property Appraiser 3) Estimated,value in 2013 (Item 1) increased by vacant land value increase (Item 2) 4)___Source: Indian River/County Property Appraiser Tindale Oliver January 2020 G-11 Indian River Coity{ ImpaAt, Facnment'3dl DRAFT , Appendix H Administrative Fee • 338 Attachment 1 DRAFT Appendix H: Administrative Fee The Florida Impact Fee Act, Florida Statute (F.S.) 163.31801, requires that administrative charges for the collection of impact fees be limited to actual costs. Examples of typical administrative costs include: • Personnel expenses associated with the administration of the program (e.g., salary and fringe of the impact fee coordinator and other staff responsible with the administration of the program, etc.); • Cost of the technical studies and other consulting fees;' • Attorney costs related to impact fee matt rs; and �,1�,, • Other central cost allocation (a portion,of the time spent by the County Manager, various County Departments, etc.. \ \f„, r The administrative cost can be taken out of the revenues or can be added to the adopted fee levels. At this time, Indian River County collects 2.5 percent ;of -the impact fee in addition to the impact fee amount. This amount increases to 3 percent withinthe cities, with the County retaining 1 percent and each-City'retaining the remaining 2 percent: The County tracks the administrative costs, which are presented in the following table for the past five ,years. Between' 2013 and 2018;: the average annual expense associated with the administration of the,impact fee program was approximately $204,800. During the same time period;the;County collected•an average of $7.6 -million of impact fees per year. This suggests that the administrative costs sapproximately 2.7 percent of the collections. As such, the 2.5- percent fee that the County is collecting represents a reasonable approach. \ 1 1; Tindale Oliver January 2020 H-1 Indian River Coo Impart,€acnment DRAFT Table H-1 Administrative Expense Expensel' Total Administrative Expenditures FY 2013/14 $319,075 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Total $144,148 $198,391 $183,344 $179,246 $1,024,204 Law Enforcement $146,641 $270,988 $376,358 $350,519 $487,775 $1,632,281 Fire/EMS $219,185 $297,960 $350,858 $334,176 $431,998 $1,634,176 Parks/Recreation $604,644 $1,114,439 $1,142,029'$1,105,223 $1,282,068 $5,248,403 Libraries $291,002 $111,184 $8,546 . $6,248 $10,207 $427,188 Public Buildings $24,429 $238,723 $397,546 $364,649 $469,438 $1,494,786 Education Facilities $1,024,577 $1,188,200 ,$1,579,060 \$1,327,558 $1,647,594 $6,766,989 Traffic $3,022,243 $4,964,155 `$4,353,437. $3,746,845 $4,518,025 $20,604,705 Annual Impact Fee Collections(2) $5,332,720 $8,185,649 $8,207,835 $7,235,218 $8,847,105 $37,808,527 % Administrative Expense(3) 6.0% \\ 1:8% 2.4% 2:5% \ 2.0% 2.7% Average Annual Administrative Expense4i - . \ / ,-' \ \ $204,841 Average Annual Impact Fee Collectionslsi' $7,561,705 % Administrative Expense(6) -,, '\ 2.7% 1) Source: Indian River County �, •\ 2) Sum of all impact fee area. collections 3) Total administrative expenditures`'divided by annual impact fee collections (Item 2) 4) Average annual administrative expenses during the five-year period 5) Average annual impact fee collections during the five-year period 6) Average annual impact fee collections (Item 5) divided by average annual administrative expense (Item 4) � ,. Tindale`Oliver conducted'research to understandhow other jurisdictions address this issue. The following i' -•a summary `ofthe'information obtained: \ \\ .\ • Palm Beach County's Ordinance 2008-015 entitles the County to retain 3.4 percent of the funds collected as an administrative fee as long as not to exceed the costs associated with the collection of the„iriipact fees. • According to the Volusia County's Impact Fee Ordinance, the county collects a 3 -percent administrative fee in addition to the adopted impact fee to "offset the costs of administering this article." The County retains 3 percent of the first $5,000 and 1 percent of the remainder above $5,000. • Sarasota County has a total of eight impact fees and one mobility fee. Of the listed impact fees, no fee is collected on fire and EMS impact fees; a 1 percent administrative fee is Tindale Oliver January 2020 H-2 Impa4ttikVtgn Indian River Co a ee date S d DRAFT collected on educational facilities impact fees and 2.25 percent service charge is collected on the remaining fees. Given these findings and the State requirements, Indian River County's administrative fee of 2.5 percent is found to be a reasonable amount and is consistent with practices of other communities in Florida. The County should continue to monitor administrative expenses to ensure fee collected does not exceed actual costs. Tindale Oliver January 2020 Indian River Co 4 ee date ST d H-3 Impaakti C illt4n -1 DRAFT Appendix;I\ Master Fee Schedules: Full Calculated Fee Rates 342 Attachment -1 a d ea O 6 O w a LL N O N N N .0 CO u u 7 1.6 7 W 4,1 cuw ra d CN 2 NNNN oC 2 22 22 22 222c22 222222222 2i2 2i2 22 2 322?<< 2222 222225222 ”ii 2 H ME H N N N §R.E^.2 N N N 222 22 222222222 <4222c 2222 2i --;SS 4°- 2222222 ,....SeRhN2 ?2 2 22 222 2221 22 2222 22 m222 222222222 �ic22ii 4 4.,4 444 .. ...... Nx ,c 1 .a Ea KN Ag n'rg9q ".'2M A. &e x 444 ACC xAAA ,... "-OA Ad44 n4g5;, AggAffixdea.0,,,,,34P,'745 q.^,.',gm df4444A E E 9 42 SSS. .22 '�..aaaa »J.tt Nx« «.m-.,..«.-.:«' x HRil-H xx�.-; g�r^.r. -a,-J..,i.,p..'9i.. a^$„^^-'ap. 888A*?)'T ” Ee � a.m'AaEa E^' 5375 5292 5696 '" Il'SS ee m..m�� Ma:°8�^ E4 , Zo, mmm..mggge "4"1.1. °' gg 4g G3 V.� / H. AgA4 d . ry 4 ` f A<A444f2? `a ,". , . ? .. i",A9 44e.44Ad. m4m444. , ; ', qt .'"9^.7e4 9. KlSin 4 • fAgAAAA . A m 4'^ ,^..,N RR �. .. ..r /,m ` N»amffi1 «V.H ! .. .,......a.RRm2S 5245 5188 5268 5169 5228 5327 5297 5238 5196 5287 5299 5458 561 5196 5283 51,059 5 5 5318 278 5338 5384 183 .°.. .^i. as N &&I^.lili! aNn>;i.mOi.`.�. 2 .i» . Ram atal4IS°FRM m^.` ff NPVaani til c -. o R u 3 YY yya,tR ��l!YYXX m g in in g g g A u 88 "'"5 LODGING: 310 Hotel room 581 $527 550.6% 320 Motel room 075 5438 484.0% %YX, C ^1 o F x A ..rr n xx� �y"� aa''[[ yyyYy YYyyy� Y YY F O O b x A N. u b g g g c 2 N X e b, g D F u M g F g 6 <�grn9RN r�FI aRg Ra8v vEERRRRXm yy����(( �pyy O P Y' g D m`,�.�?..,;. $ y y .,4 NJI J. -N V.'"A ' SS^d-d.^SR-N;, aa 7°i.m$`.-a--.iI.RNnRB 'No- i .. ' �. '^'^ "' '^ $,'"r.»S - f H N A; v o oo""E j� ng' v g§ 936635 § Sa a §§§ § $ 3'47515. a ..... QQ QQ 5Q� p jj RR jj fj f� {Q� ./ Q Q Q pR 5Q� p pp Qp 6 II §§W QQ QQ QQ 75 E575 M RESIDENTIAL• SInglo Family (Detached) -1855 than 1,000 sf Angle Family (Detached) -1,000 to 1,500 sf (Low/Very low Income) Single Family (Detached). 1,000 to 1,500 sf Angle Family (Detached) -1,501 to 2,499 sf Angle Family (Detached). 2,500 sf and greater Muld-Family (Low -Rise, 1.2 levels) Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-1O levels) Mobile Nome Park/RV (tied down) Assisted Care Living Fadlity (ACLF) RECREATION: Public Ark Marina Golf Course Movie Theater w/Matinee Tennis Court Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio INSTITUTIONS Elementary School (Private, 85) Middle School(PrWale, 6-85 High School (Private, 9-12) University/lr College (Private) Church Day Care Center Jail Fire & Rescue Station library MEDICAL• Hospital 'Nursing Home 'iVetednaryC8nic OFFICE: 'General Office _s Medial Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less Medio) Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft Post 09ce Government Office Complex Research & Development Center RETAIL Retail/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture Store SERVICE: Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thn Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convenience Market 42,000 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,0001 59 ft Self -Service Car Wash INDUSTRIAL- - - - - General Light Industrial Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Transload/Storage Concrete Plant Sand Mining _ R.7,.:22 <Qa3R< aR-RRe x m$ R ,.,, m$mm gnaRiaai 'sm��22 C u a m 0 O u C c % u. C 01 O • 2 - • V = FLL W VI LL r ea2 - - gg,gx<xege 2 I o o a o F3 rg r aa Ag^ .. gu r vgx n« 8 E ggbegeg M E E M g ffi e e n bx ggg.g r E22 E g e grg « S^$ `41.. ggur 2£$« g M o n .. ',4J xxmeM r 2 r ErlEqgkEk8k .5imar^n.B...^n ww a3Z,n aa»a PFLUEq..� ww,4.n n. A4^ w^..6i ` as "laa.,Ea ~Ao ng" www wa URZgr aaaa S^ 18 737 uRE. as» a�w Ji wwwaaaaw'ww R R w E E ^n o."i w ada E EHw.m. www EIgARE aaaaa aEE w w wwa .. $ as m mm ma ':,'E a" ^ w» F m a m arl" map .7„.'" ap waaaaaaw w ` su n<nmmn< .. "%ERE $m«n....F2EE $^' wasw aww ^.2rEm .+..n ..mRmry R823AEE wwwwgwwa Ea aa »aa° wwaaawEaas lima wEHE. „a»g&ttwJ» Haasm� a wAAwwww$" w wwww ww 1 wwwRa EaEwww &saaaaa aaaazzaw 8nm ggggggmg n/a \. n/a n/a n/a x. n/a n/a ?a itis 2'ia2<<2< <<< i?2 iii <<”?? <<<< 1 -<<?22i„ V.2.J” i' AAE§dam§ w` ii2<<2 / iii' ` ,\ 1l- S?2<<2 i2Bc -Si=g- ?i? <<<<<cc wwwwwER\ `B22VB i` I<<??2 2-°1- 1—”' <iii- 2c ....... Transportation LUC Land Use Unit Adopted 2019 Percent Rate Calculated Change RESIDENTIAL ggg4,.4b4g ."12:-,. E E..^$e a r cgxc F. $GE<$m g.X.rregg4 .21EE 'IE e MEDICAL _ 610 Hospital 1,000 sf '.52,498 s $9)473 279.234 620 Nursing Home bed s '5222 51,148 417.1% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf `56,962 155,208 -25.2% OFFICE: VE` ggg RmA<a gggg a aa gmfiffige ..ame")em 1g4g4g4 F, F. EmAE aEgERE ^ wwaaswa„» a V$o"E^ w wawa aos"RaRsa :wwga"wm f,' sag°q f mEE aaam .. V eE,RAa$ wwwwwwww M;REB mg gag fEEEEFnaR wwaaaaaa a REREEE w wwww waaERaa aa mma2e „ax»aa i.e s nEe waaw i 2EREE EEE ww aa aenE ww ijifl i U a m m ., N., .. .. .. m m mi i .. .. !Hi .. ., .. Q mdle E tl m .. 14.2.22 m m mi A A ........ Single Family (Detached). less than 1,000 sf Single Family (Detached)- 1,00010 1,500 sf how/Very low Income) Single Family (Detached). 1,000 to 1,500 sf Single Family (Detached). 1,501 to 2,49911 Single Family (Detached)- 2,500 sf and greater Multi -Family (low -Rise, 1-2 levels) Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) Mobile Home Park/RV (lied down) Assisted Care living Fadlity (ACIP) olpmS 00400/9017 411eu3/9nD lanbaeg Uno)sryual aauheW/xs aalea4l ala034 asenoto 1109 eu1etej INed 011904 WOUV18230 plow plop :9M9007 INSTITUTIONS: _ _ Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Prheate, 68) High School (Private, 9-12) University/1r College (Private) Church Day Care Center Jail Fire & Rescue Station library General Office Medial OHice/ClinIc 10,000 sq Nor less 1 Medical OHice/ClinIc greater than 10,000 sq H .0 Postorfce` t Government Office Complex ! Research & Development Center RETAIL Retail/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture Store SERVICE: Bank/Savings Welk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/DrHpThru Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft Gas Station_w/Convenience Market 2,0062,999 sq R Gas Station cow/Convenience Market 3,000* sq f Self -Service Car Wash INDUSTRIAL: General Ught Industrial Manufaotudng Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Tansload/Storage Concrete Plant Sand Mining n 2E2E e223y E< alORE E$ 22 n,$ EIRE mwmmm'm a RREE c j N O O ^- v m m a c • c w m O O u 0 O 0 0 F w LL v A u To 3 w r d LL 0/ m 2 ee.. ` _ ee - >E "aa :` GeV E $R - ; iFRRQQalg2 §g 2.-,Amae � E ` r. E s_c ed ic$ J If E egee 3G g4 •!Aft6 4xfe kkni" FE B .,a 4 $$ 4.4. xa 4 „kg , gg d,4,44: aEE:a"-x ax »tt "EW »» «a dna ` tt« 51111q!! g g lFI-Ta a:1a'-aq» it 11;"d ma7ffir, 4lidr1 Gab�C±:tS!o' AoAFgAeBa 9: 1 g; SEb�!�"b ;;AAA;R;A e$'" �g En xkRffi ;%�mSA ffixx gal gexx$i� gA;R`m3gA "����� Aa;A;aA ««aaw««t» « «»aaEl 22"4-43" aalF.»a a -aa xaEa.aa«« I»a« as XBXRa R8^ ',A4 1111;"1H F q:1!c g A is 5 Ilk Rma QwERa wa aagggEl 3 Baal» act$ 951$ tt$ 01S sots Bs; lit aa ^»^K ..aa uuamm"a a' aqa 4:4A 33 S»«..,« a« «w»a a -» ^a » El ,,,,,,n »»« .Eg Egif€g g2 FEF"Oll 22 ,— 227772772 ' 222 caa 222 222272 cic 22277772 <<<< c� AAAA ap aaaaaaa„ is cccccc i 227222727 .1, r 2277 22?772 277222222 2227727 12 a 2 22222222 acct ca72 77aaa2222 7272212 g"6.g gC 3"R3aa^$3.&P 4 4g4 ffis e.. �# rt4444 ,4 "4 ' g: K4 - $ ai .1i g"-gmg «R� aa» 4.4g a , g" did k4e AR A' Ana RRR FAR. Leg,- 1 »aa« «« i R «a»z $Bae 75941 re 51,017 51.032 51.125 $31,983 5739 53,73[ .$89,358 «a m N_ Mai as a 1 �� a a& a A n =a 21 R ««- AAAAU i' NS ..Sffid 1 Ra A « S axxaa Eas `^ « A a SaSw awtS Z... Sa . SS» nnA _ N.a .., i 1 tea ' F7wys �^_ + YI�dK'^,F_ s .+c_"ar -mc':aall Ea .^„x$E d NNN=Raa7l "^" RIR k NAaS f r &R $ 4,411 Eaw»^„H f t t aaaa ' «” « ««« « wa�- »» _R6"ata « « aa"f a«« RAa a«a , .!"- aA lads« «« « g " . 6 6"t- ge g" "; t�g•Ai '; „g- 2 6'ggd i :a&ak�:a nb'k ke'gg-, gad F a § E_ok 4 grt d g 46 i"?a E?aa R -- °1E » N» i avOi $ryv aaxaa a6 i A»;a, .2.a.? k— is ^Yaaasa P « -E- eaeaaaaaa ((8 g iyp G c F 5 y pn Qi i Yy i Q i Fei g sQ Qs a n aCi j`2g2$2g2"• QJ. 4•>.§ 4 p•. p_a _iii g � r. s. 5 !aa E EEE a x F a-x� }dd€4 tg 12€€€€::£� Sg rags �xbE� yzsgagYL3 aaaua €'a >E a ,1 S n F ° 31$ ` " ;S tae€' M10.1, treraral truntrte Vs-manors nors[ Olnk, Gen MSI I Of flee MMhI e(Rre/OrealergR int MMlol OIRre/OIMC IMr realer than le vee r9 R Gorr emm Resernmenr Office ComptesCe Research DeMopment Cerner aa ig8 Ai E E gE E E s a I8 ` gga`5 Ede €€ g 1£sf Ed pta. aa8d<.2 "£./. E. R"aa2 "A "-.Qaaxa RaFiaaaaA aa$ an FPO e$Oa "aaa"ai"xaa HAaa27 0o 0 N N m c c j N o v -2 3 g Rs"saens^g gxmgi ffix gtt ^ am la a ee "224RE 4g nxeggi 428R28Re i;g 44C $g`' k:: ;lag »- x R^,l g ge °a Mgg mlge goi;ing ^a ,4<^aam ige ggg-kgg nFIEAme - - APREER'k laf1�a111w gagsZX algae, loge22aa$ »»JJP»1» RORER aal as qvi M»,4- r.mtg ,a iaa ask aa ^§�magkk' aaa»awd »e»»aa^ 1-a$K1 -axa-xatl1.a RSsa` R SS.Ilia"ss"sd dadd Nu-fi d- 4 E w " g,hg,.xo- Xis 7.7.7. `^.v a g- ul i�llRxg mzMr, 1�gg`€tn4`5gx 824242^E4 xe 248 aaa » »Qal»ah 5gega5 "�^,18ARa - "iik "EE a 'C`6`g`iib`$i� iluta 'Rae, g°g`5`6`i�xffi r ,.m'm mN»Scram as `"a »N »» arae, »v" pa »$«a na LiF a S„»m^-a »aagamg! am a«REREa »»»maawmh k„.3m » «parra "25a os" s agxr dg as n-Ageg g&ag N bX g<e Q. » 53ggSq Qss :;gg 4144$ g xi;g'g R242s2IIR Rs »» amp, wR»aag-a=1 Aaaaax FIE HIE4Raa a»aagn REREFER" .pEa »»» »»»m& 1 la.a»a »»a agq-aa»a w -»Se,» .. ggggg&2 2 2i 22 2 22222 222222 2 2 2 -.2-2.i 2cc c2c 2222ac vi sa c2 22 2c22 222222 2 RE M EE E2 .. 22.2 2222cii&i ! f . -.?c222 c22 222221222 c22.” 6_ »R NNIIEi 2 8227T 222 22 22 2 2ccc2 i--P.2-4- 22222<<<<S 2c2cc . " ege>r ggeg ER"OR2gRE an go AE k g$'g 82'4RA ag-Agggg 2R 42..8"2 4 eggMn>; PI —,:ie, >;ggg "a v .1' ggA "gb`gso` !A5 ::-- — gAgggigm m v^nr °pa » »» » » 802'55 891'1$ CLk'65 ,. »» »»».: L. publlc Buildings LUC Land Use Unit Adopted 2019 Percent Rate Calculated Change g5g6 5g gg ffigo'e"in gggggxtnrr< MEDICAL�, _ _ I 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 5171 5623 293.605 620 Nursing Home bed 5115 5517 349.61C 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000,f 5317 $236 132.2114 fftiiii Mm'N.II» »A »alFX4 't 3S 5^. 5,.ER5»N iiiiill iiii4iiN§i» »';815.1SRIRN1 56 aant. "aaaPF-1 iiii iiii iiiiiiiii o N Single Family (Detached). less than 1,000 sf Single Family (Detached) -1,000 to 1,50011(Low/Very Low Income) Single Family (Detached) -1,000 to 1,50050 Single Family (Detached) -1,501 to 2,499 sf Single Family (Detached) - 2,500 sl and greater Muhl -Family (Imr9lse, 1-2 levels) Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels) Mobile Meme Park/RV (tied down) Assisted Care Living Fadlity (14611) LODGING: Hotel Motel RECREATION: !Public Park 'Marina ',Golf Course 'Mode Theater w/Matinee Itennit Court 'Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio INSTITUTIONS: Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 6-0) High School (Private, 3-12) University/1r College (Private) Church Day Care Center Jail Flee & Rescue Station Library OFFIQ: General Office Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000,q R Post Office Government Office Complex Research& Development Center_ RETAIL Retall/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture Store 0 s` east roots nestourant wlurwe• 11111 Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq N Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,0002,999 sq Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,0000 sq Self -Semite Car Wash INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial Manufxctudng Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Tansload/Sm2ge Concrete Plant Sand Mining _ 2$2' EE 2a53&0 REEIRREER 2 p;-;;-; EARE a"smaa x x $� X22 j N o v -2 3 DRAFT , Appendik\J\ Mater Fee Schedules: Staff Recommended Fee Rates \ ....- \ • / ••`,.. \ ,„„.,, \-., ... ,// \ •x` \ \' N \ \_ , \ \ \ \\... \ \ 1 347 Attachment 1 Res -=r S e d u §g 0,'°`^ 2i, TT i2 B<< 2<< si ggf§§ 6g2 22T2 22c,2<l- 11-22c< ci22 -nisi i 2-ziii $SEE RES Sim 11<2BS <.22< SiSS e2<<2B SS-ziS,t AAa :aaa i41 -e ccccc?2ci 2c22? 22ii iiii ii "Ii"i i e=x -YS sae g q 8 R P b .. n A g g N X v g R^ R» fg g 6s " X e g.$.44. n i a uxi n X g y“ �. .n i n y$ M 1 R .^n !!=A .'Qw RIR fft ERR „x« gal a t K .. S» g X E a 1 n. n N g., Y T n w R g n n g u ; R g- d v g g c R r y K- n G g K a n .i g Ra »»1» '111. «««»iE»:a $11»11 aEEa 1EsW,R«a »»" 1" a : uutg : fig g5g4g44It kguut ftgt ItgltOsts ttgl 00 ld1411 8R g"A1,^T?. ««^Rs»" s M $» 11RR as l ll'a Hag»aS s1saG::a^ " as"»tt»E «' e - «»a^?aag «» l^"lRE " 111" s "EzER„» Q„M=?aE « « aEs M1 E Ro zs- E � E— vE 8$d n6d'bgg gk LII 15 «» a« a9 g nn gi° gggna$ ndg s63 `r I :1" «»« «»« Kgr3�1�G C€S g."�KkC 416 ra ki`g alara at «h9ss F »»«»R1 1' !REM « Ella lag11 «« to »R "Ms« g 55555.1 1.1185 1511551?5 515E55 5ggg g55g51g5g 5555555 «M^^aa.sa «««»«« «RS « -E as «««E « W-1 ag-A »a«««« eg"S ««a =R?E^RaA « «N»«« «« .s"„ .sµ1111'4 J.Aatg »R»N. . Qg.'E'". q.a a1 -R IAE i...Nsw N:'»NNl R a c vE� ear a Wx aFs a Ee S Y L 0e e n A g.1, _A -,:t44 u«� 33 TI sE Ei RR a= l igdiui£ rte. .:- .. ..r y49S,. RIR 555 ENa 555 ««« 131 F ERE -£ x t6 2 iES.i ..... n R: f.n T ^ 1.2 2 4 . 'MIR aulga / ! 1 5l �xt �Xe �cxx 15511 �re �e 1 -s --- -' 5515 C 5555 11 13 5 5.,g f ..„ 5g „g 5 Haw as .-a:ag « «««« a.ay IS3..aaRE J1 Ear E 5 EEi ` `E E` A S 6E gg AE`gg= a 1»1?'s„ 8515 Km 6ggggg g 5 5 5 11 llliaa RAI!"!..: "R-"E's„,x»E „g ga" t.1 Rawwxla aaasaLaa «»waEs "Zaa»»EQ aaapa aaaa..a aa..4 w eaaasaee3 Will 8 E ss: 1111 1$ 44iii4 !Ili iiii11g11 -z.z .z: MU" pp 2 ;,§9§L EYEE"pp,. rAp rrr 'v''(€Ey A aaaaaiial- it rr€e fed p.7 Y E j : ce #Til°E2:gg3i_ B a 'A M E tqa4 € QV FA iFi¢Sa - c Am 6 Reuel Sunon ggob 8ii __�$Q_g $6 a` as - E;�4E@@@$@@@ k,,tEl.g V p€ s e E EIRE 0 ;G s` gii "yya sE e -i ); Ga, Stalbn ry/comenienn Mattel <2,C0) sq n Ga, Station r/Commie re Maar 2,@161,999 W ft EE Z El EE F5.11 $ S s E` p_i' ES -"H- t s s.. F¢. yy. ES s[qc Z ERR—. 5REEER EER1REEE RE E?$ Pana"ERUia _ERR 's .ti i X E!P g,g-.'gN $y.^.. ^..^. it eo Kg, a:". �a ww 8n ww x� ww fg 2 RAP g4 lIggN NPARamaN� XgXX XNx a aa,q aww �wv wa„ <M$ w a e44Ng4 NRmANN g$.4 ee - g -nP.a g5g5g' Rg A`R bggrtmgm « 'NAnn aga{Zga aaaw as $4,5201 $1,05! 0309 wawa w :il�> IK w piP IIJ ogee »�» .u�aaa «�I H II < s ww ga$e` a _ °LR !?a�Iaaa @r4 U r «„��rt wa'a b'i� w'J�':J aaaaa laV u: ?Q &w'itq a& a6a!aa o '�,C nffina wawa �is�<, wwal-Ia "l °:��'� aa nwl��'$w -aa w wwJJIIH MAE'.10 RE da mg MN°w'^&rgri „saw„ n wwwgwa ia 4<M aaa' w eSRRMMF ww wawa illalkS w w a X p,6-.3..- - $34 599 $44 29.46 I $25 555 525 .3.855 gR<-z 34<4ad. 8 - «A OAA ..MAA «eMoRAA «mm aREI4W .,4 aw aw ^1 w EMIR SM$^ €I«P 2 ¢ _ Enn:W. a aaaw: wwMNIwS aa2PS n"EVE!wNSM EMIR gala aaaaaaaa Eina 2 ala«...RB« wwww ww w w S»M angla ma Rlaaa'SSSS a»Raaa«^� a X PI _ a W _ � fi= g h g g g >n 4i c c 22 ii � 2c �2- 2 2 2 2 c c 2 2 2 2 2 2 c c 2 c c c 2 2 2 2 2 c: i 2 c c � c c a c c a99aw" www 22-eii ! ccc222c22 c22 iiiiii iiii Rill "..". <<<<<c2 g.> , ,Mi .. Ala 0/4 n/3 '5 n/3 222cC2ci2 222 `if. 0/a 1 n/a 11 n/a 1 n/a n/a gg gg 33 �33 m � aaaaaa„„° � c<<< ccccc � !-��� 2 iii iiiiii iiiiiiii Oil �• <<<<<<< RRRROgioi w w w w ili-i iii i. i -ii. it22ii� i -H ” I ¢ Y rX to t a a 4mR6KNTq$ 3 wwsaaaa- w $on'i %try aaaa N. :1 �' ;1 w R g $^E NB9t Fig wawa w w a w as aaaa as'a ala WEER g i 1 N nN v X a X Xv X v X 1'41111:A1 X X X Xe X X 1"g XXXXXXXXv r: v e X X Ago,A aR ww„aaaw w 11q wRarS al wl w wRaa,^.a ^N» 2SRa2 lag -aaaaa wwwa azg gEEs nnka a wwaaaaaaw w pRE.,1 p,, igl „ aEaa< c4T a FaRva��n$ w w«sa ww ww w aaaaaa wwaw aaaac cc AiaaA a du du du du du du du du bed room room acre 1 boat berth 1 hole screen 1 court 1,000 sf student student student student 1,000 sl 1,000 sl bed 1,0001f 1.000 sf 1,0001f bed 1,0001? 1,000 sf 1 1,000 sf 1,0001? 1,000 5? 1,0001? 1,000 sf 1000 sf a 1000 sf 10001? 1,000 sf 1000 sl 1 002 sl 1 000 sf 1 000 sf 10005f fuel •os. fuel • •s. fuel . • . service ba Fp F FF .„ - E §§§§ a n RESIDENTIAL Angle Family (Detached) • less than 1,000 sf Single Family (Detached) • 1,000 to 1,510 sl (tow/Very low Income) Single Family (Detached). 1,000 to 1,500 s1 Single Family (Detached). 1,501 to 2,499 sf Single Family (Detached) . 2,500 sf and greater Mulct -Family (low -Rise, 1.2 levels) MUIt4Famlly (Mid -Rise, 3-10levels) Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) Assisted Care Living Facility (ACU) LODGING: 11e1 RECREATION Public Park Marina Golf Course Movie Theater w/Matinee -tennis Court Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio INSTRUTIONS Elementary School (Private, 5.5) Middle School (Private, 68) High School (Private, 9.12) — University/Jr College (Private) Church Day Care Center hit Flre & Rescue Station Library MEDICAL Hospital [Nursing Home ',Veterinary Clinic OFFICE: General Office Medlol 00100/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft Post Office Government Office Complex Research & Oeveiopment Center RETAIL: Retail/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture Store SERVICE: Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/DMe-Thru Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000.2,999 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,020• sq ft Sell•Servlce Car Wash _ Sf g;rv5a ? « 2RER n ao w n m ee'Ee3Rde Q"«'a.$,Aat,a n n na'nB¢aom .. .e.F�� c c 10 212 n=x lig ao sx 6m IN .,< mrd xNx <<< $2,287 516,317 45% 57,3431 221.1% 52,209 510,660 45% 54,797 117.2% 51,2061 53,9891 4501 51,7951 48.8% ERE R'as Re fl' ^i"AEn$Ra ^qA ua EEF gAM,Txxx �n,.n'.'.< xxxxxx <o<ooe t,r,ta aed<cooed xxx xx a<eee< �x !I'M !I'M xxxxxxxx a<<eoo<< c` K ,,, II En Q'�n 'c'6P ,4,,m en'S as H o,c ',7174 gggril ti; v .1., Fill f51 ER « 4q'JT:: ..n N,°..n.' �4. ^,Q,4 u' «E««W «n$il! «««.7.« .^'.2R ««^R«E R te- laR$,-agAl »R..n'."t KA'R« gggglIM 15E150. MAHN 15.50.545 LIgg gg 5. I E aREEERER ar.s.m , ««aa.avA «„RE R p RRaAnaaR .Pi..^sw.laRa EuEg «« « :.: « «;r « « «« ,. .n « a` n �P ax . DhANuFYHv §40dd--:: xb et 2Z «« n8« uS «A 88: c- 22 mm J{ bOnb0 g2 INSTITUTIONS 520 [Elementary School (private, 6-5) 1 student 1 Sol $421_50%1 $2152x1 $111 37.50 « nDrAAgU4 274062.J 620 Nursing Home bed 5115 5517 50%', 5259 -f 52% 5135 17.496 640 VeterinaryCflnic 1,0001) 5317 5736 50% `., 5368 A 53% $191 .. Nbgo m�n 760 1Research & Development Center 1 1,000 sf 1 51061 55381 50%1 '1 -452691 5201 51401 311 REtAJ/: hbr mMn« SERVICE: 911 [Bank/Savings Walk -In 1 1,00011 1 52791 56381 50%152% $1401 -t9.8% xYvNmg INDUSTRIAL: 110 (General tight Industrial 1 1,000 s1 1 3861 $261! 39%I$1311 - 52161 5681 .20.9%1 uxL Ag g-.mi.$.$..ni.r'..ni.« S2 sRg� MMZ««m�«nm« - »..'..nn° «r«3 s� »-ag aa »aaan :::::::: ::;;:: 5.,55., k %Yi p 5.,...K :;;;:;: i«55`yy- «««''-11:?:Q. i�t�t «a..m..JI .Q` .';as «R."i.ala�l Y' SS Y 9 g Yr7' g `J"`ii Sig` �t `✓' y�tX 7�«l y! vA gg Y9i 'gig s yF 'u4 �t �t g `vig . �[ ggg g ' t �e �e �g g gg gg Y. �[�t �t �t '`RX `ul gY' IEMAIIN Naa aRail. ,! « all .1,7N il. »g HR;8 4a49ae4a1: na 58R ,;,'-„§§3dR § d§R§,§ $ldk R���i`i RRd§AA g°,Q2. EEEE',a 5 gg :: ss E 38 9 r Q S E 5 5 &8 A st a" oma.. g 5 5-- A .l -i i Mobile Home Park/RV tied down) Assisted Care living Fadlity (ACIP) Public park Marina f ' sE uE Tennis Court Racquet Club/Heaith Club/Dante Studio Middle School (private, 6.8) High School (private, 9-12) University/Jr College( private) church Day Care Center lail Fire & Rescue Station Ubmsy _ _ o OFFICE: General Office Medlol Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or leo, Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq Post Office Government Office Complex Retail/Shopping Center New/Used Auto sales Supermarket Furniture Store Bank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thro Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,0004,999 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000. 59 ft Self -Service Car Wash Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Transload/Storege Concrete Plant Sand Mining E., nnnn ilei&d E.E31,M E e n R ..,. Qo,E E.Wilin F9ii2 i X e FeEo geix 8g'mm,T,T! Nagegg 09091 52,5621 31,1521 273% to ggg,-, 8�oem 8hrg 5mWAT''. 4- g 44 S. « « m @ p« « « gexgmg Rgmm7R g8ge mp$� Ng,egg.6g -Pmt8$,m gg`g45g4 mm'tl„Mmm « gt,EF $.•i� ««g7aga RI t.E..E.2R I�at.�1 3SS°'m„AP' gg « n kakpma ««gaq„gJ ffimammo Rarye S.«�.gge N..4« '^ q4 ."i�7figp.1.1 M'XX4 aafEE,“; «« - «^NH gg. S„m«m. aaRa.mn aJtii amlaaa g«« gg ap am„ -.a .A.2wJJ.• « «««««« NN�6R&�S awr.-.--«JI$"^Se «« ««« N «9 3�g -.aa a 3^mm ».1.31'” « .igNg «« «»N» �$ « » S m X xl §-nPa t;Pg 091 5251 0111 22.2% VE--PRT8 8 8^4 t:-.: '` rSrvea q eF 44444 e%°g"gU§ 4444444 8 88 6 08 $21 g N«««$.7i.�n$ »A$ ««m3Cm ag « « atitRNa N3Ra «r.9. Nmx«A« xaa NRN «N8«,m.1 «««naaaaa aaaaa^ »3S^. « NAaN£aaa NN«.^,.m3. = a X X o E-; 44444 44 B-MgPdar.a 5151 ssol \ 5221 21.2%1 444. .^3§1 444444 4 8a8ga<1-9 4 44444 vi g=A 444 "gR 444444444 ""2"1. 4:44444 ”"? 56 • 023 5204 5365 5234 • 0271 1085 CIS .moi.««.'"n 'u2H«« .m,. .%ih « N « a Minn Ma .^i.s.3t.7m««« m. a.Nra I°. as a a a.a..m. A .naaa uaaaaa a.a..a aLs.n.a 3� a X -ix -=S 1 g 'Xn g b D .s ss c c2 t2 ct e1 2si'ts2 mm c c c 2 2 2 2 c c c c c c c 2 c 620 Nursing Nome bed n/a n/a h/a n/a: n/a 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sl n/a n/a n/a, ,,/a-. n/3 2 c c c c c .... c c c c c c c c c 2 c 2 c 2 2 2 H wy MN P« c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c i i [< c c c i c c c c c c c c t c t c c gxlgE s ct2222 s s sisssi r 2t2s "'rtccctc .ttctcc EERRIm Cho? SSX31S.^n«."I 2 iiii--".=- e-- c- - 2i 2 ...... t << ttttttt ctt�ttt VOnQ M 6 2 2cce cccttc2c-e c cc22?2 22 :2 :;cccc. ...acct oo<=<e<aE b.0_ � ! § n U $!!! �� �azgf §§§§§gb RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached). Less than 1,000 0 Single Family (Detached) -1,000 to 1,500 if (Low/Very low Income) Angle Family (Detached). 1,000 to 1,5000 Single Family (Detached). 1,501 t0 2,499 sf Single Family (Detached). 2,500 sf and greater Mui[i.Family (tow -Rise, 1-2 levels) Multi -Family (Mid -Rise, 3-1Olevels) Mobile Monte Park/RV (tied down) Assisted Care Living Facility (ACU) (Motel RECREATION: Public park Marina Golf Course Movie Theater w/Matinee Tennis Court Racquet Club/llealth Club/Dance Studio INSTITUTIONS 'Elementary School (Private, 6.5) ',Middle School (Private, 648) 'High School (prince, 9.12) 'University/1r College (private) Church Day Care Center 1011 Fire & Rescue Station ubrary MEDICAL Nosplt1? OFF/CE: General Office Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,00059 9 Post Office Government Office [ample* Research b Development Center RETAIL: Retail/Shopping Center -- '.New/Used Auto Sales (Supermarket 'Furniture Store SFRWCF: Bank/Savings Walk -In Rank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/DrIve-Thru Automobile Care Center Gas Station w/Convsnlence Market <2,000 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,0002,999 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenlence Market 3,0004 19 ft Self -Service Car Wash INDUSTRIAL General Ught Industrial Manufacturing Warehousing Mint -Warehouse Nigh -Cube Transload/Storage Concrete plant Sand Mining 71 nnsnn ilHiFe «6R1Rem 2.N6R 1 ,M mgmE m«aadiiRi ^$85 22 858 8)3 g.; - .1; 196' 8:8 4iL g. g 415 aar, 4 alai Zia 5 a 5,9 5 alattglal a ita 888855: 8< 58 88885 5 a.5 pap ccegggcAk Itaallgt a.ca 11< 2 g K r 4 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 8 a A 1 8 1 5 5 A 5 4 8 1 18 11 11 11 88 Pr 52 35 :5 88 k 55 53 15 SS Si 5i 5S r5 11 11 TT AA 53 5' 55 1 14.16 a 5 6 1 11 a 4 5. 814 FE 5 a 5 5 5 5 aa5155 TITIT3 eA,1110, 111 Ea a ••• 2 5 5 a 6 4 0 5 88 at 1a at 11 15 85 ES gg ??. 846 2:04 15 92 85 88 5 A. 55 5 .a 58 45 V. a cg Eg aa. 55 55 a lag 15 aa 58 15 55 55 51 5- 55 85 85 11 85 1 95 6'5 SS 11 55 55 and af, 58 85 11 ai 81 ia 11 55 5 a SE 555 aaa, 555 556 att 45 s 85 85 11 58 55 55 al a 5 6 " - 58 :5 5 188 3A1 555 188 aaf Tra a a 888 Ira SH S11 555 gal fr.a: a-$ 444 -.8 m 444 8.88 Lu 355 511 55 a ata'a taaall -6- 5 9 98 58 5I5555 a 8. 8. 8. 1 a 12 8. a 8. 1415 at8„ rill a. - SERI' .aa 5555 Wra E 1 3 5555 " r 5555 Taxa 5555 5558 8554 TH.! 5!!! la A liJ illE 8. 8. 5 8.8884 45 'Illaa'aa '5gartala. 5 5 5 5 5 a 8. 8. 8. 8. a 8. 8. 1 6 A441 rT2 184 595 5,11 118 all 555 aft 555 RAE 88 858 185 755 la tgg 8, Ea 81 89 aas aaa SSS aSS 5" 551 555 555 S51 884 553 Tr 121 :Cr !RTa' 155 555 535 a 51 65` 211 111 555 565 la 556 545 all 75 88 8. 558 5155 <E` e=x 22 10 <-E6gl g=g Segg 1, Si 2cc22 ____ iiS 222 22 <22 222 issiSS is ii 22222<22 2c22 3aaaaapl. 2< 2c <22< 2222<22 <2< =2<< 1<222222< <<<<<<2 gg% 55: 2 2<22 2222222 <2<c2 22<2 <22222222 q!gp 2< 222222 <222<222< 2<<222 2222 <<22<<<< 12<<<<< .A.N�R2 22 212222 <2222222 222222 2<22 2<22<222 el-MI.2 <8` ear ^ <E E !!L'""': 116' !Kx:x y04Q44 xEm x1g';iShnTi;! R`!!MA 3a1111111 »» '1111 „555SRaa5 «.£a lanai aaag E5:.»».Rwa»M a a3^l» Ma I+Cni IIILS I 111 1112a 11 a" aaa a' aRI 11:ma as a a1,11:112 »$5551a 11111-1" 11 »anl »„„Es1a=a aa g=.1aa *FE 'IP,-&a..E. WEIIIE I II Ear3i .4.54! gg QY K' „ b`„tn`!`lggq g 4d.jg ggg- Li ,G19g I ig 3^1113»a»a M» .1'111 a5»151»21 a la»1aa 1aaa 11 :1'111aa3aE» zoM g5gg8l8Eg gg .. g8 gig I%a01 I Igggg gg? ! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1p.% 100% 100% 100% 1001( 100% 100% 100% Ip.% I 10016 00% I LOT% I I001% 10016 1p.% 100% 100% 100% 100% l00% Ip.% 100% 100% aaaaaaa«g w$ '-3911 »w.:.5,1"'S 1 13»“a= 111a RRCtmnaaa aaa3»1a -Y, Ala ?» la:7l ._6.2EE.” „ Mali ia3 11,: 1,11a livaax REQg _W2.a �'!.nR:101.5R 5', '54L!!!EMW5 e85 o=r • gg 3 $ 3EA3d.^a«» a» »lxE »»»"'S»»" .a„ »»a»FA. IPI RgG»Rglq a3»xa : P./,C r 1.' 75 0151_1 kR k1C x. 55 5 5K Rz 25 55 55 . x . 5555.5. Pv -- :wA9»».»^«» »„ '^ 10 »°x13 4.^. N^529. 1a3a �-�Sa�»« »:. a•»»lN . Z . 5 45 4 4 6 5 555 5 5 11 55 2 1 4 A55 44 5 4 a gaglag 51 a3a11s 11'1.111.4 6»» 1111" 1111 111r11:4 115E511 111511= Es ,,,Ela „. 335a:l6& 115 naatia taxa aR"_sm-an aut"aaa !1!�%§R!! tllu484834941 ;illi! Kp1!!5E!II f. I land use RESDIEHIFAL Angle famih IDetat e)- Less than 1,C01s, Anile Famlh(Detached)-1.000 to 1,500 sf (tow/Very tow mmme) Anele Family( Detadsed)• 1,000 to 1,600 sf Aryde family (5eta[hM)-1.501 to 2.25515 Anile Family (Detach.) 2,500 fl aM greater Multbiam0y(low-Rhe, 1.2 levels) Multbfamlly(MldeRife, 3-10 levels) Mobile Nome Parl/RV pled down) Assisted Care Using Fxlllty(ACIF) LOCOING: Motel Motel Ifft, lRXC nu. Park Marina Golf Course Mode theater w/Matinee Tennis Lewd 'Racquet Club/Wealth Oub/Canee Studio r 'Elementary SchoolAS) 'Middle School private, 68) Nigh School (attnte, 912) unhersity/Ir Conege (Private) Muth Day Care Center Jail Fire %Refuse Station Library M[OADIL Nospltal Nursing Name Veterinary clinic wFrcF: Generalafiu Medical Of&A/Cllnic 10A10 sq R or less Medbi 011,./wnic greater roan 10,000 fq R Post office Government,Rile Cemplea Research A Development Center ETI RetatIrstw spin0Center Mew/Used Auto Sales Sapermarat Furniture Stere UMW: ean1/S3Nng 0.6,45 11an%/Sadny Dr.* Restaurant 130 Food Restaurant w/Drlve'TMu automobile Care Center Gat Station w/Convenienee Market00. , rt Gas Station w/Convenin Market 2, 2,0001,92 99 sq R Gas Station w/Convwden05ce Market &COG, sq SelhSeMce Car Wash General SIAM htdntrial m acturMg arelwusine Minl.WarMoufe IOgh{use' ,ansload/Storage ae leant Sand MMM. Qaea ax :aR3xo 511"111'^ax Ha F a3g c„$ EasE „HERE a asa� 353 ATTACHMENT 2 c u w re °a 0 c m d d C w c LL 0 17 a! C c N O d w H N m N t )1 a a) m a X E aagERREa^E = 8 444,4x441 $^,.^..'."m.-0,„ as ER w« 8� xS 4 4-,..444. A24*.AR 4444.44, A$Faga $4,9371 45.1% 444444 4442,4,'^° 444" *44 444444444 ANNPANaing 4444444 AZANAPA xd» »la 2RIRER «»',4» WEEZI$ w ERia ill 4 3 i BIER « EZERE'.3 wwand"dd E HIRE' d a'g°$'i an EW EW �� 44'^^ a«a� -^Rax 6 �a��" �Fe F:117' ERE9 dzigaaa �o1 3. JR" aa 2 ���' q „F��� �«wFnc�a REARM n$ARk^akm waamaaaa«- w Na1 w R^:^<^w al.:: R aw«wwwaaa EEAUR mFAE FAWERRE. « «www krillf4 _I a`X 2 a Eoa4 4 BN�xa:F.44 " ylarEpa a ww , -gy 44 x!,mx�x� 533 $216 597 16.9% 019 543 $19 0.0% 1 « Hw oN$ !xE!!wa tq:I la2a1R2-13 5526 aaa�xIaa wwE:wF«F al'iiaa wa3-.N3's Mill 'la aRWRa Ra &5aaamM www « a$wwwawg„ w wwww a-zzaalaal RN°ma FR Nxa.lgw'$.r$$w aaa*.aa gg444gx Nal / n/ar-' \_n/a fila n/2 /a sn/a • n/a n/a n/3 <<?J?2 ,,?x222222 ssi sisss sisl- B2?s?< as»«« 2,,, 2<<<22 ....4.4t:....i<<<<< ,z.-4...41 iiiiiiii 222c222 4= Aggg <<aa�a 2�21-ss1 <<<<<< <<aa n/a n/a n/a n/3 n/a n/a n/a 2222222g 222222 11111m aa<<<< \. i ”ss, 1- <<< sail -a< <<<2 iiiiiiii 2222222 gu ul.q^ «www « ssi < s i??22 / '.` s,zsi? j.c 2x22 ciic222 a`X s% 3 4M!b`N �`, �` grg ^y9 3G9 gr 44444 ddgdd)9 ? 2$0.8x2 22 4 '"2x9999 M $�s� E:Ge$F:, ^Nem www ✓:«F $$ Seri w «««« al E'.NN$gn «� R a3Ea' f„• a FA $401 «S»« g pq� R"S•,pliii�`k v;ga„«« aa ..1R14 w '" « N^x^xt ^< xx xxvxxx .. de ,,44t h , <o.e< e< x xxxxxx a <e xxxx efa / - xxxxxxxxx eevevedoo xxxxxx oodeee w b°:a .^,:a w w ww Vg »Fgawv w «RE 'wr$kk « « « «ww.a^^ °� « F -a'" oa<9aaaX ee.c e';- g ���g student Student student student 1,000 st 1,000 st bed 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,009 sf bed 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 s1 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf _ !! !!! � a F .:laa� 1,000 50 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,0001f 1,000 s1 acre acre RESIDENTIAL: Single family (Detached)- Less than 1,0(10s1 Single Family (Detached) • 1,000 to 1,500 sf (Low/Very Low Income) Single Family(Detached)- 1,000 to 1,500 sf_ Single Family (Detachedl-1,501 to 2,499 St Single Family (0etached)- 2,500 it and greater Multl-famih (Low -Rise, 1-21eve(s) MVltl-Family (Mid -Rise, 34010ve11) Mobile Home Park/RV (tied down) Assisted Care Living Fadlity (ACIP) 2 Km; Public Park Marina Golf Course Movie Theater w/Matinee _. Tennis Court Racquet Club/Health Club/Dana Studio INST(TUTIONS: Elementary School (Private, g-5) Middle School (Private, 63) High School (Private, 9.12) Unhterslty/lr College (Pr6ate) Church par Care Center _ tail The 6 Rescue Station Library MEDICAL Hospital Nursing Home Veterinary Clinic OFFICE: General Office Medical office/Clinic 10,000 19 ft or less Medical office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft Post office Government Office Complex Research 6 Development Center RETAIL _ Rotall/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture 5tore SERVICE: Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive-in Restaurant fastfood Restaurant w/Drive-Thru _ Automobile Care Center Gas 512110,_w/Convenience Market 02,000 sq 16 _ -- Gas station w/Convenience Market 2,0062,999 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Markel 3,0005 sq ft Self-ter/Ice Car WaSh INDUSTRIAL: General Ught IndustrIal Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Transload/Stongo_ Concrete Plant Sand Mining e wSw« «a F. RRR moi E3 aHaaagn a?. _ss •Policy discounts are applied to Single Family with less than 1,000 square foot with no fee and Single Family with 1,000 to 1,500 sf Affordable Housing - fee decrease of 50% of the small single family home tier 354 ATTACHMENT 2 a> tn � • (n u al N al -9- c c Ti; (b E n E N ¢X �Yt �a Q « a rn.,2 Ax P a r; m � P a « F«ASF» MET „»«, ., a a F`�m�S ll xxx www«a^S a., - d g5xxxr. xx xxxxxxx�x xxxxxx mxxxxxx *4.14.4." POP 1..",""2"41a � oR� e S� ffi a:a5 �° � X o -uga V. � �� H � 8 FFmR agaa � : P aa5 S P N e a t M NNHNHN � ik PFa, a" a dad n A c X t - c 2 yy % YY YY YY �[ YY O D x n F O 0 A 0 g$g ada YY YY'j b F a, p F In O x L " O O n O D g A M1 "'''2; v N g- ..q N ;II H«. 51i A o x A D V '9""74 b O A b .+dm Y y YY y y yy yy n !n b D in 6 N g 0 "g"—^9' y Y YY� �Y[ Y y F g N F h� b O . . ridTN a»AF.�wlal �$; wi "rill »»^»Aiasi P»»1a x „ � �a ME„l„ NN Eaa'aPP 'gEEEME HI 15E515 MEAN HEM ME EMEEM MEM NM .n .n rfl" hh F Favil IFIRRRR afa a ha NNNN N Ia$NNRRR! .y�en Vtt. » Rank P M »»» aEl% . �n f .n �r. ��m an- al o „» u. � FR i X . - - s o _ g. u _ 3 ��ee �xe �Yt 8F o.fi.xoFF.xi�a $D gON„AN < �Ye �1e i, QFgQg 4g 9' �e A44 gg i.2 AgA4 y�en 4441-, 4Ag4 uxgmA,g 114 M ggAAAAAA5 55 555155 555555 „, ...5., 5—s 5555 55555555 555555 aaaaaFAAA $F N»aE,FP u. .., Ft»P zil N v a RIP r In a , P3„aaaAP �xn ,. .den n F Aggxx ��tt y�tt ��ee ��cc gg �t X �Xe A �e 7� �1c xg �t ;` ye �t xN y`t i 7, x xx 1 f 7 ' x. 7..e 7t �e �t yt �t 7�t �t RIxF„ FFFa 'PEP, aaF�a aPr M „ik= amla agRMAR A341 A$am ..E. FA » RH! 58 59 510 513 564 $111 $174 579 5220 5171 5115 5317 5125 5142 '5207 5203 5106 &tar, 5279 5285 5847 $1,111 $187 5239 5239 5239 5109 586 563 535 58 518 5194 525 a<aaoeE8 o=< l!Pl6 kl §!§§ PSS §§.§W { §§.§ RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached). Less than 1,000 sf Single Family (Detached). 1,000 to 1,500 sf (low/Very lose Income) Single Famlh_(potached) -1,000 to 1,600 sf Single Family (Detached). 1,501 to 2,499 sf Single Family (Deeding- 2,500 stand greater N.uIt4Famih )low-Rlse, 1-2 levels) MUltl-Family (Mid -Rise, 3-1Olevels) Mobile Home Park/RV filed down) Assisted Care Ilylng Fadllty (ACLF) LODGING: 'Hotel 'Motet RECREATION: Public Park Marina Golf Course Moyle Theater w/Matinee Tennis Court Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio INSTITUTIONS: _ - Elementary School (Prkate,165) Middle School (Private, 6-8) High School (Private, 9-12) University/!r College (Private) Church Day Care Center Jail Fire 8 Rescue Station Library - E G , f q General Office Medial Office/Clinic 10,000m D or less Medial Office/Oink greater than 10,000m h Post Offke Government Office Complex Research 8 Development Center RETAIL: Retail/Shopping Center New/Used Auto Sales Supermarket Furniture Store SERVICE: Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru Automobile Care Center Gas kation w, Convenience Market 42,000 sq ft Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000.2,999 sq It Gas Station w'Convenience Market 3,0000 sq ft Self-SeeNce Car Wash INDUSTRIAL General Ught industrial Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube Transload/5tomge Concrete Plant Sand Mining ,.,. � a .,".3,2U.$: RaIRR6RE RRs RR m1mm angina 22.i'i 355 - Table J-2 (continued) c X _ a _ �8 r- gg ammmgl—an g.e: g f b.5ii . R. Aggg.r SSPjo<m gg „ b g nxgg W F. xx4 l'e .'. S.' F-. .n n E « `• :exam. RPm: 7,s,7 gg .g...4gg ^mr-414HEE g ilrgxcgx ,143Trgm a g Staaaa�a a A a '$R S A s E ap m gni, .n yy 8 7 '4 0 5 ��nn N e• a m E » k adadgqiR ^ 9g.....y.E#9 "V g E dE'n%i 5 qg4 g g 2n o v gg 3 de. E E R K ,,,mn.n„da E q 'n K n ad-- n E m RI4g BEE3E.a„„ ? v e kg S„ b-aIRK uSla r1.1 ",«aga 'i g ''..n n 16,- gg» flQ gn«S'9�'n:ti"l3 »aSaa„a.ana nx�g144 $.a» y.R �'�'$ilai§3a LI i.X.nnim."1$ Main aa -TA F4i. 7 .'..S4.^nE 1 vi.�i..^�,"' .A i � V V b N g M e P n c g s^aaaaema 512 546 5211 75.0% 59 525 $11F 22.2% g ti ,,mg '“,-,':4F48 D O g O e r F 0 0 ?E,1"1;Pl x„aa,xaa x gg "' aaw !ER : .naa g g r Fi k r v e n T m0"mes $r -'ER gg i g< T c A G ^mPmmgIEA g 0 0 0 g b 0 va'&sa8 agar,1aiaa !aal «a"asll EEEE » i»$»l» REaxarga „.navaaa$a « .^S$H .naanaag .n EWA& n.EA «.n gl Ig n.. .n ^” SC » .n u: N aaamaaa laaaaa.^,.aa .,. NRNE «.n«a.an.aaa aaa^.aaEiR Haaa.£n 'aaaa#a gam. 2 E� _ El; ke!ex3Se 8�°��.....e 5 �,. aa E3 „01�Lx „01!!,. 154:e!!ee 154:!!!„9 848RmenT9 559 5208: 594 59.3% •-: 5. $1561 53141_-----51411... - 7-9.6% 50.6% x i -o^ : ry�������� 8 sa,-.Eaaaa aaim g.%E....Aggrsi rip iiii 19M liiiiiiii iiiiii a .n .n ri" it liiiiiiiiiiiiiianaM<a» .n .n .n .n» a aaa ,+ xo aaeaana » 54RER! aa saaaxaaaaa .na« n a .n.n.n� M1 ,:2 r!g!“ !i 8 Y ^ 222222 2i'2� � i 2 c c , 22 <2222? ccccc22 a w a a a .n.n 2 2 c c c c c 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 c 2 ill Mil Si 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c c e ry rvpA bl 2 2 mss, 2 2 2 2 2 ,s s s c 2 ill s 2 c 2 2 2 c 2 c 2 2 2 c a a 0.. 3 m N 'dam' 2 .y..r4NNNa\ii 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 c 2 c c c 2 2 c 2 iiii 222[ 2 cc2 c 2222 22 g g o o l 2 22222 222222 22 2 iiIII 22222 < <2 22 2222 4o44949' room MOT acre boat berth hole Court 1,094 sl student student student student 1,000 sl 1,000 sf bed 1,000 sf 1.000 sf 1.000 sf bed 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,..2.1130_1802_ 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,00011 1,000 sf 1,000 sl 1,000 sl 1,000 sf fuel pos. fuel pos. fuel pos. service bay „.„,„5: ;IP , ail fit 484842884848425 ga 45555 841884184848428a 8484" 555555 1555 '155155555 55555584 1 8 84 1 5 a 8 8 5 1 1 it TI 8g 8 84 84 1 8 8 5 5 a 84. a 4 3 1 5 84 a 1 a 84 141 111 111 84 a 84 84 84 8 84 5 84848 88884 HP alp 5 88 5 5 951114. 17FFEI 81888 a a 84 a A 8484 TIT la 5 84 a T1 a 84 a 84 84 NI; €.5.58 a 84 a 84 84 1.1111 8484 89 E* 53588 .1 a 85 a a a 11 A. 5 5 a a 84 a 84 a '111 r'af. Tr -6 a 84 ti. 84 8484 8452 516 A ' 8484 aai I. a r a.. 88 aaaa. n -rt: Sa Trr, MI a a 84 a aPal ;75 E 84 a k 8845 84g 58555 Maa 5558 la 5 a 5 a 5. 555 aaH 8 5 5 5 0 8 a at. a 5 5 a 5 8 88 a -a 11 El 8 8! at. flt a 5 a 8 ti a 4 a 1 1. 8 a 8 84 84 19 ral 221. a 1 5 1E15 eaa- 84 84 a 84 84 84 84 84 84844584" 8484554844 84 444t44, S" 44 4 9! T 55"151 g 2 55555 ----gy 2 -TS 515455'2 I -WA a a 84 a 5 a. 8 8 5 5 6 4' 8 8 a 4 84 1 P.' P.' 4 8 1 a 11 ca 11 11 8484 84 5 a, 8 4 a. 84 a. a 1 8 a a a a 5 84 a 84 84 1 84 84 a 8 a 84 5 55; 84845 54. 8,17 a0i 18 183 8418 3,848 —17—a 84 84 a 84 84 84 a 84 84 84 84 84 1 6 84 1 aaaa 11787.1 0888 1841 088 apt a a 84 84 84 84 a 84 1.. 84 3. 3. 84 3. glfgt 84.5844 44888 884585 85555 445845 44485 5E559 84 1584. 551 aa as, 66 I 15 5# 0 S„a ig 84 284 2 8484 8484 nc (1) • ...... 1.– • 1••••••% 0 (JD (• 'J v) N\ c\ (\I.) k (1) a) 713 4-) rans • ortatio —1 01 I - -I f••• CO 1 tD tO CD 01 •O' !C0 -I t.0 ):1' 1••• CFI r- 06 .4.. 06 (46. -1/). Iff• t -I in. in 0 t0 03 C0 03 00 r4 1 tO 01 C C • C --1 m Ln 01 ,T t-1 00 'r co N. (31 co •:) • m r•-• in in• 00 01 o a -I CV' 14 L r 0 0 C 00 nt <NI -vt• 00 m 00 rs1 1-1 F-1 m C0 ! C C (.4 '4- "5 -tC1- 4- 0 Light Industrial CA o 0 a) 0 tD to eN1 Lfl m m 4" r -I Ln Ln 1 co N--1 C31 1/1. if3! c c! c r 0 m in ▪ - m co co (NI 14- l 00 00 00 Ln 00 -1 LCD 0 4- 4- 1 4- i CA o 0 0 0 0 0 o oio r -r ..0 I I— ci) _c •L- [ ; ! 0 ! 0 ! n3 c cu CC 03 U- Does not include the County s administrative ez ainiglanElM GJ v N V LL f0 V 4-0 V 4„r fa !Z'C E S e o' N N ! CO + 1 + + i r1 00 " O N In dl 00 lD 00 d e-$ N Ol I (0 I. O 1 m N { lD Ol 01 m N m Ln ' 00 ri ih in in in e-1 In G1 ri 00 t0 LA Ii oo t10 r�-I t(0 N D7 t0 m ^-I 11).11 I eM-I N O 1!1- i/� 1/i r(1 = = 0 0 0 O O O r-1 r-1 e 4- O 0 0 N1. a E fa LL a 00 L O 0 LL m E co LL 2 4- N O O O , O Does not include the Count s administrative e: al r-1 o cu N N = CU CU dA .2E E ua 0 0 es Q CC e-1 0 • •o•te• Fee' ro N r-1 0 N • -commen•e•I CU CU LL U ice+ Q 0 'C E 0) 'a c co -J r 0 0 Ln + Ln N M to 0 lO Ln 00 c -i c-1 r-1 N r-1 00 00 0 00lfl In N I n 00 DO d r -I N Ct R LI) in- in- in- in- in- tn- N . O N C1 COIII O 0 CN N1 N N 'tea C to N I M '. c US 4 VI- i/I• 1I. 'N• V). iCr L O 0 Ll M E LL 4 2 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- V) N V) to O O O O O O O O O O r'1 r-1 r 1 ri r -I Light Industrial f la :moti I t! l iil iiYl $ ri 0 • N CUI 4, O RI R U 0 U o Q w V * O. .a • LL N Q co u o ‚-10-o N E * rho C N H N LL ,r., cn u ea s. NE * CU v LL Y u E Y c 0) ca J O N ri 0 N M 0" O ri -1 O 0 00 4" r cn Non -Residential ems\ -1-I m v -t -i (NII{ rn ! ' M N 0 + O N N + of 00 + 0 o O m to Ls, N Lel r-1 r -I m + + + Lll 00 N 17—in rsi O O ce/} iA Cr1-1 CO CO t0 t0 00 N CV Cr N N N V 4.110O 0 N o 4- ra o o o I o ri ri O ri ri t coTo IT 1 •> V▪ 1 L 10 C _ 1 4- u •ri -Y no as •7.e 0 cc m t t0 ✓ l M e-1 4- 01 tap t/`/ 173 • - S =} Ski ry s 6 is v T C . 3 o w L w O VI 73 c Ip 3 2 L) ° T v 10 3 O 01 U S T d O3 V V %001 %001 %001 %00I %00Z%00I %617 I %001 %9Z/%OS WNWN P LIOZ [ 810Z Z10Z 1[ -- SOOZ ` 9102 tIOZ �� b10Z VEOZ b10Z ll 6102 6102 ri m V! 1. V? l0 V> �, to v ,' a M 01 N '� ^; N VI 1 t0 an .-i 1 Vii j : v 11).V> f- N V> CO c�-1 1 01 In M 14 Ln V? i N v� r1 m 1 u! EE co l0 V> tfl m ', O 1 N ; l0 V) i, •O• O vi N INn VT O .--1 V? L. i-1 V). rl la to n N %-i V)' M L? M v} 00 v v? m a V> ri la 1•-• oo rl • cti V? M V) 1" co vi $5,062 11 $1,316 1; $1,111 $4,273 $2,254 T. $302 ]!r $4,633 � $1,012 J{ T $2 482 $980 $458 — J ive fee 0 (k ', O V. C ull T 3 L i y O V U y o id 0 (.)C v CU Tr ... R N V cC U CU a a w .O O - y, ccCr 7 m U CC) tn V? VT 0^ 00 : ..-1 LOO 03 .7 V! CO CO VT VT 1 N Ol N O ri N al co O N Study Date Assessed Portion Single Family (2,000 sf) ' du Light Industrial 1 1,000 sf Office (50k sq ft) 1,000 sf Retail (125k sq ft) 1,000 sfgla s Bank w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf *Does not include the County's administrat 1 * X mors. CE13 1 P3J Key 1 3 ri O (NIN 13 49 440 CIO ro u 0 u Q N M 0 CO 0 m 00 0 O C.6 N M 0 ci N 0) LL 4-0 fC 0. E O1 wn� m lb '--1 N N 11). 1/: V/ O O O 4- O 0 O ' tet 0 O O .-i 4- 0 O O r 0) -13 c J - N O E LL Os N CU cc in tri N cc . - • i n . .: . .ur'1i'1. CiifiVI t1: N co N N W V 43. tO U1 NJ tO 1a ▪ N Ot A NJ NA V V Qs 000'6 AIluiej al2u!S 0. uo!Jod passassy Z N1/0 N W W CO L_+ 1 f A • NJ ✓ I� i/> r ` N N N COCO NJ • 00 A A A V V V ✓ r r N 00 r O N O V l0 N W l0 i/f CO Z 1/1- > w N ✓ N 01 N NJ if3 N 00 NJ A V 01 ▪ 01 Ol Ol l0 W W 00 A L1 - NJ N 00 N N 00 O N N V O O 01 3 Q Litc O t0 N O A : N A NJ CO V1 W N N 0 N 0 I - r 0 o o Ori O O N o r? c c n n O 0 C = -V3 W W (/1 N N • O r CO r 0' (0 (0 0 N O 0 N O r V • 3 0 3 n O O v, c O K cn 1 N N N N 1.71 V1 01 O N I O1 r r r A V i A 01 i 01 01 W W ; N 1 osliedwoD as j pe •' W v v S4 U arnithilk munW&AVJAt yrn •LI i . . nayl-anua/m )uee o o 0 0 VVI -� h A VI N W l N 1 100 00 IN N } 1 ' W l0 u1 N N I--1 CO o J 70 fD 00) 0 F.) o 0 0 -h• ` 0 011 N O O 0 !ofuap!sab-uoN bs BIZ) All 1!). N A 00 tD O NN 'Vf• I" I" tito A 00 N N ' 01 4 U1 I V CO A W O 1 l0 l0 . 01 F----7 s � N r_ -- - 7 • N l•� CO •yo I— N 0 U1cri + I— N 0 c 3 O n rr c 0 T t.0 CD 0- * 3 Iv T CD fD * 121gt rrinr�LY 0 r l0 his o a n o 0) 0) -3 3 c o. N 0 Q. • a 0 o - 3- 3 m 0) a3 3m Co E* 3 0- N O a O to N CO .a anilea;siuiw.e s uno.) a a.n Du! lou saoa.; in. to ' to 0 00 lin 0 W In 00 - to in• in• { i/ - W W W ! - N NJ N In N N N NJ v v v w V N 01 V LD N In ; N 0) in i/> (.,/11~'D : V In 1--1 1-1 ✓ Cn 00 NJ N In 1 00 O1 In 00 in A V U1 : Ol N A 00 J l� N N N 000 '' ? O � 101 L Con UI 1N▪ J -1 L/1 0 l 000 in i W N N W; O N j 01 r 0 0 j o N Lir 0 0 N 0 ✓ 01 N O O In ff N O 0 O1 N 0 F-� F-� O 0 NI Of 0 O D) < C. 0 0 O < 3 O • c 1 .i n < f0• �i w w U.) *Does not include the County's administrative fee c -n 0) 3 act (D T 0) 3 N Ui O O 0 00 (D 0) (D iI N t0 • i/► ' A 00 t0 CO 4.11- co f00 l0 3 0) -n O (D I-� 1.0 w tn- I-� W w Q. CO 0 Ni U0 fp O A * T (D co N 0 Ln 0 + ' N 0 w 00 0 sw v w 0 w 0 73 Q 0 O o g s 3 ra 3a 0 0 Q N O rD 0 W -af angeagsiuivape s, luno0 ayl apnpul lou saoo ' Mobile Home (1,300 sf) du Single Family (2,000 sf) du Assessed Portion ILStudy Date L 1— fD . O el - Multi -Family (1,300 sf) e ..\\?%:".------Je . ItV� ---4:)\'.''j\'''\\\- %, ; ( *fa A1169.6 ._ c L-vjp $1,178 $471 $749 $1,086 I $317 $675 $2,862 $411 $108 $2,048 $819 $1,343 $1,947 $587 $675 $3,628 $411 $189 $1,169 f( $468 $767 ' $1,111 $311 $479 $1,685 , $311 $131 " %SZ %OOt • %OOT %00t %617 I %00t %69 e/u e/u 2019 2019 �� 2014 ` 2014 I 2014 2014 i 2015 1 2005 2006 cu el -c % n D) (D a ID`STwr el en 3 XI 3 DJ CL CL r 53r)(D a C A ((DD 0 O v O -c O O A 11 0 y 3Cli `G w VI 0 9® nc) O r) • E r 1/ A O O C p fD = 3 D) ' a O O07, • ao• C = 7 Dl < 3 a H UJ l!� _a anile) s!u!wpe s, luno3 aye apnpui fou saoa . o c 0 (D T'.' (D -n 0 3 3 I� W 0 0 o D (D (D N d 0 4 0 c Q 0 4/1. 4/1- Vf N N N V 01 A 00 t0 00 r--� .A A 00 V C I . F+ 1-t 00 t0 cD in O co ih I-� lD 01 h" 1" I" N O -1 01 V v i/7 - N w w in in. to CD N NJ i/1. 01 V to '(!1• I-� I-, F-� ih F-� 0l 01 tD W 00 w iR 1-� 01 w d j.. O O 0 O O O O 0 F-� O O 0 1-A O 0 N 0 1-' to C t0 O I— A N O N 0 F-� N O lD N O v c e=F n c E CD 0. 55 r O o c 1:13 O i trf O O O 3 osuedwoD as j pe • v Uf V (M ii v % rt 5 n 5 (D roo 0) n fN 0 �o o. 0 v CT' r CO CL c (D 0 O O 0 O 0 00I 0) O 0 O c N : V 0 O w V-+ 00 . 00 N 0 O N 00 F-� 0 0 'o 0 County and state road improvements from other communities in Florida N 1S 44S8 011S q169 wo.y. any q199 66th Ave from 49th St to 69th St T S(1 pn19 JOA! ueipui WWI 4 LE any puZ8 'N104 US OTS JJ saleWia.s3 aan1nd y1617 0109 JS WOJ. any 4199 u Oslo Rd Ph. IH from 43'd Ave to 58th Ave sluawano.idw! kiunoj leaoi juauodcuo3 jso3 J 1 lA 0 0 o o O o o o N O O O O O W a O b o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o tt N N 0 N " DO A E fox' mo m o fl) 7 y N Pf 3 c fD sy. a T fC 3 m N N •0 O 0. a Cr CDa tL 0. 0 m m m aleW!1s3 lepol pue 8Toz o TOZ asegelea wunoO Jo puaig :!saa JaUnE qanp uega opnmsuoD JO 000 008 Z * co r) • c fD 0_ 0_ m o • v o c o FIS(_) E o o E c s Q Qo Cr • o C o 0 fD 0_ v 5 v ao (D 0 N rt 0 N 3 v rn w O O t au w 0 O O O .l cri 0 0 0 i/1• 4=§ w 0 0 0 0 0 m O VF to- W Ui ' V Co Co 1 F-4 U1 W00 O O I O O O ' O O O , O tn� w 0 rn 0 O 0 w 0 0 0 0 ;rn 0 Co O 0 0 W to U9 O O O tn� w w 0rn O O speo8 aieis -a ani)e ls!u!wpe s, ;unoJ ayp apniou! IOU saoa T O O 0 H 0) (0 =1m o _ a IV 0 7C' v rp Q _0 (D c L__JL Lam, 1 r �� 1 00000 0 0 cn 0 0 CA VI CM VI -h -1 y, -h a i/1. 4.4 W �•.D A 1-, 00 V1 01 F+ O 01 to i/1 - F+ N V1 N V W 00 t0 CO t0 L _ Vf iA 'tA 00 V1 W 01 G1 U1 N 0 W 00 W 0 N i/. to 09' N A N 0o U1 ." I Q1 l0 10 I N r- -I- -I- UJ NJ VI 0 �! 00 0 0 C fD c� T -n 3. 3. W N rt Oo v (D N CI- CDC C A 00 V 00 F" A N W 4.4 i/! N F+ W 01 ✓ V1 01 to W W N 01 N W W tll t0 0 0 to 0 NJ v 00 + 0 N 00 o o 00 4N NJ to 0 1 0) a c to (D c :-r 3 0) (1 T (0 (0 ]iDFlnln[.1�1 } j N O t0 D) Q o O Cea Q. 00 (`t0 0 N SZ C O U0 Q o CDO 0133 3 70 a) 3a. oil (D O o. ,...r%) O O. I" A i V, W T 0) r e -e• 0 0 0- 0 (D F-' ' 0 0 0 v) 0 . O 00� 1/1 0) 0_ C 0L C V 00 00 00 W O O es+ 1/1. 01 V U1 Q1 uWl1 m N N N i/). • to N N N A 4.0 N V N 01 ▪ 0 N 01 Co N N V N 00 A A N N 00 t/1• to W N to to t/1 in. U1 W U1 U1 N A V W N O 3 W W LID W V N CO N F-. N 0 00 0) I- , W -L/1- LI- t/► to to to N N N NN N N A A 01 10 00 10 O N N F-. 0 01 W 01 N N A V W Co 00 in. N L0 A `f` W I--. I-+ N 10 (W/1 W I--‘}{ V A W 0 11 LO V 01 i U1 V (0 V r 1 ii to to to to NJ Iv NJ 01 Lri -0 00 00 J 00 VV A 00 V to to to t/> rnNo- L'+ in• v V F▪ O-� A (A0 f 0 N A O O NJ O F-� 0 o o o1.4 0 UD N 0 N N O 0 o 0 0 n O o c y < 3 < 0_ N (D n 0) o O) C 3 o ID o r? C - 3 2 s 0 (D • 0 NCD • 3 c rt ro 0_ • CD < 3 N CD c • O z 3 . o Q 6) Q fD CD A mu-aniaa/M pool }sed 0 0 O I. CD 5 O O O - t bs BIOS) ab!J4O Ieulsnpui ly2n N 3 O L] Q_ c c uopJod passassy N O W `W I -. ✓ W A r0�0 , a CO U1 lAn 0A0 0000 N A 01 r r+ A to to w iL to ✓ T 0 N 00 to W ►+ W In. i A to 0 CA N O W CVD W I, W UD 00 00 w o to o N L iIr O O ✓ o O `0 1 N N N N W Imp A N 00 0 N V N i to LC)t(O N 01 OOl N coA( 0 I I F+ CA!) t • W! Q1 A N N A o▪ l A O 0 V i-) N 00 I t/1 1-, tn. Lt t/* V `P 1--, I--, W N 00 U1 CO V1 00 I-) V V A 01 t/f N N N O N to N N W N t/* t/D to 00 00 N O N 01 Cr) N CO to to to N W V7 CO • 01 Vt V7 Q1 Fes-. t/* 1 -0. tn. C!) O1 111 i N 1--. Co l(0 • A 00 I C~O Vt W r W s CO V V), F-' • N I-) Cn CO 00 N Vt N ? N F+ N V N O N V7 to 1-+ 1--' V O tn• N N CO w N N N 0 I--‘ N 0 N N O 7-. , W N N O i U1 1 ▪ . - \ rn 0) CL c (0 c 3 '-i ►rr.IKELIrULE o O C 3 N4 'S`i O -WOH _ !• • c r. T 3 w -n .O 0 as -11 Cl 3 O O O r O_ c A O O �.i 0 t/} I-, V O N J U'I 0 w 0 r sv a. c fD c 3 N -n (D (D papuawwoDab 0 (D N 0 Q O on n' 3 3Q pa (D O 3 N a. O aInpaLIDs aaj pedwi Alunop aaleuelN pnus Iepiuyaal :uio:-uo luaaaa jscnu spa] as %OOZ /e a/ea 2HS 1 Indian River County (Current) N O r N /„unop U Jew (rD (D n 0 C 3 Awno3 apn-1 •fig Awnop nesseN 0 0 0 0 01 V1 LO V 0 V 0o 0 I N V1 I A V N pa;elnoleD Alunop Janla uelpul O r 10 N r W r O 1/f 01 0 <� o = tCi" ' Cr III O o c c• 00 3 < n 3 3 N N j N 0 O ; O Or I r A� 00 j W O V 01 01 Vw A k w O N Y 0 O V1 O V 01 01 n 3 C 03 N 3 n 0 0 o C n O Awnop aped-Iweiw n O c 3 N 3 00 d N 19 d 3 3 )0 13 Akunop eioaDsp nl-o n 0 3 ____- F_'-",, I— _ I____ w r n w v p v1 v o, m 1 wi 3 I tv Dr < �I, m < 1 0 3 Cu 0 13 n a n n o, 0 00 0 l o 0 Q O 0� (I (D ,y. 3 I (WD C C C a O n N n tL n 3 3 ,. n c < c°< < 0 C 0 c 3 3 j ',. C i< 3 C ''. 3 n < < < 0c 1 E. 3 r—, N N N ! N O O 0 30 r W V 0 off°sag l0 O O O to r r W N 3- - I-. I-, fV W . 00 NJ NJ N W -Ai 00 V1 LO O N NJ NJ O - 0 r 3 -. V1 V1 u, N O o o o V7 l0 0 W V A -j r—^ ---- r--� NN N D N N N N 0 ID OV . OV 01 VI 0co co o co 01 ) (0 V Z V N m Zig D o A j 01 00 r i o L_ -- ( i i V 0' V! 00 N W' ':4:, tn- .. 00 N V 0 1,0 ; N A I C NJ 000 00 N v v J L - L. _j r— , l0 l0 20 W V V Pl0 A N ( 00 W V { V1 01 1 ID 00 A v1 v1 on i -'....J .__--J 0 c dtol c (D a' a O O 3 N 030 d N >L 3 N -n 0 73 0 O. ti osiae• WoJ am/ aa- oo � =a anilealsiu!wpe s }unoJ aye apnpu! lou saoa N naul-anpa/nn pooj Isej natal-anpa/nn )jue8 fD r+ fv N N N N N o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N N N N N --h -h --11 -h -h L. (saoold E). A !wej-pint/ (4s 0oo'Z) Anwej ai8u!s IZ o_ c c N 0 N I -A i/1 Vf Vf• W O W 00 00 V W Oi tO V 01 I-, 0111 011 0100 011 00 V I- tp 1 ih ih ih Uf I--% . -(/1• '(/1- J ih I-1 W U'1 00 U') W •-...1W (0 10 a1 Ni W O -I al l0 N 1-1 Ab CO 01 00 (OJ U1 �N 0 t _ 7 00 I-4 + N l0 o 0 r Q c fD c3 z 13 rF T fD fD a, A c a) fD 0 N O n o a) Ci A c trza ffl fD O. N O r )0 0 ti Ito n -a ani;eii;siu!wpe s lunop alp apnpui fou saoa rn w nagl-an!Ja/nn pooj }se j Retail Bank w/Drive-Thru O �' CD lelalsnpul1q !1 O O O O O O O O O ---f, - moi, -1 N++ Y". 00 0i t0 Q W N UJ1 t0 O 0 N00 UD N W N -(/1- i/} - j i.//- ‘..4. />. N F� O ' 0o 10o N N I 00 U 1 0 O O 0 N) V 01 U1 o 0 0 0 n + 0 Q </f. t0 Oi to 0 00 W c3 O -a aaj •al•o• Q o O o 3- 3 a (D O N Q O A cD lunoD • aleio • aoou!un — saa-J pe • • oit oft O.• crQ A% cti eiD mtz Insufficient funding for Transportation Projects • LJ ft int 2• C16,4 C 11 p =lil ;:)1614 1. *It 0 GI' Pnit 4 C 51 :21 CDMt n ....fri, .... . CfQ r N W N 0 O 00 N O 0 CO N 0 0 0 I-� (V. 0 F-� N NJ O 2 UJ NJ O 0 Ln N 0 N 0 V N 0 CO New Building Square Footage 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn w `Ln • rn ai O O O U1 UJ 0 U1 UJ m r 'Na '0 ra CND ISD < 'c N COter+ O �D •H !N IO Lo 00 O 3 0. (D �. n 70. � C Q Ori rP C rD 3 cu P'F V) 12 VI N -' rD Q O NJ 2. O O0 fD N O 00 0 .1111111111. MIN 11101, Non -Residential Residential Overall Land Use t..)r ; %OS td b ra: ''': T4 r, %00I %OO I Emergency Services 40% O Law Enforcement 1 1 ?,,,:J n til • 75%) VA 0 Transportation Z 28% Public Education puaa.Iad 3UnoaSIQ it, z %OOI Jo u�I papuauUuioaaI act Fee General Affordable Growth and • • • • tZ O n O I-. O In - . :11: ¢' ¢'' O �+ r' et �,.. ,,, ,.~h Q A cli ?) = -. cD aroma ° d b A am. A 0 CD : r II tmil $21 0 - OICI CD - CD et- A'h 0 - : n C� la 1 e4 - Z O 0 Cr A: pazi eit ft a Avl ett CD Ill A O 0 ~ OA �' �j..i""'i AD 0 CA 0 i 5. Owl* : TO y 14. • opt' spEoa 11B .10j «Q„ SO1 WEI JoJ pad ortation (lower than achieved LOS) MOLLVDIOdSMV LL • C CD CD rg CLIb eD CA o' Ow* CACD HCA •• • V1 - r g A o = = 6D 0 O - CD mgCD 0 • - ii .. C C �- 4 o O CD Zia CA 5c o • eD aria © oo 0 oAiISROH EFfflV}1O1JV 2I03 CD C4 P CD ft n C O n �+ CD CD (/D O • CD C) CD 0 f1 CD c4 ¢I., • CD F O CD . O . .`CD n • O "CI cr n' CM? O S 1:21- • 1-0 o gyp. CD O O O O O .• CD p.• , 1, • CD -- P/73 P CD ak o' o. CD 0 N Uc �� c 0 O C' O- Op,, Q-. 0 1-0 OCD 0 rm.,O CD P 0 a, CD ' SCD 0 9" O p � ' N D 4 r+ ~ • O CCD 01-t ►�, CD '� ',74: 0 P CSD C O. CD '73 v? pp C4 CD CD ¢- CD �• '- O P CD )73 �' 0 O Ug 0 -• Cip 0 <-p-o ►- O CD CD o o C 0 0 CD Q-' N •CI, Po N cn CI, CD CD C• CD 0 • :ssauamsuodsaj • Reduced Administrative Fees from 2.5% to 2% et • As proposed - 6 Separate Impact Fees (Eliminated Library, Corrections, Solid Waste) pg- •• n 0-s CD CD 0 CD n. CD CD 0-1 CD P" CD C4 0 rai CD 0 CD CD • CD 0 F4 CD CIQ 0 N' CD • CD 0 171 0 in• CPC? O • o' O g• U.) o--ci,-e fa, tz_,, 0-0 0 0 o 0-1 -. CD N CDCCD C• CD CD F' -h0.4 h v)• O • �..1 O' CD CO 0'"t � 0 Q., ¢, CD O `-t- O CD P C4 r -r- CD' CD 0 -c �h c40 CD O � C) CCD � `� - CD P CD <--► . . 1-tCCD 0 O o `� O0o"P g . 1-1 <CD(1) CipCD '-ti +• O 0 cn P CDCD CD CDS P �. CD cip oAD CD ¢. O oro �. • 1 0 �.-, . CD �C o N pp ;74'CD C Q'' t- o CD c) C o o � 0 O CD a, C • P CD CD `podai iseip auk nnainal' o ' O O'' < 13 Q 2,7 73 co ro n O •-• (D O. C '► — O m CL00 00 N tD c Cr 17' to c N c.. ) 1I 01 A o N 000 aA "11 M 1 V 'm' V111 1 0,4 AIA WA W N W o 00 N 0CC1 m N n 00 (D V>: 3 W o 000 OV rt "C/ O1 1 IN IA Q0 cc%O w • W W W 0 - - (- t0 00 V 01 AA IP. 43. 434 WW 01 l0 V Nt'D.ye A N (i 00 I--+ 00 t14 03 0 OOI lA ILA IA if) A A W Wp N N rO N O W 01 N V W IA 1-. W 4./1 IA 0A0 V1 IA v W N 00 1-. t0 CA V W iJ1 t0 U1 'N V 00 3 mai g. itiT S 01 G4 3 d O 0 O m O V1 • e • ' NN A u1 A* I" O Total Facilities N N N N 14 14 O `'D A 01 V O A N O 0. T n 'r to W A IATA t!1 O1 W N03 1-h 03 toO 00 o V :+ A ug O O tt0 Vs N Vf V1 O W 1-. V 0 A A A Wp W' N W0 0 N ' W t0 01 V' N 01 W A' V 00 01 t0' W W IA V> in in'. N N W N W 01 00 00 00 V V 0 V CO O V A tD CO W W CO ID 171, 0 Ot 0 R7 0 c 2 0 a. 3 Total All $6,7941 $8,238 21% $2,048,413 iAV!NiA tD 00 V V 01 00 O 00 Total All W tD W W V W W 00 V h+ A 1-+ 1n A 01 W A 03 03 N Date: To: From: Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum January 14, 2020 Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Prepared By: Eric Charest, Environmental Compliance Analyst Subject: St. Johns River Water Management District's Issuance of the Windsor Properties Inc. Consumptive Use Permit 270-5 Background/Analysis: As an interested party in the consumptive use permit (CUP) process, and with significant reclaimed water infrastructure and an ample supply of reclaimed water available in the vicinity of the properties of Windsor Properties Inc. (Windsor), Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) staff have been monitoring the communications between the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and Windsor on the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) application that Windsor filed with SJRWMD back on April 10, 2019. On April 29, 2019, SJRWMD issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to Windsor for a Reuse Feasibility Study, to be performed by Windsor, acknowledging that IRCDUS had contacted Windsor back in 2013 regarding the availability of reclaimed water and identifying a reclaimed water connection point from IRCDUS that terminates at Wicklow Way. Windsor fulfilled the RAI request on December 19, 2019, with the submittal of a Reuse Feasibility Study performed by BGE, Inc., the consulting firm hired by Windsor. Upon review of the report, SJRWMD issued Windsor their CUP on January 8, 2020. At the January 14, 2020, Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, discussion was had regarding the SJRWMD's issuance of CUP 270-5 to Windsor. Per BCC direction, staff has reached out to Windsor to further discuss the logistics of supplying reclaimed water to meet the needs of their community. Funding: No funding needed at this time. Recommendation: Staff will provide a verbal update to the Board of County Commissioners at the meeting on January 21, 2020. 358 Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Susan J. Prado, Assistant County Attorney TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM The Board of County Commissioners William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney January 3, 2020 Demolition Lien — 4076 Old Dixie Highway (former Club Bali) The County has demolished dilapidated structure on the following parcel of property identified below: Property Owner Katrix LLC (quitclaimed by Summit Tax Partners LLC) Parcel Description Cost 32-39-03-00000-5000-00008.1 4076 Old Dixie Highway Lot 2, Espys Subdivision $80,694.82 The next step in the process is filing a lien against the property for the cost of demolition. In accordance with County Code Section 100.080, the Board passed Resolution No. 2017-115 to have a lien filed against the property for the costs incurred by the County in demolishing the unsafe structure. Notice of the proposed demolition lien was mailed to the parties in interest, and, pursuant to our code, the parties in interest may now appear before the Board and be heard as to the amount of the proposed demolition lien. Attached is the lien that, if approved by the Board, will be recorded in the public records. Also attached is the itemization of costs for the demolition. 359 FUNDING: Costs associated with this item are recording fees for recording the lien in the public records at a cost of $10.00. Funds for this expenditure will be paid out of Account No. 00421441-034830, MSTU/Road & Bridge/Recording Fees. RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney's Office recommends the Chairman allow any parties in interest for the property to address the Commission and be heard on the amount of the proposed lien concerning the property. Following any comments, staff recommends approval of the lien amount and authorization for the Chairman to sign the lien for recordation in the public records. /nhm Attachments: Lien Itemization of cost for demolition 360 LIEN THIS LIEN, filed the day of January, 2020, by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, pursuant to the authority of the Code of Indian River County, Section 403.08, Property Maintenance Code, for costs incurred by Indian River County, Florida, to remove a nuisance structure from property located within Indian River County, and described as follows: Lot 2, Espys Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 36 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida Parcel No. 32-39-26-00008-0000-00002.0 The name of the record owner of the above-described property is: Katrix LLC 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115 Lincoln, NE 68516 (conveyed by Quitclaim Deed from Summit Tax Partners, LLC 6333 Apples Way, Suite 1150 Lincoln, NE 68516) THIS LIEN is filed against the real property to secure the payment of Eighty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety -Four and 82/100 Dollars ($80,694.82), for the cost of demolition and removal of the nuisance structure. THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue interest at the rate of four and three-quarters percent (4.75%) per annum, until the total amount, including interest, has been paid. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Susan Adams, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Board of County Commissioners Circuit Court and Comptroller BCC approved: January 21, 2020 By: Deputy Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 2020, by Susan Adams, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who is personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC: Signature: Printed name: Commission No.: Commission Expiration: SEAL: 361 LIEN THIS LIEN, filed the day of January, 2020, by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, pursuant to the authority of the Code of Indian River County, Section 403.08, Property Maintenance Code, for costs incurred by Indian River County, Florida, to remove a nuisance structure from property located within Indian River County, and described as follows: Lot 2, Espys Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 36 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida Parcel No. 32-39-26-00008-0000-00002.0 The name of the record owner of the above-described property is: Katrix LLC 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115 Lincoln, NE 68516 (conveyed by Quitclaim Deed from Summit Tax Partners, LLC 6333 Apples Way, Suite 1150 Lincoln, NE 68516) THIS LIEN is filed against the real property to secure the payment of Eighty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety -Four and 82/100 Dollars ($80,694.82), for the cost of demolition and removal of the nuisance structure. THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue interest at the rate of four and three-quarters percent (4.75%) per annum, until the total amount, including interest, has been paid. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Susan Adams, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Board of County Commissioners Circuit Court and Comptroller BCC approved: January 21, 2020 By: Deputy Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 2020, by Susan Adams, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who is personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC: Signature: Printed name: Commission No.: Commission Expiration: SEAL: 362 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: /313 MEMORANDUM Board of County Commissioners Dylan Reingold, County Attorney January 8, 2020 Request for Closed Attorney -Client Session Relating to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY v. TWENTY-TWO BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES LOCATED BETWEEN, AND INCLUDING, 9586 DOUBLOON DR., AND, BUT NOT INCLUDING, 1820 WABASSO BEACHRD., VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, 32963 (Case No.: 31 2018 CA 000881) BACKGROUND. In accordance with Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes the County Attorney requests that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") schedule a closed attorney-client session to be held on February 4, 2020 in the County Commissioners' Conference Room. Per Florida Statutes, the subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations and/or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. The attendees at the session will be the Board, the County Administrator, the County Attorney, and a certified court reporter. Reasonable public notice will be given of the session. It is estimated that the session will last approximately 45 minutes. RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney recommends that the Board schedule a closed attorney-client session to occur at 10:30 AM on February 4, 2020. 363 /3C_ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney DATE: January 10, 2020 SUBJECT: Disposition of Real Property Ordinance BACKGROUND On December 10, 2019, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") directed the County Attorney to draft an ordinance that would allow for the use of commercial realtors for the disposition of real property, per section 125.35, Florida Statutes. Citrus County adopted an ordinance in 2014 that contained three alternative procures. The first is a minimum base bid. Under this process, a minimum base bid is determined by, 1) a written offer procured by a real estate broker; 2) an appraisal; or 3) an unsolicited written offer made by a prospective purchaser. After determining the minimum base bid, the county may elect to advertise for bids on the property. Upon receipt of the sealed bids, the property is sold to the bidder submitting the highest, qualified, responsive and best bid. The second process is the negotiated sale. The county is authorized through the negotiated sale process to use a licensed real estate broker or a public auction house. Any offer made to a licensed real estate broker for purchase of property is brought to the board of county commissioners in the form of a purchase agreement. For any real property dispositions made through public auction, the county establishes a base reserve for the property. The final process involves the request for proposals process. Under the request for proposal process, the County would be evaluate more than just the price for the property. 364 Board of County Commissioners January 10, 2020 Page Two There are advantages to utilizing the minimum bid process. The process utilizes the traditional competitive bid process, but sets a minimum price. Thus, the process creates a level playing field with all bidders, like a traditional competitive bid, but establishes a minimum amount that the County would accept in order to sell the property, limiting the number of responses that would not be considered. There are advantages for utilizing an auction process. The auction is an accelerated real estate marketing process that involves the public sale of any property through open cry, competitive bidding. The benefits include 1) a time certain quick disposal which reduces long-term carrying costs such as maintenance, 2) competition among buyers, 3) elimination of showings, hosted by staff, and 4) no negotiation process. The auction process is also transparent. Using a real estate agent also has its advantages. A real estate agent can bring education and experience in obtaining fair value for property, as well as a list of potentially interested buyers. Real estate agents will also be motivated to complete the sale of the property. A real estate agent may also be able to bring back multiple offers to the County for consideration. Also by using a real estate agent the County is able to save staff time in completing a sale. The County will in consultation with the broker or auction house, determine an asking price for real property based upon appraisals, comparable sales, market information and any other relevant factors. One disadvantage to utilizing a real estate agent is that even if a competitive bidding process is used to select a real estate agent of agents, there could be real estate agents who will be unsatisfied if not chosen. The request for proposal process may be advantageous when the Board is seeking disposal of real property but in an innovative manner. The Board would probably only utilize this method in rare and unique circumstances. Although the Board tasked the County Attorney with drafting an ordinance for using a realtor, the County Attorney wanted to present all three options for the Board to consider. Additionally, the County Attorney's Office added an additional alternative method, which would be to coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation when the County is looking to convey real property which is associated with a Florida Department of Transportation real estate transaction when the properties involved are part of the same Florida Department of Transportation project. FUNDING The costs associated with this item would include the costs of publication of the required public notice of this public hearing with respect to any proposed ordinance and is estimated to cost $140.00. Such cost would be funded from General Fund/County Attorney/Legal Ads (account number 00110214-034910). RECOMMENDATION The County Attorney recommends that the Board consider the options for alternative methods for the disposition of real property and determine whether to direct the County Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance incorporating some or all of the described options. ATTACHMENT Proposed Ordinance Language 365 CHAPTER 106. REAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION PROCEDURES Section 106.01 - Purpose. This Chapter is adopted for the purpose of setting forth the methods of disposition of surplus County real property. The County Administrator or designee shall have the option of utilizing the statutory methods of disposal, this Chapter, or any combination thereof. Section 106.02. - Authority, purpose, and standards. (a) This section is enacted under authority of section 125.35, Florida Statutes, for the sale, leasing and donation of real property by the County when it is determined by the Board to be in the best interest of the County. (b) Any of the procedures specified in this Chapter may be used and applied, where applicable, by the Board for the competitive or non-competitive sale or of any real property. (c) At a minimum, any legal entity seeking to purchase available County real property must be currently active, registered and in good standing with the Florida Department of State. Other standards for competition and qualification for the sale of county real property are set forth in sections 106.03 through 106.05 below. Section 106.03. - Declaration of surplus property. When the Board finds that any real property owned by the County is unusable or not needed for County purposes or usable for affordable housing, the Board may declare the real property to be surplus property. Once the property is declared surplus, the property may be sold, dedicated, donated or otherwise conveyed to interested parties in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes or pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. Section 106.04 - Methods of disposal. (1) When real property is declared surplus, the County Administrator or designee shall recommend to the Board a particular method of disposal as set forth in Florida Statutes or as set forth in this section. (2) As authorized in section 125.35(3), Florida Statutes, the County may dispose of surplus real property through alternative procedures outlined in this subsection: a. Minimum base bid. The County may sell, transfer or convey real property through the minimum base bid procedures outlined in this subsection. 1. A minimum base bid for the sale of real property may be determined using an appraisal obtained by the County. 2. After determining the minimum base bid, as approved by the Board, the County shall advertise for bids on the property. The advertisement shall specify the minimum base bid and the specific terms and conditions, if any, to be bid upon. All bids shall be sealed 366 and must contain a minimum of a ten percent cash deposit submitted on bank or cashier's check. 3. Upon receipt of the sealed bids, the property shall be sold to the bidder submitting the highest, qualified, responsive and best bid. The Board reserves the right to reject any bid, including the minimum base bid that is not reasonably close to the fair market value of the property at the time bids are opened. b. Negotiated sale. The County may sell, transfer or convey real property through the negotiated sale procedures outlined in this subsection through the use of a licensed real estate broker or through a public auction house in the following manner: 1. A licensed real estate broker or public auction house (including internet auction companies) shall be retained in accordance with County policy to market or auction the real property. Any contract for services shall, at a minimum, set forth the amount of compensation due for services, the length of notice/advertising time, and such other information as deemed necessary by the County Administrator or designee. The contract(s) shall be approved by the Board, unless permitted to be approved by the County Administrator or Purchasing Manager per County policy. 2. A licensed real estate broker shall bring any offer received for purchase of listed surplus property to the County in the form of a purchase agreement. County staff shall review the purchase agreement and if deemed acceptable, the County Administrator shall bring the purchase agreement to the Board for consideration. Notice of the Board's intent to consider the purchase agreement shall be given in accordance with the Board's regular advertising procedures. If the Boardapproves the purchase agreement, then the chair shall be authorized to sign all required closing documents, including the deed. 3. For any real property dispositions made through public auction, the county shall establish a base reserve for the property. c. Florida Department of Transportation Coordinated Sale. The County may sell, transfer or convey real property in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation for County properties that are associated with a Florida Department of Transportation real estate transaction for properties involved in the same Florida Department of Transportation project. d. Request for proposals. The County may sell, transfer, or convey real property through the request for proposals (RFP) process in the following manner: 1. The election to use the RFP process must be brought up as a regular agenda item at a duly noticed regular public meeting of the Board. 2. Upon approval by the Board, the County Administrator or designee shall proceed to issue the RFP, evaluate the proposals, and submit a recommendation regarding such proposals to the Board. 3. If the sale or of the property was initiated in response to an unsolicited offer by a prospective purchaser then the offeror may submit another proposal. If no other 367 proposal is received, the original proposal shall be accepted, unless the original offer was deemed unacceptable and rejected before issuing the RFP. The County reserves the right to reject any RFP in which the proposed sale or amount is not reasonably close to the fair market value of the property at the time RFPs are considered by the Board. Section 106.05 - Negotiation procedures. (a) In determining the terms and conditions of the disposal of surplus property, the County Administrator or designee shall take into consideration the following factors: (1) The appraised value of the real property; (2) The condition of the real property, and the extent to which the party seeking to acquire the property will have to expend funds to make the property usable, rezoning issues excluded, or, to bring the property into compliance with the County Code; (3) The proposed use of the party seeking to acquire the property, if applicable; and (4) The proposed use of the property for affordable housing. (b) In no event shall the disposition of surplus property violate the County comprehensive plan or the zoning regulations of the County. 368 158 Indian River County Florida Indian River County Administration Complex 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388 www. ircgov. com Solid Waste Disposal District Meeting Minutes - Draft Tuesday, October 22, 2019 Commission Chambers Board of Commissioners Bob Solari, Chairman, District 5 Susan Adams, Vice Chairman, District 1 Joseph E. Flescher, District 2 Peter D. O'Bryan, District 4 Tim Zorc, District 3 Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Dylan Reingold, County. Attorney Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Jacqueline Rizzo, Deputy Clerk 369 Board of County Commissioners SWDD Meeting Minutes - Draft October 22, 2019 B. Solid Waste Disposal District The Board of County Commissioners reconvened as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. The minutes will be approved at an upcoming Solid Waste Disposal District meeting. 15 .B.1.19-0971 Recycling at Charter Schools Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Solid Waste Disposal District Board approve the funding of up to $2,000 to support the expansion of the school recycling program to the five county charter schools. Attachments: Staff Report Susan Flak, Recycling Education and Marketing Coordinator, stated that she had been working with the five (5) charter schools in the County on the recycling expansion program to establish a robust campus -wide recycling program at each school. She mentioned that SWDD was awarded a monetary grant of $2,500 from Waste Management's Think Green Grant Program. Ms. Flak added that the cost for the recycling program would be approximately $4,500, and was requesting that the SWDD Board approve the provision of an additional $2,000 needed to support the expansion of the recycling program for the charter schools. Sherry Matthew, a Science Teacher at Imagine South Vero Charter School, spoke that she had been educating her students on recycling. She thanked the Board and Waste Management for supporting the charter schools. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Adams, seconded by Commissioner Flescher, to approve staffs recommendations. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Chairman Solari, Vice Chairman Adams, Commissioner Flescher, and Commissioner Zorc Absent: 1 - Commissioner O'Bryan 15. B.2.19-0972 Ranking of Firms for RFP 2019045 - Yard Waste Processing and Recycling Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Board approve the selection committee's final ranking of firms and authorize negotiations with the top ranked firm, and subsequently ranked firms should negotiations with the top ranked firm fail. Indian River County Florida 37ftge 1 Board of County Commissioners SWDD Meeting Minutes - Draft October 22, 2019 Attachments: Staff Report Letter of Protest from Atlas Organics Response to Protest from Atlas Organics Letter of Protest from PJs Land Clearing Response to Protest from PJs Land Clearing Mr Mulch 90 -Day Notice of Termination Director of Utility Services Vincent Burke presented the Ranking of Firms for Request for Proposal (RFP) 2019045 for Yard Waste Processing and Recycling Service. He stated that the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), in conjunction with the Purchasing Department, issued a Request for Proposal RFP2019045, of which there were seven (7) proposals received. Director Burke announced the top three ranking firms were: 1) Bankers Maintenance and Inspection (BMI), Vero Beach, FL; 2) Justin Industries, Loxahatchee, FL; and 3) Atlas Organics, Spartanburg, SC. He pointed out that the selection committee interviewed the top three ranking firms and developed an overall final ranking of the firms and summarized in detail the proposals submitted, the interview process used to determine the selection of the final ranking firm and recommended that Atlas Organics be awarded the project. Chairman Solari opened the floor for public comments. Commissioner Zorc asked whether any of the other firms had included specific dollars for infrastructure in their costs, as did Atlas Organics. Director Burke replied that Justin Industries proposed to put up office structures and a 30' x 40' cement slab for their equipment. Mike Hooker, representing BMI, along with Jason Disbrow, representing PJ's Land Clearing and Excavating, Inc. (PJ's), bidders of the proposed RFP, stated that they were both local companies and were willing to joint venture the proposed RFP. Mr. Hooker was unaware of the need to include infrastructure, but entertained it. They highlighted the number of years of experience between both companies, emphasized that they were local business owners and would be able to respond immediately if any issues arose, would employ local people, and had the necessary equipment to perform the contract. They asked the Board to re -consider their proposal. Commissioner Flescher sought clarification from Director Burke on whether part of the Selection Committee's decision to change the ranking was based on the bidder providing additional infrastructure. Director Burke made the Board aware that Atlas Organics was willing to invest $250,000 in infrastructure on the SWDD property at no cost to the County, but affirmed it was not the only deciding factor. He added that Atlas' price proposal, qualifications, and experience were among the deciding factors. Indian River County Florida 37ge 2 Board of County Commissioners SWDD Meeting Minutes - Draft October 22, 2019 SWDD Managing Director Himanshu Mehta responded to Commissioner Flescher's concern with Atlas Organics two (2) month start-up delay, stating that they needed time to move their equipment and hire local staff. A discussion ensued regarding the re -ranking, with Director Mehta explaining that during the interview process with BMI, the Selection Committee was not comfortable with the feedback or the reference review provided by BMI. He added that BMI would need to purchase additional equipment, and there was not a joint venture with PJ's at the time of the bid. He continued that during the interview process with Atlas Organics, there was nothing but positive feedback from other government entities in North Carolina and South Carolina. Jim Davis, Vice President of Business Development at Atlas Organics, pointed out that they have a positive track record with Municipal governments in North Carolina and South Carolina, and their philosophy was to be involved within the communities, and were very involved in educating students about recycling. Mr. Davis thanked the Board for considering Atlas Organics. Commissioner Zorc inquired about the end use of the material that was collected by Atlas Organics, with Mr. Davis replying that the product would be turned into compost. Chairman Solari closed the floor for open discussion. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Adams, seconded by Commissioner Zorc, to approve staffs recommendation. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Chairman Solari, Vice Chairman Adams, and Commissioner Zorc Nay: 1 - Commissioner Flescher Absent: 1 - Commissioner O'Bryan Indian River County Florida 3flge 3 Indian River County, Florida Solid Waste Disposal District Board Memorandum Date: January 3, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Prepared By: Himanshu H. Mehta, PE, Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal District Subject: Request to Approve Amendment No. 1 to Work Order CCNA2018 WO No. 3 to Geosyntec to Provide Consulting Services Associated with Phase 1 of the Former South Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan Descriptions and Conditions: On May 22, 2018, the Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) Board approved the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) for the former South Gifford Road landfill site (Gifford Landfill) and directed staff to obtain a cost proposal to implement Phase 1. The entire Gifford Landfill covers approximately 115 acres, with the northern 55 acres owned by Indian River County, and the southern 60 acres owned by the City of Vero Beach. The environmental compliance of the Gifford Landfill is managed by SWDD. On October 23, 2018, the SWDD Board approved CCNA2018 Work Order No. 3 to Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) in the amount of $15,882 for the Phase 1 project. As a reminder, Phase 1 in the redevelopment plan was "Frontage Improvements and Open Field" and focused on the surficial land clearing and disposal of the brush on approximately eight acres, which would include the three acres in the front and a five -acre area to serve as an open field. Additionally, this phase includes installing approximately 30 trees along the 41st Street frontage with an associated irrigation system (connected to a water source not associated with site groundwater) for an approximate Phase 1 cost range of $119,000 to $141,000. There was some initial project delay as obtaining a site survey was not in Geosyntec's scope (site survey was completed by the County as a cost -savings measure). SWDD staff worked with the IRC Public Works Department and the County Surveyor to prepare the in-house site survey. Subsequently, Geosyntec submitted an initial conceptual landscaping design, which was then submitted to the IRC Community Development Department (CDD) for review. A pre -application meeting was held with the CDD, and they provided a list of comments that needed to be addressed. This includes the performance of a tree survey for the five -acre portion of the site to be cleared and addressing the remainder of CDD comments. Based on the request by the CDD for changes to the landscape plan and the need for a tree survey, Geosyntec has submitted the attached Amendment No. 1 to CCNA2018 Work Order No. 3 to complete the request for additional information. 373 Analysis: The original proposal obtained from Geosyntec was for the landscaping design, preparing landscaping bid specifications and opinion of probable cost, review landscaping bids received from potential contractors, and recommend a landscaping contractor. In addition, Geosyntec was tasked to develop the bid package and evaluate bids for the eight acres of land clearing and to work with the Planning Department regarding identifying applicable permitting associated with the landscaping and the land clearing work. The initial Work Order No. 3 cost breakdown is as follows: Work Order No. 3 Task Description Geosyntec Others Total Amount 1 Project Management $ 2,871.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,871.00 2 Finalize Conceptual Design $ 1,512.00 $ 5,350.00 $ 6,862.00 3 Bid Specification Package $ 6,149.00 $ 0.00 $ 6,149.00 Total = $ 10,532.00 $ 5,350.00 $ 15,882.00 The total estimated cost for implementation of Geosyntec's Amendment No. 1 proposal is $21,948.58, of which 73% is for the subcontracting portion (landscape architect and tree surveyor). Geosyntec's total proposal consists of three tasks as follows: Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 3 1 Project Management $ 1,158.75 $ 0.00 $ 1,158.75 2 Update & Finalize Conceptual Design $ 1,484.23 $ 5,350.00 $ 6,834.23 3 Bid Specification Package $ 3,234.20 $ 10,721.40 $ 13,955.60 Total = $ 5,877.18 $ 16,071.40 $ 21,948.58 Upon approval, the total cost of the consulting services for this project by Geosyntec is $37,830.58. Geosyntec's budget estimate for this portion of Phase 1 is on track with overall conceptual costs for Phase 1 presented to the SWDD Board in May 2018. Funding: Funding for this work is budgeted and available in account number 31521734-033490-03004, which is the one - cent sales tax fund used for infrastructure needs of the County. Costs associated with the landfills are authorized uses of the one -cent sales tax, in addition to infrastructure. Description Account Number Amount One Cent Sales Tax Fund — Infrastructure Needs 31521734-033490-03004 $21,948.58 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Solid Waste Disposal District Board approves and authorizes the Chairman to sign Amendment No. 1 to CCNA-2018 Work Order No. 3 authorizing Geosyntec to provide consulting services associated with Phase 1 of the Former South Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan, at a not to exceed fee of $21,948.58. Attachment: Geosyntec Amendment No. 1 to CCNA2018 WO No. 3 374 CCNA2018 AMENDMENT 1 TO WORK ORDER 3 Former Gifford Road Landfill This Amendment 1 to Work Order Number 3 is entered into as of this day of January 2020, pursuant to that certain Continuing Consulting Engineering Services Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of this 17th day of April, 2018 (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ("Consultant"). 1. The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth in existing Work Order Number_Effective Date 23 October 2018 . 2. The COUNTY and the Consultant desire to amend this Work Order as set forth on Exhibit A (Scope of Work) attached to this Amendment and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B (Fee Schedule), and within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit C (Time Schedule), all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. 3. From and after the Effective Date of this Amendment, the above -referenced Work Order is amended as set forth in this Amendment. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above. CONSULTANT: By: Print ame: Jill Johnson Title: Principal BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: Susan Adams, Chairwomen BCC Approved Date: Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk Approved: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney 375 EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES engineers I scientists I innovators 376 Geosyntec° consultants Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. Managing Director Solid Waste Disposal District Indian River County 1325 74th Avenue SW Vero Beach, Florida 32968 Subject: Amendment to Work Order Number 3 Former South Gifford Road Landfill Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida Dear Mr. Mehta: 6770 South Washington Avenue, Suite 3 Titusville, Florida 32780 PH 321.269.8550 www.geosyntec.com 19 December 2019 Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is pleased to submit this amendment to the Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) to provide additional consulting services associated with Phase 1 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Former Gifford Road Landfill, located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (Site). Phase 1 consists of surficial land clearing of approximately 8 -acres of land, including 3 -acres at the north end of the Site that will serve as the Site frontage, and 5 -acres in the central portion of the Site that will serve as an open field. Locations of these areas are shown on Figure 1. Additionally, Phase 1 includes landscaping along the 41st Street frontage and installation of an associated irrigation system. As you are aware, the conceptual design for the Redevelopment Plan for the Former South Gifford Road Landfill, including Phase 1, was prepared as part of the brownfields grant -related planning activities conducted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Committee (TCRPC). The first step in implementing Phase 1 is to finalize the design and create a formal bid specification for subcontractors. Work Order Number 3 was issued to address this scope of work. A pre -application meeting was held with the County on 27 August 2019 to discuss the initial design. The County provided written comments on 27 August 2019 documenting the discussion from the meeting. This amendment is submitted to address the comments in the 27 August 2019 comment letter. The remainder of this proposal provides an overview of the project background, a description of the proposed scope of work, a budget estimate, and a discussion of the schedule for accomplishment of the work described herein. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK This proposed scope of work consists of finalization of the conceptual design for Phase 1 (implementing the comments from the IRC), and the completion of a formal bid specification associated with Phase 1 of the redevelopment activities. For the purpose of budgeting, the scope of work has been divided into the following tasks: • Task 1 — Project Management • Task 2 — Finalize Conceptual Design 377 FR0766\XR18011_Change Order Gifford_F engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. 19 December 2019 Page 2 • Task 3 — Bid Specification Package Geosyntec° consultants The remainder of this section presents a general description of the activities to be performed as part of each task. Task 1— Project Management Under this task, Geosyntec will perform project planning and management responsibilities, such as correspondence with IRC and Schmidt Nichols Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning (Schmidt Nichols), invoice review, project coordination, and project administration. The budget includes four hours for the project manager, one hour for the principal -in -charge, and six hours for an administrative assistant. Task 2 — Finalize Conceptual Design The redevelopment plan for the Former South Gifford Road Landfill is a conceptual design that was finalized by Schmidt Nichols for discussion at the August 2019 pre -application meeting. Some of the comments in the 27 August 2019 comment letter was associated with the finalized design along 41St Street; therefore, under this task we propose to enlist the assistance of the local landscape architect (Schmidt Nichols) to address the comments and finalize the landscaping design along 41St Street. This effort is specific to Phase 1 and is not intended to further address the redevelopment plan for the other phases at this time. Under this task, Geosyntec will work with our subcontractor, Schmidt Nichols, to finalize the conceptual design for the landscaping along 41' Street. The estimated budget for this task includes finalizing the design (including irrigation design) and completion of sealed plans by a landscape architect. Task 3 — Bid Specification Package Under this task, a tree survey of the approximate 5 -acre area and environmental summary for the area that needs to be cleared will be completed/prepared for inclusion in the bid specification package. Geosyntec will work with a local tree surveyor to conduct the tree survey. Once the tree survey is completed, the landscape architect will provide a plan for the identification of tree species that is needed to obtain a clearing permit. Please note, that there are budget line items for the landscape architect in this task, as well as Task 2, because a landscape architect needs to review and seal a tree survey. The tree survey will take approximately 2 days to completed and Geosyntec has assumed (as a cost - savings measure) that onsite assistance will be provided to the tree surveyor from IRC. Additionally, as requested by IRC, as part of this amendment, Geosyntec will provide a summary of the previous environmental assessment and remediation activities completed at the Site, including the identification of existing wells, discussion on how soil and groundwater contamination will be addressed, and information needed to develop an erosion control plan. This information will be provided as part of the originally scoped bid specification. 378 XR 18011 _Change Order Gifford_F engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. Geosyntecl> 19 December 2019 consultants Page 3 SCHEDULE Geosyntec can begin this work immediately following written authorization. We anticipate that we can provide draft design drawings approximately three weeks after authorization is received (this schedule is dependent on the landscape architect, Schmidt Nichols). Additionally, Geosyntec will begin working with the tree surveyor and anticipate completion of the tree survey within approximately four weeks after authorization is received (this schedule is dependent on the tree survey subcontractor). Once the design in Task 1 is finalized and the tree survey is completed, Geosyntec will prepare the bid specification documents and will provide draft bid specification documents to IRC within four weeks from finalization of the design. The final contractor will be selected within one week of receiving the final bid documents from contractors. BUDGET ESTIMATE A budget estimate for the scope of work outlined in Tasks 1 through 3 of this amendment is summarized in the following table. The budget estimate presented in this amendment is based on Geosyntec's understanding of the project requirements, our experience at the Site, and experience with similar activities for other sites. Geosyntec will not exceed the budget estimate without prior approval and written authorization from IRC SWDD. The estimated budget includes approximately 73% subcontractor fees. Task 1 — Project Management Task 2 — Finalize Conceptual Design Task 3 — Bid Specification Package TOTAL CLOSURE $1,158.75 $6,834.23 $13,955.60 $21,948.58 Geosyntec appreciates this opportunity to offer our services. If this proposal is acceptable, please indicate your agreement by signing the attached amendment authorization, which references this proposal. Please return one signed amendment authorization to Ms. Johnson's attention. Please call either of the undersigned with questions you may have as you review this proposal. Sincerely, v Cristina Graver, P.E. i11 W. Johnson, P.G. Engineer . Principal Cc: David Latham, P.G., Geosyntec Consultants Nandra Weeks, P.E., Geosyntec Consultants Attachments 379 XR18011_Change Order Gifford_F engineers I scientists 1 innovators FIGURE .sTtu,(91UL A.110 00310IViY99LOLIASONIMtltlON 1d 1N3Wd013A303tl 311S1110NV1 O OAAI • V1W99LONd Odtla1LLWVJ%VM1d. ATTACHMENT A BUDGET ESTIMATE Table 1 Phase 1 of the Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan Former Gifford Road Landfill TASK 1: Proiect Management ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET A. Professional Services Principal hr $225 1 $225.00 Professional Engineer hr $160 4 $640.00 Subtotal Professional Services $865.00 B. Technical/Administrative Services Project Administrator hr $65 4 $260.00 Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $260.00 C. Reimbursables Communications Fee 3% labor 0.03 1,125 $33.75 Subtotal Reimbursables $33.75 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : TASK 1 $1,158.75 Copy of Phase 1 Costing_CO_F Geosyntec Consultants 383 Table 2 Phase 1 of the Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan Former Gifford Road Landfill TASK 2: Finalize Conceptual Design ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET A. Professional Services Principal hr $225.00 1 $225.00 ' Professional Engineer hr $160.00 4 $640.00 Staff Engineer , hr $96.00 6 $576.00 Subtotal Professional Services $1,441.00 B. Subcontractors Landscape Architect LS $5,350.00 1 $5,350.00 C. Reimbursables Communications Fee 3% labor 0.03 1,441 $43.23 Subtotal Reimbursables $43.23 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : TASK 2 $6,834.23 Copy of Phase 1 Costing_CO_F Geosyntec Consultants 384 Table 3 Phase 1 of the Gifford Road Landfill Redevelopment Plan Former Gifford Road Landfill TASK 3: Bid Specification Package ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET A. Professional Services Principal hr $225.00 4 $900.00 Professional Engineer hr $160.00 8 $1,280.00 Staff Engineer hr $96.00 10 $960.00 Subtotal Professional Services $3,140.00 B. Subcontractors Landscape Architect LS $3,745.00 1 $3,745.00 Tree Survey LS $6,976.40 1 $6,976.40 Subtotal Subcontractor Services $10,721.40 C. Reimbursables Communications Fee 3% labor 0.03 3,140 $94.20 Subtotal Reimbursables $94.20 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : TASK 3 $13,955.60 Copy of Phase 1 Costing_CO_F Geosyntec Consultants 385 166 3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT BOARD MEMORANDUM Date: January 8, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Through: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Through: Himanshu Mehta, Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal District From: Sue Flak, Recycling Education and Marketing Coordinator Subject: Standardized Recycling Label License Agreement with Recycle Across America Descriptions and Conditions: Over the past two years, the Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) has been working with Recycle Across America (RAA) in terms of purchasing simpler and more standardized residential recycling labels for various uses to include all public schools, County buildings, and County parks. The primary goal of utilizing standardized labels is to reduce recycling confusion, reduce contamination, and encourage recycling correctly. SWDD would like to enter into a license agreement with RAA as a means to support the use of local printers to obtain labels at a much lower cost than continuing to purchase them directly through RAA. Similar license agreements are in use throughout Florida to include the City of Winter Park and Pinellas County. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida State capital buildings, and the City of Orlando are all using a RAA labeling system. Analysis: Recycle Across America has proposed to charge a one-time fee of $0.1 per resident, or $1,549.00. This one-time fee includes: a) three (3) custom-designed labels, b) three Public Service Announcements to print and distribute locally, c) a press release, and d) publicity on the RAA website. There is an annual fee of $250.00 and an additional design fee of $100.00 for each future label modification. To date, Indian River County (IRC) SWDD has spent $2,700.00 for 8.5x11 labels for 300 county park carts. A recent quote from RAA for 1,000 additional cart labels totaled $7,800.00. Such a purchase would be considerably more cost-efficient through a local vendor. 386 Funding: Funding for the SWDD Recycling services is budgeted and available in the SWDD recycling account, which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. Description Account Number Amount Other Professional Services 41125534-033190 $1,549 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board authorize the following: 1. Approve the Standardized Recycling Label License Agreement with Recycle Across America and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. 2. Authorize the Solid Waste Disposal District Managing Director, or his designee, to sign the Printing Agreement with a local vendor, as needed. Attachments: Sample Label License Agreement Sample Printing Agreement 387 THE STANDARDIZED RECYCLING LABEL LICENSE AGREEMENT THE STANDARDIZED RECYCLING LABEL LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made effective as of (the "Effective Date"), by and between Recycle Across America, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation with offices at 4337 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 ("RAA") and Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), a dependent special district of Indian River County, Florida with offices at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ("Licensee"). 1. Selected License Options. During the Term, RAA will, as further described in and subject to this Agreement, including the restrictions set forth in Section 2 of Exhibit A, General Terms and Conditions (the "Terms and Conditions"), grant a limited license to Licensee to print and use an unlimited number of standardized labels for Licensee's residential carts, multi -family complexes, public spaces, government buildings, drop-off centers and dumpsters. In consideration for such license, Licensee will pay RAA the following Fees: 1.1. Fees. 1.1.1.One-time Fee: $.O1 per resident: [$1,549]. The One-time Fee includes: • Three (3) custom designed Labels that may include Licensee's logo and website • Three (3) PSA Assets in PDF to print and distribute locally • A draft press release for Licensee to share regarding its implementation and use of the Labels • Publicity on RAA's website of your implementation and use of the Labels (Licensee's name listed) 1.1.2.Annual Fee: $250, invoiced [twelve (12) months after the Effective Date, and then each twelve (12) months thereafter]. The Annual Fee includes: • PSA Assets, that are new or updated by RAA, in PDF to print and distribute locally. To clarify, if Licensee wishes to make any changes to the new or updated PSA Assets, such changes may be subject to the Additional Design Fee. 1.1.3.Additional Design Fee: $100, per each additional modification, due immediately upon request, for each request by Licensee to modify the Labels and PSA assets. 388 2. Agreement. Terms and Conditions are attached to and hereby made part of this Agreement. All capitalized terms not defined elsewhere in this Agreement are defined in Section 1 of the Terms and Conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative. RECYCLE ACROSS AMERICA By: Name: Title: Date: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Susan Adams, Chairman Date: ATTEST: APPROVED: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller Deputy Clerk (SEAL) By: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: By: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney 389 EXHIBIT A TO STANDARDIZED RECYCLING LABEL LICENSE AGREEMENT General Terms and Conditions 1. Definitions. Capitalized terms not defined elsewhere in this Agreement are defined as follows: • "Fees" means collectively the One -Time Fee, the Annual Fee and any Additional Design Fees set forth on page 1 of this Agreement. • "Labels" means the standardized recycling label artwork and images developed and distributed by RAA. • "Program" means the standardized recycling label initiative developed by RAA for the promotion and improvement of recycling. • "PSA Assets" means the public service announcement materials developed by RAA for the Program. • "RAA Content" means the Labels and the PSA Assets. • "RAA Marks" means all trademarks owned by RAA, including Recycle Across America, and the logos associated with the foregoing trademarks. 2. License. (a) License Grant. RAA hereby grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non -transferable, non- sublicensable license during the Term to reproduce, display and distribute the RAA Content solely in connection with the marketing and promotion of the Program within Licensee's municipality. In connection with the foregoing, Licensee may use the RAA Content on the applicable materials for the Selected License Options relating to the Program within Licensee's jurisdiction, provided that (i) except for any modifications we make at your request pursuant to Section 2(d) below, any use of the RAA Content confonns with the design and layout of the original RAA Content as provided to Licensee by RAA and with all specifications provided by RAA to Licensee from time -to -time; (ii) all use of the RAA Content inures to the benefit of RAA; (iii) RAA will be entitled to review and inspect all use of the RAA Content by Licensee; and (iv) Licensee will promptly comply with all of RAA's reasonable requests to modify or cease any or all use of the RAA Content. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, RAA retains all right, title and interest in and to the RAA Content, and all intellectual property rights relating thereto. (b) Third Party Printers. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, Licensee may authorize a third party to print and reproduce RAA Content solely on behalf and for the benefit of Licensee for Licensee's use pursuant to this Agreement. Licensee will cause any such third party to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Licensee will be responsible for all acts and omissions of any such third party with respect to the RAA Content. Additionally, Licensee will require the third party to sign the Printing Agreement attached as an addendum to this Agreement. (c) Restrictions. Licensee will not, and will not authorize or permit any third party to, reproduce, display, distribute, create derivative works of, modify or otherwise use the RAA Content except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Furthermore, Licensee will not: (i) modify, remove or use any images or photos included in the RAA Content; (ii) use any branded material (e.g., a Coke can) in connection with the RAA Content; (iii) add any images to any of the RAA Content; (iv) modify the colors of any of the RAA Content; or (v) modify any of the text of the RAA Content, including the RAA information footer on the RAA Content. 390 (d) Modifications. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, Licensee may request modifications to the RAA Content solely to: (i) add Licensee's logo in the designated space in the Labels and/ or the PSA Assets; (ii) add or remove additional language translations (e.g., to make the RAA Content bilingual) in the designated space in the RAA Content; (iii) adjust the size of the Labels to fit Licensee's needs, provided that the shape and proportion of the Labels is not altered; (iv) adjust the size of the PSA Assets to fit Licensee's needs, provided that the PSA branding standards are maintained; or (v) include a local celebrity in the PSA Asset. Requests for modifications to the RAA Content must be approved by RAA of which will not be unreasonably withheld and will be made by RAA only. Each modification may be subject to Additional Design Fees as described in Section 1 of the Terms and Conditions. RAA does not authorize Licensee to make any modifications except as expressly provided herein. 3. Payments. (a) Fees. Licensee will pay RAA the One-time Fee upon execution of this Agreement and the Annual Fee within thirty (30) days of Licensee's receipt of an invoice from RAA. Licensee agrees to pay any Additional Design Fees, as applicable. In the event that Licensee fails to timely make any payment to RAA which is due under this Agreement, such outstanding amount will bear interest at the rate of one and one half percent (1 .5%) per month or the highest percentage allowed by applicable law, whichever is lower. (b) Taxes. All Fees are exclusive of taxes, levies, duties, governmental charges or expenses and will be made in United States dollars. In addition to the Fees and expenses specified in this Agreement, Licensee is solely responsible for and will pay (or reimburse RAA for) all withholding, value added and sales taxes due, except for taxes on RAA's income, if any. 4. Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" as used in this Agreement means any information, whether tangible or intangible, maintained in confidence by a party, including confidential or proprietary information of third parties that such party has been authorized to ireceive. Each party receiving Confidential Information of the other party (the "receiving party") will not (i) disclose or make available any Confidential Information of the other party (the "disclosing party") in whole or in part to any third parties other than its employees who have a legitimate business reason to receive such Confidential Information for the purposes of this Agreement and who are bound by similar restrictions on the use and disclosure of confidential information; or (ii) use, exploit, copy, reduce to writing or otherwise record the disclosing party's Confidential Information except in connection with the strict purposes of this Agreement. The foregoing obligations will not apply to information that (a) is now, or hereafter becomes, through no act or failure to act on the part of the receiving party, generally known or available to the public; (b) was rightfully in the receiving party's possession prior to disclosure by the disclosing party; (c) is developed independently by the receiving party without unauthorized use of or reference to any of the disclosing party's Confidential Information; (d) is approved by the disclosing party for disclosure without restriction, in a written document executed by a duly authorized officer of the disclosing party; or (e) required by law. 5. Term and Termination. (a) Tenn. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") will begin on the Effective Date and will continue for an initial period of one (1) year. Thereafter, this Agreement will automatically renew for additional one (1) year periods thereafter unless a written notice of non -renewal is provided by one party to the other party thirty (30) days prior to the applicable anniversary of the Effective Date. 391 (b) Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice if the other party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within such thirty (30) day period. (i) TERMINATION IN REGARDS TO F.S. 287.135: RAA certifies that it and those related entities of RAA as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List, created pursuant to s. 215.4725 of the Florida Statutes, and are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. In addition, if this agreement is for goods or services of one million dollars or more, RAA certifies that it and those related entities of RAA as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, created pursuant to Section 215.473 of the Florida Statutes and are not engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria. (ii) LICENSEE may terminate this Contract if RAA is found to have submitted a false certification as provided under section 287.135(5), Florida Statutes, been placed on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, or been engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria, as defined by section 287.135, Florida Statutes. (iii) LICENSEE may terminate this Contract if RAA, including all wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, and parent companies that exist for the purpose of making profit, is found to have been placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or is engaged in a boycott of Israel as set forth in section 215.4725, Florida Statutes. (c) Obligations Upon Termination. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason, all licenses granted under this Agreement will terminate immediately and Licensee will cease all use of the RAA Content (except that Licensee may continue to use the existing Labels). Licensee further agrees to destroy, or return if at RAA's direction, any digital files of the RAA Content. (d) Survival. Section 2 of the signature page, and Sections 1, 4, 5(c), 5(d), 6, 7 and 8 of these Terms and Conditions and all payment obligations arising prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. Disclaimer of Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants that it has all right and authority to enter into this Agreement. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, RAA MAKES NO, AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR ARISING BY COURSE OF DEALING, INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON -INFRINGEMENT OR TITLE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAA CONTENT OR ANY RELATED PRODUCTS OR SERVICES PROVIDED TO LICENSEE HEREUNDER. 7. Limitations on Liability. (a) EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO BREACHES OF SECTIONS 2, 3 OR 4 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY OR ITS RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY (NOR TO ANY THIRD PARTY CLAIMING THROUGH SUCH PARTY) FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OR DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOSS OF PROFITS, ANTICIPATED PROFITS, REVENUES, 392 ANTICIPATED SAVINGS, OR GOODWILL OR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO BREACHES OF SECTIONS 2, 3 OR 4 OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY OR ITS RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS', OFFICERS', EMPLOYEES', OR AGENTS' COMBINED AGGREGATE LIABILITY HEREUNDER TO THE OTHER PARTY OR ANY THIRD PARTY CLAIMING THROUGH SUCH PARTY FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYABLE TO RAA UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IN THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. (b) THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY WILL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, WHETHER THE ALLEGED LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER BASIS, EVEN IF AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTY RELYING ON THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY HAD BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUCCESS OR EFFECTIVENESS OF OTHER REMEDIES. LICENSEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT RAA COULD NOT MAKE THE RAA CONTENT AVAILABLE ON THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT IF RAA'S LIABILITY WAS NOT LIMITED AS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. 8. General Terms. (a) Independent Relationship of the Parties; No Authority to Bind Other Party. The parties are and intend to be independent contractors. Neither party has the authority to bind or commit the other party to any contract or obligation whatsoever, and neither party will represent or hold itself out as having any right or authority to do so. (b) Assignment. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, Licensee may not assign, transfer or convey this Agreement (in whole or in part) or any of its rights under this Agreement to any third party without the prior written consent of RAA and any attempted assignment, transfer or conveyance without such consent will be void and of no force or effect. (c) Successors and Assigns. The terms, conditions and obligations of this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their permitted successors and assigns. (d) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement will be deemed given: (i) when delivered personally to the party to receive such notice; or (ii) 5 days after mailing by express courier service, fully prepaid, addressed as herein provided, or upon actual receipt of such mailing, whichever will first occur. All notices will be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth on the cover page to this Agreement or to such other address as any party may notify the other party of in a writing delivered in accordance with this section. (e) Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed under the laws of the State of Florida, United States, without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. (f) No Waiver. The failure of either party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right provided for herein will not be deemed a waiver of such provision or such right. All waivers must be in writing. Unless the written waiver contains an express statement to the contrary, no waiver by a party of any breach of any provision of this Agreement or of any right provided for herein will be construed as a waiver of any continuing or succeeding breach of such provision, a waiver of the provision itself, or a waiver of any right under this Agreement. (g) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such provision will be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish 393 the objectives of the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by law and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. (h) Rules of Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, the word "or" is not exclusive and the words "including" or "include" are not limiting. (i) Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended except by a written agreement executed in ink by both parties. (j) Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written and d all contemporaneous oral negotiations, commitments and understandings between such parties. 9. Public Records Compliance. (a) Indian River County is a public agency subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. RAA shall comply with Florida's Public Records Law. Specifically, RAA shall: (i) Keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. (ii) Upon request from the County's Custodian of Public Records, provide the County with a copy of the requested records or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119 or as otherwise provided by law. (iii) Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of the contract term and following completion of the contract if RAA does not transfer the records to the County. (iv) Upon completion of the contract, transfer, at no cost, to the County all public records in possession of RAA or keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. If RAA transfers all public records to the County upon completion of the contract, RAA shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If RAA keeps and maintains public records upon completion of the contract, RAA shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records. All records stored electronically must be provided to the County, upon request from the Custodian of Public Records, in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the County. (b) IF RAA HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO RAA'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT: (772) 226-1424 publicrecords@ircgov.com Indian River County Office of the County Attorney 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 394 (c) Failure of RAA to comply with these requirements shall be a material breach of this Agreement. 395 ADDENDUM PRINTING AGREEMENT This Printing Agreement ("Printing Agreement") is executed by and between Recycle Across America, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("RAA"), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation with offices at 4337 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN 55364, Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), a dependent special district of Indian River County, Florida, with offices at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ("Licensee") and , with offices at ("Printer") as of the latest signature date below ("Effective Date"). WHEREAS, Licensee and RAA have entered into an agreement to license certain recycling label artwork and recycling public service announcement materials; WHEREAS, Printer provides printing services; and WHEREAS, Licensee desires to use Printer's printing services to print the RAA Content and RAA desires to grant Printer a limited license to print the RAA Content subject to the terms of this Printing Agreement. 1. Definitions. "Labels" means the standardized recycling label artwork and images developed and distributed by RAA. "PSA Assets" means the public service announcement materials developed by RAA for the Program. "RAA Content" means the Labels and the PSA Assets. 2. Term. The term ("Term") of this Printing Agreement is as follows (select only one option): ❑ From the Effective Date until (insert date); or ❑ From the Effective Date until (insert number) Labels are printed and (insert number) PSA Assets are printed. 3. Termination. Either RAA or Licensee may terminate this Printing Agreement immediately upon written notice if the other party materially breaches this Agreement. Any party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice for any reason. Sections 4 and 5 of this Printing Agreement will survive any termination or expiration. (i) TERMINATION IN REGARDS TO F.S. 287.135: RAA certifies that it and those related entities of RAA as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List, created pursuant to s. 215.4725 of the Florida Statutes, and are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. In addition, if this agreement is for goods or services of one million dollars or more, RAA certifies that it and those related entities of RAA as defined by Florida law are not on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, created pursuant to Section 215.473 of the Florida Statutes and are not engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria. (ii) LICENSEE may terminate this Contract if RAA is found to have submitted a false certification as provided under section 287.135(5), Florida Statutes, been placed on the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in Sudan List or the Scrutinized Companies with Activities in the Iran Petroleum Energy Sector List, or been engaged in business operations in Cuba or Syria, as defined by section 287.135, Florida Statutes. 396 (iii) LICENSEE may terminate this Contract if RAA, including all wholly owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, and parent companies that exist for the purpose of making profit, is found to have been placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or is engaged in a boycott of Israel as set forth in section 215.4725, Florida Statutes. 4. License. RAA hereby grants Printer a limited, non-exclusive, non -transferable, non-sublicensable license during the Term to reproduce the RAA Content solely for Licensee subject to this Printing Agreement. Printer agrees that the RAA Content must conform with the design and layout of the original RAA Content as provided to Licensee by RAA and with all specifications provided by RAA to Licensee from time -to -time; (ii) all use of the RAA Content inures to the benefit of RAA; (iii) RAA will be entitled to review and inspect the RAA Content as printed by Printer; and (iv) Printer will promptly comply with all of RAA's reasonable requests to modify or cease any or all printing of the RAA Content. RAA does not authorize Printer to make any modifications to the RAA Content. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, RAA retains all right, title and interest in and to the RAA Content, and all intellectual property rights relating thereto. 5. General. a. Independent Relationship of the Parties; No Authority to Bind Other Party. The parties are and intend to be independent contractors. Neither party has the authority to bind or commit the other party to any contract or obligation whatsoever, and neither party will represent or hold itself out as having any right or authority to do so. b. Assignment. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, Printer may not assign, transfer or convey this Printing Agreement (in whole or in part) or any of its rights under this Agreement to any third party without the prior written consent of RAA and any attempted assignment, transfer or conveyance without such consent will be void and of no force or effect. c. Successors and Assigns. The terms, conditions and obligations of this Printing Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their permitted successors and assigns. d. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Printing Agreement will be deemed given: (i) when delivered personally to the party to receive such notice; or (ii) 5 days after mailing by express courier service, fully prepaid, addressed as herein provided, or upon actual receipt of such mailing, whichever will first occur. All notices will be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth on the cover page to this Printing Agreement or to such other address as any party may notify the other party of in a writing delivered in accordance with this section. e. Governing Law. This Printing Agreement will be governed under the laws of the State of Florida, United States, without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. f. No Waiver. The failure of any party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Printing Agreement or to exercise any right provided for herein will not be deemed a waiver of such provision or such right. All waivers must be in writing. Unless the written waiver contains an express statement to the contrary, no waiver by a party of any breach of any provision of this Printing Agreement or of any right provided for herein will be construed as a waiver of any continuing or succeeding breach of such provision, a waiver of the provision itself, or a waiver of any right under this Printing Agreement. 397 g. Severability. If any provision of this Printing Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such provision will be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish the objectives of the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by law and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. h. Rules of Interpretation. As used in this Printing Agreement, the word "or" is not exclusive and the words "including" or "include" are not limiting. i. Amendment. This Printing Agreement may not be amended except by a written agreement executed by all parties. j. Entire Agreement. This Printing Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written and all contemporaneous oral negotiations, commitments and understandings between such parties. 6. Public Records Compliance. (a) Indian River County is a public agency subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. RAA shall comply with Florida's Public Records Law. Specifically, RAA shall: (i) Keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. (ii) Upon request from the County's Custodian of Public Records, provide the County with a copy of the requested records or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119 or as otherwise provided by law. (iii) Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of the contract tern and following completion of the contract if RAA does not transfer the records to the County. (iv) Upon completion of the contract, transfer, at no cost, to the County all public records in possession of RAA or keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. If RAA transfers all public records to the County upon completion of the contract, RAA shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If RAA keeps and maintains public records upon completion of the contract, RAA shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records. All records stored electronically must be provided to the County, upon request from the Custodian of Public Records, in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the County. (b) IF RAA HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO RAA'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT: (772) 226-1424 publicrecords@ircgov.com Indian River County Office of the County Attorney 398 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 (c) Failure of RAA to comply with these requirements shall be a material breach of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative. ON BEHALF OF LICENSEE PRINTER By: By Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: RECYCLE ACROSS AMERICA By Name: Title: Date: 399 15/ 1) Date: To: From: Indian River County, Florida Solid Waste Disposal District Board Memorandum January 10, 2020 Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Prepared By: Himanshu H. Mehta, PE, Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal District Subject: Change Order No. 7 to Thalle (Bid #2018025) Descriptions and Conditions: On April 10, 2018, the Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) awarded Bid No. 2018025 in the amount of $16,034,260.00 to Thalle Construction Company (Thalle), Inc. of Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the construction of the Landfill Segment 3 Cell 2 Expansion, Segment 2 Partial Closure and Landfill Gas System Expansion project. This funding included a base bid budget of $14,576,600 plus a 10% contingency budget of $1,457,660. A Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued on May 9, 2018. Substantial completion of Segment 2 Partial Closure and Landfill Gas System Expansion phase (Milestone 1) is 180 calendar days (November 5, 2018), and substantial completion of Landfill Segment 3 Cell 2 Expansion phase (Milestone 2) is 360 calendar days (May 4, 2019) from the NTP. Final completion is 390 calendar days (June 3, 2019) from the NTP. On September 17, 2018, Thalle submitted a request to our engineer, CDM Smith, for a 105 -days -in -contract - time extension for Milestone 1, identifying wet conditions as a basis for this request. On November 20, 2018, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 1 to Thalle extending Milestone 1 to February 18, 2019. On February 12, 2019, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 2 to Thalle for a deductive change order in the amount of $2,659,127.14 as a result of direct purchase items, resulting in a revised contract amount of $13,375,132.86. On March 26, 2019, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 3 to Thalle to use $12,236.97 from approved contingency budget into the active project budget as well as adding 27 days in contract time. On June 18, 2019, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 4 to Thalle for approval of $855,955.37 from the approved contingency budget into the active project budget as well as an additional 62 days in contract time. On August 13, 2019, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 5 to Thalle use $530,761.05 from approved contingency budget into the active project . budget as well as adding 68 days in contract time. The corresponding Substantial Completion Date for Milestone 1 was changed to July 25, 2019, the Substantial Completion Date for Milestone 2 was changed to October 8, 2019 and Final Completion Date was changed to 400 November 7, 2019. Based on the previous change orders to date, the original contingency budget of $1,457,660 has been reduced to $58,707. On November 5, 2019, the SWDD Board approved Change Order No. 6 approving extension in contract time for Milestone 1, Milestone 2, and Final Completion by 42 days to Thalle. The corresponding Substantial Completion Date for Milestone 1 was changed to September 5, 2019, the Substantial Completion Date for Milestone 2 to was changed to November 19, 2019, and the Final Completion Date was changed to December 19, 2019. Our project engineer, CDM Smith, has reviewed and recommends for approval Change Order No. 7 for a request for material overruns and reconciliation of material underruns on the project bill of quantities. The change is for reconciliation of contingency funding and associated time only and does not affect the overall contract funding of $13,375,132.86. Analysis: CDM Smith reviewed the Change Order No. 7 request and submitted a recommendation letter on January 10, 2020, to approve the request by Thalle for material overruns and reconciliation of material underruns on the project bill of quantities. Specifically, the total material overruns equal $833,484.94 and a total reconciliation of material underruns equal -$969,201.38 resulting in a net impact of -$135,716.44 to the contingency on the project because of this change order. The corresponding impact on time is 43 days to Milestone 2 and Final Completion. Upon approval of this change order, the total contingency remaining on the project is $194,423.16 and the total contract amount remains at $13,375,132.86. Similarly, the Substantial Completion Date for Milestone 2 to will be changed to January 1, 2020 and the Final Completion Date will be changed to January 31, 2020. Funding: This is a no -cost change order and therefore no impact to the project funding. Recommendation: Solid Waste Disposal District staff recommends that its Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Change Order No. 7 approving the reconciliation of the project to increase the contract contingency as well as an extension in contract time for Milestone 2, and Final Completion by 43 days to Thalle Construction Company, Inc., for the Segment 3 Cell 2 Expansion, Segment 2 Partial Closure and Landfill Gas System Expansion project. Attachment: 1. CDM Smith Letter of Recommendation 2. Change in Contract Summary Log (attachments on file in the Department of Utility Services) 3. Change Order No. 7 (on file in the Department of Utility Services) 401 %DMIth 1701 Highway A 1 A Suite 301 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 tel: 772 2314301 fax: 772 2314332 January 10, 2020 Mr. Himanshu Mehta, P.E. Managing Director Solid Waste Disposal District 1325 74th Ave SW Vero Beach, Florida 32968 Subject: Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District. Segment 3 Cell 2 Expansion, Segment 2 Partial Closure, and Landfill Gas System Expansion IRC Contract No.: 2018025 Change Order No. 7 - Miscellaneous Changes Dear Mr. Mehta: Transmitted herewith are three copies of the Change Order Number 7, for material overruns and reconciliation of material underruns on the project bill of quantities. The change is for contingency and time only and does not affect the overall contract amount of the project. We trust the enclosed is sufficient for your review and the Board's approval. If you need any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Martin J. Lewis, P.E., BCEE, PMP Project Manager CDM Smith Inc. MJL/jj Attachments: Tables 1, 2, and 3 Change Order No. 7 Form Thalle Construction Requests Change File: PW PL1 6706-228608.05.06.70 cc: Eric Grotke, CDM Smith Kevin Vann, CDM Smith Reinaldo Gonzalez, Thalle U2W99G ocx WATER+ ENVIRONMENT +TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY + FACILITIES Treasure Coast Newspapers PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Indian River Press Journal 1801 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, FL32960 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING 1801 27TH STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32960 STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, Joe Heynen, who on oath says that he is a legal clerk of the Indian River Press Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was published in the Indian River Press Journal in the following issues below. Affiant further says that the said Indian River Press Journal is a newspaper published in Vero Beach in said Indian River County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, daily and distributed in Indian River County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement ; and affiant further says that she has neither paid or promised any person, firm or corporation any discount , rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Indian River Press Journal has been entered as Periodical Matter at the Post Offices in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. JANUARY 5, 2020 Subscribed and sworn to before on JANUARY 15TH, 2020 f)().1. u . Y Y l vy \ (101.. ..N Notary, State of WI: County of Brown TARA MO.NDLOCH -Nothiy Public 3tote ai Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: S283,50 Ad No GC10332546 Customer No: 463755 PO# NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST This is notice of a public heating by the Board of County Commissioners to consider granting approval of a conceptual Planned Development (PD) plan and adoption of an ordinance to rezone approximately 79.1 acres from A-1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and RS -3, Residential Single -Fancily (up to 3 units/acre) to PDTND, Planned Development Traditional Neighborhood Design. The subject of the hearing is a proposal by Mandala Village, LLC to develop a project to be known as Mandala Village PDTND. The project proposes 88 single-family units. 11 I multi- family units, a 100 -room hotel, a'neighborhood commercial arca. a community center, and recreation/common area amenities. The total site area consists of approximately 79.1 acres located at the northwest corner of 58th Avenue and 53rd Street (see location neap). A public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, January 21; 2020 at 9:00 AM. Please direct planning -related questions to the Current Development Planning Section at 772-226-1239. All documents pertaining to this request are on file in the Indian River County Planning Division. located at 1801 27th Street within building "A" of the County Administration Complex. Documents may be reviewed by members of the public during normal business hours. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision. which may be made at this meeting. will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THiS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 26-1223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. T R-G C 10332546-01 A-1 `.•1 7 '3'i�..M'u'4. 3�-33!•x.Y.`m:5rs::1 A -,I A -I INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- Susan Adams, Chairman »3a`•..ao+i. r. 1) A I A-1 RS -3 1 RS -3 1 S 3 ((' Subject Site A-1 A-1 A- I RS-3PDTND I'DI'NI) PDTND