Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/10/2020
OR 19i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020 - 9:00 AM Commission Chambers Indian River County Administration Complex 180127th Street, Building A Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388 www.ircgov.com COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Chairman Susan Adams Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Vice Chairman Joseph E. Flescher Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Commissioner Tim Zorc Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari 1. CALL TO ORDER 2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 2.B. INVOCATION Pastor Buddy Tipton, Central Assembly of God 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jason Brown, County Administrator 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS 5. PROCLAMATIONS and PRESENTATIONS 5.A. Presentation of Proclamation Designating The Day Of March 31, 2020, As Equal Pay Day Attachments: Proclamation 5.B. Presentation of Proclamation Designating March, 2020, as American Red Cross Month Attachments: Proclamation 5.C. Coronavirus Presentation by Miranda Hawker, Health Officer, Florida Department of Health in Indian River County 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 10, 2020 Page 1 of 6 7. INFORMATION ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS NOT REQUIRING BOARD ACTION 7.A. 2020 Election of Committee Chairmen and Vice Chairmen Attachments: Staff Report 8. CONSENT AGENDA 8.A. Checks and electronic payments February 21, 2020 to February 27, 2020 Attachments: Finance Department Staff Report 8.B. Quarterly Investment Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/19 Attachments: Investment Committee Report 123119 8.C. Quarterly Tourist Development Tax Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/19 Attachments: Tourist Development Tax Report 123119 8.D. Dori Slosberg Driver Education Safety Act - Indian River County Traffic Education Program Trust Fund Report - Cumulative Reporting Through 12/31/19 Attachments: Finance Dept Staff Report - Traffic Education Fund 8.E. Quarterly OPEB Trust Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/19 Attachments: Investment Committee OPEB Report 123119 8.F. Consideration of the 2020 Title VI Program Update for Public Transportation Attachments: Staff Report Title VI Program 8.G. 43rd Avenue Sidewalk from Airport Drive West to 41st Street (IRC -1503), Award of Bid No. 2020016 Attachments: Staff Report Sample Agreement 8.11. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Resolution for County Road 510 from County Road 512 to 58th Avenue Right of Way Acquisition (IRC -1842), Financial Project No. 405606-3 and 405606-4 Attachments: Staff Report Authorizing Resolution Exhibit A March 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6 8.I. Recommendation of Release of Retainage and Change Order No. 1 for Osprey Acres Floway and Nature Preserve Attachments: Staff Report Change Order No. 1 Contractor's Final Certification of Work West Construction - Application for Payment No. 22 8.1 Approval of Renewal for a Class "E" and Class "B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance to Provide Wheelchair/Stretcher - and Interfacility Ambulance Transportation Services Attachments: Staff Report All County COPCN Application 8.K. Approval of Renewal for a Class "E" and Class "B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast I1, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service to Provide Wheelchair/Stretcher and Interfacility Ambulance Transportation Services. Attachments: Staff Report American Ambulance Service COPCN Application 8.L. Jones' Pier Conservation Area Public Use Improvements - Amendment Number 2 to MBV Work Order #5 for Jones' Pier Conservation Area (FTC No.: 05 -039 -FF) - Construction Oversight Services Attachments: Staff Report MBV Amendment #2 to MBV WO #5 8.M. Groundwater Modeling and Impact Evaluations with CDM Smith, Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5 Attachments: Staff Report Amendment No 1 to Work Order No 5 with CDM 9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 9.A. Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar: Proceeds from Online Auction of Surplus Property Attachments: FY 2019 Auction Proceeds 9.11. Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar: (SCAAP) Funds Attachments: FY 2019 SCAAP Letter 10. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS State Criminal Alien Assistance Program March 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6 10.A.1. Request for the Board of County Commissioners to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County by Adopting Proposed New Impact Fee Schedules for the Unincorporated Indian River County and Municipalities, and by Adopting Related Amendments Including _ Revisions to Level of Service Standards Used in Impact Fee Calculations and Revisions to Impact Fee Benefit Districts [Legislative] Attachments: Staff Report Final Impact Fee Update Study Report Proposed Ordinance - Including Impact Fee Schedule B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 10.B.1. Request to Speak from Hal McAdams Regarding Improvement and Widening of 4th St between 58th Ave and 66th Ave Attachments: Public—Discussion—Request C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS 12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development B. Emergency Services 12.B.1. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between Humane Society Vero Beach & Indian River County Florida Inc., and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. Attachments: Staff Report Draft MOU Estimated Expenses C. General Services 12.C.1. Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area Enhancement Design & Engineering -- Award RFQ 2020008 to Carter Associates, Inc. Attachments: Staff Report Sample Agreement Carter Exhibit A Exhibit B 1. Human Services 2. Sandridge Golf Club 3. Recreation D. Human Resources March 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6 E. Office of Management and Budget F. Public Works G. Utilities Services 12.G.1. Biosolids Rule Making for Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code and Public Hearing scheduled for March 19, 2020 Attachments: Staff Report November 19, 2019 agenda FDEP Public Hearing agenda Letter SLC to Environmental Regulation Commission Draft letter from Indian River County to the Environmental Regulation Commission 13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS 14. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS A. Commissioner Susan Adams, Chairman B. Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman C. Commissioner Tim Zorc D. Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan E. Commissioner Bob Solari F. Commissioners Open Dialogue 14.F.1. Commissioners Open Dialogue Attachments: Memorandum 15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS A. Emergency Services District 15.A.1. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Fellsmere Regarding Fire Marshal Services Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Interlocal Agreement B. Solid Waste Disposal District C. Environmental Control Board 16. ADJOURNMENT March 10, 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.irc og v.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 S: 00 p.m., Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning, and Saturday at 12: 00 Noon to 5:00 p.m March 10, 2020 Page 61 of 6 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE DAY OF MARCH 31, 2020, AS EQUAL PAY DAY WHEREAS, 57 years after the passage of the 1963 Equal Pay Act, women, especially minority women, continue to suffer the consequences of unequal pay; and, WHEREAS, according to the US Census Bureau, women working full time, year round in 2018 typically earned 82% of what men earned doing the same or comparable work, indicating little change or progress in pay equity; and, WHEREAS, in 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law, which gives back to employees their day in court to challenge a pay gap; and, WHEREAS, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity 2016, college-educated women working full time earn 1.2 million dollars less than their male peers do over a lifetime; and, WHEREAS, 42 percent of mothers with children under the age of 18 are their families' primary or sole breadwinners, making pay equity critical to families' economic security; and, WHEREAS, according to The Fight for Pay Equity: A State Roadmap for Florida, the median annual earnings in 2017 for men in Florida was $42,261 compared to $36,746 for women — an earnings ratio of just 87%, or fourth out of all states and the District of Columbia; and, WHEREAS, fair pay strengthens the security of families today and eases future retirement costs while enhancing the American economy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the day of March 31, 2020, be designated as Equal Pay Day in Indian River County and the Board encourages all citizens to recognize the full value of women's skills and contributions to the labor force and to further encourage businesses to conduct an internal pay evaluation and to ensure women are being paid fairly and equally. Adopted this 10th day of March, 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Susan Adams, Chairman Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan Bob Solari Tim Zorc 1 L -r SIMPLE TROUT TRUTHGENDER AY GAP FALL 2019 UPDATE Over half a century after pay 46- discriminationbecame illegal in On average, the United States, a persistent pay Women in America gap between men and women continues to hurt our nation's are paid only 82 workers and our national economy. cents for every dollar paid to men. The typical Woman in America At the current rate earns $45,097, While the typical of progress, the pay man makes $55,291, gap Will not close Women of color often fare even until 2093. worse. Compared to White, non- Hispanic men: Black Women make 62 cents on the dollar. Hispanic women make 54 cents on the dollar. Asian women make 89 cents on the dollar. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander women make 61 cents on the dollar.' American Indian or Alaska Native make 57 cents on the dollar.' WAN and NHPI numbers are from American Community Survey (ACS) data; the other reported racial groups are from Current Population Survey (CPS) data. The pay gap increases over the course of a Woman's career and is Widest for Women ages 55-64. This Likely reflects the Long-term effects of direct and indirect discrimination, Which compound over time. WOMEN'S EARNINGS AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEN'S EARNINGS, BY AGE, 2018 GENDER PARITY Ages 16 to 1g Ages 20 to 24 089.1 Ages 25 to 34 87.2 Ages 35 to 44 80.1 Ages 45 to 54 78.0 Agest 55 to 64 750 Ages 65 and up 848 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2019 Women face an income gap in retirement. Because they have earned less and therefore paid Less in the Social Security system, they receive less in Social Security benefits. They also Lag behind men in pension benefits and all other sources of retirement income. WOMEN'S RETIREMENT INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEN'S BY SELECT SOURCES, 2018 GENDER Retirement Income PARITY (all sources) 70.5 social Security 802 i i Pension Incomers .,. _. m. - .a.._ w,.�w _ 76.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2019 Note: Based on mean income for all individuals over 15 who receive that source of income, Traditional wage gap calculations use median earnings, which are not published for other sources of income. Social Security includes pension, survivor, and permanent disability payments made from the Social Security Administration. Pension income is from employers and unions. Retirement income includes Social Security, pension income, retirement savings accounts and all other sources of income in retirement 11 What Contributes to the Gender Pay Gap? Women do not make less money simply because they choose different careers than men or choose to become mothers. Rather, the undervaluing of women's work, implicit bias against working mothers and direct race and gender bias diminish women's salaries. Some employer practices can make disparities even worse. These factors contribute to the pay gap: W'= Occupational segregation: Women and men still tend to concentrate in different jobs and fields. And jobs traditionally associated with men generally pay better than traditionally female - dominated jobs. These jobs do not pay less because they require fewer skills; they pay less because women do them. Further evidence that women's work is undervalued: when an influx of women enters a previously male -dominated profession, wages for the occupation as a whole decrease. Motherhood penalty: Mothers who work full-time are typically paid 69% as much as fathers. Mothers receive lower salaries than fathers and other women—even if the mother never left the workforce. Many working mothers experience bias in pay because of gendered norms and expectations about their roles. And many workplaces are still built on a model that assumes a worker is not a primary caretaker. Lack of paid family, medical and sick leave contribute to the problem. Gender and race discrimination bias: Direct discrimination and bias ------- - u against women remain culprits in the pay gap. And the intersectional Transparency impact of race and gender biases contributes to the larger overall pay about salary can gap for women of color. help narrow the Lack of pay transparency: Certain workplace practices can exacerbate pay gap' The gap is smaller pay disparities, including the failure to be transparent with salary for workers in information, retaliation for wage disclosure, and the use of prior salary 78'4 history in setting pay. The pay gap is smaller for workers in sectors sectors where pay where pay transparency is mandated: For example, federal government transparency is workers experience a 13% pay gap between men and women; in the mandated. private, for-profit sector, that number jumps to 29%. ---- WOMEN'S EARNINGS AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEN'S EARNINGS BY WORKER CLASS, 2018 GENDER PARITY Federal Government 870 Workers State Government 82.4� Workers Local Government 78'4 Workers i Private For -Profit Wage and Salary Workers 71.1 � , Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2019 1-13 What Can We Do to Close the Gender Pay Gap: <." Congress should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Pay Equity for ALL Act, which would prohibit employers from using salary history to set pay; and the Fair Pay Act, which would require employers to provide equal pay for jobs of equivalent value to help reduce the impact of occupational segregation. Congress should pass the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which would create a national paid family and medical leave insurance program for all workers and the Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee paid sick leave. Congress and institutions should also find ways to invest in affordable child care. Policymakers should also protect and expand Pell grants for low-income students, champion tuition- and debt -free options for students, support income -driven repayment options and allow for expanded public interest Loan forgiveness programs. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated it will stop collecting pay data from employers. Implemented by the Obama Administration, the pay data collection identifies trends in pay disparities based on sex, race and ethnicity. The EEOC should not roll back this program; it must properly collect and sufficiently analyze data on pay disparities. More states need new and stronger pay equity laws and enforcement. As of October 2019, 42 states considered bills to help narrow the gender pay gap; 11 states passed laws. In 2018, 40 states and Washington, D.C. considered pay equity Legislation, and six states enacted new laws. Employers should conduct regular pay audits, post salary ranges for jobs, eliminate the use of salary history to set wages and prohibit retaliation against employees for discussing, disclosing, or inquiring about their wages. Individuals can help to negotiate their own financial futures by taking an AAUW Work Smart salary negotiation course in-person or online. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH, 2020, AS RED CROSS MONTH WHEREAS, the American Red Cross was established as a humanitarian organization across the United States and around the world. The local Coast to Heartland Chapter has a history of helping our neighbors by providing services to those in need regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or citizenship status, and WHEREAS, the American Red Cross responds to an average of 62,000 disasters across the country every year. In 2019 more than 250 Chapter volunteers assisted 39 people affected by 15 home fires in Indian River County addressing their urgent needs of food, water and lodging, while providing recovery support; and WHEREAS, the Red Cross continues to work with its partners to prevent fire tragedies through its national Home Fire Campaign, installing 2 million free smoke alarms and saving more than 680 lives across the country since its launch five years ago. Locally more than 585 free smoke alarms have been installed, making 360 households safer from the threat of home fires; and WHEREAS, the Red Cross provides disaster education and services to military members, veterans and their families. We recognize the volunteers in Indian River County who make it possible to help our neighbors when they need a helping hand; and WHEREAS, every day, people in our community depend on the American Red Cross, whose lifesaving mission is powered by the devotion of volunteers, generosity of donors and partnership of community organizations; and WHEREAS, we dedicate the month of March to all those who support its vital work to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of March, 2020, be designated as Red Cross Month in Indian River County and the Board encourages all citizens to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission. Adopted this 10th day of March, 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Susan Adams, Chairman Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman Tim Zorc Peter D. O'Bryan Bob Solari Pj a�� .5.C. a-3 0 4.J m aA -0 m 4-J Q) C: U N C6 co N cn N i Q O U Q O aA N C) c� o Uo O U (1) 4-J U . cn X E D w 10 -0c6 _ > N Ln N V) (B o � O Q , L u- pU Ul) O C6 V) O U QJ . i Ql 4-J m O ru LL > O � 4''^' w O +J U l [ 'O 4— QJ Z Q) U i cn = O r N C6 c � 4-J (3) U UO 4-J � O Ca O aJ O to L .� OLLU Q�� F --w 0 :Z; O •C: LL c N N M U M m U N N d' Ln � N U - (1) (-o a--+ -0 — 4- U _0 N (� L �E- U u O •� c6 > �O Ui O L N v '� Q cn `n UO -Q O ON N •N N i U �- O O E O O � N v m .� O Ln un U- C6 V :Z; O •C: LL c N N M U M m U N N d' Ln T-7 O 2 Q) OL Q� }' N O Q C6 C6 > 4mmJ U O O cn c� Ol > Cl)rH a--� 4-J O >, O 4-J U V 0 O L a� O O ca N L o Q N QN c • cn >- Ln U• N — c6 E Ln Ln Q Ln Ln LL oM 4m 4-J L/) Co Ln C— u 0 Q) Q) O o 4 -mJ U E 'F '� V)U • QU m i- �— • • T-7 Q O L i C6 O 4-' ca O U LO L/) O C- N U W aA O Ln O E T -j O ca L c6 � ca aA Q- O 0- Ln U Ln SAM 1 4-J U a -J � m a� a� LL Y? O�-/C) 0 4,01unO ( m r -:.E (U a) a� E E Q) �- C- a) a o � 4 o Q U O Q � ca N U E -0 E M O OC U') N U r..j 0 O �+- O I— U cn C- 4-) O 1 U Q) U C +-j an E ap Ln ca � cn N E � `� > � 4-J O O +, Q) U U c� > i i N cn O 0 0 .� Q U v 0 O c -)O O . S- O a--+ N U O --� N N O C- O Q V 0 — U 4-J �O = , U--).� U O 4-J U Z3 4-J p . Z C6 r Q > •� OE Q) Z3— O .> O m 0 O � O 4 U = 0 Q L. - O U vi N U D � E Qom, W E N Q) O p + Q U L.L .C- m •U Q V) Ol m -00 L m •> m -cz O •� O m O O u L Q > 4-' M C- > M O +-J Q � O •- O m E E to Ln U i N E 4= O V O .4-j U O O c Q) C6 O O U O C1 O C- 0 O d.J — .� E O Ul)L O �.� O >O 4-J U bx m a--' U O � U >� N E O•i, N ca > O O 4-j N m hA 0 O U i O &-. Q) U UO M c -i a� �J C6 +-J L \ � 1 W O O N 4 N C O L 4-j mUl O 4-) O O 4-J CSA O C: O cn Ov O .o E 4 -JO r N Q U Q Q Ln C6 Ln � aA O L 4--JU — .c 4 -JO a--1 (B I ., 4-J > C O cn O U O U }, O ca = Q O O •U = N O C: > L N U 0 Q U C� - /5-"� _I_— i 4-J Q) QJ isN � C6 t Q Ln C0 N � N EU_ .- O> 4-J 4-J Q ` l 4-J ® O U .0 V) ate., U_ �N Ln Q O E O U i N o l�D � c/) O N C- o O 4-, U N }' c/1 _I_— i 4-J Q) isN � C6 t Q Ln C0 � O N r -i i N h�^ V Q) N p ca N O E c6N 4 D� �Q) o �� �� pL Q) > 00 Q)L. }, Hca �QQE Qa) O +-' Q) .+-J N +-jU Q Q M.— p �cn Ln 4—O 00 E 0- i > W Q) >, N _ pa; p�� p aj 0 U cn ca M Ln cin -0 5. X O ).— NO- 4-jc6 COO ro ca NaA X mu m—m Z54-J� _004-J CT ,, N �O �— v Q)-6�� Q) O 0-O cn� v� O�� E �� `�`� o - L O �UO V) EO Wto p Ca �N-J-C �N cnN� O� 4-J ! +� Q) ca O "o N `n O Q) ! i E Q) Q o ca i O �+JE ca m Lpt�A� � n }, O • — O O gyp. — c6 cn L N Q) 0= �v �� •-15 Em Q ��v N 00(l) Q) ` m U u Q-= Q V) Q) 0 4—j E E 0 U _0 4-j Ul) 4-j V) Q) 0 E 0U-) u C: Li 4-J 4-j 0 4--J 0 ca 4-J Li 4-J 4-j 0 M 2 m1 _w at a 1S y q y } � V _ (J G O� a� cr ep 9 d G tA LJJ M 2 m1 _w at a 1S y q y } � V _ aq ep 9 d G C w' 4 e � O tdt "fir -op 0. N +4 V .0 iE z J+ ani N N a a� r ^\ V /�/ L / E W V / Ln ) O •� •Lcn 4— Ca p " V / Ln \ ( T W �Ln O p Q C: L N E N EN UO c -i-- 4--J Q) Q Q) N +-+ Q Q) p U Q O cz L E N L f� - — cn O 4-J p U +-j vi a--+ Q � U C U `��� /L T 1 5Ul V� V� L (,D4-- O O C6 N � C6 U Q) Ln +L--+ N E C6 > c 4-J O ~ O E a--� U Q) C Ln /) C— •E O O v .v 0 aA p U N � 2 ca Q. Q) CN EO }' 2 0 u C-) N N a a� E ,O T CL E V) O Q) 4-J ii ^ '1 W 0 Q) T O N Q O L CSA a -J hA �L Q) t a--+ m W vi Q) s Q) un U . L. Q Ln 4- O c O Q� Q) Q O c O c6 O 0- O 0 LL M N aa� (n O Q tri >- X N � � O � > Ln E Ln >, f� O -0 E E r -I O Ln O O O 0- O 0 O Ln QQ 4= 0 O c 0 ii ^ '1 W 0 Q) T O N Q O L CSA a -J hA �L Q) t a--+ m W vi Q) s Q) un U . L. Q Ln 4- O c O Q� Q) Q O c O c6 O 0- O 0 LL M N aa� aa� I i i •4--J , i i O � E O Q Ln ca O U ca ca O = U-) ; .- 4-J E U Q) i ' Q Q O +-J O O j 'U M L O — O U U C6 Ln O N Q� C- Q) a--� > .� •>_ O Q O -0 O OQ) c V U Lor) 4—J un C6 E Q i O� Q Q > O = 4-1ca (O Q � � U 4—J i— cn V) U —� O - o O Q Q aa� CQ � E E u a -j 4-J • — 0 N L O ul '— N � Q CL O O Ln L _0 fB � •- L V) U ro U •� L � O � V E C- 4 -j O O1 i O U 4- O N Q Ln c - L Q O a --j Q L O cn '> U N � c � � Q w � z s� b O jyd (/) A C: W a, uF-G W n w o y t w E t C Pe ���UAA OV zp u y> yS LY$ t -6-`� C � 2+3 Lk O C:X txc Yob N ey � ILD N ao- (/) C: — O E -Fj -1--, -6-`� O C:X txc O U N O> N O 2 U _ • � CY) O O .� O LL N ILD N ao- ZA N V O N U U Ql O N 1 N mle O N O O ma L— Q) Q) No C— m U m N _ O _ +., O ca N Q) E ca Q. N D c� O u.. O N O O ma INFORMATIONAL ITEMS March 10, 2020 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: March 3, 2020 Subject: 2020 ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN AND VICE CHAIRMEN From: Edwin J. Offutt, Commissioner Assistant, Districts 2 and 3 Since January, the following committees have elected their Chairmen (C) and Vice Chairmen (VC): • Affordable Housing Advisory Committee: Julianne Price (C), Sheryl Vittitoe (VC) • Agricultural Advisory Committee: Robert Adair (C), David Howard (VC) • Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Cmte: Christian Hendricks (C), David Barney (VC) • Children's Services Advisory Cmte: Miranda Hawker (C); there is no VC • Code Enforcement Board: David Myers II (C), Steven Boehning (VC) • Community Development Block Grant CATF: William Moseley (C), Ardra Rigby (VC) • Economic Development Council: Joe Idlette III (C), John Dyer (VC) • IRC Census 2020 Community Action Committee: Susan Adams (C), Laura Moss (VC) • Planning & Zoning Commission: Todd Brognano (C), Dr. Jonathan Day (VC) • Public Safety Council: Selby Strickland (C), David Currey (VC) • Tourist Development Council: Susan Adams (C); there is no VC No Board action is required. 3 A I TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: ELISSA NAGY, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: JEFFREY R. SMITH, COMPTROLLER DATE: February 27, 2020 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CHECKS AND ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS February 21, 2020 to February 27, 2020 In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all checks and electronic payments issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached lists of checks and electronic payments, issued by the Comptroller's office, for the time period of February 21, 2020 to February 27, 2020. 5 TRANS NB R DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 392569 02/21/2020 UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RAVER COUNTY 776.00 392570 02/21/2020 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 299.36 392571 02/21/2020 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 303.42 392572 02/21/2020 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 169.30 392573 02/21/2020 NORTH CAROLINA CHILD SUPPORT 105.69 392574 02/21/2020 ECMC 306.51 392575 02/21/2020 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 154.00 392576 02/21/2020 COAST PROFESSIONAL INC 237.76 392577 02/21/2020 COAST PROFESSIONAL INC 300.36 392578 02/21/2020 NATIONAL RECOVERIES INC 175.40 392579 02/21/2020 ACSI 201.57 392580 02/25/2020 LEONARD GREEN 10,000.00 392581 02/26/2020 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 44,562.91 392582 02/26/2020 VICTIM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 6,018.16 392583 02/26/2020 ROGER J NICOSIA 1,500.00 392584 02/26/2020 CITY OF VERO BEACH 2,208.00 392585 02/26/2020 CITY OF VERO BEACH 11,675.00 392586 02/26/2020 ST LUCIE COUNTY BOCC 37,658.83 392587 02/26/2020 PAUL CARONE 4,291.00 392588 02/26/2020 WILLIE C REAGAN 2,313.00 392589 02/26/2020 LARRY STALEY 593.00 392590 02/26/2020 VERO CLUB PARTNERS LTD 2,941.00 392591 02/26/2020 VERO CLUB PARTNERS LTD 1,022.00 392592 02/26/2020 DAVID SPARKS 1,407.00 392593 02/26/2020 THE PALMS AT VERO BEACH 2,377.00 392594 02/26/2020 JOHN OLIVIERA 856.00 392595 02/26/2020 ARTHUR PRUETT 756.00 392596 02/26/2020 MICHAEL JAHOLKOWSKI 547.00 392597 02/26/2020 STEVEN RENNICK 661.00 392598 02/26/2020 ROBERT L BRACKETT 780.00 392599 02/26/2020 SUNCOAST REALTY & RENTAL MGMT LLC 641.00 392600 02/26/2020 SYLVESTER MC INTOSH 365.00 392601 02/26/2020 JAMES W DAVIS 866.00 392602 02/26/2020 MISS INC OF THE TREASURE COAST 2,680.00 392603 02/26/2020 DANIEL CORY MARTIN 2,419.00 392604 02/26/2020 SHADOWBROOK AT VERO 657.00 392605 02/26/2020 FIVE STAR PROPERTY HOLDING LLC 830.00 392606 02/26/2020 E EDWARD VAANDERING 625.00 392607 02/26/2020 VAL APTS LLC 818.00 392608 02/26/2020 AUGUSTUS B FORT JR 641.00 392609 02/26/2020 VERO BEACH PLACE LLC 2,133.00 392610 ` 02/26/2020 GNS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 491.00 392611 02/26/2020 HELPING HANDS REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT CO 4,285.00 392612 02/26/2020 ALIX DENEAU 750.00 392613 02/26/2020 NKW PIP HOLDINGS I LLC 2,868.00 392614 02/26/2020 MAXIPLEX LLC 2,387.00 392615 02/26/2020 RANDY BETHEL 751.00 392616 02/26/2020 BRANDON ROUER 2,766.00 392617 02/26/2020 HUDSON CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT LLC 552.00 392618 02/26/2020 PALMETTO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP 935.00 392619 02/26/2020 HAMED SILMANE 750.00 392620 02/26/2020 PAMELA CHAVEZ 744.00 392621 02/26/2020 PHILIPPE ALEXANDER 700.00 392622 02/26/2020 SHARON P BRENNAN 556.00 392623 02/26/2020 JANINA M GIORGIO 885.00 392624 02/26/2020 LINDSEY GARDENS 807.00 392625 02/26/2020 CORNELIA H LAHEY 1,126.00 392626 02/26/2020 IXORIA LLC 711.00 6 TRANS NBR DATE VENDORMQUNT 392627 02/26/2020 CARLINGTON A GOFFE 703.00 392628 02/26/2020 DEEP REAL ESTATE INC 487.00 392629 02/26/2020 SHAUNA WALGRAVE `950.00 392630 02/26/2020 A PLUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC 795.00 392631 02/26/2020 ORCHARD GROVE VENTURE LLC 4,047.00 392632 02/26/2020 GEORGIA KING LLC 757.00 392633 02/26/2020 BREGO PROPERTIES LLC 11000.00 392634 02/26/2020 BCAG LLC 1,452.00 392635 02/26/2020 SCHMIDT REAL ESTATE FLORIDA EAST COAST LLC 758.00 392636 02/26/2020 YELLOW RING HOLDINGS LLC 791.00 392637 02/27/2020 PORT CONSOLIDATED INC 839.26 392638 02/27/2020 GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT INC 930.00 392639 02/27/2020 SSES INC 809.82 392640 02/27/2020 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 722.95 392641 02/27/2020 RICOH USA INC 330.45 392642 02/27/2020 RICOH USA INC 25.65 392643 02/27/2020 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC 16,944.00 392644 02/27/2020 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC 458.69 392645 02/27/2020 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC 1,866.41 392646 02/27/2020 AT&T WIRELESS 2,411.71 392647 02/27/2020 BRENDA DICKHART 120.00 392648 02/27/2020 DELTA SUPPLY CO 75.85 392649 02/27/2020 E-Z BREW COFFEE & BOTTLE WATER SVC 112.81 392650 02/27/2020 GRAINGER 2,671.60 392651 02/27/2020 KELLY TRACTOR CO 1,237.18 392652 02/27/2020 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY CO 105.67 392653 02/27/2020 HACH CO 4,307.50 392654 02/27/2020 CLIFF BERRY INC 939.40 392655 02/27/2020 PETES CONCRETE 1,600.00 392656 02/27/2020 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC 1;607.00 392657 02/27/2020 TIRESOLES OF BROWARD INC 475.00 392658 02/27/2020 CALL ONE INC 330.00 392659 02/27/2020 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY 125.10 392660 02/27/2020 CHILDCARE RESOURCES OF IRC INC 20,426.79 392661 02/27/2020 NEWMANS POWER SYSTEMS 2,996.23 392662 02/27/2020 DELL MARKETING LP 7,880.00 392663 02/27/2020 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 5,448.61 392664 02/27/2020 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 750.17 392665 02/27/2020 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY 60.72 392666 02/27/2020 BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO LLC 116.87 392667 02/27/2020 ATKINS NORTH AMERICA INC 5,811.00 392668 02/27/2020 CENGAGE LEARNING INC 90.00 392669 02/27/2020 PALM TRUCK CENTERS INC 3,652.23 392670 02/27/2020 AT&T CORP 20.03 392671 02/27/2020 MATTHEW BENDER & CO INC 183.00 392672 02/27/2020 PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS 31.75 392673 02/27/2020 PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS 14.40 392674 02/27/2020 ACUSHNET COMPANY 1,037.18 392675 02/27/2020 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE INC 90,792.88 392676 02/27/2020 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC 20,959.04 392677 02/27/2020 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 27.74 392678 02/27/2020 MELVINEVERETT 12,950.00 392679 02/27/2020 CITY OF SEBASTIAN 28,781.32 392680 02/27/2020 CITY OF SEBASTIAN 600.00 392681 02/27/2020 TIMOTHY ROSE CONTRACTING INC 18,609.00 392682 02/27/2020 CALLAWAY GOLF SALES COMPANY 1,241.73 392683 02/27/2020 FLORIDA DOWER AND LIGHT 101,339.81 392684 02/27/2020 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 30,877.69 392685 02/27/2020 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 130.00 392686 02/27/2020 GIFFORD YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT CENTER INC 15,556.63 %l TRANS NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 392687 02/27/2020 CITY OF FELLSMERE 78.34 392688 02/27/2020 PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC COOP INC 242.94 392689 02/27/2020 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE COAST 26,657.00 392690 02/27/2020 GLOBAL GOLF SALES INC 72.22 392691 02/27/2020 WASTE MANAGEM[ENT INC 200,556.58 392692 02/27/2020 TREASURE COAST SPORTS COMMISSION INC 265.00 392693 02/27/2020 GREY HOUSE PUBLISHING 2,448.00 392694 02/27/2020 JOHN BROWN & SONS INC 40,710.00 392695 02/27/2020 WESTSIDE REPROGRAPHICS OF VERO BEACH INC " 121.00 392696 02/27/2020 FLORIDA OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT INC 7,913.88 392697 02/27/2020 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD 346.64 392698 02/27/2020 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS INC 919.50 392699 02/27/2020 SHRIEVE CHEMICAL CO 7,881.17 392700 02/27/2020 COASTAL AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT 1,045.00 392701 02/27/2020 TRANE US INC 80,202.53 392702 02/27/2020 CELICO PARTNERSHIP 319.07 392703 02/27/2020 U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 944.69 392704 02/27/2020 SYNAGRO-WWT INC 86,183.18 392705 02/27/2020 THE CLEARING COMPANY LLC 2,249.50 392706 07/27/2020 DASIE BRIDGEWATER HOPE CENTER INC 3,754.48 392707 02/27/2020 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 130.00 392708 02/27/2020 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO 255.66 392709 02/27/2020 SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY INC 1,773.81 392710 02/27/2020 MBV ENGINEERING INC 7,853.60 392711 02/27/2020 HEVERON GROUP INC 19,039.00 392712 02/27/2020 NEW ENGLAND HISTORIC 250.00 392713 02/27/2020 GLOVER OIL COMPANY INC 47,984.72 392714 02/27/2020 ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTY MGMT II INC 150.00 392715 02/27/2020 JUANITA W HILL 1 92.43 392716 02/27/2020 REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSOC 4,545.39 392717 02/27/2020 INDIAN RIVER SOCCER ASSOCIATION 2,500.00 392718 02/27/2020 VATLAND DAPORTS INC 117.36 392719 02/27/2020 KWACKS INC 710.00 392720 02/27/2020 YOUTH GUIDANCE DONATION FUND 2,083.33 392721 02/27/2020 EQ THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMPANY 26,161.32 392722 02/27/2020 BENNETT FIRE PRODUCTS CO INC 22,826.85 392723 02/27/2020 DE LA HOZ BUILDERS INC 46,525.00 392724 02/27/2020 ATLANTIC COASTAL LAND TITLE CO LLC 340.00 392725 02/27/2020 FLORIDAARMATURE WORKS INC 7,406.40 392726 02/27/2020 FLORIDA COAST EQUIPMENT INC 2,857.55 392727 02/27/2020 OVERDRIVE INC 2,579.31 392728 02/27/2020 ALAN JAY CHEVROLET CADILLAC 24,487.00 392729 02/27/2020 MOORE MOTORS INC 386.44 392730 02/27/2020 WILD TURKEY ESTATES OF VERO LLC 3,137.65 392731 02/27/2020 REHMANN GROUP, LLC 3.6,000.00 392732 02/27/2020 OCEAN RESEARCH & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INO4,554.96 392733 02/27/2020 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC 108,830.00 392734 02/27/2020 BURNETT LIME CO INC 3,165.40 392735 02/27/2020 ATLANTIC ROOFING H OF VERO BEACH INC 39,450.00 392736 02/27/2020 PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC 43.50 392737 02/27/2020 CARMEN LEWIS 332.50 392738 02/27/2020 STRAIGHT OAK LLC 47.90 392739 02/27/2020 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT LLC 13,493.00 392740 02/27/2020 STEWART & STEVENSON FDDA LLC 9,931.89 392741 02/27/2020 CHEMTRADE CHEWCALS CORPORTATION 2,860.86 392742 02/27/2020 REI ENGINEERS INC 11,998.75 392743 02/27/2020 FOUNDATION FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL 500.00 392744 02/27/2020 CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICES OF WEST VIRGINIA 425.00 392745 02/27/2020 SYLIVIA MILLER 2,043.00 392746 02/27/2020 ANFIELD CONSULTING GROUP INC 10,000.00 8 TRANS NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 392747 02/27/2020 YOURMEMBERSHIRCOM 449.00 392748 02/27/2020 CATHEDRAL CORPORATION 18,229.28 392749 02/27/2020 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 729.93 392750 02/27/2020 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY HOLDINGS LLC 2,029.50 392751 02/27/2020 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY HOLDINGS LLC 187.69 392752 02/27/2020 GOTTA GO GREEN ENTERPISES INC 269.86 392753 02/27/2020 HYDROMAX USA LLC 14,407.65 392754 02/27/2020 PATRIOT PRODUCTIONS LLC 250.00 392755 02/27/2020 CROSSOVER MISSION 11,665.34 392756 02/27/2020 PTE GOLF LLC 494.97 392757 02/27/2020 EASTERNPIPELINECONSTRUCTION INC 2,250.00 392758 02/27/2020 EAST COAST RECYCLING INC 300.00 392759 02/27/2020 GNS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 872.00 392760 02/27/2020 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC 4,064.25 392761 02/27/2020 COLE AUTO SUPPLY INC 3,319.74 392762 02/27/2020 TARGET SOLUTIONS LEARNING LLC 29,595.00 392763 02/27/2020 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 823.17 392764 02/27/2020 BETH NOLAN 90.00 392765 02/27/2020 NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA 68.92 392766 02/27/2020 AQUATIC SURFACES OF 3,688.75 392767 02/27/2020 STEWART MATERIALS LLC 581.50 392768 02/27/2020 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES 2,059.86 392769 02/27/2020 DJD EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS LLC 1,934.00 392770 02/27/2020 MAXIMUM VELOCITY GYMNASTICS BOOSTER CLUB 500.00 392771 02/27/2020 CHANGE HEALTHCARE LLC 37,336.39 392772 02/27/2020 ACTION RENTALS VRB LLC 241.61 392773 02/27/2020 DAMARIS GORON 74.54 392774 02/27/2020 EMPIRE PIPE ORLANDO LLC 156,789.36 392775 02/27/2020 RAMONA MURPHY 65.00 392776 02/27/2020 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1,835.36 392777 02/27/2020 NI CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC 6,458.89 392778 02/27/2020 VERONIQUE ORY STURIALE 30.00 392779 02/27/2020 W&J CONSTRUCTION CORP 170,269.54 392780 02/27/2020 FL 911 COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION INC 10000 392781 02/27/2020 PIRATE PEST CONTROL LLC 110.00 392782 02/27/2020 ALL RITE WATER PURIFICATION INC 1,776.10 392783 02/27/2020 CALITEN LLC 36.61 392784 02/27/2020 AMERIGAS PROPANE LP 4,754.51 392785 02/27/2020 HOPPING GREEN & SAMS PA 10,178:57 392786 02/27/2020 WILLIAM R CHAPMAN 48.53 392787 02/27/2020 CPZ ARCHITECTS INC 450.00 392788 02/27/2020 GRBK GHO HOMES LLC 5,453.90 392789 02/27/2020 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC 273.50 392790 02/27/2020 BANYAN RECYCLING INC 420.00 392791 02/27/2020 BENEFIT EXPRESS SERVICES LLC 3,956.18 392792 02/27/2020 JORDAN POWER EQUIPMENT CORP 825.57 392793 02/27/2020 LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING LLC 5,438.57 392794 02/27/2020 STANLEY L JENNINGS 1,900.00 392795 02/27/2020 FLORIDA INDIAN HOBBYIST ASSOCIATION 250.00 392796 02/27/2020 MULLINAX FORD OF VERO BEACH 915.51 392797 02/27/2020 APTIM CORP 6,122.82 392798 02/27/2020 PUMP SERVICE & IRRIGATION INC 518.90 392799 02/27/2020 KRONOS SAASHR INC 45,866.15 392800 02/27/2020 KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS SOUTHEAST LLC 664.08 392801 02/27/2020 DESK SPINCO INC 983.52 392802 02/27/2020 INVASIVE PLANT ERADICATORS LLC 751.91 392803 02/27/2020 PGL TRUCKING INC 18,195.68 392804 02/27/2020 A PLUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC 450.00 392805 02/27/2020 STAPLES INC 664.15 392806 02/27/2020 LOWES COMPANIES INC 1,640.73 9 TRANS NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 392807 02/27/2020 PEOPLEREADY INC 14,669.73 392808 02/27/2020 GOMEZ BROTHERS ENTERPRISES INC 2,140.00 392809 02/27/2020 BREGO PROPERTIES LLC 950.00 392810 02/27/2020 BREGO PROPERTIES LLC 950.00 392811 02/27/2020 SITECRAFTERS OF FLORIDA INC 62,545.38 392812 02/27/2020 AGON SPORT LLC 125.60 392813 02/27/2020 LFLH LLC 442.99 392814 02/27/2020 ANCHOR DOWN MOBIL HOMES INC 3,800.00 392815 02/27/2020 OWEN JOHNSON 289.78 392816 02/27/2020 CONSOR ENGINEERS LLC 44,519.09 392817 02/27/2020 LEONEL CABRERA 508.00 392818 02/27/2020 EL CABALLO BLANCO LLC 250.00 392819 02/27/2020 MARIE EISERT 4,580.09 392820 02/27/2020 WILHELMINA DAVIS 100.00 392821 02/27/2020 VIRGINIA FEUSS 410.98 392822 02/27/2020 THERESA JUTTNER 16.76 392823 02/27/2020 MADGE E BEUTH 96.05 392.824 02/27/2020 LINDA K ONEAL 397.34 392825 02/27/2020 LANE C THOMAS 25.00 392826 02/27/2020 JOHN S SPRINGER 737.40 392827 02/27/2020 ESMOND PAUL 186.22 392828 02/27/2020 EDWIN H ERNST 101.64 392829 02/27/2020 DONALD PALMER 545.60 392830 02/27/2020 AMELIA K KITCHENER 40.00 392831 02/27/2020 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 1,950.00 392832/ 02/27/2020 CENTRAL FLORIDA PRIMA 25.00 392833 02/27/2020 CINDY CORRENTE 24.30 392834 02/27/2020 SHEILA O'SULLIVAN 120.78 392835 02/27/2020 RITA STRICKLAND 24.30 392836 02/27/2020 KEVINKIRWIN 12.46 392837 02/27/2020 ERIKA LUNDEEN 127.75 392838 02/27/2020 MERCEDES LANEY 209.00 Grand Total: 2,247,514.26 10 RENTAL ASSISTANCE CHECKS WRITTEN TRANS NBR DATE 900337 02/27/2020 900338 02/27/2020 900339 02/27/2020 900340 02/27/2020 Grand Total: VENDOR TREASURE COAST HOMELESS SERVICES SUNCOAST REALTY & RENTAL MGMT LLC LINDSEY GARDENS 2545 INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD LLC AMOUNT 676.00 197.00 235.00 377.00 1,485.00 11 ELECTRONIC PAYMENT - VISA CARD TRANS. NBR DATE _V NDO AMOUNT 1016265 02/21/2020 AT&T CORP 1,351.76 1016266 02/21/2020 COMCAST 69.95 1016267 02/21/2020 POLYDYNE INC 2,576.00 1016268 02/21/2020 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC 255.76 1016269 02/21/2020 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC OF FLORIDA 3,031.82 1016270 02/24/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC 3,462.61 1016271 02/27/2020 AT&T CORP 9,591.49 1016272 02/27/2020 ADRON FENCE COMPANY INC 3,264.00 1016273 02/27/2020 HELENA CHEMICAL 734.65 1016274 02/27/2020 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY 1,019.05 1016275 02/27/2020 INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN INC 33.50 1016276 02/27/2020 DEMCOINC 780.72 1016277 02/27/2020 MIKES GARAGE & WRECKER SERVICE INC 85.00 1016278 02/27/2020 DAVES SPORTING GOODS & TROPHIES 60.00 1016279 02/27/2020 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 14.42 1016280 02/27/2020 SMITH BROTHERS CONTRACTING EQUIP 122.82 1016281 02/27/2020 GALLS LLC 26.35 1016282 02/27/2020 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO INC 845.00 1016283 02/27/2020 ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP 27,175.58 1016284 02/27/2020 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMITED INC 314.49 1016285 02/27/2020 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 280.20 1016286 02/27/2020 APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO 401.88 1016287 02/27/2020 TOTAL TRUCK PARTS INC 188.77 1016288 02/27/2020 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LTD 293.56 1016289 02/27/2020 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 91.07 1016290 02/27/2020 L&L DISTRIBUTORS 9.08 1016291 02/27/2020 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LABORATORIES INCL 1,961.00 1016292 02/27/2020 HYDRA SERVICE (S) INC 4,716.53 1016293 02/27/2020 RADWELL INTERNATIONAL INC 283.26 1016294 02/27/2020 GUARDIAN ALARM OF FLORIDA LLC 157.00 1016295 02/27/2020 NEXAIR LLC 15.70 1016296 02/27/2020 EFE INC 890.11 1016297 02/27/2020 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES LLC 3,644.05 1016298 02/27/2020 TOSHIBA AMERICA BUISNESS SOLUTIONS INC 84.28 Grand Total: 77,831.46 12 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS - WIRE & ACH. TRANS NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 7462 02/21/2020 K HORN & ASSOC INC 6,541.80 7463 02/21/2020 IRC FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC 9,789.28 7464 02/21/2020 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #769 5,209.00 7465 02/21/2020 FL SDU 6,084.08 7466 02/21/2020 NATIONWIDE SOLUTIONS RETIREMENT INC 6,229.15 7467 02/21/2020 NATIONWIDE SOLUTIONS RETIREMENT INC 58,808.55 7468 02/21/2020 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CORP 12,196.98 7469 02/21/2020 SAVE ON SP LLC 8,163.75 7470 02/24/2020 IRC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 15,456.09 7471 02/24/2020 IRC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 21,737.81 7472 02/24/2020 VETERANS COUNCIL OF I R C 5,201.83 7473 02/24/2020 IRS -PAYROLL TAXES 465,630.55 7474 02/26/2020 WHITNEY BANK 26,185.50 7475 02/27/2020 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC 91,307.50 7476 02/27/2020 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE CO 21,025.14 7477 02/27/2020 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA INC 39,088.50 7478 02/27/2020 ALLSTATE 175.92 7479 02/27/2020 MUTUAL OF OMAHA 18,756.28 7480 02/27/2020 COALITION FOR ATTAINABLE HOMES INC 1,653.00 7481 02/27/2020 C E R SIGNATURE CLEANING 5,250.00 7482 02/27/2020 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 4,116.24 Grand Total: 828,606.95 13 N TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Elissa Nagy, Finance Director THRU: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller DATE: February 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/2019 BACKGROUND Attached to this memorandum is the composition of the investment portfolio and investment earnings for the first quarter of this fiscal year. This report was reviewed by our investment advisory committee on February 20, 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the attached Quarterly Investment Report. 14 Indian River County Investment Advisory Committee Quarterly Investment Report October 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 INVESTMENT POLICY In accordance with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an Investment Policy to govern the investment of county funds by the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Policy states the primary objectives of investment activities are to preserve capital and to provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow needs of the county. Investment returns are secondary to the requirements for safety and liquidity. INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE An Investment Advisory Committee meets quarterly to review the previous quarter's investment activities, evaluate current and future liquidity needs, and recommend investment strategies. The Committee consists of the County Administrator, or his designee, and a minimum of two qualified citizens with investment or financial management expertise. Kristin Daniels, Budget Director, is the County Administrator's designee. The individuals with investment expertise who have agreed to serve are: David W. Griffis, Founding Principal Vero Beach Global Advisors, Ted Libby, Senior Portfolio Manager with Cypress Capital Group; and Andy Beindorf, Treasure Coast Regional President of CenterState Bank. Also present at the meetings are the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Finance Director, and Internal Audit Director. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS As permitted by the Investment Policy, surplus funds were invested only in the following types of investments: Federal Farm Credit Banks bonds and discount notes (FFCB), Federal Home Loan Banks bonds and discount notes (FHLB), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation bonds and discount notes (FHLMC), Federal National Mortgage Association bonds and discount notes (FNMA), Treasury Notes and Bills, Other intergovernmental investment pool authorized pursuant to the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act as provided in F.S. 163.0 1, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Money Market Funds, and Repurchase Agreements. BOND PROCEEDS INVESTMENT The current water and sewer bond reserve is placed with Bank of New York/Mellon and is currently invested in a treasury note. V0:"c7.1WA 'A CW1I The overall average yield for the quarter ended December 31, 2019 was 2.04%. The overall average yield for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 was 2.22%. 15 INVESTMENT ACTIVITY As of December 31, 2019, the investments portfolio book value was $455,092,221 with a market value of $457,736,155. Of the $455,092,221 portfolio total, $358,739,096 is restricted for the following purposes: $ 106,405,249 Special revenue projects $ 6,208,605 Debt payments for county bonds $ 87,091,759 Capital projects $ 156,886,409 Business -type activities $ 2,147,074 Escrow Funds $ 358,739,096 TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH BY FUND TYPE (PERCENTAGES) Bu! Escrow Special Revenue 26% Debt VS 1% Type Capital 46% Projects 26% The weighted average maturity of the treasury and agency investments as of December 31, 2019 is 12 months. Yields on the individual investments ranged from 1.125% to 2.760%. Information on investment activity, total cash flows, interest earnings, and charts providing additional information regarding the investment of surplus funds such as the portfolio composition and maturity distribution are attached. The attached schedules list the portfolio composition and activity for the quarter ending December 31, 2019: Schedule 1 Portfolio sorted by type of debt instrument Schedule 2 Portfolio sorted by maturity date Schedule 3 Portfolio by maturity date bar graph Schedule 4 Portfolio by type pie chart Schedule 5 Investment purchases, calls and maturities for the quarter Schedule 6 Summary of cash flows and balances by month Schedule 7 Interest earnings summary Schedule 8 Allocation of investments by fund types (unrestricted and restricted balances) 16 Portfolio 12.91% 7.22% 11.63% 6.96% 17 Schedule 1 Indian River County, Florida Board of County Commissioners Investments By Type December 31, 2019 12/31/19 Coupon/ Purchase Maturity Years To Yield To Original Investment Type CUSIP Yield Date Date Maturity Matudly Par Amount Book Value FFCB Callable 3133EGJV8 1.200% 12/08/17 01/06/20 0.02 1.955% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,969,400.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHR70 1.740% 11/14/17 02/14/20 0.12 1.740% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGAES 1.360% 12/21/17 02/18/20 0.13 1.991% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,960,160.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHLX2 1.500% 10/23/17 03/05/20 0.18 1.716% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHCSO 1.680% 03/13/18 04/03/20 0.26 2.316% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,974,600.00 FFCBCallable 3133EHHA4 1.620% 05/16/18 04/27/20 0.32 2.670% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,600.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EJQSI 2.760% 12/03/18 05/05/20 0.35 2.815% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,997,660.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EKPZ3 2.126% 06/10/19 07/10/20 0.53 2.126% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHUE1 1.650% 03/19/18 08/10/20 0.61 2.3725A $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,966,600.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGVKB 1.350% 05/10/18 09/21/20 0.73 2.661% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,910,450.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EKTN6 1.851% 07/03/19 10/02/20 0.76 1.851% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGXU4 1.370% 05/10/18 10/06/20 0.77 2.665% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,910,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGF42 1.360% 05/10/18 11/09/20 0.86 2.655% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,906,700.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKUY0 2.120% 07/15/19 01/15/21 1.04 2.120% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKEN2 2.520% 03/26/19 03/26/21 1.24 2.520% 5 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKGL4 2.440% 04/09/19 04/09/21 1.27 2.440% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKZ33 1.800% 10/1S/19 04/15/21 1.29 1.800% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELCD4 1.660% 12/03/19 06/02/21 1.42 1.694% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,998,500.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELDCS 1.640% 12/11/19 06/11/21 1.45 1.640% $ 3,000,000.00 5 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKRW8 2.100% 06/24/19 06/24/21 1.48 2.100% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EK214 1.690°% 10/21/19 10/21/21 1.81 1.690% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EK6D3 1.570% 11/25/19 11/08/21 1.86 1.570% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,996,250.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELDV3 1.740% 12/13/19 06/13/22 2.45 1.740% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 59,000,000.00 $ 58,520,920.00 FHLB Callable 3130ABCG9 1.600% 05/16/18 02/03/20 0.09 2.634% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,948,310.00 FHLB Bullet 313378/77 1.875% 11/29/18 03/13/20 0.20 2.801% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,020.00 FHLB -1X Callable 3130ACN83 1.700% 11/21/17 05/15/20 0.37 1.869% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,991,800.00 FHLB Bullet 313383HU8 1.750% 03/23/18 06/12/20 0.45 2.399% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,972,080.00 FHLB Callable 3130ABNV4 1.750% 03/15/18 07/13/20 0.53 2.4191A $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,954,790.00 FHLB Bullet 313OA66T9 1.625% 12/12/18 09/11/20 0.70 2.79256 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,660.00 FHLB Bullet 3130ACE26 1.375% 06/26/19 09/28/20 0.75 1.810% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983,860.00 FHLB Bullet 3130A7CV5 1.375% 08/26/19 02/18/21 1.14 1.556% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,994,720.00 FHLB Bullet 3130AOXD7 2.375% 03/04/19 03/12/21 1.20 2.565% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,988,827.10 FHLB Callable 3130ABCA9 1.685% 11/05/19 05/25/21 1.40 1.706% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,999,040.00 FHLB Bullet 313OA8QS5 1.584% 11/19/19 07/14/21 1.54 1.584% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,977,620.00 FHLB Callable 3130AHQ71 1.730% 12/23/19 06/23/22 2.48 1.730% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 33,000,000.00 $ 32,716,727.10 FHLMCCallable 3134GBEB4 1.700% 11/21/17 03/27/20 0.24 1.776% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,996,500.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEF2 1.375% 11/21/17 04/20/20 0.30 1.858% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,977,300.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEM7 2.500% 12/10/18 04/23/20 0.31 2.724% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,990,970.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBQ88 1.750% 10/30/17 04/30/20 0.33 1.750% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBXV9 1.850% 12/12/18 07/13/20 0.53 2.823% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,955,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBD25 1.700% 11/30/18 08/28/20 0.66 2.817% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,943,300.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAE14 1.625% 06/05/19 09/29/20 0.75 2.003% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,300.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EADR7 1.375% 11/21/17 5/1/2020 0.33 1.823% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,978,660.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEL9 2.375% 09/21/18 02/16/21 1.13 2.873% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,500.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GTJD6 2.500% 04/29/19 04/29/21 1.33 2.500% $ 3,000,000.00 5 3,000,000.00 FHLMC Bullet 3134G9HB6 1.570% 05/15/19 05/17/21 1.38 2.243% $ 2,000,000.00 5 1,973,757.70 FHLMCCallable 3134GTG56 2.000% 07/22/19 07/22/21 1.56 2.000% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEC9 1.125% 10/11/19 08/12/21 1.62 1.527% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,985,500.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUCL2 2.000% 09/17/19 09/17/21 1.72 2.000% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUNH9 1.820% 11/08/19 11/08/21 1.86 1.820% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUUY4 1.750% 11/25/19 02/25/22 2.16 1.750% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUXR6 1.770% 12/16/19 03/16/22 2.21 1.770% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUD98 1.700% 12/23/19 03/23/22 2.23 1.700% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUVP2 1.730% 11/27/19 05/27/22 2.41 1.730% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUWVS 1.750% 12/10/19 06/10/22 2.44 1.750% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 53,000,000.00 $ 52,751,787.70 FNMA Bullet 3135GOA78 1.625% 12/08/17 01/21/20 0.06 1.862% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,270.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOT29 1.500% 10/23/17 02/28/20 0.16 1.688% $ 2,000,000.00 5 1,991,360.00 FNMA Callable 3136G3UR4 1.380% 03/23/18 06/30/20 0.50 2.443% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,929,950.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOT60 1.500% 03/15/18 07/30/20 0.58 2.351% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,941,350.00 FNMA Callable 3136G36B6 1.450% 04/30/18 09/15/20 0.71 2.610% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,920,320.00 FNMA Bullet 313560/20 1.375% 12/10/18 02/26/21 1.16 2.761% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,911,377.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOU27 2.500% 11/29/18 04/13/21 1.28 2.919% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,350.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOK69 1.250% 10/11/19 05/06/21 1.35 1.569% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,140.00 FNMA Bullet 3136GO3S8 1.650% 05/14/19 05/14/21 1.37 2.221% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,977,780.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GON82 1.250°% 08/26/19 08/17/21 1.63 1.499•% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,340.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GON82 1.250% 12/31/19 08/17/21 1.63 1.585% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983,890.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOQ89 1.375% 11/05/19 10/07/21 1.77 1.592% 5 3,000,000.00 $ 2,987,700.00 $ 32,000,000.00 $ 31,580,827.00 Treasury Note 912828V31 1.375% 12/18/17 01/15/20 0.04 1.845% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,406.25 Treasury Note 912828357 2.000% 05/03/18 01/31/20 0.08 2.459% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,976,562.50 Treasury Note 912828W22 1.375% 07/06/18 02/15/20 0.13 2.497% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,947,148.44 Treasury Note 912828W63 1.625% 12/12/17 03/15/20 0.21 1.845% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,420.00 Treasury Note 912828UV0 1.125% 07/06/18 03/31/20 0.25 2.513% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,929,687.50 Treasury Note 912828X21 1.50096 12/12/17 04/15/20 0.29 1.857% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,975,580.00 Treasury Note 912828VF4 1.375% 07/06/18 05/31/20 0.42 2.535% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,935,781.25 Treasury Note 912828XU9 1.500°% 05/22/19 06/15/20 0.46 2.340% 5 2,000,000.00 $ 1,982,400.00 Treasury Note 912828XY1 2.500% 12/07/18 06/30/20 0.50 2.745% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,988,750.00 Portfolio 12.91% 7.22% 11.63% 6.96% 17 Restricted Cash - Housing Account $301,203.71 Total Portfolio $455,092,221.11 Note: See separate investment report for OPEB funds. 18 12/31/19 Coupon/ Purchase Maturity Years To Yield To Original Portfolio Investment Type CUSIP Yield Date Date Maturity Maturity Par Amount Book Value % Treasury Note 912828218 1.500% 08/14/18 07/15/20 0.54 2.604% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,938,359.00 Treasury Note 912828218 1.500% 05/22/19 07/15/20 0.54 2.311% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,981,680.00 Treasury Note 912828XM7 1.625% 08/14/18 07/31/20 0.58 2.608% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,943,960.00 Treasury Note 912828NT3 2.625% 12/07/18 08/15/20 0.62 2.747% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,995,937.50 Treasury Note 9128284Y3 2.625% 12/07/18 08/31/20 0.67 2.746% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,995,885.00 Treasury Note 912828W9 2.125% 08/01/18 08/31/20 0.67 2.676% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,966,700.00 Treasury Note 9128282V1 1.375% 03/22/19 09/15/20 0.71 2.429% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,954,250.00 Treasury Note 9128285B2 2.750% 12/07/18 09/30/20 0.75 2.751% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,850.00 Treasury Note 9128282Z2 1.625% 03/22/19 10/15/20 0.79 2.433% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,962,950.00 Treasury Note 9128282Z2 1.625% 09/10/18 10/15/20 0.79 2.709% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,934,120.00 Treasury Note 912828WC0 1.750% 09/10/18 10/31/20 0.84 2.707% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,690.00 Treasury Note 912828WC0 1.750% 02/20/19 10/31/20 0.84 2.509% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,962,500.00 Treasury Note 9128283G3 1.750% 02/20/19 11/15/20 0.88 2.510% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,961,562.50 Treasury Note 9128283Q1 2.000% 12/18/18 01/15/21 1.04 2.685% 5 3,000,000.00 $ 2,958,750.00 Treasury Note 912828N89 1.375% 11/29/19 01/31/21 1.09 1.645% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,990,625.00 Treasury Note 912828858 2.125% 12/18/18 01/31/21 1.09 2.686% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,500.00 Treasury Note 9128283X6 2.250% 12/21/18 02/15/21 1.13 2.656% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,650.00 Treasury Note 912828890 2.000°.b 04/05/19 02/28/21 1.16 2.346% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,980,770.00 Treasury Note 9128284/33 2.375% 01/29/19 03/15/21 1.21 2.587% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,986,890.00 Treasury Note 912828Q37 1.250% 11/29/19 03/31/21 1.25 1.648% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,984,250.00 Treasury Note 912828C57 2.250% 01/29/19 03/31/21 1.25 2.592% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,978,460.00 Treasury Note 912828Q78 1.375% 04/05/19 04/30/21 1.33 2.329% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,942,490.00 Treasury Note 912828R77 1.375% 05/03/19 05/31/21 1.42 2.318% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,942,910.00 Treasury Note 912828527 1.125% 08/13/19 06/30/21 1.50 1.609% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,973,210.00 Treasury Note 9128287A2 1.625% 11/25/19 06/30/21 1.50 1.644% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,062.50 Treasury Note 912828576 1.125% 11/25/19 07/31/21 1.58 1.637% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 Treasury Note 912828576 1.125% 11/13/19 07/31/21 1.58 1.686% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,640.63 Treasury Note 9128282F6 1.125% 12/19/19 08/31/21 1.67 1.659% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,973,281.25 Treasury Note 9128282F6 1.125% 11/19/19 08/31/21 1.67 1.609% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 Treasury Note 912828YJ3 1.500% 11/19/19 09/30/21 1.75 1.602% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,994,375.00 Treasury Note 912828T67 1.250% 12/19/19 10/31/21 1.84 1.643% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,978,430.00 Treasury Note 912828T67 1.250% 11/21/19 10/31/21 1.84 1.578% $ 3,000,000.00 5 2,981,250.00 Treasury Note 912828H86 1.500% 11/21/19 01/31/22 2.09 1.565% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,995,770.00 $ 122,000,000.00 $ 120,752,734.32 26.62% Regions Bank Money Market $22,003,222.48 4.85% Regions Bank Lockbox Accounts $742,257.96 0.16% TD Bank Checking Account $27,202,003.73 6.00% BankUnited Money Market $32,669,022.67 7.20% CenterState CD 2.500% 05/11/18 05/11/20 0.36 $6,378,166.34 1.41% Valley National Bank Government Interest Checking $25,813,630.54 5.69% Marine Bank Business Money Market $8,157,897.89 1.80% FL CLASS - BOCC Funds $25,416,962.65 5.60% Total General Cash & Equivalents - Unrestricted $444,706,160.38 Restricted Cash -Bond Covenants (held by BNY/Mellon) Cash -Dreyfus Fund -Utilities Debt Service Reserve $ 100,919.93 Treasury Note 9128285Q95 2.750% 11/30/18 11/30/20 0.92 2.836% $ 1,045,000.00 $1,055,324.60 Total Restricted Bond Reserve - adjusted for fair market value $ 1,156,244.53 0.25% Restricted Cash - Landfill FL CLASS -Landfill Closure & Postclosure Reserves $ 7,728,950.10 1.70% Total Pooled Cash & Equivalents $453,591,355.01 100.00% Restricted Cash - Health Insurance TD Bank - BCBS Claims Account $1,115,662.39 Citibank - BCBS Imprest Acct $84,000.00 Total Restricted Cash - Health Insurance $1,199,662.39 Restricted Cash - Housing Account $301,203.71 Total Portfolio $455,092,221.11 Note: See separate investment report for OPEB funds. 18 Schedule 2 Indian River County, Florida Board of County Commissioners Investment By Maturity Date December 31. 2019 19 12/31/19 Coupon/ Purchase Maturity Years To Yield To Original Investment Type CUSIP Yield Date Date Maturity Maturity Par Amount Book Value Mo Cash Flow FFCB Callable 3133EGJV8 1.200% 12/08/17 01/06/20 0.02 1.955% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,969,400.00 Treasury Note 91282BV31 1.375% 12/18/17 01/15/20 0.04 1.845% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,406.25 FNMA Bullet 3135GOA78 1.625% 12/08/17 01/21/20 0A6 . 1.862% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,270.00 Treasury Note 9128283S7 2.000% 05/03/18 0201/20 0.08 2.4591A $ 3,000,000,00 $ 2,976,562.50 $ 11,000,000.00 FHLB Callable 3130ABCG9 1.600% 05/16/18 02/03/20 0.09 2.634% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,948,310.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHR70 1.740% 11/14/17 02/14/20 0.12 1.740% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Treasury Note 912828W22 1.375% 07/06/18 02/15/20 0.13 2.497% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,947,148.44 FFCB Callable 3133EGAES 1.360% 12/21/17 02/18/20 0.13 1.991% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,960,160.00 FNMA Bullet 313SGOT29 1.500% .10/23/27 02/28/20 0.16 1.688% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,991,360.00 $ 13,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHLX2 1.500% -10/23/17 03/05/20 0.18 1.716% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,000.00 FHLB Bullet 31337BJ77 1.875% 11/29/18 03/13/20 0.20 2.801% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,020.00 Treasury Note 912828W63 1.625% 12/12/17 03/15/20 0.21 1.845% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,420.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBE84 1.700% 11/21/17 03/27/20 0.24 1.776% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,996,500.00 ' Treasury Note 912828UVO 1.125% 07/06/18 03/31/20 0.25 2.513% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,929,687.50 $ _ 13,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHC50 1.680% 03/13/18 04/03/20 0.26 2.316% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,974,600.00 , Treasury Note 912828X21 1.500% .12/12/17 04/15/20 0.29 1.857% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,975,580.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEF2 1375% 11/21/17 04/20/20 0.30 1.858% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,977,300.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEM7 2.500% 12/10/18 04/23/20 0.31 2.724% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,990,970.00 FFCB Callable 3133EHHA4 1.620% 05/16/18 04/27/20 032 2.670% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,600.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBQBS 1.750% 10/30/17 04/30/20 033 1.750% $ 2,000,000,00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 15,000000.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EADR7 1.375% 11/21/17 05/01/20 033 1.823% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,978,660.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EIQ51 2.760% 12/03/18 05/05/20 035 2.815% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,997,660.00 FHLB - SX Callable 3130ACN83 1.700% 11/21/17 05/15/20 037 1.869% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,991,800.00 Treasury Note 912828VF4 1.375% 07/06/18 05/31/20 OA2 2.535% $ 3,000,000.00 $ -. 2,935,781.25 $ 10,000,000.00 FHLB Bullet 313383HUS 1.750% 03/23/18 06/12/20 OAS 2.3990A $ 2,000,000.00 $ - 1,972,080.00 Treasury Note 912828XU9 1.500% OS/22/19 06/15/20 OA6 2.340% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,982,400.00 Treasury Note 912828XY1 2.500% 12/07/18 06/30/20 OSO 2.745% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,988,750.00 FNMA Callable 3136G3UR4 1.380% 03/23/18 06/30/20 OSO 2.443% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,929,950.00 $ 10,000,000.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EKPZ3 2.126% 06/10/19 07/10/20 0.53 2.126% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FHLBCallable 3130ABNV4 1.750% ,03/15/18 07/13/20 0.53 2.41976 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,954,790.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GBXV9 1.850% -12/17{18 07/13/20 0.53 2.823% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,955,000.00 Treasury Note 9128282J8 1.500•.6 08/14/18 07/15/20 0.54 2.604% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,938,359.00 Treasury Note 912828218 1.500°6 05/22/19 07/15/20 0.54 2.311% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,981,680.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOT60 1.500% 03/15/18 07/30/20 0.58 2351% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,941,350.00 Treasury Note 912828XM7 1.625% OB/14/18 07/31/20 OS8 2.608% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,943,960.00 $ 19,000,000.00 FFCBCallable 3133EHUE1 1.650% 03/19/18 08/10/20 0.61 2.372% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,966,600.00 Treasury Note 912828NT3 2.625% 12/07/18 08/15/20 0.62: 2.747% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,995,937.50 FHLMCCallable 3134GBD25 1.700% .11/30/18 08/28/20 0.66 2.817% $ 3,000,000.00 $ . 2,943,300.00 Treasury Note 9128284Y3 2.625% - 12/07/18 08/31/20 0.67 2.746% $ 2,000,000.00 $ .1,995,885.00 Treasury Note -912828VV9 2.125% 08/01/18 08/31/20 0.67 2.676% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,966,700.00 $ 12,000,000.00 FHLB Bullet 313OA66T9 1.625% 12/12/18 09/11/20 0.70 2.792% $ . 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,660.00 Treasury Note 9128282V1 1.375% 03/22/19 09/15/20 0.71 2.429% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,954,250.00 FNMACallable 313663686. 1.450% 04/30/18 09/15/20 0.71 2.610% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,920,320.00 FFCBCallable 3133EGVK8 1.350% 05/10/18 09/21/20 0.73 2.661% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,910,450.00 FHLB Bullet 3130ACE26 1.375% .06/28/19 09/28/20 0.75 1.810% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983,860.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEA 1.625% 06/05/19 09/29/20 0.75 2.003% $ 3,000,000.00 $ - 2,985,300.00 Treasury Note 912628582 2.750% 12/07/18 09/30/20 0.75 2.751% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,850.00 $ 21,000,000.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EKTN6 1.851% 07/03/19 10/02/20 0.76 1.851% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGXU4 1.370% 05/10/18 10/06/20 0.77 2.665% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,910,000.00 Treasury Note 912828222 1.625% 03/22/19 10/15/20 0.79 2.433% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,962,950.00 Treasury Note 912828222 1.625% 09/10/18 10/15/20 0.79 2.709% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,934,120.00 Treasury Note 91282SWCO 1.750°6 09/10/18 10/31/20 0.84 2.707% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,940,690.00 Treasury Note 92282SWCD 1.750% : 02/20/19 10/31/20 0.84 2.509% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,962,500.00 $ 17,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EGF42 1.360% 'OS/30/18 11/09/20 0.86 2.655% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,906,700.00 Treasury Note 9128283G3 1.750% 02/20/19 11/15/20 0.88 2.510% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,961,562.50 6,000,000.00 Treasury Note 9128283Q1 2.000% 12/18/18 01/15121 1.04 2.685% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,958,750.00 FFCB Callable 313SEKUYO 2.120% 07/15/19 01/15/21 1.04 2.120% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Treasury Note 91282SN89 - 1375% 11/29/19 01/31/21 1.09 1.645% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,990,625.00 Treasury Note 912828858 2.125% 12/18/18 01 1/21 1.09 2.686% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,500.00 $ 11,000,000.00 Treasury Note 9128283X6 2.250% 12/21/18 02/15/21 1.13 2.656% $ 3,000,000.00 $ $974,650.00 FHLMC Bullet 3137EAEL9 2.375% 09/21/18 02/16/21 1.13 2.873% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,965,500.00 FHLB Bullet 313OA7CV5 1.375% 08/26/19 02/18/21 1.14 1556% $ - 2,000,000.00 $ 1,994,720.00 FNMABullet 3135GDJ20 1.375% 12/10/18 02126/21 1.16 2.761% $• 3,000,000.00 $ 2,911,377.00 Treasury Note 912828890 2.000% 04/05/19 02128/21 1.16 2.346% $ ' 3,000,000.00 $ 2,980,770.00 $ 14,000,000.00. FHLB Bullet 3130AOXD7 2.375% 03/04/19 03/12/21 1.20 2565% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,988,827.10 Treasury Note 912828483 2.375% 01/29/19 03/15/21 1.21. 2587% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,986,890.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKEN2 2.520% 03/26/19 03/26/21 124 -' 2.520% $ 3,000,000.00 $ .-3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 912828Q37 1.250°6 11/29/19 03/31/21 1.25 1.648% $ 3,000,000.00 $ .2,984,250.00 Treasury Note 912828057 2.250% 01/29/19 1A 1.25 2.592% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,978,460.00 $ 15,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKGL4 2A40% 04/09/19 04109/21 1.27 2.440% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FNMA Bullet 313500027 2.500% 11/29/18 04/13(21 1.28 2.919% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,350.00 FFC8 Callable 3133EKZ33 1.80076 10/15/19 04AN21 1.29 1.800% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GTJD6 ._2.500% 04/29.19 ,04/291_-. 133 2.500% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 91282SQ78 1.375% 04/05/19 04/30/21 133 2.329% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,942,490.00 13,000,000.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOK69 1.250% 10/11/19 05/06/21 _135 1.569% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,140.00 FNMA Bullet 3136G03SB 1.650% 05/14/19 05/14/21 137 2.221% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,977,780.00 FHLMC Bullet 3134G9HB6 1.57056 05/15/19 05/17/21 136 2.243% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,973,757.70 FHLB Callable 3130ASCA9 1.685% 11/05/19 05/25/21 1.40 1.706% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,040.00 Treasury Note 912828877 1375% OS/03/19 05/31/21 1A2 2.318% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,942,910.00 $ 12,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELCD4 1.660% . 12%03/19 06/02/21 1.42 1.694% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,998,500.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELDCS 1.640% 12/11/19 06/11/21 SAS 1.640% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133EKRW8 2.100% .06/24/19 06/24/21 1.48 2.100% $ 3,000,000.00 $ . 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 912828527 1.125% 08/13/19 06/30/21 1.50 1.609% $ 3,000,000.00 $ '2,973,210.00 Treasury Note 9128287A2 1.625% 11/25/19 06/30/21 1.50 1.644% $ 3,000,000.00 S 2,999,062.50 $ 15,000,000.00 19 Restricted Cash -Bond Covenants (held by BNY/Mellon) Cash -Dreyfus Fund -Utilities Debt Service Reserve Treasury Note 912828SQ95 2.750% 11/30/18 11/30/20 Total Restricted Bond Reserve - adjusted for fair market value Restricted Cash - Landfill FL CLASS -Landfill Closure & Postclosure Reserves Total Pooled Cash & Equivalents Restricted Cash - Health Insurance TD Bank - BCBS Claims Account Citibank - BCBS Imprest Acct Total Restricted Cash -Health Insurance Restricted Cash - Housing Account Total Portfolio Note: See separate investment report for OPEB funds $ 100,919.93 0.92 2.8361% $1,045,000.00 $1,055,324.60 $ 1,156,24453 $ 7,728,950.10 $ 453,591,355.01 $1,115,662.39 $84,000.00 $1,199,662.39 $301,203.71 $ 455,092,221.11 20 12/31/19 Coupon/ Purchase Maturity Years To Yield To Original Investment Type CUSIP Yield Dale Date McWd Maturity Par Amount Book Value Mo Cash Flow FHLB Bullet 3130ASQ55 1.584% 11/19/19 07/14/21 154 1.584% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,977,620.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GTG56 2.000% '07/22/19 07/22/21 1.56 2.000% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Treasury Note 912828576 1.125% .11/13/19 07/31/21 158 1.686% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,640.63 Treasury Note 912828576 1.125% 11/2S/19 07/31/21 158 1.637% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 $ 11,000,000.00 FHLMCBullet 3137EAEC9 1.125% 10/11/19 08/12/21 1.62 1.527% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,985,500.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GON82 1.250% 08/26x19 08/17/21 1.63 1.499% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,340.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GON82 1.250% 12/31/19 08/17/21 1.63 1.585% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983,890.00 Treasury Note 91282821`6 1.125% 12/19/19 08/31/21 1.67 1.659% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,973,281.25 Treasury Note 9128282F6 1.125% 11/19/19 08/31/21 1.67 1.609% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 $ 13,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUCL2 2.000% 09/17/19 09/17/21 1.72 2.000% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 912828Y13 1.500% 11/19/19 09/30/21 1.75 1.602% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,994,375.00 $ 6,000,000.00 FNMA Bullet 3135GOQ89 1.375% 115/19 10/07/21 1.77 1.592% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,987,700.00 FFCB Callable 3133EK2J4 1.690% 10/21/19 10/21/21 1.81 1.690% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 91282ST67 1.250% 12/19/19 10/31/21 1.84 1.643% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,978,430.00 Treasury Note 91282ST67 1.250% 11/21/19 10/3 1.84 1.578% $ 3,000,000.00 $, 2,981,250.00 $ 12,000,000.00 FFCB Bullet 3133EK6D3 1.570% .11/25/19 11/08/21 1.86 1.570% $ 3,000,000.00 $ .2,996,250.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUNH9 1.820% ,.11/08/19 1108/21 1.86 1.820% $ 3,000,000.00 $ - 3,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 Treasury Note 91282SH86 1.500% 11/21/19 01/31/22 2.09 1.565% $ 3,000,000.00 $ X2,995,770.00 $ 3,000,0011.00 FHLMCCallable 3134000Y4 1.750% 11/25/19 02/25/22 2.16 1.750% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GLJ%R6 1.770% 12/16/19 03/16/22 2.21 1.770% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUD98 1.700% 12/23/19 09/23/22 2.73 1.700% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUVP2 1.730% 11/27/19 05&7/22 2A1 1.730% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMCCallable 3134GUWVB 1.750% 12/10/19 06/10/22 - 2A4 1.750% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 3133ELDV3 1.740% : 12/13/19 06/13/22 2AS 1.740% $ 3,000,1100.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLBCallable 3130AH071 1.730% '12/23/19 06/23/22 2AB 1.730% $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 Sub Total- General Investments $ 299,000,000.00 $ 296,322,996.12 $ 299,000,000.00 Regions Bank Money Market $22,003,222.48 Regions Lockbox Accounts $742,257.96 TD Bank Checking Account $27,202,003.73 BankUnited Money Market $32,669,022.67 CenterState CD 2.500% 05/11/18 05/11/20 0.36 $6,378,166.34 Valley National Bank Government Interest Checking $25,813,630.54 Marine Bank Business Money Market $8,157,897.89 FL CLASS - BOCC Funds $25,416,962.65 Total General Cash & Equivalents - Unrestricted $ 444,706,160.38 Restricted Cash -Bond Covenants (held by BNY/Mellon) Cash -Dreyfus Fund -Utilities Debt Service Reserve Treasury Note 912828SQ95 2.750% 11/30/18 11/30/20 Total Restricted Bond Reserve - adjusted for fair market value Restricted Cash - Landfill FL CLASS -Landfill Closure & Postclosure Reserves Total Pooled Cash & Equivalents Restricted Cash - Health Insurance TD Bank - BCBS Claims Account Citibank - BCBS Imprest Acct Total Restricted Cash -Health Insurance Restricted Cash - Housing Account Total Portfolio Note: See separate investment report for OPEB funds $ 100,919.93 0.92 2.8361% $1,045,000.00 $1,055,324.60 $ 1,156,24453 $ 7,728,950.10 $ 453,591,355.01 $1,115,662.39 $84,000.00 $1,199,662.39 $301,203.71 $ 455,092,221.11 20 Schedule 3 Indian River County Portfolio By Maturity Date December 31, 2019 $350,000,000 $303,878,375 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $127. l%m $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $23,M770 $0 0-12 Mondis "waft Months Total Portfolio $4N.092,221 21 Treasur Notes 26.62% Region: Schedule 4 Indian River County Portfolio By Type December 31, 2019 ik 5.69% 'hecking M 7.22% D 1.41 % 22 Schedule 5 Indian River County Investment Purchases and Calls/Maturities Quarter Ending December 31, 2019 PURCHASES: Investment Description Yield to Maturity Purchase Date Call Date Maturity Date Par Amount Book Value FNMA Bullet 1.569% 10/11/19 05/06/21 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,990,140.00 FHLMC Bullet 1.527% 10/11/19 10/08/19 08/12/21 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,985,500.00 FFCB Callable 1.800% 10/15/19 01/15/20 04/15/21 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 1.690% 10/21/19 10/21/20 10/21/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLB Callable 1.706% 11/05/19 02/25/20 05/25/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,040.00 FNMA Bullet 1.592% 11/05/19 10/07/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,987,700.00 FHLMC Callable 1.820% 11/08/19 05/08/20 11/08/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 1.686% 11/13/19 11/05/19 07/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,971,640.63 FHLB Bullet 1.584% 11/19/19 07/14/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,977,620.00 Treasury Note 1.609% 11/19/19 11/25/19 08/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 Treasury Note 1.602% 11/19/19 11/27/19 09/30/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,994,375.00 Treasury Note 1.578% 11/21/19 11/29/19 10/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,981,250.00 Treasury Note 1.565% 11/21/19 12/04/19 01/31/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,995,770.00 Treasury Note 1.644% 11/25/19 12/17/19 06/30/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,999,062.50 Treasury Note 1.637% 11/25/19 12/20/19 07/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,974,620.00 FFCB Bullet 1.570% 11/25/19 12/26/19 11/08/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,996,250.00 FHLMC Callable 1.750% 11/25/19 02/25/20 02/25/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMC Callable 1.730% 11/27/19 05/27/20 05/27/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 1.645% 11/29/19 01/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,990,625.00 Treasury Note 1.648% 11/29/19 03/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,984,250.00 FFCB Callable 1.694% 12/03/19 03/20/20 06/02/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,998,500.00 FHLMC Callable 1.750% 12/10/19 06/10/20 06/10/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 1.640% 12/11/19 03/11/20 06/11/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 1.740% 12/13/19 03/13/20 06/13/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLMC Callable 1.770% 12/16/19 03/16/20 03/16/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Treasury Note 1.659% 12/19/19 08/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,973,281.25 Treasury Note 1.643% 12/19/19 10/31/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,978,430.00 FHLMC Callable 1.700% 12/23/19 06/23/20 03/23/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLB Callable 1.730% 12/23/19 06/23/20 06/23/22 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FNMA Bullet 1.585% 12/31/19 1 08/17/21 1 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983 890.00 30 1 $ 87,000 000.00 $ 86 736 564.38 MATURITIES: Investment Description Yield to Maturity Purchase Date Early Call Date Maturity Date Par Amount Book Value FHLMC Bullet 1.451% 05/04/17 10/02/19 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,985,780.00 FHLMC-1X Callable 2.500% 04/08/19 10/08/19 04/08/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FFCB Callable 1.946% 12/21/17 10/11/19 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,970,800.00 FHLB Bullet 1.450% 07/18/17 10/18/19 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FNMA Bullet 1.425% 06/30/17 10/24/19 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,980,694.00 Treasury Note 1.797% 12/12/17 10/31/19 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,983,560.00 FFCB Callable 1.866% 11/30/17 11/01/19 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,973,500.00 FHLB Callable 3.100% 11/05/18 11/05/19 05/05/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLB Bullet 1.433% 06/30/17 11/15/19 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,997,300.00 FHLB Callable 2.379% 03/19/18 11/25/19 08/25/20 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,964,420.00 FHLMC Callable 2.500% 05/28/19 11/27/19 05/27/21 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 FNMA Callable 1.875% 12/08/17 11/29/19 05/28/20 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,991,000.00 FFCB Callable 2.014% 12/21/17 12/04/19 05/20/20 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,987,040.00 FHLB Callable 2.606% 06/25/18 12/17/19 06/29/20 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,943,570.00 FHLMC Callable 2.100% 09/20/19 12/20/19 09/20/21 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 FHLB Callable 1.907% 12/08/17 1 12/26/19 06/26/20 1 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,986,000.00 16 $ 41,000,000.00 $ 40,763,664.00 Reconciliation of General Investments Only: Beginning portfolio (9/30/19) $ 250,350,095.74 Total purchased 30 securities $ 86,736,564.38 Total matured 16 securities $ 40,763,664.00 Ending portfolio for quarter (12/31/19) $ 296,322,996.12 23 October November December January February March April May June July August September Net cash flow October November December January February March April May June July August September Net cash flow Schedule 6 Indian River County Change in Monthly Cash Flows For All Pooled Cash/Investment Accounts Comparison of Six Fiscal Years December 31, 2019 7,860,609 Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Month End Bal* Net Chane Month End Bal* Month End Bal* $ (10,422,694) $ 287,937,696 $ 19,342,864 $ 307,280,560 $ 35,786,179 $ 343,066,739 $ (285,799) $ 342,780,940 $ (2,801,802) $ 339,979,138 $ 281,107 $ 340,260,245 $ (6,111,791) $ 334,148,454 $ (4,947,796) $ 329,200,658 $ (6,122,052) $ 323,078,606 $ (8,447,944) $ 314,630,662 $ (9,274,059) $ 305,356,603 $ 864,396 $ 306,220,999 7,860,609 29,278,971 Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Month End Bal* Net Change Month End Bal* $ (7,971,324) $ 331,604,874 $ 33,131,597 $ 364,736,471 $ 41,846,074 $ 406,582,545 $ (5,758,898) $ 400,823,647 $ 5,191,358 $ 406,015,005 $ (4,784,411) $ 401,230,594 $ 1,577,951 $ 402,808,545 $ (6,945,787) $ 395,862,758 $ (9,710,169) $ 386,152,589 $ (2,464,004) $ 383,688,585 $ (8,022,779) $ 375,665,806 $ (6,810,637)1 $ 368,855,169 29,278,971 Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Net Chane Month End Bal* $ (8,105,518) $ 298,115,481 $ 25,830,326 $ 323,945,807 $ 35,536,011 $ 359,481,818 $ (373,573) $ 359,108,245 $ 906,675 $ 360,014,920 $ 256,335 $ 360,271,255 $ (5,220,820) $ 355,050,435 $ (2,730,213) $ 352,320,222 $ (8,065,869) $ 344,254,353 $ (7,588,170) $ 336,666,183 $ (8,369,612) $ 328,296,571 $ 6,977,510 $ 321,319,061 $ 15,098,062 $ 10,458,944 Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Net Change Month End Bal* Month End Bal* $ (6,577,674) $ 362,277,495 $ 48,128,205 $ 410,405,700 $ 31,350,078 $ 441,755,778 $ (9,877,034) $ 431,878,744 $ 2,964,540 $ 434,843,284 $ (2,750,051) $ 432,093,233 $ (3,802,746) $ 428,290,487 $ (8,379,243) $ 419,911,244 $ (9,758,699) $ 410,152,545 $ (13,728,763) $ 396,423,782 $ (11,767,333) $ 384,656,449 $ (5,342,336)1 $ 379,314,113 $ 10,458,944 Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Net Chane $ (9,260,244) Month End Bal* $ (6,856,660) $ 314,462,401 $ 29,862,090 $ 344,324,491 $ 37,277,098 $ 381,601,589 $ (931,868) $ 380,669,721 $ (2,015,776) $ 378,653,945 $ 442,916 $ 379,096,861 $ (2,740,420) $ 376,356,441 $ (4,378,477) $ 371,977,964 $ (6,628,797) $ 365,349,167 $ (10,868,408) $ 354,480,759 $ (9,027,471) $ 345,453,288 $ (5,877,090)1 $ 339,576,198 18,257,137 Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Net Change Month End Bal* $ (9,260,244) $ 370,053,869 $ 39,158,339 $ 409,212,208 $ 47,023,081 $ 456,235,289 76.921.176 *Schedule represents total assets in 801 fund -including portfolio accounts, FMV adjustments, cash in bank and utilities debt reserve. Excludes two health insurance bank accounts utilized by BCBS and the Section 8 HUD bank account. Source: Balance Sheet for fund 801 (run by month) Schedule does not include OPEB investments - see separate report. 24 I_ m u xx xx�xxx«Nx oa�$�ry«wasi xgXmxmxxxxo '$a Xg$rzm Xxx ,E .n r�i rn .� —� 'ri ry NNNN rvN 'NNNNN gE XXX�RXXXXXXxx oo XXNX�XXXX� X 'i7 rvrvry 14,4ry XXX rvry $� �g���x�8�grxx XxXxxrx��xxX xW� �rvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvry rvrvry mmm m mm��ss $ ss sa step m;.:�.;riri««�Nm� N M N N M N N M N N» NN ���������mNr ............ N N» N N aaa ... $gowgeXXX U m 2 NNNNNNNNNNN � g dv �3$IQ10en-It om3 Sm§ U ffi� wwmmm««wrvry �iNw E XXa� XXx**r999X4x XXX rc N 1 rvry rvrvry ry NN rv1 N14 rv-- y ..a v�m r e�mm�cni��m vy,� w rvrvry »»»» rv�rrvrvrvrvrvrv��� »»»»»ww»ww»w ��� ««« su eeeeoeXee E � x�XXxxxxxxxx .XXXoXX0X8$e Egg �+ 000000000000 000000aoo oo oo� go wm.« `4e�5rNn« rvmP - �now�mRen E a XX XX XXXXX os XXXXXrXXxXXx „s�sossssss XXX ,�mi,.`9i,��� -� .lCHRAHgag E o XXXXXXxXXx «?FjPiN Iqrypti��BPv xXXX X� �X X os r N N N .- XXX P:tzI. rc m _ yy mrc E mm�X�X�XmXX�X� ""--- XXX9 �'x'�mxv�m ry rvry ry ry ry N ry ry ry XXX nom.. .................... ....... .m SO �i ne4i E $XNXXx��m�m� $��m�mm.Xnmmmm xXXm e------------ -NNNNcrviNrrv��� �9ngn�1. S� _ �N RAS w E »»»w»»»wwww» »»»»»»»»»»»» »ww 4 m E XXXXXXXeO�oX N Xo�oXXxXxxXx Xxx -7 rc o 0 0 0 0 0 CSN cm7 N ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry U cw ««wwwwww»»»» w»»w»»w«ww«w ww« � -q i q-q 0 oeeoo � m rc o m dod 0 U m E X�X�NN�NXXXXXX xXN X�XS g$ fl! XXX .- u m ��im m��im xumi gY ��aobm g 24m e «««»»wN»«»w« wwwww«wwwwww wNw E XXXXXXN�X bK 000000000 m yg«�arvrvma 3 8 m m uuuu���5 " :��emxxxx xxe�xXe�m egg �rNNNNN�NNNN rvNN Q m m " mEV'""kmm�no c m n8�ffi�m ��A �mu5 W»«»»»»«»w»»» � w f i -a Q m Z D s a� �m 2 � y�E nE� E E bmf U c3 b � sx�d E°m-it - =saaz m$W„ffi E Z�rvmvm N Schedule 8 Indian River County Allocation of Pooled Cash and Investments By Fund Types Balance in Funds as of December 31, 2019 General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Project Funds Solid Waste Funds Golf Course Fund Building Fund Utilities Funds Fleet Fund Insurance Funds GIS Fund Escrow Funds Total Investments Pooled Investments $ 97,496,193 $ 106,405,249 $ 6,208,605 $ 87,091,759 $ 33,129,124 $ 632,705 $ 8,236,170 $ 84,558,652 $ 428,924 $ 28,849,974 $ 1,050,860 $ 2,147,074 $ 456,235,289 Schedule includes all pooled investments, FMV adjustments, and cash in bank. Excludes two health insurance bank accounts utilized by BCBS for claims and the Section 8 HUD bank account. Schedule does not include OPEB investments - see separate report. 26 8c. TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Edward Halsey, Internal Audit Director THRU: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller DATE: February 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Quarterly Tourist Development Tax Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/2019 BACKGROUND Attached to this memorandum is the report of the tourist development tax monies collected in the Clerk's office for quarters ended December 31, 2018 and 2019. The report shows five categories of activity including short-term rentals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the attached Quarterly Tourist Development Tax Report. 27 w e v e v e o! -! 0 'T oo00 U yv�i�O0a�0v�i� M 00 ..r C4 S44643- 6464 64 64 • p �O M 00 Fovi-:o--�S �n poo 00 �o $ o� O, ��+ �O t n M M aWN .r 4609, 404 k 00 N iJ TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Elissa Nagy, Finance Director THROUGH: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller DATE: January 9, 2020 SUBJECT: Dori Slosberg Driver Education Safety Act Indian River County Traffic Education Program Trust Fund Report Cumulative Reporting Through 12/31/19 BACKGROUND On August 20, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance Number 2002-026 creating the Indian River County Traffic Education Program Trust Fund (our Fund 137). This ordinance authorized a $3 traffic ticket surcharge, which is collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court. On September 19, 2006, the Board adopted Ordinance 2006-035 to repeal this fine. Subsequently on February 17, 2015, the Board elected to reinstate and increase the driver education fee to $5 under Ordinance Number 2015-003. The new fee was effective March 1, 2015 and is charged on each civil traffic penalty assessed in the County. As noted in the ordinance, these funds shall be used "to fund driver education programs in public and nonpublic schools". Attached to this memo is a report of the revenues and expenditures from the inception of the initial $3 fee (October 1, 2002) and includes the new $5 fee commencing in March 2015. As of December 31, 2019, the balance in the Fund is $116,659. The Clerk's office will continue to provide a quarterly report of the traffic education trust activity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the attached report. 29 c °o U a) 3 mw Cc � O U ; 0 M N d C d N cq Cl) LO C. 10 A O � CA O M (3) O C j LO Cl) C O � ~ C Y aNi y Y c 01 CO N C T d LO NO- CD r- F w X.d COO_ c c rO IL N O O O 117 O CO Z y 0 t ca co a a > � Cq 44)) H IL F-- c c c d) W d Z 69, p) O � Cl) cc0 LODO OV o0 VO' M M COO NNN 0)04 d•d• N W O O > M LL O p) r b9 Vi CO co O Cl) IM , �� n Lq M N N N CO O O CD Vv' V co co y O iL O M am � EA b9 N ti 0 coN N C7 U.) CO R 1110] O co V' N M 1n N N N cc CNO M M M Cl) co O G • M LL L O Of b9 b9 O d• 7 O O V' M 1, CpLO co In Co CL � Ui M ON N coo CCD COO It COO CMl) co co N O i LL C C � � b9 69 1-0) O O CY)CY)N O O n Cl) y7� NN O Cl! O n h O N N M M 0 0 N n M � O O M o � co69 LO Cl) LO I- M O n O N N (q CO co co c CO CO V n h OO M LL O Of a 69 b9 CD O CO O C) d• co O) N M M e- Cl) 1l- O co V' CD If) O V' M f� O V' N N N N O v } G LL OOf � 64 Efl co V' t` O O M CD r) N O N r O Co O) O co V' CA 10 M co n O N N O O M N O } C LL O p) r b9 V3 m N t17 l0 O CD Op N ClNGi O c0 M M O O ON C, c0 Cp N co CO n o0 CC) n co LC) co O N O O M } O O) LL b9 d) c °o U a) 3 mw Cc � O U ; 0 M N d T O � C C j C N C O Y aNi y Y c d C C T d C N N d d y 0 N O F w X.d o) c c ui-o W m m Z N y N Z y 0 t ca co a a > � ° 44)) H IL F-- c c c W c w iL c W d Z Li Li c °o U a) 3 mw Cc � O U ; 0 M TO: Board of County Commissioners (acting as Board of Trustees of OPEB Trust) FROM: Elissa Nagy, Finance Director THRU: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller DATE: February 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Quarterly OPEB Trust Report for Quarter Ending 12/31/2019 Attached please find a summary report consisting of the composition and investment return of the OPEB Trust for the first quarter of this fiscal year. These funds are held in trust by our custodian BNY/Mellon. This report was reviewed by our investment advisory committee on February 20, 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the attached Quarterly OPEB Trust Report. 31 c E m 32 X x d C Q a C> C L � LL N c � Y N o o GJ G w Nov N tV C �/i tV O m o m Q1 G N m m O1 Oi o C 0 C T W O m N H xa mu •"'^ Y m 0 O m 7 R m O o g a d v m E o o o Hri o o V Q va' m m c c c c c c c c c c c c O 0 0 0 0 0 E E E E E E 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 O E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m a s CD CD m m O N w M m m n tiao oow ao m m m.+omw C l ' w w w w r omro w w ri Io w a oo of of Lriw w w m w w .+ v n m 'i cr a .+ w .+ -i n a N> N n� u1 N Ot evf N N M M N M N M r to W IA V1 N N iA N ti N N �n h N a ` C Y a 3 VF VT N N V? N �A 10 O O N m w N m m W O n n w w 0 0 0 c c 0 o m o 0 a N a ui w o w v .ti N oc m m L w v c v c u d 4.1 Y ��e ' Huai..-ii�� v v ai v v n ac `m E , c m H N F V! N H VT N N W M C d o o o 3 m GJ d O O O m U Ln L C E u i d N � aci a y rvr wooa�m wm po N a c (Q M E ; N N b n O M M N N r N m N O O v v w m ri W W l0 �O tp O1 .-i d tn C w a t ° yM H N Vf N N H VT d t V�7.�/ Y O a m O M a v c m w M r d y v O a x o c f„ a c q A d N o ° a a N 1E ✓ N C a W r E r, y aaa� va y at c O W rrz- - Y v m m m m m m a a a° z -o • O O 0 �noo�nq N o N N q �'q oo_ryd�p N o o o o O 0 O i r d p z c c E m 32 X x d C Q a C> C L � LL N Y N r Q x r a T W O m N H xa mu •"'^ Y m 0 O m 7 R o g a d v m E o o o Hri o o g va' m m c c c c c c c c c c c c O 0 0 0 0 0 E E E E E E 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 O E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m c E m 32 ME INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator THROUGH: Phillip J. Matson, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP MPO Staff Director DATE: February 28, 2020 SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2020 Title VI Program Update for Public Transportation It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 2020. DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS. AND ANALYSIS Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. As a direct recipient of federal public transportation funds, Indian River County is required to submit a Title VI program to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The purpose of the Title VI program is to document the methods by which Indian River County ensures that its transit services are provided in a nondiscriminatory manner. Federal regulations stipulate which elements must be included in the Title VI Program. For Indian River County, the Title VI program includes a description of the county's complaint process, a limited English proficiency (LEP) population analysis, and transit service standards and policies. The Title VI program must be updated every three years. Indian River County's current Title VI program expires on April 1, 2020.The attached document complies with the requirements issued by FTA for Title VI programs. In order for Indian River County to continue receiving federal public transportation funds, the Title VI program needs to be approved by the Board and submitted to the FTA for its review and approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Title VI Program Update and direct staff to submit the program to the Federal Transit Administration. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2020 Title VI Program Update. kK Indian River County Title VI Program Ultl� 0 Prepared by the: Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 226-1455 March 2020 34 Table of Contents Resolution................................................................................................................................................ iii Title VI Nondiscrimination Policy Statement............................................................................................ v Introduction..............................................................................................................................................6 TitleVI Program Checklist.........................................................................................................................6 Section 1— General Reporting Requirements.............................................................................................. 9 1-1 Title VI Notice to the Public..........................................................................................................9 1-2 Title VI Complaint Procedures and Form......................................................................................9 1-3 Record of Title VI Investigations, Complaints, or Lawsuits.........................................................10 1-4 Promoting Inclusive Public Participation....................................................................................10 1-5 Providing Meaningful Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) ....12 Results of the Four Factor Analysis, including a description of the LEP population(s) served ...............12 Developing a Language Assistance Plan.................................................................................................16 1-6 Determination of Site or Location of Facilities...........................................................................18 Section 2 - Specific Requirements for Transit Providers.............................................................................19 2-1 Service Standards........................................................................................................................19 VehicleLoad............................................................................................................................................19 VehicleHeadway.....................................................................................................................................20 On -Time Performance.............................................................................................................................20 ServiceAvailability.................................................................................................................................. 20 2-2 Service Policies............................................................................................................................21 Distribution of Transit Amenities............................................................................................................ 21 VehicleAssignment.................................................................................................................................22 Appendix A: Title VI Notices to the Public.................................................................................................. 23 Appendix B: Title VI Complaint Form..........................................................................................................24 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A TRIENNIAL TITLE VI PROGRAM UPDATE TO THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance; WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that all direct and primary recipients document their compliance with Title VI requirements by submitting a Title VI Program Update every three years; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners must approve the Title VI Program Update prior to submission to the FTA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT: 1. The Chairman, or in his or her absence, the Vice Chairman, is hereby authorized to sign the Title VI Program Update transmittal letter. 2. The MPO Staff Director is authorized to sign any and all assurances, warranties, certifications, and other documents which may be required in connection with the 2020 Title VI Program Update. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by and the motion was seconded by , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Susan Adams Vice -Chairman Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari Commissioner Tim Zorc The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of March 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Susan Adams, Chairman 36 Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Susan Adams, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and , as Deputy Clerk, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 10th day of March '2020. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MATTERS BY: Phillip J. Matson, AICP, Director Community Development Department Notary Public SEAL: 37 TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT Indian River County and its transit service provider, the Senior Resource Association (SRA), are committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of its services on the basis of race, color, or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. It is Indian River County's objective to: 1. Ensure that the level and quality of transportation service is provided without regard to race, color or national origin; 2. Identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects of programs and activities on minority populations and low-income populations; 3. Promote the full and fair participation of all affected populations in transportation decision making; 4. Prevent the denial, reduction or delay in benefits related to programs and activities that benefit minority populations or low-income populations; and 5. Ensure meaningful access to programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Indian River County's MPO Staff Director has been designated as the County's Title VI Specialist, responsible for civil rights compliance and monitoring to ensure the nondiscriminatory provision of transit services and programs. In addition, the SRA is responsible for implementing all aspects of the Title VI Program. All County and SRA employees share the responsibility and are committed to ensuring that Indian River County's Title VI Program is strictly adhered to. Brian Freeman, MPO Staff Director Date INTRODUCTION Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. As a direct recipient of federal public transportation funds, Indian River County is required to submit a Title VI update to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This update includes the level and quality of transit service provided for minority and low-income areas and also system -wide environmental justice policies and procedures. This update is submitted to the FTA every three years and is intended to demonstrate compliance with Title VI requirements. The purpose of this Title VI program is to assure that no person is excluded from participating in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the FTA, on grounds of race, color, or national origin. This report will detail policies and procedures for ensuring Title VI compliance. This program is consistent with FTA Circular 4702.16, dated October 1, 2012. TITLE VI PROGRAM CHECKLIST The following checklist addresses Title Vl reporting requirements for all recipients as described in FTA Circular 4702.1B: 1. Title VI Notice to the Public, including a list of locations where the notice is posted ✓ Pages 9, 23 2. Title VI Complaint Procedures ✓ Page 9 3. Title VI Complaint Form ✓ Page 24 4. List of transit -related Title VI investigations, complaints, and lawsuits ✓ Page 10 5. Public Participation Plan, including information about outreach methods to engage minority and limited English proficient populations (LEP), as well as a summary of outreach efforts made since the last Title VI Program submission ✓ Page 10 6. Language Assistance Plan for providing language assistance to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP), based on the DOT LEP Guidance 39 ✓ Page 12 7. A table depicting the membership of non -elected committees and councils, the membership of which is selected by the recipient, broken down by race, and a description of the process the agency uses to encourage the participation of minorities on such committees N/A 8. Primary recipients shall include a description of how the agency monitors its subrecipients for compliance with Title VI, and a schedule of subrecipient Title VI Program submissions N/A 9. A Title VI equity analysis if the recipient has constructed a facility, such as a vehicle storage facility, maintenance facility, operation center, etc. ✓ Page 18 10. A copy of board meeting minutes, resolution, or other appropriate documentation showing the board of directors or appropriate governing entity or official(s) responsible for policy decisions reviewed and approved the Title VI Program. For State DOT's, the appropriate governing entity is the State's Secretary of Transportation or equivalent. The approval must occur prior to submission to FTA. ✓ Page iii The following checklist addresses Title VI reporting requirements for all fixed route transit providers as described in FTA Circular 4702.18: Service standards: 1. Vehicle load ✓ Page 19 2. Vehicle headway ✓ Page 20 3. On time performance ✓ Page 20 4. Service availability ✓ Page 20 40 Service policies: 1. Transit Amenities ✓ Page 21 2. Vehicle Assignment ✓ Page 22 41 SECTION 1- GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following information addresses the Title VI general reporting requirements, as described in Chapter III of the FTA Circular 4702.16. 1-1 TITLE VI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Agencies shall inform the public of their rights under Title VI through such measures as posting the Title VI notice on posters, comment cards, or flyers placed at stations, bus shelters, and in transit vehicles. The type, timing, and frequency of these measures are at the recipient's discretion, as long as the type, timing, and frequency are sufficient to notify passengers and other interested persons of their rights under DOT's Title VI regulations with regard to the recipient's program. Notices detailing a recipient's Title VI obligations and complaint procedures shall be translated into languages other than English, as needed and consistent with the DOT LEP Guidance and the recipient's language assistance plan. Indian River County has a Title VI notice to the public that directs citizens to contact the County if any person feels that the County or its transit service provider, the Senior Resource Association (SRA), has violated his or her Title VI protections. This notice is on the County website, the GoLine website, on GoLine buses, at GoLine stations, and in the GoLine rider brochure. The Title VI notice is available in both English and Spanish. A copy of the Title VI notice is provided in Appendix A. 1-2 TITLE VI COMPLAINT PROCEDURES AND FORM In order to comply with the reporting requirements established in 49 CFR Section 21.9(b), all recipients shall develop procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints filed against them and make their procedures for filing a complaint available to members of the public. Recipients must also develop a Title VI complaint form, and the form and procedure for filing a complaint shall be available on the recipient's website. FTA requires direct and primary recipients to report information regarding their complaint procedures in their Title VI Programs in order for FTA to determine compliance with DOT's Title VI regulations. As a recipient of federal dollars, Indian River County is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and ensure that services and benefits are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. The County has in place a Title VI Complaint Procedure, which outlines a process for local disposition of Title VI complaints and is consistent with guidelines found in FTA Circular 4702.16, dated October 1, 2012. The complaint procedure has five (5) steps, outlined below: 1. Submission of Complaint: Any person who feels that he or she, individually, or as a member of any class of persons, on a basis of race, color, or national origin has been excluded from or denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program of activity receiving federal financial assistance through Indian River County may file a written complaint, using the FTA Title VI complaint form which can be downloaded by accessing the following link at the GoLine website: http://www.golineirt.com/documents/VI Complaint Form.pdf (a copy of the complaint form is also available in Appendix B). Any complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days after the person believes discrimination occurred. If the complainant is unable to provide a written complaint, the Title VI Specialist will conduct an interview and assist the complainant in converting verbal complaints to writing. All complaints must be signed by the complainant or his/her representative. 42 2. Complaint Tracking Log: Once Indian River County receives the complaint and the investigation is initiated, the complaint will receive a case number and will then be logged into the County's records identifying its basis and alleged harm. 3. Complaint Review: Upon receipt of the signed complaint, the MPO's Title VI Specialist will coordinate with the County and its transit service provider, the SRA, to ensure a thorough review of the complaint within 60 calendar days after the date received. If more time is required, the Title VI Specialist shall notify the complainant of the estimated timeframe for completing the review. Upon completion of the review, the Title VI Specialist shall make a recommendation regarding the merit of the complaint and whether remedial actions are available to provide redress. Additionally, the Title VI Specialist may recommend improvements relative to Title VI and environmental justice, as appropriate. The Title VI Specialist shall then issue a written response to the complainant explaining the determination. 4. Request for Reconsideration: If the complainant is dissatisfied with the determination and/or resolution set forth by the County, the same complaint may be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for investigation. Complainant will be advised to contact the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Civil Rights, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 5. County Response to FTA: A copy of the complaint and the County's investigative report of finding and final remediation action plan, if appropriate, will be issued to FTA within 120 days of receipt of the complaint. A summary of the complaint and its resolution will be included as part of the Title VI updates to the FTA. 1-3 RECORD OF TITLE VI INVESTIGATIONS, COMPLAINTS, OR LAWSUITS In order to comply with the reporting requirements of 49 CFR Section 21.9(b), FTA requires all recipients to prepare and maintain a list of any of the following that allege discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin: active investigations conducted by entities other than FTA; lawsuits; and complaints naming the recipient. This list shall include the date that the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint was filed, a summary of the allegation(s); the status of the investigation, lawsuit or complaint; and actions taken by the recipient in response, or final findings related to, the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint. There are no lawsuits or complaints alleging that Indian River County discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin with respect to service or other transit benefits. 1-4 PROMOTING INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The content and considerations of Title Vl, the Executive Order on LEP, and the DOT LEP Guidance shall be integrated into each recipient's established public participation plan or process (i.e., the document that explicitly describes the proactive strategies, procedures, and desired outcomes that underpin the recipient's public participation activities). Grant recipients are required to comply with the public participation requirements of 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307(b) (requires programs of projects to be developed with public participation) and 5307(c)(1)(1) (requires a locally developed process to consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction in transportation service). Recipients engaged in planning and other decision-making activities at the local level should consider the principles embodied in the planning regulations, and develop and use a documented public participation plan or process that provides adequate 43 notice of public participation activities, as well as early and continuous opportunities for public review and comment at key decision points. Indian River County welcomes the opportunity to include the public in its activities. The County continually updates both the County website and the GoLine website to provide the most current information on transit activities, including, but not limited to, public notices, service changes, public workshops, fares, and policies. Comparable information is posted on GoLine buses and at GoLine stations. The County's transit service provider, the Senior Resource Association (SRA), produces a rider brochure, also available on the GoLine website, with information on GoLine policies, procedures, and routes. The County, to the best of its ability, follows the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization's Public Participation Plan. The MPO's Public Participation Plan sets forth the MPO's vision for public participation, identifies strategies for engaging the public, and establishes protocols for receiving public comment. The MPO's Public Participation Plan is available on the MPO's website at the following link: https://www.irmpo.com/Documents/Studies/DRAFT PPP 2020.pdf. The MPO continually updates its website to provide the most current information on transportation planning activities. In an effort to identify racial and ethnic minority, transportation disadvantaged, economically challenged, Limited English Proficient (LEP), elderly, and other populations that could potentially be the victims of discrimination in the use of federal funds, the Indian River County MPO maintains a Community Characteristics Report, which divides the county into 25 communities based on census tract boundaries. This report was first developed in 2003 and was the first such report in the state of Florida. Since that year, the report was been twice updated: first using data from the 2010 Census and American Community Survey (ACS) and then again using the 2015 ACS. The Community Characteristics Report is available on the MPO's website (https://www.irmpo.com/Documents/Studies/Community-Profile.pdf). For each community, major institutions and issues of concern were identified in order to meet the state's mandate of "early and proactive public involvement in future transportation improvements." Based on the results of that input, the MPO has identified a number of neighborhoods with minority populations and has targeted numerous public transportation events and outreach activities in those areas. Most of these events have been conducted in conjunction with updates to the MPO's Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). As part of the 2015 LRTP process, ten public workshops were conducted throughout the county to gather public input on the future of public transportation in Indian River County. Of those ten public workshops, five were conducted in predominantly minority communities, including a predominantly African-American community and a predominantly Spanish-speaking community. In addition, the 2018 Transit Development Plan (TDP) process included substantial outreach to both transit users and non- users. Over 750 passenger surveys (and an additional 249 online surveys) were conducted to provide riders an opportunity to provide the MPO with valuable feedback on how the public transportation can best serve the community and the surrounding region. Both the workshops and surveys were conducted in both English and Spanish, as needed. 44 1-5 PROVIDING MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO SERVICES BY PERSONS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, DOT's implementing regulations, and Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency" (65 FR 50121, Aug. 11, 2000), recipients shall take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are limited -English proficient (LEP). In order to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities, recipients shall use the information obtained in the Four Factor Analysis to determine the specific language services that are appropriate to provide. Results of the Four Factor Analysis, including a description of the LEP population(s) served To continue reaching LEP persons in Indian River County, MPO staff conducted targeted needs assessments and gathered data to gain an understanding of the public transportation needs. The four - factor framework, as described in Chapter III of FTA Circular 4702.18, was used to determine the following: Factor 1 — The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or recipient. According to data from the Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), Indian River County's population aged 5 years and over is 136,498, with 86.2% speaking English as the primary language at home. The ACS estimates that 13,266 people, or 9.7% of the population age 5 and over, speaks primarily Spanish at home. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the languages spoken in Indian River County. Over five percent of the total population speaks English less than "very well". Of those who speak English less than "very well", the overwhelming majority speak Spanish as their primary language. Map 1 shows the geographic location of persons in Indian River County who speak English less than "very well". As a result of this analysis, the GoLine has targeted Spanish speakers as the predominant LEP population for assistance. The agency will work to target areas with a high proportion of LEP populations to ensure that all needs for assistance are met. Factor 2 - The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. The Federal guidance for this factor recommends that agencies should assess the frequency with which they have contact with LEP individuals from different language groups. The more frequent the contact with a particular LEP language group, the more likely enhanced services will be needed. Among the users of the GoLine are persons with LEP. As shown in Map 1, many GoLine routes serve portions of Indian River County where there are concentrations of persons with LEP. This includes the community of Fellsmere, where, according to the ACS, 29% of the population speaks English less than "very well". In the Fellsmere community, nearly all LEP persons speak Spanish as their primary language. 45 Factor 3 - The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people's lives. Due to the number of Spanish-speaking residents that rely upon the GoLine as a primary mode of transportation, the County's transit service provider, the SRA, maintains at least one Spanish- speaking dispatcher and driver on staff. Where feasible, the County, the MPO, and SRA translate plans, programs, and guidelines into Spanish, including surveys. In addition, both the County and the MPO make available translators at public transportation public meetings conducted in Fellsmere, a community which has the highest concentration of LEP persons in Indian River County. Factor 4 - The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach As discussed above, many LEP persons depend on the GoLine public transportation system as a primary mode of travel. Based on the current resources available, Indian River County, the MPO, and transit service operator (SRA) are providing the most cost-effective means of delivering competent and accurate language services within the GoLine service area. Both the County and SRA employ bilingual persons to assist with translating when needed. Both the County and the SRA will continue to monitor the need for additional language assistance, including the need for greater dissemination of information in the existing languages and/or translation to new languages. If additional services are needed, the County and the SRA will determine which additional language assistance measures are cost-effective and feasible for implementation based on current and projected financial resources. 46 Table 1- Languages Spoken in Indian River County SpokenLanguages P.. .. Language Total Population Population Speaking English Less Than "Very Well" % of Total Population Speaking English Less Than "Very Well" English 117,679 0 0.00% Spanish or Spanish Creole 13,266 5,493 4.02% French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 594 193 0.14% French Creole 678 289 0.21% Italian 596 167 0.12% Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 258 85 0.06% German 694 48 0.04% Yiddish 0 0 0.00% Other West Germanic languages 111 0 0.00% Scandinavian languages 162 18 0.01% Greek 81 14 0.01% Russian 55 20 0.01% Polish 351 133 0.10% Serbo-Croatian 32 0 0.00% Other Slavic languages 165 52 0.04% Armenian 93 16 0.01% Persian 13 0 0.00% Gujarati 60 0 0.00% Hindi 69 0 0.00% Urdu 53 0 0.00% Other Indic languages 24 0 0.00% Other Indo-European languages 13 0 0.00% Chinese 159 71 0.05% Japanese 72 19 0.01% Korean 103 68 0.05% Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 0 0 0.00% Hmong 0 0 0.00% Thai 37 20 0.01% Laotian 0 0 0.00% Vietnamese 188 145 0.11% Other Asian languages 175 137 0.10% Tagalog 351 176 0.13% Other Pacific Island languages 0 0 0.00% Navajo 0 0 0.00% Other Native North American languages 0 0 0.00% Hungarian 35 34 0.02% Arabic 162 62 0.05% Hebrew 77 15 0.01% African languages 0 0 0.00% Other and unspecified languages 92 25 0.02% Total 136,498 7,300 5.35% 47 Map 1— Persons with LEP in Indian River County Developing a Language Assistance Plan Based upon the Four Factor Analysis described above, the Language Assistance Plan addresses the results and provides further direction. Describe how the recipient provides language assistance services by language. Individuals who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English are considered LEP persons. Indian River County recognizes that a special effort is necessary to communicate important transit information to some transit system users. In order to meet this need, the County and its transit service provider, the SRA, take the following steps: • Seek out opportunities to conduct outreach to the community and faith -based organizations serving minority populations. • Provide language assistance on its transit customer service hotline. • Participate in updates to the County's evacuation and disaster preparedness plans to ensure the plans include the needs of all community members, especially LEP, low-income, and minority populations. • Continue to review programs, activities, and services provided to ensure that LEP persons can participate and utilize our services. To determine how best to continue reaching LEP persons in Indian River County and improve current ongoing efforts, the County and the SRA will continue to conduct targeted needs assessments and gather data to gain an understanding of the need. Describe how the recipient provides notice to LEP persons about the availability of language assistance. Through the methods listed below, the County and its transit service provider, the SRA, provide notice to LEP persons about the availability of language assistance: • Website: Both the MPO and GoLine websites feature a language translator for over 100 languages. For GoLine passengers, information on how to access GoLine services, bus schedules, route maps, and instructions on riding the bus are available in English and Spanish. • Safety and Security: Several GoLine drivers speak Spanish and assist Spanish-speaking bus riders as needed. • Training: Driver training for new employees and refresher training provided annually to drivers reminds them of the importance of conveying information to passengers as part of their customer service training. • Customer Service: Telephone lines are equipped to the extent possible with persons who speak Spanish and English. Personnel who are bilingual are identified for providing assistance. • Translated Material: Spanish versions of the rider brochure and survey materials are available upon request. 49 • Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD): The SRA, Indian River County's transit service provider, has a TDD dedicated line. • Community Outreach: Indian River County makes available persons who can serve as translators at community outreach meetings whenever possible. Describe how the recipient monitors, evaluates and updates the language assistance plan. Indian River County provides an ongoing needs assessment to determine how best to continue reaching LEP persons in the community and how to improve ongoing efforts. To ensure that the intent of the language assistance plan remains current, County and SRA staff will continue to monitor and update the plan and report progress every three years. These efforts will include the following actions: • Monitor current LEP populations in the service area and in emerging populations affected or encountered. • Assess the language assistance plan's success in meeting the needs of LEP persons. • Communicate the goals and objectives of the language assistance plan and evaluate the opportunity for community involvement and planning. • Post signs to communicate language services available at initial contact points. The County and SRA will continue to provide signage and written information on vehicles and at transfer stations in other languages. • Indicate the availability of language services on outreach documents, brochures, booklets, and in recruitment materials. • Whenever possible, make announcements in vehicles in other languages. • Whenever possible, make available telephone voicemail and menu systems in Spanish and services about how to get them. • Conduct outreach presentations and notices to schools, community, and faith -based organizations. The County and SRA will provide announcements and collect information on how best to serve LEP persons through community and faith -based organizations. • Whenever possible, include Spanish and other languages on its website. • Strive to provide excellent customer service, in-person and over the phone, in other languages. Front-line personnel will routinely provide information on LEP persons in order to best address identified needs. • Participate to the greatest extent possible in local events. Describe how the recipient trains employees to provide timely and reasonable language assistance to LEP populations. Both the County and SRA will provide ample training opportunities for employees to assist LEP populations with timely and reasonable language assistance. Towards this end, the County and SRA will conduct the following activities: • Provide information on LEP policies and procedures as part of new employee orientation and staff retraining. • Require staff to complete customer service traning and be provided guidance on working effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters. • Inform transit staff on how to obtain LEP services. 50 • Train staff on how to respond to LEP persons over the telephone, through written communications, and through in-person contact. • Strive to ensure the competency of interpreters and translation services per DOT LEP Guidance Section VII(2). 1-6 DETERMINATION OF SITE OR LOCATION OF FACILITIES Title 49 CFR Section 21.9(b)(3) states, "In determining the site or location of facilities, a recipient or applicant may not make selections with the purpose or effect of excluding persons from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which this regulation applies, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin; or with the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Act or this part." Title 49 CFR part 21, Appendix C, Section (3)(iv) provides, 'The location of projects requiring land acquisition and the displacement of persons from their residences and businesses may not be determined on the basis of race, color, or national origin." For purposes of this requirement, 'facilities" does not include bus shelters, as these are transit amenities and are covered in Chapter IV, nor does it include transit stations, power substations, etc., as those are evaluated during project development and the NEPA process. Facilities included in this provision include, but are not limited to, storage facilities, maintenance facilities, operations centers, etc. Indian River County is committed to determining sites and location of facilities in a fair and equitable mannerthat is in accordance with Title VI. Excluding bus shelters and transit stations, the County has constructed one transit facility in recent years. That facility is the Main Transit Hub located near downtown Vero Beach and was funded through a Section 5309 Bus Livability Program grant awarded by the FTA. A major route restructuring occurred with the opening of the Main Transit Hub in April, 2017. As a result of those route modifications, transit service was enhanced in the Gifford community (78% minority population) and the Oslo/Vero Beach Highlands community (45% minority population). In the case of Gifford, the number of transit routes serving the community was increased and direct service to Indian River Mall was introduced. For Oslo/Vero Beach Highlands, direct service is now offered to the Main Transit Hub (and its many connecting options). During the planning stage for the Main Transit Hub, a Title VI equity analysis was conducted as part of the facility's Documented Categorical Exclusion prepared through the National Environmental Policy (NEPA) process. Through this analysis, it was determined that the facility was in compliance with Title VI. 51 SECTION 2 - SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSIT PROVIDERS The following information addresses the Title VI reporting requirements for fixed route transit providers, as described in Chapter IV of the FTA Circular 4702.113. 2-1 SERVICE STANDARDS FTA requires all fixed route transit providers to develop quantitative standards for all fixed route modes of operation for the indicators listed below. Providers of public transportation may set additional standards as appropriate or applicable to the type of service they provide. Section 2-1 summarizes the service standards for Indian River County's GoLine fixed -route transit system. GoLine operates as a fare free fixed -route system. The GoLine route network consists of 15 routes providing service throughout Indian River County, including the communities of Vero Beach, Sebastian, Fellsmere, Gifford, Wabasso, and Oslo. GoLine operates six days per week (Monday through Saturday). For most routes, weekday service hours are 6 AM to 7 PM, and Saturday service hours are 8 AM to 5 PM. GoLine's 15 routes connect at four transfer hubs: the Main Transit Hub, Indian River Mall, Gifford Health Center, North County Transit Hub, and the South County Park Intergenerational Center. At each hub, the connecting buses arrive at the same time, which allows for easy transfers from one route to another. According to MPO estimates, 51% of Indian River County residents live within % mile of a GoLine route and 84% live within % mile of a GoLine route. Because GoLine is a fare free system and because a majority of county residents live close to a GoLine route, it is expected that the utilization of the GoLine public transportation system by the transportation disadvantaged population is very high. Vehicle Load Vehicle load can be expressed as the ratio of passengers to the total number of seats on a vehicle. For example, on a 40 -seat bus, a vehicle load of 1.3 means all seats are filled and there are approximately 12 standees. A vehicle load standard is generally expressed in terms of peak and off-peak times. Vehicle load, or load factor, is a ratio of the number of seats on a vehicle to the number of passengers on a particular route during periods of either peak or off-peak travel. Load factors are used by transit systems to determine the extent of possible overcrowding or the need for larger or additional vehicles on a route. The County and SRA monitor vehicle loads through feedback from passengers and operations staff, as well as ride checks. In situations where ridership increases on a route, then a larger vehicle will be assigned to that route to accommodate the increase in passengers. Because of Indian River County's aging population, it is the County's intent to operating transit vehicles with seating capacity for all passengers. Therefore, all transit routes operate at a vehicle load of 1.0 or below during all times (peak and non -peak). 52 Vehicle Headway Vehicle headway is the amount of time between two vehicles traveling in the same direction on a given line or combination of lines. Vehicle headway is a measurement of the time interval between two vehicles traveling in the same direction along the same route. A shorter headway corresponds to more frequent service. Vehicle headways are measured in minutes (e.g., every 60 minutes). Indian River County has the same frequency of service standard for all routes, with the only exception being for routes that provide regional or intercity service. With the exception of Route 11, all GoLine routes operate on 60 minute headways. Route 11, which provides intercity service along the US 1 corridor from Vero Beach to Sebastian, operates on a 120 minute headway. Currently, only one vehicle operates on a GoLine route at any given time. Reducing vehicle headways (i.e. increasing frequencies) would require adding a second vehicle to each affected route. Because increasing frequencies will require increasing the size of the GoLine fleet, it will involve capital costs as well as operating costs. Due to the limited resources available to a transit system operating in a county of only 150,000 residents, it is not financially feasible to reduce headways at this time. In the future, if vehicle headways are reduced, it would be implemented on a group of connected routes with high levels of ridership. On -Time Performance On-time performance is a measure of runs completed as scheduled. This criterion first must define what is considered to be "on time."An acceptable level of performance must be defined (expressed as a percentage). Indian River County strives to continually maintain on-time bus service. Because of the "hub and spoke" design of the GoLine route system, it is critical that buses consistently operate on-time. Every hour, GoLine buses connect with each other at five transfer locations: the Main Transit Hub (seven routes), Indian River Mall (five routes), the North County Hub (four routes), the Intergenerational Center (four routes), and the Gifford Health Center (three routes). Whenever one bus falls behind schedule, it can cause delays on all vehicles that operate on connecting routes. Therefore, County and SRA staff evaluate on-time performance on an ongoing basis and implement service changes to improve performance, as necessary. On-time performance is defined as a bus arriving at a scheduled time point within five minutes of the scheduled arrival. During FY 2018/19, GoLine buses arrived on-time 93.6% of the time. On the occasions that a bus was not on time, it more than five minutes late 3.7% of the time and more than five minutes early 2.7% of the time. Through the first quarter of FY 2019/20, on-time performance has improved to 95.9%. Service Availability Service availability is a general measure of the distribution of routes within a transit provider's service area. For example, a transit provider might set a service standard to distribute routes such that a specified percentage of all residents in the service area are within a one-quarter mile walk of bus service or a one-half mile walk of rail service. A standard might also indicate the maximum distance between stops or stations. These measures related to coverage and stop/station distances might also vary by population density. 53 Service availability is a measure of the distance a person must travel to gain access to transit service. Based on an analysis of the GoLine route network using 2010 Census data, it was determined that 51% of Indian River County residents live within % mile of a fixed route and 84% are within % of a fixed route. Standards developed with respect to transit access would apply to existing services as well as any proposed service modifications affecting transit service levels. The Indian River County Transit Development Plan includes policies to provide fixed route bus service to all multi -family developments exceeding 500 units and to all commercial areas exceeding 200,000 square feet. In developing the GoLine route network, several factors are considered in determining where to provide transit service: population density, average household income/poverty status within a community, and the amount of households without access to an automobile. GoLine service availability is highest in areas of higher population density, areas of concentrated poverty, and areas where vehicle ownership rates are lowest. 2-2 SERVICE POLICIES FTA requires fixed route transit providers to develop a policy for each of the following service indicators. Transit providers may set policies for additional indicators as appropriate. In accordance with Chapter IV of FTA Circular 4702.16, Indian River County has adopted the transit service policies below. Distribution of Transit Amenities Transit amenities refer to items of comfort, convenience, and safety that are available to the general riding public. Fixed route transit providers must set a policy to ensure equitable distribution of transit amenities across the system. Transit providers may have different policies for the different modes of service that they provide. Policies in this area address how these amenities are distributed within a transit system, and the manner of their distribution determines whether transit users have equal access to these amenities. Policy: The location of transit amenities, such as bus shelters and benches, along bus routes shall be based on the number of passenger boardings at bus stops along those routes. In addition, the availability of public right-of-way and the presence, or lack thereof, of physical constraints are factors that can affect the installation of transit amenities. Indian River County strives to maximize the coverage of transit service with amenities that provide comfort and convenience to its riders. In recent years, the County has implemented a program to install bus shelters at bus stop locations with high levels of passenger boardings. Through 2019, six phases of bus shelters have been constructed throughout Indian River County, including at bus stops in busy commercial areas, at transfer locations, near employment centers, and adjacent to multi -family developments. Because those bus shelters have been constructed throughout Indian River County, including in Fellsmere and Gifford (two predominantly minority communities with high levels of transit ridership), transit users have equal access to such transit amenities. All transit amenities are provided in a manner that complies with ADA regulations. 54 Vehicle Assignment Vehicle assignment refers to the process by which transit vehicles are placed into service in depots and on routes throughout the transit provider's system. Policies for vehicle assignment may be based on the age of the vehicle, where age would be a proxy for condition. Policy: Bus assignments shall take into account the operating characteristics of buses of various lengths in relation to the operating characteristics of each route. The largest vehicles shall be assigned to those routes that carry the highest number of passengers per revenue hour. Routes which require tight turns on narrow streets may be assigned smaller vehicles that are more maneuverable. Indian River County assigns vehicles based on the number of passengers along a route, vehicle seating capacity, and vehicle maneuverability. Bus assignments and the distribution of equipment are monitored to ensure that vehicle load/assignment policies are followed. All buses are wheelchair accessible. As of March 2020, the GoLine active fleet consists of the following vehicles: Table 2 —Vehicle Capacity 55 # of Average Average Seated FY 18/19 Make/Model Type Vehicles Length Age (Yrs) Passenger Ridership Capacity (Avg. per Route) Gillig Low -Floor Bus HeaB --Duty 2 35' 7.0 32 158,205 Gillig Low -Floor Bus HeaB --Duty 4 29' 5.3 28 98,362 Champion Defender Medium -Duty 2 31' 1.5 20 79,533 Cutaway Turtle Top Odyssey Light -Duty 2 29' 4.0 20 72,715 Cutaway Champion Defender Medium -Duty 2 27, 2.0 16 57,763 Cutaway Turtle Top Odyssey Light -Duty 3 24' 4.0 16 32,251 Cutaway 55 APPENDIX A: TITLE VI NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC Standard Notice: Notifying the Public of Rights Under Title VI INDIAN RIVER TRANSIT Indian River Transit operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, and national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes she or he has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI may file a complaint with Indian River County. For more information on the Indian River Transit's civil rights program, and the procedures to file a complaint, contact 772-569-0903 or visit our administrative office at 4385 43 d Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32967. A complainant may also file a complaint directly with the Federal Transit Administration by filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights; Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5th Floor - TCR, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Si necessita informaci6n en espanol, Ilame 772-569-0903. Vehicle Notice (English): In accordance with title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, any person who feels they have been discriminated against may issue a formal written complaint. The complaint procedure and Title VI Policy is available upon request from Indian River Transit's Administrative Offices or by calling 772-569-0903. Vehicle Notice (Spanish): En conformidad con el titulo VI de la Ley Federal de Derechos Civiles de 1964, cualquier persona que se siente haber sido discriminados pueden emitir una queja formal por escrito. EI procedimiento de denuncia y Polftica del Titulo VI esta disponible a petici6n de las oficinas administrativas de Indian River Transit o Ilamando al 772-569-0903. 56 APPENDIX B: TITLE VI COMPLAINT FORM Section I: Name: Address: Telephone (Home): Telephone (Work): Electronic Mail Address: Accessible FormatLar Requirements? a Print Audio Tape TDD Other Section II: Are you filing this complaint on your own behalf? Yes* No *If you answered "yes" to this question, go to Section III. If not, please supply the name and relationship of the person for whom you are complaining: Please explain why you have filed for a third party: Please confirm that you have obtained the permission of the aggrieved party if you are filing on behalf of a third party. Yes No Section III: I believe the discrimination I experienced was based on (check all that apply): [ ] Race [ ] Color [ ] National Origin Date of Alleged Discrimination (Month, Day, Year): Explain as clearly as possible what happened and why you believe you were discriminated against. Describe all persons who were involved. Include the name and contact information of the person(s) who discriminated against you (if known) as well as names and contact information of any witnesses. If more space is needed, please use the back of this form. Section IV Have you previously filed a Title VI complaint with this agency? Yes No 57 Section V Have you filed this complaint with any other Federal, State, or local agency, or with any Federal or State court? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, check all that apply: [ ] Federal Agency: [ ] Federal Court [ ] State Agency [ ] State Court [ ] Local Agency Please provide information about a contact person at the agency/court where the complaint was filed. Name: Title: Agency: Address: Telephone: Section VI Name of agency complaint is against: Contact person: Title: Telephone number: You may attach any written materials or other information that you think is relevant to your complaint. Signature and date required below Signature Date Please submit this form in person at the address below, or mail this form to: Indian River County Title VI Specialist Indian River County MPO 180127 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 58 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ElIfE MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director James W. Ennis, P.E., County Engineer FROM: Robert S. Skok, Infrastructure Project Manager SUBJECT: 43`d Avenue Sidewalk from Airport Drive West to 41" Street (IRC -1503) Award of Bid No. 2020016 DATE: February 18, 2020 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On October 22nd, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement FM No. 440019-1-58-01 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the construction of an 8 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of 43 d Avenue from Airport Drive West to 41St Street. The Florida Department of Transportation will provide $432,783.00 reimbursement for eligible construction costs. The project includes associated drainage improvements, earthwork, maintenance of traffic, erosion control and miscellaneous pavement markings. A bid opening for the project was held on January 22nd, 2020. Seven (7) qualified bids were received and opened. A detailed bid tabulation is on file and available for viewing in the Public Works - Engineering Division. Bid totals are as follow: PRP Construction Group, LLC Timothy Rose Contracting DP Development, LLC Central Concrete Products, Inc. Heavy Civil, Inc. Boromei Construction, Inc. Community Asphalt Corp Indiantown, FL $474,826.80 Vero Beach, FL $495,882.34 Cocoa, FL $518,292.00 Bartow, FL $524,052.00 N. Miami Beach, FL $527,817.70 Okeechobee, FL $642,220.00 Vero Beach, FL $656,206.34 PRP Construction Group, LLC is considered to be the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder for the project with a bid totaling $474,826.80. Staff has verified the references provided by PRP Construction Group, LLC and their bid was below the Engineer's estimate of $475,979.98. FDOT has provided the County with Bid Concurrence. 59 FUNDING Per the FDOT LAP Agreement, the County must fund the project and then request reimbursement of the grants hare from FDOT to a maximum amount of $432,783.00. Funding of $474,826.80 is budgeted and available from Secondary Roads/Account Number 10921441-66510-18026/43rd Avenue Sidewalk (Airport Drive — 41s' Street). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the project be awarded to PRP Construction Group, LLC in the amount of $474,826.80 and requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached sample agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute said agreement after receipt and approval of the required Public Construction Bond and Certificate of Insurance and after the County Attorney has approved the agreement as to form and legal sufficiency. ATTACHMENTS Sample Agreement DISTRIBUTION PRP Construction Group, LLC AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 101h, 2020 60 SECTION 00520 - Agreement (Public Works) TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Paqe ARTICLE1 - WORK.................................................................................................................................2 ARTICLE2 - THE PROJECT..................................................................................................................2 ARTICLE3 — ENGINEER........................................................................................................................ 2 ARTICLE 4 - CONTRACT TIMES..........................................................................................................2 ARTICLE 5 -CONTRACT PRICE............................................................................................3 ARTICLE 6 - PAYMENT PROCEDU ::.....................................................................................3 ARTICLE 7 - INDEMNIFICATION....... .....................t................................................5 ARTICLE 8 - CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS.....................................................................5 ARTICLE 9 - CONTRACT DOCUME S......................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE10 - MISCELLANEOU ............................................................................................... 8 BLANK INTENTIONALLY 61 SECTION 00520 - Agreement (Public Works) THIS AGREEMENT is by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, (hereinafter called OWNER) and (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 -WORK 1.01 CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work is generally described as follows: The work will consist of the construction of an 8 -foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of 43rd Avenue from Airport Drive West to 41St Street. The sidewalk improvements will be approximately 0.85 miles in length. The work will also include erosion control, maintenance of traffic, ditch grading, minor drainage piping with drainage structures, signing and pavement markings. This is an F.D.O.T. Local Agency Program (LAP) funded project FM No. 440019-1-58-01. ARTICLE 2 - THE PROJECT 2.01 The Project for which the Work under the Contract Documents may be the whole or only a part is generally described as follows: Project Name: 43rd AVENUE SIDEWALK FROM AIRPORT DRIVE WEST TO 41 st STREET County Project Number: IRC -1503 FM Number: 440019-1-58-01 Bid Number: 2020016 Project Address: 43rd Avenue from Airport Drive West to 41St Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 & 32967 ARTICLE 3 — ENGINEER 3.01 The Indian River County Public Works Department is hereinafter called the ENGINEER and will act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities, and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 4 - CONTRACT TIMES 4.01 Time of the Essence A. All time limits for Milestones, if any, Substantial Completion, and completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract. 4.02 Days to Achieve Substantial Completion, Final Completion and Final Payment 62 A. The Work will be substantially completed on or before the 150th calendar day after the date when the Contract Times commence to run as provided in paragraph 2.03 of the General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with paragraph 14.07 of the General Conditions on or before the 180th calendar day after the date when the Contract Times commence to run. 4.03 Liquidated Damages A. CONTRACTOR and OWNER recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that OWNER will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the times specified in paragraph 4.02 above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with Article 12 of the General Conditions. Liquidated damages will commence for this portion of work. The parties also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal proceeding the actual loss suffered by OWNER if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty), CONTRACTOR shall pay OWNER $1,584.00 for each calendar day that expires after the time specified in paragraph 4.02 for Substantial Completion until the Work is substantially complete. After Substantial Completion, if CONTRACTOR shall neglect, refuse, or fail to complete the remaining Work within the Contract Time or any proper extension thereof granted by OWNER, CONTRACTOR shall pay OWNER $1,584.00 for each calendar day that expires after the time specified in paragraph 4.02 for completion and readiness for final payment until the Work is completed and ready for final payment. ARTICLE 5 - CONTRACT PRICE 5.01 OWNER shall pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, an amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts determined pursuant to paragraph 5.01.A and summarized in paragraph 5.01.13, below: A. For all Work, at the prices stated in CONTRACTOR's Bid, attached hereto as an exhibit. B. THE CONTRACT SUM subject to additions and deductions provided in the Contract: NNumerical Amount: $ Written Amount: ARTICLE 6 - PAYMENT PROCEDURES 6.01 Submittal and Processing of Payments A. CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Article 14 of the General Conditions. Applications for Payment will be processed by ENGINEER as provided in the General Conditions and the Contract Documents. 63 6.02 Progress Payments. A. The OWNER shall make progress payments to the CONTRACTOR on the basis of the approved partial payment request as recommended by ENGINEER in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act, Florida Statutes section 218.70 et. seq. The OWNER shall retain ten percent (10%) of the payment amounts due to the CONTRACTOR until fifty percent (50%) completion of the work. After fifty percent (50%) completion of the work is attained as certified to OWNER by ENGINEER in writing, OWNER shall retain five percent (5%) of the payment amount due to CONTRACTOR until final completion and acceptance of all work to be performed by CONTRACTOR under the Contract Documents. Pursuant to Florida Statutes section 218.735(8)(b), fifty percent (50%) completion means the point at which the County as OWNER has expended fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of the construction services work purchased under the Contract Documents, together with all costs associated with existing change orders and other additions or modifications to the construction services work provided under the Contract Documents. 6.03 Pay Requests. A. Each request for a progress payment shall be submitted on the application for payment form supplied by OWNER and the application for payment shall contain the CONTRACTOR'S certification. All progress payments will be on the basis of progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established, or in the case of unit price work based on the number of units completed. After fifty percent (50%) completion, and pursuant to Florida Statutes section 218.735(8)(d), the CONTRACTOR may submit a pay request to the County as OWNER for up to one half (1/2) of the retainage held by the County as OWNER, and the County as OWNER shall promptly make payment to the CONTRACTOR unless such amounts are the subject of a good faith dispute; the subject of a claim pursuant to Florida Statutes section 255.05; or otherwise the subject of a claim or demand by the County as OWNER or the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges that where such retainage is attributable to the labor, services, or materials supplied by one or more subcontractors or suppliers, the Contractor shall timely remit payment of such retainage to those subcontractors and suppliers. Pursuant to Florida Statutes section 218.735(8)(c), CONTRACTOR further acknowledges and agrees that: 1) the County as OWNER shall receive immediate written notice of all decisions made by CONTRACTOR to withhold retainage on any subcontractor at greater than five percent (5%) after fifty percent (50%) completion; and 2) CONTRACTOR will not seek release from the County as OWNER of the withheld retainage until the final pay request. 6.04 Paragraphs 6.02 and 6.03 do not apply to construction services work purchased by the County as OWNER which are paid for, in whole or in part, with federal funds and are subject to federal grantor laws and regulations or requirements that are contrary to any provision of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act. In such event, payment and retainage provisions shall be governed by the applicable grant requirements and guidelines. 6.05 Acceptance of Final Payment as Release. A. The acceptance by the CONTRACTOR of final payment shall be and shall operate as a release to the OWNER from all claims and all liability to the CONTRACTOR other than claims in stated amounts as may be specifically excepted by the 64 CONTRACTOR for all things done or furnished in connection with the work under this Contract and for every act and neglect of the OWNER and others relating to or arising out of the work. Any payment, however, final or otherwise, shall not release the CONTRACTOR or its sureties from any obligations under the Contract Documents or the Public Construction Bond. ARTICLE 7 - INDEMNIFICATION 7.01 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify OWNER, ENGINEER, and others in accordance with paragraph 6.20 (Indemnification) of the General Conditions to the Construction Contract. ARTICLE 8 - CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS 8.01 In order to induce OWNER to enter:into this Agreement CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: A. CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and the other related data identified in the Bidding Documents. B. CONTRACTOR has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. C. CONTRACTOR is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. CONTRACTOR has carefully studied all: (1) reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions in or relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the Site (except Underground Facilities) which have been identified in the Supplementary Conditions as provided in paragraph 4.02 of the General Conditions and (2) reports and drawings of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, if any, at the Site which have been identified in the Supplementary Conditions as provided in paragraph 4.06 of the General Conditions. E. CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for having done so) all additional or supplementary examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data concerning conditions (surface, subsurface, and Underground Facilities) at or contiguous to the Site which may affect cost, progress, or performance of the Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by CONTRACTOR, including applying the specific means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction, if any, expressly required by the Contract Documents to be employed by CONTRACTOR, and safety precautions and programs incident thereto F. CONTRACTOR does not consider that any further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. G. CONTRACTOR is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by OWNER and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents. H. CONTRACTOR has correlated the information known to CONTRACTOR, information and observations obtained from visits to the Site, reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, and all additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data with the Contract Documents. I. CONTRACTOR has given ENGINEER written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that CONTRACTOR has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. J. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. K. Neither the Recipient nor any of its CONTRACTORS or their subcontractors shall enter into any contract, subcontract or arrangement in connection with the Project or any property included or planned to be included in the Project in which any member, officer or employee of the Recipient or the locality during tenure or for 2 years thereafter has any interest, direct or indirect. If any such present or former member, officer or employee involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of tenure any such interest, and if such interest is immediately disclosed to the Recipient, the Recipient, with prior approval of the Department, may waive the prohibition contained in this paragraph provided that any such present member, officer or employee shall not participate in any action by the Recipient or the locality relating to such contract, subcontract or arrangement. The Recipient shall insert in all contracts entered into in connection with the Project or any property included or planned to be included in any Project, and shall require its CONTRACTORS to insert in each of their subcontracts, the following provision: "No member, officer or employee of the Recipient or of the locality during his tenure or for 2 years thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof." The provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to any agreement between the Recipient and its fiscal depositories or to any agreement for utility services the rates for which are fixed or controlled by a governmental agency. ARTICLE 9 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 9.01 Contents A. The Contract Documents consist of the following: 1. This Agreement (pages 00520-1 to 00520-11, inclusive); 2. Notice to Proceed (page 00550-1); 3. Public Construction Bond (pages 00610-1 to 00610-3, inclusive); 4. Sample Certificate of Liability Insurance (page 00620-1); 5. Contractor's Application for Payment (pages 00622-1 to 00622-6, inclusive); 6. Certificate of Substantial Completion (pages 00630-1 to 00630-2, inclusive); 7. Contractor's Final Certification of the Work (pages 00632-1 to 00632-2, inclusive); 8. Professional Surveyor and Mapper's Certification as to the Elevations and Locations of the Work (page 00634-1); 66 9. General Conditions (pages 00700-1 to 00700-44, inclusive); 10. Supplementary Conditions (pages 00800-i to 00800-12, inclusive); 11. Specifications as listed in Division 1 (General Requirements) and Division 2 (Technical Specifications); 12. Drawings consisting of a cover sheet and sheets numbered C1 through C31, inclusive, with each sheet bearing the following general title: 431d AVENUE SIDEWALK FROM AIRPORT DRIVE WEST TO 41St STREET: 13. Addenda (if applicable) (list); 14. Appendices to this Agreement (enumerated as follows): Appendix A — Permits Appendix B — Indian River County Fertilizer Ordinances Appendix C — Indian River County Traffic Engineering Special Conditions for Right of Way Construction Appendix D — Title VI/Nondiscrimination Policy Statement Appendix E — Federal Required Contract Provisions Appendix F — FHWA 1273 Appendix G — Vendor Eligibility Check Prior to Contract Award 15. CONTRACTOR'S BID (pages 00310-1 to 00310-7, inclusive); 16. Bid Bond (page 00430-1); 17. Sworn Statement Under Section 105.08, Indian River County Code, on Disclosure of Relationships (pages 00452-1 to 00452-2, inclusive); 18. Sworn Statement Under the Florida Trench Safety Act (pages 00454-1 to 00454-2, inclusive); 19. Qualifications Questionnaire (pages 00456-1 to 0456-3, inclusive); 20. List of Subcontractors (page 00458-1); 21. Certification Regarding Prohibition Against Contracting with Scrutinized Companies (page 00460-1); 22. The following which may be delivered or issued on or after the Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto: a) Written Amendments; b) Work Change Directives; c) Change Order(s); 23. DBE Bid Package Information (pages 00470-1 to 00470-4, inclusive); 24. Non -Collusion Declaration and Compliance (pages 00472-1 to 00472-3, inclusive); 67 25. Certification for Disclosure of Lobbying Activities on Federal -Aid Contracts (pages 00474-1 to 00474-3, inclusive); 26. Certificate Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion — Primary Covered Transactions (page 00476-1); 27. Certification of Non Segregation & Non Discrimination (pages 00490-1 to 00490-2, inclusive); 28. Buy America Certificate of Compliance (page 00492-1); 29. Drug Free Workplace Certification (page 00494-1); 30. LAP Certification of Capacity/Status of Contracts on Hand (pages 00496-1 to 00496 - inclusive); 31. Certification of Sublet Work (pages 00500-1 to 00500-2, inclusive); 32. USDOL Wage Determination — FL190170 ARTICLE 10 - MISCELLANEOUS 10.01 Terms A. Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings indicated in the General Conditions. 10.02 Assignment of Contract A. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 10.03 Successors and Assigns A. OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. 10.04 Severability A. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. 68 10.05 Venue A. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against the other party or otherwise arising out of this Contract shall be in Indian River County, Florida, or, in the event of a federal jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 10.06 Public Records Compliance A. Indian River County is a public agency subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The Contractor shall comply with Florida's Public Records Law. Specifically, the Contractor shall: (1) Keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. (2) 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. (3) 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 records to the County. (4) Upon completion of the contract, transfer, at no cost, to the County all public records in possession of the Contractor or keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. If the Contractor transfers all public records to the County 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 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 THE CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO THE CONTRACTOR'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT: _..o .. (772) 2264424 publicrecoro(d)ircgov.com Indian River County Office of the County Attorney 180127 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 C. Failure of the Contractor to comply with these requirements shall be a material breach of this Agreement. 10.07 Indemnification and Insurance A. Recipient agrees to include the following indemnification in all contracts with CONTRACTORS, subcontractors, consultants, or subconsultants (each referred to as 69 "Entity" for the purposes of the below indemnification) who perform work in connection with this Agreement: "To the extent provided by law, [ENTITY] shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the [RECIPIENT] and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, including the Department's officers, agents, and employees, against any actions, claims, or damages arising out of, relating to, or resulting negligent or wrongful act(s) of [ENTITY], or any of its officers, agents, or employees, acting within the scope of their office or employment, in connection with the rights granted to or exercised by [ENTITY] hereunder, to the extent and within the limitations of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. The foregoing indemnification shall not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 768.28. Nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by [ENTITY] to indemnify [RECIPIENT] for the negligent acts or omissions of [RECIPIENT], its officers, agents, or employees, or third parties. Nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by [ENTITY] to indemnify the Department for the negligent acts or omissions of the Department, its officers, agents, or employees, or third parties. This indemnification shall survive the termination of this "Agreement." 10.08 Miscellaneous Provisions A. The Parties agree to comply with s.20.055(5), Florida Statutes, and to incorporate in all subcontracts the obligation to comply with s.20.055(5), Florida Statutes. [The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally] 70 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in duplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER and CONTRACTOR. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or on their behalf. This Agreement will be effective on , 20 (the date the Contract is approved by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, which is the Effective Date of the Agreement). OWNER: CONTRACTOR: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Susan Adams, Chairman Jason E. Brown, County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: M Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller Attest: Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Designated Representative: Name: James W. Ennis, P.E., PMP Title: Assistant Public Works Director 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 226-1221 Facsimile: (772) 778-9391 A (Contractor) (CORPORATE SEAL) Attest Address forgiving notices: License No. (Where applicable) Agent for service of process: Designated Representative: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Facsimile: (If CONTRACTOR is a corporation or a partnership, attach evidence of authority to sign.) * * END OF SECTION * * 71 0 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA I 1i MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator FROM: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Resolution for County Road 510 from County Road 512 to 58th Avenue Right of Way Acquisition (IRC -1842) Financial Project No. 405606-3 and 405606-4 DATE: February 20, 2020 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires that the local agency governing board approve the attached resolution outlining conditions for the acquisition of certain property rights along the project corridor. The resolution endorses FDOT to perform the right of way acquisition, for and on behalf of the County. The County authorizes FDOT to conduct right of way acquisition and related activities, including eminent domain proceedings, on the project in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. FDOT is authorized to remove any unpermitted and/or unauthorized improvements or personal property within the County right of way within the project limits. In the event an improvement or personal property is permitted and/or authorized with the County right of way, the County shall cooperate with the FDOT to coordinate its removal. Removal shall include, but is not limited to, notice of ejectment, eviction, etc. Upon FDOT's completion of its acquisition activities, the County will accept the acquired propertyfrom the FDOT. FUNDING No funding is necessary for this item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Authorizing Resolution and authorize the Chairman to execute the same. ATTACHMENTS Authorizing Resolution Exhibit A AGENDA ITEM FOR March 10, 2020 72 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT - OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEREAS, Indian River County (County) is pursuing the construction of a roadway project for the improvements to County Road 510; from County Road 512 to 58t` Avenue, as depicted in the attached Exhibit "A" and associated with Financial Management Number 405606- 3 and 405606-4, (the Project) in Indian River County, Florida: and WHEREAS, the Project will involve the acquisition of certain property rights along the Project corridor, either through administrative settlements or eminent domain proceedings; and WHEREAS, the County desires for the State of Florida Department of Transportation (Department) to perform the right of way acquisition, for and on behalf of the County; and WHEREAS, the County hereby authorizes the Department to conduct right of way acquisition and related activities, including eminent domain proceedings, on the Project, in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to remove any unpermitted and/or unauthorized improvements or personal property within the County right of way within the project limits. In the event an improvement or personal property is permitted and/or authorized within County right of way, the County shall cooperate with the Department to coordinate its removal. Removal shall include, but is not limited to, notice of ejectment, eviction, etc.; and WHEREAS, upon the Department's completion of its acquisition activities, the County will accept the acquired property from the Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: as part of the cooperative efforts between the Department and the County, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DOES HEREBY authorize the DEPARTMENT to obtain all property rights needed for the Project. 73 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded forthwith to the State of Florida Department of Transportation at 3400 West Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner and adopted on the this day of , 20209 by the following vote: Chairman Susan Adams . Vice -Chairman Joseph: E. Flescher Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan. Commissioner Bob Solari Commissioner Tim Zorc The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this : day of 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMbl1ISSIONERS -OF INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY, FLORIDA Susan Adams, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: William K. DeBraal Deputy County Attorney cc: Florida Department offransportation 74 BEGIN PROJECT (FPID:405606-4, STA. 100+00.0 M.P. 0.000 TO FELLSMERE -� T -31-S T-32-5 1� IS 2 © . i River —Bridge 0t - 3A EXHIBIT "A" z3 W W TO MELBOURNE POP. 16.11— 19 M I X20¢ T M T `AIRPORT 30 • >w K. air 9 ! i ' PELICAN \ e NATIONAL WILDLIFE V II g\ i tREFUGE — �o\PIS� 14 z3 EBASTIAd i c4 v POP. 16.11— 19 I X20¢ 30 29 ! I ri•r 1 \ g\ i 31 — I —14- — —12 12 1 n al ! 1 —6 — 1 S_�{ 1 $ as ( I w u. L 1 I I + e —P— .11 1 s 112 ] c p• rr. 1 nr a. I I T13 n W 19 co OI M T K K to (VICINITY MAP) NOT TO SCALE END PROJECT (FPID:405606-4) BEGIN PROJECT (FPID:405606-3) q STA. 190+00.0 M.P. 1.700 END PROJECT (FPID:405606• � STA. 380+41 M.P. 3.610 T -31-S T -32-S I \y is TO VERO BEACH N.T.S. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOT A SURVEY COUNTY ROAD NO. 510 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1 o INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Keith McCully, P.E., Stormwater Engineer"' SUBJECT: Recommendation of Release of Retainage and Change Order No. 1 for Osprey Acres Floway and Nature Preserve DATE: February 20, 2020 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners awarded a $7,436,921.35 construction contract (Bid No. 201705 1) to West Construction, Inc. of Lantana, Florida, to construct Osprey Acres Floway and Nature Preserve. West Construction, Inc. has completed the project and has been paid $6,760,746.08 to date. In accordance with the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, the contract price was reduced during construction by mutually approved field changes and deletions, and to correct a math error in an earlier pay request. This results in a current contract price of $7,121,304.35 and a ($315,617.00) contract price reduction. Change Order No. 1 makes a final payment amount reduction for contract time impacts in the amount of ($175,000) and reduces the final contract price to $6,946,304.35. West Construction, Inc. has submitted Contractor's Application for Payment No. 22 -Final for final payment and release of retainage, which together with Change Order No. 1, results in a final payment of $185,558.27. FUNDING Funding for the final payment of $185,558.27 will come from Optional Sales Tax/Retainage-West Construction/ Acct# 315-206001-16022 for $180,828.74 and Optional Sales Tax/Accounts Payable Acct # 315-202000 for $4,729.53. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 and payment of Contractor's Application for Payment No. 22 - Final in the amount of $185,558.27. ATTACHMENTS Attachments are available for viewing in Public Works. Change Order No. 1 Contractor's Application for Payment No. 22 -Final Contractor's Final Certification of Work Contractor Closeout Spreadsheet Final Release of Liens APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 10, 2020 76 DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12/18/2019 Section 00942 - Change Order Form No. 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/20/2020 OWNER: Indian River County CONTRACTOR: West Construction, Inc. Project: OSPREY ACRES FLOWAY AND NATURE PRESERVE OWNER'S PROJECT NUMBER: SW -2017-001 OWNER'S Bid No. 2017051 You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents: Reason for Change Order: This project is complete. This change order is intended to make final adjustments to the Contractor's final pay due to contract time overages and to adjust original contract times due to weather events in order to finalize the contract amount and release retainage to the Contractor. Description of Itemized Charges CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Description Amount Original Contract Price $7,436,921.35 Contract Price after Contract $7,121,304.35 Adjustments made in accordance with 309 the Contract Documents to account for mutually approved field changes during construction and to correct a math error in a previous Pay Request Application Net decrease of this Change Order ($175,000.00) Final Contract Price with all $6,946,304.35 approved modifications and Change Orders ACCEPTED: By: West Construction, Inc. CONTRACTOR (Signature) Date: RECOMMENDED: By: Keith McCully, P.E. ENGINEER (Signature) Date: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: Description Time (days) Original Contract Time 300 Net increase of this Change Order 9 — Contract Time with all approved Change Orders 309 APPROVED: By: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E. OWNER (Signature) Date: 77 SECTION 00632 - CONTRACTOR'S FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE WORK (TO ACCOMPANY CONTRACTOR'S FINAL APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT) To: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (OWNER) From: (CONTRACTOR) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, the undersigned CONTRACTOR swears that the following are true statements: On , 20 , the CONTRACTOR and Indian River County, a Florida political subdivision, entered into a Contract for the performance of certain Work, generally described as follows: construction of a pollution removal facility and nature preserve called Osprey Acres Floway and Nature Preserve. The facility will use settling basins and aquatic plants to remove pollutants from up to 12 million gallons per day of canal water and Osprey Marsh Algal Turf Scrubber effluent and will also serve as a nature preserve. Work includes, but is not limited to construction of access roads and driveways, operations building, piping, deep settling basins, vegetative scrubber units, transfer channels, filter marshes, floway, shallow marshes, trails, miscellaneous structures, work pads, native landscaping, etc. 2. CONTRACTOR has reviewed the Contract Documents; 3. CONTRACTOR has reviewed the Work for compliance with the Contract Documents; 4. CONTRACTOR has completed the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents and the Contract is fully performed; 5. All equipment and systems have been tested in the presence of the ENGINEER or his representative and are fully operational with no defects or deficiencies except as listed below: 6. The Work is ready for final acceptance by the OWNER; 7. Final payment is now due; W 8. All liens of all firms and individuals contracting directly with or directly employed by CONTRACTOR have been paid in full EXCEPT: Name Description/Amount who have not been paid and who are due the amount set forth; and 10. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that it has no claims against the OWNER. (Corporate Seal) Dated By: (CONTRACTOR — must be signed by an Officer of the Corporation) Print Name and Title STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting, personally appeared, , who being by me first duly sworn upon oath, says that he/she is the of the CONTRACTOR mentioned above and that he/she has been duly authorized to act on behalf of it, and that he/she executed the above Contractor's Final Certification of the Work statement on behalf of said CONTRACTOR; and that all of the statements contained herein are true, correct, and complete. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 (SEAL) is personally known to me or has produced as identification. NOTARY PUBLIC: Commission No.: Commission Expiration: + + END OF SECTION + + Printed name: 79 CONTRACTOR'S FINAL APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT OSPREY ACRES FLOWAY AND NATURE PRESERVE Application for Payment No. 22 -FINAL For Work Accomplished through the period of through To: Indian River County (OWNER) From: (CONTRACTOR) ENGINEER: Indian River County Public Works Department, Stormwater Division 1. Original Contract Price: 2. Total change in Contract Price 3. Current Contract Price (1 plus 2a): 4. Total Work to date: 4.a Percentage of Work completed to date: 100% 4.b Total Work completed to date: 5. Retainage to be withheld: $-0- 6. Total Work completed less retainage (4.b minus 5): 7. Previous Payments: 8. AMOUNT DUE BEFORE CHANGE ORDER MO. 001 (6 minus 7) 9. CHANGE ORDER NO. 001 10. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (8 minus 9) CONTRACTOR's current mailing address: $7,436,921.35 ($315,617.00) $7,121,304.35 $7,121,304.35 $7,121,304.35 $6,760,746,.08 $360,558.27 ($175,000) $185,558.27 CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION: UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, the undersigned CONTRACTOR certifies that all 80 previous progress payments received on account of the Work have been applied on account to discharge CONTRACTOR's specific legitimate obligations associated with prior Applications for Payment. This certification includes, but is not limited to the following statements of fact: (1) the labor and materials listed on this request for payment have been used in the construction of this Work; (2) payment received from the last pay request has been used to make payments to all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and suppliers except as listed on Attachment A, below; (3) title of all Work, materials and equipment incorporated in said Work or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for Payment will pass to OWNER at time of payment free and clear of all Liens, security interests and encumbrances (except such as are covered by a Bond acceptable to OWNER indemnifying OWNER against any such Lien, security interest or encumbrance); (4) all Work covered by this Application for Payment is in accordance with the Contract Documents and not defective; and (5) If this Periodic Estimate is for a Final Payment to project or improvement, I further certify that all persons doing work upon or furnishing materials or supplies for this project or improvement under this foregoing contract have been paid in full, and that all taxes imposed by Chapter 212 Florida Statutes, (Sales and Use Tax Act, as Amended) have been paid and discharged, and that I have no claims against OWNER. Attached to or submitted with this form are: 1. Signed release of lien forms (partial or final as applicable) from all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and suppliers except as listed on Attachment A, together with an explanation as to why any release of lien form is not included; 2. Updated Construction Schedule per Specification Section 01310, 3. Construction progress photographs per Specification Section 01380, and 4. Progress Record Drawings per Specification Sections 01330 and 01720. 5. Updated Schedule of Values Under oath, I swear that the foregoing statements are true. Dated: (CONTRACTOR — must be signed by an Officer of the Corporation) Print Name and Title STATE OF FLORIDA - COUNTY OF Before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting, personally appeared who being by me first duly sworn upon oath, says that he/she is the of the CONTRACTOR mentioned above and that he/she has been duly authorized to act on behalf of it, and that he/she executed the above Contractor's Application for Payment and Contractor's Certification statement on behalf of said CONTRACTOR; and that all of the statements contained herein are true, correct, and complete. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 (SEAL) is personally known to me or has produced as identification. NOTARY PUBLIC: Printed name: Commission No.: Commission Expiration: SURETY'S CONSENT OF PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR: The Surety, a corporation, in accordance with Public Construction Bond Number , hereby consents to payment by the OWNER to the CONTRACTOR, for the amounts specified in this CONTRACTOR's APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT. TO BE EXECUTED BY CORPORATE SURETY: Attest: Secretary Corporate Surety Business Address BY: Print Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER (Affix Corporate SEAL) Before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting, personally appeared , to me well known or who produced as identification, who being by me first duly sworn upon oath, says that he/she is the for and that he/she has been authorized by it to approve payment by the OWNER to the CONTRACTOR of the foregoing Contractor's Application for Payment. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 Notary Public, State of My Commission Expires: [The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally] CERTIFICATION OF OWNER'S CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER: To the best of my knowledge and belief: the Work has progressed to the point indicated on this Application for Payment; the quality of the Work is generally in compliance with the Contract Documents; and the conditions precedent to the CONTRACTOR being entitled to such payment appear to have been fulfilled in so far as it is my ability to observe the Work. I am not certifying as to whether or not the Contractor has paid all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and suppliers because I am not in a position to accurately determine that issue. Dated SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION OF ENGINEER: To the best of my knowledge and belief: the Work has progressed to the point indicated on this Application for Payment; the quality of the Work is generally in compliance with the Contract Documents; and the conditions precedent to the CONTRACTOR being entitled to such payment appear to have been fulfilled in so far as it is my ability to observe the Work. I am not certifying as to whether or not the Contractor has paid all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and suppliers because I am not in a position to accurately determine that issue. Dated SIGNATURE [The Remainder of This Page Was Left Blank Intentionally] ATTACHMENT A RX 1. List of all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and suppliers who have not been paid from the payment received from the last Pay Request and the reason why they were not paid (attach additional pages as necessary): 2. List of all subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and suppliers for which a signed release of lien form (partial or final as applicable) is not included with this Pay Request, together with an explanation as to why the release of lien form is not included (attach additional pages as necessary): + + END OF SECTION + + LM gT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Tad Stone, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: Erin Baskins, Staff Assistant IV Department of Emergency Services DATE: February 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal for a Class `B" and Class `B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance to Provide Wheelchair/Stretcher and Interfacility Ambulance Transportation Services. 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 On March 20, 2018, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a renewal for a Class "E" and Class `B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance to provide wheelchair/stretcher and interfacility ambulance medical transportation originating within Indian River County. This certificate was necessary in order to comply with Indian River Code of Laws and Ordinances as specified in Chapter 304. The certificate was approved for a period of two (2) years and will expire March 27, 2020. The Indian River County Code provides for routine renewal of the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on an application by the certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public hearing if the Board has no reason to believe that the public health, safety, and welfare require it. Staff submits that there is no reason to hold a public hearing and absent that requirement, the Board is requested to renew the certificate. An application for the renewal of the Class "E" and Class `B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity has been submitted by Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance. Staff has reviewed the application and no reasons are known or perceived that would require a public hearing pursuant to the established ordinance. 85 FUNDING: There are no funding requirements for this item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve renewal of the Class `B" and Class "B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance, to be effective for a period of two (2) years from March 27, 2020 to March 27, 2022. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Renewal Application from Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a All County Ambulance :R INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 'DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) APPLICANT NAME: Falck SE II Corp dba: All County Ambulance DATE: 2/10/2020 APPLICATION FEE: $100.00 APPLIES TO INITIAL APPLICATIONS ONLY. If payment applicable, make check payable to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE RESCUE. ❑ This is a new application; fee is attached. ❑✓ This is a renewal of our present COPCN. ❑ This is a renewal of our present COCPN with ownership or classification changes. CLASSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE REQUESTED Please check applicable boxes and options. Class A ❑ ❑BLS DALS Governmental entities that use advanced life support vehicles to conduct a pre- hospital EMS ALS/BLS service. Class B ® ❑✓_BLS ©ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance inter -facility medical transport at the ALS/BLS level. Class C ❑ ❑BLS ❑ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance inter -facility medical transports which require special clinical capabilities and require a physician's order. Class D ❑ EIBLS ❑ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance medical transports limited to out of county transfers. Class E ® Zwheelchair Z Wheelchair/Stretcher nAmbulatory Transport Agencies that provide wheelchair transportation service only where said services are paid for in part or in whole either directly or indirectly with government funds. Class E1 ❑ IIWheelchair II Wheelchair/Stretcher DAmbulatory Transport Agencies that provide wheelchair vehicle service where said services are not paid for in part or in whole either directly or indirectly with government funds. MN II. COMPANY DETAILS 1. NAME OF AMBULANCE SERVICE: Falck SE II Corp:dba All County Ambulance MAILING ADDRESS: 4227 St. Lucie Blvd CITY Ft Pierce COUNTY St. Lucie County ZIP CODE: 34946 BUSINESS PHONE: 772-460-5661 2. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP(i.e. Private, Government, Volunteer, Partnership, etc.): Private 3. MANAGER'S NAME: Michael DeSouza ADDRESS: 4227 St Lucie Blvd, Ft Pierce FL 34946 PHONE #: 772-465-1111 4. PROVIDE NAME OF OWNER(s) OR LIST ALL OFFICERS, PARTNERS, DIRECTORS, AND SHAREHOLDERS, IF A CORPORATION (attach a separate sheet if necessary): NAME ADDRESS POSITION Falck USA, Inc. 1517 W. Braden Ct. Orange CA 92868 5. PROVIDE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF AT LEAST THREE (3) LOCAL REFERENCES NAME ADDRESS PHONE # Darlene Silverstein 1000 37th St VB FL 32960 772-567-4311 John Skalko 1310 37th St VB FL 32960 772-569-5107 Cory Richter 714 W Fisher Circle, Sebastian FL 32958 772-663-3929 6. FUNDING SOURCE: Private 7. RATE SCHEDULE ATTACHED? YES ;K NO ❑ N/A ❑ 8. LIST THE ADDRESS(es) OF YOUR BASE AND ALL SUB -STATIONS: 4227 St Lucie Blvd, Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Cleveland Clinic Indian River 1000 37th Street Vero Beach FL 32960 III. COMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION: TYPES OF RADIOS/EQUIPMENT: See Attached 1. RADIO FREQUENCY (ies) 2. RADIO CALL NUMBER(s) See Attached WQML866 3. LIST ALL HOSPITALS AND OTHER EMERGENCY AGENCIES WITH WHICH YOU HAVE DIRECT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS: FROM AMBULANCE FROM BASE STATION Statewide Med 8 Statewide Med 8 Lawnwood Regional Medical Center Sebastian River Medical Center IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION: 1. Factual Statement indicating the public need and services, including studies supporting the demonstrated demand and feasibility for the proposed service(s) and deficiencies in existing services, and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 2. Factual statement of the proposed services to be provided, including type of service, hours and days of operation, market to be served, geographic areas to be serviced, and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 3. Factual Statement indicating the ability of the applicant to manage and provide the proposed services, including the management plan, maintenance facilities, insurance program, accounting system, system for handling complaints, system for handling accidents and injuries, system for providing the county monthly operating reports and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 4. Copy of Standard Operating Procedures. 5. Copy of Medical Protocols. 6. Copy of your insurance policy — must show coverage limits — 7. Vehicle Information. For each vehicle provide the following: a. Make, Model, Year, Manufacturer b. Mileage c. VIN # d. Tag Number e. Passenger capacity (E/E1 classification) f. Indicate ALS/BLS (A -D classification) 8. Personnel Roster. For each employee provide the following: a. Name — Last, First and Middle Initial b. Driver's License # (if commercial, specify class) & Expiration Date ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED FOR A -D classifications c. Emergency Medical Service Certification and # (EMT or Paramedic) d. Expiration date of Certification e. Whether or not has an Emergency Vehicle Operation Certificate. 9. Fee Schedule Including: Service Type, Base Rate, Mileage, Waiting and Special Charges 90 V. NOTARIZED STATEMENTS Fill in Statements as applicable. E or E1 APPLICANTS I, Michael De Souza , the representative of Applicant Name Falck SE II Corp, dba All County Ambulance, do hereby attest that the Business Name of Service above named service meets all the requirements of, and that I agree to comply with, all applicable provisions of Chapter 304, Life Support and Wheelchair Services. A -D APPLICANTS I, Michael DeSouza , the representative of Applicant Name Falck SE II Corp, dba All County Ambulance do hereby attest that Business Name of Service the above named service will provide continuous service on a 24-hour, 7 -day week basis. I do hereby attest that the above named service meets all the requirements for operation of an ambulance service in the State of Florida as provided in Chapter 401, Part III, Florida Statutes, Chapter 64E-2, Florida Administrative Code, and that I agree to comply with all the provisions of Chapter 304, Life Support Services. ALL APPLICANTS I further acknowledge that discrepancies discovered during the effective period of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity will subject this service and its authorized representatives to corrective action and penalty provided in the referenced authority and that to the best of my knowledge, all statements on this application are true and correct. APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE Before me personally appeared the said who says that he/she executed the above instrument of his/her own free will and accord, with full knowledge of the purpose thereof. Sworn and subscribed in my presence this day of 201. My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC 91 SK INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Tad Stone, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: Erin Baskins, Staff Assistant IV Department of Emergency Services DATE: February 26, 2020 SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal for a Class "E" and Class "B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service to Provide Wheelchair/Stretcher and Interfacility Ambulance Transportation Services. 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 On March 20, 2018, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a renewal for a Class "E" and Class "B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service to provide wheelchair/stretcher and interfacility ambulance medical transportation originating within Indian River County. This certificate was necessary in order to comply with Indian River Code of Laws and Ordinances as specified in Chapter 304. The certificate was approved for a period of two (2) years and will expire March 27, 2020. The Indian River County Code provides for routine renewal of the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on an application by the certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public hearing if the Board has no reason to believe that the public health, safety, and welfare require it. Staff submits that there is no reason to hold a public hearing and absent that requirement, the Board is requested to renew the certificate. An application for the renewal of the Class "E" and Class `B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity has been submitted by Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service. Staff has reviewed the application and no reasons are known or perceived that would require a public hearing pursuant to the established ordinance. 92 FUNDING: There are no funding requirements for this item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve renewal of the Class `B" and Class `B" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Falck Southeast II, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service, to be effective for a period of two (2) years from March 27, 2020 to March 27, 2022. ATTACHMIENTS: 1. Renewal Application from Falck Southeast H, Corp d/b/a American Ambulance Service 93 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) APPLICANT NAME: Falck SE II Corp dba: American Ambulance Service DATE: 2/10/2020 APPLICATION FEE: $100.00 APPLIES TO INITIAL APPLICATIONS ONLY. If payment applicable, make check payable to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE RESCUE. ❑ This is a new application; fee is attached. ❑✓ This is a renewal of our present COPCN. ❑ This is a renewal of our present COCPN with ownership or classification changes. CLASSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE REQUESTED Please check applicable boxes and options. Class A ❑ ❑BLS DALS Governmental entities that use advanced life support vehicles to conduct a pre- hospital EMS ALS/BLS service. Class B ® WIBLS ©ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance inter -facility medical transport at the ALS/BLS level. Class C ❑ ❑BLS ❑ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance inter -facility medical transports which require special clinical capabilities and require a physician's order. Class D ❑ OBLS [_]ALS Agencies that provide non -emergency ambulance medical transports limited to out of county transfers. Class E ® nWheelchair Z Wheelchair/Stretcher nAmbulatory Transport Agencies that provide wheelchair transportation service only where said services are paid for in part or in whole either directly or indirectly with government funds. Class E1 ❑ IIWheelchair Ll Wheelchair/Stretcher ,Ambulatory Transport Agencies that provide wheelchair vehicle service where said services are not paid for in part or in whole either directly or indirectly with government funds. 94 II. COMPANY DETAILS 1. NAME OF AMBULANCE SERVICE: Falck SE II Corp:dba All County Ambulance MAILING ADDRESS: 4227 St. Lucie Blvd CITYFt Pierce COUNTYSt. Lucie County ZIP CODE: 34946 BUSINESS PHONE: 772-460-5661 2. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP(i.e. Private, Government, Volunteer, Partnership, etc.): Private 3. MANAGER'S NAME: Michael DeSouza ADDRESS: 4227 St Lucie Blvd, Ft Pierce FL 34946 PHONE #: 772-465-1111 4. PROVIDE NAME OF OWNER(s) OR LIST ALL OFFICERS, PARTNERS, DIRECTORS, AND SHAREHOLDERS, IF A CORPORATION (attach a separate sheet if necessary): NAME ADDRESS POSITION Falck USA, Inc. 1517 W. Braden Ct. Orange CA 92868 5 NAME PROVIDE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF AT LEAST THREE (3) LOCAL REFERENCES ADDRESS PHONE # Darlene Silverstein 1000 37th St VB FL 32960 772-567-4311 John Skalko 1310 37th St VB FL 32960 772-569-5107 Cory Richter 714 W Fisher Circle, Sebastian FL 32958 772-663-3929 95 6. FUNDING SOURCE. Private 7. RATE SCHEDULE ATTACHED? YES {Z1 NO ❑ N/A ❑ 8. LIST THE ADDRESS(es) OF YOUR BASE AND ALL SUB -STATIONS: 4227 St Lucie Blvd, Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Cleveland Clinic Indian River 1000 37th Street Vero Beach FL 32960 III. COMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION: TYPES OF RADIOS/EQUIPMENT: See Attached 1. RADIO FREQUENCY (ies) 2. RADIO CALL NUMBER(s) See Attached WQML866 3. LIST ALL HOSPITALS AND OTHER EMERGENCY AGENCIES WITH WHICH YOU HAVE DIRECT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS: FROM AMBULANCE FROM BASE STATION Statewide Med 8 Statewide Med 8 Lawnwood Regional Medical Center Sebastian River Medical Center 96 IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION: 1. Factual Statement indicating the public need and services, including studies supporting the demonstrated demand and feasibility for the proposed service(s) and deficiencies in existing services, and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 2. Factual statement of the proposed services to be provided, including type of service, hours and days of operation, market to be served, geographic areas to be serviced, and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 3. Factual Statement indicating the ability of the applicant to manage and provide the proposed services, including the management plan, maintenance facilities, insurance program, accounting system, system for handling complaints, system for handling accidents and injuries, system for providing the county monthly operating reports and any other pertinent data you wish to be considered. 4. Copy of Standard Operating Procedures. 5. Copy of Medical Protocols. 6. Copy of your insurance policy — must show coverage limits — 7. Vehicle Information. For each vehicle provide the following: a. Make, Model, Year, Manufacturer b. Mileage c. VIN # d. Tag Number e. Passenger capacity (E/E1 classification) f. Indicate ALS/BLS (A -D classification) 8. Personnel Roster. For each employee provide the following: a. Name — Last, First and Middle Initial b. Driver's License # (if commercial, specify class) & Expiration Date ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED FOR A -D classifications c. Emergency Medical Service Certification and # (EMT or Paramedic) d. Expiration date of Certification e. Whether or not has an Emergency Vehicle Operation Certificate. 9. Fee Schedule Including: Service Type, Base Rate, Mileage, Waiting and Special Charges 97 V. NOTARIZED STATEMENTS Fill in Statements as applicable. E or E1 APPLICANTS I, Michael De Souza , the representative of Applicant Name Falck SE II Corp, dba American Ambulance Service do hereby attest that the Business Name of Service above named service meets all the requirements of, and that I agree to comply with, all applicable provisions of Chapter 304, Life Support and Wheelchair Services. A -D APPLICANTS I, Michael DeSouza Applicant Name the representative of Falck SE 11 Corp, dba American Ambulance Service , do hereby attest that Business Name of Service the above named service will provide continuous service on a 24-hour, 7 -day week basis. I do hereby attest that the above named service meets all the requirements for operation of an ambulance service in the State of Florida as provided in Chapter 401, Part III, Florida Statutes, Chapter 64E-2, Florida Administrative Code, and that I agree to comply with all the provisions of Chapter 304, Life Support Services. ALL APPLICANTS I further acknowledge that discrepancies discovered during the effective period of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity will subject this service and its authorized representatives to corrective action and penalty provided in the referenced authority and that to the best of my knowledge, all statements on this application are true and correct. APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE Before me personally appeared the said who says that he/she executed the above instrument of his/her own free will and accord, with full knowledge of the purpose thereof. Sworn and subscribed in my presence this day of 1201. My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC L CONSENT DA BCC Meeting 03/10/2020 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA j = •e AGENDA ITEM Assistant County Administrator / -OR%V* Department of General Services Parks and Conservation Resources Division Date: January 31, 2020 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator Kristin Daniels, Director, Office of Management and Budget Kevin Kirwin, Director, Parks and Conservation Resources From: Beth Powell, Asst. Director, Parks and Conservation Resources Subject: Jones' Pier Conservation Area Public Use Improvements — Amendment Number 2 to MBV Work Order #5 for Jones' Pier Conservation Area (FTC No.: 05 -039 -FF) — Construction Oversight Services BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2017, the Board approved Work Order No. 5 for MBV Engineering, Inc. to complete site Plan Design and Permitting for the pubic use improvements planned for the Kroegel Homestead, Hallstrom Farmstead and Jones' Pier Conservation Areas (Phase 1). Subsequently, on September 18, 2018, the Board approved Amendment Number 1 to provide architectural design and engineering services for the Pavilion/Restroom. While Work Order No. 5 provided for Phase 1 design and engineering services related to the overall site improvements at the project site, it did not include construction inspection and certification services. Amendment Number 2 includes the required construction inspection and certification necessary for engineer certification, summarized in the attached Exhibit A — Scope of Work. Deliverables include: • Original letter of certification by Engineer of Record for Phase 1 • Certification forms for St. Johns River Water Management District • Certification forms for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection • Additional construction oversight from the project's Architect to ensure quality control and proper payment FUNDING! Funding for Amendment Number 2 to Work Order Number 5 is funded through the project budget allocated in the updated Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvements Schedule adopted December 3, 2019. 99 Description Account Number Amount Work Order #5, Amendment 2 Jones' Pier Preserve Public Access Improvements — Windsor Properties Exchange Donation 00421072-066510-18010 $8,200.00 99 RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends acceptance of the Amendment Number 2 to Work Order Number 5, Jones' Pier Conservation Area with MBV Engineering, Inc. under the Continuing Consulting Engineering Services Agreements - RFQ 2018008 in the amount of $8,200.00, and authorize the Chairman to execute the amendment after review and approval by the County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency. ATTACHMENT: Amendment Number 2 to MBV Work Order #5 for Jones' Pier Conservation Area (FTC No.: 05- 039 -FF) — Construction Oversight Services DISTRIBUTION: MBV Engineering, Inc. AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 10, 2020 100 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO WORK ORDER NUMBER 5 Indian River County Conservation / Public Access for Jones Pier — (FTC No.: 05' 39 -FF) Jones' Pierce Phase 1 Construction Oversight and Certification Services This Amendment 2 to Work Order Number 5 is entered into as of this _ day of , 202_, 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 MBV Engineering, Inc. ("Consultant"). The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on Exhibit A (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order 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), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. 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: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MBV Engineering, Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By:� By: Title: Vice President Susan Adams, Chairman BCC Approved Date: Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk Approved: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney 101 EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding that the COUNTY intends to construct an approximately 1,040 SF open pavilion with bathrooms and associated parking at the Jones Pier Historic parcel located at 7770 Jungle Trail, Vero Beach, FL. The proposed improvements will require construction inspection and certification services during and through final completion of the work. MBV Engineering, Inc. and Donadio & Associates. will provide the necessary project oversight and certifications necessary, as outlined below in detail. CONSTRUCTION PHASE The Consultant will provide the following scope of services during the construction phase: Civil • Attendance to two (2) pre -construction meetings, as requested • Shop Drawing review of Civil site components • One (1) inspection during subbase construction • One (1) inspection for sidewalk formboards • One (1) inspection for asphalt milling construction • One (1) inspection for water line testing • Up to three (3) site visits during on-site sewer pipe and STEP system construction and testing • One (1) inspection during drainage pipes and structure construction • One (1) final inspection of civil site components in Phase 1 • Review of testing reports and asbuilts provided by others • Coordination with Site Contractor during construction • Certification by EOR to County, SJRWMD and FDEP NOTE: Above inspections are based on a duration of 2.5 hours each. Architectural • Six (6) additional site visits during the 3 -month construction period for observations, meetings and pay draw reviews DELIVERABLES The Consultant shall provide the COUNTY with the following: • Punchlist of deficient items upon final inspection • Original letter of certification by Engineer of Record for Phase 1. • Certifications forms for SJRWMD • Certification forms for FDEP 102 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE The COUNTY agrees to pay and the Consultant agrees to accept for services rendered, pursuant to this Agreement, fees inclusive of expenses in accordance with the following: Task Fee Construction Phase Civil Construction Services $ 6,550 Architectural Construction Services $ 1,650 Amendment 2 Total $ 8,200 ADDITIONAL SERVICES When required by the COUNTY or the Contract Documents, where circumstances exist beyond the Consultant's control, Consultant shall provide or obtain from others, as circumstances required, those additional services not listed as part of the Work Order, the Consultant shall notify the COUNTY promptly prior to commencing said Additional Services, and if agreed upon, will be paid for by County in accordance with the Master Agreement, Professionals and vendor intended to provide additional services shall first be approved by the COUNTY, in writing, by the COUNTY's Project Manager. The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on this Work Order. The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in this Work Order. The Consultant will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in this Work Order in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. 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. 103 ?M Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum Date: February 25, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Prepared By: Arjuna Weragoda, PE, Capital Projects Manager Subject: Groundwater Modeling and Impact Evaluations with CDM Smith, Amendment No.1 to Work Order No. 5 Descriptions and Conditions: On December 3, 2019, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Work Order No. 5 to CDM Smith (CDM) to provide professional engineering services to update the groundwater modeling to support the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) 10524 modification. Analysis: In order to support CUP modification staff was notified by St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) additional model simulations were needed. Therefore, the subject amendment was requested to add the additional groundwater modeling simulations. The Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5 is provided in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services Contract No. 2018008 dated April 17, 2018. The scope is more specifically described in the attached Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5. The total negotiated cost for the groundwater modeling in Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5 is a sum amount of $23,290, for a total amount of $88,090.00. Funding: Funds for this project are derived from the other professional services account in the Utilities operating fund. Utilities operating funds are generated from water and sewer sales. Description Account Number Amount Other Professional Services 47123536-033190 $88,090 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5 and requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute the Amendment on their behalf to engage the services of CDM Smith for a sum amount of $23,290. Attachment: Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 5 with CDM. (8 Pages) 104 CCNA2018 AMENDMENT 1 WORK ORDER NUMBER 5 GROUNDWATER MODELING AND IMPACT EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF WATER USE PERMIT NUMBER 10524 This Work Order Number 5 is entered into as of this _ day of , 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 CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) ("Consultant"). 1. The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth in existing Work Order Number 5, Effective Date December 3, 2019. 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 Section 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: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CDM Smith Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -r By: By: Print Name: Eric . Grotke, P.E., BCEE Susan Adams, Chairman Title: Vice President BCC Approved Date: Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Approved: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Deputy Clerk Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney 105 EXHIBIT A CCNA-2018 WO NO. 5 AMENDMENT 1 FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER MODELING SIMULATIONS AND PREPARATION OF REVISED GROUNDWATER MODELING PLAN OF MODIFICATION OF WATER USE PERMIT NUMBER 10524 This Amendment, when executed, shall be incorporated in and become part of the Agreement for Professional Services (Contract #2018008) between Indian River County (OWNER), and CDM Smith Inc. (CONSULTANT), dated April 17, 2018, hereafter referred to as the Agreement. PROJECT BACKGROUND The OWNER owns and operates two Water Treatment Plants [WTPs], the South County WTP and North County WTP. The South County WTP withdraws groundwater from seven existing Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) production wells, while the North County WTP relies on groundwater from nine existing UFA production wells. OWNERS's existing Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (10524) currently allows for a total combined groundwater withdrawal allocation of 12.838 million gallons per day [mgd], with 6.438 mgd from the North County wellfield and 6.40 mgd from the South County wellfield. The current CUP expires on October 11, 2031. OWNER has experienced an increase in demand due to population growth and domestic self -supply users switching over to OWNER's water supply. OWNER began a draft application requesting modification of the existing CUP to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in 2016. Groundwater modeling was performed to determine if there would be impacts on the water resources, environment, or other permitted users due to the anticipated increases in OWNER withdrawals from the UFA. CONSULTANT used a modified version of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) East Coast Floridan Aquifer Model (ECFM) to perform the impact analysis for the UFA. Since the ECFM did not include the Surficial Aquifer System (SAS), the SJRWMD Coupled Aquifer [COUAQ] model was used to determine the drawdown in the Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) due to increased pumping and groundwater level drawdown in the UFA. The groundwater modeling results and analysis were summarized in a report that along with the model input and output files were submitted to the SJRWMD in support of the draft CUP application. SJRWMD staff previously approved the model as the best tool available for UFA uses in the area and the results of the modeling and impact evaluations. Due to the resurgence of development, the OWNER must now modify the permit to account for the new and future demand projections. Based on actual groundwater withdrawals and an approximate 2 percent increase in demands over time (including an expanded service area), the 2050 demand was calculated to be 23.18 mgd. This is an increase from the existing EOP withdrawal of 12.838 mgd, which was used in the draft 2016 CUP application and the associated groundwater modeling and impact analysis. Additional modeling simulations are therefore necessary to determine whether the new Smith 106 demand of 23.18 mgd will cause any adverse impacts to water resources, environmental resources, and other legal users. After the CONSULTANT received notice -to -proceed for WO No. 5 and the project kickoff meeting was held with the OWNER, the OWNER requested that additional modeling simulations be conducted to determine the withdrawal flow split between the north and south wellfields. Also, the OWNER requested approval from the SJRWMD to use the existing groundwater models developed by the CONSULTANT in 2016 for the 2020 CUP modification. On January 13, 2020, SJRWMD provided approval for the use of the model but requested that a revised/updated groundwater modeling plan be submitted to the District for review and approval. These items were not included in WO No.5. This Amendment has been developed to provide the additional groundwater modeling services requested by the OWNER. SCOPE OF WORK The following is a description of the work to be provided under this Amendment. TASK 1- ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER MODELING SIMULATIONS The CONSULTANT will perform two additional groundwater model simulations with the modified ECFM for the increased UFA allocation to determine the flow split between the north and south county WTP wellfields for the proposed 2050 EOP withdrawal. The CONSULTANT will also perform a third additional groundwater model simulation requested by SJRWMD referred to as "pumps off', which will be used for the cumulative pumping impact scenario as described below. The modified ECFM model was used during previous permit modification attempt in 2016 and has been approved by SJRWMD for use in support of the current CUP modification. The two (2) groundwater modeling simulations will be performed using the End -of -Permit (EOP) withdrawals for all permitted users and IRCU wells pumping at the requested allocation increase of 23.18 mgd. A detailed description of these two simulations are listed below: 1. Simulation 4 (SIM4) — Existing and proposed IRCU Hobart Park WTP wells will be pumped at 23.18 mgd and other legal user wells within the model domain pumping at their current EOP withdrawal rate, except for the agricultural use wells whose EOP allocations will be adjusted to 5 in 10 -year factors provided by SJRWMD. The CONSULTANT has received a GIS shapefile from SJRWMD containing EOP withdrawals for all permitted users within the model domain. 2. Simulation 5 (SIMS) —Existing and proposed IRCU South County WTP wells will be pumped at 23.18 mgd and other legal user wells within the model domain pumping at their current EOP withdrawal rate, except for the agricultural use wells whose EOP allocations will be adjusted to 5 in 10 -year factors provided by SJRWMD. Simulation 6 (SIM6) — All Existing Legal User withdrawals in the model domain are set to zero ("pumps off"). Simulated groundwater elevations from the cumulative EOP withdrawals for all Existing Legal Users in the model domain are subtracted from the simulated groundwater elevations from the "pumps off" simulation to calculate cumulative groundwater level drawdown. cSmith 107 Simulations 4 and 5 will be used by the CONSULTANT and OWNER in determining the groundwater level drawdown due to the total proposed IRCU EOP withdrawal (23.18 mgd) occurring from each wellfield. Since the relationship between pumping rate and groundwater level drawdown is linear in confined aquifers, the maximum pumping rate can be determined for each wellfield that will not impact other existing legal users of the UFA. Simulation 6 will be used as the baseline condition for determining cumulative drawdown. The deliverable for this task will be maps showing the cone of depression (groundwater level drawdown) for each wellfield pumping scenario and contours of cumulative groundwater level drawdown due to pumping. The results of these Simulations 4 and 5 are for internal purposes only and will not be submitted to SJRWMD in the groundwater modeling and impact evaluation TM and/or described in the revised groundwater modeling plan. The results of Simulation 6 will be submitted to SJRWMD in the groundwater modeling and impact evaluation TM and described in the revised groundwater modeling plan. TASK 2 - PREPARATION OF REVISED GROUNDWATER MODELING PLAN The CONSULTANT will modify/update the existing groundwater modeling plan developed and approved by SJRWMD in 2016 to describe the three simulations listed in WO No. 5 and the methodology and data to adjust the agricultural pumping from legal users in the model domain. The draft modeling plan will be submitted to the OWNER for review and comment. The CONSULTANT will incorporate comments provided by the OWNER into the plan and send the final plan to SJRWMD for review and approval before starting the model simulations. TASK 3 - PROJECT AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT Activities performed under this task consist of those general functions required to maintain the project on schedule, within budget, and that the quality of the work products defined within this Work Order is consistent with CONSULTANT's standards and the OWNER's requirements. Specific activities included are identified below: Subtask 3.1 - Project Quality Management CONSULTANT maintains a Quality Management System (QMS) on all projects. In accordance with the QMS, a project planning and scope review meeting will be conducted at the start of the project. In addition, the CONSULTANT's Technical Specialists will perform quality reviews of the deliverables identified in Task 1. Subtask 3.2 - Project Status Reports CONSULTANT's project manager will prepare and submit monthly written status reports with each invoice for an anticipated project duration of 4 months. OTHER SERVICES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS WORK ORDER This Work Order does not include the following items: • Preparation of a Consumptive Use Permit application or permit fee; or • Modeling changes for SJRWMD Requests for Additional Information. OWNER's RESPONSIBILITIES The OWNER will provide all available data requested by the CONSULTANT for the purpose of completing the aforementioned tasks. The data necessary for this project are, but not limited to the following: Smith 108 To identify four new production well locations at the North Hobart Park Wellfield and six new production well locations at the South Wellfield to be capable of producing 23.18 mgd from each wellfield. • To provide monthly water use data for the individual existing IRCUD production wells for the past five years (2015-2019) in electronic format. The OWNER will also provide a timely review of all work products. 6910.UublI M Previously, it was anticipated that the Project will take a total of 3 months to complete, starting within two weeks of receipt of a formal notice to proceed (NTP) on December 6, 2019. The groundwater modeling report with impact evaluations was estimated to be completed within 90 days of Notice -to - Proceed NTP was delayed until a project kickoff meeting could be scheduled in early January 2020. The project Kickoff meeting was held on January 8, 2020 where the scope items in this amendment were identified by the OWNER. This scope of work extends the schedule by 30 days for a total of 120 days from January 8`h, which corresponds to May 7, 2020. CONSULTANT will prepare an updated detailed schedule within the first 10 calendar days after Notice -to -Proceed of Amendment 1. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation for the work described in this Amendment shall be made on the basis of a lump sum fee. The lump sum fee for Tasks 1, 2 and 3, inclusive, is $23,290 as shown in Exhibits B-1 and B-2. The amended Work Order No. 5 lump sum amount is $88,090. CONSULTANT will invoice OWNER on a monthly basis based on percent complete. For invoice purposes only, the value of each task is as shown in the Table 1. Table 1 Estimated Budget for Amendment 1 to Work Order No. 5 TASK VALUE FOR INVOICE PURPOSES TASK DESCRIPTION VALUE 1 Additional Groundwater Modeling Simulations $18,290 2 Preparation of Revised Groundwater Modeling Plan $3,170 3 Project and Quality Management $1,830 TOTAL WORK ORDER NO. 5 AMMENDMENT 1- LUMP SUM $23,290 Smith 109 0 o0 00 c o + o c 00 0o d N N O ti Q 001 OMO N O 001 O O X01 O p O O O O Q Q C O b O Q W = N NO O O ti ti u1 v1 O M ii N O O O O C O N p d d N 10 0 0 a a � a u o 0 c O d O a` O O N O O N O O N O O to c 0 C ^^ p N O O O n O N O p 00 O _ Q a` p o O �n — W 0 O 0 NN N H d O O O 'E v ti 0 o m o o a c o c o a o Ozz E V1 � y c 3 a c v v E a O c E w m Y O � N f C O � c U 'o 0 c O � a � Y A H H Y F m > N s_ 'mOE v EXHIBIT B-2 BUDGET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES Additional Groundwater Modeling Simulations & Preparation of Revised Groundwater Modeling Plan in Support of Modification of Water Use Permit Number 10524 Description: As Outlined in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A Reference: Agreement Between Indian River County Utilities and CDM Smith Inc. Labor Category Hours Rate Labor Senior Officer 2 $240 $480 Senior Technical Expert 24 $235 $5,640 Principal 4 $210 $840 Senior Professional 80 $175 $14,000 Professional 11 0 $140 $0 Staff Support Services 16 $95 $1,520 Document Control Specialist 4 $90 $360 TOTAL HOURS 130 TOTAL LABOR COST $22,840 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 450 TOTAL WORK ORDER AMOUNT 23 290 111 Smith„2588_Exhibit B-2.x1sx EXHIBIT C INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER MODELING SIMULATIONS & PREPARATION OF REVISED GROUNDWATER DODELING PLAN IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF WATER USE PERMIT NUMBER 10524 WO NO. 5 AMENDMENT 1 SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the work included in this Amendment will take 30 days to complete, starting within five (5) days of receipt of the executed Amendment and following the completion of the original scope of services. The estimated schedule is as shown below. CONSULTANT will prepare an updated detailed schedule within the first 10 calendar days after receipt of the Amendment. TIME SCHEDULE Executed Amendment Received By April 2, 2020 Technical Memorandum and Model Files May 7, 2020 *Dates subject to receipt of the executed Amendment and the OWNER'S review of work products Smith 112 Emergency Addition Consent March 10, 2020 Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum Date: March 9, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Prepared By: John M. Boyer, P.E., Utilities Engineer Subject: Change Order #1 to Work Authorization #1 CK Contractors — Replace 16" Water Distribution Valve, 58th Avenue South of 5th Street SW Analysis: In late February 2020, Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) field staff identified a leaking gate valve on a 16" water main along 58th Avenue south of 5th Street SW. On March 3, 2020, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved ratification of emergency Purchase Order 85381 to CK Contractors & Development on the amount of $84,005.00. Upon commencing with the project, the contractor and County staff determined that additional work and equipment will be required to complete the repair. The Contractor provided a proposal for the additional work. Funding: Funds for this project are derived from utility operating funds. The utility operating fund budget is derived from water and sewer revenues. Description Account Number Amount 16" Water Distribution Valve Replacement 47126936-044699-19551 $ 84,005.00 Change Order #1 $ 42,785.00 Total Emergency Funding: $126,790.00 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize Change Order #1 to increase the amount of emergency Purchase Order 85831 to CK Contractors & Development by $42,785.00, to a total of $126,790.00. Attachments: 1. Proposal from CK Contractors & Development F:\BCC\Agenda Items\2020\Staff Report --Emergency Addition Consent March 10, 2020.docx K To: Indian River County Address: 1800 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Supervision & Trench Safety Contact: Phone: Fax: )"Boyer Project Name: 58th Street Gate Valve Repair Project Location: Indian River County, Vero Beach, FL 1.5 Bid Number: Bid Date: 20-03091 3/9/2020 $785.00 $785.00 3 Excavate And Prep Area For Line Stops & Restraints Item # Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price 1 Supervision & Trench Safety 1.00 LS $2,675.00 $2,675.00 1.5 Density Testing 1.00 LS $785.00 $785.00 3 Excavate And Prep Area For Line Stops & Restraints 1.00 LS $4,675.00 $4,675.00 4 Install Line Stops 2.00 EACH $15,350.00 $30,700.00 5 Backfill & Final Grade Areas 1.00 LS $2,325.00 $2,325.00 8 Replace Sidewalk 1.00 LS $1,625.00 $1,625.00 Total Bid Price: $42,785.00 Notes: • Not responsible for Permits, Fees or Bonds. • Not responsible for any Franchise Utility Relocation or conflict with existing utilities. • Price includes Bahia grassing for disturbed areas only. • Price does not include off-site waste. • Not responsible for hazardous materials. • Not responsible for any existing sub -surface condition. • Not responsible for any Erosion Control and / or maintenance as this is to be treated as an emergency repair. s • Any other item not specifically mentioned in excluded from this proposal. • Proposal is good for 30 days. • CK has quoted this project to execute the full scope, breaking out work is subject to unit price increases • All road improvement work is priced as daytime activity. Night work to be priced separately. • Density Testing is included for impacted area only. • This proposal is to be included in the contract documents. • Items not specifically outlined in this quote are excluded. • Proposal does not include any relocation and / or holding of Franchise Utility for utility service placement. • MOT and / or Traffic Barrier is included for our work area only and MOT plan approval should be treated as an emergency repair fro immediate approval. • Dewaterinq permit by others. We will provide all necessary pump data to Prime Contractor for obtaininq this permit. ACCEPTED: CONFIRMED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and CK Contractors & Development Florida are hereby accepted. Buyer: Signature: Authorized Signature: ..... Date of Acceptance: Estimator: 3/9/2020 1:52:50 PM Page 1 of 1 to =09. Indian River County Sheriff's Office March 2, 2020 The Honorable Susan Adams, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388 Dear Chairman Adams: My office participated in an on-line auction of surplus property and vehicles. The total auction proceeds were $105,786.99. The net result to the Sheriff's Office was $101,644.00. In keeping with past practice, I am requesting the proceeds to be used to acquire new like -kind property within the current fiscal year pursuant to Chapter 274, Florida Statutes. Please place this item under Constitutional Officers for the March 10, 2020 board agenda. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Aimee Markford at 978-6159. Sincerely, 1- OA4 Deryl Loar, Sheriff cc: Jason Brown, County Administrator Kristin Daniels, OMB Director Aimee Markford, Comptroller 4055 41st Avenue • Vero Beach, FL 32960 9 (772) 569-6700 • www.iresheriff.org 1®®:- 1 13 irl e Loar Indian River County Sheriff's Office March 2, 2020 The Honorable Susan Adams, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388 Dear Chairman Adams: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is a payment program that is administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). This program provides funding to participating jurisdictions for the partial reimbursement of costs incurred by incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens in their correctional facilities. I am pleased to inform you that through the efforts of my staff and the use of the consulting firm of Justice Benefits, Inc. (JBI) - that does the research, inputs the data in the proper format and submits the records - the Bureau of Justice Assistance has wire transferred $33,653.00 into the board's bank account. The invoice from the consulting firm for $6,057.54 will need to be paid from the proceeds which leaves a net of $27,595.46 from the FY 2019 SCAAP award. Beginning with FY 2007 SCAAP awards, SCAAP funds must be used for correctional purposes only. Consequently, I am requesting a check in the amount of $33,653.00, with the appropriate budget amendment into Corrections Operating Expenses, to pay the consulting firm and to augment funds needed for inmate care. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Aimee Markford at 978-6159. Sincerely, V Deryl Loar, Sheriff cc: Aimee Markford, Comptroller Kristin Daniels, OMB Director 4055 41st Avenue • Vero Beach, FL 32960 9 (772) 569-6700 9 www.iresheriff.org INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator THROUGH: Phillip J. Matson, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Bill Schutt, AICP Chief, Long Range Planning DATE: March 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Request for the Board of County Commissioners to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County by Adopting Proposed New Impact Fee Schedules for the Unincorporated Indian River County and Municipalities, and by Adopting Related Amendments Including Revisions to Level of Service Standards Used in Impact Fee Calculations and Revisions to Impact Fee Benefit Districts [Legislative] It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 10, 2020. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS To address infrastructure costs associated with new growth, Indian River County has, since 1986, imposed traffic impact fees on new development. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees for eight additional services/facilities. Collection of those eight impact fees were reduced to five during the economic downturn, when the County suspended collection of three of the impact fee categories based on reduced needs. Despite the reductions, impact fees have generated considerable revenue, and for infrastructure expansion projects they continue to be among the largest single source of funding in Indian River County. According to the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance, the County must review and update its impact fee schedule every five years. Since the last update was performed in 2014, the county initiated the update process in late 2018. On November 20, 2018, the BCC reviewed and approved a proposed scope of services for an Impact Fee update. Thereafter, staff incorporated the scope of services into a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services, and issued the RFP on December 14, 2018. The scope of services contains activities including an update of the fee schedule for six (6) of the County's impact fees (excludes/continues the suspension of Correctional Facilities, Solid Waste Facilities, and Library Facilities), an update of the local growth rate and the availability of "buy down" revenue used in the Affordable Growth model, and an evaluation of the County's three 115 separate transportation impact fee benefit districts (north, central, and south county). Further, the scope requires the utilization of the latest available data to update impact fee variables and inputs, including utilization of data and land use categories from the current I Vh Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; an update of land acquisition and infrastructure costs; a review of existing levels of service (for non -traffic fee categories only); an update of impact fee credits; and development of an updated impact fee schedule(s) for both a full impact fee calculated rate and for reduced impact fees under the County's Affordable Growth model. On March 26, 2019 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a contract with Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Inc. A draft report was thereafter completed and reviewed by the BCC on January 21, 2020. That draft report included two impact fee schedules; one with full calculated impact fees and another with reduced impact fees based on the Affordable Growth model with recommended discounts. Both of the impact fee schedules also included reduced administrative fees (reduced from 2.5% to 2.0%), two new small home land use categories that had additional discounts and waivers applied beyond those calculated through the Affordable Growth model, and updated impact fee land use categories. With respect to the two new small home land use categories specifically, one land use category was for a proposed impact fee waiver for single-family homes of less than 1,000 square foot in size and the other was for a proposed 50% reduction of impact fees for single family homes of between 1,000 square feet and 1,500 square feet in size for households in or below the low income category (less than 80% of Area Median Income). In reviewing the draft report, the BCC concluded that the County should not collect the full calculated impact fees but should collect the recommended reduced impact fees based on the Affordable Growth model and should collect the reduced 2.0% administrative fee. While the BCC was in overall agreement to collect the reduced impact fees based on the Affordable Growth model, members of the BCC indicated that they did not feel that the County should be waiving impact fees for single family homes of less than 1,000 square foot in size unless the fee waiver was part of an enforceable agreement or deed restriction for a set length of time limiting the use of the home to households either in the low income category or below (less than 80% of Area Median Income). The BCC requested that staff review the issue further with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) and then bring back any further recommended revisions to the BCC. On January 22, 2020, staff informed the AHAC of the BCC's request. After discussion, the AHAC voted to recommend that the income requirement be applied for Low and Very Low-income categories for both of the proposed small home land use categories (less than 1,000 square foot and between 1,000 and 1,500 square foot). No specific recommendation was made for a time period to include in a deed restriction or an enforceable agreement for forgiveness of the impact fees. After receiving BCC direction and additional direction from AHAC, the Consultant worked with staff and prepared a proposed Final Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Report dated February 13, 2020 (Attachment 1). That technical report includes the final (recommended) fee schedule with the AHAC recommended revision to restrict the impact fee waiver option to single-family homes of less than 1,000 square feet in size for income qualified households similar to the previously proposed income restriction for the 1,000 to 1,500 square foot single-family income category. In both cases the income limit percentage is listed in the impact fee schedule to better reflect the "Low" income category. 116 The final report and impact fee ordinance modifications, including proposed updated impact fee schedules with new and updated impact fee land use categories, and updated transportation impact fee benefit districts are attached for BCC review and approval. ANALYSIS In accordance with State Law, a public hearing must be conducted in order to update the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance and put the new residential impact fee schedules for the unincorporated county and municipalities into effect. Staff has complied with the advertising requirements for the public hearing and also provided a 30 -day notice to each municipality and the School District as required by each county/municipality/school impact fee interlocal agreement. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 2) contains the recommended reduced impact fee schedules with reduced administrative charges. Those schedules include the impact fee exemptions for the less than 1,000 square foot single-family land use category for households earning less than 80% of area median income, and the 50% reduction to the Affordable Growth reduced impact fees for the 1,000 to 1,500 single-family land use category for households earning less than 80% of area median income. Also included in the ordinance are modifications to the impact fee ordinance text (Title X), which include changes to the adopted impact fee level of service standards for each fee category, and a modified transportation impact fee benefit district map. Municinal and School District Review On January 13, 2020 and January 16, 2020 links to the proposed Draft Impact Fee Update Study, Fee Schedules, and accompanying BCC staff report were provided to staff at the Indian River County School District, the City of Fellsmere, the Town of Indian River Shores, the Town of Orchid, the City of Sebastian, and the City of Vero Beach. A follow-up e-mail was sent on February 25ffi asking for any comments or questions and to announce the planned March 10, 2020 public hearing to consider adopting the proposed reduced recommended impact fee rates. As of the writing of this agenda item, there have been no written concerns provided in response to the e-mails. With respect to the School District specifically, County staffworked closely with School District staff in the development of the school impact fees and has received no objections to the proposed school impact fee rates. Further, school district staff has supported its need for collection of school impact fees at the substantially reduced rate (28% of full impact fee rate) by showing that the collected fees would be used for planned school portable replacements and construction of a new wing at the Sebastian Middle School. Income Based Single -Family Housing Impact Fee Waiver and/or Reduction The proposed impact fee exemption for the less than 1,000 square foot single-family land use category for households earning less than 80% of area median income, and the proposed 50% reduction to the Affordable Growth reduced impact fees for the 1,000 to 1,500 single-family land use category for households earning less than 80% of area median income are consistent with AHAC recommendation and consistent with discussion from the January 21' BCC meeting. The method of enforcement of the income restrictions is not discussed in the report or the impact fee schedule. Prior to implementation of the impact fee ordinance, a proposed updated impact fee development policy 117 manual and proposed template legal method for enforcing the income restrictions to include an impact fee forgiveness time period will be presented to the BCC for discussion and final action. As discussed by the BCC, this could include a proposed forgiveness time period for the impact fees similar to the shared appreciation time periods used in Indian River County Habitat for Humanity Shared Appreciation Agreements. Those agreements are structured to provide a homeowner who sells their home with 10% of the home appreciation amount within the first 5 years, 25% of home appreciation amount between years 5 and 10, 50% of home appreciation amount between years 10 and 15, 75% of home appreciation amount between 15 and 20 years, and 100% of home appreciation amount after 20 years. As proposed, the impact fee waiver and reduction are consistent with state law that provides for such reductions and/or waivers. Impact Fee Schedule Overall The Consultant has performed all tasks necessary to update the impact fee schedules; has applied the "Affordable Growth" methodology to reduce impact fees; and has determined that proposed staff modifications/reductions based upon the Affordable Growth model are technically sound and warranted. Consequently, the Board has a reasonable basis for determining that the Consultant's update and Affordable Growth methodology with staff recommended reductions as applied to the impact fees are acceptable. Level of Service Modifications Level of Service (LOS) standards for public goods and services are often expressed in terms of units of service per resident (since there is an existing inventory of classrooms, jail beds, library books that can easily be divided by a number of residents to yield a standard). Each of these units of service has a replacement cost and a value associated with it as well. Therefore, for impact fee calculation purposes, LOS can be expressed in terms of asset valuation per resident. Since an asset valuation approach most accurately reflects the combination of all capital assets needed to provide the public good the Consultant has recommended that the County adopt a LOS standard for impact fee calculation purposes for each fee category expressed in terms of asset valuation (same approach as in the 2014 impact fee study update). The specific LOS changes, consistent with the Consultant's final report, appear in Section 2 of the proposed impact fee ordinance (Attachment 2). Adoption and General Percent Changes in Impact Fees Said ordinance, if adopted, will establish new impact fee schedules for the unincorporated county and municipalities, based on the Consultant's final report. As proposed, in the unincorporated county, the impact fee schedules will help to incentivize construction of housing that is affordable by eliminating impact fees completely for smaller income qualified houses and in other cases significantly reducing impact fees. With respect to new market rate single-family housing and for multi -family housing, impact fees will slightly increase. For single-family homes, the percent increase is between 13.6% and 17.0%. For mid -rise multi -family (3 stories or more, impact fees will increase by 4% and for low-rise multi -family (1-2 stories), impact fees will increase by 29.1%. Even with the high percentage increase for low-rise multi -family, the total $6,374 in impact fees per unit is still over $1,000 less than the lowest single-family impact fee amount in the current adopted impact fee schedule. MU With respect to institutional (not including governmental), commercial, industrial, office, and related use categories, all are increasing except for warehousing, veterinary clinics, and banks/savings (no drive thru). Those land uses have impact fees that are decreasing overall between 10% and 15%. Some of the more common non-residential uses, such as general office and gas station/convenience market, will see larger increases; general office will increase from $2,579 per 1,000 square foot to $4,007 per 1,000 square foot while gas station/convenience market will increase by $4,892 per fueling position. Overall, the proposed non-residential and non-governmental impact fees are significantly less than the full calculated impact fee rate and less than fees charged in 2009. The proposed effective date of the ordinance is June 15, 2020. The proposed effective date will satisfy state statutes which require a minimum of 90 days between adoption and the effective date of any impact fee increase. As publicly noticed, the BCC may choose to select an effective date beyond June 15, 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Accept the Consultant's Impact Fee Update Final Report dated February 13, 2020; and 2. Adopt the proposed modifications to Title X, Impact Fee Ordinance Changes, as contained in the attached ordinance, including updates to: a. impact fee level of service standards for Emergency Services, Public Buildings Development, Law Enforcement, Parks and Recreation Facilities, and Public Education Facilities; b. the impact fee schedules as contained in Appendix A; and c. Impact Fee Benefits Districts for Transportation as contained in Appendix B. ATTACHMENTS 1) Final Impact Fee Update Study Report 2) Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance Modifications, Fee Schedules, and Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts map for the Unincorporated County and Municipalities 119 Tindale 00liver planning I design I engineering Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Final Report February 13, 2020 Prepared for: Indian River County Community Development — Planning 180127th 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 0343003-00.19 120 Attachment 1 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 Methodology................................................................................................................. 1 LegalStandard Overview............................................................................................... 2 LandUse Changes.......................................................................................................... 4 II. PUBLIC BUILDINGS....................................................................................................... 6 FacilityInventory........................................................................................................... 6 Service Area and Population.......................................................................................... 9 Levelof Service.............................................................................................................. 9 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 10 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 10 NetImpact Cost............................................................................................................. 13 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee.......................................................................... 14 Affordable Growth Strategy........................................................................................... 15 Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison........................................................ 16 III. EMERGENCY SERVICES................................................................................................. 18 FacilityInventory........................................................................................................... 18 Vehicle and Equipment Inventory.................................................................................. 20 Service Area and Population.......................................................................................... 21 Levelof Service.............................................................................................................. 21 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 23 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 24 NetImpact Cost............................................................................................................. 27 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule .................................................... 27 Affordable Growth Strategy........................................................................................... 29 Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ................................................. 29 IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT.................................................................................................... 31 FacilityInventory........................................................................................................... 31 Service Area and Population.......................................................................................... 33 Levelof Service.............................................................................................................. 34 Tindale Oliver Indian River Cgjy February 2020 i Impact Fee Update Sf dy Attachment 1 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 35 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 36 NetImpact 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 ServiceArea and Population.......................................................................................... 45 Levelof Service.............................................................................................................. 45 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 47 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 51 NetImpact Cost............................................................................................................. 53 Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ...................................... 54 AffordableGrowth Strategy........................................................................................... 56 Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .................................... 56 VI. TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................... 58 DemandComponent..................................................................................................... 59 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 61 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 67 Calculated Transportation Impact Fee........................................................................... 70 Affordable Growth Strategy........................................................................................... 72 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison......................................................... 73 Benefit Districts Review................................................................................................. 75 VII. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES............................................................................................ 78 FacilityInventory........................................................................................................... 78 Service Area and Enrollment.......................................................................................... 79 Facility Service Delivery................................................................................................. 79 CostComponent............................................................................................................ 80 CreditComponent......................................................................................................... 86 Net Impact Cost per Student......................................................................................... 90 Student Generation Rate............................................................................................... 91 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule .................................................. 93 Affordable Growth Strategy........................................................................................... 95 Tindale Oliver Indian River CQtmi±y February 2020 ii Impact Fee Update Sfu Attachment 1 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Comparison Schedule ............................................... 95 Appendices: Appendix A: Population —Supplemental Information Appendix B: Building and Land Values—Supplemental Information Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee — Demand Component Appendix D: Transportation Impact Fee — Cost Component Appendix E: Transportation Impact Fee — Credit Component Appendix F: Transportation Impact Fee — Calculated Impact Fee Schedule Appendix G: Educational Facilities Impact Fee —Supplemental Information Appendix H: Administrative Fee Appendix I: Master Fee Schedules — Full Calculated Fee Rates Appendix J: Master Fee Schedules — Staff Recommended Fee Rates Tindale Oliver Indian River Cq y February 2020 iii Impact Fee Update Sy Attachment 1 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 "affordable 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 Indian River Co�t� pdate February 2020 1 Impact Fee US udy Attachment 1 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 In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • 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 establishment 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. 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), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify procedural and methodological prerequisites, such as the requirement 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 2 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 prior to building permit issuance; and 2. Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • 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, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement will operate prospectively. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. 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. 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 3 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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 authority from the state constitution and statutory sources; o A non -charter county may adopt ordinances that are not inconsistent with general law; and 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 in the following sections, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. 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 Indian River Cot,� February 2020 4 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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). Indian River County's Zoning Code limits multi -family building height to 35 feet, or approximately 3 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 The current transportation impact fee schedule includes "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 rate 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 of classifying 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 5 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Public Buildings Impact Cost • Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison Facility Inventory The public facilities inventory includes facilities that are primarily for the provision of essential county services such as health, emergency management, court -related and other administrative services, and do not include any of the buildings included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by Indian River County, the County has approximately 587,700 square feet of general public 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 II -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 Indian River Co M February 2020 6 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 River County 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 River 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River CovW February 2020 7 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 .74 O O O O O O OO m O O O p N O O O O O O p p O N C O N LO O O O -tO Q O O O �y O O' M of L m X M .--I w w Ln Il m O N n [t m I6 w Lo 1� n Ln 0 w r-1 �` 00 N 00 M m N u1 m n O _ u ei Q f0 N L► O M Ln O O N Ln N N O -1 N 'ITV � H Y LD In p h1 M AA' m m �„� Ln w > m 01 Ll• 00 N i/? Lf1 V? i/} 00 i/? i? iA C O L ca Q O tD i/I• r -I00 O O fY1 Oq 2 -o m E m 'O L O m O L y i —_ N 7 Q v J L oo_� 3 N O O m m O Q � > '+ s � L 0 + ' -0 ' c N -0 C� 3 Q v 0t M M O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p O O O OO �v +� m on "� n 15 3 p v U E 'S V O O v QE L 0) aj E v 7 Q) > O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O r% r -I LD LD N 00 r- Ln GI' ^ w mm JO 1-1 r1 N w V). r1 -4 w NLn w m M r, V mLn N1 V N o VT v} t4 -1 t/1 n L? iA L? iA � t/} to In � i'i w O w O O M 0 N O O O OO O ON NtOY O N LO O O O a1 O C O C r1 N r1 -1 LG � -1 I, O O O m �mO O Ln m M cr oc r1 O O � LO m m 1:toc d N LOn Il 00O r, LknoO Ln w N m I, N V 14 I, M a t� t/1• +N i/1• a/} V? t/f• t/1• S� � t/? � aN-I � H •Vy L► I" O . I" c-1 ri OR LO ci LD w N OR w M I, Il Ln M cr ^ p w Ln m N l0 Lp LD 1� Ln 1-1 N O -1N Ln Cn -* N O rl c -I r -I M LC Ln Ln m m o o O Ln !-I N w m O o m O o OOO o w O o O w M r, M '•i LD 1, M ami 00 -1 w M ti � N Q Ln m a1 �-1 h1 w e -I a -i t'•1 Ln o m m w N r-1 w O I,, o w w N O m v r, .-1 �T m a o 0m N —1a- m 4 m -1 M o N 0 N o N m r -I o N m e -I o N m 1-4 o N Gl C 4/ U Q) OO > Q a m x v M` v v c OD c CL E x O w ` U x H a c C i m .� = a X • 00c S V1 m N N 01 :2 -6C �_ m 231 -Q m E Y 7 m O U m LL V 00 C V1 V1 C U an C m V1 1 N •O C O U U� m CO a+ — .m C "O O O 'a+ w U E m 'a+ m m LL- a+ -E m ++ rn of e E v o¢ m' ani w `" a O o U o E __ o v v i a c v Q E v a c° a Q c E a .^� > a m O. - ° m o 'L- v o ` O v w 3 + v' � P N to m Ln 3 m t N o •� m a O m u L o° m r v O sM° c 1 — a y o Lo L co y L� = U 3 01 m G1 O E "O m O m a = E Y O N W -W ZS3 4 O = O a O +0 O O C C6 Z 2 U Q OC F- V) LU O Z .-1 h H C7 U LL. Ln f— �a r `" N u E m > � U 7ca t m v 7 U- C — U f0 O — N a CC E t p Q ajL H m L L N � O L m X t6 a+ O Q L Q t Q 7 i OJ aw Vl N OJ > Q -O 0) O OL O _ u ei Q f0 N L► m ++ Q X O N H Y LD Q L m Q V C m aj "0 w > 7 m m 00 Q M M CO m C X O •� L 1 O Q m C N L Q Q O L ca Q O 4+ Q cr O O fY1 Oq 2 -o m E m 'O L O m O L y i —_ N 7 Q v J L oo_� 3 N O O m m O Q � > '+ s � L 0 + ' -0 ' c N -0 C� 3 Q v 0t M M O c j fV p T 6 E 7 O Ty U i+ O m > m O > C E QO�nv m �v +� m on "� n 15 3 v U E 'S V m v -0 a) '3 °q—0�� L O v QE L 0) aj E v 7 Q) > O L L gym+ V) LL Q V) Lu N rl N M d' Ln lD � L C � O1 L1 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 Based on the information provided by the County, Indian River County's 2019 current level of service (LOS) is 2.67 square feet of primary public buildings facilities per weighted seasonal resident. Table II -2 presents the calculation of the achieved LOS and the adopted LOS standard per weighted and functional resident. As shown, the achieved LOS is 2.77 square feet per functional resident, which 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 adopted LOS standard is lower than the achieved LOS, the adopted standard is used for the impact fee calculations. Table II -2 Current Level of Service (2019) Variable WeightedYear 2019 Functional Population(l) Population Population 162,787 156,931 Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings )(2) 434,488 434,488 Achieved LOS (Square footage per Resident)(3) 2.67 2.77 Adopted LOS Standard (Square Footage per Residents )(4) 1.99 2.06 d Tablef 2) 3) 4) Source: Appendix A, A-1 or weighted seasonal population and Appendix A, Table 1 for functional population Source: Table II -1 Public buildings square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide weighted/functional population (Item 1) 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 9 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 $522 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 of capital items, including buildings and land. Table II -3 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to $273 per square foot of primary buildings, and $562 per functional resident. Table II -3 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Figure Percent of Total BuildingValuelll $112,803,420 95% Total Land Value (2)$5,776,000 5% Total Building and Land Value (3) $118,579,420 100% Primary Building Square Footage (4) 434,488 Total Building and Land Value per Square Footisl $272.92 Adopted LOS Standard - Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident (6) 2.06 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(')1 $562.22 1) Source: I able II -1 2) Source: Table II -1 3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (Item 2) 4) Source: Table II -1 5) Total building and land value (Item 3) divided by primary building square footage (Item 4) 6) Source: Table II -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 Indian River Co M February 2020 10 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 -impact fee funding is provided in Table II -4, which results in an average annual credit of $2.19 per functional resident. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co t� February 2020 11 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 ^m `" Nc U v L � o` 0 1� n N n O1 VI cu o � m eO1n m .LM-� m eti N ryj � aJ C O a=, m 7 a O 0 O 8 C O U C m c C � N a) � to m O a) L > m CL L � fp � v L N a) Mo O N IA 3 7 a) a) a a N w OO $ 0 V C o 0 41 Q a) Q 41 3 a) :5 () 0 F- U , � _ -a 0 .X OC a CL C L O c cu Q ns a) N a)v a) pA a) to > O N u co u fp 0 0 0 0 a) 0 v a) co o o 0 M L C a) ' F- uoi uoi � w 0 0 0 0 o 0 N n c n O N N N m m m N nj � h 0 0 m �T m V N N lA N 0 H NM 00 ^ n .� W co Y N y Q w d t r c v c m ` EL u G W C = G p C o o Co - C u e - m c c 0 A K x W F W C R m m p a .a n M R e m u w a eu u 2 = — y c m Zi c c N E O •g `° m' ! o m'3 1 > c a n 3 o a a C u u s m ti a i A N d � o 4 w o o O LL Z 2' F `" Nc U v L � C > � � U cu LL QC �+ u m CL E m aJ C O a=, m 7 a O CL C O U C m c C � N a) � to m O a) L > m CL L � fp � v L N a) O N IA 3 7 a) a) a a N w OO V C m Q M 41 Q a) Q 41 3 a) :5 () F- U , � _ -a - a Q U U .X OC a CL C L O c cu Q ns a) N a)v a) pA a) to > O N u co u fp p i 0 a) 0 v a) co V) Q V) Q M L C a) ri N M 'ch F- Net Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table II -5 presents the calculation of the net public buildings facilities impact cost per functional resident. The first section of Table II -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, which also represents the LOS measure for impact fee calculation purposes. Table II -5 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Impact Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(l) $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 (3) $40.35 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident (4) $521.87 1) Source: Table II -3 2) Source: Table II -4 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 Indian River Co February 2020 13 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Table II -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 II -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 II -6 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC Land Use Impact Unit Functional Calculated Resident Coefficient"� Adopted Fee"' at % Change Fee Adopted 50%/26%"' Calculated from% to Calculated Fee 141 Fee 2014 from (Full)(') Calculated Fees Change 2014 2019 ffull)�6� RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (detached) _LLess than 1,500 sf I du 1 1.32 $689 $3441 100.391. $6871 0.3% 210 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1 1.59 $830 $370 124.3% $739 12.3% - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.78 $929 $413 124.9% $826 12.5% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.86 $449 5209 114.8% $418 7.4% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 1.03 $538 $235 128.9% $470[M14.5% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310Hotel room 1.01 $527 $811 550.6% $312 68.9% 320 Motel room 0.84 $438 $75 1484.0% $288 52.1% 252/620 INursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 0.99 $517 $1151 349.6%1 54421 17.0% OFFICE & F Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.20 $626 $142 340.8% $547 14.4% 720 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.72 $898 $207 333.8% $797 12.7% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 1.03 $538 $279 92.8% $1,071 -49.80/ 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf 1.49 $778 $285 173.0% $1,095 -28.9% 710 General Office Building 1,000 sf 0.89 $464 $125 271.2% $480 -3.3% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 1.03 $538 $106 407.5% $408 31.90/ INDUSTRIAL: µ< 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.46 $240 $63 281.0% $240 0.0% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.11 $57 $35 62.91/ $134 -57.5% 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.04 $21 $8 162.5% $29 -27.6% 152 High -Cube Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.09 $47 $18 161.1% $67 -29.9% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.50 $261 $86 203.5% $331 -21.1% n/a lConcrete Plant acre1.56 $814 $194 319.6% $744 9.4% n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $104 525 316.0% $961 8.3% RETAIL: 820 Shopping Center/Retail 1,000 sfgla 1.51 $788 $296 166.2% $1,138 -30.8% 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 1.46 $762 $239 218.8% $917 -16.9% 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-2,999 sq It fuel pos. 1.78 $929 $239 288.7% $917 1.3% 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 2.02 $1,054 $239 341.0% $917 14.9% 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.57 $819 $184 345.1% $706 16.0% 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 5.57 $2,907 $847 243.2% $3,255 -10.7% 934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1 1,000 sf 9.701 $5,062 $1,1111 355.6%1 $4,273 18.5% 850 ISupermarket 1 1,000 sf 1 2.411 $1,258 $2561 391.4% $984 27.80/ 942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 sf 1.67 $872 $187 366.31% $720 21.1% 947 Self -Service Car Wash Iservice bay 0.96 $501 $109 359.6% $418 19.9% 890 lFurniture Store 1 1,000 sf 0.32 $167 5291 475.9% $110 51.8% RECREATIONAL: 430 Golf Course I hole 0.84 $438 $1351 224.4% $518 -15.4% 492 Racquet Ball/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 1,000 sf 2.411 $1,258 $3861 225.9%1 $1,483 -15.2% 412 Public Park acre 0.05 $26 $25 4.0% $96 -72.9oA 491 Tennis Court court 1.40 $731 $3951 85.1%1 $1,517 -51.8% 420 Marina I berth 1 0.13 $68 $241 183.3% $91 Tindale Oliver Indian River CoM February 2020 14 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table II -6 (continued) Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC Land Use Impact Functional Unit Resident Coefficient"' Calculated Adopted Fee (21 at 50%/26%1 % Change Fee Adopted Calculated from to Calculated Fee (4) Fee 2014 from (Full)") Fees % Change 2014 to 2019 Calculated (Full)16) GOVERNMENTAL: 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1 1.56 $814 $203 301.0% $778 4.6% 590 Library 1,000 sf 1 2.621 $1,367 $220 521.4% 1 $845 61.8% 571 Jail I bed 1 0.17 $89 $174 -48.9% $667 -86.7% MISCELLANEOUS: 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.81 $423 $111 281.1% $427 -0.9% 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.29 $673 $171 293.6% $658 2.3% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 1.41 $736 $317 132.2% $1,219 -39.6% 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.37 $193 $64 201.6% $245 -21.20/ 444 Movie Theaterw/Matinee screen 5.19 $2,709 $747 262.7% $2,871 -5.6% 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.08 $42 $8 425.0% $29 44.8% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 1 0.09 $47 591 422.2%1 $34 38.2% 530 High School Private, 9.12 student0.09 $47 $10 370.0% $38 23.7% 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student I 0.10 $52 $13 301 $48 8.3% 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1 1,000 sf 1 0.42 $219 $791 177.2% $302 -27.5% 11 Source: Annendix A. Table A-12 for residential and transient land uses and Annendix 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 do not include administrative fee. 4) Percent change from the adopted impact fee rate (Item 3) to the calculated 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 Based on the data shown in Table II -4, the County is using an average of $340,000 per year of 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. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of public buildings 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 80 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 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 Indian River Co February 2020 15 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 II -7 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 16 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 too ar.- a) N 11 00 co Oy UU mm uL m Nin v v N U d U v,� vl, V). Y O O 0 8 O C _ V o Q 3 N N E O N C a) -d cu -0 Q a)O � a m � -C � m v rn 3 co c l/T VT to .--I n V? LL 0 OA � O a) N 3 t4 T O -0 � m m C o 3 O c N v m t C X A a) Y c �D 3 . q, c W Nw 0 .-i V' N j X O co a--I w O _0vp N \ N ID Vf N L? M in In v). LMQ t'., N Ly v +� a O O N c y LL L C C y V1 N � c _N C o cc w y O a) N p E E E p +� lD w Dc Ln N r4 N c V O •N O �, 41 c W _O w c O a) E a) lD E 1D M In 1n N U- ' m on c 'O % c � c .� V to - to M Lf l0 tn• l0 iA O rj m a O_ E c C EE '= ty453= O U O N OL p C () a +� r- O O .2 Cl N 0 0 > C O V O �+ 3 U > p O v a) oo O_ 3C a"i + V U c O v 0 L C s u -C S +•+ X CA fa 4+ c L M ( a L3 u c E O J –' of v C * _O f6 Y L cv L O m Dl v1N M - I, N c0 N M l0 L L L L L L L L L Q C II 3 3 Q 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 7 M to 0 cn E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In N N Ln to of v1 to N O r-1 N M tf1 l0 fz ai Q1 -Dl a--1 aN-I U- N VT O N O -ET Ln LA M t/) .a -I M M O O N O n O M F, N d. mM tR v? (4 Ln vlT Ln to N N O 0 N O) O 0c In M n m a ti C N c l/T to Vi 0 -cn t n� - 0 0 o r,w N N N N l0 N O n tf OM m cc LD N LOO V c0oo n n to O M, t/} VT t4 to V? 1!1 N o vi. N z m 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri 0 '-i 0 o 0 .ti 0 ti =o `i aj V Y U � t Q w- O O O w w 3 N Q > o o — Q � o ?d �00 > 3 a° Ln fc N C l.L y c O V1 N 32 O N N cc C L V C H Q C; to Z J O K m m LL too ar.- a) 3 O m Oy UU uL Q U d U M Y LL Q 8 O C _ V o Q 3 N E O N C a) -d cu -0 Q a)O � a m -C a) E 3 H NU a1 LL t6 OA � O a) N 3 Q T O -0 L m m C o 3 O c v m t C X A a) Y c O Ln 3 . q, c W 0 @ j X O U a) a--I w O _0vp Q m N N L1 L NV) 3 Ly v +� a Q) N c y LL L C C y V1 c _N C o cc w y O a) N p E E E p +� }' f0 w lL a) m Qa) w E Q N Q Q fl- Q 0 C O_ a c V O •N O �, 41 c W _O w c O a) E a) E �� v N p E wN OD U- ' m on c 'O % c .M .� mw m fa •c m 0 c GY u to L° m a O_ E c C EE '= ty453= U O N OL p C () a r- O O .2 U 041 c O c 3 0 > C O V O �+ 3 U > p O v a) oo O_ 3C a"i + V U c O v 0 L C s u -C S +•+ X CA fa 4+ c L M ( a L3 u c E O J –' of v C * _O f6 Y L cv L O w w ui ai ai w ai ai U N O L L L L L L L L L L Q C II 3 3 Q 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 7 M aJ c 3 0 OC M "O Ln 0 cn E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In N N Ln to of v1 to f6 L Cr r-1 N M tf1 l0 fz ai Q1 -Dl a--1 aN-I U- 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 111-1 presents the buildings and land inventory associated with the Emergency Services for Indian River County. The 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 of the existing facilities, land value of parcels where existing stations/buildings are located, vacant land sales and values of parcels with similar characteristics, and information obtained from other jurisdictions. As shown, the total building value 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 M February 2020 18 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O V O 00 O LA O O O D� O C O O O M O 00q O O 00 O 00 O W O M O o O LD O N Q Y U1 N O M V' LD N O V M V1 V1 O LO O n a) N N LA Ln O a7 r -I Il N O a '-1 V n LD M R C on N m LO N O M V N o N N N N to M .•-i M N n N N N LD N LA N 'ct M N N' M N M O Y V? V1 V? V? V? Vf Vf V) VT V! V1• V! In Y M •� L Ol NN 7 -0 -C 1 S U U y. L N CL C N O N O O a VT r o > m O O O O O m O O O O O O O O m O O E La v C Q• Q c O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O-- O C O O bp -0 o O O v O N N 00 a O -n E -0 =3 O LA 00 " U E +� a, o Y i_ a, O}' 0 ca H > w O y M V>• I, N N N -It N N N O .-i O 1� V V? m a--1 O a N M M Ln -Ln LO P O O N Z H � F- � N i 4^ V? V) 4A Vt• V? VT VT V} V} M to u! O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Kt 00 LAO M O O M 00 O 00 tb 00 M O LD ei N M N O M N 00 N M 0 Ln V N W r-1 N n 0 .-i O In N M Ln N V N O m LD a•-1 O M LO 00 VF a -i LA 1� N N M N 00 N LD O N N LA N M a M N N N N 14 N .•-I N N N N M N V1, V* V1• N V? to V) V? to V� Vf N V! 00w Ln O M O O M tO O LD O tD tD O V M .•i V M n N V V M M CO O � N 00 M N LA n M 00 M N ;t, M � O W N O O 00 M n rl N m N N 00 ct O m O Ln 00. c-1 O c-1 O O m 14 r- c M O n N ei N V N N N c O rl O n V O LA N O - N M M LA O c LO P M LD I-, n r n LD o M M tD 'i m o n Ln 00 W M O O O O O O O O 00 m ei O M m O O M m O O O O .-i O .-i O .-i O O O N N N N N -4 N N N ci N N N N N N co m rl LO co Ln M M N M N M M O N N M M N M C-4 N LL W LD co M LL m M N LL N M Ln -� LL LD LD 00 O c J LL L V M M s M Lrvi1 N N N Dmf M m a/ J LL LL m tJi _ M 00 a) M M N N H U a! m m U a1 Co - LL t LL M N N £ J LL J LL M J LL al o O .0 V m O V U C M L L L m m m Ln O > moar m m Co N LL Il y mm m N w T O • O m j m m w m Ln >O 3X ra v m o o m o o a i a2 @v > ccj amN Nv X v>> D 00 Qv O Q Q m L �Q -0 L s ri 'O s N s c o U M L V7 O m N - M M s - LO O M O m Q1 O O M m m a N V V O N O O O N N Ln O O Z Ln O O O O ui O Ln O M O D1 O N w Ln 'i O M 00 N V LD N Ln Ln N LO co Mr, oo n Cr N N « O N M N-41 O e-1 1-4c-1 ci LD N M V LD M V O LL mm F c CL OL E cr H ` E w u ar v e aQ y Or -i N M V Ln O n 00 M -1 -1.1 eM-1 -1.1 .moi 3 7 C. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c O m al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F > 7 m m Y m Y Y m Yi+ Y m Y m Y 4+ m i� Y m V Y m Y Y m J✓ m �+ m m Y •i� m iJ m W C 00 = m > N to Ln LA Ln Ln Ln Ln H H Ln VI N L N m LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL F m VI f N Ln V C L 0 RE= U D cu a1 m X La a) 4-j LL Q 6 C C U N CL m Q. OCL Q Y O i7 U M 'A O V) O L � a) Q O CQ C a U Y � N C on La a1 a, E 3: W H s Y 0 O Y @ > Q L O • i O Y •� L Ol NN 7 -0 -C 1 S U U y. L N CL C N O N O O a r o > V� �7 a O 'p aQn 00 OA Y Lo m m Ev 0 x 0 0 i Y N m i +� E S �, Q m Q � E La v C Q• Q L (U N _ L L Q 3 Q fa YU O m O 3 > QN C C -0 D_ > M t? N n -00 O N W O > bp -0 o v O N + = y a -n E -0 =3 o =3Q— °' c a) E m 3 s v U E +� a, o Y i_ a, O}' 0 ca > w E Ln c '3 O E y > d a,0 UO > C M a1 O) U Y Oq � O C 00 L 7 Ln :3 (a L O GJ C_ i O O O> E U aJ N O Z H � F- � N i LL 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 DescriptionTotal Ladder Truck 2 $1,300,000 $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 $300,000 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 19 $350,000 $6,650,000 Staff Vehicles 24 $30,000 $720,000 Total $25,285,000 1) Source: Indian River County 2) Units multiplied by unit cost Tindale Oliver Indian River Co P February 2020 20 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table III -3 Equipment Inventory Values Description Turnout Gear Total Units(l) 290 Unit • $3,500 Total $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 15 $1,000 $15,000 Total $5,124,910 1) Source: Indian River Countv 2) Unit cost multiplied by total units Service Area and Population Emergency services are provided by the County in the unincorporated areas and most municipalities. The Town of Indian 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 estimates 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 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. Level of Service Typically, level of service for emergenc"ervices 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 Indian River Cor t� February 2020 21 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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) Variable Year Weighted 0• Functional Population(l) Population 158,218 Population 153,430 Number of Stations (2) 15 15 Population per Station (3) 10,548 10,229 LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(4) 0.095 0.098 Adopted LOSS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(s) 0.0891 0.092 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population and Appendix A, Table A-11 for functional population 2) Source: Table III -1 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 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 III -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 Indian River Co a February 2020 22 Impact Fee Update SU y Attachment 1 Table III -5 Level of Service Comparison (2018) Jurisdiction St.Lucie County Service Area •.. 302,432 Number of 17 Residents per 17,790 LOS (Stations) per 0•• Residen 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 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 6,603 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 the 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 Indian River Co February 2020 23 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table III -6 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Figure Percent of Total'9' Building Value(i) $29,486,100 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) 0.092 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident $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) divided by 1,000 9) Distribution of cost Credit Component To avoid overcharging new 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 determine any potential revenue 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 Indian River Coit February 2020 24 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 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 $12. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 25 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 U (d W CL V toa O m N 0 O U `"N g g O N .i m a OO 'i O N N O O N <�N OR an O1 m o O (n o O ei M — U O O o O r. ON 00 m p m O o N N m NOR m � v E n m m H U L!1 U ei 00 10 N t0 N0 O a) +, 0 EQ) o Y o 0 O M O M Y n �W L O N O' N O N Oi Ol O N DD N W 00 Oi N e•I In .•-i In N vl' X VT CL U -a N of O N m N O N N.•i N N O b M V} 1n N M V! Clf tO lD N O V? V O 1n tO tD '-I N w \E o 0 3 {/? H in in L4 m > C a1 N N .-1 N VT -0 O mY O a1 a, y M E a Y wE a O E +� L C Q L o N 3 �' v o a m a m a) v m OW a) > C > 0 L 0 N a > m E N a> e :2M Y O v* Y +U' N a ._. Q .3 U a) Y N a N O C a) w 0 O L1 N VI a) L a) N Q +�3+ 0 :Eiv a m>> a L 0 C 0 Q X 0 0 aJ L a1 VI C C L = Q O CID e -I •� Q N Q •� Y t aJ > m Q m m a uCL— o `" V H 0 0 Q v v v 0 0 Ca a C Ca X U 7 of C p m C Q O am+ y m •� C O m: m C fa fl" Q v- M C X a1 a) a1 E U CID u Y m O u L m L u L O O > N O > Ln O ei N m v' u'f 1p I� oo Ol c N H LL - In Ln N 00 O 00 u* A^ u* v* 0 0 0 yr u* u} O O OO Vt O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O - Ln m m m m v} v* ut O O O OLn O Ln o - N N N N O In O V N N N N N N ry N VT i/T V) V} O 0 O 0 O C O 0 O 0 M LO M ID M UR o � � � ( o °.�O 0 � - O Ln .� m O ti to N in N N' -4 VT N m V). t/T Vi VT {/} MN O 1 1 M 00 O O 00 N rl M to 00 t0 m M M In N N m LO co N N m 0)m N M rl m .i - Ln in V) O O000So Oat Imn i/* O N r, O N 00 N VT N _ T VT N N N C - v} N Vf r O a V o at p u1 Ci Ln m .n Ln m ti a Ln Ln - N Ln N n N m f0 y N O VT VT VT 4! Ia > m _ to O O lD 00 00 V? 00 m m M � v� •N 00 00 pa0 Y C u - N N N O N N W CL OC K E y a yo x Lx 'm o ~ `co a m 'QC E m u G O `m !.� N c 7 0= d > -0 C O= v a -2 -0 a g a x O c ¢ c a as :3x W 0 c Io M¢ O N G > W N C 6 O ^ O a c .M aQj O t r m w o w a m x c Y c d u 3 3 LL aEb w a u v `^ LL c0 v v C U V M F° N O1 a m a a X n) '0 "O OJ ate+ U In" st u ar m o W d c E a v vOl ,O^' O a d N 00 N >> C d OJ C C cm LL LL v o o v '2 F� a 'o @ E _ .2 n m E v W o o Q y v N O O NN O o_ Y N O f0 f0 N Y O O 7 io ` N a ` c O ` i+ N a a a ` a+ W ¢ ¢ W W LL S (n O ¢ LL ♦- 00 LL to to F- �... ¢ U U ¢ ♦- U `"N (J EL � Y a) }I C LL Q y O 0 — U u m Q. �E Y_ , � v E > U- Y v N H U L!1 U m ; E L a) +, 0 EQ) o Y o 0 Y n �W L L U O y s O Y X CL U -a Q Q Mw O E o 3 w W m C U > O Ln w \E o 0 3 V M C0 O C m > C a1 N a1 L E t -D N -0 O mY O a1 a, y M E a Y wE a O E +� L C Q L o N 3 �' v o a m a m a) v m OW a) > C > 0 L 0 N a > m E N a> e :2M Y O Y +U' N a ._. Q .3 U a) Y N a N O C a) w 0 O L1 N VI a) L a) N Q +�3+ :Eiv a m>> a L C C C YO U m Q X Q u a a) C X Q m O aJ L a1 VI C C L = Q O CID e -I •� Q N Q •� Y t aJ > m Q m m a uCL— o 0 v v C V H c Y O p Q u `v QQ Q v v v X L u CL O o0 H Ca a C Ca X U 7 of C p m C Q O am+ y m •� C O m: m C fa fl" Q v- M C X a1 a) a1 E U CID u Y m O u L m L u L O O > N O > fO � ei N m v' u'f 1p I� oo Ol c N H LL 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 Credits Impact Cost fll 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: (3) Capital Expansion Credit - Residential Land Use $217.78 Capital Expansion Credit - Non -Residential Land Use $200.27 Net Impact Cost (4) -Residential Land Uses $172.65 -Non-Residential Land Uses $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 impact cost (Item 1) less total capital expansion credit (Item 3) Calculated Emergency Services Impact 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 Indian River Co �tv February 2020 27 Impact Fee Update Sudy Attachment 1 Table III -9 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC Land Use RESIDENTIAL: Functional Unit Resident Coe Calculated icient (1) Fee J2) AdoptedImpact Fee (3) Change (4) Single Family (detached) 210 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 1.01 $192 $131 46.6% 320 Motel room 0.84 $160 $121 32.2% 252/260 Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 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 1 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 1.03 $196 $1711 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/Convenience 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 1 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 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 28 Impact Fee Update S utly Attachment 1 Table III -9 (continued) Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC Land Use ImpactFunctional Unit Resident Coefficient(l) (2) Fee ... •. Fee(') Change(" Percent 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 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 studi student 0.10 $19 $20 -5.0% 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-14 for residential 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 III -8) 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 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 $1.65 million per year of Emergency Services District Fund and sales tax revenues. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent countywide, excluding Indian River Shores. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of emergency services impact fee calculated, if the historical and programmed levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could stop collecting this fee completely and continue to maintain the LOS used in the calculations. These calculations assume that the sales tax will continue to be available over the next 25 years. If available revenue sources for emergency services capital projects change significantly, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Indian River County's emergency services impact fee schedule, the County's calculated and adopted impact fee schedules were compared to the adopted fee schedules of nearby jurisdictions or those with similar population levels. Table III - 10 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 29 Impact Fee Update Slu oy Attachment 1 p: � { (}k ]fJ k �CL \ | { ) f j � q ( � / | ! { § ( - ) k ° kmsE 5{ z E kkk§k��E !k�!§=�E A|!!$Et !«;tmt . _ E.m.2E §|k) .2 E ) �/ ) �� { § ;7` !oo ``7}kflE2\.- 2�,2-k )r ƒ§!SS§)t! !§!#i§§ik){)}§%}` uou= ƒ)00000000g )( )) 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 Fee Schedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 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. According to information provided by the Indian River County Sheriff's Office (IRCSO) and 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 is estimated 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 the land value 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 Indian River Coy§ February 2020 31 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 aT- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oc D U 0 0 0 0 0 LL 4-- 00 In In 00 tD O 1, 1Z M n to N lD X_ O lD Ln 00 M m 00 V M m n M C 00 r- r-1 O Ol M N O -c r -I 00 M O_ 3 1, N 0 c7 0 O O M m M V n L (d L M In N -4 N In Vl• N -1 tD In "O Q M O 00 5 _ U f0 E .. N N 0/ of YE ns c `-O DM Ua @ - L y u O O Y O E 3 0 m CO •Q_ 3 CD N M > Ln u Q C O LC CCL (0 f0 E YO 0 — O O T N OA >` 0) "O E C cy Y cy Y N .> Vi- C O-0 O t1j > 3 a E O O O Q Q O O > +sem ° a) X O O O O O v 0 N to 0> C C t V N C OD 0 O 3 O d' u'1 lD 1n Lr \ Z Z O I-1 to N ) L to Ln m n tD V1 O lD O 00 O O LL 00 M .--1 M wN r -I e-1 a--1 O lf1 1, N r-1 N l0 V} -1 -1 lD m M M V} V7• VF V! O O O O O O O O O O O O 1n 00 O O 00 tD O N 00 N O N lD O lDO O 00 M W M lD 1� O ri N N O1 tr O O m O w r1 N O n N M O V --T Ln w M MWNWW -:r e-1 -zt V) -4 ri In M Lf Vt• �/? V4 V► p•1 V} 00 co Q Q O 00 :TN V N O N ri {fl tD O O Z Z O a -I O N O �l N O to Ln a to d v N m v m � V tD O lD 1l N O 00 M O O 00 c -I N e-1 lD V1 O N ri (r1 r-1 O 1.n a1 O M N W O N 1n MN e-1 r -I � �'a--I M N M .1 -1 00 0`00 Q n 00 n Q1 Z N O1 N Q 0) z 0 z z 0 O M O <.•1C-4 N Z Z N N Z ei Z N C 0 00 Q :2u 0 N V) d LL m o0 "6 "O V C C > n C C 10 ° w C 3 0 O CL a0+ oo C a °= i E c v L u G C U> r 1n " G U i E E to U 0 - '� Y v m v d 7 d a 3 O) v0i v0i w ro 3 0 'O C m GJ O Q V) U 3 3 w O LL 00 LL m 0) > 3 -,��, t u N C f0 cra.`m L E a L 0 L O O 3 > 3 fo LL O7 d N C7 N U U N Q H m N to U H CO J aT- 0V NO a% u L M > -0 v oc D U L M t L LL 4-- U 0 Q C > O L 1Z m X_ C O1 Q Q Q C O O_ O_ 3 0) � to L 2 0 O O L (d L 3� 6:3 an 6 � L N "O Q M O 0M !Z N 5 _ U f0 E .. N N 0/ of YE ns c `-O DM Ua @ - L y u O O Y O E 3 0 m CO •Q_ 3 CD N M > Ln u Q C O LC CCL (0 f0 E YO 0 — O O T N OA >` 0) "O E C cy Y cy Y N .> to O L 3 U p C O-0 O t1j > 3 a E O v N E C 01 O1 L N > Cz-- 'O C w 00 > +sem ° a) X v 0 N to 0> C C t V N C OD 0 3 - Q 41 N 0 m > O Gj W 000 0) V 0 -0 - f6 O f0 U 3 O- E V O E Y 3 3 _ ) L coin d0' Z U Q N Q F -O N M i ei N M to lD I� 00 pl LL 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 278 $23,255 $6,464,865 Vehicle/Radio Equipment 2,757 $1,741 $4,799,238 Weapons 650 $393 $255,305 Office Equipment 1 $100,084 $100,084 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 14 $24,830 $347,623 Electronic Equipment 1 $326,862 $326,862 Computer Equipment 1 $5,324,482 $5,324,482 Misc. Equipment 1 $2,277,308 $2,277,308 911 Center Equipment 79 $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 Population 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 district for law enforcement is the unincorporated 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 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 Indian River Co February 2020 33 Impact Fee Update Sutly Attachment 1 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 1,000 functional residents, while the adopted LOS standard is 2.32 officers per 1,000 functional residents. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard and new development cannot be charged 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. Table IV -3 Level of Service (2019) Variable Year 0• Weighted Functional Population(l) Population Population 107,439 96,637 Number of Officers (2) 186 186 LOS (officers per 1,000 residents)(3) 1.73 1.92 Adopted LOS Standard (officers per 1,000 residents)(4) 2.09 2.32 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for unincorporated weighted population, and Table A-11 for unincorporated functional population 2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff's Office 3) Number of officers (Item 2) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 4) 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 February 2020 34 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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 Area Population NumberService •S (Officers • ••• • .- .- Collier County 329,909 313 0.95 Citrus County 145,721 195 1.34 Charlotte County 158,500 215 1.36 Hernando County 177,194 246 1.39 St. Johns County 218,008 323 1.48 Martin County 136,227 208 1.53 Highlands County 77,619 135 1.74 Osceola County 233,608 416 1.78 Indian River County 100,719 186 1.85 Okeechobee County 35,559 77 2.17 Brevard County 236,396 566 2.39 St. Lucie County 1 73,263 2061 2.81 1) Source: FDLF Criminal Justire Agencv Prnfile RPnnrt_ 201R fShariff't nffiral 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 The cost component of the study 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 Indian River Co ly February 2020 35 Impact Fee Update Su Attachment 1 Table IV -5 Total Impact per Functional Resident Variable Figure Percent of Tota I BuildingValuelli $16,882,560 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 Residents)(') 1.92 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident (8) $389.27 1) Source: Table IV -1 2) Source: Table IV -1 3) Source: Table IV -2 4) Sum of building value (Item 1), land value (Item 2), and vehicle/equipment value (Item 3) 5) Source: Table IV -3 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 To avoid overcharging new development, a review of the capital funding allocation for law enforcement services is completed. The purpose of this review is to determine any potential revenue generated by future development that is likely to be used for capital facilities, land, vehicle, and equipment expansion of the law enforcement program. Revenue credits are then applied against the 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 Indian River Co �tv February 2020 36 Impact Fee Update Sucfy Attachment 1 T r- N N EL � > � � U cu -0 U- m m C E O N O_ L Id 0) ' T � M t E aj 4-1 O C T O N Y O O_ U O N Q > C O O ca � =p C C � N O d O N C L C L O (6 M CL t L 0 fL6 O N ? O > :3ei O L T O O L +' O N > ' O CL N O N L Q � � Y c O CL u � X C O "a a) O to c CL v CL >X X M c :.z O _ c Y 'a. Q a C U O x 3 _ -0 W U =3CL Q >u cOo x to u m !Ei>CL O_ � L O c Q Q to N > O d N CA N U U U N O L 7 7 7 N (u f6 V) V) "I Q 7 L Qi 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 Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(l) $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) $304.33 1) Source: Table IV -5 2) Source: Table IV -6 3) Present Value of annual credit per resident (Item 2) over a 25 -year period with a capitalization rate of 2.5% 4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less total capital expenditure credit (Item 3) Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land uses and is illustrated in Table IV -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 Indian River Co February 2020 38 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table IV -8 Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC Land Use RESIDENTIAL: Impact... Unit Resident Coe icient(l) Fee (2) Fee (3) Change (4) Single Family (detached) 210 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 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 $256 $164 56.1% 252/620 Nursing Home/Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 0.99 $301 $252 19.4% OFFICE & FINANCIAL: 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 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 sf 1.49 $453 $625 -27.5% 710 General Office Building 1,000 sf 0.89 $271 $274 -1.1% 760 1 Research & Development Center 1 1,000 sf 1.03 $313 $2331 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 Transload and Short -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 lConcrete Plant Iacre 1.56 $475 $425 11.8% n/a ISand Mining Iacre 1 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 1,000 sf 1.57 $478 $403 18.6% 932 1 Restaurant 1,000 sf 5.57 $1,695 $1,858 -8.8% 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 1 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 Indian River COW February 2020 39 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 Table IV -8 (continued) Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-13 for residential 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 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 the adopted 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 grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of law enforcement 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 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 non-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 M February 2020 40 Impact Fee Update S ucl"y Attachment 1 ImpactFunctional Unit Coefficient Fee ... Fee 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 student 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, Table A-15 for non-residential land uses 2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost 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 the adopted 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 grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of law enforcement 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 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 non-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 M February 2020 40 Impact Fee Update S ucl"y Attachment 1 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 Indian River Co�r�t� February 2020 41 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 0 � CL E 0 Q 2 � 2 \ ■ 2 uw E k E ■ k w ■ -i 4- C: u (D 2 $ §2� ) CL C.) � k t cu k ��Q ° � t kCL _ e E a 2 / \ (/ cu Ll k f \ m / 7 > - o / k § 3 x _ / 22 7 / \ E / \ } 7 �� 2ƒ 2 L \ 7g k/ 2 / "t § £ 2 m0 § ®c\ ±A § E E b o m . k$ \®{>Mc c 1 ; E 0 / / \ } \ / / m U w c ` E # E o 0 � ;- o c® A $ k CL 2ƒ> Q y E o 0° » k E I° c E¥ > c@§ E 0 E t E �f$\22(C < o § E x x § { t u I = \ o /\k 0\ » u 3& u 0 g 2 \\ kf/k77G»/ � m a/ f C U U/ 0 0 E§ f m 2 u J 2§ 3/ u &_ = 0 u « k\ f 3 \ k 7)\ c \ :a "m u �3323uuu==�>y 5 m g m 2. o �CIJ ) \ § § § § I § § § § § 0 u CL = : z ; ; n , :3 :3, 2 M u o �CL_Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 « Ln V) V) V) V) v) v) 2� 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 by 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 each park type. Table V-1 provides the parks and recreation inventory used as the basis for the impact fee. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 43 Impact Fee Update Sudy Attachment 1 N, D w 2 0 0 v 0 v Milli Milli liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillilliI Milli Milli 1111111111111111111111111111111 m -1 MilliliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI 1 N, D w 2 0 0 v 0 v 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 is used to measure demand from each residential land use, which is presented in Appendix A, Table A-3. Level of Service The current LOS for all county -owned and maintained neighborhood, community and regional parks in unincorporated county is 5.09 acres per 1,000 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, 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 the lower of the two figures to provide a conservative approach. With this approach, the current achieved LOS is used in the calculation of the parks and recreation impact fee. Although the LOS is measured in terms of acres 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 Indian River Co r�tu February 2020 45 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table V-2 Current Level of Service (2019) Variable Figure 2019 Unincorporated Population(�) 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)(s) 0.33 Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(6) 5.09 Adopted Total Parks LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(7) 6.61 1) Source: Annendix A. Table A-1 for unincornorated weiehted seasonal nnnulation 2) Table V-1 3) Current regional parks number of acres (Item 2) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1), divided by 1,000 residents 4) Sum of current neighborhood parks acreage and current community parks 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 Improvement Element, adopted December 4, 2018 Table V-3 presents a comparison of the parks and recreation adopted LOS standards of other Florida counties to Indian 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 46 Impact Fee Update S ucfy Attachment 1 Table V-3 Level of Service Comparison Jurisdiction LOS Standard per 1,000 Brevard County (2) 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)(7) 5.09 Okeechobee County (8) 5.50 Indian River County (Adopted)(9) 6.61 St. Lucie County (10) 7.50 Highlands County (11) 10.00 Osceola County (12) 10.00 Citrus County (13) 13.00 St. Johns County (14) 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: Martin County FY 2019 Capital Improvement Plan 4) Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan 5) Source: Hernando County 2040 Comprehensive Plan 6) Source: Charlotte County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 7) Source: Table V-2 8) Source: Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan 9) Source: Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan 10) Source: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 11) Source: Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan 12) 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 Indian River Cod February 2020 47 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 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/paving costs 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 preparation, and irrigation costs were estimated and are presented in Table V-4. Table V-4 Land Cost per Resident Variable Figure Land Purchase Cost per Acre(i) $55,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Costs (per acre)(2) $5,000 Utilities and Paving (per acre) (3)20 000 Total Land Cost per Acre (4) $80,000 Regional Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents )(5) 4.76 Land Cost per Resident - Regional Park Component (6) $380.80 Neighborhood/Community Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents )(5) 0.33 Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhood/Community Park Component(') $26.40 Land Cost per Resident - All Parks(s) $407.20 1) Source: Aooendix B 2) Source: Indian River County 3) Source: Indian River County 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 Indian River Co � February 2020 48 Impact Fee Update Stu"dy Attachment 1 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 is $3.3 million for neighborhood and community parks and $74.4 million for regional parks, for a combined total of $77.8 million, including facilities, equipment, and architecture and engineering (A&E) costs. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 49 Impact Fee Update Su"cfy Attachment 1 Table V-5 Recreational Facility Value Facilityll) Description Court Unit court Unit Value�" Count $55,000 Neighborhood/ Community (3) Tota[Va 5 Parks Ue(4) $275,000 Regional Count�') 5 Parks Total Value (6) $275,000 TotalCost 17) $550,000 Boat Ramp ramp lane $100,000 0 $0 18 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Canoe Launch launch $188,000 1 $188,000 4 $752,000 $940,000 Community Center sq ft $250 1,401 $350,250 6,006 $1,501,500 $1,851,750 Dune Walkover walkover $43,000 0 $0 7 $301,000 $301,000 Fishing Pier linear foot $550 30 $16,500 305 $167,750 $184,250 Jogging Trails mile $150,000 1.0 $150,000 5.5 $825,000 $975,000 Lifeguard Tower tower $25,000 0 $0 5 $125,000 $125,000 Maintenance Facility sq ft $200 0 $0 8,850 $1,770,000 $1,770,000 Multi -Purpose Bldg sq ft $250 0 $0 112,800 $28,200,000 $28,200,000 Olympic Aquatic Center center $7,500,000 0 $0 1 $7,500,000 $7500,000 Picnic Pavilion pavilion $40,000 5 $200,000 54 $2,160,000 $2,360,000 Playground18i playground $90,000/$150,000 5 $450,000 8 $1,200,0001 $1,650,000 Restroom sq ft $250 550 $137,500 12,300 $3,075,0001 $3,212,500 Soccer Field field $325,000 0 $0 10 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 Softball Field field $500,000 2 $1,000,000 12 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 Swimming Pool (Recreational) pool $4,500,000 0 $0 1 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Tennis Courts court $50,000 1 $50,000 4 $200,000 $250,000 Volleyball Court court $8,500 1 $8,500 3 $25,500 $34,000 Facilities and Equipment Value Architecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 17%lel Total Facilities and Equipment Value(10) Total Number of Acres1��1 Facilities and Equipment Value per Acre (12) Level-of-Service(131 Facilities and Equipment Value per Resident1341 $2,825,750. $480,378 $3,306,128 35.38' $93,446 0.33 $30.84 $63,627,750 $10,816,7181 $74,444,468 511.27 $145,607 4.76 $693.09 $66,453,500 $11,297,096 $77,750,596 546.65 $142,231 5.09 $723.93 1) Source: Indian River County 2) Source: Based on recent construction, information from previous studies for Indian River County as well as information from other Florida jurisdictions 3) Source: Table V-1 4) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 3) 5) Source: Table V-1 6) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 5) 7) Sum of total value 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 neighborhood playgrounds 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 Indian River Corr February 2020 50 Impact Fee Update Scfy Attachment 1 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 1) Source: Table V-4 2) Source: Table V-5 3) Sum of land value per resident (Item 1) and the facility value per 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 funding 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 Indian River County's parks and recreation program. As mentioned previously, 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 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 Cod February 2020 51 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 OLn O m V r\ m N M tD Ln Ln m O N O O O 14 N N w O m m W m N Ln m m a O M rn O n a 0 0 n m m w O m m m m O Ln N 0) m N LD M O M lz O O O M.4 et ni O co M V 01 Ln d O M M t" a a O epi O O O a -I n LD rl Ln M O N 00 N V m N a m tn• O N N Ln Ln O N Ln O vi. O N 00 to t L? tn• th V).~ a1 a) V/ - to An. N a .ti c to V? O t/? V) -4 C Ln C T Q C a) CLC 'al a1 ULa H co 4A a > 3 7 R L O Q M > N d M C) a> O 0D N 4 f6 O i v Ln Q N Q fO L cuc rl N M f- L tp/► O O O O O CC Ln Lm N N N N O O O O th O O S Ln Ln1-4 Ln V? aIf N O O O O O O tn• O O O O O O O � N N O O O O tp/f O O O O O v a N a N AA, to N' V! Ln M Ln Ln Ln m N O N N N m O a m O N M LD r` M 00 d' u> 00 C l� cn er V). eq M to f\ n t/) 40. vil to to LD N N O C N to H M � N LLn N W W N N VLn trn to .-L .-i - to to A °.-l° iz 1-4 rr,° Ln a vo► a 00 LII Ln st mLO M M N M m LD m V 00 t/? tmD m Lp m to to to Ln m ct O 0 00 n m Ln o Ln Nf Ln Ci N V tD LD 00 1-1 M M al m Ln am -I } to 00 t.6 pOj pOj t4 Vf Lf d mM m m o m N H m a n n L W 0M0 +' m M t/1- t/} V} y* N C C N CL o Q/ W V a. LL c a7 O ar aJ C C (U c fl aCr A o Y v 7 C C LL a G a7 U C LU _ U O = a1 N Y C L0 C 2 J p N A C c N a) ar ar E -- C c ani o D ani m °> E LL' x o a c u m o Y o O c °c F O x Lu) a c c a CL E o o v £ m A m v m Q y T a M d •= C LL U LL — C ` N O \p 00 E A O m E 7 d C O CL m ti o m 0 — m a m o Y a to a m o QL v O oc a v v m c o z ra a m m a � a o 2 w ea v >> C t'' CO m u c m '° d i t a •fa c c 3 Y q0 C Y O N � O N LL h f0 d C 7 O i M d W O lU m L0 O E E_ G C C Y L Q Q O C a '6 Q "O ?> d V 7 N � H al 2j >O Y O O O 7 O r d 0D 0A O O 0a0 = Y N O Y aL+ Ln +~+ O a al �- r CN iD w aO+ A <0 m Q O = aY' 3 d w c� > > C V h V to E a .. .. al N 0 0 ( C LO u (D L z LO J > o 0M. ti LL LL y r° F Q Q U`" N aJ L E � > � � U cu 'B LL Q _ V l9 Q E M aJ C O 7 Q O lz m 7 C � N Ln w O O_ T L � O % L N L Y O L L a1 a) D_ Q w a) c c O O V) -4 C Ln C T Q C a) CLC 7 (V Q a1 ULa H co a� Q Q a > 3 7 R L O Q M > N d M C) a> O 0D N i L L f6 O i v Ln Q N Q fO L cuc rl N M f- L 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 for the parks and recreation impact fee, totaling approximately $2S2 for all parks. The net impact cost per resident is the different between 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 for impact fee calculation purposes. Table V-8 Net Impact Cost per Resident Variable Impact Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Resident(l) $1,131.13 Capital Expansion Credit Capital Expansion Credit per Resident (2) $13.68 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident (3) $252.09 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Resident $879.041 $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 Indian River Co February 2020 53 Impact Fee Update Su'dy Attachment 1 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 Indian River Co / / February 2020 54 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 GJ s u N LLL. .w u m Q _E C CJ � cc 0J H N C m Y m a a� to u io U 4) Qj 41 Y f0 f0 4) 7 u C Z N C O � O O C � i) aOi f6 4J � Q 0 � M Ou N E Y w O N C m v 4 + E4 - Y v Qj Y --ate d H 75 Q u u OL E N ?I U c 1O to u c E 4; Q) � °3 N H O $ 3 25 > m c E a, m `—° m Lv 5 C r ,u C 0) CL i+ O C ai W U0 Cm F-4 L CL(U 0 C O w � Oaj M z OM Y C u u 41 41 u u y VI 5 L L COC N d N d r1 N M -i Ln w n Ln 0 0 ei N O N V1 m Lj- 1n i ll1 l0 L!1 00 o 00 n •--1 W ZF 00 CT l0 r•1 00 n C1 r -I e -i O r -I a•-1 N a--1 -4 lA V? t/► V} L? LL 0 0 0-1 IOR Ln Ln r v m n N M N n CL M Ln U1 LA V1 aj d m M n C1 M V m w d N M -It n n c -I 1 e-1 An Ln i/} AA. AA. CZ n 00 Tr M 00 O d C) lD N ai l0 O N r•1 r•I rl N N r•i r•I L} LF 44 ih 0 0 0 0 0 CL O1 C1 Cl C1 01 n r\ n N rl 00 00 00 00 00 m m r+ m -t C1 M l0 M M rL aj r-1 N N r-1 r -I > > > 3 CL C w N 3 O h � N O Ln I � L v C N O 0 L O O m CL N O Ln O Lq > N cr T T ] 4) ra fa _ � LL LL y Qj 0) Ql 4) 3 Q dA00 C7 0 C N In I InCc L 4) Qj 41 Y f0 f0 4) 7 u C Z N C O � O O C � i) aOi f6 4J � Q 0 � M Ou N E Y w O N C m v 4 + E4 - Y v Qj Y --ate d H 75 Q u u OL E N ?I U c 1O to u c E 4; Q) � °3 N H O $ 3 25 > m c E a, m `—° m Lv 5 C r ,u C 0) CL i+ O C ai W U0 Cm F-4 L CL(U 0 C O w � Oaj M z OM Y C u u 41 41 u u y VI 5 L L COC N d N d r1 N M -i Ln w n Ln 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 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. Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's parks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison of the impact fee rates adopted by for surrounding counties and other jurisdictions throughout Florida. Table V-10 presents this comparison. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co � February 2020 56 Impact Fee Update Sudy Attachment 1 0 ƒ � £ 0 V) � u u $ 2 >J� ) D LL k +-, t Q 0 ƒ k 2 > 0 E k } 2 2 0 E e \ m / u © 2 ( > 2 / \ w / m f � CL / ` / 0 c / \ a ' ' o � q2 :3 (// / �(\ 8 ^» ® 0 E $ g 2 C u %� # E E 7ƒ Ln k 7 ƒ 4-;E ƒ \ E E % Q _ o E � 5% E o t u o E \ \ E ~ ® E G a wLn a) ' ±f m a) \ 0 \ / / / k c f) / /\ : G/A me °E£§ A / / { ± I 2 { $ = 0 k U « 2 w w { / E f/ E / 0 o 0 E o/® k{ k — ®c — u c R� o j k E § \ E \ j & > / \ c E$ c a, E_\& 3@ w w 00-0 < c b D, m / ® ; E' s / § m $ c o _ a E 2Lf' ; E f Dat/0\E0k »aU 'C'L 0°Q3 \� f�>. o[ 0ac0— u Q 0 0 7$=§ 0 J»» w t u § u u= 0 0 0 CL ° f I]$ a 0 3-0» 3 /\ c & c c/' G/ 3 0 7= ƒ : a e== r 2 M% C 2 2 c= ° a 2 5 a M g o M U.. o # 3 5 J� a 6 Q u I= g y y c ) u u / o t § § u § § § § § ) § � _ ; o; \ \ = = z = = = = m : ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CL �Ln�cAtAtAvi(AvicALnv)v = 2:3 /� RR�23�a3-1���� 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 • Transportation Impact Fee Comparison • Benefit District Review • 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 of the roadway network. Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: [Demand x Cost] — Credit = Fee The "demand" for travel placed on a transportation 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 58 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 "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: Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Percent new trips • Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor Cost Variables: • Cost per vehicle -mile • Capacity added per lane mile Credit Variables: • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Present worth • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year Demand Component 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 59 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 • 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 to the demand variables used in the 2014 study and this update study. Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor This variable is used to recognize that interstate highway and toll facility improvements are funded by the State (specifically, the Florida Department of Transportation) using earmarked State and Federal funds. Typically, transportation impact fees 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 interstate and toll (I/T) facility discount factor, the loaded highway network' file was generated for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v4 (TCRPMv4). A select link analysis was conducted for all traffic analysis zones located within Indian River County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin or destination within the county. Currently, interstate 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 destination within the County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total VMT was calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within the study area for all roads, including limited access facilities. 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 60 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 estimated at 11 percent of construction 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 is provided in Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-3. CEI costs for county roads were estimated at 9 percent of construction 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 is provided in Appendix D, Tables D-2 and D-9. Right -of -Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of 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. This factor was 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 for 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 Indian River Co�t� February 2020 61 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 • Oslo Rd Ph. III from 43rd Ave to 58th Ave • 66th Ave from SR 60 to 49th St 0 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 691h St to 85th St As shown in Appendix D, Table D-6, 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 per lane mile. Of these, the average construction cost of completed projects averaged $2.9 million per 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 over 164 lane miles of 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 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 reviewed. Based on these cost estimates, the costs for roadways with rural -design 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. To determine the weighted average cost for county roadways, the cost for curb & gutter and open drainage roadways were 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. Z This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 62 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table VI -1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads Phase Cost UrbanCost Design per Lane Mile Design(s) Average (6) Design(l) $308,000 $228,000 $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) $252,0001 186 000 L238.000 Total Cost $3,920,000 $2,900,000 $3,705,11W0 Lane Mile Distribution (7) 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: 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 S) 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 State Roadway Cost This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated with state 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 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River Conn� February 2020 63 Impact Fee Update Sy Attachment 1 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. 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 cost of $4.45 million per lane mile. In addition to the District 4 projects, recent improvements from 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 weighted 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. To determine the cost per lane mile for state roads with rural -design characteristics (open drainage), the relationship between urban and rural roadway costs from the FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates (LRE)3 was reviewed. Based on these cost estimates, the costs for roadways with rural -design 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. 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 s This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver Indian River Coit February 2020 64 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 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. Table VI -2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads Cost Phase Cost Urban Design per Lane Mile Rural Design (5) Weighted Average (6) Design(l) $418,000 $309,000 $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, $309,0001 395 000 Total Cost 1 $5,396,000 $3,992,000 $5,101,000 Lane Mile Distribution (7) 7991/6 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 average cost of approximately $4.31 million per lane mile was utilized as the roadway cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee rates. The weighted average cost per lane -mile includes county and state roads and is based on the projected 2040 VMT distribution between county and state roads from the TCRPM v4. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 65 Impact Fee Update SMy Attachment 1 Table VI -3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects Type County Roads(l) (2) County State Roads State and RoadsCost Design $291,000 $395,000 $336,000 Right -of -Way $529,000 $718,000 $610,000 Construction $2,647,000 $3,593,000 $3,054,000 CEI $238,000 $395,0001 306 000 Total $3,705,0001 $5,101,0001 $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 to develop a weighted average cost 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 county and state roadway improvements in the 2040 LRTP. As shown in Table VIA 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 Lane Mile Vehicle Source Added"' Capacity -Miles of Added (') VMC Added perLane Mile (2) County Roads 86.26 733,916 8,508 State Roads 8.64 86,832 10,050 Total 94.90 820,748 Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile (3) 8,600 1) Source: Aooendix 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 Indian River Co IPY February 2020 66 Impact Fee Update Su Attachment 1 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 Cost per Lane Average PMC Cost per Source A..-. per Lane Mile(l) PMC Mile County Roads $3,705,000 8,508 $435.47 State Roads $5,101,000 10,050 $507.56 Weighted Average $4,306,000 8,600 $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 Credit The credit component of the impact fee accounts for the County and State funding sources that are being expended on roadway capacity expansion (excluding impact fee funds). This section summarizes the calculations 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 (estimated life of a structure as well as when roadways are likely to need significant maintenance/rehabilitation) 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 Indian River Co 9 February 2020 67 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 limited access 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. Additional detail is provided in Appendix E, Table E-3. 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 to recognize the future capital revenues (25 years) that are expected 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 State sources. Table VI -6 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue 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 Cool February 2020 68 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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 be bonded. 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. Fuel Efficiency 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 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. 7T VMTVehic[e Type F' Z[el Efficiency = � V MTRoadway Type — MPGVehicle Type Roadway Type 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 69 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 Detailed impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix F, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land 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 percent new trips); • 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 between the calculated impact fee and the current adopted impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix F is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the technically calculated impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Indian 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 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 70 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 \A/hprp- Total Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x /o 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 Trip 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 this 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 for the single-family detached residential land use category (2,000 sq ft): • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.81) • Assessable Trip Length = the average trip length on collector roads or above, for the category, in vehicle -miles (6.62). • Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (6.62 + 0.50 = 7.12) • % 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/Toll 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 Indian River Co�t� pdate February 2020 71 Impact Fee US udy Attachment 1 • Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "i," 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) Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for 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 E, in addition 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 72 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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 described 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 operate worse), 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 this study continues to use this standard. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison A comparison of calculated fee schedule to the current adopted fee by land use is presented in Table VI -7 for select land uses. A summary of calculated impact fee rates for all land uses is presented in Appendix F, Table F-1. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co p` February 2020 73 Impact Fee Update S uydy Attachment 1 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 33S, generally following 53rd Street, going due east and west from the existing portion of 53rd Street. To ensure the new boundaries continue to comply with the legal requirement to convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer, the travel distance 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 had a distance of 3.75 miles, and the southern district had a distance of 2.25 miles. With the new alignments, the 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 less 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 even 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 east of 1-95, with all improvements located east of the City of Fellsmere. 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 planned improvements between the districts. 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 Indian River Coil February 2020 75 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 CL E ��GY`Mp...P1P`iC1� N 4 ra� i LA cu cn N y O J 0 w C3) G1 CL �c m m E m Co o N v m o a 0 N CL a 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 • 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 The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all school-age residents of Indian 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 Indian River Co February 2020 78 Impact Fee Update u y Attachment 1 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. Table VII -1 Indian River County Enrollment School Year Enrollment Change (2) Average (3) 2007-08 16,238 - - 2008-09 15,664 -3.5% - 2009-10 15,582 -0.5% - 2010-11 15,436 -0.9% - 2011-12 15,488 0.3% -1.7% 2012-13 15,446 -0.3% -0.4% 2013-14 15,377 -0.4% -0.3% 2014-15 15,337 -0.3% -0.1% 2015-16 15,201 -0.9% -0.3% 2016-17 15,032 -1.1% -0.5% 2017-18 14,958 -0.5% -0.8% 2018-19 1 15,1571 1.3% -0.8% 1) Source: Indian River County Schonl District 2) Percent change 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 Indian River Co February 2020 79 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 SchoolType Weighted Description Elementary Middle High Average Permanent Net Square Footage(l) 1,180,7771 602,4111 839,3431 2,622,531 Permanent Student Capacity (2) 8,0531 4,299 5,179 17,533 Net Square Feet per Student Station Capacity(3) 146.61 140.11 162.11 149.E 1) Source: Indian River County School District (IRCSD) 2) Source: Indian River County School District; Indicates permanent capacity after FISH adjustment 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 stations only as a temporary solution. This approach is also consistent with the methodology used in the 2014 technical study, which is the basis of the current adopted impact fee schedule. Portable stations will always be used at some level since they provide valuable flexibility to address temporary and locational increases in enrollment. The School District's policy is to provide the necessary permanent student stations in the long term. Cost Component The capital costs of providing educational facilities include three components: the school facility cost, transportation cost, and ancillary facility cost. 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 Co February 2020 80 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 • 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 by school level. 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 similarly sized 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. 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 Indian River Co�tt� February 2020 81 Impact Fee Update S uUUdy Attachment 1 • 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 at this time. In January 2020, the FDOE and EDR finalized a second report that addresses the school cost. However, the study results have not yet been approved by the State Legislature. In the absence of any adjustments, existing Student Station Cost Factors published by FDOE are used to develop alternative cost estimates. These cost figures include construction, architectural/design, and FF&E costs but exclude land costs. The FDOE cost factors were last updated in 2006 and have been indexed since using Consumer Price Index. Table VII -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 student station weighted average is approximately 15 percent greater than the FDOE average weighted cost per station. Given these requirements, impact fee calculations in this report use the student station cost figures published by FDOE, which result in more conservative impact fee levels. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 82 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table VII -3 Facility Cost per Student Station 1) Source: Table VII -2 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 per net 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 the acreage 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) Total Facility Cost per Student The total facility impact cost per student for each school type is based on the facility cost per student station figures 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 per student 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 Indian River Co February 2020 83 Impact Fee Update S U y Attachment 1 SchoolVariable Elementary Middle High .. Weighted Net Square Feet per Student Station Capacity(l)1 146.61 140.11 162.11 149.6 Existing Permanent Capacity (2) 8,0531 4,2991 5,1791 17,531 School Facility Cost Components: Architectural/Civil Design/Site Improvement Cost per Net Sq Ft (3) $27.00 $28.80 $34.20 $29.72 Construction Cost per Net Sq W) $150.00 $160.00 $190.00 $165.10 FF&E Cost per Net Sq Ft (5) $12.00 $12.80 $15.20 $13.21 Land Cost per Net Sq F& $12.10 $9.85 $9.85 $11.33 Total Facility Cost per Net Sq Ft(') $201.10 $211.45 $249.25 $219.36 Total Facility Cost per Student Station(s) $29,481 $29,624 $40,403 $32,816 Total Facility Cost Excluding Land Cost per Student Station(9) $27,707 $28,244 $38,807 $31,121 DOE Cost per Student Station(10) $23,158 $25,008 $32,484 $26,367 DOE Cost per Student Station with Land Value(11) $24,932 $26,388 $34,081 $27,992 1) Source: Table VII -2 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 per net 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 the acreage 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) Total Facility Cost per Student The total facility impact cost per student for each school type is based on the facility cost per student station figures 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 per student 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 Indian River Co February 2020 83 Impact Fee Update S U y Attachment 1 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 Facilky Impact Cost per Student School Middle School High School Weighted Average Facility Cost per Student Station(l) $24,9321 $26,3881 $34,0811 $27,992 Adopted LOS Standard Izl 100% 100% 100%1 100% Final Ratio of Permanent Capacity to Enrollment Used for Impact Fee Calculations(3) 100%1 100% 100% 100% Total Facility Impact Cost per Student (4) $24,9321 $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) 4) Facility Cost per Student Station (Item 1) multiplied by Final Ratio of Permanent Capacity (Item 3) Although the School District's adopted LOS standard is measured in terms of 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 decreased 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 Indian River Coy�t�{ February 2020 84 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 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 Trar►sporta4 © ServkeCost perStudeat ,;- Total Current Value of Transportation Services(l) $14,438,885 Current Enrollment (2) 15,299 Total Transportation Services Cost per Student (3) $944 Ancillary Facility Cost.parStudent Building Value for Ancillary Facilities (4) $21,868,665 Land Value for Ancillary Facilities(5) 5Z2L6 000 Total Current Value for Ancillary Facilities (6) $22,594,665 Total Ancillary Facility Cost per Student (7) $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 Indian River Co February 2020 85 Impact Fee Update S u Attachment 1 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. Based on a review of the District's capacity addition expenditures over the past five years and 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 capital ad valorem 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 VII -6, the average annual expenditures for the 10 -year period amounted to approximately $2.5 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 per dwelling unit compared to existing homes. The adjustment factor was estimated based on the average taxable value of new homes built over the past five years to that of all homes. As presented in Table VII -6, the total adjusted revenue credit per student resulted in $210 annually per student or $3,372 per student over the next 25 years. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 86 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 O � � U � L � � � U cu4-5LL C f6 C1 G r" 00 O C. L m 0) T O ri cu z L 0) O v 3 U -6 4 i H Ol 0 Q N o C t o N C O Y CZ C X 3 O1 UfO W Q u - D: C 3 O1 C c m m aj ON N > O N U U O 00 3 O) 3 f6 N Q N (Q i _ C ri N Cn �- LL- vcn Ln cn LO LO O O O o1 v a M '-1 00 " m 00 o Q7 r\ to N M O Ln N m N O O O M r\ r\ 14 00 Ln N N LO M � N o\° N r- 4 LO � M al O O O O f\ f\ 00 tC O fY1 MO ^ M N r\ O 00' M N O O N N Lf L!1 LO n Ln LO Ln V} O ri M M M LO M V M Ln M Ln N N N0 O O 00 m V Ln N m O O O O X N Ln V 4 rl to rl V? N in N V>• in Q*• Vf M LO N M Lr V M rp rl 'y a N V1• VA V) Vt Vf N VT Vh N V} V? � O O 0 o t0/} O O O' O O O pO S uiLn rn" V> V> VI. LnLA O Ln O O v} O N N N n f\ f\ _ Ol 00 r 00 N Op N N N V1. N N O N N O N N O O N N V! N N O Vf Ln N Ln n n V} VT V* Vpp► O O O O O O i0ir O O O Lo Ln Lf 00 to N Ln M Ln M V) N D CN O O O O O O n N n N n N M en ryj VT V., V} O O O V} VT N LO to LO O m rn m Cl V� m m m tri N V6 tNA Ln ci a co a a Ln m n � rr. m M LOLq ' O rl N VF V? m m of o 0 V� 0 _> C LOO O v O An 4A m N m N iri m N 00. E rl 14 LMO LMO %MO V>• v* u! m m C U O O1 7 ¢ N O U U LJ 7 V) N 0 O C O" > O CL w¢ c ° c c w 3 a v v 00 £ > ar a a m v= ^0 ^ v 0 •O Q C 'O m Q w C H C O E di 01 E O OJ t 'O •H Co m Z O C Z O c W Y ci E i O O m N C tA C `L m CL Q O` w y N a Q C Y 7 X C L E C m x W m C N tmJ C H �= W a+ Q O in x O m w V w X O1 y U u C m L t O C W > o v o c o oCi o c_ a a= u 3 '3 Q a ±° o •am_+ m N N CO E CO H E E N W 'O �= L+-� D. 0 O U O W = a Y Y- �' -o a U w £ C O a� U v co v m ar C "y Q r o io _ 'a -c v -, v :g -0 z a m -o C v m> E m Ln m C N 3 t c c V 'n v C C O v m O Q Q U > L N 0 O C C C C. W LL. m N O O O U CL C w O_ G Q W X C C N U O f0 f0 cc > J m W £O W Q' w y m O O 0 0) j m .2 p W 00 000 Q C H U M E- M O1 O/ G d d > > d O_ d H ` a.+ Y am+ ti O H U a U L7 vmi in Ln voi 0 a Ln F Q Q U Q Q H V u a O � � U � L � � � U cu4-5LL C f6 C1 G r" 00 O C. L m 0) T O ri cu z L 0) O v 3 U -6 4 i H Ol 0 Q N o C t o N C O Y CZ C X 3 O1 UfO W Q u - D: C 3 O1 C c m m aj ON N > O N U U O 00 3 O) 3 f6 N Q N (Q i _ C ri N Cn �- LL- 2 3 k / k2� E 2 § Q \ m z )CL \ / k m f cuL )ƒ / m { k § o \ \ g 7 M ƒ- e 2 � E Q) $ — ° u t � E § >� u \>\ X22 ° �sw »2/ / % \Ln ± / ® s k k E U m $ 7 2 # c t & 2 t \m ��� E aiq ) / b C � - =3 m 0 \> \ / 2227 = 3 2 C 3 x° a ` 2£ a@ 3 o E k 2'§>E=� $$eq(}Zn � w RCia-_ u CL CL > ° c c 2222222 g 6 2$ 3 6 E w c. \ 2 E' { 3 2 A 2 # e = = 2 @ m § W E a % 2 & « / . E f 4 § L � ' > CL QJ M m CL a a 7 7{ y o§= a / / /-C —a. c±� 2 /kCL C\.CL @ E- ; x ® - CL § ef0QJ L-0 ° o ° • # _ u ® u a) U 0 2 O:L'Q)Q)® p Q)Q)® 41 2 �� £ \ « / m CL ( m 7 k_ cq 0 X w X= L�/\/o\/\\ �\ � 3 § 0 E a E§+/ E$ 2/ < u< u £ R� M 2 /� �23Ra3��� 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 District decides 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 Number of Years .•bt Payments(l) Service Debt Service Enrollment l Debt Student(s) Service 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 20168 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(7) $6,332 1) Source: Indian River Countv 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 Indian River Co q February 2020 89 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 components per student from Table VII -5. Second, the total revenue credit is determined. This is the sum of the capital expansion expenditure "cash" credit per student from Table VII -6 and the debt service revenue credit per student from Table VII -7. Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit per student. The resulting figure of $20,709 per student is also the relevant measure of LOS for impact fee calculation purposes. Table VII -8 Net Impact Cost per Student Total..PerStudent Facility Impact Cost(i) $27,992 Transportation Impact Cost (2) $944 Ancillary Facility Cost (3) 1477 Total Impact Cost per Student (4) ExpansionCapital -. $30,413 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit(s) $3,372 Debt Service Credit (6) 6 332 Total Revenue Credit per Student (7) ImpactNet Net Impact Cost per Student(83 $9,704 .- $20,709 1) 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 90 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 link each student address to its respective parcel in the Indian River County Property Appraiser's database in order to generate the number of students 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 in 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, multi -family, 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 were divided by the total number of units in each residential category. Table VII -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 -10 includes an alternative grouping of residential categories to recognize that smaller apartments and all condos house fewer students. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co�t� February 2020 91 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table VII -9 Student Generation Rates Use Total Housing Number.- StudentsLand per Traditional Schools Single Family 53,459 12,080 0.226 Multi -Family 20,455 1,896 0.093 Mobile Home 6,849 680 0.099 Total/Weighted Average 80,7631 14,656 0.181 1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser 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 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 92 Impact Fee Update S V Attachment 1 Table VII -10 Student Generation Rates - Alternative Number.- per Land Use Total Housing Units(i) Students (2) Unit (3) Traditional Schools Single Family 53,459 12,080 0.226 Apartments 5,588 1,601 0.287 -Less than 499 sf 207 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 2,182 903 0.414 Condominium 1 14,867 295 0.020 Mobile Homes 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 Appraiser 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, the net impact cost per student is multiplied by the student generation rate. The resulting impact fee levels are presented in Table VII -11. Table VII -12 shows the impact fee levels for alternative residential grouping. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co tv February 2020 93 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 3 d L u H N GJ LL +a u m CL E � N U •u LL M^ Y O m u .a W U rq 'a U W L � O a� N ^ E 3 V avo rn '� > ac D U i rl a V p o � LL c 4, _ V m Q a E m Y a Y 3 u 3 � a 1111 E E N w v a 1-i LL O N v N Y L N Q a E ! a U +� .� a O O a u_ a v v cCL R cc o — E U V a a a a) U � u Q u a p L Y Y + Q a a 'r.3t E • U+o n Y LL a cu ru E U- U O c a O O CL Q v co `L N Y m �� 0 r 3 a a E 0 U d += L E E a rn ao > o 0 Y cCC a a L m c O c f6 Q C O - N Y Y GJ b= C) c v c > O = N - Y J :3 = L :3 L O f0 V) Vf N N d ld f0 i M 3 a a LL C � v (6 a Y • • Q c E Ln m Z V N L CL • Y y D • • Y a .O J � `" N U W L � > ac D U LL c 4, _ V m Q E m a Y N M O a E E N w v N Y L N Q a a U +� CL °' O O V l0 E U V a a a a) p L Y Y + Q a 'r.3t E U+o n Y .. Q cu ru E U- U O c a O O CL Q d E Y m �� 0 r 3 a a E 0 U += L E E a rn ao > o 0 Y cCC a a L m c O c f6 Q C O - U U N Y Y GJ b= C) c v c > O = N U U a U a U a L L p L V L V Q L J :3 = L :3 L O f0 V) Vf N N d ld f0 i C � Table VII -12 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule - Alternative 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 1 0.179 $20,709 $3,707 -750 to 999 sf du 0.228 $20,709 $4,722 -1,000 sf or greater du 0.414 $20,709 $8,574 Condominium du 0.0201 $20,709 $414 Mobile Homes I 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 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 grow at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent, although the enrollment growth is likely to be lower. Given this, a growth rate of 0.7 percent is used for affordable growth calculations. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of educational 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 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 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. 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 Indian River Co qtv February 2020 95 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with County representatives and Table VII -11 for Indian River County Represents the full calculated fee from each respective technical study Source: Table VII -11 Fees are indexed annually Rates shown under Single Family Impact Fee at 100% (Item 3) reflect most recent on-going technical study Tindale Oliver Indian River Co V February 2020 96 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 of Last Update Adoption Adopted Single ImpactDate 00% Miami -Dade County 1995 100% $2,448 $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% $3,600 $4,756 Indian River County (Calculated )14) 2019 N/A N/A $4,680 Nassau County 2017 100% $5,431 $5,431 St. Lucie County (5) 2009 100% $6,529 $5,447 Lee County(s) 2015 47.5% $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 61% $4,237 $6,956 Marion County (5) 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 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) 2015 67% $8,790 $11,164 Osceola County 2017 100% $11,823 $11,823 Seminole County 2017 73% $9,000 $12,322 11 Fees in cniinties tagged with an asterisk M ara rurrantly cucnanriarl 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with County representatives and Table VII -11 for Indian River County Represents the full calculated fee from each respective technical study Source: Table VII -11 Fees are indexed annually Rates shown under Single Family Impact Fee at 100% (Item 3) reflect most recent on-going technical study Tindale Oliver Indian River Co V February 2020 96 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Appendix A Population: Supplemental Information 220 Attachment 1 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 population, unless otherwise noted. Indian River County provides all of the services included in 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, which 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 seasonal 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 Indian River Con February 2020 A-1 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table A-1 Weighted Seasonal Population Trends and Projections Yea r 2000 Indian County(l) 119,351 River County (2) 75,723 River Shores (3) 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 93,905 141,287 2009 145,356 94,014 141,452 2010 145,854 96,546 141,732 2011 146,325 96,955 142,202 2012 147,118 97,447 142,967 2013 147,266 97,465 143,109 2014 148,710 98,280 144,530 2015 151,212 100,037 146,997 2016 154,281 102,207 150,018 2017 156,970 103,947 152,610 2018 159,987 106,134 155,553 2019 162,787 107,439 158,218 2020 1 165,651 109,330 161,001 2021 167,985 110,871 163,270 2022 170,488 112,522 165,702 2023 173,029 114,199 168,172 2024 175,607 115,900 170,679 2025 178,259 117,651 173,256 2026 180,273 118,980 175,213 2027 182,383 120,372 177,263 2028 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 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 1 137,821 1 202,958 2044 210,135 1 138,689 204,237 2045 211,447 1 139,555 205,512 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-16 2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-17 3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-18 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co 2 February 2020 A-2 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 present 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 (Countywide, 2017) 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). Table A-3 Persons per Housing Unit by Housing Type (Unincorporated Indian River County, 2017) Housing Type Single Family Population(l) 78,5261 Population Housing (3) Units (2) Ratio Housing 33,740 Units (4) 2.33 Less than 1,500 sf 1,500 to 2,499 sf 2,500 sf or greater 83% 100% 112% 1.93 2.33 2.61 Multi -Family 16,5821 12,444 4,7571 1 1.33 1.34 Mobile Home 1 6,3901 Weighted Average 1 101,4981 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 Indian River Co February 2020 A-3 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table A-4 Persons per Housing Unit by Housing Type (Indian River County Excluding Indian River Shores, 2017) Housing Type Single Family Population(i) -117,3461 Housing Ratio(3) Population Units(2) Housing 49,939 / (4) Units 2.34 Less than 1,500 sf 83% 1.94 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.34 2,500 sf or greater 112% 2.62 Multi -Family 23,522 18,392 1.28 Mobile Home 9,2701 6,205 1.49 Weighted Average 1 149,8381 74,5361 1 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 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). 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. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24 -hour -day, 7 -days -a -week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per 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 person commuting 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 Indian River Coy 4 February 2020 A-4 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 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 population 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 this analysis, 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 Figure Total workers living in Indian River County(1) 53,515 Total Census Population (2010)(2) 138,028 Total workers as a percent of population(3) School age population (5-17 years) (2010)(4) 19,444 School age population as a percent of population(6) Population net of workers and school age population (6) 65,069 Other population as a percent of total population (7) 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) less 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 February 2020 A-5 Impact Fee Update S ud-y Attachment 1 Table A-6 Residential Coefficient for 24 -Hour Functional Population PopulationHours at Percent of Population Group Residence(l) Effective Workers 13 38.8% 5.0 Students 15 14.1% 2.1 Other 20 47.1% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence (4) 16.5 Residential Functional Population Coefficient (5) 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) 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. Non -Residential Functional Pooulation 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 vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 A-6 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 Indian River Con February 2020 A-7 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 00 Q o Eo E 0 s w m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 C n n N N N N n N l0 1� L d Q V v E o 0- 0 E ° 58888888 ri ri ri ri .ti ri r4 r� E w E ° w E E � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 W o �c 6 OmD. o y t .4 .y g Y o + u 3 — E ; m m m m m n n n n o b w q o e m.r m m E N n e a o d t ° ry 0w o. ° v M M M M M N N N N T a an d W � o n n w v x N ." E v oy` No w W d q w O 6 9= c d T W W � ?o O O V O O m N M O V E E T ° � E ° n c F n m N " c c a v d E E ` 888585888 c ai ai of of ai ai °i of of m m m ry om � ' - o S a O « x w~ 2 z LL u w E E N a u N Tv o v vii N a m n ry N c E w o oT o 0 $ W w v E E E aE+ o° 3 oc f „`o_ w, o E> L u w "°' H E w " o m ._ - - ._ N -- v w E G w E 3 v v c o E n �' c a01i EN ° ti o a N a oa N Q P Y n c 9 u ni r rri is v o o F o S _ w .°+ a o m E 3 c c? c c E w E` a n m v ° c v .°N. a Si o T g n n n w e E W O K `O N= . E d o .O o o O -O °' y a 'C a 3 C C o o O o o y a E VD ` u u `o T -° b c N n V u u u d ° z n r= M m m w - - E o a c` m s>¢ c y �= r m E E ^ a z V H 3 z ii uvi l°7 =. ^� z u° n: '^ 'an m 00 Q Table A-8 Countywide Functional Population (2019) Population Category Weighted Population Indian River County Functional Baseline Resident .. Coefficient 162,787 Functional (2) Population 0.6901 112,323 Employment Category Natural Resources 3,467 0.379 1,314 Construction 5,725 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 0.292 3,278 Services 39,978 0.570 22,787 Government Services 5,432 0.451 2.450 Total Employment by Category Population (4) 44,608 2019 Total Functional Population (5) M 11 Source: Table A-1 for nonulation and 2019 Woods & Poole for emnlnvment data 2) Source: Table A-7 3) Functional population is calculated by multiplying the Indian River County 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 resources, 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 February 2020 A-9 Impact Fee Update S�ud"y Attachment 1 Table A-9 Unincorporated Indian River County Functional Population (2019) Population Category Unincorporated 2019 Weighted Population Indian River County Functional DataM Coefficient Resident (2) 0.690 Functional Population (3) 74,133 —107,4391 iF f; Employment Category Natural Resources 2,150 0.379 815 Construction 2,691 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 0.451 784 Total Employment by Category Population (4) 22,504 2019 Total Functional Population(s) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2019 Woods & Poole for employment data Source: Table A-7 Functional population is calculated by multiplying the Indian River County Unincorporated baseline data (Item 1) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 A-10 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table A-10 Indian River County, Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population (2019) Indian Category Excluding 2019 Weighted Population CoefficientPopulation IRS (1) 58,2181 Population 0.690 109,170 Employment Category Natural Resources 3,467 0.379 1,314 Construction 5,611 0.271 1,521 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 11,002 0.292 3,213 Services 39,578 0.570 22,559 Government Services S,3781 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 Indian River Shores 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 resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population Table A-11 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through 2045, based on the 2019 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River CoM February 2020 A-11 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 1) 2) 3) Tindale Oliver February 2020 Table A-11 Indian River County Functional Population (2000 - 2045) 2000 UnincorporatedFunctional IndianYear Indian River 115,157 Population County (2) 68,070 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 .' 19 156,931 96,637 153,430 2020 159,756 98,376 156,192 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 173,824 107,040 169,946 2027 175,910 108,324 171,985 2028 178,021 109,624 174,049 2029 180,157 110,939 176,138 2030 182,139 112,159 178,076 2031 183,778 113,168 179,679 2032 185,432 114,187 181,296 2033 187,101 115,215 182,928 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 2038 194,512 119,779 190,174 2039 195,874 120,617 191,505 2040 197,441 121,582 193,037 2041 198,626 122,311 194,195 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 a e A- Table f 8 or 2019. Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. Table A-9 for 2019. Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. Table A-10 for 2019. Remaining years are based on growth rates of the weighted seasonal population; Table A-1. Indian River Co A-12 Impact Fee Update u y Attachment 1 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 previously, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee service areas to be analyzed. Secondary sources, such as Indian River County Chamber of Commerce 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 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 final column in the table shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 A-13 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 3 C O U N G1 N D f0 J N L r -I � Q N 4) H wY W M ^N' W c0 C uU C 3 LL O N u v a)L > "C = D U co 0 LL C 4- u m CQ C m Lq n ro o o ro m .ti I .-i O ti I o o w a ry v E 0 u 0 O1 O) O1 a E V C O U 00 N M . N O d K y C O C d c 0 N N 0.+ 7N e -I l0 N E o � o � u c > oo m a a ca N m N .ti m m O o v a w a o a c d - E v r 0 E v � o V o L - y O d v v 3 Olo M m N a N m V m N p O r n � a O X N N N fV r1 N N N N o a yo E � ~ E w E .°c a r o o lo: c w o o c o O O N \ N\ N = j N O o o N N u m d u d a 3 l7 N E N d o y o m � • 3 g E E a `w 01 y x > a > a > a > a > a °o o E n u o > v a w t N LL o 2 o- sow= E i m .Q•ry 6 r Ey m w yoo Z E _ « a a= .ai cm _ � E o w v !• c 7 m c 'S o Z = o v E a c c o a mo +-= n «x U C r ` 'Ed d O V O 7 v O U C` y W N 0 0 K d a i m m E n \ :. o . E!� .11 m w o a�� d w ui d 3 E« Y E a¢ o e o m a w« a a .` o rd C C E o o 2 :2 1:7: z' CLv m S e SS O N u v a)L > "C = D U co 0 LL C 4- u m CQ C Ln ci Q m ri ro r1 OR m rn o cao m , G m « u E V O rn o m d a E u T c u° `w s y c C C E o J u° a N ry to o N v v C o 'm Q v � T a v 0o N N ao o N W N O J o 9 G m — E v � o E v O o � n n m L - o W N m E 12 v c Ol N m l0 N N f.1 M N N N N N O N N N 6 0 Q O O O v r E w E o 0 sw m - a C m ry O N N� d u V d 3 N tai m m � E `w `w lo `o c o ^ v + v v v v v E E o o v v 9 s = 3 c E a V o LL v v L d N N W O T w 6 ^ C m O J m>J O O V a V o O N M S O X O � LL a m c °1 «� E Eu c i H ._ o l9 d y a v s m m o E a z EN„o r � w « a 7 N O N m N N Q o w L 4 E o 'C K T C O T E .E mm a w w N w w m v o 2 w m v v N vLL �goii m v co�.i "� C m m Sw Egon z=¢ LL a ri O Ln ci Q MI"grocmoo o9m -00 v `R u E u° 0 01 Ol Ol d a E {tj C O V `w K y c O 0 u° w y c > .m z N N lD a c 0 N C - O W Q a a •v - m v! ri a0 m rl O J O C C v - E v � 0 a v O 9 O y W d 3 y c m M w N N N V ti N ti 0 N G X N O ,4 r4 r4 a y v � E � s p sw d p ry c T Z �= O X � N 6 d 3 N W d d d E `w l7 00 E - a E E vav vJ VJ o o w R cE a V O LL y W O Y W G t W N d n J J L O a ° U U p ucpi M S O X Q E Q O n Q E O E N N 10 � n y «E v V V C N= w O O c C� W Y a d~ y V w w 1_ -It o w °i LL t E 0 c o = X. m w V v N y N g 3 -i v ti M c J J O O p O J 11 u ;I OHIO Table A-16 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Countywide Year Population(" Permanent Seasonal, Total Weighted Occasional, Season RecreationaP1 Population"' 2000 112,947 6,404 119,351 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 1 131,656 7,4651 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 139,4461 7,672 147,118 2013 139,5861 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 2020 151,825 157,2001 8,162 u,. 8,451 159,987 165,651 2021 159,5421 8,443 167,985 2022 161,9191 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 177,3631 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 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 2037 190,450 9,999 200,449 2038 191,840 10,072 201,912 2039 193,240 10,145 203,385 2040 194,700 10,222 204,922 2041 195,927 10,286 206,213 2042 1 197,1611 10,351 207,512 2043 198,403 10,4161 208,819 2044 199,6531 10,4821 210,135 2045 200,9001 10,5471 211,447 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 Co February 2020 A-18 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table A-17 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Indian River County Unincorporated Year 2000 Permanent Population(l) 71,660 Occasional, Recreational 12) Population") 4,063 Total Weighted Season 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 1 82,087 4,6541 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 5,045 94,014 2010 91,366 5,180 96,546 2011 91,899 5,056 96,955 2012 92,365 5,082 97,447 2013 92,382 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 98,6441 5,303 103,947 2018 2020 100,7191 103,752 5,415 5,578 106,134 109,330 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 111,7381 5,913 117,651 2026 113,045 5,935 118,980 2027 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 6,273 125,755 2032 120,5691 6,330 126,899 2033 121,666 6,387 128,053 2034 122,773 6,446 129,219 2035 123,882 6,504 130,386 2036 124,786 6,551 131,337 2037 125,697 6,599 132,296 2038 126,614 6,647 133,261 2039 127,5381 6,696 134,234 2040 128,5021 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 Co February 2020 A-19 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table A-18 Weighted Seasonal Population Projections Indian River County, Excluding Indian River Shores Year Population�'� 2000 Permanent 109,499 Seasonal, Occasional, Recreationa0 ') 6,208 Total Weighted Season 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 7,2591 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 7,786 152,610 2018 2020 147,617 152,787 7,936 8,214 155,553 161,001 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 2026 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 185,1041 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 204311 192,834 10,124 202,958 2044 1 194,0491 10,1881 204,237 2045 1 195,2611 10,2511 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 Co U February 2020 A-20 Impact Fee Update S ud"y Attachment 1 Appendix B Building and land Values: Supplemental Information 241 Attachment 1 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 To estimate building and recreational facility value, the following information was reviewed: • Recent construction by Indian River County, as applicable; • Cost estimates for future facilities; • 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 buildings 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 facilities the County 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 Indian River Co February 2020 B-1 Impact Fee Update SMY Attachment 1 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 at the estimated cost for primary buildings. Table B-1 Public Buildings -- Building Cost Primary Buildings (Cost per Sq Ft) 014 Study $210 2014 Estimate Indexed $242 Support Facilities (Cost per Sq Ft) $50 $58 ENR Building Cost Index (2013-19) X31 15% - 2019 Insurance Values: (4) Buildings Building Value per $193 Content Value $36 Total Value per $229 EOC $475 $104 $579 Parking Garage $42 $0 $42 Support Buildings $68 $19 $87 ImpactRecent i Primary Buildings $150-$250 Support Buildings $85-$100 Used in the Study - Public Buildings - Primary Buildings Cost per Sq $240 - Support Buildings (Excl Garage) $100 7 - 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 Indian River Co W February 2020 B-2 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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. • 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 foot for support buildings. It should be noted that insurance values 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 fire/EMS impact fee studies. This analysis reviewed data from studies conducted between 2017 and 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 foot 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 of information considered in determining these figures. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cor t� February 2020 B-3 Impact Fee Update S It Attachment 1 Table B-2 Emergency Services Building Cost Source/Variable 2014 Study Estimate(l) 2014 Estimate Indexed (2) Fire Station Cost per Squue .. .� .. ENR Building Cost 1.- Recent Construction: i4I Year Built Cost Square Footage Cost per Sq Ft Station.® - Station 14 �® Upcoming Construction: (5) - Station 15 $2,400,000 0094 Me !, 2019 Insurance Values: I61 Building Value per Sq Ft Content Value per Sq Ft Total Value per Sq Ft Stations SupportFire • Recent Impact Fee Studies (2017-2019): Cost per Sq Ft Fire Stations MIMI I'M �Su.•• I Used in the Study - Emergency Services - Fire Stations Cost per Sq Ft Support 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 6) Source: Indian River County 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 Indian River Co February 2020 B-4 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 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 law enforcement impact fee studies. This analysis reviewed data from studies conducted between 2017 and 2019, which ranged from $200 per square foot to $300 per square foot for law enforcement primary building construction, and $100 per square foot for support facilities. Given this information, building cost estimates of $240 per square foot for primary buildings and $120 per square foot for support facilities are used for impact fee calculation purposes. Table 13- 3 provides a summary of information considered in determining these figures. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 B-5 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Table B-3 Law Enforcement Buildine Cost Primary Buildings (Admin/Offices) (Cost per Sq Ft) $200 Support Facilities (Cost per Sq Ft) $50 ENR Building Cost Index (2013-19) (3) 15% $230 $58 Construction: (4) Year Built Cost - Aviation Building 2014-2018 1 $2,279,7421 Square FootageRecent 14,318 Cost per $159 - New HQ Building (Hard Cost) $28,529,400 95,098 $300 - New Support Facility (Hard Cost) $5,719,500 25,420 $225 - New Firearms Training Facility (Hard Cost) $6,705,600 27,940 $240 -Total/Weighted Average 1 $40,954,5001 148,458 $276 Project Soft Costs: - Professional Fees 10% of hard cost - FF&E Allowance $25 per square foot - Technology Allowance - Site Development Allowance $20 per square foot $150,000 per acre - Permit and Impact Fees (if req) TBD Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2014 estimate (Item 1) indexed using ENR index (Item 3) Source: Engineers News -Record Source: Indian River County Source: Indian River County Sheriffs Master Plan Source: Indian River County Tindale Oliver Indian River Coyr�t,� February 2020 B-6 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 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 values were determined based on the following analysis, as data available: • Recent land purchases or appraisals for the related infrastructure (if any); • Land value of current inventory as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser (IRCPA); • Vacant land value trends since 2013 in Indian River County; • Value of vacant land by size and by land use; and • Vacant land sales between 2015 and 2019 by -size and by land use. Public Buildings The following was considered in estimating the land value for public buildings: • Since 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 not considered to be representative of future land purchases for public buildings. • The 2014 study used 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 takand the values are not always updated to reflect the market conditions. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co M February 2020 B-7 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 • 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 based on the following: • The County has not purchased any new parcels for emergency services since the last technical study. However, there are plans to 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's (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 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 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 ranged from $70,000 per acre to $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, 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 B-8 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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's (IRCPA) 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 market conditions. • 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 ranged from $70,000 per acre to $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, an average land value of $55,000 per acre is determined to be a reasonable estimate for law enforcement impact fee calculation purposes. Parks The park land value estimate is based on the following: • The County purchased 35 acres of park land in 2019 for $69,500 per acre. • The 2014 study used a land value estimate of $50,000 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 approximately $55,000 per acre. • The value of parcels where current parks are located averages $33,000 per acre. Property Appraiser land value estimates for governmental entities tend to be on the low end since Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 B-9 Impact Fee Update SIM Attachment 1 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 reasonable estimate for parks and recreational facilities impact fee calculation purposes. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot February 2020 B-10 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table B-4 Vacant Land Sales (2015-2019) Vacant Land Sales (2015-2019) .. Acre AverageSize Cost .. 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 $19,402 6 Unincorporated County-- All Land Uses: - 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 1 $242,934 $160,2871 51 - 4.01 to 6 acres 1 $93,4341 $72,7421 6 Unincorporated County -- Commercial: - 0.05 to 4 acres 1 $257,1801 $185,714 29 - 4.01 to 6 acres $93,4341 $72,7421 6 Countywide -- Residential: - 0.05 to 4 acres $173,027 $91,667 1,355 - 4.01 to 6 acres $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 acres $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 Indian River Co � February 2020 B-11 Impact Fee Update SIuJfiy` Attachment 1 Table B-5 Vacant Land Values (2019) MedianVacant Land Vaiues (2019) Size Value per Acre Average Countywide -- All Land Uses: Count - 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 $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 1 $123,2201 $94,417 943 - 4.01 to 6 acres 1 $81,5911 $74,0521 33 Unincorporated County -- Commercial: - 0.05 to 4 acres $104,540 $74,054 558 - 4.01 to 6 acres $88,1131 $74,0521 29 Countywide -- Residential: - 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 - 15.01 to 25 acres $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: Indian River County Property Appraiser Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 B-12 Impact Fee Update SIP Attachment 1 Appendix C Transportation Impact Fee: Demand Component 254 Attachment 1 Appendix C: TIF - Demand Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate & Toll Facilitv Adiustment 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 external -to -external trips, which represent traffic that goes through the study area, but does not necessarily stop in the study area. This traffic is excluded from the analysis since it does not come from 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 Adjustment Factor 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 Indian River Co February 2020 C-1 Impact Fee Update SIUM Attachment 1 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 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 income data from Table C-3 and the Indian River County SHIP definitions for low income (<$31,950). Table C-3 Annual Income by Housing Size 2017 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size Annual Income(l) Less than 1,500 sf $47,441 1,500 to 2,499 sf $70,622 2,500 sf or more $87,984 Average of All Houses 1 $59,840 Source: American Housing Survey for the United States in 2017 1) Weighted average annual income for each tier Tindale Oliver Indian River Cotx February 2020 C-2 Impact Fee Update Stu y Attachment 1 Table C-4 Indian River County SHIP Definitions Indian•Definitions Median Income $65,000 Low/Very Low Income(l) $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 level is 17,678 miles. This figure is compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $59,840 (18,493 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.956 as shown 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, resulting in a ratio of 0.897. Next, the normalized ratio is applied to the daily VMT for the average 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 VMT figure is then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 7.00 trips per day. Table C-5 NHTS Annual VMT by Income Category 2017 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income Average of $26,000 Annual VMT/HH 13,252 Days Daily 365 VIVIT 36.31 Ratio to Mean 0.717 Normalized to 1.066 0.673 Total (All Homes) 18,493 365 50.67 1.000 Average of $47,441 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 1 22,4301 3651 61.451 1.213 1.138 Source: 2017 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot February 2020 C-3 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 Table C-6 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier EstimationAssessable Trip Length (2) Daily (3) VMT Ratio to Mean (4) Single Family (Detached) Trip Rate Trip Length Daily VMT Net Fee (2) 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) Dally 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 for the 1,500 to 2,499 sq ft tier for each tiered single-family land use category 4) Source: Table C-5 Table C-7 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached) land use have on the County's calculated transportation impact fee schedule. Table C-7 Net Transportation Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier Impact of Tiering on Assessable Fee Schedule Trip Rate Trip Length Daily VMT Net Fee (2) Single Family (Detached) Low/Very Low Income 5.26 6.62 34.79 $5,961 Less than 1,500 sf 7.00 6.62 46.37 $7,923 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 $8,843 2,500 sf 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 Characteristics 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 Indian River COr�t� February 2020 C-4 Impact Fee Update SIutl-y Attachment 1 S . (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (10th 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 and at all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin -destination surveys 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 hien... total ..0 Weighted Percent New Tnp Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.47 ITE Average Trip Generation Rale: 1.51 Blend of FL Swdles and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.49 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 C-5 Impact Fee Update SUP Attachment 1 T-14 #Trip length Wold. Si -(1'O sf) pate lMerviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent Na, Trips Interviews VMF So�rrn ����aa�aaaa hien... total ..0 Weighted Percent New Tnp Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.47 ITE Average Trip Generation Rale: 1.51 Blend of FL Swdles and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.49 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 C-5 Impact Fee Update SUP Attachment 1 Land Use 210: Single Family - Detached Total Slee 10,380 55 19,19D Avara eTri len 6.]9 Wel hted Average Trip tan 6.67 Note: Scoriae studies an not lnduded in summary statistics Weighted Awraga Trip Generation ien: 7.81 Land Use 220/221/222: Multi -Family (Low-, Mid-, High -Rise) SarasotaCo R Sarasota C. L7, Jur,93 Jur,93 T1t1l #Trip LI,Vh 5.78 5.84 5.20 30.06 Sarasota CountV Sarasota Cnty Gwinnett CO®R.: ts C- 1 1}1892 jr-i- Intervi", Trip G- lbl. 5.60 Time P,,i,d Trip Lelil P11111t 5.40 N11 Trips VW 31.32 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co 240 12/13-18/92 174 171 5.40 6.10 32.94 Street Smarts Sarasota CoJun-93 288 API -02 70 70 10.03 6.00 60.18 Sarasota Coun SaramL CoJun-93 480 Apr -02 86 86 9.77 4.40 42.99 Sarasota County Sarasota CoJun-93 500 Apr -02 75 75 8.05 5.90 47.50 Sarasota Count Sarasota CO 250 Jun -93 63 63 8.55 7.30 62.42 Sarasota County Sarasota CoJun-93 157 Dec06 123 123 6.85 4.60 31.51 Sarasota County Sarasota CoJun-93 169 De006 33 33 13.20 3.00 39.60 Sarasota County Sarasota CoJun-93 226 D..4)6 146 146 6.61 8.40 55.52 Sarasota C.Unly Sarasota Co1ure-93 312 Apr -07 207 207 7.76 5.40 41.90 Sarasota County Hernando Co R 76 Ma % 148 148 10.01 9a 6p 4.85 48.55 Tindale Olver Hernando CO R 128 Ma % 205 205 8.17 9a -Sp 6.03 49.27 Tindale diver Hernando Co R 292 Mary -95 182 182 7.24 9.5p 5.04 36.49 Tindale diver Hernando Co R am M 96 264 264 &93 9.Sp 3.28 29.29 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co FL 395 Oct -97 230 128 5.30 ga-Sp 7.90 41.87 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co FL 142 Oct -97 245 198 5.20 9a -Sp 4.10 21.32 Tindale diver Charlotte Co R 150 Oct -97 SW 353 5.00 9.-5P 10.80 54.00 Tindale Oliver Charlotte CisR 215 Oct -97 156 7.60 9a -5p 4.60 34.96 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co R 257 Od-97 225 7.60 9.5p 7.40 56.24 Tindale Oliver Charlotte CO R 345 Clow 161 7.00 9a 5P 6.60 46.20 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co R am Oct -97 152 6.60 9.5p 5.70 37.62 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co FL 963 CNIIR 516 &40 9.5p 5.00 42.00 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co FL 441 Odr97 195 111.20 ga-Sp 4.70 38.54 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co FL 1,169 od97 348 6,10 9a -SP 8.00 48.80 Tindale Oliver Collier Co.R 90 0ao99 91 12.80 a. -Sp 11.40 145.92 Tindale Oliver Colitar Co R 400 Dae99 389 7.80 8a-6 6.40 49.92 Tindale Oliver lake Os R 49 r-02 170 6.70 7.6p 10.20 68.34 Tindale giver Lake Co R 52 Apr -02 212 10.00 7a-6 ].60 76.00 Tindale 011 ver Lidep CO R 126 Apr -02 217 8.50 7.6 6.30 70.55 Tindale Oliver Pace FL 55 Apr -02 133 6.80 8a-6 8.12 55.22 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co FL W 2 106 7.73 8a-6 8.75 67.64 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 70 02 188 7.80 8a6 6.03 47.03 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co FL 74 02 188 8.18 8a-6 5.95 48.67 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co FL 189 02 261 7.46 ea -6 8.99 67.07 Tindale Oliver Melon COR 102 02 167 8.02 7a -6p 5.10 40.90 limley Horn & Associates Marlon Co R 105 Apr -02 169 7.23 7a -6p7.22 52.20 qml Horn &Associates Marlon Co R 124 02 170 6.04 7a-6 7.29 44.03 KIml Horn & Associates Marlon Co R 132 171 7.8] 7a6 7.00 55.09 Klmle Horn &Assodates Marlon CO R 133 Apr -02 209 8.04 7a-6 4.92 39.56 Kimle Horn & Associates Chris CO R 111 Oct -03 273 8.66 7.-15p 7.70 66.68 Tindale Oliver Chris Coi R 231 Oct -03 155 5.71 7a.6p 4.82 27.52 Tindale Oliver Chms Co R 306 00-03 146 8.40 7a -Bp 3.94 33.10 Tindale Oliver Chms Co R 364 Od-03 345 7.20 7a 6P 9.14 65.81 Tindale Oliver CRnla Co R 374 Od-03 248 12.30 7a-6 6.88 84.62 Tindale Oliver take Co R D-0642 D06 122 11.26 5.56 62.61 Tindale Oliver Lala Co R 51 Dec -06 346 18.22 9.45 172.36 Tindale Oliver Late CciFL 59 Deo46 144 12.07 10.79 330.24 Tindale Oliver take CO R 90 00006 1 194 9.12 5.78 52.71 Tindale Oliver take CisR 239 00 006 385 7.58 8.93 67.69 Tindale Oliver rn Heando Co R 232 Apr -07 516 8.02 7a-6 8.16 65.44 Tindale Oliver Hemando Co R 95 Apr -07 256 8.08 7a-6 5.88 47.51 Tindale Oliver Hernando CO R 90 Apr -07 338 7.13 7a -6p 5.86 41.78 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co R 58 Apr -07 153 6.16 7a -6p 8.39 51.68 Tindale Oliver Ca111erCo R 74 Mar -08 503 _2.81 7.-6p 3.05 39.07 Tindale Oliver Collier CO FL 97 Mar -08 512 8 7 7a-6 11.29 99.13 Tindale 011wr C*11[w Co FL 315 Mar -08 1,347 6.97 7a-6 6.55 45.65 Tindale Oliver C0111N Co R 42 M-08 914 9.55 7a -6p 10.98 104.86 Tindale Oliver Total Slee 10,380 55 19,19D Avara eTri len 6.]9 Wel hted Average Trip tan 6.67 Note: Scoriae studies an not lnduded in summary statistics Weighted Awraga Trip Generation ien: 7.81 Land Use 220/221/222: Multi -Family (Low-, Mid-, High -Rise) SarasotaCo R Sarasota C. 212 249 Jur,93 Jur,93 42 36 42 36 5.78 5.84 5.20 30.06 Sarasota CountV Sarasota Cnty Marlon Co, O FL 214 Apr -02 175 175 6.84 4.61 31.53 Kimle Horn & Associates Mares Co FL 240 Apr -02 174 171 6.% 3 43 23.87 Kimle Horn & Assodates Marlon Co FL 288 API -02 175 175 5.66 5.55 31.41 Kimle Horn & Assodates Marlon Co FL 480 Apr -02 175 175 5.73 6.88 39.42 qml Horn & Assodates Marion Co R 500 Apr -02 170 170 5.46 5.94 32.43 qml Horn & Assodates take COR 250 Dec46 135 135 6.71 5.33 35.76 Tindale Oliver lake CO R 157 Dec06 265 265 13.97 2.62 36.60 Tindale Oliver lake Co R 169 De006 212 8.09 6.00 48.54 Tindale Oliver take Co R 226 D..4)6 301 6.74 2.17 14'63 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co FL 312 Apr -07 456 4.09 5.95 24.34 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co R 176 Apr -07 332 5.38 5.24 28.19 Tlndale Oliver Oren Co R 364 Nov -13 9.08 Oran aCoun Oren Co R 108 Aug -14 5.51 Ore...Cess. Himando Co R 31 Ma -% 31 31 6.12 9a -6P 4.98 30.48 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co R 128 May-96 128 128 6.47 9a -6p 5.18 33.51 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co R 229 A r-02 198 198 a.77 9a -6p Tindale Oliver Pasco Co R 248 Apr -02 353 353 4.24 9a -6p 3.53 14.97 Tindale Oliver Total $ire Total Sita (RI 4,575 3,631 Weighted Awn eTri len h: Average Trip length: 4.27 5.10 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 C-6 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Land Use 240: Mobile Home Park ��:FYfl �.fra Land Use 252: Retirement Total size 208 1 ITE 9g¢ 6 Blended total 690 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17 Adult Housing - Attached Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2A6 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.70 Blend of FE Studln and ITE A—v Trip Serena-. Rate: 3.33 Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6 460 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.50 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.02 Bland of Fl. Studies and ITE Average, Trip Generation Rate: 2.25 Land Use 310: Hotel Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.31 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.36 Blind of FE Studies and ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 5.55 Tindale Oliver Indian River CMy February 2020 C-7 Impact Fee Update Attachment 1 Land Use 320: Motel Location ��00�e Total!! 4Trip length llllllllli�e Size �m�mma�l��a (Rooms) Date Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period IntenAews Trip Length Percent New T11PS VNIT Source ��a�®®a�'llllllllllll��a �l���aa�allllllllll�aa IlT�m®a��lllllll�a Total Size 2.22 3 104 St. Pet-bmiFTotal ����a��llllllllll�a ITE 654 6 Sim Weighted Percent New Trip Averag,'. 75.0 Land Use 444: Movie Theater Blended total 26 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.28 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 220.00 Bland of FLStudlw and rrE Average Trip Ganmtlon Rats 11493 Land Use 492: Health/Fitness Club Tama FL Mar -86 1 33 31 7.90 94.0 1 Kimle Horn&Associates Total Size 33 2 ITE 37 8 Pereent New Trip Avenge: 94.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 47.62 Blend of FL Studies and frE Avenge Trip Ga md- Rata: 49.63 Blended total 600 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average TripGeneration Rate: 2.86 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.06 Blend of FLStudias and ITE Awnp Trip Ganantlon Rad: 3.02 Land Use 640: Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic St. Petersbur FL 4.0 21.50 Tindale Oliver Clearwater FL 3.0 Se 89 a4.W 1.90 70.0 Tindale Oliver Clearwater FL 2.0 Au -89190 700 Tindale Oliver Total Size 7.0 3 0 Average Tri Lan h: 1.90 ITE 18S6 Weighted Awrege Trip length: 190 25.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.0 Weighted Average TripGeneration Rate: 31.14 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.50 Blend of FLStudlea and FIE Awnp Trip Genantlon Italia. 24.20 Land Use 710: General Office Building �1i� ��00�e llllllllli�e �ll���aa�allllllllll�aa �l���aa�allllllllll�aa St. Pet-bmiFTotal ����a��llllllllll�a Sim 742.1 5 736 ITE 11,286.0 66 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Tindale Oliver Indian River CMy February 2020 C-8 Impact Fee Update Attachment 1 I Ill, 77n• c -u RA.A;-un.-i rw;f O...l.li.. •.. an nnew .c ... L .... Sue 111 Site 1 2.100 IN 35 OUT 35 OUT 22 22 OUT 13 13 TOTALSite 70 OUT 70 23.33 OUT 23.33 11.11 111 OUT 11.11 • 22.22 Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22 Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34 Site 4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66 Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71 Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64 Average 17.59 17.71 35.30 Average (exduding Site 4) 11.84 use /20: Meoical-Dental Ottice Z���ilLT� Total Site 298.6 11 ITE 672.0 28 oienaee wwi arv.a Welgnteo Percent new lnp Average: B8.9 Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.59 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 34.80 Blend of FL 5tudlaa and ITE Awrap Trip Generation Rata: 36.12 Land Use 770: Business Park Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 88.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 17.22 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.44 Bland of FL9udl s and ITE Avvap Trip Generation Rate: 1265 Land Use 820: Shopping Center �r�o�®oeee�a totalo qT. Length I.-- Sizesf) pate Intervie�:i Intervie:rs Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent - Trips 119 Source Total Size 291.2 3 ITE 6,288. 16 Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 88.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 17.22 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.44 Bland of FL9udl s and ITE Avvap Trip Generation Rate: 1265 Land Use 820: Shopping Center �r�o�®oeee�a OREM1M.M.i� ;T11MIM� Tindale Oliver Indian River Co nt1r February 2020 C-9 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Figure C-1 LUC 820: Retail/Shopping Center — Florida Curve Trip Length Regression 4.00 _----_-_ --------------------------------------------- '++ 3.50 --± '�------------- 3.00 -- -- ---- +��+•------._._.- N 2.50 ------------- ---------__-_-_----------------__. _ 2.00 +�! - - - --------_ _ - c d a1.50 -- - ------------- --__-------_---_ _-----________ ___------•-----------------__W________�__ _ ._ 1.00Regression Equations: _ ------ _ 0.50 <100,000 sq ft: y = 0.7284x^0.2405 __ _ ; -___ ---- _ __._--- ---- ---- --- 100,000+ sq ft: y = 0.0012x + 2.1686 i 0.00 - 1_ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 Figure C-2 LUC 820: Retail/Shopping Center — Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression 90% -- -- - - --- --- --- --- - - - -- - -- - -- - 80% - _.________________.___--._._-___._______-_.70% .-___._.___---_--.._._, - -- - 50% -------- z c 40% u a 30% 20% 10% J-- Regression Equation: v = 0.08141n(x) + 0.243 0% 4-. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co,yr�t� February 2020 C-10 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 Blended total 1,294.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.04 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate (LUC 840): 27.84 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate (LUC 841): 27.8 BIerM of R Studles and ITE Averap Trip Generation Rate•. 24.58 Blended total 232.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.26 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.78 Blend of FLStudles and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.64 ITE 779.0 19 Weighted Average Trip length: 6.09 Blended total 810.90 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2 149.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.66 RE Average Trip Generation Rate: 100.03 Blend of FL9tudias and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 102.66 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 C-11 Impact Fee Update ucfy Attachment 1 Land Use 932: Hieh-Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Location Size(1,000 Date Total# #Trip Length sf) Interviews Internews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips Vur Source �����maa®aaaa ��r���aa�aaaa ��®maa�aaaa MENOrange i�»�®maa�aaaa �r��maa�aaaa CourtV ����maa�aaaa ���®aaa�aaaa ���®aaa��aaaa ��r��aaa®aaaa ��©�aaa��aaaa ����maa�aaaa :onubla 29a.6 21 l,loz Average TriLenjeft 3.07 ITE 2M 50 Weighted Average TriIan h: 3.17 Blended total 440.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 9&67 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 112.18 Bland of FL Studies and FTE Averap Trip Garanti- Rata: 10636 34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 530.19 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 470.95 Biend of FL Studies and FTE Average Trip Generation (tate: 48253 15L3 LVelghtez Average Trip Generation Rate: 22.14 ITE Aver— -,[p Generation Rate (adjusted): 31.10 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Avenge Trip Genantion Wta: 28.19 ITE LUC 945(vfp) 90.0 5 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 Tindale Oliver Indian River CoK, February 2020 C-12 Impact Fee Update Stud Attachment 1 Land Use 947: Self -Service Car Total size 29 3 778 Total Site (TGR) 19 2 ITE 5 1 Blended total 24 it New Trip Average: 67.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 27.09 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 108.00 Bland of RStudles and RE Average 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 Studies 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. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co r February 2020 C-13 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 Table C-8 Percent Change in Gross VMT and Net VMT of Impact Fee Land Uses 1) The Net VMT includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2014 report a 1T'3% reduction 2) The Net VMT Includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2019 report =109% reduction - Gross VMT = TGR eTLePNT/2 - Individual variables are shown in Tables C-10 through C-12 Tindale Oliver Indian River CO February 2020 C-14 Impact Fee Update u Attachment 1 RESIDEN7UL• 2014 2019 % change E�pl-ti.n Z014"' 2019"' % Change Sin Is Famil Detached - Low a Low lnome du 20.69 17.41 -15.9%TGR update, see Table C-9 17.11 15.51 -9.4% 110 Single Family Detached -Less than 1500sf du 20.69 23.17 12. TGR update, see Table C-9 17.11 20.64 20.6% Single Family Detached -1 1to2499d du 25.95 25.85 0.0% No change 21.38 23.03 7.756 Single Family Detached -2 sf and preater du 30.45 29.43 -3.3 TGRu pdate, see Table C-9 25.18 26.22 4.1% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du - n/a 220 Multl-Famll Low -Rise, 1-2 levels du 16.83 18.67 10.9%TGR update, see Table C-9 13.92 16463 19.556 221 Multi -Family Mid -Rise, 3.101evels du 16.83 13.87 47.6 TGR update, see Table C-9 13.92 12.36 -11.2% 240 Mobile Home Park/RV tied down du 9.59 SIM DO% No chane 7.93 8.55 7.8% 252 Assisted Care Wing Facility ACLF bed 3.51 3.93 12.0%TGRupdate, see Table C-9 2.90 3.50 20.7% LODGING: 310 Hotel 13.14 11.47 -12.7 TGRu date, see Table C-9 10.87 10.22 -fi.0% 320 Motel 9.41 5.60 -40.5%TGRupdate, see Table C-9 7.78 4.99 -35.9% 411 Public Park 5.24 1.81 -65.5%TGR & TL u d.te, see Tables C-9&624.34 1.61 -62.9% 420 Marina boat berth &82 7.18 -18.6%TGRupdate sre Table C-97.29 6.40 -12.2% 430 Golf Course hole 106.47 90.50 -15.0%TGR update, see Table C-988.05 80.64 -8.4%444 Movie Theater w Matinee 104.16 112.17 7. TGRu ate see Table C-986.14 99.94 16.0%490 Tennis Court ourt 93.67 73.39 -21.7%TGRu date see Table C-977.47 65.39 -15.6%492 Rac uet Club/Health Club/DanceStudio 1000 s/ 7973 8351 4..1 TGRu date, seeTable C-965.92 74.40 12.9%INSTRUT10N5:520 Elements School Private K-5 student 2.22 2.50 12.6%TGR & TL u ate, see Tables C-91.83 2.23 21.9%522 Middle School Private 6 student 3.13 2.82 -9.9%TGR TL&PNTu date see Tableand 611 2.59 2.51 -3.1%530 Hi hSchool Priate 312 student 3.31 3.02 -& TGR&T.0 ate see Tables C-92.74 2.69 -1.8%540/550 Universa /Jr Coll a rivate student 5.96 5.%0.0%No than4.93 5.31 7.7%560 Church 10000 15.99 12.23 •23.5%TGR&TLu ate see Tobias 13.22 30. -17.5%565 Da Care Center 1000 of 53.26 36.77 -31.0%TGRu date see Table C944.05 32.77 -25.6%571 Jail bad 13.03 2.37 -81.8% TGRudate see Table C-910.7 2.11 -80.4%575 Fire & Rescue Station 1 copy 4.85 11.12 129.3%TGfl TL & PNT u ate seeTableand 611 4.01 9.91 147.1%590 Library 1000 sf 15823 202.71 2&1 TGRu ata see Table 69130.86 180.62 38.0% 610 MEDICAL: Hos ital 1000 sf 33.69 27.68 -17. TGR & PNT update, sea Tables C-9 and C-11 27.86 24.66 -11.5% 620 Nunin Home bed 3.18 3.48 9A%TGRu date see Table C-9 2.63 3.10 17.9% 640 Veterina Clinic I 1000 sf 1 95.141 43.20 -54.6%TGR&PNTupdate, see Tables C-9 and C-11 78.681 38.49 -51.1% OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 1 26,131 23.07 -11.7%TGR uPdate, see Table C-9 21.61 20.56 -4.9% 720 Medial ONice/Clinic 10,000 sq It or less 1000 sf 5&85 58.85 0.0% No chane 48.67 52.44 7.7% Medial OfOceClinic realer than 10,000 s ft 1000 sf 85.75 F. -1. TGRu ate, see Table C-9 70.92 75.08 5.9% 732 Post Office I 1000 sf 1 97.511 93.68 -3.996 TG,R update, see Table C-9 60.64 83.47 3.5% 733 Government Office Com lex1 1,000 sf 1 66.141 80.501 21.Z24TGRu date see Table C-9 54.70 71.72 31.1% 760 Research&Development Center 1,000 sf 19.42 26.96 38.&%TGRu date, see Table C-9 1606 24.02 49.6% RETAIL - 820 Retail/Sho in Center 1,000 sf la 41.15 37.57 -8.7%TGR, TL PNT u date, see Tables C-9, C-30, and C-11 34.03 33A8 -1.6% 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 51.33 44.66 -13.0% TGR u date, see Table C-9 42.45 39.79 -6.3% 850 5u ermarket 1,000sf 60.21 62.11 3.2% TGRu date, see Table C-9 49.79 55.34 11.1% 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 8.32 10.36 24.5%TGRu date, see Table C-9 6.Mj 9.231 34.2% SERVICE: 911 Bank/Savin sWalk-In 1,000 sf 68.631 33.60 .51.096 TGR update, see Table C-9 56.76 29.94 -47.3% 912 Bank/Savin sDrive-In 1,000 sf 90A51 58.09 -35.6%TGR update, see Table C-9 74.56 51.75 -30.6% 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 131 221 119.58 -8. TGR update, see Table C-9 108.52 106.55 -1.8% 934 Fart Food Restaurant w/Dri-Thru LOW sf 30.79 286.86 -5.6 TGR update. see Table C-9 251.23 255.60 1.7% 942 Automobile Care Center LOGO sf 44.87 36.74 -18.1 TGR update, see Table C-9 37.11 32.73 -11.8% 944/946 Gas/Service Station with & without Car Wash fuel os. 944 Gas Station w Convenience Market <2000 ft fuel os. 34.38 37.58 9.3 TGR update. see Table C-9 28.43 33.49 17.8% 945 Gas Station w Convenience Market 2 2 999 ft WN os. 34.38 44.87 30.5 TGR u date see Table C-9 28.43 39.98 40.6% 960 Gas Statlonw Convenience Market 3000s ft fuel os. 34.38 50.37 46.5 TGR u date see Table C-9 28.43 44.88 57.9% 947 Self -Service Car Wash ervice ba 32.57 32.57 0.0% No chane 26.93 29.02 7.8% INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light industrial 1 1,000 sf 1 16.511 11.75 -28.8%TGRupdate, see Table C-9 13.66 10.47 -23.4% 140 Manufacturing1,000 sf 9.05 9.31 2. TGRu ate see Table C-9 7.48 8.3 11.0% 150 Warehousln 1,000 sf &43 4.12 -51.1 TGRu ate see Tablec-9 6.97 3.67 -47.3% 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.07 2.41 •21.5 TGR &TLu date see Tables C-9 and C-10 2.54 2.14 -15.7% 154 HI -Cute Transload/Stora a SOLO if 3.98 332 -16.6 TGRu ate, see Table C-9 1 3.29 •2.96 •10.096 n ■ Concrete Plant sae 36.96 36.% 0. No change 30.56 32.931 7. n a Sand Mining aaa 4.741 4.74 0. No Charles 3.92 4.22 7. 1) The Net VMT includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2014 report a 1T'3% reduction 2) The Net VMT Includes the interstate/toll facility adjustment factor as part of the calculation. 2019 report =109% reduction - Gross VMT = TGR eTLePNT/2 - Individual variables are shown in Tables C-10 through C-12 Tindale Oliver Indian River CO February 2020 C-14 Impact Fee Update u Attachment 1 Table C-9 Percent Change in Trip Generation Rate of Impact Fee Land Uses Ilic 0", Singla, Family Detached - Low/Very Low Income Unit du 16.25 Trip Rate Trip 2014 Rate 2019 % 5.26 Change Explanation -15.8% New tier Single FamilyDetached -Less than) 00 sf du 6.25 7.00 12.09, AHS ud ate 210 Single Family Detached -1 03 to 2,499 sf du 7.81 7.811 0.0%1 No change Single Family DetachedI -2500 sf and greater du 9.20 8.89 -3.4%NHTS/AHS u Pilate 220 Multi-Family/Accenory Multi-Family/AccessoryUnit du Land use re -alignment, see below 220 Multi -Family (Lo Rise, 1-2 levels du 6.60 7 10.9% U dated TGR in ITE 10th Edition land use re -alignment 1 Multi-FamilyMid-Rise 3-10 liniva du 6.60 5 -17.6% U dated TGR in RE 10th Edition land use re -alignment 240 Mobile Home Park/RV tied down du 4.271 4,1710.0%l No change 252 lAssisted Care Uving Facility ACLF) bed 2.971 3.331 12.1% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition LODGING 310 IHotel I room 1 6.361 5.55 -12.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition & new FL Studies 320 IMotel room 1 5.631 3.35 -40.5%1 Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 411 RECREATION: PublicPark-acre 2.28 0.78 -65.8% land use re -alignment (previous) LUC 4121 420 Marina boat berth 2.961 2.41 -18.6% Updated TGR In ME 10th Edition 430 Golf Course hole 35.74 30.38 -15.0% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee106.63 114.93 7.7% Updated TGR In RE loth Edition 490 Tennis Court courscreen t 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 4.8% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition (adjusted) 520Elements School Private K-5 student L29 1.89 46.5% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 522 Middle School Private 6-8 student L62 2.13 31.5% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 530 High School Private, 9-12 student 1.71 2.03 18.7% Updated TGR In rrE 10th Edition S40/S50 Unli erslt Jr College Private student 2.00 2.00 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf - 9.11 6.95 -23.7% Updated TGR In ITE 10th Edition 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 7188 49.63 -31.0% Updated TGR in RE 10th Edition 571 Jail bed 5.50 1.00 -81.8% Updated TGR In rrE 10th Edition (adjusted) 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1000 sf 4.80 -11.1% Updated TGR In RE loth Edition adjusted 590 15 ran, 1,000 sf '12,4172.05 28.1% Updated TGR in RE loth Edition .. .MEDICAL: 610 Hos ital 1,00011 13.22 10.72 -18.9% U dated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 620 Nursin Home bed 2.76 3.02 9.4% U dated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 640 Veterina Clinic 1,000 sf 40.12 24.20 -39.7% U dated TGR in ITE 10th Edition & new FL Studies OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 111.03. 9.74 -11.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf '23.83 23.83 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq It 1,000 sf 3472 34.12 -1.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 732 Post Office 1,000 sf, 108.19 103.94 -3.9% Updated TGR in RE loth Edition 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 27.92 33.98 21.7% Updated TGR In RE loth Edition 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 8.11 11.26 38.8% Updated TGR In rrE loth Edition RETAIL: 820 Retail/Shopping Center 1,000 sf la 42.70 37.75 41.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 840/841 New Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 28.25 24.58 -13.0% Updated TGR in RE loth Edition, blend 840/841 & new FL Studies 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 103.38 106.64 3.2% Updated TGR In RE loth Edition 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.06 6.30 24.5% Updated TGR In TIE loth Edition 911 ,..SERVICE: Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 121.30 59.39 -SL Updated IlSolle RE loth Edition (adjusted) 912 Ban Savin Drive -In 1,OOD sf 159.34 102.66 -35.6 Updated Tftft IN loth Edition 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 116.60 106.26 -8.9% Updated TOO G RE loth Edition & new FL Studies 934 Fast Food Restaurant w Drive-Thru 11000 of 53L 48253 -5.6% Updated TGR In rrE 10th Edition 942 Automobile Care Center 11000 of 3W 28.19 -18.1% Additional FL Studies added 944/946 Ga Service Station with & without Car Wash fuel M Land use re -alignment, see below 944 Gas Station w Convenience Market <2,000 sq It fuel 172.01 9.3% U dated TGR in RE loth Edition, land use re-ali nment 945 Gas Station w/Convenlence Market 2,000-2,999 sq't fuel pos.205.36 305% U dated TGR In RE loth Edition land use re-ali nment 960 Gaztinw Convenience Market 3,000+ sq It fuel pos.23052 qP43.94 46.5% U dated TGR in RE loth Edition land use re-ali nment 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 0.0% No change •. 110 INDUSTRIAL•. General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.96 -2&8%U a ted TG. In RE 10th Edition 140 Manufacturing1,000 sf .3.82 3.93 2.9%U dated TG In RE 10th Edition 150 -Warehousing 1,000 sf 3S6 L7 -51.1% Updated TGfk In RE loth Edition 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.15 L49 -30.7% Updated TGR In RE 10th Edition & new FL Studies 154 High -Cuba Transload/Stora a 1,000 sf 1.68 L -16.7% land use re -alignment (previous) LUC 152 n/a Concrete Plant 15.6 35. 0.0% No change n/a Sand Mining acre 2.00 2.001 0.0%l No change See Appendix F for additional Information Tindale Oliver Indian River Co+J{ February 2020 C-15 Impact Fee Update Sfu yy Attachment 1 Table C-10 Percent Change in Trip Length of Impact Fee Land Uses LUC Land Use .RESIDENTIAL: Unit Trip Length 201 4 Trip Length 2019 % Change Explanation Single Family (Detached) - Low/Very Low Income du 6.62 6.62 0.01/ No change 210 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 -alignment, see below 220 Multi -Family Low -Rise 1-2 levels du 5.10 5.10 0.0%1 No chan 221 Multi-Famil Mid -Rise, 3-10 levels du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 240 Mobile Home ortied down du 4.60 4.60 0.0%j No change 252 lAssisted Care Living Facility (AC bed 3.28 3.281 0.0% 1 No change 310 Hotel room 6.26 6.26 0.05/1N. 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 Theater w/Matinee screen 2.22 2.22 0.06 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 lPrivate, K-5) student 4.30 3.31N U dated to reflect more current data 522 Middle School Private, 6-8) student 4.30 3.31 Updated to reflect more current data 530 HI School Private, 9-12) student 4.30 3.31 -23.0%U dated to reflect more current data 540/550 UniversJr Colle a (Private) student. 6.62 6.62 No chan e 560 Church 1000 sf 3.90 3.91 U dated to reflect more current data 565 Da Care Center 1000 sf 2.03 2.03 No chan e 571 Jail bed 5.15 5.15 No chan e 575 Fire & Resale Station 1,000 sf 2.025.15. Updated to be same as LUC 710 590 Libre 1,000 sf 6.62 6.62 0.0% No chan e WHospital 610 1,000 sf 6.62 6.62 0.0% No change 620 1 Nursing Home bed 2.59 2.59 0.0-A No change 640 IVeterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 5.10 5.1 0.0-A No change OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 1 5.151 5.15 0.0lt No change 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0. No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 5.55 5 0. No chane 732 Post Office 1000sf 5.15 5.15 0. No change 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0. No change 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0 NO chan e 820 RETAIL: Retail/ShoppingCenter 1,000 s la 2.64 2.69 1. TL based on avers size in RE loth 450k s 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 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 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 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 chan e 942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 sf 3.62 3.62 0.0% No change 944/946 Gas/Service Station with & without Car Wash fuel pos. Land use alignment, see below 944 Gas Station w Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel po, 1.90 1.90 0.0% No chan 945 Gas Station w Convenience Market 2 000.2 999 s ft fuel os. 1.90 1.90 0.0% No chan 960 lGas Station w Convenience Market 3,000+ sft fuel pos. 1.901 1.901 0.0%j No change 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 2,181 2.18 0.(rAl No change AL: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0°.6 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 Stora a 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 0.0% No change See Appendix F for additional information Tindale Oliver Indian River Coy°�j`{ February 2020 C-16 Impact Fee Update Siuy Attachment 1 Table C-11 Percent Change in Percent New Trigs of Impact Fee Land Uses LUC Land Use Unit Trips Trips V.Change Explanation RESIDENTIAL: 2014 2019 Single Family (Detached) - Low/Very Low Income du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 210 Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf du 100% 100% 0.0% No change Single Family Detached -1501 to 2A99 sf du 100% 12L%j 0.0% No change Single FamilyDetached -2500 sfand greater du 100% 100% ;0% No change 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du Land use re -all nment, see below 220 Multi-Fami) Low -Rise 1-2 levels du 100% 0%102 No change 221 Multi-FamilyMid-Rise, 3-10 levels du 100% 100% 0.0%No change 240Mobile Home Park/RV tied down) du 100% 100°,6 0.0% No change 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 72% 72 -Al 0.0%l No change LODGING: 310Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0% No change 320 MotelI room 1 77% 77%1 0.0%j No change RECREATION., 411 jPublic Park acre 90% 0 No change 420 Marina boat berth 90% 0 No change 430 Golf Course hole 90% 0 No chan e 444 Movie Theater w Matinee screen 88% !!!!!!941%060.0%% 8 No chan e 490 Tennis Court court 94% 4 No chan e 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 94% 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, 312 student 90% 90% 0.0% No change S40 550 UnWers Jr College (Private) student 90% 90% 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf 90% 90% 0.0% No change S65 - Day Care Center 1,000 sf 73% 73% 0.0% No change 571 Jail bed 9201 92% 0.0% No change 575 Fire & Rescue Station 1,000 sf 89% 90% 1.1% Updated to be based on LUC 710 590 Library 1,000 sf 8 -/1 85% 0.0% No change MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 771A 78% 1.3% Up dated to reflect more current data 620 Nursing Home bed89% 89% 0.0% No change 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 93% 70% -24.7%Additional FL Studies added .. 710 , OFFICE: General Office 1,000 sf 1 92% 92% 0.0% No change Medical Office Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change 720 Medical OfficeClinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 35% 35% 0.0% No change 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change IL` 820 Retail/Shop in Center 1,000 sfgla 73% 74% 1.4% PNT based on average size in ITE 10th (450k sl) 840 841 New Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 79% 79% 0.0% No chan e 850 Su ermarkat 1 1,000 sf 56% 56%1 0.0% No change 890 IFurniture Store 1 1,000 sf 1 54% 54%1 0.0% No change SERVICE: 911 Bank/Savings Walk-in 1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 912 Ban Savin Drive -In 1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 71% 71% 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 58% 58% 0.0% No change 942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 sf 72% 72% 0.0% No change 944/946 Gas Service Station with & without Car Wash fuel pos. Land use realignment, see below 944 Gas Station w Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel Pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station wIrConvenience Market 2000-2,999 sq ft fuel os. 23% 23% 0.0% No chan e 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3000+s ft fuel os. 23% 23% 0.0%No chan e 947 Self-service Car Wash service bay 68% 68% 0.0% No chan e 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/Storap 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change a Concrete Plant acre 92% 92% 0.0% No change We Sand Mining acre 92% 92% 0.0% No change See Appendix F for additional information Tindale Oliver Indian River C0 ]t1 February 2020 C-17 Impact Fee Update udy Attachment 1 Appendix D Transportation Impact Fee: Cost Component 272 Attachment 1 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 Due to a lack of available roadway construction data for rural -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 rural -to -urban design cost ratio from the most recent District 7 Long Range Estimates' provided by FDOT. Based on the LRE, the costs for open drainage roadway capacity expansion (new road construction or lane addition) is approximately 74 percent of the construction costs for curb and gutter (urban) roadway improvements. Table D-1 Curb & Gutter (Urban)/Open Drainage (Rural) Cost Factor Improvement Cost Rural Design per 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 Lanes $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 5 This data was not available for FDOT District 4 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co�r February 2020 D-1 Impact Fee Update Sluci-y Attachment 1 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 design cost for county roads is calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. The use of 11 percent reflects that the local data has grouped design and CEI into a single cost item. CEI costs are reviewed later in this 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 throughout Florida. As shown in Table D-3, recent design factors ranged from 10 to 11 percent with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this study, the design cost for state roads is calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot February 2020 D-2 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 v 0 n • N C H O N O rl r1 N ei N H C C N -fl' 00 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O P 00 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O r 00 1� m O NO o O v �O I� n O O � u1 n 0o V1 O O pi tp o 1n N (1 o O O O O N V • N N N N N N Ll N N N N N N N 00 Ln N 00 cf tp O 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O S 0 0 0 O 0 0 S O �fl 1� If1 M N O �O O tD M C .-I N M N< N N m N N M N N M N M M V M 00 M 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o� o oR 9 N O rl O O O O N O O M N O O DD rl $ g$ g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O m c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o m .-� O O O 00 O M& 00 Oi n& ul N O % D tll O 00 at O N llf L 1� O "'� O n 00 oc O N 00 M V 1!1 O t!1 O M 1p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m °888888858888880 r 00 Ll ao 1� M of N N N N N N n N C N N l0 N H N N M N N M N O N W M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L y 0 0 2 U c LO) m` V N N N M M � Vf �A �l1 V1 V1 l0 1� n 00 00 0 N 0 0 Nr o 0 N o 0 N o 0 N o 0 N o 0 0 N N 0 0 o N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 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 cost 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 ratios from recent transportation impact fee studies from other counties in Florida. As shown in Table D-4, ROW 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 42 percent. 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 roads, the ROW cost of state roads is 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, 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 this update 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 Indian River Co p/t February 2020 D-4 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 • v � a� m m a �o a u� v ;2 �, e 0 W o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 O M a� o g k6 oLr� Lr o of g $ M N N N N N N N N M N M ' aA N N VY N N N to N N M Vf N yNj lo N' V01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' ' O T N tp O 01 00 N .-I 00 M tD tD I� S N M m m� a0 01 o N O M • � Vf VT Vf N N N Vf N V} ~ N N ee N e Ifl o N 0 1� 0 ei NL�l1 L�l1� ill Q v N .V! • vcavamMe�Dv�nvvaM oo0o0o880000000� v N Ifl o O O 0 O W 0 o 0 DO wo 0 O 0 0 M S 0 a0 tD 0 Oi 0 I� 0 0 p V1 0 N 0 O 00 Lpo `p lD V m N Vl O 1� N O N tD o I� of 00 O OO N M V Vl O N M N N ' VT V! Vpp} Vpp} VT Vppf N Vf Vpf Vpp} V? y� O O 8N a0 O O O 8N ppN S S 8N S N o 'I o tD m a6 O O vi O ri .-i a6 O O o v O n ro O O w O lD W o a c, o O N n m .n Ol Ol .� O o, o N �D 01 • r-1 lA �..j V/ N �„� th V} VT V? V} ey V} 1A �..� N N VT 'y VF 'y' V? y L LOO o eo d Oc N m W O m 'u m y y d C ` N_] 9 H->_ _ m 1 Q O O S u c u u N N N N M N M M V N un N o N N N N H Ln O7 n n OD 00 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 N H 0 N N 0 N N N 0 0 N N N 0 N N 0 N �! >Mr CL j U c d (0 LL Q c � m CL E 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 164 lane miles of improvements across 12 different counties, averaging $2.90 million per lane mile. As show in Table D-6 and Figure D-1, the average cost per lane mile has been steadily increasing in the past few years, far exceeding the average over 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 step further, 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 the average 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 data has impacted the weighted average as the sample size has increased. As shown, costs are continuing to increase over time, and use of multiple years results in a larger sample with a relatively conservative cost estimate. To increase the sample 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 Co n�c February 2020 D-6 Impact Fee Update SIud-y Attachment 1 C d O n m Q n n Q Q m n Q t0 m m n n N o a O o n ao i0 . o �o Q N tD N o o�0 N tmvf m N C 2 m o Q ry N m V �O m G n m o� p�mmmmmo+o �(1 8 m m .+ Io m^ n M 4 Q n O n R iopm s N o N 8 m m m OD V n o T�oNQ�o n N T m N N m m Q N • n u1 lpp 0 V W l0 m O O1 ? a l0 N �i .y N N N n O O O OD ry O V N °t Of M n m I� N O O1 N fel m n O M Lr N m O �0 N V N N n I� ^ T O 00 n m m w 10 a O e T 1� N 00 l�'1 �(1 cO d t0 N IG N .01- m O �O O Ol M n m N m m m m T 01 M �D m m mnvry m n o m n Q tom �o n a+ n m mm ry o N n N m NN Qrvov N R N M mm O N n �omom.�m n v o nio N M n aonmNnc � ill Nn tp M W N oo ec0 N 00 m� Vf *6oNQ tmvl` � �O � rvN Mggn N M M lG �o ��o l0 o Y1 M mm n. O l0 memm^ -i N N V1 OI NQ Y1 CO N O QmmnoS-F N tD Qm N Q 00 onN � Vp .-i M N o0 M N W b N o0 a O Yi n b b tp ao O M &M V O O M M N Q P N b � N N Uf 1A h N H VT M N H H N to V1 rl rl H N N H to 1A O N N n n pp N M O O O O O m O n m o g t0 m l0 �0 O n m O N N O �° N m pp m m M Q n m p 1O O M p O Om N .i N° m pQ Q T LnM v01 1� aa W 1ND Q N M N r2 m N m rl N ri M O of N Q Q O Q N OD e -i Q lG N of N v1 N Q .-i G Oi R .-i m 7 .i O C Q N OC n N p .i eV t0 N .a N .N.oggm°n mvoio m m? g.�+u°im�.N-iia.`-�aegvoieo��oroien NinMao C C 0 0 C C C 0 0 0 r M m N CI G O .-i u1 N H lV 0 0� .� ? G fV T .-i N .y e4 fV (V O' N N N O• .-i (V O O O N V U V V V c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 7 m J v v<Q O O « « Q Q « « v N « .. Q tO « Q Q « « l0 N « « Q Q\ « « O « C O « « N Q « « Q Q « « Q O « « a O « « O Q « « m Q « « Q Q « « Q Q « O C O O N O N O N O N Q N N Q O O N O N N N N O N N N O N N N O O Q N N N « N N N N 'am am m'm 'am amvm amvm vm 'am •am 'am vm am am am am am a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a v a v d a m m N N ONmN N ON ONNozN NN=d10 N¢g3NM NzM3 MNao QNmQN NC-3• OmNdo lN.wO0y 0mN>° amNu°` iOQ�o`d' aQONoNu°ub:'iI =NuON> a Hum awOnNE aonNc dw a YONN~LLo caMN° aMNu� 1 i o v0nN<> sONmv �NOm a°k- ° ozNNN y A mpo m o° �OONNui �� H¢ oyot o aN9 rmN0 oOz �TN+ oQ NQN 3 z z�> u 3 > > m a > m Z d y ia 4 � N z E C m Y c> a z O a « y >> L m a C a m z to m o O L m Q v o o Q Q p op m N N o° w Co N u. a v_ f o E o E a - o o o o o N 6 3 3 N x o o a� o> d t c 3 o c cNt��viz3o ui N i.;u�zz�'9t�3uwi$f N O406N'az�3aioiv', t a - o a � m t s a r n IN a m u z 4i; d 2 o C¢ N p d a¢ N p O> c ° °u a _ S 'o m m �° e o' O a L d z a u N fO u° w m u N 3 3 z z a 'o u m y o S tin w m 3 x z z u o« x u 'u w a a 3 x g w o` z z c u >" u° v Q Q ti IF Q Q 1 N N N N N N N N N N N H N n ti Q N N N N n N N N Q N N N N n z O d 9 C C C u° a c > > y y L L L s m L > z u a >> """ E E E c > w o 0 o a>„ o m 3 d o o O C e W c c C C O O o.>ao Od '-1; 0 0 V ���NOOumSin j O A 0 a— v�Sa>O=aO>�n>>OS2 O O d— O d 0 0 0 — f• O O I i 1 • � I 1 i C CL ' a t O 1 t a a 1 L• X 1 t a f 1 I & 1 1 5 LIN c n W ti Q ry r\ O N O N M O N N O N / / 1 t t t O O O t O O i O C / t O O O / t O O 1 O N 0 0 0 1 O 1 0 0 0 Ci A 0 O C o 1 %6 Ln V I 1 ni 1-4 1 -11� v} Vn (n- v> U , O I , ' 1 ' {A t N i Q 1 � U LL O Q O W 1 u ' 1 � N C i 3 1 O O i U s ' N i N � 1 ,rd 1 U 1 G1 i 'O 1 1 L � a ; c ; � t o v ; L t 1 I 1 t 1 i 1 • � I 1 i C CL ' a t O 1 t a a 1 L• X 1 t a f 1 I & 1 1 5 LIN c n W ti Q ry r\ O N O N M O N N O N a ro w O O O O O O O O C O N O O O O O O O O u} 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 Ci 0 o 0 O C o co' n %6 Ln V m ni 1-4 10- 1^ -11� v} Vn (n- v> ✓> a ro w co : n O M O 00 ri 00 N do 00 LM O co (44 IL Go m N M C44 N 00 ei c CD 0 C C� C� oc c CD , C C:) Ci 0 0 0 0 C) cz, c 0 0 C� 0 Ui CD c L:l G CDn C O O ncw� CD 0 Lrl. Ln ul co : n O State Roadw A review of construction cost data for recent state roadway capacity expansion improvements did not identify any 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. 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, reaching over $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 increasing 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 how each additional year of cost data has impacted the weighted average as the sample size has increased. 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 Indian River Co February 2020 D-11 Impact Fee Update SIP Attachment 1 �mN.rmNm ' ' O n n Nm �°moinNQ N m am omn V' In o Q M O o N O n'1 m ry m to 01 N n ao Q vi ai m m ri lnnmNrvm�° m g m omminmQ�°oom N n ao o N N m m m normo N Q vi vi 1� N m m m .r N VI iv m N m o m m N O M ri io om tp N< Q m Q O m C:t ao m m O m to m N O o r i m n QmnNmQmovmin tvl lD m m mlo ani N m 'i Iry Q m tp tv1 m m to to o N m to m m tv1 N r o In r m m n T Q m co m GO N m m mm �° N N tri ro Q V 00 o m m N � N m .-1 c N Qi V �° to t° Qovn .m -I o m Ol r7 r4 m tc nm N t�'1 m m m rmn Irv° T 10 v of o+ m I°mrvQQmmmmm t0 N 8 a nNQmQmI° m nm n r Q n ry m n m N Q In m aro Q N 10 Q o m ry m m N N n m m m O N nt°o0 m n tOn Vl N Ol m n o+ morn N O N o m m �° m Mmmtc l0 n Ol a 'vi�vi b N 00 N ri O H aiN r1 N m o m n 0 'vi�tri m o ill O in r o6 G6 m Q m o o N r L6 'e m n N m ' r N� m Q tc� m m m m o N Vl mri ry N rioi�ggtri Om0 0100 O N 1011 n 'vi t>i It Q N O lb N N w M m H H N to .Qi H H N 00 N lU W N UT o ti Vl 00 O H l0 N m H C N O ti T tt1 Iz V/ 4 M N N N O n T V1 V I M Y! N r V M a R NNN n N M Q N b ' ry N M V) N U l m m O ill ill 10 al O 00 N N O oq O 10 m O t0 Q O m Cl m W m O N b N 0p Q O N O m N Q 1p n Ol m O N N p r S O Q N N O O N m p N N N O Ol W 10 m M N m m m m O N O N O b m O n Q Q N O M N N N N N O 1G N N O Ill N N 00 M IO N N 10 N N 1p n N N H m N N N T N N N N N N m n N N Ill N N Q M b N N 0 N N N N n N N Yl tp N N N N N N N N N N T b N N n n N N M n N N n Yi Q N N Q • n N O n V O a ti 0 00) toll 000 00 N O W N m L W N n M 100 Oro C n O t1On O n 1N0 100 < N N N O T W T IINI ILO o00 om0 Li H IG O M Vl N e9 G T m M 0 .-i O •+ .i C O T .I G ew Ill C •+ O T N a N N M M M 4G M T N M c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a c c c c tp Q Q m 10 b N Q Q b t0 Q b IO 10 Q Q Q Q Q Q b Q Q Q t° 10 Q m m 10 N Q m Q m m Q m Q 10 m m Q Q Q N N ry Q Q Q Q O N N O Q N Q Q Q N N N N N N Q N N O Q Q N Q Q Q O N Q N Q Q N Q N Q Q Q N N O N N O O N N N N O O N N ry N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N T m O O N N m m O O N N m m O O N N M Q O O N N Q Q O O N N Q Q O O N N Q Q O O N N Q Q O O N N Q Q O O N N Q VI O O N N Ill Ill O O N N N v1 O O N N N N O O N N N yl O O N N m b b O O N N N a ¢ a i9 o c a Q Y =a � _ ¢ i m > s v5m c_ c3zz y•�iu+ 3 eam z9.E��ut7�Yr o.�amoi.+ cuQ mUt�oS� I^1im¢�to raaN o woo c �a� 'o �y 3 t9 iln vmi v`ri ° v o n o m o L o 0 0 :. �y3 o=? -° to m c a o x `0 0 0 3sovi3330o�x�°z3vilmnzc°�3LLzV; WLiz3cz5 X35; z2L uv'mozz°u°m2i3wlul,l a a m c .3. a m ti ate^ �a woNN In v to o o m E m� =¢� I`�np m¢ my s a m= In c w u I.l 3 w M s u a u 'a 'o ,°• o L u a ._ o .Nv o zz3�Li0wu3g3zzzzm'�v N o s m e ` o a ,°° - nwz�v z3a33w'¢uw c �c7v x L�¢zL3im n m a a L n .r. �? n a vl c u v Q m y m uo v '� ry c vurl url-Z oa v.O1in �r"'�Noomoomm�nao� m3 Nz o w m m�Q N catn5'�g 3 minmm o c _ ¢ 3z2=- ¢ E E> �.mi > o�Ing E o \ Q a m m m ry m ao n Q n ry m uta `mN� n a e o n n v n :rvNmry�oNv¢i a m m o m m Q ry �lo�gNZ m Q m C C N N C m 2 5 N N K m Vl H C m N H K K VI VI m H VI VI ¢ Ill Ill 7 N O N V�1 V�1 N Ill Ill N Imll N H N c S Vl N N N Ill n IO r Ill N rl vl Q ti vl Q N -H- r -I Ill N. Q n Q N Q m 10 N N- N - - N N Ill N Ill N T Q Ill 10 d ou0Ei L m ss 'a L O v O) v d 2 w 12 O) y 2c 0 o rEi s v 0 0 dmi O 2 E E —00,2-- O Q M Q N .WN 00 OI t° n N a Y1 b r m n l O N O t° p m r r N m N r O m n n .y r mm n m 0 rl MNo-1mp m n N O. d r w N N m m m-to�rymov�Qo�cmm�� n- N n " i M n fll ri M N fV N mroin m N lG t A N M R n 140 N W M m ------------ - V f W n llf nl , h U f M O N N Y1 M N M h N n N m ill i/ 1 N lT v N M N N �l1 �R i° N lD Y1 V f H N Q m n Q N ------ r 0 m 4 r �c m �O T m ld O V! mH n p m N N M O n Q N N AOI m m� o mQinm adoo m�n�r�o moo."+m �mrv�.: ain NQn m�nnnm ri inmQti °��e r`i enn3.M- ad vi $g fdo vi ro.�i�m°.°roi Q is ge o lA N V 1 Q N N Q VI N U f N N N� M A- O N N N N — N m N N N Q VI N V' N N N h N N M N 01 �y N N m Q Q N O M N N r O� m Q O N Off Q Q N r O tV Q y r Q �d tL) N Q M f/f V 4 N r Q n Q Q r4 N O O Q n T r N N N O M m tll N Q N .y N O lT n aG Q Q N O m Q Q Q Q N N N Q N m 1p T N N M V N m D rl N lV N N N N m Q N N N N N m m M 0\ N ill N Q O m m N N n N N ry m iIf N td Ol N M Q T lA m N M O Q N n O w c c U U • C C a a C C a a C a a a a a a C C a a C C a a C C a a C a a a a a a c c a a C c a a c a a Q Quo �n �°QaQ oo iO �o �°�oQQmQQQi°mQisQNf° N N N Q Q O O O N Q N N N Q Q N N Q N N N Q Q O Q N O Q 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N 0 o C ry o N o N N o 0 N N 0 0 N N rr ° V z u N m c a m E c c A C `o K m N = m c a y a m c�LL� L a 3 �nm�u Evmv c o uni �z—ON ama N¢ aaa 6m3oa'3¢u«u°°°'�? °1auuC�iamavmi �n vmiu 0 0°° o O o o m O p m Q O y 0 o-` Q N C O Nw V 3�ZZZww 3 a Wo J� V Za H Ljo 2i ¢w O 3 _ Z a a z o c a c m a n s m m O C a a t K N w a g p1L M¢ N o O cO N nO V 2�, m ~N m U1 K mm3 �gcm,u N o: �u E$Z 4 vee mN-� 7 o o o o o o '^ o 0 m o 0 o C C c cv� O �3�3W 'izwuWW3�3zli3�z3Wu�o3�3 o N M m a a m a � Y ar m 0 L O 7 0 O t m V�1 V im/1 N Imlf Z Um1 Vml H H H N N N N h V H H V H N Q Q r r T N H m N Tr n ill VI Q M Q r HwH N N n N N N n J t2 y y y r O a" o c o n Am a c° EE �n o a~ O o ! i t 1 1 1 t } t 1 I 1 t } t � t i t i 1 1 } e tD a 0 O Q } t 1 1 1 } } t E } } i t } i ! } t t } I } / > i 1 1 i 1 t 1 i 1 0 } i • • • N O • i S 1 t ! } } f N 1 i } , 1 0 } E 1 i �t { ! t t 1 i • � t t t } ! E t R N 1 i i i ! } 1 t ! } i t 1 1 1 t } t 1 I 1 t } t t i t i 1 1 i i t 1 t • •9 •� i tD a 0 } 1 } t } t E } } i t } i ! } t t } I } / > i i • • • N O • B t i t i ! } } B E i } } 1 i S } } } f 3 ! E 1 i • i • ! E t 1 1 { ! } t ! } E } E t i } f 7 1 i ! O O O O O O ti o 00 in yr O 8 O O Q O g 0 v> N . 10 N 1 . N 80 N V _ W N F v E O N to 'C N Q O E 0J :3 V +�+ p ' m O O m a m a O. U � L /1 OCL O t +m+ m CA _ m nO 1-40 Q1 p rq 0 L 0) 00 m 0 C +- O a +� O (n H N N Co W 'n N N 4 O p0 Q O � a m O 6 O k N r L C s 01 H N 00 r' ei O ei � N m OP O N O O U � O N m 3 N u cr V t N 00 N N ' e1 ei O O N N n !H t • O N m N 0 '^-I N 41 O N i f+l z }fir N ev � ® k t 0 C b-0 H C o O N U G ei O N i N a+ ct N _ O O c1n, N V i N O a-1 ei O N k N r-1 � N m N cn Q • N N ci O N O O pO O O O O SO LriO O Lri1 O en N 4 !} VT F a o Ln U e L � D U U- Q c u U m a E Ln r -I 0 v E O N to a 01 N Q O E 0J :3 V +�+ p ' m O O m a m a U � L /1 OCL E t +m+ m CA _ m nO 1-40 L O p rq 0 co L 0) 00 m C +- O a +� O (n H N N Co W 'n N N O p0 Q O � a m c y O C n L C H N r' p 2 O Q E N m OP O N C > U � O m 3 4 u cr V N L N ' a o Ln U e L � D U U- Q c u U m a E Ln r -I 0 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 at 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. 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 a review of CEI -to -construction cost ratios from previously completed transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. As 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 Factor for County and State Roads — Recent Impact Fee Studies Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 D-16 Impact Fee Update Su Attachment 1 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 •... 040 State 1,362,114 42.9% County 1,702,302 53.7% Local (City) 108,717 3.4% Total (All Roads) 3,173,133 100.0% State 43% City/County 57% Source: TCRPMv4 Roadway Capacity As shown in Table D-11, the average capacity per lane mile is 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 average capacity per lane mile of approximately 8,600 was used in the transportation impact fee calculation. Tindale Oliver Indian River CO�tv February 2020 D-17 Impact Fee Update SIVY Attachment 1 O lD N N O O Q N N n N n tp O Q 00 O1 O N el Op n Q 1p N T 00 O Q n n n N O 01 ao �D b moo b T N.iNOQo+anmromao 00 Ol V Oi u1 N n O M b O u1 o+n„ n N ,. N n N 00 00 Ol N n rl N M n M N m 00 n Q O A.. $$ M1 N 0 M N M 0p 0 0 n O M N N 0 0 n n m T N 0 0 W O1 N W 0 0 00 00 N N N 0 0 00 00 N N N H 0 00 N d r1 y Cp J N 0 n 00 0 0 GN1 G01 � 0 0 N ONi 0 0 U�1 W 0 0 u�l h 0 0 IL N 0 N 9 d M N m m Ol m N m m Q N .ti m Q Q .+ .ti C v ti ti v ti 9 Q ;mm mmNoo vi ui Om So00 a of ow NN e v om00000 m vi 2R 2f 2Y 2ERX> NNm o _ _ l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 V' l7 C7 C7 l7 7. o7S o6 a a eJ �1 a a of W a a of a a a oa of a a c c c > > V U > > U U > > U V > > V V > > V U d d O O d O O oQ N O 00 onmm$moo N t0 of 1D O o.�+ Q O m rO ry O mS O mS M 00 l0 00 O O m n N M Q O N Q w CO n N N l N N lC Q N N M Q N N N N N N �S�QSLq rl M N N N H N N N I(f N N W NN NW d W d N NN N N N Q « o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0« o 0 0 0 0 N N N Q N N N O >' E E 0 o0 E E E E 0 3 E v 3 3 3 3 v v 3 v c c 0 c c o c o o v -o a a c a v y°- c 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 zd 3 zd zd zd z zd d 3 d « L L a N a L ey L o o c i� N N VM1 U f0 n i l�0 W O tmp N s N 3 d d a> a> d d a> a> N O N L L L L L L L L C U O- Ol K V T 3 Q 00 b N l0 OG t0 N t0 N �O N N N �O o > m c c E d y C D 4 c c 0 0 �a>z N V O "'� C O K M V Q N O 1' 1p lD M lrl O N N J C m 0 d q o V a 0 0 � A d {t J O O J O H J O O J J O O J J O O J J o o J a o y, O C O v O :' a U U U U V V U U V U U — V c d q � d e G. f V vl 7 C z Appendix E Transportation Impact Fee: Credit Component 291 Attachment 1 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) • 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. • The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 2. County Fuel Tax (1C/gallon) • Tax applies to every 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 indebtedness 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 of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 3. 1s1 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 Indian River Co r� February 2020 E-1 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 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 use in the impact fee calculation, the fuel tax revenue data is used to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel) that is used to estimate the "equivalent pennies" of other revenue sources used to fund transportation. Table E-1 Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Indian River County & Municipalities, FY 2018-191�1 Tax Constitutional Fuel Tax Amount of Levy per Gallon Distribution $0.02 Total Distribution perPenny $1,849,843 $924,922 County Fuel Tax $0.01 $816,959 $816,959 1st Local Option (1-6 cents) 0.065 404 820 $900,803 Total $0.09 $8,071,622 Weighted Average per Penny (2) $896,847 1) Source: Florida Leeislaturp's nfficp of Frnnnmir and Dpmnarnnhir RprpRrrf http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-government/reports/ - v 2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100) Capital Expansion Credit A revenue credit for the annual 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 Indian River Coit February 2020 E-2 Impact Fee Update S Attachment 1 Countv Capital Proiect Fundi 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 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 Proiect 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 transportation 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 Indian River Conti February 2020 E-3 Impact Fee Update Study Attachment 1 Table E-3 State Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies 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 (Item 2) divided by 100 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co 5t�r February 2020 E-4 Impact Fee Update Sru y Attachment 1 NumberSource Cost of Projects . Years I Pennies Penny1 Projected Work Program (FY 2019-2024)(1) $91,263,112 6 $896,847 $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 (Item 2) divided by 100 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co 5t�r February 2020 E-4 Impact Fee Update Sru y Attachment 1 V 00 N 4 m M N M V M N m O O V M t0 N V M tD N V 111 N M O m N 00 O rl M LD M O O to 01 Ln N eq N Ln M N 10 N of N tO t0 V a M rl M O M 00 N N O N N O N n t0 m 00 LD 00 N N m N 00 n C M 00 N 00 V M m V M O a 00 N N O1 NN .-1 N N Ln N n rq '00 N • tD O N m U1 O 00 V► O wN N V U1 m t0 -A r- NN O- O n 00 N V). LO N P Ln a'O O 00 -I M LO' P' O1 N M' O P a - I 00 R O 01' M ^ O a N N 01 -1 14-4 N V► P O tD M V I, V1• a Vf V N O N N V! r1 'i tD N N V} O N t0 N N N N N Ln N N N V in � tQ r1 eel " N V! 44 'y N V> V► a0 M V1 V). V). V! V). V► Vf V► 4111• V► V). -lM1 Vf Vf VF V). V1 i!► V> N V► O O O O O V O O 00 O O O 1` O O N 00 00000 111 'n0 1l 1 11 V 1, 00 O n MiA V? V?V? UT00 V} V1 Ln V} V?V}M Ln V? LO 'i V). V) tn• V). V} m V V? M M m N V? V1 O Ln ;` O O O e m01 00 00 M O 1A V N 00 e -i M n -4 I� M n� M' O M ri n 01 JUD V? VT 00V)- V .--I e -I N VT O O 1l rl VV V1 ? 0} V? V1 N M N i/L V7• M N t/1 t/1 to -T t/) V► 0 0 0 0 V O Ln 00 00 00 O O O V to 00 M tD V N O O O o 0 01 O r -I O Ln O O O V? V} Vi V) 01 LO Ln V O 01 '-1 00 VT V} 0o 00 LD to V? VT V? m -4 M Ln O V Ln m V" LO 0o 1, O V} 'i -4 VT V! V? 00 ry V? r1 e -I 4^ N m in � N a-1 Vf• 01 N Ln V V O 00 00 r- O M O V V 00 m N r1 rn m o V a Ln rn an r-1 Ln .-I V? o -4 m %D V} VT V? V! N V} V} to V! N tN ih M N ti! 0 VT 0 V} 0 VT 0 V1 0 LD tO M O O 00 V). V? c-1 N 00 00 LD 00 000 V} V! V). O V N V N 00 00 V! i^ 00 V I- M O t/1 01 V t0 LO 0 V? 0 V} 0 N 0 V} LnN 00 -1 O V). O UT OII t/)I N 1n M m01 1, 00 to a--1 Ln Ln m M M Ln O N N I, N 01 N Ln Ol M O N n 01 LD 00 O V t\ VT M V o .--1 to V! N N Ln V m O a-1 Ln M tN V? 1-1 V1 Vt to 4.1 1^ � to tM V1 � M N VT V> O V? O VT 00 01 to N O V? Ln O O V? LO M 00 Ln V M o V? C Ln co V1 V? 1, 00 LD o LD N V 1, O O V to M LO O I, o V1 o Ln 1n F, Ln '4 O V! o V} o V} 0 VT 0 V? 0 V} o V1 vH t0 00 N M O n O' n n n N al VT 00 N O O Ln -ti l0 ,, VT V Ll) M 11 ci LO V O N' 00 N 1, V M O N 01 V} Iq V*1 V} N N Ln (14 ei V1 M Vt0 Ln N M — rj V} V} N VT in rl V} V). t/A V) VT N N VT Ln N V} V► V r, .-i N O O O m 0 01 O O coo 00 01 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• M 00N V e 4 VT .1 V) N V? m V? Ln in. V} V} ei N O V?). VT V). V1 V} V1, V} V? V). V1 V? VT V} V} i/� 00 V M V O M -t Ln I� c-1 01 00 00 N ' O tD Ln N V N14 M V M t0 tD N N o VT V .-I N 01 V 00 O O q V 'i V1 N c V} V? V} 1\ ^ N V> N VT N N V? V} N V? N N Y a Q v L aj 00 Q > Ln Q y Y C 0)'2 to Q M V H c YO "D N •'' Ln L V) L M E L O L y L o_ _o O c O m V o Y v r Ln l0 00 0> 000 c O -p W `�' 1J .8 O O- f Ln y0 N OLo > O N J H c o V> o YO `O a L m O vv v°' to aEi o O O o tD -c Q L m J v Y �i Y L N w v N N i O OJ +-' +-' _ w> OL V `�' N tr L 01 H ac.. 3 I- C t V1 LD i 0) N C Q 01 \ ate+ Q > c c E w Q w N u .--I Ln W V 0-0 Ln +' F- L 7 ,�-' u�i 0/ c 0Y0 Ln E C "O H > L c L Q 0) 0) h O` c E C ,O L E E `� E L F J N �' N E O 0) E Q 00 an c l0 0) 00 Q Q v y c W c 0 l0 w E In v > O) Y o `� Q> cu " o LD > Q m V Y "6 O Q O > Q O c-1 Ln > N 0) 01 O ,� v N V Q J Y v J to L 0iS Y 0) > E E .f. Y OJ > L w 0) n ry N> >` N^ L U E^ M �.'' .; 0 t i U K L N > Q > Q > Q C L N L `i Y M N L Q O Ln L Q L Y l0 -O c > Q °� i y L m z �j N 'n O\\ a- O L Q N 01 \ N L L Q L l0 Ln V)\ Y Q1 N \ ,i-' O Y l0 Y\ l0 (0 -O K w\ V1 3 Ln U LL\\ Y y N \ w- Y l0 Y w M LD N\ V = U V c J N lO M N\ O N N LY yN,• U U Vf N C Q O lD tD V O U_ cc N Q Ln r a V V O i' N L L L 0 O N L ' O L 3 m L �j Ln j �j Y Ln L OQ �"• N m y n Y f0 L ` Y tD Y LD y tD oc 0 0 0 O (Q 7 O N r Y o0 O '> Y rn 0 0 y 0 0 N i y ry K N N O ei e-1 H H N ei c G LO U 0C K w d' 0= H 0 LY V to K Q t0 D-' K N OC 1' N U Mi I r -I M M m V N V o" N V H I, .l 00 11 ei M N M M LO V O 00 O ei H ri N O V e -I V lD O V O to O M �-1 rl O tD O O r -I 00 r-1 N N tD O Ol O N N V1 a--1 V M N O Ln 14 rl -4 J Q • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w0 0 0 H co Ln N ko N �. 0 cm -I aVLn -1 " -4 .�-4 ami Iq ami l c^i -1-1 F W M N O N LL LL O CA O N LL LL i+ E 2 W H Ln v W E O is L H O. G .Q m U I 3 O U L 2 20C M .s.. 0 S O M N • Vf• 0 v}oo 0 S O of Ol N N 0 S N V} OO O 0O S O O N N N 0 oov*c�v O N Vf O 0 S C N n N 0 O O 0 S N N N n VF 0 O M V! O O 0 O o O V1 C 0 O 'RVf pppp O pp O N N 0 v>v>vtvtvtvf.}u*gv O N M n a t0 N V! 0 O O O N R .� rl N V� V O V! O S O O 1N N d 0 O O O O O S N to 0 O Vf O S O M M N N 0 O N O O O O v1 V} 0 O v! O S O of N N' VT 0 O V) O O o S ti 'A 0 O Ln N O O O S o N P 0 O V1 O S Q N V! 0 u*v>u>v�o O VT Op S S O N VT 0 O VT O S 00 O 4 0 O V} N MA M 00 N V) 0 O of N N rl O1 N 0 00 1011 V V1 O O O 00 N 1fl 111 V! 0 SE'S O N Vl O O O O O 00 �' 0 O V1 O S 0 S M N 0 00 w V1 O O 00 O C VI fl VT 0 S N V1 O O O S Ci .-1 N N 0 o 0 N N O o 00 O �O N 0 C 0 V! O 0 m. O O ,O. to 0 S 14 N m N VT S O u} W O C C o E O O v O H Y O O 0 0 0 0 0 pp O O Ln ID' O IA M U > O cr r4 c m 8 N 0 0 0 0 0 � L O Vol VT N, VT N nj V} O ly` 10f1 1^ 1l1 a 111 m w Vf N V) N V! V} Ifl u1 d o o o un O vt• V} o o o v* o v>•In In0 v* 'A 0 o 0 v>• 0 o 0 v} 0 'k 0 v> 0 o O o 0 v* 0 .A O V* VT ti m VT 0 v* 0 vn 0 0 0 0 O 0 O o N yr w a 0 v} C C In o 0 00 D, oo001n _ O o O o ri w O Ln O In OO Ln In of w 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 ul .-i O n ul M nIn 'y` N V! 00 VT M 00 t0 Vf O 'y N V} VT yp u/ VT V} V} N N 0 v>g.A.n 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 S 0 0 /' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N. . 0 0 0 0 0 o w S omo S o o.no0v}o0 S S g N rn""/'oo o S o 0 O o O O V O O O O O o o 0 Di 0 0 0 0 0 M V1 N v1 n O O O ID N n pp O O c{ O r\ to N v1 O O O 00 w O O O 111 t0 VF Vf e•I N N I,y V} �..� V? C V? N In aN m o N 10 V? O r -I N � V? V? N V? vv u} V1 VT V} N V! 000 O V1 VY O V) O O 0 O 0 O O m O VT O vT O o O o O 0 O VT O O O O V} O C In -I O O O O O O O IA • O O O O O N O O O O O O O e O O vT 0 C 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C o ., ul o m O O p O o O C N g O o O o In O In p O o O V w o In 0 0 o 0 O 0 pp 0 o m 00 n N n In �` O M N i} Vl to N N M V lD 00 t0 O I N V} N V} w u1 V} V1 V1 V! V} N V! d _N Q NN a0- w 19M m m v w � a v � w � 0�I 025 w w t E E v v N 00 w w E In In y c c v w w N M C C fO O O C a w 2 7 7 U! O/ In In •7+ u C u C cr y E E N _ d CO �. E_ M O w w w N Q 0) NON! m to w i. cn OJ > Q Q O m y u o m N m m w C s Q C aV1+ L L C p C m C v N m M ISD OA C >>? c m d, C 00 Q E to 0 o < Q L E In N c N c in >> of �o w a Z> w w n. Z Y w U m m > Q ° L> a •O, w Q Q C7 N W ul H p 7 •Op C NOl N E Q r r N H C C00 H_ w w m N C O>> N .O m= N_ Cp _ Ln 00 In L C O N m a m t N V1 -p w N io N O O V YJ M m O 7 In o y y° r n" C N E. . `w N p n n . W 00 (D CL Er c ° ° ¢ m 00 ° w `� `w ° 3 3 °' > C O m � M L n c o o � E Q >>> L w ` C 00 m Q t V1 In 111 m -p m Q Q Q N w ID t O F� I" C C C t O .0 'p 7 L Ic m YI O O -0 m V m t o0 C K pl N w 0) 01 d' Z M a Ln � O1 v O1 ID `w H O L y IT \ a \ In \ n In v v atS 3 3 3 y v w w w w w a a .w O° LL V1 V1 N V1 in > > V1 y VI V1 V1 in N > > > > > > > > C U L L L L L Q Q "O L V1 L L 'D 'O •6 - C Q L Q L Q L Q L Q L Q L Q L Q L C U `.G U . n n V m iDo H H `� F In N to N to N N m m V m '7 In V In 0 M In V1 co V1 00 0 00 M 00 In 00 In 0o In to ID ID C c C c L H F O F 3 L � > C to N "a ti fC Q E W c v E t m Q v H Y 7 CL Y C O 0 U > cr r4 c m > Q C O N m L � L 3 V) ' Ll - P\ W N `m r a i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L +� 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Ui Q � Y N 1:4- tD U l6 tDr � - ry r- m N ry1 lD M lD tp M C, O O O o O O O o O O O o 0 o O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �t r, M to co 0 00 N L U N > tD � Ln o � h H Lo O O 0 O O o o O O O O O O O O O 3 O O O 0 O O O 0 m m 't W to nj 00 m tD Op N 3 Y r1400 O tD 00 = M M N " Y � Y N 4J a v � Y Y f9 LLL a c C o 7 _o Y O O O c - co > O O 0 Y m cU Ci i � L U C m O L L L ai ai ai cv O L L L 4+ 3 O O O F- �N Q1 L +� v � > a CL U 6 Ui Q � Y U l6 Q E C, c 0 C.) N L U N > � a o � h � a Lo 3 v s Y U > 00 0 3 LL Y a Q O N 3 Y s CIA � U = N U � L Y � Y N 4J a v � Y Y LLL a c C o � _o Y O O O c - co > O O 0 Y m cU Ci O Q1 E U C m O L a � O L 0 �? �" 3 N > o > 3 3 '-N 0 > LL Q F u t C ho v m ba 2 m I rl O N V 00 M W � N M C C� G i L U W s f0 3 C C Q 3 C: U N 41 E L � > a E C U LL cuQ i ++ v m Q E rn W OM in m N 'D ID O O N N M N a n v m m m w n NM oo an N m M N N N m N M a0 n a O tD c - N to N N n M o0 m M M to m n ID m N oo tD (n V N N N N O N oo N C N O 1n N In m m a o W J N N m n m n L Eo co Q N ~ o o. a n a ao n o to ID M oo oo ry m m tD Ln ., m m m ID oo L to a N n N N ao Q M to N M m � n � � •d y N to tD Q N M O N to Ln m ri N n N of V N N n M M N L C N N m V1 > p ri ep D • > u b m c � • m a ` v � °1 o0 H mm P m N a a to N a N oo a N o0 n ao v a oo m a tD en N M oo M Ln N to 0o M N N m Ln N 0oI`o LL n O N O OtD C 'Dr, n m i tD o0 �^ 0o H N M O M N oo o N to N O o0 N N Ln N oo n N em o] w m N N N O N V D1 H 0 3 C N a o N U L L 3 N O '7 Lnoooo O W N O N oo O N m oo oo n N N N n cT o O n m C N to N n m a— tD m 0J W N In Dl N N tD m m V 4 sY V o0 .--I oo N N m w '-I m O oo m e•1 Q ye ; N O M N N t o Y p pp w f1 C d M 7 M O N to O oo n ID N O N N N O a0 N N m N m M O In n N O oo ID Ln tD 'Ir m IR 00 O -e m N I -I ID m V tD N N tD oo of tD N n c N> N T+ cc N N N -4N In n N M m of Ln N o Y h a C w0o d o cc N xZ N to n m N N N M O m to ID In W n oo M n R M O m V m m m « m O N N m a o0 oo V1 Ln oo cn m N N O N m m tD Ln oc 1n O N N M tD n ID ID N a C N > ,p d J N m 0o W lT h ID 1n N e� M a .�•I 0o W E " a m a w v x o L m m to o oo o oo n N .� o m o m n n O N oo m n oc N ID m n 1n M N N M N N to N N N M m> M n N V N m 01 C N N N IA N oo N mm N ILo IOn N C `o 3 N op o m m N 'oL N :9 x75 L D 3� Q c ` '� C 3 m oo N N Lo to M m a N N m M O N to ID n In m In M O ID N ON M M O Ln y u Z N N N ID N N N N N ry N Ln N C N > L 8 d > n oo a N y ?.` > N in d O o o p 00 E o. N M R N N M mo M M m tD N O O n m Ln a N n tD N tD t7 N m o0 m m O m M O m n m W O M N N m of N NA N t1 O L d bo u o d' N N N N N oo m O o' M N M ID N N n N O O n N n 3 — 3 E • LL o ro > a E ' L c m E m ^ d M y m E C d m Q 0 wC O a v O U ry ! w c o v N fp d o .D L m m C > n> t 2 "> > ^o ; 3 U ✓ m w> a a o o v° o c o' u o y eo •v 6 j c eo ` m N d •E w w m E tw u O w •E w` m« ° m 3 a u r c ,�. w ,ot w > N C O Yr t' 7 r C o y U '� N C w w y L W y Y Q N ate+ = d tr N Y m N c o o o'o a o to E •bp N> 7 N - d o W -E o) 0! m > W 3 y O>t V y ry cC 0) > Q ¢>¢ ew C 8 a N � L u d Q z > > •E '3 m a n n n n n n n n n n n n n n iL• o_ c d N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N o N N O N N o N N N O o N N N o N N O N N O N N O N O) L t ep r N E a H F S U V A t i N 3 C: U N 41 E L � > a E C U LL cuQ i ++ v m Q E rn W Appendix F Transportation Impact Fee: Calculated Impact Fee Schedule 301 Attachment 1 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 Indian River Co February 2020 F-1 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 I R$ $ 8 $ $ sg a _ a s r E 1 = Z`n 3 ffi C 3 3 a 3 ' _` 3 g - 3 3 3 3 s a a a a Egz aa= a $ $ g $ t ic N a ; a 0,; .n E E G $ C E 9 Q A � S E a w rc E rc E E E E a <P a a s a x E a ` E d r` E E E E a Al a s v = _ t„ 01 a y Y = 1 __- `s da o vi { milli (\§ (§\ } / r ! k � _ ) \ / | \ /} \ /) { f/ _ }\k mE m { �!| `E § } �0 \ _ ||| / \\k /\ \ \/} k §§) \0 \ } .0 .2 -��kkk� \\\ ® INNER { � 2 (\§ (§\ } / r ! k � _ ) \ / | \ /} \ /) { f/ _ }\k mE m { �!| `E § } �0 \ _ ||| / \\k /\ \ \/} k §§) \0 \ } .0 .2 -��kkk� \\\ Appendix G Educational Facilities Impact Fee: Supplemental Information 306 Attachment 1 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 School Inventory SchoolsPermanent Elementary Schools Permanent FISH capacity Permanent FootageFISH Beachland Elementary PK -5 536 536 104,943 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 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 PK -5 556 556 65,124 Rosewood Elementary PK -5 515 515 82,314 Sebastian Elementary PK -5 637 637 85,825 Treasure Coast Elementary PK -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 6-8 1,140 1,026 152,045 Sebastian River Middle School 6-8 1,119 1,007 147,539 Storm Grove Middle School 1 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 18,2821 17,5311 2,622,531 Source: Indian River School District Tindale Oliver Indian River Cot February 2020 G-1 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 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. The following paragraphs provide further detail on this research and analysis. Construction Cost There has not been any new school construction in Indian River County since the last technical study. Industrywide cost trends suggest an increase of approximately 13 percent 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 elementary schools to $194 per net square foot for high schools. Table G-3 summarizes data obtained from the Florida Department of Education for schools built in 2011 through 2017. As shown, the average construction cost ranges from $152 per net square foot for elementary schools to $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 square 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 Indian River Co M February 2020 G-2 Impact Fee Update S u Attachment 1 Table G-2 School Building Cost Analysis — Indian River County Source Estimated School Construction Costly: Year Cost per Net Square Foot 2019 (indexed) Cost peSquare r Net - Elementary Schools 2013 $145 $164 - Middle Schools 2013 $175 $198 - High Schools 2013 $185 $210 - ENR Building Cost Index (2) Source 2013-2019 Year 13% Cost per Net Square .. Insured Values of Buildings: (4) - Architectural/Civil Design 2019 9% - Elementary Schools 2019 8% $150 - Middle Schools 2019 $176 - High Schools 2019 $194 Construction Cost: Other Florida Jurisdictions (5) - Elementary Schools 2011-2017 $152 - Middle Schools 2011-2017 $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:OtherFL Percent of Construction Study(l) Jurisdictions Cost (6) - Architectural/Civil Design 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 Indian River Co V February 2020 G-3 Impact Fee Update S�u y Attachment 1 Table G-3 Construction Cost Analysis - Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 89,652 843 $142 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 82,062 873 $181 2011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 120,015 856 $142 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary $11,795,072 99,704 817 $118 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 84,972 762 $136 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 $156 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve $16,021,554 129,936 1,050 $123 2012 Orange Elem SunRidge Elementary $10,031,097 66,645 842 $151 2012 St. Johns Elem Palencia Elementary $12,677,682 102,314 738 $124 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $13,854,183 98,842 764 $140 2013 Orange Elem Sun Blaze Elementary $10,269,207 64,410 832 $159 2013 Orange Elem Hackney Prairie Road Area Elementary $11,261,0941 75,189 856 $150 2013 Palm Beach Elem Gove Elementary $28,528,459 129,500 924 $220 2013 Palm Beach I Elem Galaxy Elementary $22,515,045 108,674 605 $207 2014 Orange Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) $8,633,484 79,038 832 $109 2014 Orange Elem John Young ES (Replacement) $8,810,724 79,038 832 $111 2014 Orange Elem Pineloch ES $9,343,280 82,167 830 $114 2014 Orange Elem Dr. Phillips ES $8,150,993 69,297 660 $118 2014 Orange Elem Spring Lake ES $9,768,510 70,056 627 $139 2014 Orange Elem Washington Shores ES (Replacement) $10,068,768 77,692 684 $130 2014 Orange I Elem Little River ES $8,202,194 61,570 500 $133 2014 Orange Elem Wheatley ES (Replacement) $9,153,883 77,207 560 $119 2014 Palm Beach Elem The Conservatory School of North Palm Be $21,499,851 117,529 753 $183 2014 Pasco Elem Schrader Elementary $10,620,622 75,826 498 $140 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $13,630,6321 94,121 950 $145 2015 Orange Elem Eagle Creek Elementary $9,248,244 79,374 832 $117 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $9,394,386 81,664 832 $115 2015 Orange I Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) $9,286,970 82,167 830 $113 2015 Orange Elem Clay Springs Elementary $11,675,199 83,149 950 $140 2015 Orange Elem Lake Weston Elementary $10,026,192 85,716 762 $117 2015 Orange Elem Lovell Elementary $10,246,051 81,129 828 $126 2015 Palm Beach Elem Glade View Elementary $14,554,646 64,153 403 $227 2015 Palm Beach Elem Rosenwald Elementary $11,841,132 51,261 328 $231 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $17,016,823 84,005 1,084 $203 2016 Hillsborough I Elem Lamb Elementary $13,673,880 92,876 950 $147 2016 Orange Elem Millennia Gardens Elementary $10,659,959 87,011 837 $123 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park ES $10,966,573 76,035 664 $144 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") $14,362,434 69,308 882 $207 2016 Washington Elem Kate Smith Elementary School $20,670,897 107,316 993 $193 2017 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary $12,290,816 90,383 837 $136 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary $14,863,889 72,193 920 $206 2017 Volusia I Elem Pierson ES $16,659,475 92,030 694 $181 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood Elementary $12,340,163 87,296 837 $141 2017 Orange Elem Ivy Lane Elementary $12,088,430 81,488 660 $148 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary $12,791,307 93,174 837 $137 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods Elementary $13,397,484 94,502 837 $142 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $11,683,841 78,726 663 $148 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES $12,427,300 79,888 664 $156 2017 Orange I Elem Rock Lake ES $13,247,608 79,968 653 $166 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $13,342,673 94,753 837 $141 2017 Orange Elem Westpointe ES $9,667,395 41,456 232 $233 2017 St Johns Elem Picolata Crossing Elementary $19,392,791 82,066 871 $236 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary $16,714,559 76,260 966 $219 2017 Nassau Elem Wildlight Elementary School $16,099,092 77,837 661 $207 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary $4,671,335 27,889 458 $167 2017 lHamilton I Elem lHamilton County Elementary School $17,500,400 139,413 991 $126 Total/Weighted Average --ElementarySchools $743,466,236 4,857,437 1 43,837 $153 Total/Weighted Average -- Elementary Schools: Excluding Indian River County $711,074,5221 4,670,5181 41,957 1 $152 Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 G-4 Impact Fee Update S�udy Attachment 1 Table G-3 Construction Cost Analysis - Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions (Continued) OpenedYear Middle Sch ols: Source: Cost Stations Cost per NSF 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 $21,182,866 183,190 1,605 $116 2011 Polk Middle Boone Middle $17,900,963 69,921 305 $256 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 126,770 820 $126 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education Center $5,538,155 34,581 182 $160 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $18,921,534 94,660 993 $200 2012 Lee Middle Hams Marsh Middle $23,750,925 164,662 1,345 $144 2012 Orange Middle Lake Nona Middle $16,923,455 149,897 1,328 $113 2012 Orange Middle SunRid a Middle $23,617,116 152,436 1,352 $155 2013 Monroe Middle Horace O'Br ant $30,596,297 196,598 1,217 $156 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $21,224,724 144,356 1,210 $147 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Rid e Academy $21,116,642 144,356 1,210 $146 2016 Orange Middle Wedgefield K-8 School $20,111,884 126,697 1,171 $159 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy $33,560,797 139,7641 1,652 $240 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle $41,138,637 207,471 1,573 $198 2017 Orange Middle OCPS Academic Center for Excellence $30,678,582 247,297 1,335 $124 2017 Orange Middle Innovation $22,320,667 174,939 1,355 $128 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $24,333,075 173,016 1,363 $141 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $22,812,870 184,815 1,363 $123 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School $19,084,9251 92,830 751 $206 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $5,312,8301 12,538 272 $424 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK -8 $32,270,7981 148,0301 1,350 $218 Total/Weighted Average -- Middle Schools 1 $468,316,6261 2,968,824 1 23,752 $158 High Schools: 2011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center $8,889,147 42,608 262 $209 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 100,366 825 $193 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 258,700 1,828 $239 2011 Lake High Lake Minneola High $46,988,193 294,664 1,932 $159 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 43,024 347 $128 2011 Orange High Evans High Replacement $55,507,691 289,061 2,599 $192 2011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior $26,374,234 140,940 2,039 $187 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior $19,522,053 101,466 1,236 $192 2011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts $29,136,512 157,446 1,510 $185 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior $24,323,662 112,017 800 $217 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS $7,192,325 35,137 603 $205 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technoloj $9,303,705 78,845 800 $118 2012 St. Lucie High Lincoln Park Academy $10,928,736 93,703 978 $117 2013 Martin I High Martin County High $7,623,316 63,601 703 $120 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $51,569,511 220,839 1,475 $234 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $62,462,106 343,261 2,860 $182 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $33,542,921 166,282 1,145 $202 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High $41,025,203 195,271 2,208 $210 2017 Dade High Maritime & Science Technology Academy $13,994,875 51,815 1,124 $270 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $4,553,211 19,212 475 $237 2017 jPinellas High Palm Harbor University High $9,983,642 46,650 525 $214 2017 St Johns High Nease High $10,658,296 48,081 510 $222 2017 Orange High Windermere HS $54,879,598 375,515 2,898 $146 Total/Weighted Average -- High Schools $615,122,664 3,278,504 29,682 $188 Total/Weighted Average (All Schools) 1 $1,826,905,5261 11,104,765 97,271[-- 7,271 Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 G-5 Impact Fee Update S�uy Attachment 1 Table G-4 Architectural/Civil Design and FF&E Cost Analysis Indian River Countv and Other Florida Jurisdictions Year Opened 2011 District Broward Type High Facility Name Lanier James Education Center Architect & Ratio Eng.Fees & Eng. Construction $1,075,459 of Architect Fees to Furniture Cost 12% Ratio & Equip. Construction $1,304,137 of FF&E to Cost 15% 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $1,968,893 10% $994,719 5% 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $944,273 79,. $674,842 5% 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $6,502,129 11% $2,676,408 4% 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $1,621,628 11% $1,899,236 13% 2011 Escambia Elem Globa I Learning Academy $1,682,415 10% $2,861,931 17% 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 $880,709 4% $4,279,500 20% 2011 Lake High Lake Minneola High $3,030,934 69, $6,483,383 14% 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $453,761 8% $427,114 8% 2011 Orange High Evans High Replacement $3,568,884 6% $3,743,130 7% 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary $812,505 71% $1,081,762 9% 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary"R" $858,671 7% $1,298,389 11% 2011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior $853,483 3% $2,360,389 9% 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior $1,462,146 7% $3,124,050 16% 2011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts $1,042,674 4% $2,330,971 8% 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior $875,094 49/ $2,267,250 9% 2011 Polk Middle jBoone Middle $1,080,157 691. $1,331,348 7% 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $1,709,689 11% $700,000 4% 2012 Alachua Elem Meadowbrook Elementary $1,010,997 8% $1,974,896 16% 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education Center $561,233 10% $734,057 13% 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS $684,965 10% $757,496 11% 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $867,900 5% $1,122,762 6% 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technology $762,932 8% $919,966 10% 2012 lindian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $1,476,006 9% $1,342,512 8% 2012 Lee Middle I Hams Marsh Middle $721,076 3% $1,814,273 8% 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve $214,042 1% $1,487,461 9% 2012 Orange Elem SunRidge 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 $956,170 8% $1,500,000 12% 2012 St. Lucie High Lincoln Park Academy $1,623,543 15% $3,246,193 30% 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $1,098,766 8% $1,555,729 11% 2013 Marion Elem Legacy Elementary $675,267 7% $1,680,825 17% 2013 Martin High Martin County High $1,274,200 17% $419,893 6% 2013 Monroe Middle Horace O'Bryant $3,221,414 11% $1,320,362 4% 2013 Orange Elem Sun Blaze Elementary $587,445 6% $1,035,369 10% 2013 Orange Elem Hackney Prairie Road Area Elementary $890,931 8% $1,057,127 9% 2013 Palm Beach Elem Gove Elementary $1,871,815 7% $917,852 3% 2013 Palm Beach Elem Galaxy Elementary $1,595,664 7% $790,823 4% 2014 Orange Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) $636,833 7% $1,235,140 14% 2014 Orange Elem John Young ES (Replacement) $644,485 7% $1,037,820 12% 2014 Orange Elem Pineloch ES $632,269 7% $1,048,977 11% 2014 Orange Elem Dr. Phillips ES $837,933 30% $835,624 10% 2014 Orange Elem Spring Lake ES $646,909 7% $874,049 9% 2014 Orange Elem Washington Shores ES (Replacement) $591,793 6% $964,395 30% 2014 10range Elem Little River ES $1,212,762 15% $705,810 9% 2014 Orange Elem lWheatley ES (Replacement) $740,790 8% $803,731 9% 2014 Palm Beach Elem IThe conservatory School of North Palm Beach $1,746,723 8% $781,394 4% 2014 Pasco Elem ISchrader Elementary $741,224 7% $781,652 7% 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $1,117,623 8% $1,614,056 12% 2015 Orange Elem Eagle Creek Elementary $503,008 5% $1,168,200 13% 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $454,9541 5% $1,168,200 12% Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 G-6 Impact Fee Update S�uy Attachment 1 Table G-4 Architectural/Civil Design and FF&E Cost Analysis Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions (Continued) Year Opened 2015 District Orange Type Facility Name Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) Architect & Ratio Eng.Fees & Eng. Construction $669,660 of Architect Fees to Furniture Cost 7% Ratio & Equip. Construction $1,039,087 of FF&E to Cost 11% 2015 Orange Middle Clay Springs Elementary $619,675 5% $1,265,087 11% 2015 Orange High Lake Weston Elementary $557,676 6% $1,395,286 14% 2015 Orange Elem Lovell Elementary $532,470 5% $1,258,788 12% 2015 Palm Beach Middle Glade View Elementary $1,142,611 8% $661,409 5% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary $942,748 8% $593,229 5% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $1,442,401 8% $2,095,402 12% 2015 St Johns Middle jPatriot 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 $6,486,215 13% $3,010,405 6% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary $1,159,221 8% $1,494,022 11% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary $715,680 6% $1,414,425 12% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary $766,295 7% $1,115,037 30% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") $993,089 7% $1,594,261 11% 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy $1,235,864 4% $3,060,826 9% 2016 Washington Elem Kate Smith Elementary School $1,799,321 9% $1,567,022 8% 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary $781,268 5% $0 0% 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle- Bid $2,513,897 6% $3,300,000 8% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary $660,780 6% $1,129,925 11% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield $2,153,131 11% $1,787,827 9% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary $636,009 5% $1,365,945 11% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES $659,183 5% $1,284,730 10% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES $599,596 5% $1,204,983 10% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES $782,369 6% $1,110,974 8% 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $693,404 6% $1,226,272 10% 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES $581,863 5% $972,235 8% 2017 Orange Elem Rock Lake ES $672,601 5% $1,235,894 9% 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $780,745 6% $1,262,836 9% 2017 Orange KS OCPS Academic Center for Excellence $2,342,381 8% $2,174,838 7% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle $1,954,764 9% $1,789,440 8% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $2,460,335 10% $1,776,313 7% 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $1,519,638 7% $1,743,238 8% 2017 Orange High Windermere HS $4,993,625 9% $3,600,435 7% 2017 St Johns Elem Picolata Crossing Elementary $711,881 4% $1,613,190 8% 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary $1,176,816 7% $1,795,991 11% 2017 Nassau Elem Wildlight Elementary School $1,649,044 10% $2,457,873 15% 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary $303,332 6% $412,293 9% 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $1,677,527 10% $1,825,273 10% 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School $1,436,603 8% $1,205,972 6% 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $417,315 8% $304,755 6% 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK -8 $2,870,562 9% $2,616,795 8% 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $5,273,339 8% $4,534,318 7% 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $1,849,055 6% $672,515 2% 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High $2,712,972 7% $4,004,683 10% 2017 Dade High Maritime & Science Technology Academy $1,052,669 8% $815,189 6% 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $267,393 6% $507,388 11% 2017 Pinellas High Palm Harbor University High $1,034,481 10% $825,000 8% 2017 St Johns High Nease High $828,000 8% $898,000 8% 2018 Orange Elem Westpointe Elementary $860,457 9% $1,549,090 16% Total/WeightedAverage $134,339,858 7% $159,842,379 9% Total/Weighted Average (Indian River County Schools ONLY) $1,476,006 9% $1,342,512 8% Total/Weighted Average (ExcludingIndian River County Schools) $132,863,852 7% $158,499,867 9% Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 G-7 Impact Fee Update S�uciy Attachment 1 Table G-5 Site Development Cost Analysis Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions Tindale Oliver Indian River Co��t� February 2020 G-8 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 .. 2011 District Broward Type High Facility Name Construction Lanier James Education Center Cost $8,889,147 Site Development Ratio $918,943 DevelopmentYear of Site 10% 2011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 $1,362,604 7% 2011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 $1,802,689 14% 2011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 $7,904,370 13% 2011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 $1,361,500 9% 2011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 $200,000 1% 2011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 $21,182,866 $0 0% 2011 Lake High Lake Minneola High $46,988,193 $454,710 1% 2011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 $1,300 0% 2011 Orange High Evans High Replacement $55,507,691 $2,151,931 4% 2011 Orange Elem Wetherbee Elementary $11,795,072 $0 0% 2011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 $2,313,586 20% 2011 lPolk High Winter Haven Senior $26,374,234 $0 0% 2011 Polk High Auburndale Senior $19,522,053 $0 0% 2011 Polk High Davenport School ofthe Arts $29,136,512 $0 0% 2011 Polk High Kathleen Senior $24,323,662 $0 0% 2011 Polk Middle Boone Middle $17,900,963 $0 0% 2011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 $1,717,116 11% 2012 Alachua Elem Meadowbrook Elementary $12,388,973 $86,278 1% 2012 lindian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,196,000 7% 2012 Collier Middle Bethune Education Center $5,538,155 $479,652 9% 2012 Dade High International Studies SHS $7,192,325 $0 0% 2012 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $18,921,534 $0 0% 2012 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technolc $9,303,705 $0 0% 2012 Lee Middle Hams Marsh Middle $23,750,925 $2,100,258 9% 2012 Lee Elem Tortuga Preserve $16,021,554 $1,367,613 9% 2012 l0range Elem SunRidge Elementary $10,031,097 $1,296,632 13% 2012 10range Middle Lake Nona Middle $16,923,455 $0 0% 2012 10range Middle SunRidge Middle $23,617,116 $1,051,252 4% 2012 St. Johns Elem Palencia Elementary $12,677,682 $0 0% 2012 St. Lucie High Lincoln Park Academy $10,928,736 $7,901,452 72% 2012 Volusia Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $13,854,183 $415,026 3% 2013 Martin High Martin County High $7,623,316 $536,994 7% 2013 Monroe Middle Horace O'Br ant $30,596,297 $2,740,572 9% 2013 Orange Elem Sun Blaze Elementary $10,269,207 $658,487 6% 2013 l0range Elem Hackney Prairie Road Area Elementary $11,261,094 $657,635 6% 2014 Orange Elem Shingle Creek ES (Replacement) $8,633,484 $1,188,410 14% 2014 Orange Elem John Young ES (Replacement) $8,810,724 $1,438,471 16% 2014 Orange Elem Washington Shores ES (Replacement) $10,068,768 $1,395,463 14% 2014 Orange Elem Wheatley ES (Replacement) $9,153,883 $1,083,517 12% 2014 Orange Elem Pineloch ES $9,343,280 $1,409,183 15% 2014 Orange Elem Dr. Phillips ES $8,150,993 $1,850,611 23% 2014 l0range Elem Spring Lake ES $9,768,510 $1,276,130 13% 2014 Orange Elem I Little River ES $8,202,194 $1,142,327 14% 2014 Pasco Elem iSchrader Elementary $10,620,622 $1,217,102 11% 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $13,630,632 $1,766,622 13% 2015 Orange Middle IClay Springs Elementary $11,675,199 $2,096,813 18% 2015 Orange HighI Lake Weston Elementary $10,026,192 $1,719,879 17% Tindale Oliver Indian River Co��t� February 2020 G-8 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table G-5 Site Development Cost Analysis Indian River County and Other Florida Jurisdictions (Continued) OpenedYear 2015 District Orange Type Elem Facility Name Love F -Elementary Construction Cost $10,246,051 Site Development Ratio $851,121 of Site Development to 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) $9,286,970 $1,470,388 16% 2015 Palm Beach Middle Glade View Elementary $14,554,646 $1,652,065 11% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary $11,841,132 $1,853,846 16% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $17,016,823 $1,478,220 9% 2015 ISt Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $21,224,724 $0 0% 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Ridge Academy $21,116,642 $0 0% 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $51,569,511 $7,169,846 14% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary $13,673,880 $3,025,879 22% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary $12,290,816 $2,371,208 19% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary $10,966,573 $1,682,616 15% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") $14,362,434 $1,213,282 8% 2016 IPoIk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy $33,560,797 $0 0% 2016 Washington High Kate Smith Elementary School $20,670,897 $2,568,867 12% 2017 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary $14,863,889 $1,425,699 10% 2017 Seminole Middle Millennium Middle - Bid $41,138,637 $2,468,318 6% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary $10,659,959 $1,802,063 17% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield School K-8 $20,111,884 $3,151,392 16% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary $12,791,307 $1,229,287 10% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES $12,340,163 $1,389,126 11% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES $12,088,430 $1,526,111 13% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES $13,397,484 $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 $13,247,608 $2,685,941 20% 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $13,342,673 $2,458,354 18% 2017 10range K8 OCPS Academic Center for Excellence $30,678,582 $1,503,611 5% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle $22,320,667 $1,856,965 8% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $24,333,075 $3,047,594 13% 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $22,812,870 $3,648,736 16% 2017 Orange High Windermere HS $54,879,598 $8,003,699 15% 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary $16,714,559 $1,481,772 9% 2017 Nassau Elem Wildli ht Elementary School $16,099,092 $4,423,526 27% 2017 lBroward Elem Riverglades Elementary $4,671,335 $671,049 14% 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $17,500,400 $1,241,320 7% 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School $19,084,925 $1,389,719 7% 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $5,312,830 $0 0% 2017 Holmes Middle I Bonifay PK -8 $32,270,798 $1,489 0% 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $62,462,106 $7,753,194 12% 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $33,542,921 $1,773,603 5% 2017 lPasco High Cypress Creek High $41,025,203 $8,217,342 20% 2017 Dade High Maritime & Science Technology Academy $13,994,875 $335,946 2% 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $4,553,211 $414,907 9% 2017 Pinellas I Hi h Palm Harbor University High $9,983,642 $2,306,147 23% 2017 St Johns High I Nease High $10,658,296 $0 0% 2018 Orange Elem 1westpointe Elementary $9,667,395 $1,422,408 15% Total/Weighted Average $1,718,309,9051 $159,324,641 9% Total/Weighted Average (Indian River County Schools ONLY) $17,243,1031 $1,196,000 71/o Total/Weighted Average (Excluding Indian River County Schools) $1,701,066,8021 $158,128,641 9% Source: Florida Department of Education and previous Tindale Oliver school impact fee studies, when available Tindale Oliver Indian River Co i� February 2020 G-9 Impact Fee Update SIud"y Attachment 1 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; • Vacant land sales of similarly sized and zoned properties; and • Vacant land values of similarly sized and zoned properties. School land value was estimated at $50,000 per acre in 2014. Vacant land value increase estimates obtained from the Indian River County Property Appraiser 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 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 purposes. Table G-6 summarizes this information. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co �t February 2020 G-10 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Table G-6 Land Value Estimate Variable Year Average Land Value per Acre Estimated Land Value(i) 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 - 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 2019 $55,000 1) Source: Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, September 26, 2014 2) Source: Indian River County 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 Indian River Co��t�{ February 2020 G-11 Impact Fee Update S udy Attachment 1 Appendix H Administrative Fee 318 Attachment 1 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 matters; and • Other central cost allocation (a portion of the time spent by the County Manager, various County Departments, etc.). 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 within the 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 cost is approximately 2.7 percent of the collections. As such, the 2.5 - percent fee that the County is collecting represents a reasonable approach. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co W February 2020 H-1 Impact Fee Update S u y Attachment 1 Table H-1 Administrative Expense .- Total Total Administrative Expenditures 1 $319,0751 $144,1481 $198,3911 $183,3441 $179,2461 $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 $238,7231 $397,546 $364,649 $469,438 $1,494,786 Education Facilities 1 $1,024,577 $1,188,2001 $1,579,0601 $1,327,558 $1,647,594 $6,766,989 Traffic 1 $3,022,243 $4,964,1551 $4,353,4371 $3,746,8451 $4,518,025 $20,604,705 Annual Impact Fee Collections (2)1 $5,332,720 $8,185,649 $8,207,8351 $7,235,218 $8,847,1015$37,808,527 %Administrative Expense (3)1 6.0%1 1.8% 2.4%1 2.5%1 2.0%1 2.7% Average Annual Administrative Expense (4) $204,841 Average Annual Impact Fee Collections (5) $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 understand how other jurisdictions address this issue. The following is a summary of the 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 impact 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 $5,000. • Sarasota County has a total of eight impact fees and one mobility fee. Of the listed impact fees, no fee is collected on fire and EMS impact fees; a 1 percent administrative fee is Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 H-2 Impact Fee Update S�ucfy Attachment 1 collected on educational facilities impact fees and 2.25 percent service charge is collected on the remaining fees. Given these findings and the State requirements, Indian River County's administrative fee of 2.5 percent is found to be a reasonable amount and is consistent with practices of other communities in Florida. The County should continue to monitor administrative expenses to ensure fee collected does not exceed actual costs. Tindale Oliver Indian River Co February 2020 H-3 Impact Fee Update S�udy Attachment 1 Appendix I Master Fee Schedules: Full Calculated Fee Rates 322 Attachment 1 0a U y 4% a E > -0= R C U m y (6 `a ii Q c ti m CL E r� RON 1111 11 111 NO 1111111 n0 1111111-11111111 milli 1111111 Milli IS 11111 loll 11:1111 0a U y 4% a E > -0= R C U m y (6 `a ii Q c ti m CL E Gl 1111111 Will -111 NO 111111111 Hill milli I IN 11111101. Mil .I IIII all 1111111 1111111111 Will Ifillill 11111111111111111111111111111 LliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilillillililI ORION II WIN 11111111111 I Will IN 111111111111111 IIIIIIIII II WIN 111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111 WHIM Ii I 1111111111111CW IIIIIIIII Will 11111111111111111 IN 11111111111111 TV IIIIIIIIIIIII Will 11111111111111111111 f iIN 1111111111111111IN 1111111111111111101111111111111 ON 11111111 lill �Imilli 131-1 1 111111:11 11111111111111111 oil 111111111 liiiiiiii 111:111 Appendix J Master Fee Schedules: Staff Recommended Fee Rates 327 Attachment 1 ;* 3 a a$ ao 2 z E � a$ sa = z, _ $; E i 11111 HIM Iffill 11111111111111111 Ill 111111 IN 1111111111111111 milli 111211 Ill Ill 111111111,115111111111 ill E "sl? 7 11 IRS 11111111111111 MINE III ill INS HIM IN IN IN MEN 111111111111 111111111 IIIIIII Ili ill 'I! E3 111111111111111 Ill Mill 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIII II Will 111111111 Ill IIIIII 111111111111 1111111 i� IIIIIIIII 1111111 WIN Ill HIM I IIIIII HOW �� 11 i; ;j. milli 1111111 11M1111 Ill 111111111 11:C111 E iuI IN III 11111 oil 111111 1111111IN IIIIIIIIt'Willi 1 1111111111 oil IN 11111 loll liiiiiiii 111011 E '. Y. Q' AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE X, IMPACT FEES, OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, TO AMEND THE TEXT OF TITLE X FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS USED IN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS AND CLEAN UP REVISIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY; AND TO AMEND APPENDIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES TO APPROVE NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES FOR UNINCORPORATED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE FOR NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, to address infrastructure costs associated with new growth, Indian River County has, since 1986, imposed traffic impact fees on new development. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees for eight additional services/facilities, also to address infrastructure costs associated with new growth; and WHEREAS, since their adoption, impact fees have generated considerable revenue, and impact fees are now among the largest sources of funding for infrastructure projects in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, according to the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance, the County must every five years, consistent with state statute, review and update the impact fee schedules. Because the last impact fee study was completed in 2014, the County determined that a new impact fee study was due; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a scope of services for an impact fee update study, including fee schedule updates, that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the scope of services was incorporated into a Request For Proposals and in March 26, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners selected Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. ("Consultant") and entered into a contract for services; and WHEREAS, as reflected in the Consultant's report, the Consultant has performed the tasks necessary to update the impact fee schedules, including utilization of the "Affordable Growth" methodology to calculate impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has determined that recommended residential and non- residential impact fees, using the Affordable Growth methodology, are proportionate in amount to the need that new growth creates for each category of public improvements for which impact fees are collected; and WHEREAS, based on anticipated growth projections, the County's 5 -year capital improvement plan needs, and the County's policy to stimulate economic development, County 333 Attachment 2 impact fees for correctional facilities, solid waste facilities, and library facilities are suspended, pending further trend evaluation during the next scheduled impact fee methodological update; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has determined that the Affordable Growth methodology, is technically sound and warranted, and, based on projected non -impact fee revenues, will result in maintaining level of service standards used in the Consultant's report; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the Consultant's update, the Affordable Growth methodology utilized to reduce impact fees and staff recommended impact fee rates are acceptable; and WHEREAS, the Consultant, in coordination with staff, developed the proposed impact fee schedules based upon the Consultant's report, impact fee update, and Affordable Growth methodology; and. WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee schedule, including a school impact fee component, based on the Affordable Growth/Staff Scenario methodology; and WHEREAS, in response to a request by the Board of County Commissioners, after advisement of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, new land use categories were created in the impact fee schedule to eliminate impact fees for single family homes of less than 1,000 square feet for households with incomes below 80% of area median income and to reduce impact fees for single family homes of between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet for households with incomes below 80% of area median income; and WHEREAS, the impact fee schedule was updated to replace old land use categories classified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers 9th Edition with new land use categories based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers 10th Edition; and WHEREAS, staff advertised for a public hearing to be held on March 10, 2020, and also provided 30 days' notice to each municipality and to the school board as required by each impact fee agreement between the County and each municipality, and the County and school board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: Section 1. Enactment Authority. Article VIII, section 1 of the Florida Constitution and chapter 125, Florida Statutes vest broad home rule powers in counties to enact ordinances, not inconsistent with general or special law, for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county. The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners specifically determines that the enactment of this ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Indian River County. 334 Attachment 2 Section 2. Amendment of Title X (IMPACT FEES). New language indicated by underline, and deleted language indicated by stT-ikeflffeugh. Title X (IMPACT FEES) of the Code of Indian River County, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 1002. - EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES Section 1002.02. - Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing emergency services system is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (3) For impact fee calculation purposes, the emergency services facilities level of service is tv,A_ h,,,,a,.oa and one dollars one hundred and seventy three dollars ($173.00) per functional resident for residential land uses for additional capital assets, excluding Indian River Shores and one hundred and ninety dollars ($190.00) per functional resident for non-residential land uses for additional caacity assets, excluding Indian River Shores. CHAPTER 1004. - PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT Section 1004.02. - Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing public buildings are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, the public building level of service standard for the county is fiatff i,. ndr-oa and o;gh five hundred twenty-two dollars ($4$8522.00) per functional resident for additional capital assets. 335 Attachment 2 (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. CHAPTER 1005. - LAW ENFORCEMENT Section 1005.02. - Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) Existing law enforcement is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, the law enforcement facilities level of service standard for the county is h -1—m- ,.^a and seventy 4 -:61 -if three hundred and four dollars ($274304.00) per functional resident for additional capital assets. (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. CHAPTER 1008. - PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Section 1008.02. - Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing parks and recreation facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, the park and recreation level of service standard for the county is eight hundred and mix seventy-nine dollars ($8-3-6879.00) per weighted resident for additional capital assets. (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. CHAPTER 1009. - PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES Section 1009.02. - Findings. 336 Attachment 2 In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing public education facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, the public education facilities level of service standard is one (1) permanent student station per student, which includes an average of 147.7 permanent net square footage per station and twefAy fou hunE .ed and fetH4ee twenty thousand seven hundred and nine dollars ($420,709.00) of capital investment per student. (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. Section 3. Appendix A. Impact Fee Schedules Appendix A, Impact Fee Schedules, of Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County for the unincorporated Indian River County and municipalities is hereby replaced with adopted ofA-isthe attached us -Appendix A. Section 4. Appendix B, Indian River County Impact Fee Benefit Districts. Appendix B, Indian River County Impact Fee Benefit Districts, of Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County for the unincorporated Indian River County and municipalities is hereby replaced with the Attached Appendix B that is retitled to "Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts" and is revised from three transportation impact fee benefit districts to two transportation impact fee benefit districts. Section 5. Codification. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provision of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Indian River County Code, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and the word ordinance may be changed to section, article or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intention. Section 6. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such holding and shall remain in full force and effect. Section 7. Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 337 Attachment 2 Section 8. Effective Date of Impact Fees The impact fee rates contained in Appendix A of this ordinance shall take effect on June 15, 2020. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 23`d day of February 2020, for a public hearing to be held on the 10" day of March, 2020, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote: Susan Adams, Chairman Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman Tim Zorc, Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner Bob Solari, Commissioner The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this l Od' day of March, 2020. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida Lo Susan Adams, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk and Comptroller Deputy Clerk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State and becomes effective on the following date: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney 338 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2020 APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Phillip J. Matson, AICP; Community Development Director FACommunity Development\Impact Fee\Impact Fee Studies\2019 Update\BCC Memos\Attachments for BCC Ordinance Memo\Attachment 2 - 2020 Impact Fee Ordinance - 3-10-2020 V4.doc 339 Attachment 2 Lel 4+ u m Ca G z c 3 U d C C O M o N O dac yy pp c0 c0 m mmm mo a� OI � m nmry n no.m+mm o m M N IR d m o0 1n e.� .-i o M ti N w w .+Mm s m O emi N d m m N .Q m v Q mm a s N N mmu.m.r -mon b 0 m ne m -m O T 7ZS7 m OO n N N 7 77 m vu'i w 77 �m-IF om goon �p O N O 7 7777 Q n 0 .-i Y� Q N , o7677�,� QoI Q rmi-a d m emrl N Q d N m m to mmm d d n m n T N m N O b •i 777�m�n� b m N N �mudi m Q m N N N n mm '^m'^ o o m 14 od ry mmm �mn mmndllr4 n�°p rvm mN m ryomn N - I o m AN I I imn N n om m au+m ma mm mmo o�rv\ m rm"n mmm mv°i mry ry rm m m.�m. m.. ."+ °m'N.n+ � mm dm mm � a m.n o w .m - m nNn n .e+ me mo^u .+H Niom �nm^ .ni ry m 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 oI o o N o o I I a s z z I I a z 0 I a a z z m H 0 0 I o a a z z o o I a z rni o a a z z o I a a z z e 0 o I a a z z m .or 0 0 oN a a z z m 0 0 Z N a z 0 a a z z 0 0 o 0 a z 0 a a z z N o a a z z m 0 o a a z z o 0 a z 0 o a a z z 0 0 0 0 a z 0 0 a a z z ry oo.w000.. a a z z m a a z z n m 0 0 a a z z ry Q .i 0 0 a z 0 ¢ a z z m e a a z z N o o a a a z z z 0 0 0 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 o a 2 2Moo 0 0 o a o o o 0 o 0 o o o 0 o o o o---" v E E 3 0 voi,�m o �o g o0 �6RL --teaiii d o'o =� a " v o c z v o s z v t t t v LL� i '�" f o c o c ._ a U u v u ?' c c _ 'E -6.- "E 'E 'E 'E .E .E i" F Y �' m r u F '^ oo o c E i u o 0 0 m ot1 v" �` o 0 o V C'i cu �? vCSFC A c d .. �' i$a .1 s c �6 �o e r '_ v � E v iii � m- �'`` 'mac° e A 2 c 'o a _ W o E� c v y ' SY o ~ i n R; N, r o.. ..o �oi>"o�iid°���zaaNm"mcSa'�33"?�i3"iuA od - ov 'Q o ry 0 \om umiav`Oi mam d rvNd mmmmmm ry Q -on mdm o 0 o.+d A O M IV M .°i� oommm m 9N N mm n mtO n mm N N uni N amLn $o ut.". 2 s 2 4 1 mn'VnoS x 1 e moi 1. All m m aLn 1111 aaamm'^y N.O1i�n unix oam m 11 v=n aN m�m mon ory Lo N m �rm eke m'Ln ry oana� m m .ai .m. n n "' Ool� NNN vmim 81.10=1=S8 .i No mrva m N N rvm r a m ..L N N o .iOii NA vZi mNNNNN N N � N lo 901-1=991 mmem"'.min mm.ymm NL9ei'm^ m 0 Lo n mmio .ni m H H a rvumi ui m '+mry 0 0 m v'.Lan � umi Lon L:am 0 0 0 0 0 a s z z m a z o mN m�.a a a z z 'a+o'omL m rvn a a z z tD a z rni aa z z a amm nm� a a z z 'V .a. z ry ary NNvmi a a z z L°n .o.m 6 o. a a z z . a z a a z z a z o.+�.mry umiom m m a a z z ri�ry n a a z z mm a a z z n a z or m a a z z a z mmn mmmoL"e ea6n m mmm a a z z -n...... H N a a z z m N a a z z vaimn nN ma a a z z rain n a z a a z z rvmLroi .Lmn a a z z u+mrvn m m L" a a a z z z n 0 N N 0 NNNNNNN�n o N 0 N N.n NNNNNN 0 0 0 0 0 .n .nNNN 0 0 0 o 0 0 o N Z oN .nNN 0 .n 0 0 NNN 0 0 0 0 0 N0N .n .n .n .n o N NNNNNNN.n o 0 .i+ 0 ti.nN 0 o 0 0 N o 0 0 0 0 NNN E E a v Y o 5 u ti N o o Y� a o N 0 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v 0 . 0 0 EL °o °o .- o r �'oo moo oo .o oo0 00 0 0 0 0 .1loo 0 oo m c E o c E 0 r v a x 880 m r o�aoXtoti W -i.'n7 a� °_ _ `o R L 14 w R v o c v m 12 + o N> 3 x 'o ry 2 Julo _ 9a c iii I z 15 t z 3-- m o co Egag9a u K K 3 oo. v c w > 0 0 - E u o o c a' v 3a x E o E E E` o ^ sz mLLo= — E � EN Nc°c N3o`_ f� - y s.�uo z' d � co` ud°` ry ado a o a ry rvo,'$ 0 maumi o ryo n nn o\o moan 'ma as ao m n+'.o am" oN.+a m �� IV M El \No N IT M O� n NW n mmuv'i ry n W v�iem vm W 1O uT "a�'.ai N N. O, .-ian4 N�77 'r C F7 a O O� b 4.n '^.n+ n Q i-ivT YI W H N W vii � ry Q� 1�NlI n N O �aoNa.�i� T �aaD N I I q� O I I. O� N N O F ---------- o mm .nrm euM�in of W vein varrvi n a 0 uWmie m 0 o � . a s z z ...... m a z nm��con 77 77 o m'a°m a a z z a a z z a z a a z z ..... a a z z rv�o 'W^ mmn a a z z om a a z z . ry a z ... a a z z a z ...... .. vmi omm a a z z ry a a z z n a a z z .. a z a a z z a z a a z z m m o ti e a a z z .rem you+ a a z z a a z z a z .rNnom n arc a a z z m a a z z a a a z z z O N OlolalollO O N O O N h O h N O O �n V� �n to �n o to O N V� N 0 N 0 0 to 0 N N N N O N N N N O N 2 N H N ti ti O O N h O O O O N Vf O N �n �n N N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E_ v C o c N N N rn 4 o o--" 4 4 m E 0 E 0 x n m x T o o $ 0 0 yo wt N xxY JoJ dopa o o" ° - iii o�o�ggai ° lu uo 36 3333 ° °i O m> p V g E _ W g o E o E E E E E v 2 Y ¢ > u G A c o 0 0 E t v i� A m$= o_c o` `o h W 0 O O« c W 3 « E O C c p U n — �f��zw�s��o'�-�f�z>o�ii8c°��m�z"NLLN O b m c ry o m as g o 33 ae ry 0 v umie utOi o 0 bice o ry n ry nnn m o o W aDoo W NmPaa�ov 1211.111.111 N IT M H C O V O U d 3 C O C O V f0 Q. E 41 dA C m t U O m cc ww W U - u m Q. N00 00 ", M lD d Ln r -I 00 � M I - m m a) M _ oo O oo tD N n 00 0) Q in• i!? V). V*) 0) M M M 00 0) -4' r - O o0 I� O 1- n o0 00 00 (D r -I N Cri ri N N V). L} i/? in M Q H O W -cf N y lD Ln 0) 0) O Lf^ Ln O 0) I, n r1' lj I, N t m i0 Ln M lD (31 LL ri r -I `--I rl r- .2 O Y L0 7 LU W " m ri N 0) LD 00 I- M LD N ar n W al Ln N O 0) N CL M M d d m y� N -tt O r 41 m Ln M a -i +, ct lD ri M Lp N r -I lD W LL N N N N 4.1O N n n Ln w u m v M Ln Ln Ln Ln N P, n rl N ca rq ri O N M N Y ri ri r -I ri @ -L4 -Ln L} V? a 00 f- N Ln r 0) Ln M I, w lD 01 r1 o0 0 n � W � m M q -:TOu t/T Ln V) L? C W r -I r -I Ln m I� N ri lD M lD N I� Ln 00 00 r -I N LU m m -* � V'� V). V). in• lD 0) 00 H y 00 N -zl- N O0 00 Ln N lzt Ln 0) N I-, m m q v in i/? m u c u d p lD I- 00 rn U ri a -i ri ri } Ln LO r- 00 LL ri ri ri ri r -I 't N G Ln iA ri I� 0 O � 00 Ln rn LO Ln iA 0 Ct � k N in 00 N i? 0 N 00 m MM N O0r-j N i/) i/? i N n O r��-I lD N iR 4j) - C4 i? m .-L 00 ri a, 0 0 ♦+ 0 f6 OLd L o a O O u O N N U J J�L LL U L - C6 0 i AJJ • N 3934 N 0 `CL i CL o 0 �_ V .d+ ago V V X m (1) m F-- z N 3934 M v U f� U- C: V) V)n u U 5 N N > N U E v E V L- 0 W m O °J v V1 i c� o oQ to u o U =3 Cl. W J a- W N LL ,o 0 LL U m CL E M 3//3-� c � 4-j Q) U E Q Q � O U >' �U _ �+- I--) c� U U _0 C- W U Ll-- U — O ro 4-) N Q O 4-' C6 U V) U a--) E 4 --JN E cn Q) C -E O O U - M 3//3-� Q.J N LL un O J Q) U •� Ul O O i o Q aJ to O N O Ul Q) c- O - U N aA _0 L -0 U 4-' � N •� N +� ca C- 4 -J Ln .� U O ca U O C2 .aA E Ln 3939 LL aA _O O 13 O s a� C- -N � � o U ChA C6 � +-J U Q - N � � X 'L O O O L Q O � _O L O fo OE V) U � O Q) O o +-J O O 4-j 4 N?� U � Ca C U O U-) Q) E t�A N E C6 Q) O U U U- j�3 E �V m 10 1 �0 \V ON F -J .N O (n }, O Q) D n (n II E W Q � L x E E O Q V u O i'a ) E E (>I) V o v Q) 4� Z 4-J 0 V 4- o u +-J CL V)ca O v U 3/� 9 .. 4- Q) C6 cn o � U � UO ° o m m �° z .. O U 4-j `n� O OQ)U •� LL U U C- Q � � O E U .-J U O0 z O U u Z +� � _ 0 393 U C- •� 0 O Q Ln E O O0 O U U +� � _ v� L U U 0 393 V) nQ) '' 11) LL. N CLO C CL U d QJ CO LL c� 0 4- M U LL A I /, N v U fB LL 0 a + a--+ Q) U E Q1 � U Q N LJ ruL d J A A 0 Q) ^) Q) LL • Ln I TO i Q C6 �L O O N .-+-J E O U O O O O 1 O 4 -J T` • � V) V /� Ln EW O +� E \, un W � O . 0 T 0 �, ^ V I Q) > ll,0 W • Ln 0 O 0 O Z un �3l3 i3 LL 4� a-+ un 0 CL L. 0 V i N ei re� M V-1 V,� ai 42 :E -o T C O U N u 0 0 0 Agy i5 un LL CLO 4-0Q L V O O LL 'a E E O a cn N O r_ O E V N, J,q% /Co • r W 0 CL L CL CL o � b.0 V .a+ V1 V V X m (1) m F- z 34� -i,� m V V %I 0 V) -1-j N Q) L- Q W 4- ^L W 4-J O 0s- LO 0 4-j L E O O -1--; � r1 V)ro 4- tZA Q) U) 'Ul) L 4-j- a) Ln 4-' t�0 O Q ca U 0 V) -1-j N u fu Q -W o E Lon CD 4-1 U 0) w + Z 34)� /� V) C6 m O +_J Q E Ln c O U O O Ln u U Q. U 4- O Ln cu .E _N U t cu +� O .� W 00 V tt X O O 00 ./00 r/ L' 1� V f6 E • ��le • • O O 00 ./00 r/ L' 1� V f6 E N N O OLO Q) U U N .c Q) O U O ca V) m CDA ca rn N � N N O M M W e -i M Q 22 22 —I a� Q; cn W Q U O - o O O I� Q) Q) bz T� 0 D N N O OLO Q) U U N .c Q) O U O ca V) m CDA ca rn cc X W R a m V 0 N jo-,2:,-2 4-1 Z L: V tn 0 a -j Q) E 0 E V co U O Ln QU a E +j (A LU L 4 LL v Q Lr) Q /�� V1 < O co 1L//�� Q0 0 ��W L/1� 0 m0 - +� N O +� r U > � d O O 4- (U Q E 0 EO O i Ln 4- Q c O 4- - Q t Ln O U m Co CD m .i _O N 4--j E E O U L a--+ O E O L 4— N C— a) E O ^L E m O m N m U • 0 CD 0 Ln O u) In rIj C\l N 0 CN ro 0 O rn C:) 0 00 ci CD C) 0 CN ro 0 O C:) C) C, C) 0 O to O CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 O cl cD (D Q O (l) H 'o c) L �o c) 23) t Ln r cj) CY) C7) Cl) O o Q O Lr) 4—J V) U m O oC a t v O w-. ate. V v v ate+ C O U O 01 H .O CL E cn N 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O 1p V1 V! VT m N 3�3-ate O c/f UV) O � � v i }' i N N m E N a4—j civ n Ow m U (� � — ro L.. O T cz ,� U O J O u m 0 o tn p O o : (� O N p N I to m E 1 1 E; I p v @;1 I u a7 I sg 100 i a;I CL a m m ^ 1 O KA O N It �1 1 N It 7t I G1 � LL I_m I I I aj @ c .1 ov a I a C)ix00g N`t' I I;1 1 1 II ;I V 1 ; I Ii I it E QjE iI > �0 1 0 CL it T° 1 1 Ems' it Ii SEI Iovllo�I CL if i .--4 N O vT O vT i I; N t7 i 1� d O O O O O O } O O O O O O M O O O O O O N O O O O O O N m N 3�3-ate N a � Q Q O .N n , O(A 4—) U f r 1 Q J m V) v ) N a � Q Q c .N _0 u Q) U Q L.. N 4- a--+ N a -J Q) u (DD Qj W E 0 0 CU Q 0 E + 0 o0 O 0 �n rn d rn a 41" 1 � � � 1r 1 � � 1 � 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 � 1 i 1 1 r{ C 1 o r r 1 � 1 1 E; �0CL I 1 1 1 � it 1 00I 1 1 o r�4: 1 i 1 � 1 1 C,E ( 1 1 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O C o O O O C o O pO O O O N m Ln N O V Fle.. no X O Z J U a W CL �D N oyl� Z V J//Oa� O .4-J U L U N N O U X m 4-J 0 N m N Q) L- U X M L N O 4 CSAQ) DO `- 14- z V) Q)- o V 4- Ln V) f�- J//Oa� DC. of 4-J W n0 W nx W 0 rn N W r� nv ,, W x U O x • - cn � O � .. m m > a� !.- °' m U +-+ O > > 4-j LL O 0 0 rn N O O ci m Ql 00 lD In V' ri o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 00 CD 0 N t\ O O N Ln O N CD O N m 0 0 N N CD O N i -1 O N O CD O N O O O N W O O N O O N 0 O O N L!1 O O N O O N m O O N O O N O O N O O O N a) Q1 e -i 00 Ql 0) '-I f\ tT Ql c -I lD Q1 ca) -I N N Q1 N r -I U iT V) �-I N N 3 s S Q 2 LL U O N i E E Ln i� L: V V m J45 -M m w ^U W LL. r. 0 4-+ fu s.. ^0^ r m L N M M3 -,7q W LL U Q. E 0 ez fu L- 0 .0. v , � V v v M M X3-,55 L/) 4-j U .7 r) +-+ m N L;7 - LL a--+ V Q OE @� c 4--J O �--� 4-j O0 - V) hA L U41) LU 'T m 04,� 4-J U .7 cn w + -j U C6 Q OC - O 4-J 'a-=' L 5... N Oc- n O Lr) m �y��7 LL L f� 40 0 V 0 CL I un M M N In m m m Lrn oo Ln m 4,� V)- V)- r-� Ln J°`b J6 00 to uy Ln 00000 �06,m®M F F. v J°`b J6 00000 F F. v L "D � C O 02 bA U N o 4�- O r6 m � J°`b J6 N Q) Q) L.L.. V) 0 V LM 0 CL L 0 V i OF r- en O rN rH w w O l0 t11 N Ln 00 N (n N to (n N O O O O O O O O O O • ®rq CC M i V'f O CL L a zs m — CL o ago V V X z ®rq CC M i X z O 4-J m E Q E 7J rn m J�3-41 0 IV c PI dq�-y� -1-j =a Q a J�-� -//3 U mJ N N m U CL ^W W V E M I m JAZ AP Ln IZr v M 04 ve a� Li V m m E A� LW T m V V r - le 3�13-y9 Lo .Lns E L � ice- 'r U i � L � ,L 0 0 0 a3 _ 0 4,ro v LA o 3�13-y9 ali z t/,,t/,,� Ln k -V-1 n O O " O O O O O O O O O O O O o O CY - _ Q L v > F- N \ > 3 c OD w ni.. m T �.J L.L 3 m J e O ul LL V m 0. E 1-4 Ln J43:5-3 N Ln \ C r -i r, 110 M CY CF) DO IH 1�1-0Lnm n N lfl N M lD lD Ct t4 v! t/? t/1 t/? N C O N 000000 0000 • l� i it .-i i e - tR to � O N ri N kD Ein0 , rN-1 N 0 In * cP 0 u a)- o s o CD L aj v Y T 0 S 7 M 41 \ O O U — Q1 O — LL bD C: .u, a1 a -0Ir .... �G 11 o u m u M LM U Cu U. 0 C6 L U N DC a L N lzt Ln jy-3 -56 LL. C� O 4-J c� No LL 4-A u 06 E co CID M AA 4-1 w 4 E 0 U C O Ln LM :)W -5b L a 0 c� E 0 V G1 U Q. i� L LM 0 Q) V m LL J�,� -611/ V) (1) U Cu LL .� U V) N N LL C6 Q E 0 V) Q) U m U jk3- 62 V ro 0 E 0 U N i -J W a) U - U Ca Q. E 0 0 u Ln lD Vl Ln ZT oo m lD I m It 'T m N Ln fl, m oo N rt rnm N °01 a � N M'' Dl W I� O O O m lD f" n WM M Ql a> O O V} V} v} V} VT V? L} L} 1� r" N V DO oo CF V I" N O 0 co ID m oo N co m N m Izi- O N 0, N Ql O F- N oO O m O N h O d' m N oo I- O n m Ln m o Q1 .0 ri W tD 0 Ql !� 0 O O h 0 M lD V N h Z i-, O0 Ln u'1 CD O- i-, u C 5 u N tw O m �o Ln lD i, n m Ln u1 V1 Ln r- 'O IH O e-1 rl e-1 r-1 O 1-1 ri' 11 m O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N' C c C u a N O E N u v a _ � C C C C 7 N V c z3 c y : t O O O O T T 7 Y C 0 O U V@ V O U C V C O U aj v O v C U 0aj 0 p -p 00 m O u O @ U U ro U N O C @ u 3 > Y > o Y = v _ N N a n O n_ m U - m a V O A 00 rn I lzl V lV to l C l v Ln Ln vi ui �D �D N ci Ln to N In 1-1 lD U? Nlo 0 N 0 0 O I 0 Ln CD O o � CD o 0 N OC"i C14 O O O O O N � C � v u u u T T C C O O - c: C0 C O O O T C > U >_ O U p > C p V O C C + Z v jqz - 4w/ 4-� w 0 N n 343 -46" O3 3 -4167 V v� y 0 Poo' S•Zr 4� V •POND \ a � O y � � o .PME( 0 POO Eo Eo O3 3 -4167 00 Q 0 N O N O F-1 11 r -i N f� lD � O � N Lri 00 a) M V-1 O y- 0 N 0 tV bb o O N � o o � LL. y o -I a a J ri O LL O m00 ++ V +, mrn O M Ln 4-1 —M E- u U O L o a 4 cr N CD C7Ln N 'LM � cam/'► o -a o V A IA �; o U N a W Q0 O M00 a E' E o V ���a y� o0 00 Ln � N a o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lt? U) M N r{ aSelooj aienbsSuippg MaN NNh O O C 04 V 0 0 00 0 ct o 0 � v 4.4 V " U C> > 0 0 O O w f t:k u •� 0 � •� o r o x z jq�?-4 P: I G O O � O • ^'� � O 4-4 � � O c WON O O � � y v c � y to -Do a� � ago o O � 4 COO F-Oml P-0 0 3 w z 0 0 u no J. O O w 0 0 RE rA cl� 0 W r:. _ IM 7t Jyb - 7! ct � � N w � C� N ct ct 4-4 cn r—� N RE rA cl� 0 W r:. _ IM 7t Jyb - 7! I ov-6'7,;z_ �v ,JZ/ -A- 13 7,;/ STATE OF WISCONSIN COUN1St0F BROWN Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, said legal clerk, who on oath says that he/she 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. 3/2 Subscribed and sworn to before on February 23, 2020 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that `Board of County Commis- . - i1briers of Indian River County, Florida shall hold a public hearingg to consider amending Title X, Impact fees, of the Code of Indian River County, at its regular meeting on Tuesday,. March 10, 2024 at 9:00 _�.,• its soon there- after ;ice ;![wf matter may be heard, in the County Commis- sion Chambers of the County Administration Building A, lo- p a cared at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The title d ordinance Of the propose 'nance is as follows, . . . . . . AN ORDINANCE BOARD OF COUNTY SIGNERS OF INDIANFER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MG TITLE X. IMPACT N . . . .: . . . fiHE CODE OF INDIAN _. TO AMEND THE EXT Olf TITLE X FOR LEVEL . . . .. OF SERVICE STANDARDS USED .... IN IMPACT FEE CALCULA- IO NS AS MAY BE NECESSA- Y, AND TO AMEND APPEN- DIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHED- tILES TO APPROVE NEW iM ACT FEE SCHEDULES FOR a UNINCORPORATED INDIAN .. DIVER COUNTY AND MUNICt- ' : 'i'ALITIES: PROVIDING FOR EF• IECTIVE DATE FOR NEW IM- T FEE ... ... .. ... .... trt AND : VIDING FOR CODIFI N; SEVERABILITY; . .. C71VE DATE. . I ordinance, if adopte4. ttilfll establish new Impact Feh Schedules for the unlncor dated county and munitipa� .: hies• Also, the ordinance wig.": revise the text of the Title; by updating LOS Standar„ for impact fees purposes aim Ieean� :""proposed proposed effective date hE .: d�utine 15, 2020. At the publl swearing the Board may Change the proposed effective date. A copy of the proposed ordF ' Itance is available to be in,:-.: . tpected the, public at the -- Planning Planning 15iv'rsigflfite beat- !d at the Court Administra•' tion Building.' 11601 27th street, Vero Beach, Florida. starting on March 6, 2020' ' ltaff report and the draft or.:'.: ..+dinance may be found on the ..... . . . itounty's website at wrvtiv.irc. pv.com. Anyone who may Wish to appeal any decision - .. ... •rlhich may be made at thio. ;lnaeting will need to ensurfc.. .. khat a verbatim record of the ... .::#rcoceedings is made, which' i Ides testimony and evi! :dente upon which the appeal t�1 based Interested parties.,. inay appear at the meeting d h ng be eard with respectt the proposed ordinance. Please direct impact feP- dated questions to the Long- " fana Planning section at 9 . . . . . x'72-226-1250. (Anyone who needs a special .. .:`I•cconunodation for this meet- ... :4hg must contact the Counoj•s #tnericans with Disabilities flet Coordin&Uw at (772) 226- j�j3, at leAWAS hours in arf- Girw, Of 24%lr4kv. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION Indian River County Code Section 102.04(10)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission NAME OF INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION: Hal McAdams ADDRESS: 540 6111 Ave., Vero Beach PHONE: 772-584-0825 SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: Improvement and widening of 41 St between 58' and 661 Ave. IS A DIGITAL/ELECTRONIC PRESENTATION PLANNED? F;;l YES F-1 NO IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION F-1 YES 7XXNO WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU To provide a design and engineering for the improvement of 41 REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION? Street between 581 and 661 Ave. ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? F --7x YES ❑ NO WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE To provide an engineering study to determine if the improvement of REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST? 4" Street is possible. Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form xx E -Mail Hand Delivered Phone COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: Jason E. Brown MEETING DATE: 3-10-2020 requested FACounty AdminExecAssAAGENDATubhc Discussion Items Fovn.doc 344 F t i t p E Y 2 di �ar: a �u �'� t�,� a �` �x �� F'd` +� _. a. .. � M.i � � � , om.«fig .. � .... - � t_:z. .. � � �a� pk„ 1 ���� �. _ <, jay-(, �y-17 i � \ vat s ,I 3. 3 lik, 3 �_ �y-17 0* -e `1�7' ,3'1y -i0 so OIIIJ-/5 r�� ia6l INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator FROM: Tad Stone, Director Department of Emergency Services DATE: March 5, 2020 SUBJECT: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between Humane Society Vero Beach & Indian River County Florida Inc., and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 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 April 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners entered into a contract with the Humane Society Vero Beach & Indian River County Florida Inc., to provide animal shelter services. The current contract is due to expire on April 30, 2020. The Society does not desire to extend the contract, however they have agreed to enter into a temporary six-month Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to continue to provide animal shelter services for Indian River County. The draft MOU is included for Board consideration and to begin discussions with the Humane Society of Vero Beach for the housing of animals for a limited period of time. Staff is also requesting guidance from the board as to the direction for establishing an inhouse sheltering program for those animals that would be picked up by the County Animal Control Officers. This would only be for those animals brought to the shelter by Animal Control and not for owner surrender initially. FUNDING: In the event the Board approves the six-month term, Indian River County shall pay a flat monthly fee of $36,000 for the services described in the MOU, equaling a total of $216,000. The average monthly cost paid to the Humane Society to date in the current fiscal year is $26,363. Although the six-month term is slightly more than the currently budgeted monthly cost of $30,879, the existing budget may be able to absorb the increase cost due to the current monthly expenses running under budget. If the Board considers the establishment of an Animal Services facility for those animals secured by Animal Control Officers, the estimated cost of such services as well as the capital infrastructure are included in the backup. A budget amendment will be necessary to fund these expenses if 345 approved by the Board. Funding in the amount of $1,108,333 will be provided from General Fund/Cash Forward Oct 1" for the remainder of the current fiscal year, beginning Mayl". After the initial capital investments are made, staff estimates the annual cost of operating an Animal Services facility to be $586,460. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting guidance from the Board to either enter into discussions with the Humane Society of Vero Beach to house animals for a period of up to six months and to return a MOU for Board consideration at a future meeting, or to make the necessary preparations for the purchase of the necessary buildings, staffing and equipment necessary for establishing a County run and maintained Animal Services facility. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Memorandum of Understanding between Humane Society Vero Beach & Indian River County Florida Inc., and Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 2. Estimated Expenses Spreadsheet 346 Memorandum of Understanding for Animal Shelter Services This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") for providing Animal Shelter Services entered into xxxxxxxxx, 2020, is by and between the Humane Society Vero Beach & Indian River County, Florida, Inc. a Florida not for profit corporation, whose address is 6230 77th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32967 ("Society") and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida whose address is 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ("County"). BACKGROUND RECITALS WHEREAS, the Contract for providing Animal Shelter Services for Indian River County, Florida, entered April 18, 2017, by and between the County and the Society ends on April 30, 2020, with no further obligations of the Society; and WHEREAS, the County has requested the Society extend the Contract to continue to provide Animal Shelter Services for a period of six months, commencing on May, 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Society does not desire to enter a Contract extension for providing Animal Shelter Services; and WHEREAS, the Society agrees to enter a temporary six-month MOU with the County commencing on May 1, 2020, for providing Animal Shelter Services further described herein; and WHEREAS, the Society hereby certifies that it has been granted and continues to possess valid, current licenses to do business in the State of Florida and Indian River County, Florida issued by the respective State Board and Government Agencies responsible for regulating and licensing the services to be provided and performed by the Society pursuant to the MOU; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration, the County and the Society mutually agree as follows: The above Background Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this MOU. AGREEMENT 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES: The Society hereby agrees to provide and perform the services required and necessary to complete the Scope of Services and work described herein. The professional services performed by the Society pursuant to the terms of this agreement shall consist of but not be limited to the following: 1.1 Animal Sheltering. The Society does hereby agree that it will provide the County with animal shelter services. The Society agrees to provide the County with services consistent with nationally recognized current and evidence based best practices in animal welfare and consistent with public shelter functions. The Society's animal shelter services include but are not limited to: 347 a. The housing and care of stray domestic animals for the legal hold period according to the laws of the State of Florida, Indian River County and/or local City Ordinance as applicable. b. The housing and care for domestic animals, when deemed unsuitable for home confinement, under rabies quarantine for the mandated observation period according to the laws of the state of Florida. c. Housing and care for law enforcement and animal cruelty/neglect holds for up to ten (10) calendar days, after which, the animal becomes the property of the Society for permanent disposition unless a court order or administrative hearing finding requires the additional holding of the animal. d. Provide lost and found opportunities to the general public for domestic animals brought to the Society. e. Provide for the humane euthanasia of domestic animals, if warranted, once any and all applicable hold periods are complete, having undertaken the duties of those of an animal shelter. The County acknowledges that once the legal hold period for any domestic animal is over, the disposition of that domestic animal shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Society. 1.2 Animal Sheltering Criteria. The Society's animal shelter criteria include but is not limited to: a. Maintain a suitable and sanitary animal shelter and provide for adequate housing areas consistent with the needs of the type of animal species typically impounded by a public animal shelter. b. Feed, care for, and dispose of animals coming into the possession of the Society using safe and humane methods consistent with current and best practices in animal welfare. c. Stray animals impounded, confiscated or recovered by County staff (i.e. Animal Control and/or law enforcement personnel) that require emergency veterinary services for injuries or illnesses shall immediately be taken directly to an outside third -party veterinary service provider. Animals will not be transported to the Society until verified as stable and shall be accompanied by any and all medical records, medications, recommendations made by the third -party veterinary services provider. d. Provide for the housing of animals obtained from and involved in law enforcement activities and animal cruelty situations for a period of ten (10) calendar days. Any housing hereunder for longer periods will be charged to the County at a rate of $25.00 per day, which is in addition to the cost outlined in 1.3(a). Should the County have need for services beyond basic care and boarding as part of a law enforcement investigation (i.e., necropsy, bullet removal, emergency medical care etc.) the County shall seek outside services from a third -party veterinary service provider. e. Animals impounded, confiscated or recovered by County staff (i.e. Animal Control and/or law enforcement personnel) having known owners and/or caretakers shall be identified as such and all relevant contact information shall be provided to the Society at time of delivery to the Society or as soon as the information is known to the County. 348 f. Provide for the shelter facility to be open for public service and operation during reasonable days and hours of operation and shall make all reasonable attempts to reunite animals known to be owned prior to adoption, euthanasia or other alternative release or exit from the facility. 1.3 Compensation and Reports. The County agrees to pay the Society as follows for and in consideration of the services described in this MOU. a. The County shall pay the Society a flat monthly fee of $36,000 for the services described herein. The Society evaluated, using 2019 animal intake data, the typical intake of animals from the County as stray, quarantine, and confiscate to determine the average cost of care by type of animal and average length of stay and calculated a monthly flat rate of $60,000 (rounded up from $58,500). When matriculated over a twelve (12) month period, the actual cost for animal sheltering services, specific to those services the County is required to provide pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, total approximately $727,000. The Society recognizes the actual cost for services is not customary to what the County has been paying for and as outlined herein. Therefore, the Society is providing the County with a 40% discount for services provided. b. The Society agrees to provide the County with a monthly report of animals and/or other services provided utilizing a form and format that is consistent with established business practices utilized by the Society. c. Payments will be made monthly to the Society and within 10 business days after receipt of monthly invoice and Animal Control report. d. Further, the Society shall be entitled to retain as additional compensation for this MOU all fees, service charges, and proceeds collected by the Society in connection with impounds, redemptions, and any other revenue generated as a result of this MOU, with the exception of Pet License fees and Citations. e. The County shall manage and maintain the pet license program separately and outside of this MOU. Fees for pet licensing and/or citations issued shall be paid and processed directly through the Animal Control Department of Indian River County. 1.4 Disaster Relief Services. The Society shall be designated the "Essential Support Function" with respect to any disaster to which the County is included within the disaster area designated by a governmental agency. Designated Society personnel shall be included in discussions, EOC responses, whereby decisions will be made that directly impact Society shelter operations and resources. a. The Society may invoice the County for any costs or expenses, including staff overtime and equipment purchases and rentals, incurred by the Society, with respect to additional services provided by the Society in connection with any such disaster relief effort and which are eligible for reimbursement pursuant to FEMA Disaster Assistance Policies. This reimbursement request is outside of the cost of services outlined in 1.3(a). The County shall promptly reimburse the Society for said costs and expenses, provided the County has received reimbursement from FEMA. The Society shall provide the County with any available supporting documentation requested by the County for any funding or reimbursement request regarding the disaster. 349 1.5 Mutual Obligations. The Society and the County agree that the County will not incur any further expenses other than noted herein and in accordance with this MOU after an animal is turned over to the Society. The County recognizes the scope of housing services provided by the Society is limited to daily operation and normal occurrence relating to the lost, stray and/or unwanted pet population in the County. a. During the term of this MOU, the County and the Society hereby each make a commitment to implement, explore and/or pilot, when practicable, programs and changes to regulations, resolutions, codes or ordinances, with the goal of reducing the number of domestic animals overproduced in Indian River County. b. During the term of this MOU, the County and the Society further hereby each make a commitment to implement, explore and/or pilot programs and changes to regulations, resolutions, codes or ordinances, with the goal of increasing return to owner rates for lost pets in Indian River County. c. The County and the Society mutually agree that in extraordinary circumstances beyond the Scope of Services in this MOU, direction from the Board of County Commissioners or their designee and members of the Society's Board of Directors or their designee will be obtained as to resolution of the unusual event or occurrence. d. The County agrees to notify the Society in advance, when practicable, in situations whereby a large number of animals (defined herein as five (5) or more) may be impounded, confiscated, recovered or otherwise transported to the Society. Upon receipt of such advance notice, the Society agrees to assess its current capacity for care and will communicate said capacity to the County. In circumstances that are not deemed to be emergent, do not pose an imminent risk to the health and safety of animals and or people and whereby the impounding of a large number of animals will exceed the Society's capacity for care, the County agrees to formulate a plan with the Society to accommodate, over a period of time, the intake of the large number of animals or seek and implement solutions to mitigate/reduce the existence of the large number of animals over said period of time. The County and the Society further agree to seek alternative solutions for keeping people and pets together when deemed practicable and legally appropriate. e. The County and the Society mutually agree to designate a minimum of one senior level staff member who will serve as their respective organization's liaison and will endeavor to meet and confer on a monthly basis during the term of this MOU. This section intentionally left blank 350 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Humane Society of Vero Beach & Indian River County, Inc. Signature of Authorized Officer Authorized Officer (Print Name) Date: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Susan Adams, Chairman Date: 351 Indian River County Animal Services Estimated Expenses for May 1, 2020 -September 30,2020 & FY 2020/21 Monthly FY 2019/20 Expense FY 2020/21 Expense (May 1 -September 30) (All of FY 2020/2021) Salaries & Benefits $ 39,631.68 $ 198,158.39 $ 475,580.14 Food $ 3,333.33 $ 16,666.67 $ 40,000.00 Medications $ 1,250.00 $ 6,250.00 $ 15,000.00 Cleaning Supplies $ 833.33 $ 4,166.67 $ 10,000.00 Shelter Supplies $ 1,250.00 $ 6,250.00 $ 15,000.00 Dumpster Service $ 166.67 $ 833.33 $ 2,000.00 Electric $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Water $ 300.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,600.00 Telephone Service $ 90.00 $ 450.00 $ 1,080.00 Office Supplies $ 250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 3,000.00 Alarm System Monitoring $ 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,200.00 Propane Tank Rental $ 250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 3,000.00 Chameleon Software (2 Users) $ 416.67 $ 2,083.33 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL RECURRING EXPENSES $ 48,871.68 $ 244,358.39 $ 586,460.14 Portable Cages $ 60,000.00 Transferrable Vet Suite $ 30,000.00 Property/Building $ 675,000.00 Freezers & Disposal $ 25,000.00 Fencing $ 15,000.00 Internal Electrical $ 8,000.00 Desktop Computer $ 1,075.00 (4) Laptop Computers $ 4,800.00 Alarm System Installation $ 1,500.00 Fans for Shelter BAF $ 10,000.00 Floor & Wall Fans $ 5,000.00 Water Upgrades $ 5,000.00 Dog Wash Basin $ 2,500.00 Shelter Heater $ 5,000.00 (2) Dishwashers $ 2,000.00 Printer $ 1,200.00 Kuranda Dog Beds $ 5,900.00 Industrial Washer & Dryer $ 3,500.00 Commercial Grade Stainless Sink $ 3,500.00 TOTAL SINGLE EXPENDITURES $ - $ 863,975.00 $ - TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $ 48,871.68 $ 1,108,333.39 $ 586,460.14 Location: 210 Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, FL 32962 Animals/Month: 200 Maximum Dog Stay: 5 Days Maximum Cat Stay: 3 Days Maximum Capacity at One Time: 50 Dogs & Cats 352 F:\Budget\Elise\Animal Services\Estimated Expenses y c d X LU N O N O N — m a N E c 0/ d C X W N .1 N — ? 0 z o w w 10 ID ID b b ID " m m M to to tD Iq tD Iq Iq t0 b a h. o m m m m m m m m m D k66 N rl N 111 to to to to Ln N to to O .i .i b t0 tD tD b lD Nm m vi to LD 00 a0 P, In an v a v v v v my m M V) N VT N in in VT V., 14 Vn V1 tD O O 01 m m m m m O 01 2 m N N ei 'i ei rl e-1 rl h 00 W w oo W Ln Iwn lwn tOn Iwn twn ^ w 0~0 N M M M M M M M M •-1 m 01 N M m n n ri ri ri ri N l(1 111 M N N H H e -I H N rl Op rl H VT N V} N Vn V? V? an V? V1. V1 V1. m y v v vv v v o w 00 ti tD tD tD � w tD � � � m m m N b ID 1l N N rl rl rl to o tp N n n n n n n n n m m 0� N w ID V V le R N " L V v evi m evi m cvi M b evi ev1 m Vf V? VT Vf N N V 1 VY Vn to Vf V1 v w M vi a V? m M 10R N 00 m V? 00 N WP M w Di m to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vv v vvvvvvto O 0 V1 N 0 0 0 m N M 00 00 o m m m m m m m m m h 00 In co v>• tn. va to of Vt A4 in v>, to v* vl. w o ^ N ECm u ttp tkD cM col Oml Om1 Om1 Om1 o 00 00 cn Cif M M M M •'1 01 Oj rl v o IDD V V m m cm C" M M R a �f 000 M m 3 vt yr v} .n v vl v> v* vl vt to to M0 0.:a) 01 m m m rn n n M ID b b tD 0 I b tD b tD N n n m m m m mo) ' O n n O1 O1 O1 01 01 a 'A m .i r O O O O c O co 00 ID 0 v v v v v v' O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo o o o o o 0 0 0' 0 O o o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 nn m m m M M M m n 0 n N N N N N N. N N O O _ H ry N = Vf VT V1 U} V1 VT t/T V} to VY an 'tn. t/F O) N 0) N V V m m m m m m R N N tD m , N tD l0 N N N N N N b w OQ V y w cV N .--i .--1 .-t rl .t rl Ori N M iO a V In In In In NIn O tD b w t0 b n n r%. n n n b n^ tD M '++ M N N rl N N N N 01 N N N ri N in ut u? Vf V? V) V1 VT v V} VT h VF V O O O1 m m m m m W n n to n n n n n n v m rn v v Ln Ln INfI OM1 OM1 OM1 m M cn h nn tD V V N N N N N N m V V N 00 � t+i eri Vf Vf u} VS VT V} VT V? t/T tn, t/T tn, of O O O tD lD tD tD tD tD n n N tq a It 00 CO 00 00 00 o0 In m m Q m n v a c N H 1< N N m co N N N N N co T O N OM1 m O N N N c -I H N ti N N N N M to ti N an to V} VT an N t/A V1 V1 to V} to vF 000 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 n n to N O O N N N N N N [} w 00 M .-t O O/1 u1 tIn M o o N w 00 N z o o 0 n n n n n n" t e m NXtD t0 b tD b to V b b m O q T ti ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 •'i N N e} V' M M N N N N N N m rn m N tD N in vn vn yr v* v* Vl to to v* to %4 V� tz a to 0 0 � io io w Z • m LL L L L L C 0a u u u u u u m vel LL F H H H H H f0 H IL 5uC � CL C C C C C C d OJ Ol Q 7 O1 01 O1 01 01 01 Y Y Y Y Y > H J LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL d 0 F- M M a� c� CL D LI) U hA L U Lol ca N c O L C Mo r •u O � � 3 4-J •� ' ca L O O O N 0 00 CL '- O (V oLr) NU •� 1 00 O 0 a� N N > O o cc N Q U 00 x CL 0 d' dl O rL O Ln — O O O t .O LL N . - Q. V 4-J m 4-J m cin O > U U C6U s� E p % C- N l0 > 0) a1 0 �•- c-I Q O • • • • N CL 0. 1>, m E Q N N O Q W O m 0 0 o oo oo L Ln Ln qt M M N N r -I r -I 99 O O N D 1p �S S° 4O 0 s� Op s� `oJ s� O O j53-,3 N cz U L- 0 O T u Q� N V) M U UO Co L C6 Q - m ^ U Q) O 4-J (/ U C - 4—m C— L— • — 4A U •E .c- o � C -L- U C6 ^^ 111 I 1W1��, ,T V / E Ca O CaO U O Ul V) O E EL— Ln C6 -a -0 O C:X D 0 Fm-- Or - 0 C Ln Ln c: m O Q) `n +� U 0 • 4-J C6 U � 4-J 4-J C- ro 4-J U U O 4 O U Q) ro 2 O 0 N Q) O U 0-5' O O 4-' 4- C- Q) E O ca C-4-j L (3) 4-- O i- ('L • (n cn Q (n � (3) L i TC6 Z m m � V) •i--j � � L •— .� � . f� (2) §un O O O v .� U, _ _ �cn .- O Q v —0 UlO O �, O E m 4-J to U 41 U , cn oOO U O E O O .J � U > � ry.- O U ry-- _ I 0-5' 001--Ak% z Q) rc J6, 6 C- O 0 -� E E c o O v �+- o O ° i- c +, • - c - O Ln _N o a U — Q C •— E O 4 -JO a --)U 0 i 4A U C6 N _ U aA i JOv • c Q O N _ On Ln 0 u Q) O O E_ C- a aQo)- LnO U •� U O L mc� U U Q) Z3 � •4-J J6, 6 gum .wm tC q a U O 9?-0"'Q� N G� � Obi_ E; < V U C N Il! g�.y � G .� m K E; .C? }, 0 U.I !V=J O Q S co b M Lu =mk me a LU w a� i, r�o�de w gum .wm tC q a U O o � N C� < V U C G - Il! g�.y � G L m d U.I !V=J O Q S pr- Ali! II ra it by 4 IMP a. • II O,J-q xj,/ ws/vI jb-j / W -/y 00 7 IRV MiA EION Ito V- 16 Q) t1A Q) � Z3 E E L O0 O un v O _0 n3 Q) i U O v — N +-' 0 O � u Ln v Ul O E _ v 4— O cn N N o O _r_- U N :3 O > Q) C- :3 O v a U Ln t�0 E OU U Q= O '+-+ cn Ln •� C U Ln LnLn f U O O 4-J • � c/) p v N c - -6 O O Q Ln G V- 16 050-/6 '35. ,6 -0 •� Q) .0 E •L �-'0 O 0 (� Q� 4- L a--+ 4J O Q� O +, O E v cn = o woo �,a; °a o 4- Q N p O +, I •- 4-j U N vj pUl) a a� Q, Vi N Ln r -I >o � E a .— v � .� � N v • �ry) v V OLn O O 0 O N ca m U 00 — 00 :D cfi U m E m �o Q (� Ln N � L �. L +r i O .�.� �••+ Q Q �_ J p cn N Q� p Zj U . o �+�- U cin U Q '35. ,6 +£aICgt a 9-, WE In Fe, Q) L C6 U m C) 66 _� N N L^ ca O +-j O E O Ul m N Q Ln V / C6 '' ew ,J L- Q) Q O Q U .4-J Q1 Q co Q) .C- Q Q) U ca aA �O aA O O Q c O ca E +-j cn Ln Q U 4- 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Potential Feral Cat Release Sites Indian River County, Florida .'gj INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Department of General Services Parks & Conservation Resources Date: February 27, 2020 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator Kevin Kirwin, Director Parks & Conservation Resources From: Beth Powell, Assistant Director Parks & Conservation Resources Subject: Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area Enhancement Design & Engineering — Award RFQ 2020008 to Carter Associates, Inc. DESRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS The Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area (LTICA) was purchased in 2003 with funds from the Florida Communities Trust. The 508 -acre site is located in the Central Indian River Lagoon (IRL) approximately 0.75 miles north of the SR 60 boat launch on the barrier island. The LTICA is the second largest publically- owned island system that is protected in Indian River County, and includes more than 10 miles of shoreline in the Indian River Lagoon. The LTICA ecological enhancement project will be the largest lagoon -based enhancement project undertaken by Indian River County. The project objectives for design and engineering of the LTICA habitat enhancement plan are summarized as follows: Water quality benefits through creation and enhancement of wetland communities Incorporation of innovative, low maintenance elements for shoreline stabilization Establishment of endemic habitat, including, but not limited to: o High marsh habitat which is a rare resource in Indian River County o Strategically located mangrove wetlands o Maritime hammock habitat that provides habitat for native wildlife o Salt flats and open sandy beaches for shorebird nesting o Seagrass habitat (based on appropriateness and feasibility) o Oyster reefs (based on appropriateness and feasibility) o Expanded nursery habitat for fish and invertebrates • Site design that is resilient and versatile, and by its nature will be adaptable during extreme weather events and climate change • Incorporation of green technologies where appropriate and feasible • Site design that incorporates passive recreational opportunities that promote ecotourism, educational awareness, local responsibility and facilitates informed community input • Consideration for mosquito management and minimization of mosquito production • Minimization of long-term maintenance, management, and capital costs The deliverable for the project will be a fully designed and engineered plan that will be ready for submittal of the required construction permits. The County will submit for permit approvals upon completion of the 354 design. Engineered plans will include preparation of technical specifications to be used for project bidding purposes. The design will be produced to allow for flexibility in construction timeframes; thus the construction may be completed in phases based on logistics, and funding opportunities. A proposal requesting cost -share funds to complete the enhancement project design was submitted to the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) for consideration as part of their annual funding for restoration projects funded. The project was selected to receive funding, and on October 15, 2019, the Board approved the $65,000 agreement with the Council (Contract IRL 2019-18). Since October, staff has undertaken the following measures to initiate the design of the enhancement project: October 17, 2019, RFQ 2020008 for Lost Tree Island Conservation Area Ecological Enhancement Planning and Design Services was advertised (RFQ opening date November 8, 2019) December 3, 2019, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan - Capital Improvements Elements approved allocating $200,000 from Optional Sales Tax in FY19/20 to the Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area Enhancement, Public Facilities/Trails/Boardwalks and an associated capital outlay through FY2024 January 7, 2020, the Board approved the committee's final ranking and authorized negotiations with Carter Associates, Inc., the highest ranked firm RFQ 2020008. Staff met with Carter Associates, Inc. staff to negotiate the scope of work and associated tasks necessary to complete the design and engineering based on the project objectives listed above. Because the design and engineering is also associated with the IRLNEP grant, time is of the essence for completion. The tasks and scope ofwork/timeline has been reviewed by staff and is consistent with the project objectives and associated funding from the IRLNEP. The project presents a challenge for completion of design services due to both its location and current conditions on site. Any on -island work requires use of watercraft which is reflected in the project schedule and budget. Additionally, the spoil islands are densely covered with exotic vegetation and accumulated debris from multiple hurricane events. Based on a comparison of alternatives, it was determined that in order to maintain the project schedule, the best alternative to complete initial site work is to mechanically clear the necessary survey transects. This alternative significantly expedites the survey process, shortens the duration of the survey task, and provides for access to the inner sections of the island for design and planning purposes, maintenance activities, and site visits by staff and regulatory personnel. Based on a comparison of alternatives, the additional cost associated with the mechanical clearing versus hand clearing is approximately $13,000, but reduces the survey time by 3 months and provides for longer-term access/monitoring points. The Scope of Work and Budget was developed as a detailed task list with measurable objectives and a budget with manhours and not to exceed line items. Items in the Scope of Work include: • Preliminary Planning • Site Surveys • Conceptual Ecological Enhancement Plan • Additional Survey Data Collection • Development of Project Plans • Progress and Stakeholder Meetings • Reimbursables 355 FUNDING Funding for the project in the amount of $265,000 is provided through Optional Sales Tax and the IRLNEP Grant which is identified in the December 3, 2019 update to the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan -Lost Tree Islands Enhancement, Restoration & Public Facilities/Trails/Boardwalk. The total proposal, including mechanical clearing of the survey lines is $338,080.00, leaving a funding deficit of $73,080 which is proposed to be funded from Optional Sales Tax through a budget amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board accept the Agreement with Carter Associates, Inc. authorizing the professional services as outlined in the Scope of Services and requests the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement on their behalf for a lump sum amount of $338,080 upon approval by the County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency. ATTACHMENTS • Sample Agreement including Exhibit A and Exhibit B APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 10, 2020 356 Description Amount CIE Approved FY19/20—Optional Sales Tax $200,000/IRLNEP $65,000 31521072-066510-20001 $265,000 Budget Amendment — Optional Sales Tax $ 73,080 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board accept the Agreement with Carter Associates, Inc. authorizing the professional services as outlined in the Scope of Services and requests the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement on their behalf for a lump sum amount of $338,080 upon approval by the County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency. ATTACHMENTS • Sample Agreement including Exhibit A and Exhibit B APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 10, 2020 356 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("Agreement") is entered into this day of March, 2020 by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 ("COUNTY"), and CARTER ASSOCIATES, I N C . , authorized to do business in Florida, whose address is 1708 21St Street, Vero Beach, FL ("Consultant") - BACKGROUND RECITALS: A. In accordance with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act, Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the COUNTY solicited Requests for Statements of Qualification #2020008 for Professional Design and Engineering Services for the Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area Enhancement ("Project"). B. As a result of its response, the County has selected Consultant to provide certain professional services, ("Services") as more fully set forth in the Scope of Services dated February 21, 2020, attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement and made a part hereof by reference. C. Consultant submitted a Qualified Fee Proposal dated February 21, 2020, attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement and made a part hereof by reference. D. The Consultant is willing and able to perform the Services for the COUNTY on the terms and conditions set forth below; and E. The COUNTY and the Consultant wish to enter into this Agreement for the Consultant's Services for the Project. NOW THEREFORE, in recognition and consideration of the above recitals, which are not merely prefatory, but are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein and form part of the consideration, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in accordance with the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. GENERAL. 1.1 All professional services provided by the Consultant for the COUNTY shall be as identified in Exhibit A and invoiced per Exhibit B (collectively, the "Exhibits", individually, Exhibit A or Exhibit B). The parties agree that the fully loaded hourly rates and staff hours shown in Exhibit B are estimates only to be used for billing purposes and that Consultant's compensation is the total lump sum as set forth in paragraph 5.1. Consultant's Services will be performed in a timely, efficient, cost effective manner. In 357 the performance of Services, the Consultant will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other similar professionals in the field under similar conditions in similar localities. The Consultant will use due care in performing its services and will have due regard for acceptable engineering standards and principles. Consultant's standard of care shall not be altered by the application, interpretation, or construction of any other provision of this Agreement. 1.2 Reserved. 1.3 Additional services not contained in the Exhibits which would increase, decrease the Services or which are otherwise outside the scope of Services or level of effort contemplated by the Exhibits shall be services for which the Consultant must obtain the prior written approval of the COUNTY as provided by this Agreement. All terms for the performance of such services must be agreed upon in a written document prior to any deviation from the terms of the Agreement, and when properly authorized and executed by both the Consultant and the COUNTY shall become an amendment to the Agreement. 1.4 The Background Recitals are true and correct and form a material part of this Agreement. 2. COUNTY OBLIGATIONS. 2.1 The COUNTY will provide the Consultant with a copy of any preliminary data or reports available as required in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, together with all available drawings, surveys, right-of-way maps, and other documents in the possession of the COUNTY pertinent to the Project and as otherwise provided in Exhibit A. The Consultant is responsible for bringing to the COUNTY's attention, for the COUNTY's resolution, material inconsistencies or errors in such data that are made known to the Consultant, but Consultant is not responsible for discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the drawings or data provided. 2.2 The COUNTY shall arrange for access to, and make provisions for, the Consultant to enter upon, public and private property (where required) as necessary for the Consultant to perform its Services, upon the timely written request of Consultant to COUNTY. 2.3 The COUNTY shall promptly execute all permit applications necessary to the Project. 2.4 The COUNTY shall examine any and all reports, sketches, proposals and other documents presented by the Consultant, and render, in writing, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time. 2.5 Approval by the COUNTY of any of the Consultant's work, including but not limited to written reports, or any work products of any nature whatsoever furnished W hereunder, shall not in any way relieve the Consultant of responsibility for the technical accuracy and adequacy of the work. Neither the COUNTY's review, approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any of the Services furnished under this Agreement shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall be and remain liable in accordance with all applicable laws for all damages to the COUNTY caused by the negligent performance by the Consultant of any of the Services furnished under this Agreement. 2.6 The COUNTY reserves the right to appoint one or more Project Managers for the specific Services in connection with this Agreement. The Project Manager shall: (a) act as the COUNTY's agent with respect to the Services rendered hereunder; (b) transmit instructions to and receive information from the Consultant; (c) communicate the COUNTY's policies and decisions to the Consultant regarding the Services; and (d) determine, initially, whether the Consultant is fulfilling its duties, responsibilities, and obligations hereunder. 2.7 The COUNTY shall give prompt written notice to the Consultant whenever the COUNTY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the timing or delivery of the Consultant's Services. If the Consultant has been delayed in completing its Services through no fault or negligence of either the Consultant or any sub -consultant, and, as a result, will be unable to perform fully and satisfactorily under the provisions of this Agreement, then the Consultant shall promptly notify the Project Manager. In the COUNTY's sole discretion, and upon the submission to the COUNTY of evidence of the causes of the delay, this Agreement shall be modified in writing, subject to the COUNTY'S rights to change, terminate, or stop any or all of the Services at any time in accordance with this Agreement. 2.8 The Consultant shall not be considered in default for a failure to perform if such failure arises out of causes reasonably beyond the Consultant's control and through no fault or negligence of the Consultant. The parties acknowledge that adverse weather conditions, acts of God, or other unforeseen circumstances of a similar nature, may necessitate modifications to this Agreement. If such conditions and circumstances do in fact occur, then the COUNTY and Consultant shall mutually agree, in writing, to the modifications to be made to this Agreement. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT. 3.1 The Consultant agrees to perform all necessary Professional Design and Engineering Services as outlined in Exhibit A, in connection with the assigned Project(s) as set forth in this Agreement. 3.2 Reserved. 3.3 The Consultant agrees to complete the Project within the time frame specified in Exhibit A, as may be modified from time to time based on the progress of the construction contract. 359 3.4 The Consultant will maintain an adequate staff of qualified personnel. 3.5 The Consultant will comply with all present and future federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, policies, codes, and guidelines applicable to the Services performed under this Agreement. 3.6 The Consultant, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that: (1) in connection with the furnishing of Services to the COUNTY hereunder, no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in regard to the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement on the grounds of such person's race, color, creed, national origin, religion, physical disability, age or sex; and (2) the Consultant shall comply with all existing requirements concerning discrimination imposed by any and all applicable local, state, and federal rules, regulations, or guidelines, as such rules, regulations, or guidelines may be from time to time amended. 3.7 The Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, procure and keep in full force, effect, and good standing any and all necessary licenses, registrations, certificates, permits, and any and all other authorizations as are required by local, state, or federal law, in order for the Consultant to render its Services as described in this Agreement. The Consultant shall also require all sub -consultants to comply by contract with the provisions of this section. 3.8 Reserved. 3.9 The Consultant will cooperate fully with the COUNTY in order that all phases of the work may be properly scheduled and coordinated. 3.10 The Consultant will cooperate and coordinate with other COUNTY consultants, as directed by the COUNTY. 3.11 The Consultant shall report the status of the Services under this Agreement to the County Project Manager upon request and hold all related work open to the inspection of the County Project Manager or his authorized agent at any time, upon reasonable request. 3.12 All documents, reports, field books, survey notes and information, and other data developed by the Consultant for the purpose of this Agreement, are and shall remain the property of the COUNTY. The foregoing items will be created, maintained, updated, and provided in the format specified by the County. When all work contemplated under this Agreement is complete, all of the above data shall be delivered to the County Project Manager. 3.13 The Consultant will confer with the COUNTY during the project(s) for which the Consultant has provided Professional Design and Engineering Services 360 services, and the Consultant will make corrections to the Consultant's Work Product at no additional cost to the COUNTY, within thirty (30) calendar days of notice by the COUNTY, or upon a determination of the Consultant that corrections are needed, whichever event shall first occur. 3.14 The Consultant agrees to maintain complete and accurate books and records ("Books"), in accordance with sound accounting principles and standards for all Services, costs, and expenditures under this Agreement. The Books shall identify the Services rendered during each month of the Agreement and the date and type of each Project -related expense. The COUNTY shall have the right, at any reasonable time and through any of its designated agents or representatives, to inspect and audit the Books for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of any invoice. The CONSULTANT shall retain the Books, and make them available to the COUNTY as specified above, until the later of three (3) years after the date of termination of this Agreement, or such longer time if required by any federal, state, or other governmental law, regulation, or grant requirement. 3.15 The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any work under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. However, the Consultant is permitted to retain sub -consultants to perform work under this Agreement. When applicable and upon receipt of such consent from the COUNTY, the Consultant shall cause the names of the engineering and surveying firms responsible for the major portions of each separate specialty of the work to be inserted on the reports or other data. 3.16 All documents, prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are related exclusively to the Services described herein and are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the COUNTY or others on any other project. Reuse of any documents prepared by the Consultant is prohibited and shall be at the COUNTY's own risk. The Consultant shall not be held liable for any modifications made to the documents by others. 4. TERM: TIME FOR COMPLETION. 4.1 The time for completion of the Project shall be defined in the Exhibits. 5. COMPENSATION. 5.1 The COUNTY shall pay to the Consultant the mutually agreed professional fee of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($338,080.00) for Services rendered for the Project, to be paid in monthly installments based on staff hours expended and materials and survey work performed, as set forth in the Exhibits. Duly certified invoices, in triplicate, shall be submitted to the County Project Manager, in detail sufficient for proper prepayment and post payment audit. Upon submittal of a proper invoice the County Project Manager will review and will authorize payment to be made. All payments for services shall be made to the Consultant by the COUNTY in accordance with the Local Government Prompt Payment Act, as may be amended from time to time (Section 218.70, Florida Statutes, et seq.). 361 5.1.1 The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that it will not be reimbursed for any travel within the State of Florida associated with its Services on this Project. 5.1.2 The COUNTY shall make direct payment of all permit fees paid to regulatory agencies for approvals directly attributable to the Services under the Project. These permit fees do not include those permits required for any construction contractor. 5.2 The COUNTY may at any time notify the Consultant of requested changes to the Services, and thereupon the COUNTY and the Consultant shall execute a mutually agreeable amendment to this Agreement. 5.3 The COUNTY shall have the sole right to reduce or eliminate, in whole or in part, any portion of the Services under the Exhibits at any time and for any reason, upon written notice to the Consultant specifying the nature and extent of the reduction. In such event, the Consultant shall be paid for the Services already performed and also for the Services remaining to be done and not reduced or eliminated, upon submission of invoices as set forth in this Agreement. 5.4 The COUNTY may, at any time and for any reason, direct the Consultant to suspend Services, in whole or in part under this Agreement. Such direction shall be in writing, and shall specify the period during which Services shall be stopped. The Consultant shall resume its Services upon the date specified, or upon such other date as the COUNTY may thereafter specify in writing. Where the COUNTY has suspended the services under this Agreement for a period in excess of six (6) months, the compensation of Consultant for such suspended Services may be subject to modification. The period during which the Services are stopped by the COUNTY shall be added to the time of performance of this Agreement. 6. ADDITIONAL WORK. 6.1 If services in addition to the Services provided hereunder are required or desired by the County in connection with the Project, the COUNTY may, at the sole option of the COUNTY: separately obtain same outside of this Agreement; or request the Consultant to provide, either directly by the Consultant or by a sub -consultant, such additional services by a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION. 7.1 The Consultant shall not commence work on this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required under this Agreement and such insurance has been approved by the County's Risk Manager. 7.2 Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary. 7.3 All required insurance policies shall be placed with insurers licensed to do 362 business in Florida and with a Best's rating of A VI I or better. 7.4 The insurance policies procured shall be occurrence forms, not claims made policies with the exception of professional liability. 7.5 A certificate of insurance shall be provided to the County's Risk Manager for review and approval, ten (10) days prior to commencement of any work under this Agreement. The COUNTY shall be named as an additional insured on all policies except workers' compensation and professional liability. 7.6 The insurance companies selected shall send written verification to the County Risk Manager that they will provide 30 days prior written notice to the County Risk Manager of its intent to cancel or modify any required policies of insurance. 7.7 Consultant shall include all sub -consultants as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub -consultant. All coverages for sub -consultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 7.8 Consultant agrees that it now carries and will continue to carry during the performance of this Agreement, at its own expense, the applicable insurance policies indicated below, with limits not less than those specified. Any insurance on a "claims made" basis shall be maintained for at least 3 years after completion of the Services. A. Worker's Compensation — Statutory B. Employer's Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence C. Commercial General and Contractual Liability — $1,000,000 per occurrence D. Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence E. Umbrella Liability - $2,000,000 aggregate (in excess of B., C. and D. above) F. Professional Liability - $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. 7.9 The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Consultant and other persons employed or utilized by the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 8. TERMINATION. 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated: (a) by the COUNTY, for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Consultant; or (b) by the Consultant, for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the COUNTY; or (c) by the mutual agreement of the parties; or (d) as may otherwise be provided below. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any liability of one party to the other arising out of any Services rendered, or for any act or event occurring prior to the termination, shall not be terminated or released. 8.2 In the event of termination by the COUNTY, the COUNTY shall be 363 obligated to pay the Consultant for those portions of satisfactorily completed work previously authorized under this Agreement. Such payment shall be determined on the basis of the hours of work performed by the Consultant, up to the time of termination. In the event of such termination, the COUNTY may, without penalty or other obligation to the Consultant, elect to employ other persons to perform the same or similar services. 8.3 In addition to the termination rights set forth in 8.1, the obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days' prior written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. 8.4 In the event that the Consultant merges with another company, becomes a subsidiary of, or makes any other substantial change in structure, the COUNTY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with its terms. 8.5 In the event of termination of this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to surrender any and all documents prepared by the Consultant for the COUNTY in connection with this Agreement. 8.6 The COUNTY may terminate this Agreement for refusal by the Consultant to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119 Florida Statutes and made or received by the Consultant in conjunction with this Agreement. 8.7 The COUNTY may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part if the Consultant submits a false invoice to the COUNTY. 9. TRUTH -IN -NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATE, CONTINGENCY FEES. 9.1 Execution of this Agreement by the Consultant shall act as the execution of a truth -in -negotiation certificate certifying that the wage rates and costs used to determine the compensation provided for in this Agreement are accurate, complete and current as of the date of the Agreement. The original contract price and any additions thereto will be adjusted to exclude any significant sums by which the COUNTY determines the contract price was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent wage rates and other factual unit costs. All such contract adjustments must be made within 1 year following the end of the contract. COUNTY has the authority and right to audit Consultant's records under this provision. The COUNTY does not hereby waive any other right it may have pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, as it may be from time -to -time amended. 9.2 Pursuant to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act, F. S. section 287.055, the Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person 364 other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage fee, gifts or any other considerations, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach of violation of this provision, the COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to deduct from the contract price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration. 10. MISCELLANOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Independent Contractor. It is specifically understood and acknowledged by the parties hereto that the Consultant or employees or subconsultants of the Consultant are in no way to be considered employees of the COUNTY, but are independent contractors performing solely under the terms of the Agreement and not otherwise. 10.2 Mercier: Modification. This Agreement incorporates and includes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements, or understandings of any nature whatsoever concerning the subject matter of the Agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior or contemporaneous representations or agreements, whether oral or written. No alteration, change, or modification of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Consultant and the COUNTY. 10.3 Governing Law: Venue. This Agreement, including all attachments hereto, shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against the other party or otherwise arising out of this Agreement shall be in Indian River County, Florida, or, in the event of federal jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The prevailing party in any lawsuit arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including fees and costs through appeal. The parties expressly and voluntarily waive any and all rights to trial by jury in connection with any litigation arising out of or related to this Agreement. 10.4 Remedies: No Waiver. All remedies provided in this Agreement shall be deemed cumulative and additional, and not in lieu or exclusive of each other or of any other remedy available to either party, at law or in equity. Each right, power and remedy of the parties provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and concurrent and shall be in addition to every other right, power or remedy provided for in this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The failure of either party to insist upon compliance by the other party with any obligation, or exercise any remedy, does not waive the right to so in the event of a continuing or subsequent delinquency or default. A party's waver of one or more defaults does not constitute a waiver of any other delinquency or default. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged 365 dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs. 10.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable for the remainder of this Agreement, then the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected, and every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be deemed valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by law. 10.6 Availability of Funds. The obligations of the COUNTY under this Agreement are subject to the availability of funds lawfully appropriated for its purpose by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. 10.7 No Pledae of Credit. The Consultant shall not pledge the COUNTY's credit or make it a guarantor of payment or surety for any contract, debt, obligation, judgment, lien or any form of indebtedness. 10.8 Public Records. Indian River County is a public agency subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The CONSULTANT shall comply with Florida's Public Records Law. Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall: (1) Keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. (2) 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. (3) 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 CONSULTANT does not transfer the records to the County. (4) Upon completion of the contract, transfer, at no cost, to the County all public records in possession of the CONSULTANT or keep and maintain public records required by the County to perform the service. If the CONSULTANT transfers all public records to the County upon completion of the contract, the CONSULTANT shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If the CONSULTANT keeps and maintains public records upon completion of the contract, the CONSULTANT 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. 366 B. IF THE CONSULTANT HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO THE CONSULTANT'S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT: (772) 226-1424 publicrecords(cD-ircgov.com Indian River County Office of the County Attorney 180127 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 C. Failure of the CONSULTANT to comply with these requirements shall be a material breach of this Agreement. 10.9 TERMINIATION IN REGARDS TO F.S. 287.135: CONSULTANT certifies that it and those related entities of respondent 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, CONSULTANT certifies that it and those related entities of respondent as defined above 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. COUNTY may terminate this Contract if CONSULTANT 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. COUNTY may terminate this Contract if CONSULTANT, 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. 10.9 Notices: Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval, or other communication required or permitted by this Agreement shall be given or made in writing and shall be served, as elected by the party giving such notice, by any of the following methods: (a) Hand delivery to the other party; (b) Delivery by commercial 367 overnight courier service; or (c) Mailed by registered or certified mail :(postage prepaid), return receipt requested at the addresses of the parties shown below: County: Indian River County Attn: Beth Powell 5500 77th Street Vero Beach, FL 32967 bpowell(aD-ircgov.com Facsimile: (772) 589-6119 Consultant: Carter Associates, Inc. Attn: John Blum 1708 21 st Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Email iohnb(aD-carterassoc.com Notices shall be effective when received at the address as specified above. Email transmission is acceptable notice effective when received, provided, however, that email transmissions received after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends or holidays, will be deemed received on the next day that is not a weekend day or a holiday. The original of the notice must additionally be mailed. Either party may change its address, for the purposes of this section, by written notice to the other party given in accordance with the provisions of this section. 10.10 Survival. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each obligation in this Agreement to be performed by Consultant shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 10.11 Construction. The headings of the sections of this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience only, and shall not be deemed to expand, limit, or modify the provisions contained in such Sections. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter, singular or plural, as the identity of the party or parties may require. The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that each was properly represented by counsel and this Agreement was negotiated and drafted at arm's-length so that the judicial rule of construction to the effect that a legal document shall be construed against the draftsperson shall be inapplicable to this Agreement 10.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original copy and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. 368 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. John H. Blum, P.E. Principal Date Witness: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Susan B. Adams, Chairman Date Approved by BCC: 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 Reingold County Attorney 369 February 21, 2020 Ms. Elizabeth Powell Assistant Director, Parks & Conservation Resources Indian River County 550077 th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32967 RE: Lost Tree Island Conservation Area Ecological Enhancement Civil Engineering and Surveying Services Proposal CAI Project No. 19-426 E Dear Beth: It is our pleasure to present for your acceptance, the following proposal for Civil Engineering and Surveying services associated with the above referenced project. Please find attached an ENGINEER's scope of services and budget outlining the steps for the enhancement planning and design services. Additional services required, but not included in the estimate, will be provided at our hourly rates, a copy of which is attached. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a proposal for our services. We look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at our office. Sincerely, CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. John H. Blum, P.E. Principal 370 PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES "SCOPE OF SERVICES" for INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARKS & CONSERVATION RESOURCES LOST TREE ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT SECTION 1: PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project objectives for design and engineering of the Lost Tree Island Conservation Area (LTICA) ecological enhancement plan are briefly summarized as follows: • Site design that is resilient and versatile, and by its nature will be adaptable during extreme weather events and climate change • Water quality benefits through creation and enhancement of wetland communities • Establishment of endemic habitat, including, but not limited to: o High marsh habitat which is a rare resource in Indian River County o Strategically located mangrove wetlands o Maritime hammock habitat o Salt flats and open sandy beaches for shorebird nesting o Seagrass habitat (based on appropriateness and feasibility) o Oyster reefs (based on appropriateness and feasibility) o Expanded nursery areas for fish and invertebrates • Incorporation of innovative, low maintenance elements for shoreline stabilization • Incorporation of green technologies where appropriate and feasible • Provide for educational engagement on the ecological issues facing the Lagoon • Provide passive recreational opportunities that promote ecotourism, educational awareness, local responsibility and facilitates informed community input • Minimization of mosquito production • Elimination of nuisance and exotic plant species such as Australian pine and Brazilian pepper • Minimization of long-term maintenance, management, and capital costs This proposal provides an outline of services required to provide an engineered design to meet the project objectives. The proposal does not include any permitting, bidding, or construction administration services. SECTION 2: SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on the LTICA ecological enhancement Project Objectives described in Section 1, the following Scope of Services has been prepared to define the design and engineering work to 371 be completed by Carter Associates, Inc. (ENGINEER) for the Indian River County Parks and Conservation Resources Division (CLIENT). TASK 1 —PRELIMINARY PLANNING ENGINEER will attend up to three initial coordination meetings with CLIENT to discuss wetland enhancement plan and construction phasing based on priority and funding. This task will include completing one site visit with CLIENT to observe existing site conditions in preparation for completion of additional baseline data collection. This task will be focused on defining the location and extent of topographic and bathymetric information generated in Task 2, below. The task will also be focused on assessing possible methods of construction, and transport and mobilization of equipment, with various sources in an effort to provide a general framework for conceptual design. Deliverable for this task will be a memorandum prepared by the ENGINEER outlining the information gathered from meetings, site review, and coordination, and providing a general discussion of issues that may need to be addressed as part of site design. TASK 2 - SITE SURVEYS CLIENT will provide available survey data that was obtained as part of prior mitigation projects on Earman and Duck Head islands. ENGINEER will sub -consult with a site contractor to perform limited clearing along baselines needed for data collection. ENGINEER will perform survey to collect baseline data including topography, bathymetry, and vegetative cover of the three (i.e. Earman, Duck Head, and Hog's Head) islands sufficient to develop the Conceptual Design (Task 3). Topographic survey to include spot elevations on 400 -foot intervals to obtain sufficient information to complete the required grading plan. Coordinate with CLIENT to identify land uses on site, with emphasis on the coverage of exotic species and native vegetation to be preserved. Utilize drone and underwater ROV for additional data collection. Deliverables for this task will include 24"06" full-sized drawings of the survey signed and sealed by a Professional Surveyor and Mapper. TASK 3 — CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT PLAN Based on the information collected in tasks 1 and 2, ENGINEER will coordinate with CLIENT to provide a series of Conceptual Enhancement Plans. It is proposed that the ENGINEER will generate a series of design concepts based at the following milestones in project planning: Initial Conceptual Plan Development: The ENGINEER will provide the CLIENT with two (2) sets of full-sized sheets (for each of the three islands) depicting the baseline data information. One set will be used by the CLIENT to generate rough schematics of possible community structure per island. The second set will be a clean copy of the 372 initial iteration of the schematic generated by the CLIENT, for each island, to be used by the ENGINEER as a starting point for the design. The ENGINEER will use the clean copy to generate the initial CAD design for the project. Based on the CAD drawing, the ENGINEER will provide a rough calculation of vegetative community acreages and quantities of excavated material based on the initial schematic. The ENGINEER will coordinate with the CLIENT to discuss a broad approach for phasing and construction based on the initial conceptual plan. • Interim Conceptual Plan 1: Based on the data generated from review of the initial plan, the ENGINEER will work with the CLIENT to develop a modified version of the initial plan. As with the Initial Conceptual Plan, the ENGINEER will provide a revised calculation of vegetative community acreages and earthwork balance, as well as general information on potential construction costs and staging, based on various phasing and construction alternatives. The CLIENT will use Interim Plan 1 as a starting point for the Regulatory/Stakeholder Engagement of the project design. These meetings are planned to solicit feedback on technical information, as well as other design considerations such as aesthetics, recreation, and other aspects of the overall plan. • Interim Conceptual Design 2: Based on feedback from these meetings, the ENGINEER will coordinate with the CLIENT to develop a modified version of the plan as applicable. As with the Interim Conceptual Plan 1, the ENGINEER will provide a revised calculation of vegetative community acreages and earthwork balance, as well as general information on potential construction costs based on various phasing and construction alternatives. The CLIENT will use Interim Plan 2 for general public meetings to be held to solicit feedback on the design of the project. Based on these public meetings, the design will be modified to address any relevant concerns. The Conceptual Design resulting from the project meetings will be finalized so that the ENGINEER can proceed with the development of project plans (Tasks, 4 & 5). It is anticipated that the level of effort required to address public comments should be reduced from the development of other iterations of the plan (barring any unforeseen circumstances). Deliverables for this task will be renderings for each portion of the Conceptual Design, as outlined above. TASK 4 — ADDITIONAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTION Based on the development of the Conceptual Plan, it is anticipated that there will be a need to collect additional site-specific data. Additional topography and bathymetry may be required, as well as geotechnical data required for further design. Bathymetric information shall be obtained 373 from the Mean High Water (MHW) elevation on each island to a sufficient distance waterward of the shoreline as required for dock permitting and potential re -contouring of the shorelines. This task may also include research for projected project elements associated with wetland design or recreational elements. The information from the additional data collection and research may be used to guide and inform the CLIENT on project design based on feasibility or cost issues. Deliverables for this task will be data to be incorporated into the Development of Project Plans (Task 5). TASK 5 —DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT PLANS The ENGINEER will develop project plans based on the following process: • A preliminary site grading plan will be developed based on the Conceptual Plan. A hydraulic analysis of flow volumes and characteristics to analyze nutrient removal potential (with input from CLIENT) will be completed using flood routings, pond sizing, discharge calculations, and drawdown analysis based on the Conceptual Plan. The ENGINEER will coordinate with the CLIENT to assess the need for pumps and/or other infrastructure to facilitate/mimic tide fluctuations and maximize treatment of Lagoon waters. A 30% design plan will be submitted for review by the CLIENT. The ENGINEER will refine the assessment of vegetative community acreages and earthwork balance, as well as the information on potential construction costs based on various phasing and construction alternatives. • Based on the plan review and assessment of project costs and phasing, the ENGINEER will work with the CLIENT to develop a set of 60% design plans. These plans will be used to complete the Regulatory/Stakeholder Engagement of the project. Feedback from these additional meetings will be incorporated into the 90% design plans, as appropriate. The ENGINEER will develop 90% project plans to include earthwork plan sheets, detail sheets, and cross-sections; planting lists (with the assistance of County staff); proposed project phasing; mobilization and staging locations; land clearing/exotics removal; erosion control plan(s) utilizing best management practices and erosion control devices; schematics of proposed recreational and educational structures (to be designed based on project funding and schedule); and infrastructure details including any pump station performance criteria for manufacturing design and construction. • A final public meeting will be held at this stage of the project to solicit feedback on the design. • Following the completion of the final public meeting, the ENGINEER will make any 374 minor modifications to the design. The 100% plans will depict all aspects of the project as detailed in the scope of services, and will include project specifications and notes for construction. The ENGINEER will finalize the construction phasing plan and prepare engineer's opinion of probable costs for construction for each phase. TASK 6 — PROGRESS AND STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS Attend meetings with County staff to review plans and progress at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% design stages. Attend and participate at stakeholder and other public meetings. TASK 7 — REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses, such as boat transportation, mileage, prints, copies, vellum, postage, etc. SECTION 3: ENGINEERING SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS: In developing this Scope of Services, ENGINEER represents to the CLIENT that the following assumptions have been made and that deviation from these assumptions may require additional work and compensation on behalf of CLIENT to the ENGINEER. This proposal specifically excludes all application and/or impact fees, which shall be the responsibility of CLIENT. 2. This Scope of Services specifically excludes preparation of legal documents, easement descriptions, structural, mechanical, electrical, landscape, and architectural work. 3. Wetland planting design drawings, plant lists, and installation will be provided by others. 4. Civil engineering design and permitting fees for off-site improvements, such as deep -water access or utility line extensions, are not included with this proposal. 5. Permitting for disposal of any existing on-site hazardous or industrial waste material, or any other underground, unforeseen issues is not included with this proposal. 6. Construction services including but not limited to the preparation of construction contract documents, contractor bidding, inspection services, as -built surveys and final certifications are not included with this proposal, but can be provided as an additional service if needed. 7. Soil testing is not included in this proposal and would be considered as an additional service, if required for ecological enhancement design. 8. Construction stakeout and as-builts are not included with this proposal. 375 SECTION 4: COMPENSATION The proposed scope of services will be provided on a NOT TO EXCEED basis and invoiced monthly based on work performed to date for each task. Task1—Preliminary Planning........................................................................................ $14,180.00. Task2 - Site Surveys..........................................................................................................$66,410.00. Task 3 — Conceptual Ecological Enhancement Plan .................................................... $39,560.00. Task 4 —Additional Survey Data Collection,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $37,040.00. Task 5 — Development of Project Plans,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. $73,680.00. Task 6 — Progress and Stakeholder Meetings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $6,760.00. Task 7 — Reimbursable Expenses,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $100,450.00. TOTAL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $338,080.00. 376 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. JANUARY 2020 FEESCHEDULE Staff Tyne: Hourly Rates Engineer (Principal) $165.00 Engineer I $140.00 Engineer II $125.00 Engineer III $115.00 Engineer IV $105.00 Engineer V $ 95.00 Surveyor (Principal) $165.00 Surveyor (Sr. Consultant) $140.00 Surveyor I $140.00 Surveyor II $125.00 Surveyor III $105.00 CAD/GIS Tech I $115.00 CAD/GIS Tech II $110.00 CAD/GIS Tech III $105.00 CAD/GIS Tech IV $ 95.00 CAD/GIS Tech V $ 85.00 Administrative Staff $ 60.00 Expert Witness $300.00 4 Man Survey Crew $175.00 3 -Man Survey Crew $150.00 2 -Man Survey Crew $135.00 1 -Man Survey Crew $110.00 Inspector $ 65.00 SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT: Leica HD P40 Scanner $175.00/Hour Aluminum Boat $500.00/Day All -Terrain Vehicle (ATV)/Trailer $250.00/Day $1,000.00/Week REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: Postage, Express Mail, etc. Cost Blueprints/Blackline (24" x 36") $2.00/Each Color Prints (24"x36) $5.00/Each Mileage IRS Standard Rate Mylar $7.00/Each Photocopies: 8.5" x 11" 15¢/Each 8.5" x 14" 25¢/Each 11" x 17' 35¢/Each Concrete Monuments $20.00/Each Rebar $ 2.50/Each Laths $ 0.75/Each Hubs $ 1.00/Each Sub -Consultants Cost + 10% Note: These hourly billing rates will remain effective for the duration of this Agreement 377 00LD rl v c M 1 tD M M Lf At, iA 3 3 3 3 U T O 2 O O NT y0 F' U T V Nr N \ 00 V N NO S 0 O 0 O U T 0 2 0 0 O U T 14 O 1D S O O O C H Q) ti N M .Lic�-I 1] > ~ `ti -I N 7 V N In j N N LA j Vf t4 7 V) j V) `N N 7 Vf — O — N 0 0 OO — O — w Ol > O O V > N 0 00 W O O 0) 00 W p N VI N Ln {n 7 11)\ U W 00 V O = O O rm 7= N U V N V V V \ O 1, N In V O cc= \ ul ,ON, V) u ID �o\ nN'1 111 O 00 N C C �y C C H Ln CL` V1 = Ln M = N 7 t u = y 7 L u CfO = C L K = cr 7 = y S 0 O F- O V\ O O W D O D In 0p W O u v F- O O L? O u O F• O N O N O ct' p N 2 0 2 o vi 2 0 2 o v V U V U y 2 y S y O\ S O y 2 Ol C O \ O VT N C \ N O N 01 C �D N W 00 lD 00 y C O \ p 00 C W .-1 V} 00 C W .-1 V? 110 C W N V} N X00 C W f -I N C 00 00 00 ID C:) O O O C V OJ 00 14 O O N C_ i ff V O� O C O L} W 'rO cN-1 v^ 00 O C w Lj 00 00 2 00 C tw w S O C w = O C w = N C IDV1 C lD lD C lD H 7 m 7 !0 7 d M o a M c x T E 7 S T 7 E x T 7 E 3 x T 7 E — 70 Q — — a F- S LL r a 2 °' LL F- o S w cu LL F- o 2 LL Z co Z U 41 > Z Z O _O °o O O O c o F- c F- y O u F- c F- S m a_ a_ c v — a_ , a E U 0- Ln ca O N O U V N d V \ 3 O W X f0 E 7 W T= O U M @ @ c > 0 E C O O LU C O C U U O f1 N g O O E N b0 C U > 7 O. " f0 3 b0 t0 w 7 7 p. 7 p_ Op V W O 'O 0J C b0 V)Q) N Q N C O_ C o y L 0 0 •C 3 u 01 c c a u _X _ to L 01 C ns O O d 0 V E O CL O O) iEo c m N o Y o Q v 00 c° 0 ` w m-- Y N N to o Y -O m U to F w � K W in F- > Vl C C C N m Q ti N M V 7 N N M Ln lD h 0- ci N M rl N Y X ' y a y '.2 c0 0 < Q N m a 0 0 0 0 -0 d `/ V > O CC 2 O O YO F- V > O 2 O p — O v O F- — >�' 10 N N V7 Vf H O O O G1 O O 0) O .-1 H 7 = 7= V1 u c O 'n O vT Vf u c O Ln O Vf f N = N O u = O u cf 2 N w =N F 1D ti �D ti �D ti lD Lfl p pp = 61 ~ O 0O O N? W LL V1 Q Q V V — p — CC d = C d = O bq H N OD c -i C W t/? � C W ✓T N 2 N Gl 2 O C N(D C V' d' 7 V O Vy N bq .-i M CO w �j V V V V ti V m = a W 2 0 O N� N lD 00 l0 O1 c 10 � Ln vi c 'D m" rf of O C O 0 1 O 2 T E S >. E N w w w Q — y Q LL LL LL LL O O Gl O O G1 f0 t0 t0 t0 F S LL F S LL LL LL LL LL 46 N C H OA _� C 0 � 3 Y Z° Z Z — O u U U C 0 u W O C p W C C aj O N c u N o 2 L a W O O C C U @ (CO Coo n (0 u c d a+ 0 — a 2 ' o a o 3 c -°Jo 3 3 3 v on w 'c m C c 'u N O O t d > W> d' .5 = a,:, EF N Cl > O F C d .0 c N u J O a u U c c c C m X O 3 5 Q r-+ — i bA V7 ` C N l0 f6 2 d cc� G yA N 07 E@ a^ m N v a v N o ^ a d a u y@ a° y-O E O— C C u 'p C 'pp C o o\° o O 9 G C a O vi O u a N cc 7 a a O U w C �p O O O O N 'i O @ O m V Ln lD n 00 01 Q > Q O Q v Q N m a Q E E • c: U •� N •O� U-) N a� u O 00 o �_ O — 00 N 0 LnO • L Lo O v > O J u �° 3 a 0z LU Z ;� �- co N N w (D V W (3) �— LL co cC LQ 0 � J � W F, 1,7 E E • c: O O N •O� z LU F- LU C) cn+ U• > N a� u O 00 o �_ O — o u_ s N 0 LnO • L Lo O v > O J u �° 3 a 0z LU Z ;� �- CL) m N w (D �- (3) F, 1,7 v � �/ N L cn > L..1... _ � L _ a -J O CZ 4-1 C: 0 0 4-J :L -j C: 4-) o EE 0 a�c�0 C 0 +-j c� o o w>- C- ���— �0-.r-0+�00 r-+,0 uao.�C: MQo(,'V) Ln ME +'moo U�-u �Ev) >cBN L7i &(-I)o-m,2UEEE mu V) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 479-2' N LU 4-J C- >> O J 4-Jcn a- • — — • O c� U C:> >, O cn cn m Lmu U ' Q) C6 ca O !E cn ca CO+� 4-' O `'- N -j ca a) c� 0 Q) •— -0.� u E Q NLn U c6 V N 4-j m -0 c C LQ(D • v -0 -Ln Ln Ln r— L- tZA O Q Q — C�0 O ate, _� +-� ' L > C -LZ Ln M O N �-' O N tZA v)L � ca O a--' — '.>, � cn Q Qm 3_ V 0- Ln cn m O m w +-+U ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ W .— O �O m O N 4A M cz QJ m 0 O > 4-0 U -� � .� Q - N 0 C 4- O N O O 06 L E m > t S 06 � N N > N .0 � .Q Q)+ N Q) -C ONQ > •� U a--' -0 • X N -O v L O b o O o N fB O .i-+ M ♦..r N O i U-� ■ O 4A M QJ m 0 O > O -� Ln i .� Q - N 0 C 4- O N O O 06 E m > � N > N .0 � .Q Q)+ N Q) Ln > •� Ln � N -O v L O v ■ / -5, U N Un 4-J O � W O +-) M O > N U Z3 O w i N 4-J N tw O 3 ' i 06 G) t =0 w J •> 4-+ -.0 S O w Q4-1 cu w is L O E 'i ago C a� fa 4-JU Q Gil (Al r � .I.J 4,J O O 0- NI 4-1 cn O t/1 N 0 c u O LL�2 m CL V •'S m Ov ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U N Un 4-J O � W O +-) M O > N U Z3 O w I {i' \A 4. O o \ Qj bD 06 (1) N 7 O > 4-+ cn — � N O •� i 0 u A a CL O t cn — cnca _ N +, i 4A m Q)� , O .O = ._ .- •� N c- O Co L7 U t Ln ! U qA U i ca cn cnO O 3 O L- v 06 SOD M O Q 4-5 CSA .Q O i V J > V) +-, dA 'a U o4-0 c Ln 4-J .Fd p V w QJ ca > i .i 'i .N p i 3';7R�7 i z 0 r 0 z oc V) LU z 0 M F - z 0 CL z oc w oc Q 0 z a J UO W -17z 0 oc 0 LL Xq, -1 ' O C •0 O CU U C6 •N U U -N U •_ ro a O 0 ( s-- a- J -0 p V) . — •— •— ca O V) u U = p � ._ 4-J'N ,� U cn U • — -�-, Q o •— .— u. •— •— ca •— 0 ' tei(1)0 i U a 2 a- Q a. CL cn V ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ z 4-J C- 0 �(D Q rfoo� w C- Q Z3 L1J LL LL— W U LL Q •_ J Q) W V) LL J bA Q .C - z u o C- D �LL Q z a -j L.L V) O r 13 07q-/)- Q) L � �22 � C- � n3 Q) L -C 0- L _ v = O Q) —_ Q) O 0 U N Q Z Q) cn U >- O> Q) O� N O - Lf) O V) Q) °) L7 E 0 � v (J O U Q) pu ca a--) _41 - Q O �- U .V i) N O c Q 2 u +-- A .N C) O c/) fII 0 - NU 3 U — O Q Q O o U Q) U O ra a 3 o O 4--J Q) U� 00 0 x L N WD 4-1 Uo O > O ow (� V) Q) :D (D O 07q-/)- Q) L � �22 � C- L -C 0- L Q) v = O —_ O V U Q Z 0 cn U >- O> O� N O - Lf) O V) Q) E Q) L �- (J O U Q) pu a--) - Q O �- v) a) v) " wu O +-- A ca v 07q-/)- Sd d d m IL dd� d—' ^papN aEEt aSE�ES, E'm do o J o d d c y � c;% o c o E E m E C oLLcm-�dd3H dr a 0 un, vl=�N E= d t�j=O.-Ndd d-cE Wm�B� `o m�E° cin«r"33 .3:g 'E EHFi� o�BW�y�dEe=_ @c_r`n�ao y E d 8 d n o uta "xd dv �Jo9a'"° do o�Et d3nd o3LL�d3La8 �o�E •. cn 'p dEEB=�'3EoNS FF ,.O vvaoEw °End„. N 'il- cN� E..NdEcU�EL 06 45 �aLLcE3v;mow 3E;�q . _..c,.. dno,36k maEBEd a @5 cmoc n 8 �ncwc �cEEv, m>� c3E�cE3d�EyNLa^i`ti ;$Ola En `oPc f> Zc$�y�NsN„� YE ->Ig m m-E�����o agt°E�2 E'a 2-w xacda._m `m=dam EodEnw�N-QQ c dEE=�dEc$ a(7 ..yo�d��0i 'E 2 Ro m =Ear ;d��Lna nat'aQ�c+�m_a$rydm V) aca'c_16 o y E 115E c.� c q:^a ��>,+>o ar^ W 7 dodo inEa~�m m=�mcR ENS V7 E°'�L°•E'�r8€E�t23JE�cd,E p u Q _.. > E c °'dOi xE10'$8i8 ��q"E= rn N£ d�88b=BE1=jjE arc=�'� Np 3ovv3 f'a B E E'E i.- 6' E;2 �owE�m~d�.c Eao �•NE _�n vcNd^'O 8d-gEt`Qy v �§ NB;_d vi K EEQm�o4,°n"5''d�°'�o act dIE $ �a g E3E�>mE�=+N =av 8Ea3 �� W 2' L � l H c TL V r v O LL ' Z SA., ^3 g 0 co4 W 'O'�\ V/ u c U (6 LL Q w LL E. 111 d= Ea cd LJJ E E EW .1!U W g L LL W o la (0 - O/ a a W`o^ W VJ E3 °c 12m3 VJE > C 2 i J z; Boa aW N `IO c E E r wLL J N ai pa >_d O o �a O_ U \ �. ~ Sd d d m IL dd� d—' ^papN aEEt aSE�ES, E'm do o J o d d c y � c;% o c o E E m E C oLLcm-�dd3H dr a 0 un, vl=�N E= d t�j=O.-Ndd d-cE Wm�B� `o m�E° cin«r"33 .3:g 'E EHFi� o�BW�y�dEe=_ @c_r`n�ao y E d 8 d n o uta "xd dv �Jo9a'"° do o�Et d3nd o3LL�d3La8 �o�E •. cn 'p dEEB=�'3EoNS FF ,.O vvaoEw °End„. N 'il- cN� E..NdEcU�EL 06 45 �aLLcE3v;mow 3E;�q . _..c,.. dno,36k maEBEd a @5 cmoc n 8 �ncwc �cEEv, m>� c3E�cE3d�EyNLa^i`ti ;$Ola En `oPc f> Zc$�y�NsN„� YE ->Ig m m-E�����o agt°E�2 E'a 2-w xacda._m `m=dam EodEnw�N-QQ c dEE=�dEc$ a(7 ..yo�d��0i 'E 2 Ro m =Ear ;d��Lna nat'aQ�c+�m_a$rydm V) aca'c_16 o y E 115E c.� c q:^a ��>,+>o ar^ W 7 dodo inEa~�m m=�mcR ENS V7 E°'�L°•E'�r8€E�t23JE�cd,E p u Q _.. > E c °'dOi xE10'$8i8 ��q"E= rn N£ d�88b=BE1=jjE arc=�'� Np 3ovv3 f'a B E E'E i.- 6' E;2 �owE�m~d�.c Eao �•NE _�n vcNd^'O 8d-gEt`Qy v �§ NB;_d vi K EEQm�o4,°n"5''d�°'�o act dIE $ �a g E3E�>mE�=+N =av 8Ea3 �� }; a c e >. (3) o O 0 ( o a� .� N 4-J U v > M L (� 4-J L i C D N V j � SO 1 4-1 m wvxx W L 00 L O O v i V) N LL _ V (D a Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum Date: March 3, 2020 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Subject: Biosolids Rule Making for Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code and Public Hearing scheduled for March 19, 2020 Background/Analysis: A notice to amend Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) was published by the Florida Department of Environment Protection (FDEP) in the Florida Administrative Register on October 29, 2019, to "revise the monitoring and permitting criteria for the land application and management of Biosolids." On November 19, 2019, Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) staff brought an agenda item to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regarding this issue and to inform the BCC that included with the proposed rule was a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (See Attachment 1). As noted in the proposed rule: Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 dans of this notice. Staff provided comments to the FDEP per BCC direction and within the 21 day timeframe. As part of the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs, Lower Cost Regulatory Alternatives were timely received from the Florida Cattlemen's Association, the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, and the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Utility Council, proposing revisions to Rule 62-640.700(10), F.A.C., regarding the FDEP's proposed land application requirements relative to the seasonal high-water table on the land application site. The FWEA Utility Council also requested a public hearing pursuant to 120.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes (F.S.). The FDEP will be holding a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Chapter 62-640, F.A.C. to be held at: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION March 19, 2020, at 1 p.m. 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attachment 2 has the FDEP meeting agenda. 380 Martin County and St. Lucie County (SLC) have been closely watching this issue as well. On January 15, 2020, SLC sent a letter to Cari Roth, Chair of the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) (see Attachment 3). Staff recommends that a similar letter outlining Indian River County's concerns be drafted, and after review and approval by the BCC, be sent to the ERC Chair ahead of the FDEP public hearing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review and approve, or approve with modifications, the draft letter to be signed by the BCC Chair and sent to the Chair of the Environmental Regulation Commission ahead of the March 19, 2020, public hearing. Attachments: 1. November 19, 2019 agenda 2. FDEP Public Hearing agenda 3. January 15, 2020 letter from St. Lucie County to the Environmental Regulation Commission 4. Draft letter from Indian River County to the Environmental Regulation Commission 381 Indian River County, Florida Department of Utility Services Board Memorandum Date: November 12, 2019 To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator From: Vincent Burke, PE, Director of Utility Services Subject: Biosolids Rule Making Comments for Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code Background/Analysis: 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. The FDEP solicited input from stakeholders and subject matter experts and asked that comments be submitted by July 29 2019. Staff brought a departmental agenda item to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on July 16, 2019, and were directed to submit the comments to the FDEP. In other meetings with FDEP personnel, staff was verbally informed that, due to the voluminous comments received by stakeholders, the proposed rule would more than likely undergo another round of comments. However, that has not happened, and the FDEP has now issued the rule, which has some, but not all, of the comments requested by staff or other municipalities, such as Martin and St. Lucie County. On October 29, 2019, the FDEP published a notification of rule change and sent out an email notification to all interested parties (Attachment 1). The email summarized the rule changes and indicated that this new rule (Attachment 2) will require legislative ratification based on the statement of economic costs. Included with the proposed rule was a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) - Attachment 3. As noted in the proposed rule: Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. Comments are therefore due to the FDEP on or before November 19, 2019. A link to the rule and submittal portal can be found here: https://www.flruies.org/gateway/View Notice.aso?id=22546212 382 The FDEP's summary of proposed revisions to Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code (FAC) are as follows: • Existing sites - revisions apply at permit renewal or within 3 years [100(5)(f) -(j)] • All biosolids applications "projects of heightened public interest" [300(3)(d)] • All biosolids site enroll in an FDACS Best Management Practices (BMP) Program [300(3)(g)] • Nutrient management plan (NMP) major revisions o Compliance with Basin Management Action Plans [500(5)(c)] o Revisions to the determination of application rates [500(5)(1)] - Most limiting nutrient, Nitrogen (N) or Phosphorous (P), unless permittee can provide reasonable assurance [500(5)(i)] - Table of recommended N and P rates for crops with using biosolids [500(5)(i)1] - Soil phosphorus storage "capacity index" required [500(5)(1)4] - Biosolids Water Extractable Phosphorous (PWEP) required [500(5)(i)6] - Adjustments of P allowed if positive capacity index and low WEP [500(5)(1)7] - If N -based application rate, can only adjust N by a factor of 1.5 [500(5)(1)8] - Septage-specific application rates [500(5)(f)10] - Review NMP annually, revise if appropriate [500(8)] - Require annual soil fertility monitoring using IFAS "Phosphorus Index" test that provides "capacity index" [500(5)(e) and 650(3)(b)1] • Require biosolids water extractable phosphorus (WEP) monitoring; site ground water monitoring and surface water monitoring [650(3)(o)1, 650(3)(a)3, 650(3)(c), and 650(3)(d)] • Prohibit land application where the seasonal high water table is within 15 cm of soil surface (or depth of biosolids placement). [700(10)] • Septage changes (delete flows, pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction, staffing) [100(5)(c), 600(2)(b) and (c), 880(2)(j)2] Staff has reviewed and has the following comments based on the proposed rule (Attachment 4). Staff has been informed that it is likely that the draft rule may not change from its current version, and thus staff presents the top 5 concerns as the rule is written now: 1. Existing land application sites can remain grandfathered in under the current rule for up to three years (based on permit expiration dates) before they need to abide by the items in this rule. This timeframe could potentially allow for a considerable amount of excess Nitrogen and Phosphorus applied to lands before they are required to adhere to the new rule application rates. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, pH, and Fecal coliform are included in quarterly groundwater monitoring only if the application rates trip a certain threshold (revised from 400 lbs of Plant Available Nitrogen annually to 160 lbs of Total Nitrogen annually). Biosolids are suspected of containing additional pollutants that could create or contribute to water quality issues. Soil Fertility tests are required to be run annually -and covered in the Nutrient (Management Plan (NMP), but not at a specified time (it should be priorto any application). This issue Could lead to an annual test showing one thing, while approved applications rates show another due to the time differential. Additionally, Water Extractable Phosphorus (WEP) values can vary significantly based on wastewater plant operations. Biosolids generator facilities should be required to test for WEP as well as all parameters identified in 62-640.650(3)(a)3 should they enact a process change, 383 or the plant suffer an upset or pass-through episode. Biosolids application rates should be based on the most recent data available from the Biosolids generating facility and not necessarily what was included in the last NMP revision submitted to the Department in accordance with permit requirements. 4. Permanent monitoring wells or piezometers used for water level measurements and groundwater monitoring should be identified in the NMP, with Water Levels being collected and documented prior to land application in accordance with application rules. This will allow for FDEP inspections to take place at facilities and verify, through reproducible measurements, field conditions. 5. The new Rule does take into account some of the comments made by Indian River County or other stakeholders, but along with our comments and the changes identified in the proposed rule, there appears to be considerably more resources required by the Department to verify compliance with the new rule and its requirements. The Department's SERC document indicated that this revised rule is not expected to require any additional time or resources from the Department. Recommendation: Staff has prepared this agenda items as an informational update to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The BCC can direct staff to submit this list (or modify the list with additional comments) to be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Chapter 62-640 Florida Administrative Code by close of business on November 19, 2019. Attarhmentc 1. FDEP Email notification regarding proposed rule 2. FDEP Notice of Proposed Rule 3. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) 4. Staff Comments on 2nd version of Draft Rule changes for 62-640 FAC Agenda Public Meeting — Proposed Amendments to Chapter 62-640, F.A.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION March 19, 2020 at 1 p.m. 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32301 THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC I. Welcome and Introduction II. Overview of the Proposed Rule III. Public Comment 385 Board of County Commissioners January 15, 2020 Ms. Cari Roth Chair, Environmental Regulation Commission c/o Dean Mead 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, FL 32301 troth; deanmead.com RE: FDEP's Proposed Biosolids Rule (Chapter 62-640 F.A.C.) Dear Ms. Roth: Cathy Townsend County Commissioner District No. 5 00wred by US.: Mail and Email On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County (Board), I am sending you this letter to emphasize the Board's concern about biosolids and their impacts on Florida's water quality. We respectfully request you and the other members of the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) to significantly strengthen the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's rules governing the use of biosolids (Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.). Although we appreciate the FDEP's efforts to improve these rules, we believe the FDEP's proposed rule amendments are not sufficient to protect Florida's water resources. Background Information: In 2007 the Florida Legislature enacted the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, based on the Legislature's finding that "it is imperative for the state, local governments, and agricultural and environmental communities to commit to restoring and protecting the surface water resources of the Lake Okeechobee watershed, the Caloosahatchee River watershed, and the St. Lucie River watershed...." (See Section 373.4595(1)(d), Florida Statutes). In 2007 the Legislature recognized that action must be taken "immediately" because these watersheds are "critical water resources of the state." Notwithstanding the Legislature's findings, the water quality in these watersheds has deteriorated dramatically over the last 13 years. The recurring algae blooms in these watersheds emphatically demonstrate that Florida's regulatory programs are not protecting our critical water resources. St. Lucie County already has spent seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) on projects that are designed to improve the water quality in the St. Lucie River watershed (e.g., floodplain restoration projects; the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands). We estimate that the FDEP's recent revisions to the EMAP for the St. Lucie Estuary could require the County's taxpayers to spend nearly one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). In effect, our taxpayers are being asked to pay for water quality impacts that have resulted from historic shortcomings in the FDEP and FDACS regulatory programs. It is much more cost-effective to control pollution before it is released into the environment. Given these facts, we have concluded that the FDEP should take a more aggressive and proactive approach toward the regulation of. biosolids, before the current water quality problems become worse. Adopting this approach will provide environmental and financial benefits to the State of Florida that will vastly outweigh the financial impacts of the new regulations. Chris Dzadovsky, District No. 1— Sean Mitchell, District No. 2 — Linda Bartz, District No. 3 — Frannie Hutchinson, District No. 4 County Administrator, Howard Tipton - County Attorney, Dan McIntyre 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 (772) 462-1408 386 FAX (772) 462-2131— TDD (772) 462-1428 TownsendC@stlucieco.org St. Lucie's Proposals for Improving FDEP's Biosolids Rule: Under the FDEP's regulatory program for biosolids, Class AA biosolids are exempt from virtually all of the requirements applicable to Class A and Class B biosolids. (See FDEP Rule 62-640.850, F.A.C.). These exemptions in Chapter 62-640 should be eliminated. All biosolids, including Class AA biosolids, contain nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that leach into ground water and surface water. All biosolids, including Class AA biosolids, have the potential to contribute to the nutrient loadings in Florida's waters. We support the FDEP's proposals for improving its biosolids program; however, the FDEP should do more. Among other things, the setbacks and operating requirements for sites managing Class B biosolids should be applied to sites that manage Class AA biosolids. Nutrient management plans and water quality monitoring should be required at sites where Class AA biosolids are land applied. Water quality monitoring should be required at sites where Class B biosolids are used to create compost (i.e., Class AA biosolids). At a minimum, these proposed requirements for the management of Class AA biosolids (Le., setbacks operational limits water quality monitoring reporting) should be implemented in areas where the FDEP has adopted a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for nutrients or the FDEP has otherwise determined that the receiving waters are suffering from excessive nutrient loadings. In addition, in all areas of Florida, the distribution and use of Class AA biosolids should be tracked and reported. Last summer the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) announced a plan to significantly increase its water quality monitoring program in the regional watershed. We applaud the SFWMD's efforts, but the SFWMD's data collection program will only provide part of the information that is needed for an effective regulatory program. To supplement the SFWMD's activities, the FDEP should require water quality monitoring by the owners/operators of sites where biosolids are managed and used. Obtaining water quality data from these sites (i.e., at the point of discharge into the region's waterbodies) will provide essential information about these potential sources of water pollution. Without monitoring, it will be very difficult for the FDEP to accurately assess the magnitude of the water quality impacts associated with a site or facility that uses biosolids. Florida's algae blooms make it clear that a "presumption of compliance" with water quality standards should no longer be relied upon by the FDEP or the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) when the agencies evaluate sites where biosolids are managed. Sites using biosolids, including Class AA biosolids, need to affirmatively demonstrate that they are not causing or contributing to water quality problems. The best way to make that demonstration is through water quality monitoring. Unfortunately, the proposed rules published by the FDEP on October 29, 2019 do not adequately address the critical issues that have been summarized above. Our consultants (CDM Smith) have evaluated the FDEP's proposals for us and they have offered their comments in a letter dated December 18, 2019. A copy of the CDM letter is attached for your review. Lower CostRegulatory Alternative: CDM also evaluated the Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative (LCRA) that has been proposed for Section 62-640.700(10)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The LCRA would allow the application of biosolids in places where there normally is less than 15 centimeters (approximately S.9 inches) of separation between the land surface and the seasonal high water table, provided the landowner draws down the ground water levels and thus temporarily increases the separation between the ground surface and the seasonal high water table. CDM notes that the "active management" of the seasonal high groundwater table in this manner may "promote infiltration [of nutrients] during the period of drawdown, [and] induce groundwater transport of legacy nutrients and other parameters out of the surficial aquifer system (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, and others), ... " Artificially lowering the water table will temporarily increase the depth of the vadose zone, but it will not prevent the water-soluble nutrients in the biosolids from leaching out of the soil when the ground water returns to its normal levels. For this reason, and the other reasons cited in the CDM letter, we believe the LCRA should be rejected or substantially modified. 387 Conclusion: Thank you and the other members of the ERC for carefully considering our comments. We also encourage you to carefully consider the comments that have been submitted by Martin County, Indian River County, and the citizens in our respective communities. We trust that you and the ERC will address these exceptionally important issues by strengthening the provisions in the FDEP's biosolids rule. Please feel free to contact our County Administrator, Howard Tipton, at (772) 462-1156 if you have any questions about our proposals. Sincerely, Cathy Towns d Chairperson St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners Copies provided to: Governor Ron DeSantis (GovernorRon.DeSantis@eog.myflorida.com) FDEP Secretary Noah Valenstein Kristin Gousse, FDEP (Kristin.Gousse de,..stateti.us) Frank Gummey City of New Smyrna Beach 3 Oceans West Blvd., No. 6CS Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118 Email: k_umme -erc` aol.com Joe Joyce 9916 S.W. 13" Place Gainesville, FL 32607 Email: ici@ifas.ufl.edu Craig D. Varn 204 S. Monroe St., Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Email: cvarn@mansonbolves.com Jim McCarthy North Florida Land Trust 2038 Gilmore St. Jacksonville, FL 32204 Email: imccarthv@northfloridalandtrust.onit'. RM 101 Southhall Lane, Suite 200 Maitland, Ftorida 32751 tel: 407 660-2552 December 18, 2019 Mr. David S. Dee, Esq. Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Bush, Dee, LaVia & Wright, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Subject: Proposed Rule Changes to Chapter 62-640, FAC regarding the management, use, and land application of biosolids Dear Mr. Dee, At your request on behalf of St Lucie County, CDM Smith reviewed the notice of proposed rule published by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the Florida Administrative Register on October 29, 2019, that would amend Chapter 62-640, FA.C, to "revise the monitoring and permitting criteria for the land application and management of biosolids". Based on our review of the proposed rule changes, we have the following observations with respect to the proposed rule changes: 1. We understand that the current regulations do not pertain to "Class AA" biosolids although it is unclear in Section 62-640.700 FAC (Requirements for Land Application of Class AA, A, and B Biosolids) since the specific list of biosolids categories are proposed to be deleted. We understand that Class AA biosolids may be excluded from the rule since these are processed to a higher level of treatment and are distributed for lot -scale fertilizer applications. It should be noted that large-scale composting can potentially be a transport mechanism to surface and ground waters. On behalf of St Lucie County, we have noted engineering concerns for a facility in St Lucie County where this potential exists. 2. Under Section 62-640.100 S. (h) FAC, existing biosolids applications site, biosolids treatment facilities, etc. shall meet the requirements at the time of renewal or within three years of the effective date of the rule. Based on data available from the 2017 FDEP Annual Report for Biosolids Land Application sites within St. Lucie County, it would be responsible to reduce the timeframe to comply with all sections of the new rule. 3. No prohibitions zones were proposed in Section 62-640.400 FAC St. Lucie County may want to consider proposing prohibition zones that are upstream of the watershed (Note that the St Lucie River watershed is already included). St Lucie county Ch 62b40 Biosolids Review 389 Mr. David Dee, esq. December 18, 2019 Page 2 4. Since surface and ground waters often directly interact in Florida, it may be advisable to further vet and confirm the total nitrogen and total P20s application rate numbers (62- 640.650 3. (c) FAC) as well as the 1,000 ft setback (62-640.650 3. (d) FAC), and it may be appropriate to monitor surface water (if there is an overflow) and shallow groundwater for all applications. 5. The proposed rule (Section 62-640.70010 FAC) prohibits the land application on any site where the seasonal high groundwater table (SHGWT) is within 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) of the soil surface or within the placement of biosolids if tilled or placed in excavated areas. Areas with SHGWT elevations within 15 cm of the surface are often associated with wetlands, floodplains, and sites in close proximity to waterbodies. 6. Under Section 62-640.700 (10) (b) FAC, it would be appropriate to further define what professional experience and certifications qualify as "a professional engineer with soils training' or a "professional soil scientist". While the preferred methodologies are called out, these terms with respect to personnel are ubiquitous, and do not specify required training or years of experience in determining area groundwater levels. It may be appropriate to have certified professional engineers with training and certifications in hydrogeology and/or geotechnical engineering make these determinations. Additionally, at the request of St. Lucie County, we reviewed several letters submitted to FDEP in response to the proposed rule changes which made reference to a 'Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative for Proposed Biosolids Rule" (related to Section 62-640.700 (10) (a) FAC). The "Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative for Proposed Biosolids Rule" related to 62-640.700 (10) a. states that "reducing nutrient flushing can be achieved without creating a total prohibition on the land application of biosolids at sites where the SHGWT is within 15 cm of the surface for only a very short duration of the year" by nutrient management plans and water quality plans that provide reasonable assurance that the land application of biosolids at the site will not cause or contribute to a violation of Florida surface water quality standards or groundwater standards. After review of the "lower cost alternative', CDM Smith notes the following observations: l) even if reasonable assurance is provided, this could results in placement of biosolids closer to environmentally sensitive and impaired water systems; 2) the limit of accuracy for SHGWT estimates is unclear and an additional safety factor may be considered for any site that does not meet the 15 cm throughout the year; and 3) "active management" of the groundwater table per proposed Chapter 62-640.700 (10) (a) 2 may promote infiltration during the period of drawdown, induce groundwater transport of legacy nutrients and other parameters out of the surficial aquifer system (e.g, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, and others), and increase the potential of unintentionally drawing down groundwater levels offsite. The requirements of these management and monitoring plans may include additional details such as potential adverse impacts on adjacent landowners' ability to beneficially use their own properties and potential risks to wetlands, environmentally sensitive, and impaired water systems in the zone of groundwater level drawdown influence. St Lucie County Ch 82-840 BloWids Review 390 Mr. David Dee, esq. December 18, 2019 Page 3 Summary We offer these considerations to the proposed amendment to Chapter 62-640, FAC and the "Lower Cost Alternative" to assist in further supporting reasonable assurance to "minimize the migration of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus that impair or contribute to the impairment of waterbodies". We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this summary review. Please contact me at 772.633.7160 or gnallaWcgimsmith,com if you have any questions or comments to discuss. Sincerely, P Eric J. tke, PE,'BCEE Vice President CDM Smith Inc. cc: St Lucie County CDM Smith File 221692 Sl Lucio County Ch 62-540 BiosoNds Review 391 March 4, 2020 Ms. Cari Roth Chair, Environmental Regulation Commission c/o Dean Mead 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, FL 32301 croth@deanmead.com Re: FDEP's Proposed Biosolids Rule (Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.) Dear Ms. Roth: As a county particularly susceptible to the effects of the land application of Class B biosolids, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County would like to emphasize the County's concern about the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) proposed changes to Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). An example of the substantial effects of land applied biosolids in Indian River County can be seen at one of the County's great environmental resources, the Blue Cypress Lake. Blue Cypress Lake, located in the most rural area of the County, has suffered greatly in recent years from increased levels of nutrients after excessive amounts of Class B biosolids were permitted to be land applied in the area of the lake. Specifically, in 2017, 740,205 pounds of Total Nitrogen and 293,358 pounds of Total Phosphorous contained in the Class B biosolids were applied on fields in close proximity to the lake. In reality, the site was permitted by the FDEP to allow up to 519,498 pounds of phosphorous to be applied. Even if the County spent $600 Million to convert all of its existing 30,000 septic systems within Indian River County, the nutrient reduction of this conversion would not surpass what one site applied in 2017 alone. Focusing on investments, Indian River County and its partners have invested over $40 Million dollars to remove dissolved nutrients from its water ways in an effort to comply with the Basin Management Action Plan. It is unthinkable that a regulatory agency has and will continue to allow these nutrients to be applied throughout the state when there is clear and compelling evidence that require stricter regulations to protect the environment and associated water quality. The proposed rule changes to 62-640 F.A.C., while taking a step in the right direction, fall short of the requirements FDEP is charged with per Chapter 403, Florida Statute. While county staff has previously sent a number of technical comments on the proposed rule to FDEP, the Board of County Commissioners would like to provide additional comments before the Environmental Regulation Commission's meeting on March 19, 2020. First, the proposed rule gives up to three years from its effective date to achieve compliance. Given that the effective date will very possibly be more than a year from now, this delay will mean that hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional nutrients will be placed on fields that essentially do not need them. Had Indian River County not taken the proactive stance of implementing a moratorium on the application 392 of Class B biosolids within our County, the timeframe outlined above may have led to significant additional degradation of the Blue Cypress Lake from the permit -allowed application of Class B biosolids on fields in close proximity to the Lake. Indian River County is submitting comments on the proposed rule to rectify shortcomings of the existing rule and ensure that future applications of biosolids is done so in a matter consistent with the protection of the environment. Accordingly, the time to come into compliance with any new rules should be shortened significantly. Second, any rule adopted by FDEP should make clear that from this point forward, the cost of remediation for damage done to the waters of the state of Florida shall be borne by the entities responsible for such pollution. It is far cheaper to regulate and prohibit the nutrient loads from entering the environment rather than spending millions of dollars to try and clean up the damage after the fact. Third, it is imperative that any increased monitoring programs instituted by FDEP with respect to the application of biosolids and its effect on water quality should provide affirmative demonstration, not reasonable assurance, accompanied by appropriate increases in FDEP staffing in order to effectively and efficiently carry out such monitoring operations. It is imperative the main focus of any efforts to amend FDEP rules related to the land application of all biosolids will be on protecting the environment of Florida, preserving the water quality of not only Blue Cypress Lake, but any similar waters enjoyed by the residents and visitors of our great state. Respectfully, Susan Adams Chair, Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County 393 NN BCC AGENDA COMMISSIONERS MATTERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Commissioners Open Dialogue At the request of the Board of County Commissioners, an Open Dialogue section will be added to the agenda on a monthly basis. This section will be an opportunity for Commissioners to provide updates and/or reports on progress, meetings, or activities related to topics of interest to the Commission and Public. This is for the purpose of sharing information only; action will not be taken by the Board on matters discussed under Commissioners Open Dialogue section. 394 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney DATE: March 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with the City of Fellsmere Regarding Fire Marshal Services BACKGROUND. On August 13, 2019, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") approved an interlocal agreement with the City of Sebastian concerning fire marshal services. In the memorandum to the Board concerning the matter, the County Attorney's Office stated that "[i]f the Board approves the interlocal agreement, Indian River County staff will work to fmalize a similar agreement with the City of Fellsmere." County staff and the County Attorney have negotiated a similar interlocal agreement with the City of Fellsmere. The key changes to the interlocal agreement were to 1) eliminate the ten year term, 2) eliminate the educational requirement, and 3) include a section concerning the electronic reporting program purchased by the City of Fellsmere. At this writing, the interlocal agreement will be presented to the City of Fellsmere City Council on March 5, 2020. The County Attorney will provide a status update to the Board. FUNDING. The cost of recording the interlocal agreement is $52.50, which will be split evenly between the parties. The funds for Indian River County's portion of the recording costs will be from the Emergency Services District/Fire Rescue/Legal Ads account number 11412022-034910. , RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney's Office recommends that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chair to execute the interlocal agreement. ATTACHMENT. Proposed Interlocal Agreement 395 THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), made and entered into this day of , 2020, between the Indian River County Emergency Services District, a dependent special district (the "District") and the City of Fellsmere, a municipal corporation created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida (the "City"), provides for the City's Fire Marshal Office to review fire safety plans and installation inspection services. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners adopted IRC Ordinance No. 90-25, abolishing the three existing fire districts and establishing the consolidated Indian River County Emergency Services District, as a dependent special district, subsequently approved by a majority of voters of the district on March 12, 1991and codified in Chapter 208 of the Code of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2009, the Fellsmere City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2009- 17, establishing the Fellsmere Fire Marshal's Office (the "FFM"), subsequently amended through the enactment of Ordinance No. 2010-10, for the purposes of consolidating plan review and expediting economic development; and WHEREAS, the City and District share a common goal of addressing fire safety issues in a comprehensive manner; and WHEREAS, the City and the District are committed to working together to address the aforementioned concerns; and WHEREAS, in entering into this Agreement, neither the City nor the District is admitting or denying the positions they have expressed concerning their respective responsibilities as set forth in the Florida Statutes, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements herein contained and assumed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties, the District and City agree as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. DURATION, TERMINATION, AND AMENDMENT. (a) This Agreement will remain in full force and effect unless terminated through an amendment by the parties pursuant to the procedure set forth in subsection 2(b) or through court action; (b) This Agreement may only be amended by the mutual consent of the parties and in the same manner as its original adoption. 396 SECTION 3. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY (a) Services: Except for those buildings owned, occupied or leased by Indian River County, the District, the Solid Waste Disposal District or any constitutional officers, the City shall perforin fire safety plan review, installation inspections and annual inspections within the City of Fellsmere, including but not limited to fire sprinkler, fire alarm, hood suppression, commercial mechanical, LP gas, medical gas, and other similar reviews and inspections. Except for those buildings owned or leased by Indian River County, the District, the Solid Waste Disposal District or any constitutional officers, the City shall also be responsible for all inspections performed after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall also be responsible far inspections for special events. The City shall annually provide a copy of all inspection reports and corrective actions taken to the District at the time set forth in Section 3(g) infra. (b) Insurance: Upon request by the District the City shall transmit to District a certificate of coverage naming the District as additional covered party on its general liability insurance policy with respect to the FFM plan review and installation inspection services in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence/aggregate. (c) Certifications: All individuals providing fire safety plan review and installation inspection services on behalf of FFM shall be licensed and/or certified in accordance with the requirements prescribed in Section 633.216 F.S., as amended and by the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Fire Marshal. (d) Concurrent Jurisdiction: Nothing in this Agreement deprives the District from limited concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as amended, within the City of Fellsmere; however, the District will not take enforcement action unless: (1) the District first contacts the City's Fire Marshal to confer regarding the enforcement action intended and allows a reasonable time for corrective or other action necessary to address the District's concerns; or (2) a violation is observed which puts life or property in imminent danger, in such case enforcement action may be taken by the District, with the City's Fire Marshal being contacted immediately thereafter. (e) Segregation of Duties: The individual performing the fire safety plan review and installation inspection services on behalf of the City 397 on new construction plans shall not be the same individual performing building plan review and inspection services on behalf of the City. (f) Reports from City: Within 60 days after October 1 of each fiscal year the City will provide a report to the Fire Chief and Director of the District of the annual fire safety inspections performed for the immediate prior fiscal year. The annual report shall include the current contact information for the City's Fire Marshal. (g) Reports from District: Within 30 days after the recording of this Interlocal Agreement in the Public Records, the District shall provide a list to the City of all fire inspections conducted in the City by the District during the prior twelve months. (h) Electronic Reporting Program: The District has purchased an intemet-based program through an outside vendor, that allows third party businesses performing inspections of range hoods to electronically report their findings to the District. The District will make this reporting service available to third party businesses inspecting range hoods in the City and should an issue be flagged by the third party vendor the District will inform to the City and the City will follow up with the business until compliant. The District will not charge for this reporting service. SECTION 4. NOTICE. (a) Unless specified by a party in writing otherwise, all notices, demands, or other papers required to be given or made by this Agreement, or which may be given or made, by either party to the other, will be given or made in writing and addressed as follows: City: City Manager City of Fellsmere 22 S. Orange Street Fellsmere, FL 32948 with a copy to the City Attorney County: County Administrator 180127 1h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365 with a copy to the County Attorney The parties will consider notice to be properly given if (1) personally delivered; (2) sent by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested; or (3) sent by an overnight letter delivery company; and 398 (b) The parties will consider the effective date of notice to be the date personally delivered; or, if sent by U.S. Mail, the date of postmark; or, if sent by an overnight letter delivery company, the date the notice was picked up by the overnight letter delivery company from the party giving notice. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD HARMLESS To the extent allowed by law, each party shall indemnify and hold the other harmless from all claims brought during the term of this Agreement by third parties, including reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and expenses, which may arise out of or be attributed to the negligence of the indemnitor's employees or agent in the performance of any of the covenants, agreements, terms, or conditions to be performed or complied with under this Agreement. Neither party's liability to the other shall include punitive damages or interest for the period before judgment. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or attempted waiver of any immunity from, or limitation of, liability either party has under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity of Section 768.28 Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution. Additionally, neither party shall be liable pursuant to this indemnity to pay a claim or a judgment by any one person or any claim or judgment, or portions thereof, which when totaled with all other claims or judgments paid arising out of the same incident or occurrence, which exceeds the limits of liability as set forth in Section 768.28(5) Florida Statutes, provided, that the payment of said claim(s) shall be further limited to the actual amount of insurance proceeds paid for such claim(s) covered by this indemnification. This indemnity specifically excludes any requirement for one party to indemnify the other party for the other party's negligence or to assume any liability for the other party's negligence as provided in Section 768.28 (19) Florida Statutes. This Agreement does not provide third parties with any remedy, claim, liability, reimbursement, cause of action, or other right or privilege. SECTION 6. BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. The City and the District are not partners or joint ventures or agents of each other for any activities pursuant to this Agreement, and no such relationship' between them shall be deemed to exist by virtue of this Agreement. SECTION 7. CONSTRUCTION. The headings of the sections of this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience only, and shall not be deemed to expand, limit, or modify the provisions contained in such Sections. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter, singular or plural, as the identity of the party or parties may require. The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that each was properly represented by counsel and this Agreement was negotiated and drafted at arm's length so that the judicial rule of construction to the effect that a legal document shall be construed against the draftsperson shall be inapplicable_ to this Agreement. SECTIONS. MERGER; MODIFICATION. 399 This Agreement incorporates and includes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements, or understandings of any nature whatsoever concerning the subject matter of the Agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior or contemporaneous representations or agreements, whether oral or written, unless the provisions of the parol evidence rule applies. SECTION 9. DISPUTES, GOVERNING LAW, VENUE. The parties shall negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute arising under this Agreement or under any instrument made to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Failing resolution, the affected parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute by use of the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act, section 164.101, Florida Statutes, et. seq. (the "Act"). Failing to resolve the issue through the process under the Act, either party may seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction with each party bearing their own attorneys' fees and costs in any resolution of any dispute. This Agreement, including all attachments hereto, shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against the other party or otherwise arising out of this Agreement shall be in Indian River County, Florida, or, in the event of federal jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. SECTION 10. CONFLICT. To the extent of any conflict between this Agreement and any existing City or District agreement, this Agreement will be deemed to be controlling. This Agreement is not intended to amend or repeal any existing City or Indian River County ordinance. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Agreement is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. SECTION 12. RECORDATION. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Circuit Court in Indian River County. The City and the District shall share evenly in the costs of recordation of this Agreement. SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement will become effective upon its filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, as required by Section 163.01(l 1), Florida Statutes. 400 APPROVED this day of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT, a dependent special district. By: Susan Adams, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller 2-7 Deputy Clerk APPROVED: By: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: By: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney f lotto-gWylanlsebasti- ila on fire marshal (city ver. 1).&= , 2020. CITY, FELLSMERE, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Florida By:. Joel Tyson,: Mayor ATTEST: Deborah C. Krages City Clerk By. APPROVED:. By: Mark D. Mathes, City Manager Approved as to form and legal sufficiency. By Warren W. Dill, City Attorney 401