Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01740 40 1III( lan leer County Sector i In", l f� C� sector ver i Preser�v tion Plan secto mi na is and Cost Allocation Phin saz� Urehid t + AIA 11Awallisso 11�Mrhr1. Y+ `f. s h u Qs'lEfl/1 ' `j" r 17 ,, Pinc Island R-5(1 Winter tiEbf yipr [ {J i'iC.1C�1 Indian ) I Riva shores R•%f) fiU7 i4i U5 .. R -i'( R-71Vero Beach l9•i��lk•aihi . Muuuel wl M R-80 �^6U R -W R±]4 December 1998 "•i Aho .r 271{) NW 4:fi�cl titrh,er, 5Yhitr 9i �1 {�i#ihs:-svilla . I h), i h "i"lM)ri 72111 EI C-3 RECEIVED JAN 1 s 1y99 CLERK TO THE &QARD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BE, PRESERVATION PLAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST ALLOCATION PLAN Prepared For: Indlin River Cpunty Prepared by: Applied Technology and Management, Inc., Gainesville Curtis and Moss Economic Consultants, Tampa. Government Services Group., Tallatz,,swe Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A., "Pampa Peccnuber 1998 2770 NNV 43rd Street, Suite 11 0jillovilic, Florida 32(ft-7419 Applied Technodw,-y -ind Man-m,cmew. 410 40 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Indian River County has approximately 22 miles of barrier island beaches from Sebastian Inlet south to Round Island Park, approximately eight (8) miles (36 percent) of which are considered critically eroded. In April 1998, the Coastal Engineering Division of the Indian River County Public Works Department submitted an updated version of the Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan (BPP) adopted in 1988. The updated BPP divider! the County's coastline into eight (8) planning sectors. Each sector is characterized by the same degree of beach erosion, morphological and upland characteristics, densities and types of land use, existing beach widths and the existence of erosion control structures. The BPP determined that the County's coastline is experiencing an annual erosion rate of 187,218 cubic yards per year and recommended beach nourishment or restoration as the most cost-effective corrective action. Critical to the implementation of the BPP was the identification and creation of sources to fund the projects. This report examines the overall economic viability of the proposed beach nourishment program and quantifies the benefits to be derived by individual beneficiary groups over,the 30 -year project horizon. Four project areas are proposed for sand replenishment as described in the BPP These four (A) project areas correspond to Sectors 1 & 2 (Ambersand Beach), Sector 3 (Wabasso Beach), Sector 5 (Vero Beach) and Sector 7 (South County Beach). Implementation of the beach nourishment project will provide two distinct types of benefit: (1) storm protection benefit to the coastal property, and (2) recreational benefit to the total community. These benefits were used to allocate the project cost to various user groups and identify appropriate funding sources. CA • Description of Beach Restoration Project During the initial nourishment, offshore material will be brought onto the beach to create additional width and height at an elevation suitable to protect the upland property and infrastructure from a moderate to severe storm event. Implementation of the project should enable any individually considered shoreline restoration segment to incur damages from a 15 -year return interval storm at any time between the initial restoration and subsequent renourishments. The beach will be renourished at intervals of approximately 8 years throughout the 30 -year project horizon. An eight (8) -year renourishment interval was sought for project cost effectiveness, maximum funding participation by the Florida Department of Environmental 'Protection (FDEP), and realistic sand placement volumes as advance nourishment. A 15 -year design level storm was determined to provide the optimum project volumetric requirements. The present value of the initial nourishment project is approximaieiy $14,602,000. When projected over a 30 -year horizon, the present value of all restoration and renourishment costs for improvements to Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, inclusive, is approximately $43,023,108. Storm Protection Benefit The storm protection benefit resulting from the beach nourishment program was computed for each parcel of property, he 11..11 I -act ..._ ..r---.-- p.�.a �'� p up �y, 1 IIG IVIIl1 YYl11'� Ip.4LV l.9 1lVGIC ICiM1GII InLL) consideration: (1) anticipated land loss from erosion if the project was not completed, (2) value of land that would be lost, (3) construction cost of erosion control structures required if the project was not completed, and (4) maintenance cost of erosion control structures. The aggregate net present value of the storm protection benefit for all property abutting the project over a 30 -year project horizon is estimated at $27,444,286. C.7 • Recreational Benefit Recreational benefits were more difficult to quantify. For purposes of this report, the total recreational value of Indian River County beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach. To determine the recreational benefits associated with the projects identified in the BPP, a beach surrey was conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on the Indian River County's beaches. The survey was conducted on various dates between August 13 and October 11, 1998. The survey determined that the average amount beach visitors would be willing to pay for a day's beach use is $11.71. The average value of a day at the beach was multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach for each sector to determine the total recreational benefits. The net present value of the recreational benefits over the 30 -year project horizon is estimated at $59,322,518 for the entire project area. Project Cost Allocation The cosi for each project area was allocated to storm protection benefit and recreational benefit based upon the relative amount of each that is attributable to each specific project area. For example, in Sector 3, the aggregate storm protection benefit is $6,243,281 and the recreational benefit is $12.970,168. Since the storm protection benefit represents 32.5 percent of the $19,213,449 total benefit for Sector 3, 32.5 percent of the actual project cost has been assigned to storm protee,,tion benefit. Similarly, 67.5 percent of the project cost has been assigned to ieutuaiiunal benefit - Obviously, the storm protection benefit inures to the coastal property and recreational henefii inures to the individuals who potentially use the beaches. Because of the inability to directly correlate the recreational benefits to specific property uses or owners, the costs related to recreational benefits have been allocated to the following user groups based upon the survey resrllts: C-1 4D • Overnight tourists paying tourist development taxes • Overnight tourists not paying tourist development taxes • Day tourists • County residents (non -island) • County residents (island) Identification of Potential Funding Sources Once the total project costs for each sector were allocated to storm protection benefit and recreational benefit, the next two steps in the cost allocation process were to apportion the costs to user groups and individual property owners. Several potential revenue sources are available to the County to fund the beach nourishment projects. The following funding sources can be used to fund the costs apportioned to the groups of users and individual property owners: • State grant funds • Ad valorem taxes • Special assessments • Tourist development taxes • Local government infrastructure surtax State grant funds will be used to the maximum extent possible within each sector. These funds can be used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost based on project qualifications. Typically a 50 percent state contribution is formulated and the remaining project cost must be paid from local sources. Storm Protection Benefit. Since the storm protection benefit inures to property located along the coast, property -oriented funding sources can be applied logically to pay this portion of the cost. Ad valorem taxes and special assessments are available for this purpose. In order to impose ad valorem taxes only against coastal property, the County would be required to establish a municipal service taxing unit or create a special district. Since ad valorem taxes imposed within a municipal service taxing unit must be included within an included municipality's ten (10) -mill limitation, each included municipality must approve creation of the unit by ordinance. Section 2.09 of the Vero Beach City Charter prohibits the City from expending tax dollars for this purpose, directly or indirectly, and may prohibit the City from approving creation of a municipal service taxing unit. Special districts also may impose ad valorem taxes. However, referenda would be required both to impose ad valorem taxes and to pledge them as security for bonds. In addition, if a dependent special district is created, the millage must be included within the County's ten (10) -trill limitation. In terms of equity, there may not be a direct relationship between taxable property value and the relative amount of storm protection benefit derived by any specific parcel of property. Special assessments are available as an alternative to ad valorem taxes. As established by case law, two requirements exist for the imposition of a valid special assessment: (1) the property assessed must derive a special benefit from the improvement or service provided and (2) the assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special benefit. The storm protection element of the project clearly provides a special benefit to coastal property and the methodology used in this report to determine the storm protection benefit received by each parcel of property provides a sound basis for allocating the cost. No referendum is rcquired to impose special assessments or to pledge them as security for bonds, Recreational Benefit State grant funds will be available to defray a portion of the project cost attributable to recreational benefit. Funds derived from tourist development taxes and the local government infrastructure sales surtax are candidates to fund the balance. The specific alternative quantified in this report applies tourist development taxes to fund the portion of the recreational benefit attributable to overnight visitors paying the tax. State grant funds remaining after application to the storm benefit attributable to government property are then applied. Local government infrastructure sales surtaxes are applied to any remaining balance. v r--] TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 3 1.2 Benefit Categories 4 2.0 Storm Protection Benefits 6 2.1 Data Compilation and Benefits Methodology 6 2.2 Calculation of storm Protection Benefits 7 2.3 Total Storm Protection Benefits 21 3.0 Recreational Benefits 29 3.1 Recreational Benefits Methodology 29 => Theoretical Background of Recreational Benefits 29 3.2 Data Compilation and Analysis 31 -> Avcrage Value of a Bay on tho Beach 31 3.3 Evaluation of Beach User Survey Respondents 32 3.4 Total Recreational Benefits 34 Recreational Value Over the Life of the Project 35 4.0 Project Costs 37 4.1 Project Description 37 4,2 Project Costs aft 5.0 Alternative Revenue Sources 48 5.1 Introduction 48 5.2 Tourist Development Taxes 49 5.3 The Local Government Infrastructure Surtax 50 5.4 State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program Funds 51 _:, quantifying Project Costs 53 A 4D 5.5 Ad Valorem 'Faxes 54 => Authorization 54 Municipal Taxing Service Units 55 => Special Districts 56 =:� Vero Beach City Charter 59 5.6 Special Assessments 61 General Discussion 61 Special Benefit Requirement 62 =:> Fair and Reasonable Apportionment Requirement 63 Requirement for a Municipal Service Benefit Unit 64 5.7 'Development of Funding Alternatives 68 6.0 Total Distribution and Allocation Methods of Project Benefits 70 6.1 Allocation of Storm Protection and Recreational Benefits to Beneficiary Groups 70 Methods of Allocating Project Benefits to User Groups and Individual Properties 73 6.2 Sectors 1 & 2 — Sebastian Inlet Beach and Ambersand Beach 76 6.3 Sector 3 — Wabasso Beach 80 6.4 Sector 5 — Vero Bearh 84 6.5 Sector 7- South County Beach 87 APPENDICIES Appendix A Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey Appendix B - Beachfront Properties Under Public Ownership N0 40 LIST OFTABLES Table page 1 Property Characteristics ...... --............ --...... .......................... ...... 8 2 2DUNEDune Erosion Model Indian River County Beach Preservation rmjeum—............... ......... ...... 17 3 Indian River County Land Value Summary ... .... ....... _--.............. — 19 4 Storm Protection and Land Loss Benefits Over o3V-Yeo Project Horizon 23 5 Average Value of eDay at the Beach by Sector .................. ......... .... ..... 32 u Indian River Beach Counts ............. ................................... ............ ..... 83 7 User Clasn0co8ntySector ..... ..... ........................ ... ........................... 34 m Estimated Beach Days— ........... ....................................... ...................... 34 9 Annual Recreational Beach Benefits ............. ................. .... ..... ... ..... 35 10 Present Value ofAnnual geechRmvreaVnnalBnnefito---------- 30 11 Project Design Feature for the Indian River County _Beach ,n,;vmancnPlan Puqomo.... ........ ........ ............... —....... .......... 41 12 30-Yeu Cost Projections for Indian River County Beach Projects Sectors ^ and u ...... —.................... _..... .......... ....... .............. ...... __ 43 13 30-Yea,Cost Projections for Indian River County Beach Projects Sector3 ................. ... .... ...... ...................... --... ...... ...... ............ 44 14 30 -Year Cost Projections for Indian River County Beach Projects Sector5 ..... ......... —.......... ......... ......... ................ ................... ---' 45 15 30 -Year Cost Projections for Indian River County Beach Projects Sector7 ......... .............. ......... ............. —....... ....... —................ ........ —' 46 18 30 -Yea Cost Projections for Indian River County Beach Projects Summary 47 17 Government PmprrtiemFronting Beach Nourishment Projects .............. — oc 18 Summary ofTotal Estimated Project Benefits hyBeach Somm`—............. ro 19 Sectors 1 &z (Sebastian Inlet State Park &Ampersand 8auob) Distribution ofProject Benefits and Cost Allocation mPotential Revenue Sources ...... 73 zo Sector D(Waummou)Distribution ofProject Benefits and Cost Allocation tuPotential Revenue Sources ............................................. ..................... 81 21 Sector 5(Veto Beach) Distribution o*Project Benefits and Cost Allocation mW 4D LIST OPTABLES <ConUnuod> 22 Sector 7(South County Beach) Distribution v[Project Benefits and 23 Summary ofProject Costs and Benufitoand Coast Allocations hoFunding LIST OF FIGURES Figu Page 1 Beach Sector Location Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan ......... ----............... --. 2 u Sectors 1.2and 3Exn[ngConditions and Potential Offshore Borrow Areas ......... --......... ...... ........ ...... --.. 15 o Sectors 5and 7Emmn Conditions and Potential Offshore Borrow Areas ..................... ................. —........ —' 18 * Total Benefits of Beach 8onnumptionat aZero Price .... —... —............... 30 5 Estimation ofArea Under the Demand ........ ................ --- ......... ........ 31 8 Allocation of AlhrnmuRovonuaSources wStorni Protection and Reomahono|8onefiuiarrQmupu...... ....................... ----................. 09 / Project Cost and AllocationhoStorm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for Sectors 1 &2------------------------' 79 u Project Cost and AllocationhoStorm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups or Sector 3 --------------------------- .2 y Project Cost and AllocationNStorm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for umnmr,5.... ....... ---.................................... ...... .......... -- VV 10 p and nnmStorm Protection and R:onzabumdoene��ary 40 f-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Indian River County has approximately 22 miles of barrier island beaches from Sebastian Inlet south to Round Island Park. Eight (8) miles are listed as critically eroded. While 20 percent of Florida's 1,350 miles represent erosional beach areas, almost 40 percent of Indian River County is critically eroded. The causes of this erosion vary from downdraft impacts of the Sebastian Inlet to localized physical features resulting in chronic erosional trends to large-scale storm events which trigger major losses of sand. Four (4) project areas have been identified for beach nourishment as described in the Indian river County Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). Sector 1 and 2 (Ambersand Beach), Sector 3 (Wabasso Beach), Sector 5 (Vero Beach) and Sector 7 (South County Beach). Highway A1A parallels the entire beach with access to the barrier island via CR 510 as Sector 3 on the north beach and via t SR 60 and SR 656 at Sector 5 beach area for the central and south beaches. Figure 1 provides a descriptive map for the eight (8) beach sectors identified in the BPP. Ninety percent of Indian River County's population lives within ten (10) miles of the coast. Both tourists and the increased residential population place great demand on the beach resources. Not only are the beaches the number one tourist destination in Indian - River County, but County residential users comprise an average of 46 percent of all beach users, These 22 mines of Atlantic oceanfront beaches are a major economic asset to Indian River County. Property values in the County continue to rise at a rate greater than the overa;l inflation rate. Tourism continues to be the major industry in the County. Therefore, Indian River County has a vested interest in the preservation of this valuable natural resource. 40 i Figure i Beach Sector Location Mal) Indian River County Beach Preservation Pian m Kaiennyra1ir .� i�r+s ne r • • Continued erosion has limited the availability of quality beaches and has contributed to the increased cost of shore protection. Additionally, an unprecedented number of seawalls have been constructed over the past three (3) years, further degrading the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, Earlier attempts to artificially protect upland structures included rock revetments and sand filled tubes. Additionally, major habitable structures have been condemned and lost to erasion over the past ten (10) years. Without adequate large-scale shore protection mechanisms in place, the number of seawalls is expected to increase. Prudent development decisions along the remaining undeveloped beachfront can help in beach preservation, However, most oceanfront property has already been developed and these valuable structures cannot readily be moved landward to provide for new beachfront. A comprehensive beach management plan is an economically preferable approach to restoration of the County's beach. The following economic analysis and cost allocation provides some alternatives for financing such a plan. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to examine the overall economic viability of beach nourishment along five (5) sectors of Indian River County shoreline, as described in the County's adopted BPP to determine the benefits attributed to those individual benefiniary groups who are expected to realize them over the design life, of the iriantifiar♦ nrniarte The work product described herein compiles new economic data and information, analyzes project -related benefits to identified beneficiaries and evaluates alternative funding sources and cast allocation methods to fund the costs of the County's comprehensive beach nourishment program. 4D i 1.2 BENEFIT CATEGORIES Beach nourishment projects provide storm and erosion protection benefits and recreational benefits, For the purpose of estimating project benefits, oceanfront properties were grouped into beach areas and shoreline sectors. Beach "sectors° are relatively large groups of properties which are characterized by similar erosion rates, recreational beach areas and types of upland development. Sectors are divisions of beach areas which are characterized by the same degree of beach erosion, morphological and upland characteristics, densities and types of land use, existing beach widths and the existence of erosion control structures. A study of these factors was used to divide the County into eight (8) sectors. The non -oceanfront properties are grouped into a single area. Because of their location, these non -oceanfront properties have no beach erosion. Hence, these properties are grouped into one (1) area. When looked at from an economic point of view, a nourishment project, over its lifetime (in this case a 30 -year project horizon), will generate a stream of benefits to the property owners. These benefits will eventually show up in increased property values greater than what they would have been if the project had not been completed. Even properties not directly on the beach can benefit from the nourishment program because these properties will also become more valuable. An analysis of this type will allow us to allocate benefits to the different groups of oceanfront nropertleS. The fnllnwlng Grp major benefit ratannriaa 1icarl i!! tl!i0 _a_..__ analysis: ems • 1. Aland use category of residential property as opposed to commercial property. 2. A location category. Oceanfront properties generally located east of AM, and properties extending west. 3. A second location category which is concerned with the beach sector in which a property is located. 4. A distinction is made between private property and public property (roads, water and sewage systems, and public buildings). 5, Consideration is given to whether or not a property is protected by an erosion control structure. 6. Consideration is given to the relative location of major habitable structures to the mean high water line. 7. A distinction is made between day tourists, overnight tourists (hotel/motel), overnight tourists (no rental), County residents and island residents. Categories 1 through 6 are used in allocating storm protection benefits and are exclusively storm protection and erosion benefit allocators, and category 7 is used exclusively in allocating recreational benefits. 40 i 2.0 STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS 2.9 DATA COMPILATION AND BENEFITS METHODOLOGY Project benefits associated with storm protection and erosion losses were generated for properties that front on the ocean. Benefits were calculated for properties within the immediate project area that will benefit from the placed sand and sand retaining structures. The storm protection benefits derived from a beach nourishment project reflect the engineering design features of the projects. The initial beach restoration project benefits are based on a 30 -year project horizon. Storm protection benefits to upland properties are based on the prevention of land loss; the prevention of damage to major habitable structures; and, the anticipated cost savings realized by not having to maintain or repair the existing seawalls fronting individual properties (including both private and public). Benefits are a direct result of the presence of a wide, sandy beach that acts as a buffer against both normal annual erosion and destructive storm waves resulting from hurricanes and nor'easters. One can assume that oceanfront property owners will take whatever actions are in their own economic interest to protect their properties from yearly landward erosion. These actions by the oceanfront property owners will also provide protection to the more landward property owners in the absence of a beach restoration project. Therefore, no direct storm protection benefits are ascribed to non -oceanfront properties. If a portion of a property is located on the ocean.. then a storm protection benefit is ascribed. Historic erosion data and beach profile survey data were used to evaluate erosion rates and present structure vulnerability within the project area (refer to the BPP). Structure vulnerability of oceanfront "developed" parcels is considered a function of length of the seawall or revetment, mean High water line, mean r annual erosion rates, and anticipated storm recession for a 15 -year design storm. The average annual erosion rates over the past 11 years were computed along the project sectors, based on the period of 198E to 1997. Table 1 presents a summary of the characteristics of properties that front the beach nourishment projects identified in the BPP and depicted in Figures 2 and 3. 2.2 CALCULATION OF STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS The storm protection benefit received by an individual property, within an identified project Area, is the expected reduction in land loss due to erosion and the associated cost of tate land protected and the cost to build an erosion control structure for storm protection or the costs of maintaining or repairing an existing erasion control structure in the absence of the project. In the case of oceanfront homes, and properties with upland improvements such as pools and cabanas, which are not presently ,protected by a hardened structure (such as a seawall or revetment) the distance from the mean high water line to the most seaward structure was compared with tate expected erosion rates over 8 years and the storm recession distance for a 15 year return period storm event, except for Sector 7 where the storm recession distance for a five (5) -year return period storm event and eight (8) years of erosion were applied. The expected loss consists of tate discounted stream of future losses over a 30 - year period. The extent of loss varies by reacts of shoreline according to the erosion rates. Losses also consider land values, beach widths and distances between buildings and the mean high water line. The dune erosion model EDUNE was evaluated at four (4) beach profile locations on the Island, at the locations shown in Table 2 based on established Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monuments. 40 40 ^ N M y 1 fps 4 pp � k! ppp {py yp� spy Jill zxxxxszzazxzYya- g$� z'zzzxzzzz'x-zxx'r cc gra mciars aci ei a�a m� ggE 13 m 1" in C N -in j = w N 0 m Njry n �a yw n ra m s ix s 2 n 't Vi;Vi [h V7 Ui,N N Vj UT L7 N'� vY G O in! CQ, to �..�. g � ora c>�go S n3r�r:oFoort.ao or -i: Q1 m h N ry 2 v t M.r] ['1 yUy iyS� R%O ry n2, • Sk 773'�77'777� v_ i T t i, rttrn�rn�irnrni: iT�r "-'t CSO j 1 2T i7:z ZY iST TSww II ra M q. "��� roan Mn 4m rr%r;w nnr`�v'`r: rvn �n 14 i'in Y- C-1 40 'IE 5 § : §VR * '? J, A u Lo; U Z; Z; 2 G j, iC. a G Z; rE� Z; C, 2 2 ''v'2 x §'A vi up4GM;;. C-1 sl LH �2 "R, M�- Nf VV T A A;; f•v 'r n i 't q -4 -0 -z -s at f,02 11. 11 1q.12 �.m � - ,. ff. ,.. ... . . . hill h z.zzz.>-.z�s-j-a>>-;razzzzzx.zrfrrYrr>zzzzazrrzNzzs-zap-Nzzzz 2. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZ)-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz O�M­ DM�02 Ap ms R q R M "P 000 . 000000 ." 0 Yj 13 is �N NNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN(INNN _fir r- n, :5 1, n n. D D 7:] Z, n m m D m D m S m =S -u�:s :,D M, :5 M, S f) M, M, M, :5 :5 M, :5 S M, R t q s CL 5fi t -9 'i fi -3 f-5 15 fi3 5 L 5 5 'a 5 S t 5 5 55` 8 s 5 6 5 45 5 5 5`u55 t Srf55is M m mg M'm mm'm om M-M�m m mm m mmmmmmmmmmm 0 2 W a 2 � 12, 2 2 ; 0 2 29 2 � 00 2;. F 0 P. S2yy1 2 0799 ; 2 � 2 2 2 ; 2 2 9 1 Fa Fa NA.11F ryANS BEEBE 2 ES22SE -BE B.22 B 2 S E !� S A S E A B N A )1y: 1% 1 B .2 E E E[ E E E, E <F IF, I( < < IE a<< < 16 0 C) ----------- .6 fib b_. btfi'5_6 -.5 55-0-0 6-.5,5-0 65fi_.5_. t6fi-I 5t 6-.t 5G6 6 65' 6 t t-Lq 6t fit 6 6 '. M 2 2 3m3g -. a 2m -A 2m 2 2 22 -gg EgAmjAjm.gogi�gj 29 0 mm N M N. d¢¢ d¢ d d VE d¢¢¢ d1� Q 'g g 5 d '4- 4 Q bS Q Q 4 < < < <d < ¢¢ < < %f < < 4 - x < < A 4 m 1 7 3; �3; cS,! T, 2 7 m 1 1 1 tIt" MI, q3 0 111 L.g 10 '1 p00 ss� 88, d. MUM SHM MOP H 6 J. 14, a, 98 RU MUM q -R- 's 9 40 �g � pp SS Up 6 '0 0 o U U o 2 o U o o o a 4 a O p 4 U u 0 6c]06=U' c -J.0. w ocnSO� o v o o o oa o®.•o p0 }y N [ppf rfi t� tit p n �p tp tp �f GNi N N [YOr Y N Mi 9J 4n 5 O QJ.Vhr. t1:. rry r5 M. [� i-, tDmm m�.��m �fmm Oi Gl U10.��11}m UP1l fil f0 l�D [0 [O t�D ftl 2 2 2 a12 PIE- 2 2 P as 2 2 1 O P 00920` ' v I d � N 4J Gt 4 CIN N CI Sr N N N W zz 7 7 7? 7? 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 � 4 Y[ Q Q� 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q S S S n: 4 2 •d ¢ 4 S S r a{q d i dd Qd Yd Y•Se d,i e vQ:[ Q.( {.� s s S 3 i 3 3 mj 4t 5 3 3 s 3 a'- F t, I., 3o m�iM 'dj f lJr N N N 11r.ra�ri 99. IR 2 Qy 1 [ 1 CY 1 1 C� "1 CJ fes' T ` �JIt����.p � yuy�yySy Nf� ��.��.♦�/{j/�r{ry�y�N [�� R C � itl �S N ) ] L� 1-- v Sl M r/IV �i.'��W�r �? t (�CryS LS i�c-_� 1!1 ofV!T�vT iflNNdA 4�^i �'�Lyl ail 4 ! ,tl 45 •A W [tl [hJ oP N } i` ql r.`i !� N' N .+IN NN 4�IN 2� � N�N y pp p 7 . I^- 7 n.M T v {•i yJ- v] � t Y N n9 4 N Vit;, a 3 y •: ,rA I J v vMM,�Y�v v ,. • v v v r v v v . wsr 7 CPO � •f �'f 1pl`�l�yt9 M1VC�'C�I'1IC�yII1•Y C�.[71V){?.-16 Cj`,c� (o lM Ct f-1, �'J•i^' �jIN �� N w] N � N tnui W. W_Or•CS,O;CJ'�. q� r■! Ili .�C! Vi Q],Oa o 1 E Ill ;rI Iii �pya EV=�� ]iii I 1p 1 Cy r ' s 5 z'zzzzzzzzzTzz}zzzzzzzzzzz Mr�[`�iM nM'��Mi�ix i�t`�]t�•a cM']muM]riJn ���i `iwm`va` a'cir�ci ci s5 r�o6aoriooci©bra =.rocioci ci ��� � g fi •° nrj atrnn on.] ntnn �n� W 0)w bS V 0)0 o� 2 I 0. } wNV]In NUYCQ c' 'i. e5 3 u 5 JS f3 't3 .1 u p -5,5 i rJuimr�mmmrirmmrme�°r� F33' E 0 C1 i) 8'. y u v 'a , - EBF ale E [7 L I Z6 4Q 4 6 zIz y �g � pp SS Up 6 '0 0 o U U o 2 o U o o o a 4 a O p 4 U u 0 6c]06=U' c -J.0. w ocnSO� o v o o o oa o®.•o p0 }y N [ppf rfi t� tit p n �p tp tp �f GNi N N [YOr Y N Mi 9J 4n 5 O QJ.Vhr. t1:. rry r5 M. [� i-, tDmm m�.��m �fmm Oi Gl U10.��11}m UP1l fil f0 l�D [0 [O t�D ftl 2 2 2 a12 PIE- 2 2 P as 2 2 1 O P 00920` ' v I d � N 4J Gt 4 CIN N CI Sr N N N W zz 7 7 7? 7? 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 � 4 Y[ Q Q� 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q S S S n: 4 2 •d ¢ 4 S S r a{q d i dd Qd Yd Y•Se d,i e vQ:[ Q.( {.� s s S 3 i 3 3 mj 4t 5 3 3 s 3 a'- F t, I., 3o m�iM 'dj f lJr N N N 11r.ra�ri 99. IR 2 Qy 1 [ 1 CY 1 1 C� "1 CJ fes' 40 40 C4 a Yj gi E Y 3 Vr =NN MvYN in Ni----a-V/�+ N - - - -- N • fVI[V r t�I N f11 1r fV 1�4 1# oA 1V (4 N N N N CJ CY N h M CV N N N N C N11 tV hr. c [, gs J cN Wh 2W M1AI tit�cr`Afr+nrvn'1�.nj�f`TNO)r_�nY���-V �V fU_-YWNN•l +mfgA r=sur -rF o)mwa"s m"mc -.. rnM- �;` ry v v Mrvvm- 'fl c rrrr rrr rr3-}xrrrxrr�rzrrrxr,s�•xz}xrxrr >•zr x Z> -II -z ZZZ r> rrr�rrr.>-a ra• >•rrrr zzzaxr_� z z NN -NX [�8 1- N N r`I dY Neu? o r•# ^• V ril O? r U o OOO p n d ... O GIO . d P ..� !V `d •- or � y r r 4.IC] P qq amr°v, cc V v E n W s q 8 Rw y 5 n ur'n 7. [7 d Lmnv vy¢N �aa es- -m�N W N�mi1 •'��N.`•' t'm �'mn �eLv q��r EEEErCEEE F E F F Q E F Ea E' E E g E E F C F€ ar�„c�ia VQ D 02 .C'. E C E E F E E N E E E E E€ E E E E m E E E w 7 a lU N W E E rr W aY ym F - E w N N f13 Vl N N r/3 N Vl rn N F� (i} (,r1 N N (R itJ N N N o u�i tI v N rf] m - #,rj N fn N N E E E _ n"rn m Ej �kr'S7 y i4 f� .0 409tl bbo oo4U �o oor?c�iS �U6oppU'.', OoyOy'g,TTn6n U c1.0 O pUO 4,0 d,O O'Oo ,O Gd oo4Do OmCO� .39O'R Nr� ¢G c% @L[¢yi tR yy � � �y � L � m J � yy lyS Ly] ��n ��� N �j � l M {�•} VNH a t•1 S. � � yU rL r1 [S1 w 4S .4 fS) y yy iyy} p�J 'iyys to Ip o4 ooa )Uovv ov(1.a O4n. aQprs wN rp WtA o]'r0 `.�- °'no Iv 7 7- 3 7 7 7 7 a m o a g° g m� Q.©a P. 7 rY S: d U O 4 rC to O rl O d Cl U `q 0 O p�• ,r r a W- u# �� 7 y ,R H 7 N> i 7 7 N? 4 4 D Q b 0. f1 fl. S µ tL a Y 10 6 N 0 0 0 Q ±{ 4 4 asa c5 3 vi0000 caSn ❑or3c°�rnzaa � u`i aimr�"��'� a Er z r°n 9NN 01 'OH 'O1'CJf' eona ohm w mw 3m 7� 7.r�z S� +ic y Uf �i of Q .i, o) N P A Ql y Q+ 132 2 N r nqo w 0'�, oe�o o va'? ,moo a oo aev �4?4� o n� � a b 08t5 up xQO 4r c�j �b Ou2 ,8 g44S}a§`off c]SO ci 3 139 g' cv Pc :? n ~ m n '- n r� w n i� n'i•� inin i� ra M cn m f Y> 3Y•ab n N76 c �4JJIh N t# N N 4D . . . . . . . . .. 1Y 1.1 N tl N 1v N N 1v 1v N I? 1v 1, .9 ... ....... - - - - - - - - - - z z z z Y- >1 Z Z Z z >- z z z z z z z Z)- z z >- >- >- >- z z} z z z z z z z z 2-Y z I cc w I- yAy M u 12 9' ft 8 ln ;6 Zi 4 1. FW 0 2 0 rnf O -q- o 62 1 C) 2 01 0 0 5 2 2 w v A, > > > > E" 94,m 4,ZV�..�m`rgv zvrrmrOti 2 p 2 E 15 �:U- j 5 or > NN o 0 0 P FX 60 L o LTC -P 0 3 A T-mo�i LT T 611 .,5 No ..in o a ca 2, S H cr, ir w fx oc m w "'rrryty op o D 0 D o z I z z z z z 2c�, c�, c" r" Do cz, z 2 z 2-, z -i A 6A'l A z� > o 6 Q Q 5 ii 000 800 (0, '0 pi '0 IqNN vr W 0 0 0 0 q�Q HIS 6666 Or 9 1'5 6 6 M 47; 'on -01 vi Z; V v 8 8P, Pi 'z W elf In d Ni 3 �2 ID e :R. ell " 14 B, iv." , R . . . . . . . . .. 1Y 1.1 N tl N 1v N N 1v 1v N I? 1v 1, .9 ... ....... - - - - - - - - - - z z z z Y- >1 Z Z Z z >- z z z z z z z Z)- z z >- >- >- >- z z} z z z z z z z z 2-Y z I cc w I- yAy M u 12 9' ft 8 ln ;6 Zi 4 1. FW 0 2 0 rnf O -q- o 62 1 C) 2 01 0 0 5 2 2 w v A, > > > > E" 94,m 4,ZV�..�m`rgv zvrrmrOti 2 p 2 E 15 �:U- j 5 or > NN o 0 0 P FX 60 L o LTC -P 0 3 A T-mo�i LT T 611 .,5 No ..in o a ca 2, S H cr, ir w fx oc m w "'rrryty op o D 0 D o z I z z z z z 2c�, c�, c" r" Do cz, z 2 z 2-, z -i A 6A'l A z� > o 6 Q Q 5 ii 000 800 (0, '0 pi '0 IqNN vr W 0 0 0 0 q�Q HIS 6666 Or 9 1'5 6 6 M 47; 'on -01 oi v w 2 8 NO ip � .1 'A n �Ll P T 4 1 -TO, lo t3 2 Nu 14 6 13 a i;2 A a _.Nl} r.. C� "5 L6 4 6. 0 .mNHN 2 2 is 6,4 'n iri fio o C3 'A 'A El t, in vi -2 G a Z; - - m- - - - o]- mm EEhS`fl It 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 7 11- Ali - VN LLL2 0 5: 12 L.".-oopo OF, 2n N S.T,28- V 54 4909 '�2 asz z;_ >6 z z z z z z z z z Z)_ z z z ZrrZ>. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z r z z z z z z z zT3zTz>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz D: w ix S 5) :S 5:1 3 51 :5 127 'N' .4352 9 S, 12 'T D !n v, 91 g iM 1, IL g ES(L CL 0 SHHH­ 8 -0 A3 IA NV]trI JJ Vl aur mroaa� A -6, 0 11 m 0 0 w J) M wo f'o 90) wo U3 u -9 5 '5 T? p 9 p v a �Jj2 ., A � w w 6N Q T F s � �, a 0 0 Wo W 0 0 W. C C X U Z5 W W CO V) 0) 14 0 V) E E Egg 0 V) V) 0 q Ln jo-FOg- -gap's xs,� 1)if -11" mo $95&&9 ? q 7 R; X -ml I g a S � cc LJLJUUUV0QQQQQg;.0 6 Fj 6 9 op 0 0 a go, , .6 uN (2 o V) V? V) ut �L 14 1� peaps- ONO 48 06 g, 0 0 ozzz 0000 ...........4000 o0o000000 -Qp.. 0;0 yyy v Y HIM P, 8 c? 9 '9 12 N N 9 9 . . . . . . c5 6 ON A A 7, 444 A A A 26 2 6 'L 'L, 2 � 16 b �,b b t -b L& YRM Ll? T r? 66 -6 - ____ -,b - N N 4 N V­�; �4 N N N N N V e, 40 R � Y W I CI NN � I 1fry R VI 0 •L 0. _qm r col ya u 1.51w '°. n 3�Sia w iDi p �cc M as LL c_ 44 v Ti P e Q � L 81 O900p IE1n n n n li r r u ol n a O O 4 C E 61 ,� i9 �➢ N J lit 5,2 'pqM b F V� E 9 � c 4�CrY `s L S . 3 Ur Q +g rM � ry o SMi. X41 r+ ti �ry ry N Y y 6 C:1 • ow a IA i Table 2 Indian River County Beach Preservation Projects Sector FOEP Monument Project Type and Sand Volume Recommendation 1 & 2 T-16 feeder beach — 700,000 cubic yards (R-4 + 400 ft n. through T-17) 3 R-44 beach restoration — 380,000 cubic yards (R-37+290 It s. through T-45 + 100 ft n.) 5 R-84 beach restoration — 540,000 cubic yards (R-74 through R-86) 7 R-104 beach restoration and structures — 330,000 cubic yards (T-100 + 95 ft n. through R-107 + 105 ft s.) Five (5)-, 15- and 30 -year return interval storm events were simulated, As an example, the 15 -year storm eroded approximately 26 cubic yards per front foot of the lower beach, berm and dune segments of the beach at Sector 7 (R-104), while the 30 -year event caused a unit loss of approximately 32 cubic yards per foot. A 15 -year design level storm (6.67 percent probability of recurrence in any given year) was determined to provide the optimum project volumetric requirements. As stated previously, in order to account for the future cost of storm protection, a two (2) percent inflation factor is used and a five (5) percent interest rate is used to reduce costs 'back to net present worth. In effect, the real discount rate is, therefore, three (3) percent. For armored properties the costs for annual maintenance 2r1r1 repair Of structural daiiayc tV ille seaWali Over a 30 -year project horizon is included in the computation of project benefits. An estimate of land values for the purpose of calculating dollar value of land lost to erosion was based on square footage land values obtained from the Indian River County Property Assessor's office. The total appraised value of properties in Indian River County (1998 values) is $ $8,072,475,977, of which 35.7 percent or $2.870,409,036 represents the barrier island properties. The average value C-1 40 of one (1) square foot of land varied between $3.48 and $29.90 for government, single family residential, multi -family residential, commercial and time-share land use properties along the Oceanfront (refer to Table 3), Construction costs for new seawalls or revetments were assumed to be $750 per linear front foot for residential properties. Maintenance costs for seawalls and revetments were estimated at approximately $17 per front foot per year for existing erosion control structures. The "without project" storm protection alternatives are whatever actions are in the oceanfront property owners' economic interest to protect themselves from yearly landward erosion as allowed by existing local and state policies and regulations. Oceanfront properties fall into five (5) categories including: single family residential, multi -family residential, timeshare, commercial and government properties. In addition, oceanfront properties are comprised of two (2) subcategories: properties with an erosion control structure and properties without an erosion control structure. It is assumed that the seawalled oceanfront properties will maintain or repair their existing erosion control structures in the absence of a project and sets their benefits equal to the maintenance cost savings over a projected 30 -year benefit period. The "without project" benefit to unarmored (i.e., non -hardened) oceanfront properties is whatever actions are in the oceanfront nrnnPrty owners' econornic interest to protect themselves from yearly landward erosion and the occurrence of a 15 -year storm event in Sector 7 a five (5) -year storm event was appliedif the major habitable structures on the properly are in jeopardy of significant structural damage from yearly landward erosion or a 15 -year storm event, it is assumed that the property owner will armor the shoreline (i.e., construct an CI • Table 3 Indian River County Land Value Summary Land Valuo/Square Sector Property Catagory Foot 1 Governmental $3.48 2 I Governmental $5.07 Single Family Residential $11.59 3 Governmental $4.29 Si erl Rrlt 1.�Gril Multi-Family Residential $19.48 !Time Share I $29.90 5 IGovernmental $9.35 !single Family Residential $10.81 !Multi -Family Residential $20.16 Commercial $18.33 Time share $29.90 7 I Single Family Residential $9.91 96 13M 1 %W 3 1'L•A G 11A(A�'Y$ 15791;! Vf I1YL '19 4D 40 erosion control structure) to prevent the loss of major upland structures. Given the policy of the State of Florida regarding the construction of seawalls and revetments, and the extensive shoreline armoring along the Island, it is assumed that permission for construction of an erosion control structure will be given in the case of properties in jeopardy of loss to a 95 year return period storm event. Thus, the dollar amount of an anticipated erosion control structure is included in the total dollar benefit to the property. Thus, it is assumed that the owner will be allowed to construct a seawall or revetment, and the cost for construction and maintenance of this erosion control structure is added to the total benefit. It was assumed that oceanfront property owners with vacant land will "do nothing" in the absence of a project and the benefits to these properties are set equal to the dollar savings in land loss prevention. Given the state policies on shoreline armoring, it is extremely doubtful that a Coastal Construction Control Linc permit for shoreline armoring of vacant ,properties would be procured. In cases where the project benefits received by vacant properties without an erosion control structure exceeds the total land value, the benefits are set equal to the total property value. In effect this limits the expected erosion and storm losses if nothing is done and accounts for oceanfront properties that are Characterized by high erasion rates and locations where future land development is not probable. Properties that would not install an erosion control structure in the absence of the project include: vacant properties, where no building loss could be experienced, and the properties that are located sufficiently landward from the mean high water line. 40 i 2.3 TOTAL STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS The storm protection benefits of the proposed beach restoration projects were calculated over a 30 -year project horizon and reduced to net present value. In order to reduce the annual value to net present values, we utilized a "corrected" interest rate. At the present time, the typical interest rate is five (5) percent. If this five (5) percent rate is used as the discount factor, it would leave out the impact of future inflation. Therefore, the inflation rate must be subtracted from the bonds interest rate, Though the inflation rate has fluctuated over time, the average rate of inflation for the past two (2) years has been (2) two percent. Table 4 presents the results of the storm protection benefits analysis by beach sector for beach restoration improvement projects along Indian River County. On the basis of these calculations, the net present value of the storm protection benefit over a 30 -year project horizon calculated for the proposed beach restoration projects are estimated' at $27,444,285 attributed solely to land loss prevention, new seawall construction, and cost savings for seawall maintenance. C-1 • 40 i • E ;2-,•:•€z' €.Fa b"gI2f iR 3C 3C.a2 ,t €'. c� ,�.�o: q; e0 e 0 e Q- r�• P�, ihe`g�wi°�°Dw.�r`$u�i.a[n�e�ii�r�oe�l��l•�i'�s�,,ru+d r°ri�ni'.a [r$ma �.�rniir�[°6'm'm [r,�s°r3 o, r�.� ra a.0�ui �[[$�sn. [,ii. �. + oOO OppSioonon D[j'pn r ejp4�p+-CJD.K][]6Gi000000[,pr90pnnooncJ N�uf1N�r'i Mt`IN NJ ,n f'i �+114�1 . ut r,r tlM1D^Db�b 0:1]�n g]IoDDDv >Ir•x x x s r�r r r�r r rIr zlx z z:r r r >'r'r'r.s z.r z,z z'r!z,a'r.rlr . z z z z z z,z,z Z z z z 7 z zz,zz z-2 z z z r7 7, z z z z z z z z z z z z Zz z z z z T_.'z'z z z z z z z z ri< <.r v ire, rv.�w:nrl lizh IGCCC-__l:131I9id�-i» J»�»3D7>>.�:)D=33 1` I Ic1]77777 2777t7�q'ohnnajjn nail. a.a ren a.a.p 111.1 f.au N vi ui uJJ'N �J'l,! V+ N N N,fll(fR. L7 G7 rnfN MiG?I i r%J N y N N H N U1,uJ aJ d/J N [r1 N L'/ N JINN E�I��� MIR. a .,.I•., „.. t .. . ,... +. > �. [ e t 2 a.�a a.n 'ala i.; •r. . •¢ •r •r .r .r •c •r .r .Y •[. [ r .r n:,;...r „ ,i 4 +i ,e ,c r:.r .s �r 14 �`t'v`c `•usX Sl S v.$ .b'v.uyuei�s�r$25,2S�oPr t3[�i;�g�ri`�S,Bo'25'tio$o $�a1a n�1o1 o nooiol am74a r9QE 74..m72.�4,'-7^u 7Q m7Qa 1F:m7Qu l�zm7@a 'm7r m7teaoau4;�q *131111111 'a7s4o 74l"uJii.7Q �`i4 ?4a�?.'Y !?a m4 m32 mY mv mF 'mllhma m�,m�mam[su13;l 1 mmf hw a m v V m•[. C'm•Y C'Qa.;q 5#a nu�emam^u ,#111allmm az_L 4� S 3: •L •( L C •_[ •L '1�, •0. �+ta +C14�a ; r;; S Y Y i I 1 i. C f f; C[[[; C I[ i= 41Q 4; i L Y E C S <[ i S# 3 3# 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m T T I I 7 i I S T I T T T -I T T T .I '1. 7 r[[n'1 1. 1 :L l I l T I I l f ]�•T L Int 1 :C i m I I .T. T I I I I I P 1, -or � n [�ry �1 e'enen.rr rr r•i .nnrwr1^d n lv evnnJ C, p D p D- c 11 - ]n b n�s��rl^t Ci ;v;QQd d•� N �4 M $�Sck$�G j{pc:C 1'5�b �6bb-77``'°fXCib'i.[}ir"i }. °j f�f �,+.nti'CsssSiSSYr��vsip� Jd. n.6 6 d d11 JJ.r$sA 1. 1Auh vhJiJ.h R..c� heir . eY+,r n nr 'ri 44, i ,,ohh .�^�} n ri i � n^3r+r3•=ir°nnr.M.,[ro rinnoa��n n IJn'r3.•r ..r4 �.',l�rtiiai r�r'i i do d3L �L w 40 N 1. y� !14 d vr rdo{nn opo0 6 c4R r, ai a.�-r4c9 afar e3 .1=01 YYI gg fl y JoUSI.I.FM sq id I��NMM k YM� - '��' L■ �y G Cn I{®Cr. i rv01 14I4 iQ} 1 e' Y' as WQ HRv€i �YarH-.i v6 'e •'z �.>I,.!,->I>I> rrrrzrrrarrrafri i:rrs� szk2sa rzr Z.a R z a 2G �If a P R i I I 9 V kY.Vy *.On gYqYYy IN 321 I'n�R, 8 ��iV8 188`88 1-665 ss Cos OG 1, .111 IfIIII 5I11 111 gill -111 W(pmf�IiRA,N T11'y I'M Mj;Mj1j NO �"it., oti 8If n.a4 NAY $$©CO 8RR Gib OO qQq 09R 1q, $$b g$�F 0+.9 QP rBCW Frt�a- �fSFl i'vi'�R i6i�i7V �1Fi9 I r13 71 do C -7 i 11 yt � I , I ����Igi�N e�q��tltiJ�'mLU�-r'v,bb°11 r• :R Ey .r„ �'ayyE�m�plSmmem��3p2132aQ1�"Iry;s tR m rr in ['nr , si i p r,� v''fEnylwn n fl i 7' I� -y°yr. `��nw�^�^n ���� -N � i,'in�n,h�8i��yV�I[�sy,`��✓I ga� j ui {�p�p ["+ '�i s%i �`����i�l'��i°v� �r�UUUD Y i c' 7 Z[ n Qa�a4Q rS�^ T u) Ire u, ul ub LIJ ul a fU•Z L { f7 1 IIl IIl ul 4¢ � ,Gu,ly{>[vl�oor-rooor� G G r']o 7`I E; `S L y , rn I•> r) ri �i ,n. r r�S r[ "' oc�noo "I w 'syr n r�Fi x!§I�y.� iio nv €pper' u k. Vlw .•f. fl fi 8 ( €� `n" al.$:g$+Qr p 0' 0. ryv"r 7 p 2 7 ii YQi�sa C]U. cStin $YiiinA„$$: }.t' U IQi�ao[Irn.,�r'�sYi IlE vl f7 r r{{ Yr"rv�'n. ,.,!�Ir+r'�•vY$.'., !Y 2 4- syyr , ULr Ufi nj oUUGrJ vy nrvry [V [rvN �n v�tO�Y6.r 00� m�P9 9R EUN OrLIRq YY4i [�lWht�-�ivl dl N�.. N'.+G �O M� NI�•r- I I) -I T >zl.z zz z I4 z Z.Z > z :: r e r r "r_ z Z-✓. 7 r Z�>-.....�f,.1,'11I �.} }. >- >. 'r [ r r- r >- r>--> r r :r_ "r_ r r r t :' z!Z Z r Z Z itl: ,_ .. l __ 6ti;wl�ti S �1W��I?I� � g° �gI a y, 'G rdJJ''[i'o fro e I ,rrl„r,nur-v,m; ^;'±�v rrnn r r�, r�:7�i.lr��S'i�� r. r, ,.•o•.';'J7, Y :�::” r . ga� j {�p�p r.. K ¢awl mn7 (Y dYK®[Y. a! aaO aqW ¢BOOL].[ Gq r[Q.tY {={474 .7Ym Z 7 Z'ul L Z '� �r�UUUD Y i c' 7 Z[ n Qa�a4Q T u) Ire u, ul ub LIJ ul a fU•Z L { f7 1 IIl IIl ul 4¢ � ,Gu,ly{>[vl�oor-rooor� G G r']o 7`I E; `S L y , rn I•> r) ri �i ,n. r r�S r[ "' oc�noo "I w 'syr n Y x!§I�y.� iio nv €pper' u k. Vlw .•f. fl fi 8 ( €� `n" ,rrl„r,nur-v,m; ^;'±�v rrnn r r�, r�:7�i.lr��S'i�� r. r, ,.•o•.';'J7, Y :�::” r . 3k' pp�qq 'G Q oc Ei vp fl Sj�E�E> p 0' 0. ryv"r 7 p 2 7 ii C]U. cStin r.yuuvo }.t' U �o IlE vl f7 r r{{ U O U f] 7[{ c[ z c[[ z !Y 2 4- syyr UU E o00�n ULr Ufi nj oUUGrJ vy nrvry [V [rvN �n ,rrl„r,nur-v,m; ^;'±�v rrnn r r�, r�:7�i.lr��S'i�� r. r, ,.•o•.';'J7, Y :�::” r . E-1 C-1 0 0 IS "1 2 9i 'Ili I T V 8 8, 1 1-1 j I I i-!_1_, J..] 1 1 jjIll]- 1-1- 1- 7 1. J. z 9,z z Z,Z:Z:ZIlr z z Y ]-Zzz Z>->-Z>- LY nl- 1 11 14 11 10 115 1,, 316 Z 2V x V '9 V ;E M"gQ P, > > "J, .,1 9 o o cj E, 18 18 1 2 2 rlluP, Ill p 0 - 3 17 1 aVplug o ", . . . . . . . . 0 81 no o n[) k,) ti wwwvlo. 1 IT1. 1 E s p 1 9 8 If, ICA 115 nr 2! OlRkol fi:-" 0 .. .. .. I RIG itv ".". ....0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . ld ',-i 5 g aO� u8 PIP d, R 6 6 6 cs -6 b L& 6 -bbb 66 '66 b rb,bb b 66 b +b ,b 7. I 40 ETI S 40 E�] W 3.0 RECREATIONAL BENEFITS This section provides an analysis of recreational benefits for the proposed beach nourishment projects in Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Recreational benefits are difficult to calculate. Constructed beachfront is provided to users free of charge; thus, there is no market test or valuation of the recreational benefits derived. Estimates of recreation benefits are sensitive to the number count of tourists and resident users and the imputed value they place upon a day of beach usage. Techniques for estimating recreational benefits have improved greatly over the last 30 years. 3.1 RECREATIONAL BENEFITS METHODOLOGY Theoretical Background of Recreational Benefits Since the beach experience or daily visitation is free of charge to users, the total benefit derived by all users is the entire area under the aggregate demand curve for beach use. As shown in Figure 4, if D is the demand curve for beach visitation, without beach nourishment, then area OP Q is the total benefit derived by users. This integral sums the maximum amount each and every user would be willing to pay for beach visitation rather than do without. Some users are willing to pay a high price, around P', while others would pay much less. Since the actual price charged is zero the quantity of beach visits demanded in total is OQ. Beach nourishment improves the beach by increasing recreational area between the dune -construction line and the shoreline and lowering congestion costs. This raises the demand for beach visitation, illustrated in Figure 4 as a shift from D to U. Total benefits are now area OP'Q' and net benefits attributable to the project 40 4D r m are the trapezoid, PPIQ'Q. Ideally, the demand curves would be derived and the areas computed to obtain net gain. However, with freely distributed goods, data do not exist to use standard statistical estimation procedures. An alternative estimation procedure makes uses of average willingness to pay. In Figure 5, the visitation rate at the zero price is OQ' and the total benefits are OP'Q'. If price PA is the average willingness to pay, then PA.Q (area OPABQ') equals area OP'Q', PA is midway between a zero price and the maximum price anyone would pay, where the demand is linear. The estimation procedure has the desirable feature of simplicity, e.g, all that is needed is the visitation rate and the average willingness to pay. It is probably the most widely used method for estimating benefits from recreational project. In the absence of beach nourishment, erosion wou"4 eventually destroy much of the value of the beaches in Indian River County and recreational benefits would be substantially reduced. The pre -project beaches in Indian River have already experienced significant erosion. Under these conditions the benefits attributable to the project are a sl lhstantial portion of the total bar ielits derived from a continuously maintained beach. For example, Sector 7 has suffered so much erosion that it is hardly used by the public. There is also a serious lack of public parking in this beach area. Figure 4 'Iblal IkmcPits or lkach Consumption gal a Xero i,fice r7 Q Q, Qlt E-A i 0 • 11, Figure 5 lal iaration of Area I hier Ili Minm l ii Q, Q/1 3.2 DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS An improved beach is a semi-public good and recreational benefits are distributed to all users at a zero or near aero price. Since no one pays, there is no market test of the value users place on a daily visit to the beach and no direct means of deriving a demand curve. To determine the recreational benefits associated with the projects identified in the BPP, a beach survey was conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on the Indian River County's beaches. The survey was conducted on various dates between August 13 and October 11, 1998. The survey interviewed 287 adults age 16 and older. In the survey, the interviewers selected one (1) adult to interview from each group of beach users. Interviews were conducted from morning until late afternoon on three (3) selected areas of beach on the beach. The Recreational Beach User Survey results and the survey questions are presented in Appendix A. Average Value of a Day on the Beach Since the beaches of Indian River County are semi-public goods, distributed to all users at zero or near zero price, it is necessary to estimate users average willingness to pay to use the beach. A key question asked the beach user, "If 40 40 • you could put a dollar value on a day at the beach, what would it be worth to you?" The answer given is an estimate of the beach user's average valuation of the beach. Some claimed that they would pay nothing for the use of the beach, while others said they would pay "whatever was necessary." The amount beach visitors would be willing to pay for a day's beach use is summarized in Table 5 based on the Beach User Survey Results (presented in Appendix A). VVY�4.6. .....0 111.,611 n1VZ1 I Uurily Duoull ubupu vuwuy Table 5 is interpreted as follows: On average the value place by respondents on a day at the beach was $11.71, The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated mean value of $11.71 is plus or minus $1.03. 3.3 EVALUATION OF BEACH USER SURVEY RESPONDENTS Table 6 was developed from beach count estimates provided by the Indian River County and Vero Beach lifeguards. Table 5 Average Value of a Day at the Beach by Sector Sector Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All 1 and 2 Mean Value $13.00 $11.79 $11.24 $0.00 $11.71 95 Percent Confidence Interval Widih 3.19 1.35 1.70 0.00 1.03 Lower Limit $9.81 $10.35 $9.54 $0.00 $10.69 Upper Limit $16.19 $13.12 $12.94 $0.bb $12.74 VVY�4.6. .....0 111.,611 n1VZ1 I Uurily Duoull ubupu vuwuy Table 5 is interpreted as follows: On average the value place by respondents on a day at the beach was $11.71, The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated mean value of $11.71 is plus or minus $1.03. 3.3 EVALUATION OF BEACH USER SURVEY RESPONDENTS Table 6 was developed from beach count estimates provided by the Indian River County and Vero Beach lifeguards. 411111111 40 • 11 Table 6 Indian River Beach Counts Beaches Count Sectors 1 and 2 18,763 Sector 3 56,395 Sector 5 147,805 Sector 7 0 Total 222,963 -- -. •••, •••., ���r a�lu ve;,v UCtlLI! Laic l?lydltl, F1nU l..II RMS Mo and ss 1958 Indian Riuer County Beach Users Survey Lifeguards estimate the number of beach users during the day and report these estimates at the end of the day for each lifeguard station. To some extend beach count estimates are judgement calls, however for the purpose of this study the total beach count is 222,963 people per year. TahIP 7 summarizes the percentage of beach users found in the survey by classification. A beach user was classified as County resident living on the Barrier Island (County Island) if the user responded that he/she lived on the Island in Indian River County, A respondent was classified as County Mainland if the respondent indicated a residence in Indian River County on the mainland. Individuals who responded that they lived out of Indian River County, but who did not indicate that they were spending at least one (1) night in the County were classified as Day Tourists. Respondents who lived outside of Indian River County and were spending the night, but not in a rental condo or motel were classified as Non Paying -Tourists. Respondents indicating that they were not County residents and were spending the night In a motel, hotel, or rental condo (paying rent) were classified as Paying Tourists. 40 cA 0 i otais may not add clue to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey Applying the total beach use estimates to the percentage use by classification in the previous table yields an estimated number of beach clays by classification and beach sector. This estimate is shown in Table 8 below. Table 7 User Classification By Sector Beach pays Beach Beach Classification Sectors Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All Sector 7 1 and 2 1 and 2 County(Island) 7.69% 5.09% 7.92% 0.00%0 6.409% County(Main) 28.21% 40.05% 42.24% 0.00% 39,73% Tourist (Day) 21.79% 12.50% 18.48% 0.00% 15.62%,z Tourist (Non Pay) 14.10% 13.43% 16.50% 0.00% 14.64% Tourist (Pay) 28.21% 28.94% 14.85% 0.000/0 23.62% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100,00% i otais may not add clue to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey Applying the total beach use estimates to the percentage use by classification in the previous table yields an estimated number of beach clays by classification and beach sector. This estimate is shown in Table 8 below. i o[ais may not add due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River -County Beach Users Survey 3.4 TOTAL RECREATIONAL BENEFITS Overall, the total recreational value of Indian River beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach. Table 8 Estimated Beach pays Beach Classification Sectors Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All 1 and 2 Beach Counts 18,763 56,395 147„805_ 0 222,963 County(Island) 1,443 2,872 11,707 0 14,261 County(Main) 5,292 22,584 62,439 0 88,582 Tourist (Day) 4,089 7,049 27,317 0 34,829 Tourist (Non Pay) 2,646 7,572 24,390 0 32,635 Tourist (Pay) 5,292 16,318 21,951 0 52,655 i o[ais may not add due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River -County Beach Users Survey 3.4 TOTAL RECREATIONAL BENEFITS Overall, the total recreational value of Indian River beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach. 40 4M • Table 9 Annual Recreational Beach Benefits Value of a Beach Clay Totals may not add due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach users Survey However, the additional recreational benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions regarding the impact of beach nourishment. In this report we make the assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the nourishment project "saves" the beach, then the additional recreational value of the project can be construed to be the total value of the beach. Recreational Value Over the Life of the Project The nourishment projects within Indian River beaches are computed over a 30 year project horizon. Each year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $2,567,4181 in recreational benefits. Obviously, if the annual benefit is multiplied by 30 years a value of $77,022,528 results, But, because we are looking at future income flows, and one (1) dollar thirty years from now is not worth one (1) dollar today, it is necessary to reduce or discount these future flows back to the present. At a three (3) percent real rate of interest, the present value of recreational benefits over 30 years is $50,322,518. ' This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $2,667,417.61, which when muiliplied by 30 yields $77,022,528 30 ts,e 30 -year total benefit. The $2.567,418 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are all the values in this report. The 52,567,417 61 value was used in the calcutalori This is just an example o1 why some of the numbers may not appear to add in Ih+s report Sectors 1 and 2 Beach Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All County(Island) $18,7+63 $33,699 $131,625 $0.00 $184,08 County(Main) $68,798 $264,998 $702,002 $0.00 $1,035,79 Tourist (Day) $53,162 $82,716 $307,126 $0.00 $4443,00 Tourist (Non Pay) $34,399 $88,843 $274,220 $0.00 $397,46 Tourist (Pay) $68,798 $191,472 $246,798 $0.00 $507,06 Total $243,919 $661,728 $1,661,770 $0.00 $2,567,41 Totals may not add due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach users Survey However, the additional recreational benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions regarding the impact of beach nourishment. In this report we make the assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the nourishment project "saves" the beach, then the additional recreational value of the project can be construed to be the total value of the beach. Recreational Value Over the Life of the Project The nourishment projects within Indian River beaches are computed over a 30 year project horizon. Each year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $2,567,4181 in recreational benefits. Obviously, if the annual benefit is multiplied by 30 years a value of $77,022,528 results, But, because we are looking at future income flows, and one (1) dollar thirty years from now is not worth one (1) dollar today, it is necessary to reduce or discount these future flows back to the present. At a three (3) percent real rate of interest, the present value of recreational benefits over 30 years is $50,322,518. ' This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $2,667,417.61, which when muiliplied by 30 yields $77,022,528 30 ts,e 30 -year total benefit. The $2.567,418 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are all the values in this report. The 52,567,417 61 value was used in the calcutalori This is just an example o1 why some of the numbers may not appear to add in Ih+s report do 11111111110 a a Table 10 shows the annual recreation benefits, the total 30 -year recreation benefit, and the present value of the stream of annual benefits over the life of the project. This information is broken out by sector and is also presented for all the sectors. I otals nilly not and due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey Table 10 Present Value of Annual Beach Recreational Benefits Sectors 1 and 2 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County{Island) $18,763 $562,890 $367,763 7.690% County(Main) $68,798 $2,063,930 $1,348,465 28.21% Tourist (Day) $53,162 $1,594,855 $1,041,995 21.79%v Tourist (Non Pay) $34,399 $1,031,965 $674,232 14.10% Tourist (Pay) $68,798 $2,063,930 $1,348,465 28.21% Total $243,919 $7,31.7,570 $4,780,920 100.00% Sector 3 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV CoLmty(lsland) $33,eno $1,010,974 $860,518 5.09 Co County(Main) $264,998 $7,949,931 $5,194,072 40.05% Tourist (day) $82,716 $2,481,481 $1,621,271 12.50% Tourist (Non Pay) $88,843 $2,665,295 $1,741,365 13.43% Tourist (Pay) $191,472 $5,744,170 $3,752,942 28.94% Total $661,728 $19,851,851 $12,970,168 100.00% Sector 5 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $131,625 $3,948,761 $2,579,915 7.92% County(Main) $702,002 $21,060,058 $13,759,548 42.24% Tourist (Day) $307,126 $9,213,776 $6,019,802 18.48%0 Tourist (Non Pay) $274,220 $8,226,585 $5,374,823 16.50% Tourist (Pay) $246,798 $7,403,927 $4,837,341 14.85% Total $1;661,770 $49,853,107 $32,571,4301 100.00% Alt Sectors Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $184,087 $5,522,625 $3,608,196 7.17% County(Main) $1,035,797 $31,073,920 $20,302,085 40.34% Tourist (Day) $443,004 $13,290,112 $8,683,069 17.25% Tourist (Non Pay) $397,462 $11,923,845 $7,790,421 15.48% Tourist (Pay) $507,068 $2,567,418 $15,212,027 $77,022,528 $9,938,748_ $50,322,51B 19.75% Total T.. .1. 00.00% I otals nilly not and due to rounding Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey QE 4.0 PROJECT COSTS 4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The BPP shore protection project initiatives are intended to provide protection to the barrier island shoreline from moderate storm damage, and to mitigate the historical adverse effects of the inlet on the downdrift oceanfront properties. The planning initiatives identified in the BPF' revealed sand placement activities in all or part of five (5) of the eight (8) planning sectors which encompass the County's 22 -mile shoreline. A secondary goal which will be derived frorn providing storm damage protection and reinstatement of sand bypassing along the Indian River County shoreline is recreational enhancement of the beach. The principal means of maintaining the island's beaches which is economically and environmQntally feasible is beach restoration and subscquent renourishment. Beach restoration involves identifying a suitable source of borrow sand, typically found offshore of the project shoreline, and transferring that sand to the shoreline to create an additional beach width and height at an elevation suitable to protect the upland property and infrastructure from a moderate to severe storm event. Material pumped to shore from conventional dredging equipment is placed and graded above the waterline at construction, with a seaward slope of the fill established by earthmnvinrg equipment to tie Into, or 'toe' in to the pre -construction beach at some elevation below the practical limits of equipment movement. Those segments of the artificially created brach above the slope break, or berm, are graded to a final elevation and occasionally planted with dune vegetation at the landward limits of the new berm. 40 F-1 11 C7 Upon completion pf the fill project, the shoreline is then subjected to a period of adjustment as waves and currents work the artificial perturbation in the shoreline (when compared with pre -construction conditions) into a quasi -stable, or "equilibrium" configuration. Given that the shoreline restoration alone does not eliminate the erosion problem which predicated the activity, the beach will continue to erode until a maintenance event, or "renourishment" of the shoreline occurs. The targeted level of storm protection for all beach restoration projects on the Island should enable any individually considered shoreline restoration segment to incur damages from a 15 year return interval storm at any time between the initial restoration (first time sand is placed on the shoreline) and subsequent renourishments (regular maintenance interval of sand placement to restore the shoreline to its initial restoration position). An eight (8) -year renourishment interval is sought for project cost effectiveness, maximum funding participation by the Florida ©apartment of Environi-nental Protection (for those projects which are eligible for state support), and realistic sand placement volumes as advance nourishment. A fifteen -year design level storm (6.67 percent probability of recurrence in any given year) was determined to provide the optimum project volumetric requirements. It is assumed that sand requirements for each identified shoreline sector targeted for restoration is avallahle. and of suitable quality con- as to rniniiiiirzc the fiver ii requirements. That is, the sand must be compatible, or nearly so, with the existing or 'native' sand on the pre -project shoreline. Final sand volume requirements for each shoreline designated for restoration will be determined by many design factors, among which sand compatibility will be critical. C> 0 0 The total sand volume recommended to initially restore the shoreline sectors envisioned to receive sand is approximately 1.89 million cubic yards. The borrow area(s) for this sand will be identified by Indian River County in a study to be initiated in December 1998, with field work to commence in Spring 1999. Once borrow area(s) locations relative to sectors planned for sand placement are determined, the critical design factors including pumping distances, sand quality and quantity, and nearshore hardbottom characterizations will allow project estimates to be refined. The beachfill projects are assumed to require approximately 1.95 million cubic yards of sand ,placed along a total of approximately 41,000 feet (7.8 miles) of the Indian River County Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Exact construction berm elevations and widths will be dependent upon sand quality and shoreline conditions at the time of preliminary design. Unit beachfill volumes at this iLMiCture a,ppeai io range between approximately 4th to 53 cubic yard's per front foot of shoreline, The above values were determined following analysis of existing conditions and modification of project boundaries (and the requisite beachfill volumes) from those sectors identified in the .BPP. In contrast to the beachfill parameters cited above (as presented in the BPP Update), the total estimated shoreline length requiring beachfill was 36,000 feet (0.8 miles), with 1.51 million cubic yards placed in unit sectors varying from ten (10) to 80 cubic yards of sand per front foot. The orientation, length, individual weight specification (range of acceptable weights) of armor stone and the on -center spacing of shore protection structures„ as well as the total number of structures to be buiit in Sector 7, can only be adequately determined through detailed design procedures. Wave refraction/ diffraction and shoreline evolution modeling will likely be required to establish such design parameters and to additionally satisfy regulatory agency evaluation of the structures' function and benefits to the Sector 7 project. 40 40 • r Nearshore hardbgttom resources exist within the plan view limits of each of the proposed sector beachfill projects. The character and exact extent of these resources, as well as anticipated primary and secondary impacts associated with beachfill construction, will be determined in a study of project feasibility to be initiated by Indian River County in December 1998. A summary of the project design features for each of the SPP projects is provided in Table 11, 4.2 PROJECT COSTS Uniformed sand unit prices are assumed for the purpose of plan development and costing purposes for each "project sector" at $8 per cubic yard in place. These unit costs were derived by Indian River {County and were reduced to $7 per cubic yard for the anticipated projects in Sectors 1, 2 and 3 to account for a probable single mobilization of dredging and beachfill equipment to construct all three (3) sector improvements sequentially. Essentially the mobilization fee is assumed to be approximately $1,000,000 and thus the unit sand placement is estimated at $6 per cubic yard. Mobilization of dredging equipment and work crews will be dependent upon sand source proximity to each of the sector beachfill sites, the dredge plant type necessary to properly access and excavate sand from the borrow area(s) and transport it to share, the proximity of such equipment and crews to the project site at the time of project bidding, and whether one or more projects are anticipated to be bid sequentially. An analysis of present worth and annualized costs of the plan recommended construction (restoration) and maintenance (renourishment) was conducted to provide an indication of budgeting requirements necessary to implement plan recommendations. The year of construction and maintenance events is assumed to assist with this computation. A three (3) percent discount rate (five (5) percent interest and a two (2) percent inflation factor) was further assumed 40 i i w I r Otis s4 ' Cif M �'E E I urs � I v a phi � i 0.1 M� M m l j z; v c F Ty gr W c cp Gf? wl' SL m E C' DO C3 c�i7 Y.pjm N O - N m p Ir CF3 rpD O 4 Wl Q. Ln lV N (=+r} d DI A 6 C7 _ cc) r r o 0 9 g o I 'p V1 M r N a f m EVZ co Wiv a Q rt^v n tl7 F- G o n a o cvi 'n i U O r� N m Y f y 0. � F= M it ti •' � � r m c c c D 0 0 I y Q: N Q O Ph fD f� N fJl O a C o 'D liLL Ute.. qq�11 m �o Q, 4C D r N M J3 m to h ui N a 0 LU I- 0 -romv I IL i s • O and applied uniformly throughout the analysis. The results of the computation, by planning sector, are provided in Tables 12 through 15. The assumed renourishment interval is eight (8) years. The quality of the sand source(s) utilized for construction, the extent of storm activity following construction, construction sequencing of adjacent sector restoration and renourishments, and the maintenance or remedial adjustment to the constructed shore protection structures in Sector 7 will all influence the required renourishment interval. It is assumed that construction of Sectors 1, 2 and 3 will occur in fiscal year 2000- 2001 and that Sectors 5 and 7 will occur in fiscal year 2002-2003. When projected over a 30 -year horizon, the present value of all restoration and renourishment costs for improvements to Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, Inclusive, is approximately $44,143,203. It must be noted that these figures presented in Table 16 and above are exclusive of sand source investigation, hardbottom mapping and characterization, project performance monitoring, and mitigatior; costs. 40 Aw 98-14 098 -M=b 12-16 WK41VI$48CHE RYL TABLE 12 30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH PROJECTS (BY SECTOR) Nourishment Volume = 52.7 cylft 10 -Year Sturm Loss = 11.0 cylft Annual Erosion = 4.1 cylft Total Loss = 43.8 cylft Unit Cost = $7.00 per cy Renourishment Interval = 8 years Sector Length = 13,272_ feet Description � c` � C:nst �year lRate Present (nj (i)= BEACHFILL Construction $4,900,000 2 3°/0 $4,618,720 Design and Permitting $490,0001 1 1 3% 1 $475,728 Construction $3,047„251 10 3% $2,267,441 Design and Permitting MMOMIM $304,725 9 3% '$233,546 Construction $3,047,251 18 3% $1,789,939 Design and Permitting $304,725 17 3% $184,364 Construction $3,047,251 26 3% $1,412,994 Design and Permitting I $304,725 25 3% $145,538 Subtotal Sana Cost $15,445,929 $11,128,271 Total Reach Cost $15,445,929 $11,128,271 Initial Reach Cost $5,390,000 Initial Reach Yost (Present) $5,094,448 98-14 098 -M=b 12-16 WK41VI$48CHE RYL 1 -1 40 0 0 TABLE 13 30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH PROJECTS (BY SECTOR) Nourishment Volume = -4-8.2- cy/ft - - — 10 -Year Storm Loss = 16.1 Cy/ft Annual Erosion v 3.4 Cy/ft Total Lass _ 43.3 cylft Unit Cost = $7.00 per cy Renourishment Interval = 8 years Sector Len, th = 7,892 feet $1,502,637 s 3% Cris#. d Year (n} Bate (i}� I�rsent 17 3% I - BEACHFILL y n and ign and Permitting MR P. Wil!. struction ign and Permitting :rin1MFIZMmAnf:; Design and Permitting Subtotal Sand Crust Aal Reach Cost (tial Reach Cost itial Reach Cost (Present) a1Jul IPlC•lb V�AII1' ')JURRYL $2,660,000 2 3% $2,507,305 $266,000 1 3% $258,252 $1,502,637 10 3% $1,118,103 $150,264 9 3% $115,165 1 $1,502,637 18 3% $882,641 $150,264 17 3% $90,992 A, $1,502,637 26 3% $696,765 $150,264 25 3% $71,767 $7,884,701 $5.740.909 $7,884,701 $2,926,000 $5,740,9091 $2,765,558 ab • 0 TABLE 14 30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIMER COUNTY BEACH PROJECTS (BY SECTOR) Nounsnment Volume 10 -Year Storm Loss Annual Erosion Total loss Unit Cost Renourishment Interval = Sector Length = BEACHFIL.L construction Design and Permitting Construction Design and Permitting Construction Design and Permitting �� � n 1. Construction Design and Permitting ` nSub usal Sand Cost Total Reach Cost Initial Reach Cost Initial Reach Cost (Present) 9G -f Af98.98Pfrb1 Z -5G WK4! 121598CHCRML 17.4 cy/ft 2.9 cy/ft 40,6 cy/fk $7.25 per cy 8 years 11,684 feet G`,ast E Yr ar (n �Fta $3,915,000 4 3% $3,478,427 $391,500 3 3% $358,278 $1,965,249 12 3% $1,378,386 $196 525 11 3% $141,974 $1,965,249 20 3% $1,088,111 $196,525 19 3% $112,075 $1,965,249' 28 3% $858,965 $196,525 27 3% $88,473 $10,791,821 $7,sm,698 $10,791,821 $7,504,688 $4,306,500 $3,836,705 I® I ab TABLE 15 30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH PROJECTS (BY SECTOR) Nowdshrnenf Volume = 40.1 cyfft 10 -Year Storm Loss = 21.0 Cy/ft Annual Erosion = 4.9 cyfft Total Loss = 60.2 cyfft Unit Cost = $6.30 per cy Renourishment Interval : 8 years Reach Length = 8,221 feet Description Cost Year (n} Rate �i} Present - r - Value BEACHFILL MR0133-65-dIffil- Construction $2,079,0001 4 3% $1,847,165 Design and Permitting $207,900 3 3% $190,258 MEM= M101 Construction $2,030,258 1.2 3% $1,423,982 Design and Permitting $203,026 11 3% $146,670 wrond Re o�ar�s Construction $2,030,258 20 3% $1,124,105 Design and Permitting $203,026 19 3% $115,783 T ird R' rishrrnent y 128 41P Construction $2,030,258 3% $8137,379 Design and Permitting $203,026 27 3% $91,400 Subtotal Sand Cost .. $8,986,752 $5,826,741 STRUCTURES oiwSlructYo/f $940,000 6 3% $787,235 Design and Permitting $94,000 5 3% $81,085 Subtotal Structures Cost $1,034,000 $868,32.0 Total Reach Cost $10,020,752 $6,695,061 Initial Reach Cost $3,320,900 Initial Reach Cost (Present) $2,905,743 98441984WR,12.16 WK4121590C1 Ryt 40 • TABLE 18 311 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH PROJECTS SUMMARY CSr rd� [lcldl Gast yoar (fa) Rate (� Total Project Cost $44,143,703 $31,088,930 Initial Project Cost p $15,943,400 Initial Project Cost (Present) - - — - — $14,$02,453 W-1098 9=Tb12.16WC4112l599CHERYI 40 40 11 Op 610 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the report provides a review and analysis of potential funding sources for the proposed beach restoration and subsequent renourishment over eight (8) -year intervals. The BPP prepared by the County in 1998, identified projects for sand replenishment to provide protection to properties along the barrier island shoreline from erosion and to partially mitigate the inlet's adverse effects on the downdrift oceanfront beaches. The proposed projects include sand placement activities in all or part of five (5) of the eight (8) planning sectors which encompass the County's 22 -mile shoreline. A secondary goal resulting from providing storm damage protection and sand replenishment to the Indian River County shoreline is recreational enhancement of the beach. These objectives are important in the analysis of potential funding sources as well as the distribution of project benefits described in subsequent sections of this report. The Fiscal Year 1998-99 proposed budget for the Beach Restoration Fund is $418,000, an increase of $28,500 from last fiscal year. The majority of the revenue is derived from tourist development taxes imposed by the County in accordance with section 125.0104, Florida Statutes. The tourist development tax is levied at three (3) percent and generates approximately $300,000 for each cent or almost $1.0 millign per year. Pursuant to section 125.0104, Florida Statutes and a joint resolution between the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County adopted in 1993, the expenditure of the tourist development tax revenue can fund projects necessary to protect and preserve the County beaches with up to 50 percent of the revenues derived from the tourist development tax available to be pledged to secure revenue bonds issued by the County for this purpose. A description of the tourist development tax and the other potential sources of revenue to fund the proposed beach nourishment project is provided in the H. 4W 0 Ah w following section, of the report as well as the identification of associated governance alternatives. The subsequent sections of this report use the revenue sources described in this section to fund the allocation of recreation and storm protection benefits based on the recommended benefits methodology also described in subsequent sections of the report. 5.2 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES Counties are authorized to levy five (5) separate tourist development taxes on transient rentals pursuant to section 125.0104, Florida Statutes. Tax rates vary by County depending on a County's eligibility to levy particular taxes; however, the absolute maximum rate is six (6) percent. Generally, the revenues derived from the tourist development tax may be used for capital construction of tourist related facilities, tourist promotion and beach and shoreline maintenance. The authorized uses vary by County according to the particular levy. As discussed previously, Indian River County imposes a tourist development tax of three (3) percent, which generates approximately $300,000 for each cent or almost $1.0 million per year. Although only imposing the tax at the three (3) percent rate, the County has the authority to impose a maximum rate of four (4) percent of the tourist development tax, with the additional one (1) percent available to finance a professional sports franchise facility. However, the revenues derived from the additional one (1) percent are restricted in use and cannot be used for beach improvement projects. The County's current limit of the expenditure of 50 percent of the tourist development tax revenues to fund beach improvement projects is provided by statute. Therefore, no additional percentage of the tourist development tax revenue will be available to fund the proposed beach nourishment project. GI 40 0 ■ However, the current 50 percent revenue contribution can be applied to the costs of the recreational benefits allocated to the overnight tourists described in subsequent sections of the report. 5.3 THE tlOGAI, G®VERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX The Infrastructure Surtax is limited in rate to one-half (%) or one (1) percent. The infrastructure surtax revenue may be used for the purposes enumerated in section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes such as to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure, additionally, surtax revenues may be used to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources and to finance the closure of County -owned or municipally -owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or required to close by the order of the Department of Environmental Protection. Commencing ,July 1, 1998, fifteen percent of surtax revenues may be expended on economic development activities under certain circumstances. See § 212.055(2)(d)(3), Fla. Stat. If the tax was levied pursuant to a referendum held prior to July 1, 1993, it may not be levied beyond the time established in the ordinance or, if the ordinance did not limit the period of the levy, the tax may not be levied for more than 15 years. The levy of such tax may be extended only with elector approval. In the event the tax is levied subsequent to June 30, 1993, there is no statutory limit on its duration. The tax proceeds must be shared between the County and the municipalities within the County pursuant to an interlocal agreement or pursuant to the half -cent sales tax formula provided in section 218.62, Florida Statutes. The surtax may also be shared with the school board. Indian River County currently imposes the local government infrastructure surtax at a rate of one (1) percent, pursuant to a referendum approved in 1989, for a period of 15 years. The distribution of the revenues is determined by the local Government Half -Cent Sales Tax Formula which provides approximately $6.5 4D 4D 0 0 million for Indian Fiver County government on an annual basis. A majority of the revenue from the local government infrastructure surtax is funding public works" projects in the Fiscal Year 1998-99 proposed budget. However, there is no statutory restriction from using the infrastructure surtax revenues to fund beach improvement projects and all or any portion of future infrastructure surtax revenue might be applied to the costs of the recreational benefits allocated to the County residents described in subsequent sections of the report. 5.4 STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL, PROGRAM FUNDS The criteria for state "BECP" participation in the funding of beach restoration projects depends primarily on the public beach access conditions within the project area and the location and purpose of the beach nourishment and, or sand bypassing project. At present, the rules for determining state funding require that eligibility for funding must provide for a public access with at least 100 parking spaces within a one-half (%2) mile radius of the access; thus, for a beach to be considered 100 percent accessible there must be one (1) public access with 100 parking spaces, located every one (1) mile. If parking is provided at a distance further than one-half ('/2) mile, public transportation must be provided, and the transportation service must operate at a minimum of two (2) times per day. FDEP determines project cost sharing in part based on formula values of beach frontage which is deemed "publicly accessible." Fnr example, a "Primary Beach Access Site" is defined by the state as having a minimum of 100 public parking spaces and restroom facilities on-site. Such a facility is assigned the ar_tual frontage occupied by the parcel plus 2,540 feet of additional shoreline in each shore parallel direction. Parcels with less than 100 parking spaces per mile are determined on a prorated basis according to the mileage equivalent of the parcel being considered. Table 17 provides a summary of all state, county and city owned government property that fronts on the Atlantic Ocean and which is proposed to be included in the beach nourishment program, I GO N r R9 1R Cfl [D r v P1) u. V [n c g ua O ps m O u. 21 � a) L6ito.0 co m (t. a m R m m m N Ply x m d a. 13L d 0.R. [L 'a « c f1. f1. O v° a)m�IglPu�l 'u w a[�a,3 In m E :3 i cRc c. mm [7) V) NU] N V) co co IKC ar a Z 3'i ru V al arat al as m m y m j�$f m -j fy c� C C C C C C �' C C 1 C C C E C S .•' _j a > R m m ro $ 1. N 10 m at- VI III[(! Rro[ R co N R lC ry;fti Y R 111 R� (@ J a N 17,�'N N N N N N }. i �[L m CQ o c E a-1 N a) pmmmmlg��m7mmol N GS 1n�f w1 Obi N 0 N '9 m P L 4i U) 0 Ui U) GI 911 43 vl t1) u) v) 1% P/)! E f!) m a7 E >� C!! PG m 0. r m I - N .��BW222� 7 U U� B 4.m' w�U 4iN mN ma A o hAA6VMIA O r o U�vA m a• 12 oaS88S Ovo�fQiJo r��oM n�oo a ' aN(o ���cocco(cw �'� co00� ���wc 10 Q�1� 1n � � �i ':BA 0 ��M m. 1 �- thQ![3101 NM M M N N M M tl➢471 fl'I f)}4A N.NmN NCVN(yF�+f,( M M M,C7 M M Lel P'�3I `'�7 .r tj,� (91, v 10 m [u mY m U d1 irymj7 mmmmmmmagi�,' 'Inm a 12 ro `w a� ca U3 (D 7 Q2e2'eo2L>222Q7'.;� a) 77.7 mNm7 � mcumaraalPudmmulai4"d Q¢ � o d,4¢4QaQaa¢aas Fa T Q$a m v1d¢4d44Q4?$Q meso 1 E ro m ma m � g m! °� > E L Q p UI�U 7' 3 3 $0 3 3 3 .- r�.r- i C v- X S LY N O �._ ._ ._ ._ 1 O.M.L d CI (a (' C5 (o r3 rn LD I �U V C-3 0 h a N Qi C) G ct n c] n.(4 o (D ea •- N r Q g Ga G o C3 v IInD n 7 r (7d o 0 o-n fJ.el (3 C,0 a o j Z t- G,CD n,op C3 t 0 4 n C� t=. 9 q es666.IG.21 +-CANN N N oI.- �n o� e3 �n on cryo o n c� c= n ') �g�o1 v M � a boon 0? lnC7 c]onooe u(>>10 qaC3Q Jr-JouCD w Own oG� , P` �[n G n t_ c7 y rd cs 8c1 oon- CS opnn;4or� ddoo o C�;n PSC] nC] n o n q Iry Una p)aG u o - o d O d •n YJr S� d L7 O G O O s ( S C f"]�CJ7 d C _ G n'n p� v� S f G V�i�nn '�✓d G'y7 S] U Q1 u/ O C) (� QI M M M fel 3p�1 0110 : if1 Ul aI m Im M.M 7iM M M! (`3 C] [�] n cj a 3 ]! 7 `I'n - ! i 1!9 ! , Crl ��L 6 �. M'MC7 N N (['D `l (V [D U] U7 fCl 47 �] tx) (t] (ry (ry C`I C-J i`I ('+1'(N C'J CJ +V (r} ('1 f`} [•] (r) [�] ['D (3 '] 'i 'I! SV l^l [�! [3] N !`r i N x- I do 40 i • Qualifying Project Costs The "qualifying project length" for accesses that meet the minimum parking requirement of 100 spaces is calculated as the length of the access plus one-half (/2) mile on either side of the access. Trus, for a 100 -foot wide public access easement, the qualifying project length is; 100' + 2840' + 2840' = 5380' The proportion of state funding for a renourishment project is computed by the ratio of qualifying project length to total project length. County and city government sponsored beach nourishment project areas without 100 percent public access can qualify for partial funding based on the available access. If an individual access has more than 100 parking spaces, qualifying length of shoreline is not increased proportionally. The major advantage to having additional parking above the 100 -space minimum is that the project criteria for parking spaces will score higher, and thus may be ranked on the list of projects being considered by the state for funding. Additional ranking criteria for state funded projects include: environmental impacts, public support, recreational benefit, storm protection and local erosion rates, renourishment interval, and an established funding program to provide the balance of funds required to construct the project(s). Accesses that satisfy the state's requirements for public access are eligible for reft-ribursemeni of 50 percent of the cost of sand placement within the qualifying reach. Sand placement costs include pumping costs, mobilization/ demobilization, sand source investigations, hardbottom snapping, state and federal permit acquisition, construction plans and specifications, acquisition of easements, turbidity monitoring, hydrographic monitoring, revegetation and turtle monitoring. For example, a one (1) -mile project with two (2) accesses and 100 parking spaces per access would qualify for reimbursement of 50 percent of the 4D 40 i i cost of sand placement on the entire one (1) -mile shoreline, Similarly, if only one access and 100 spaces were available, then the project would qualify for 50 percent funding for sand placement in front of the access easement one and one-half (1 '/2) mile to the north and south of the access. Other factors that must be considered in the development of public access for the application for state funding include: signage, dune overwalks, handicapped access, and facilities, including trash cans and public restrooms. Any additional requirements for state funding participation are stipulated in the agreement between the state and local governmental entity prior to receipt of state monies. In additional to these criteria which will apply to the Sector 5 and 7 project areas, the state considers projects which are constructed to improve sand bypassing (across inlets) to downdrift shorelines. This is the basis for the 50 percent state funding participation in Sectors 1, 2 and 3. 5.5 AD VALOREM TAXES Authorization Article VII, section 9(b) of the Florida Constitution permits cities, counties and special districts to levy ad valorem taxes at the following rates: • Ten (10) mills for municipal purposes ("Municipal Millage"), 1. * Ten (10) mills for County purposes ("County Millage"). • To the extent authorized by law, a county furnishing municipal services may levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes ("MSTU Millage"). (See the discussion of municipal service taxing units, below.) 4W E_il 0 i Special districts may levy a millage: (1) authorized by law and (2) approved by voters ("Special District Millage"). However, if the sum of the proposed County Millage and Special District Millage for dependent special districts exceeds ten (10) mills, Section 200.071, Florida Statutes, requires that the County Millage be reduced so that the aggregate ad valorem tax does not exceed ten (10) mills.2 (See the general discussion of special districts later in this report for an enumeration of the criteria for determining whether a special district is dependent or independent.) Municipal Service Taxing Units Subject to the restrictions described below, the County may establish a coastal municipal service taxing unit and impose ad valorem taxes to fund the storm protection benefits derived by privately -owned property. Section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes, authorizes counties to create municipal service taxing units and impose ad valorem taxes within the limits fixed for municipal services to fund essential facilities and municipal services, specifically including beach erosion control. The Supreme Court of Florida upheld the constitutionality of a county levy of ad valorem taxes within a municipal service taxing unit without referendum within the ten (10) mill constitutional limit for municipal purposes in Gallant v. Stephens, 358 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1978). However, Article Vil, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution requires referendum approval if ad valorem taxes are pledged to secure the payment of bonds. 'See Board of County Commissioners, tfernando County u. Florida Department of Community Affairs, 626 So 2d 1330 (Fla. 1993} (upholding the constitutionality of the aggregation of the dependent district nldtai]o with the county purpose millage). 40 • Since any MSTU Millage will intrude upon the Municipal Millage, a municipal service taxing unit may not include property located within a municipality unless the municipality consents by ordinance.3 Consent may be given annually or for a term of years. A municipal service taxing unit is not constitutionally nor functionally a special district. It is purely a mechanism by which a county can rund a particular service from a levy of ad valorem taxes, not countywide, but within all or a portion of the County. Subject to certain specific exceptions not pertinent to this discussion, Section 200.066, Florida Statutes, requires that municipal service taxing units be created prior to January 1 of the calendar year in which the first ad valorem tax bill will be mailed. Special Districts General Discussion, Ad valorem taxes can also be imposed by special districts. Special districts are limited forms of local government, created to perform specialized functions. Special districts have no home rule power; they only have the powers expressly provided by, or which can be reasonably implied from, the authority provided legislatively in their charter, Special District Millage must be authorized by law and approved by referendum. An additional referendum must approve the pledge of ad valorem taxes to secure the payment of bonds. As previously noted, any Special District Millage imposed by a dependent sperial district must be aggregated with the County Millage. Subject to certain specific exceptions not pertinent to this discussion, Section 200.066, Florida Statutes. requires that special districts be created prior to January 1 of the calendar year in which the first ad valorem tax bill will be mailed. 'Section < 09 of the Vero Beach City Charter may I'imil the City's ability to provide consent The Vera Reach City Charter issue is discussed below. 'Since MSTUS are not dependent special districts, the Special Dislrict Millage need not be aggregated with the County Millage. 4D M • 11 Special districts are defined as independent or dependent. These statutory classifications control the available formation options and dictate statutory millage limitations. Section 189.403(2), Florida Statutes, defines a special district as "dependent' if it meets one of the following criteria: • Its governing body is identical to that of a single county or municipality • All members of the governing body are appointed by a single county or municipality • The members of the governing body can be removed during their unexpired term by a single county or municipality or • Its budget requires approval of or can be vetoed by a single county or municipality. An "independent" special district is defined in Section 189.4{13(3), Florida Statutes, as a special district that is not classified as dependent under the criteria of Section 189.493(2). Beach and Shore Preservation Authorities. Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, authorizes counties to establish Beach and Shore Preservation Authorities with the Board of County Commissioners serving as the governing body. There is no requirement for approval by a municipality if incorporated areas are inc€uded, The Authority may impose an ad valorem tax not in excess of one (1) mill per year for a period of two (2) years to fund organizational and administrative costs. After approving a plan of improvement for the County, including an economic analysis of the benefits to be provided, Section 161.37 empowers the Authority to levy ad valorem taxes within its boundaries to fund general benefits provided by the improvements and "special benefit taxes" to fund the special benefits to specific properties. M 0 f The levy of ad valorem taxes must be approved by referendum within the district and an additional referendum must approve the pledge of ad valorem taxes to secure the payment of bonds. Since Beach and Shore Preservation Authorities are dependent special districts, any Special District Millage levied to fund general benefits must be aggregated with the County [Millage. Special benefit taxes are comparable to special assessments. Section 161.37 requires that the tax shall be levied upon each taxable property it proportion to benefits said property will receive as determined by the most recent economic analysis of the program. Special benefits shall be assigned to groups of specific properties which shall constitute zones because of the equal or comparable benefits each included property will receive. Any substantive distinction between special benefit taxes and special assessments becomes immaterial if the special benefit faxes are to be collected on the ad valorem tax twill since the tax bill collection method can only be used if the special benefit tax can became a lien against homestead property. In order to meet this requirement, the special benefit and fair apportionment standards applicable to special assessments must be met. The special benefit requirement and the fair and reasonable apportionment requirement are described later in this report under the discussion of special assessments. Home Rule Special Districts. Section 125.01(5)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes a county to create a special district to include both incorporated and unincorporated areas subject to the approval by the affected municipality.' Once created, each special district has the power to provide municipal services and facilities "from funds derived from service charges, special assessments, or taxes within such district only," Special districts created in this manner are classified as "independent" or "dependent" under the criteria discussed earlier in this report. ;Section 2.09 of the Vero Beach City charter may lima the City's anility to provide this approval The Vero Beach City Charier issue is discussed below 40 i a Section 125.01(5)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that the governing body of the special district be composed of county commissioners and further provides that the governing board may include elected officials of the affected municipality. The basis of apportionment must be established in the ordinance. The levy of ad valorern taxes must be approved by referendum within the district and an additional referendum must approve the pledge of ad valorem taxes to secure the payment of bonds, If the district is dependent, any Special District Millage levied to fund general benefits must be aggregated with the County Millage. No aggregation is required if the district is independent, Vero Beach City Charter The Vero Beach City Charter contains an unusual provision that merits discussion in the context of ad valorem tax and special assessment options. Section 2.09. Referendum Required. Unless specifically authorized to do so by one or more local binding referendum elections, the City of Vero Beach shall not on beaches owned by or within the municipal limits of the City of Vero Beach, directly or indirectly, expend tax dollars from whatever source (local, state or federal) on beach restoration that involves the direct or indirect placement of sand on the beach except in the amount necessary to protect life or property during storms or other natural disasters. By its express terms, Section 2.09 limits the expenditure of tax dollars by the City of Vero Beach (notwithstanding their source), but does not expressly limit the expenditure of tai dollars by the County or any other governmental entity. Moreover, it does not expressly limit the use of special assessments by the County or the City of Vero Beach because a legally imposed special assessment is not a tax. City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25 (la. 1992), Even if Section 2.09 did intend to limit the County, the constitutional principle that a i 0 county ordinance is not effective within a municipality that enacts an inconsistent ordinance is also constitutionally limited by the requirement that all municipal ordinances must serve a municipal purpose. For example, in City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, 535 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), the county transportation impact fee ordinance stated that its purpose was to regulate county land use and land development and to implement a comprehensive plan by imposing an impact fee for county road expansion attributable to new growth and development. The county imposed this transportation impact fee countywide and several cities enacted ordinances to opt out of the application of the county impact fee ordinance within their boundaries. The court held the municipal ordinances were invalid because, although cities had broad powers under the Florida Constitution to act for municipal purposes, these ordinances had no reasonable relationship to the ntuirais, health, welfare, and safety of the people. I he court further stated that preventing or hindering a county in its task of building and maintaining county roads was not in the best interest of the city. The court applied Ormond Beach to a then non -charter county in Seminole County v. City of Casselberry, 541 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), The Florida Constitution provides that a county's charter will state which ordinance shall prevail when a county ordinance and a municipal ordinance are in conflict. See Art. VIII, § 1(g), Fla. Const. (`1968). The Volusia County charter, however, provided that a county ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance is not effective within the municipalities to the extent of the conflict except in specific areas not relevant to the decision. The 1968 Florida Constitution states that when a non -charter county ordinance conflicts with a municipal ordinance then the county ordinance shall not be in effect within that municipality to the extent of the conflict. See Art. VIII, § 1(0, Fla. Const. The court held that the s&me rule of taw applied in Seminole County that had applied in Ormond Beach, i 40 • • The general rule of Ormond Beach and Seminole County is that both charter and non -charter counties have the power to impose impact fees countywide to fund capital facilities provided on a countywide, uniform basis. Absent a municipal purpose, a municipality cannot, by adopting an inconsistent ordinance, preempt a county from providing or funding a countywide program or facility. The same legai and public policy arguments can be made for any county service or improvement (e.g„ stormwater facilities or programs, fire control programs, and beach preservation programs). In summary, Section 2.09 of the Vero Beach City Charter does not appear to restrict either the City or the County from using special assessments to fund a beach nourishment project. Moreover, it does not appear to restrict the use of MSTU Millage or Special District Millage for this purpose. However, it may limit the City's ability to consent to inclusion of municipal property within a municipal service taxing unit or to consent (where required) to creation of a special district, 5.6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS General Discussion Special assessments are a home rule revenue source that counties may use to fund local improvements or essential services, As established by case law, two requirements exist for the imposition of a valid special assessment: (1) the property assessed must derive a special benefit from the improvement or service provided and (2) the assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special benefit. City of Boca Raton_ v. State, 595 So. 2d at 29. If a special assessment ordinance withstands the special benefit and fair apportionment tests, the assessment is not a tax and the judicial focus is then on whether the methods prescribed by the home rule ordinance were substantially followed. Madison County v. Foxx, 636 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). An assessment may provide funding for either capital expenditures or the operational costs of services, provided that the property 40 i 11 which is subject to the assessment derives a special benefit from the improvement or service. Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995). There is no referendum approval requirement either for the imposition of special assessments or for the pledge of special assessment proceeds to secure the payment of bonds. If special assessments are to be collected on the ad valorem tax bill, the County must (1) publish notice of its intent to use this collection method weekly for four consecutive weeks, (2) conduct a public hearing, (3) adopt a resolution of intent prior to January 1 of the calendar year in which the first ad valorem tax bill will be mailed, and (4) send copies of the resolution to the property appraiser, the tax collector, and the Department of Revenue by January 10. With consent of the property appraiser and tax collector, the compliance dates may be deferred to March 1 and March 10 of the calendar year in which the first ad valorem tax bill will be mailed. Special Benefit Requirement The benefit required for a valid special assessment consists of more than simply an increase in market value and includes both potential increases in value and the added use and enjoyment of the property. Meyer v. City of Oakland Park, 219 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1969). In Meyer, the Supreme Court upheld a sewer assessment on both improved and unimproved property, stating that the benefit need not be direct nor immediate but must be substantial, certain and capable of being realized within a reasonable time. Furthermore, the benefit need not be determined in relation to the existing use of the property. See City of Hallandale v. Meekins, 237 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), afrd, 245 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1971). 17> C-7 11 i Although the benefit derived need not be direct and immediate, the benefit must be special and peculiar to the property assessed and not a general benefit to the entire community. Thus, services which are provided by a government may be essential to the public welfare but fail to provide the special benefit necessary for the imposition of a valid assessment.6 Fair and Reasonable Apportionment Requirement An improvement or service which specially benefits the assessed properties must also be "fairly and reasonably apportioned among the benefited properties." C of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992); Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 123 So. 830 (Fla. 1929). For example, in South Trail Fire Control Dist. Sarasota County v. State,. 273 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1973), the Court upheld the apportionment scheme that assessed business and commercial property on an area basis while other property was assessed on a flat rate basis. The Supreme Cointt heli, that lh& Illarnler of the assessment's apportionment is immaterial and may vary provided that the amount of the assessment for each property does not exceed the proportional benefits it receives as compared to other properties. However, improper apportionment will defeat a special assessment when a special benefit is otherwise available. In City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Carter, 71 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 9954), a special assessment for garbage, waste and trash collection was apportioned based upon the value of the property. The Court held this assessment to be invalid in that apportioning on the basis of value did not bear any reasonable relationship to the services provided. See St, Lucie County -Ft. Mlcrco Fire Prevention and Control uistris:t v. Hlgys, 9H9 So. 2d 744 (Flet. 1962) "For example, in Growler V. Phillips, 146 Fla. 440, 1 So, 2d 629 (Fla. 1941), a special assessment for the estab4shmenl and maintenance of a hospital was found to riot afford a special or peculiar benefit to the real property assessed. The court reasoned that the hospital provided benefits to the entire community because of its availability to any person but that no logical relationship existed between the construction and maintenance of the hospital and the assessed properly. Additionally, in Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So 2d 885 (Fla 1951), an assessment for the county heallh unit was held to be invalid in that it benefited everyone in the county, regardless of their slalus a$ properly owners 11. 40 HAD 11 • (Court struck fire assessments imposed against property based on the ratio of the assessed value of each property to the total value of all property in the district). In comparison, the Supreme Court in City of Naples v. Moon, 269 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1972), found that the levying of a special assessment for improved parking facilities was valid because the City established specific guidelines to measure the benefits accruing to the assessed property. The guidelines were value of the property benefited, relative floor space of each improved property, its kind, susceptibility to improvement, and the maximum annual benefits to be conferred thereon. City of Niles, 269 So. 2d at 358. Finally, in determining the reasonableness of the apportionment, courts generally give deference to the legislative determination of a local government. In Sarasota Ccum�ty v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. zd 180 (Fla. 1995) The Supreme Court stated, "The legislative determination as to the existence of special benefits and as to the apportionment of the costs of those benefits should be upheld (by the courts) unless the determination is arbitrary." Sarasota county v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d at 184. Requirement for a Municipal! Service Benefit Unit Most local government attorneys believe that counties can impose special assessments under Section 125.01(1)(r), Florida Statutes, without creating a municipal service benefit unit pursuant to Section 125.0'1(1)(q). The significance of this disfinctinn is that creation of a municipal----nuic-- bc.n. Tilt unit pursuant to Section 125.01(1)(q) requires consent of any affected municipality. There is, however, a recent case in which a municipality asserted that counties can only impose special assessments within a validly created municipal service benefit unit. Since the Court did not reach the issue, a detailed discussion of the case and the issue is pertinent to this report. 4D r • In Madison County v. Foxx, 636 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the county struggled with imposing special assessments for solid waste collection and disposal, landfill closure, fire protection, and emergency medical and ambulance services. The assessments were imposed against property in different portions of the county. The fire assessment was effective in unincorporated areas only. The assessment for solid waste collection and disposal applied to property within the unincorporated area and within the municipality of Lee. The other two (2) assessments, for landfill closure and emergency medical and ambulance services, applied in the unincorporated areas and within the municipalities of Lee, Greenville and the City of Madison, but only if the governing board agreed to the special assessment by resolution. In the implementing ordinance imposing the challenged assessments, the County documented its uncertainty as to the statutory authority under which it was acting: Because the County was uncertain whether imposition of these special assessments dealing with garbage collection and disposal, landfill closure, and ambulance service, required the creation of a Municipat Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), or a Municipal Service Benefits unit (MSBU), or a special district, or apparently whether the County had to contract with the cities to provide the services, the County claimed authority to act under Article VIII(1)(1) of the Florida CorLstitution, section 125.01(1), section 125,01(1)(q)1., section 125.01(5)(a), and section 125.0101(2)). c�or firy pr otcction, the County claimred authority to act under Article VI11(1)(f) of the Florida Constitution, section 125.01(1), section 125,01(1)(q)2., and section 125,01(5)(x). None of these ordinances referenced section 125.01(1)(r), Florida statutes.' 'Recall that section 125.171(1){ry. Florida statutes, is She enumeration of the power to impose assessments generally, 4 I-1 11 i 636 So. 2d at 42. A special district created under section 125.01(5), Florida Statutes, requires municipal consent. The property owners in Madison County also argued that municipal consent was required under section 125.01(1)(q) for the creation of a municipal service benefit unit within municipal areas. Notwithstanding the enumerated general power to levy special assessments in section 125.01(1)(r) and the policy of broad and liberal construction of home rule power mandated in section 125.01(3), the property owners further argued that the creation of a municipal service benefit unit with the required municipal consent was the exclusive method for a county to impose assessments within municipal areas. The court's decision did not reach this issue and the court stated: Because of our conclusion that these ordinances imposing special assessments are null and void for failure of the County to substantially comply with the statutory authority under which it purported to act, we do not reach the further issue raised by the County, that is, whether section 125.01(1)(q)2. is the exclusive means by which the County may impose special assessments within municipalities, or whether section 125.01(r) grants counties the broad home rule power to impose special assessments county -wide unless affected cities opt out by passing inconsistent legislation.e 636 So. 2d at 48. 'Section 125.01(1)(g), Florida Statutes, was subsequenVy amended to eliminate the specific provis4ons pertaining to fire control services. Currently, section 125.01(l)(g) allows a municipal service taxing unit 10 include municipal areas subject to consent by ordinance of the affected municipality The millage levied within the municipal area by a county within a municipal service taxing unit and the miltage levied by the municipality cannot, in the aggregate for any parcel, exceed the 10 mill limit For municipal purposes. i do i • The fact that the assessment vehicle of a municipal service benefit unit created under section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes, is an alternative mechanism to home rule powers is clear for many reasons: The courts have consistently construed a statute authorizing a particular county action as an alternative to its authority to act under its home rule power. See, e.q., Taylor v. Lee County, 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1986). Legislative intent contained in section 197.3631, Florida Statutes, argues against such a restrictive view of county home rule: "Section 197.3232 is additional authority for local governments to impose and collect non -ad valorem assessments supplemental to the home rule powers pursuant to ss. 125.01 and 166.021, and Chapter 170, or any other law." Such a restrictive view of county home rule would lead to an absurd conclusion when comparing the home rule power of counties to impose assessments to the home rule power of municipalities. In City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992), the Court concluded that municipal home rule included the power to impose special assessments by ordinance even though section 166.021, Florida Statutes, does not include any general enumeration of the power of a municipality to impose assessments. To conclude that section 125.01 does not provide counties the power to impose special assessments within municipal areas without municipal consent ignores the home rule philosophy incorporated in section 125.01(3)(b): "The previsions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectually carry out the purpose of this section and to secure for the counties the broad exercise of home rule powers authorized by the State Constitution." Such a restrictive view of county home rule would lead to an equally absurd conclusion in areas of municipal preemption. Under such a 40 4M r a restrictive view, a county would not have the home rule power to fund an t appropriate countywide service or improvement by the imposition of special assessments within municipal areas without municipal consent regardless of preemption of municipal authority. See § 403.706(1), Fla. Stat. (grants to counties, with certain exceptions, the power to provide for a solid waste disposal facility countywide). Also, section 335.04(1)(a) constitutes an assignment of responsibility by the state of a transportation function to the County. The enumerated power to create a municipal service benefit unit serves a distinct purpose and function in that it is a mechanism by which a county can secure municipal consent for the Imposition of assessments for those services and improvements for which no municipal preemption has occurred and thereby eliminate the potential opting -out by a municipality of the established countywide service or program by the adoption of an inconsistent municipal ordinance. 5,7 DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Based on the evaluation of funding alternatives, the following chart (Figure 6) provides a summary of the potential revenue sources and will serve as the basis for the allocation of project costs to their respective beneficiary groups. The subsequent correlation of beneficiary groups to specific revenue sources, based on the results of the benefits analysis, is developed in Section 6.0. 'chapter 8$•130, Laws of Florida, the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988, amending the provisions of section 403,706(1), Florida 5latutes. included the ad valorem assessment provisions of section 197 3632. 4D 171 C] 0 W Q 0 d o e 4 Moe] cry � a v Pp U� C7 �a F4 U, V o e Moe] a Pp U� C7 40 40 • 6.0 TOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT BENEFITS AND ALTERNATE COST ALLOCATION METHODS 6.1 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PROJECT BENEFITS This section of the report describes methods to allocate project costs to user groups and individual properties based on the determination of their respective benefits. Section 5.0 of this report provided an analysis of potential funding sources for the proposed beach restoration and subsequent renourishment project; this section of the report provides examples of how these potential funding sources can be used by the County based on alternate cost allocation methods. Implementation of the beach nourishment program for Indian River County will principally provide two (2) broad categories of benefits: (1) storm protection and land loss prevention benefits and (2) recreational benefits. Storm protection and land loss prevention benefits accrue to property owners who own 'beachfront property and recreational benefits accrue to individuals who use the beach. While some residents may not use the new, widened beaches and others may use the beach more than others, the benefit accruing to property owners is assigned to the property and not to the inhabitant of the property. Thus, when a property is sold the new owners may use the beach more than the former owners or Trice versa, Storm protection benefits and recreational henefits, over times result in an increase in property appreciation above that which would have occurred without the implementation of the beach nourishment oroject and a long-term commitment to a long-term beach preservation/nourishment program. The total benefits for each sector are based on the sum of the storm protection benefits and recreational benefits for the beach improvement projects. As described in Section 2.0 of this report, project benefits associated with storm protection and erosion losses were generated for the project area. The storm iR protection benefits for each individual property were calculated by determining the expected land loss due to erosion and the associated costs of the land protected and the cost of maintaining or repairing an existing erosion control structure in the absence of the project. The expected Foss consists of the discounted stream of future losses over a 30 -year period. The storm protection benefits for individual properties were calculated over a 30 -year project horizon and reduced to net present value, then aggregated by beach sector and the entire project area. On the basis of these calculations, the net present value of storm protection benefits over a 30 -year project horizon for the entire project area are estimated at $27,489,287 Section 3.0 of this report describes the recreational benefit calculations for the project area. The total recreational value of Indian River beaches to an individua! is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach. Since the beach nourishment project for Indian River County has a design life of 30 years, the present value of the recreational benefits over the 30 year period is estimated at $50,322,518 for the entire project area. A summary of these combined benefits and the relative values by sector are shown in Table 18. The resultant relative -,turn, nrntantinn and ronrn�fl--nl benefits by sector are used in the initial cost allocation for each sector. For example, in Sector 1 and 2, the calculated storm protection benefits of $6,2U5,7'e,'0 and recreational benefits of $4,780,920 relative to the total calculated benefits for the sector of $10,986,640 determine that 56.5 percent and 43.5 percent of the actual costs of the project for that sector will be allocated to properties receiving the storm protection and recreational benefits of the project accordingly. 4D 4w 11 O Table 18 Summary of Total Estimated Project Benefits by Beach Sector *[data is not available 90-1'.tQ5,9 TTL Ia,WK4n20190CIit, RYL 72 Beach Total Sector Storm Protection Recreational $10,986,640 1&2 $6,205,720 $4,780,920 56.5% 43.5% $19,209,228 3 $6,243,281 $12,965,947 32.5% 67.5% $40,079,192 6 $7,516,528 $32,562,664 18.8% 81.2% $7,478,757 7 $7,478,757 'N/A 100.0% $77,753,817 $27,444,286 $50,309,531 *[data is not available 90-1'.tQ5,9 TTL Ia,WK4n20190CIit, RYL 72 4D 4D M • Methods of Allocating Project Benefits to User Groups and Individual Properties Once the actual total project costs by sector were segregated by storm protection and recreational costs based on the determination of their relative benefits, the next step in the cost allocation process is to apportion the costs to groups of users and then individual property owners. Section 5.0 of this report described several potential revenue sources available to the County as follows: • Tourist development taxes • Local government infrastructure surtax • State grant funds • Ad valorem taxes Special assessments These funding sources can be used to fund the costs apportioned to the groups of users and individual property owners. Tine benefit principle allocates costs to those who receive the benefits. In general, the greater the relative benefit that accrues to a property owner or beneficiary group, the greater the allocation of costs to that property owner or group of individuals. Beach nourishment projects provide bNo (2) broad classes of benefits. Generally, storm protection benefits accrue to landowners who own beachfront property and recreational benefits accrue to individuals who potentially use the beaches. Recreational Benefits Because of the inability to directly correlate the recreational benefits to specific property uses or owners, the costs related to recreational benefits are allocated to the following user groups based on their relative benefits: I—A c] i • • Overnight tourists (Rentals) • Overnight tourists (non -Rentals) • Day tourists • County residents (non -island) • County residents (island) Specific funding sources can be used to fund the relatives costs attributed to these user groups in the following manner. Tourist development tax revenfies can be used to fund the costs attributed to the overnight tourists using transient rentals and paying the tourist development tax. The costs attributed to the other four (4) user groups could be funded by any available remaining state grant funds or other County general fund revenues such as sales tax revenues. The application of these revenue sources to the different user groups is described in subsequent sub -sections for each sector. Storm Protection Benefits It is feasible to attribute storm protection benefits to specific property uses based on the benefit analysis used to compute the overall storm protection benefits for the entire project area. Storm protection costs can be allocated to the fallowing categories of property: • Public Access • Government land • Private Property Public access properties are defined as roadways and easements not identified with a unique parcel identification number. Government land consists of properties with specific property use codes assigned by the County Property Appraiser designated with a governmental ownership or use. Private property consists of three (3) categories: OW b • Single family residential • Multi -family residential • Commercial property including tinieshares First, the costs attributed to public access and government lands are determined based on their relative benefit and funded from state grant revenues. Then, the costs associated with private property are determined. The costs associated with storm protection benefits to private property can be funded by two (2) sources of revenue, ad valorem taxes imposed within the project area (subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 5.0 of this report) or non -ad valorem assessments imposed within the area benefited. Special assessments to fund the costs associated with storm protection benefits were developed based on the degree of storm protection or loss prevention provided by the construction of the project ("Avoided Cost Method"). For example in Sector 3, the cost of the project is estimated at $2,926,000 and storm protection cost share has been determined to be approximately 32.5 percent. Thus, the approximate cost to be distributed among the oceanfront property owners as a storm protection assessment in $951,000 as shown in Table 20 and described in greater detail in Section 6.3. For this example, the project length is assumed to be 7,892 feet, It is important to understand that the final project length may differ as the final length ;gill be determined in the future during preparation of the Final Project Design and Engineering Phase and in the Permit(s) acquisition Phase. For the economic analysis detailed in this report the project limit was assumed to extend from 9620 Highway A1A at the north end to 8500 Highway A1A (Grand Harbor Beach Club) at the south end. 40 4D i • The Avoided Cost Method of calculating storm protection assessments is based 'r upon the percent of storm protection benefit that is realized by each individual property. In general, the storm protection benefit to a property is based on structure vulnerability as determined by the erosion rate, the structure's distance to the mean high water fine, and the presence or absence of an erosion control structure. For example, if there are a total of $1,000,000 in storm protection benefits for the entire project area and $100,000 of those benefits are attributed to a specific property owner, then that property owner (or condominium complex) would pay ten (10) percent of the total storm protection assessment because the property receives ten (10) percent of the total storm protection benefit. In the case of Sector 3, there are a total of $951,000 in storm protection benefits representing 32.5 peiceni of the total combined benefits. Of those benefits, for a property owner (or condominium complex) with one (1) percent of the total storm protection benefits, the property owner(s) would pay an assessment of $9.510. 6.2 SECTORS 1 AND 2 - SEBASTIAN INLET BEACH AND AM13E.RSAND BEACH In Sectors 1 and 2, the total storm protection benefits accruing to beachfront property owners totals $6,205,720 and the recreational benefits accruing to beach users totals $4,780,920. Therefore, storm protection benefits account for 56.5 percent of the total benefits and recreational benefits account for 43.5 percent of the total sector benefits. Applying these percentages to the initial nourishment cost of $5,390,000 for these sectors results in $3,044,000 in costs related to storm protection and $2,.346,000 in costs related to recreational +0 40 s • benefits. After determining the share of the costs between storm protection and recreational benefits, benefits are ascribed to user groups. A summary of the relative degree of benefits ascribed to each beneficiary group is given in Table 19 and illustrated in Figure 7 for Sectors 1 and 2. Storm Protection Cost Allocation In Sectors 1 and 2, there is a total of $3,044,000 in storm protection benefit related project costs representing 56.5 percent of the total combined benefits. Based on their share of the storm protection benefits, the state cost share for publicly owned, i.e. government land, is approximately $1,041,700 and the cost share to private property owner, is approximately $2,002,800. However, these sectors meet the criteria for receiving grants from the state. Given the basis for the state funding contribution which is, according to discussions with state regulators, based principally on a recognition of the need to mitigate for sand lost due to inequities in the historical sand bypassing practices at the Sebastian Inlet, there will be excess revenue from state grants after allocation to the storm protection henefit rPlatetl costs of government property. The excess revenue ..ill be used to fund the costs attributed to recreational benefits of specific user groups. For oceanfront property, using the Avoided Cost Method of calculating assessments; a property with one. ( 1) percent of the total property share of the storm protection benefits would pay a total assessment of $30,440. Recreational Benefit Cost: Allocation In Sectors 1 and 2, recreational benefit related project costs paid alternatively by the tourist development taxes, state, and County funds are grouped according to the beneficiary group category. Overnight tourists were determined to receive 28.2 percent of the total recreational benefits which represents a 12.3 percent share of the total benefits (including storm protection and recreational benefits). C� C-3 0 • at O 6' o wi; M cq, F( P G7 O S] CS C] P P ID tf) �CpV Ifi F N GR z o pA C N� �9 U o C7 r [•1 C� � YY CJ yN Q W O N w q ill a r�i fl F- zzq z p o i w aa x rn �4 � d e ❑ C'{ W m pl ri 10,8 N i6 q :�I I a p C 0 R °� �W � �GNpP Oo71l+l o u� qct 0' N Q Ui V1 Vl p/I VA N� �9 as r [•1 C� � YY t? o w rn � d m}©LL pl ri ny O } 7 h I _ IL ) w 3' L N u h 4 2 0 0 ' r s •e �,. Y � c� of o 0 o � m a U U 0 N O 0. 4- a o w civ .7 CO civ EE C� N r I ri C N N fq3. 2 m 1- U a C cr C C1 S- DI N go � Ti, I !-4 as y o F? �O \ S MIs _ n � i mono • � � r� Ci3 Ff u n n y ' N {Yi FS Ids, • C> 0 The project related costs ascribed to the category of overnight tourist is determined by multiplying the relative percent of the total combined benefit (12.3 percent) by the total project cost ($5,390,000). Similarly, the remaining four (4) recreational beneficiary group categories were adjusted to reflect their relative share of the total project benefit. Alternative revenue sources that are identified in Table 19 to pay the cost share for each beneficiary group are shown in relation to their share of the total project costs for Sectors 1 and 2. A break -down of costs associated with (1) public access properties related to storm protection benefits, (2) County recreational beach use ascribed to recreational benefits, (3) overnight and (4) day tourists are summarized to evaluate the potential for total payment using state, local and tourist development tax funds. 6.3 SECTOR 3 - !.'VASASv^ BEACH The total storm protection benefits accruing to Sector 3 beachfront property owners totals $6,243,281 and the recreational benefits accruing to beach users totals $12,970,168. Therefore, storm protection benefits account for 32.5 percent of the total benefits and recreational benefits account for 67.5 percent of the total benefits. Applying these percentages to the initial nourishment cost of $2,926,000 results in $951,004 in costs related to storm protection and $,1,975,000 related to recreational benefits. After determining the share of the costs between storm protection and recreational benefits, benefits are ascribed to user groups. A summary of the relative degree of benefits ascribed to each beneficiary group is given in Table 20 and illustrated in Figure 8 for Sector 3. Storm Protection Cost Allocation In Sector 3, there is a total of $951,000 in storm protection benefit related project costs representing 32.5 percent of the total combined benefits. The state cost share for publicly owned, i.e. government land, is approximately $59,100 and the d6 4D • i 7 n I In N r Ci a H a I � � � w c m � U h LLQ, m a U som Ip a C � O � N a vv Irl 0 o e7 G o a f o 0 0 0: ro IL C7 Ol 4l O Ip O Q ID: P U m Tt y� e w E v 2 o a m R a 0 I - H F m m in " d 0. p Ip Q L I 0 O � m � p3 V U 0 o e7 G o a f o 0 0 0: o IL C7 Ol 4l O Ip O Q ID: P y� vi w o I a � m EL Ip O ff! W Z m F W N =5 CL O o' } 0 a w w ' LL l4 w C V y H LL ¢ o o y E c ~p z 7 ¢' m N C7 ¢ 0 c c 2 12 W Q ¢ E 12 m D A O U f3 F U N Ct ¢ c F m p m K m CI LI e n L' a 101 i. C - cn l qj 0 li-z vi o u V '+; m m vCA C En a is ani Pte- F kn ° v C CA ©�S v I oc �..E tj q Y�y � {aX] W■ .L� t7 CJ V1 � U 440 G F)i �y qIti k� Y AyjPgQu R3 � Sid G a v � 42 101 i. C - cn l qj 0 li-z vi o u V '+; m m vCA C En a is ani Pte- F kn ° v C CA ©�S v I t7 CJ V1 � F)i �y qIti k� Y AyjPgQu a 42 101 i. C - cn l qj 0 li-z vi o u V '+; m m vCA C En a is ani Pte- F kn ° v C CA ©�S v I 4D r 0 C] cost share to private property owners is approximately $891,600. For private property, using the Avoided Cost Method of calculating assessments, a property with one (1) percent of the total private property share of the storm protection benefits would pay a total assessment of $9,510. Recreational Benefit Cost Allocation In Sector 3, recreational benefit related project costs paid alternatively by the tourist development tax, state, and County funds are grouped according to the beneficiary group category. Overnight tourists were determined to receive 28.9 percent of the total recreational benefits, which represents a 19.5 percent share of the total benefit (including storm protection and recreational 'benefits). The project related costs ascribed to the category of overnight tourist (TOT) is determined by multiplying the relative percent of the total combined benefit (19.5 percent) by the total project cost ($2,928,000) or $571,600. Similarly, the remaining four (4) recreational beneficiary groups categories were adjusted to reflect their relative share of the total project benefit Mote that the percent values listed in the tables multiplied by the total cost will not equal the values shown due to rounding. Alternative revenue sources that are identified in Table 20 to pay the cost share for each beneficiary group are shown in relation to their share of the total project costs for Sector 3. A break -down of costs associated with (1) public access properties ($59,100) related to storm protection benefits, (2) County recreational beach use (31.9 percent or $891,600) ascribed to County resident recreational benefits, (3) overnight and (4) day tourists are summarized to evaluate the potential for total payment using state, local and tourist development tax funds. 41111111 • • 6.4 SECTOR 5 - VERO BEACH The total storm protection benefits accruing to Sector 5 beachfront property owners totals $7,516,528 and the recreational benefits accruing to beach users totals $32,571,430. Therefore, storm protection benefits account for 18.8 percent of the total benefits and recreational benefits account for 81.2 percent of the total benefits. Applying these percentages to the initial nourishment cost of $4,306,500 results in $808,000 in costs related to storm protection and $3,499,000 related to recreational benefits. After determining the share of the costs between storm protection and recreational benefits, benefits are ascribed to user groups. A summary of the relative degree of benefits ascribed to each beneficiary group is given in Table 21 and illristrated in Figure 9 for :Sector 5. Storm Protection Cost Allocation In Sector 5, there is a total of $808,000 in storm protection benefit related project costs representing 18.8 percent of the total combined benefits. The state cost share for publicly owned, i.e. beach access lands and government land, is approximately $138,600 and the cost share to private property owners is approximately $668,900. For private property, using the Avoided Cost Method of calculating assessments, a property with one (1) percent of the total share of the storm protection benefits would pay a total assessment of $8,080. Recreational Benefit Cost.Allocation In Sector 5, recreational benefit related project costs paid alternatively by the tourist development tax, state, and County residents are grouped according to the beneficiary group category. Overnight tourists were determined to receive 14.9 percent of the total recreational benefits which represents a 12.1 percent share of the 'total benefit (including storm protection and recreational benefits), The project related costs ascribed to the category of overnight tourist is determined by multiplying the relative percent of the total combined benefit (12.1 percent) by the total project cost ($4,307,000) or approximately $519,700. i 11 • 0 w' o m ra ul 06, > d I L U) I a I a N. r E V U. u� N '4 in M a C� O Ca 4 ff m G mi m q My D N N N h i E x I a w' o m ra ul 06, > d I L U) I J7 a N. C O y G in M a 41„ d O Ca 7 r C m q x A W [5 P d 6 L � m w x e u 0 ro LL t7 N Rf Tnz k M Z CIL v o o s m I%a N O N a o 0 a ci ci M 0 U)i O a Q d Y 16 P6 P- � 0 � r N e aU Ul C 3 0 CL 0 C: s LL h� N Vl i0 U di � V M1 N [W 0 h Ila O Qa P O N b,' G 0a f0 �B E� Oi T o �Yp'i Us Iti G IBJ! !i M� N2 Vl N U"i�A d. Eo Q N Rh S/a V wla L U) I J7 a N. in M a 41„ d O Ca 7 iV' m x 4 [5 � m w x LL t7 N Rf Tnz k M Z CIL v o o d © w a o 0 a ci ci M 0 U)i O a Q d Y 16 P6 P- � F � qN d m aU CL 0 m 4b C-1 0 0 u r I cs �, � o � +W •�I sa o� o 9� o xW' u r I 40 +i • i Similarly, the remaining four (4) recreational beneficiary groups categories were adjusted to reflect their relative share of the total project benefit. Alternative revenue sources that are identified in Table 21 to pay the cost share for each beneficiary group are shown in relation to their share of the total project costs for Sector 5. A break -down of costs associated with (1) public access properties ($124,000) related to storm protection benefits, (2) County recreational beach use (40.7 percent or $1,755,400) ascribed to County resident recreational benefits, (3) overnight and (4) day tourists are summarized to evaluate the potential for total payment using state, local and tourist development tax funds. 6.5 SECTOR 7 - SOUTH COUNTY BEACH The total storm protection benefits accruing to Sector 7 beachfront property owners totals $7,478,757. The recreational benefits accruing to beach users is not computed due to the absence of beach users during the times of the beach surveys as reference on Section 3 of this report. Therefore, storm protection benefits account for 100 percent of the total benefits. Recreational benefits, although not estimated herein, would likely only be ascribed to the upland property owners through direct property access, private easements or private street ends. Applying this percent to the initial nourishment costs of $3,321,000 results in the oceanfront property owners paying for the entire cost of the project. A summary of the relative degree of benefits ascribed to each beneficiary group is given in Table 22 and illustrated in 'Figure 10 for Sector 7. Storm Protection Cost Allocation In Sector 7, for private property, using the Avoided Cost Method of calculating assessments, a property with one (1) percent of the total private property share of the storm protection benefits would pay a total assessment of $33,210. 4 ELl e e 8 ■ � . E @ S � ƒ-- � § _ k , ) _ § Fq ° - 8 ■ � @ � § _ , e 2 « 0 e L[ . m a m G § 03 a £ E a a a 2 ID 2 a \ 8 @ � e 2 « 0 e L[ . m a m G a a a a o 2 a \ \ § £ £ � k o 2 ® \ \ \ \ � � ) jf«■K«K4 e � 2 2 8 • i .-, 0 f� \t \ ILS 'r W, I CA (I1 � O N P-� U f� \t \ ILS 'r I CA f� \t \ ILS Ob 40 • Recreational Benefit Cost Allocation In Sector 7, recreational benefit related project costs paid alternatively by the state require public access with a minimum of 100 parking spaces. Thus, unless private land is purchased and public access is created, the total costs of this beach sector would not qualify for funding from the state. Funds derived from a local option sales tax may be appropriate if these owners can show access to non -oceanfront property owners via easement and street ends. Table 23 provides a summary of project costs and benefits and cast allocations to funding sources for all of the sectors. i M i 0 Table 23 Summary of Project Costs and Benefits -And Cost Allocations to Funding Sources Project Benefits Summary ary Total Project Costs -- $15,943,400 Initial $31,068,900 30 Year PW Total Storm Protection Benefit $27,489,300 30 Year PW Percent of Total Benefits 35.3% Total Recreational Benefit $50,322,500 30 Year PW Percent of Total Benefits 64.7% Total Project Benefit $77,7661,800 30 Year PW Total Benefit f Cost Ratio 2.5:1 Revenue Source Summary Total State Funds $6,311,000 Total TDT Funds $1,753,000 Total County Funds $997,000 (County Funds with Receipt of Sebastian Inlet District Funding at 25% $2,313MO) notal Private Funds $6,883,000 (Private Funds with Receipt of Sebastian Inlet District Funding at 26% $5,567.000) 96-i 37811.9.gpi113.7257112 $ 798CHERYL 'PW Denotes Present Worth Value ii C-1 • 0 APPENalUS 0 Description 11 L%A CA t \�.�1�G1 N -V U L L�'£ Summer 1998 I�F��f�'h �17Y° yTP APPE'DDIK D 410 40 r 0 Indian River County Summer 1998 Keach Survey '1. INTRODUCTION This survey is part of a study designed to develop an economic assessment of the estimated benefits of a beach nourishment pian for setected beaches in Indian River County. The survey was conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on selected Indian River County Beaches during the late summer/ early fall season. For purposes of this study the beaches in Indian River were divided into 'projects' determined by the project engineers. The project beaches surveyed roughly correspond to ",each areas known as Sections I & 2, Section 3, Jaycee Park, and Section 7 Beaches, A tabulation for the survey questions is presented in the appendix. No beach users were found on Section 7 Beach. 2. HOW THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AND ANALYZED This survey is based upon a of a random sample or beach users who were interviewed using the survey instrument shown in the appendix. The surrey, conducted under the general direction of Dr. Thomas D. Curtis, interviewed 287 adults age 16 and older from August 13 to October 11, 1998. Interviewers selected one adult to interview frorn each group of beach users. Interviews were conducted from morning until late afternoon on the three selected areas of beaches in Indian River County. No beach users were found in the fourth area. Tables 1 and 2 below show lie distribution of interviews by day and beach. Table 1 Survey Dates Date Date of Survey Beach Date of Survey 1 Section 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. Section 7 All 1&2. 811311998 Th 2 18 14 0 34 8/18/1998 Tu 1 28 21 0 50 8/19/1998 We 0 17 11 0 28 9/4/1998 Fr 3 5 11 0 19 9/5/1998 Sa 7 12 0 0 19 9/611998 Su 5 23 31 0 59 9/7/1996 Mo 3 14 12 a 29 101611998 Tu 4 0 0 0 4 1011011998 Sa 6 11 8 0 25 1 0/1 111 998 Su 6 uL 14 0 0 20 Total 37 142 108 0 287 40 40 C7 • Indian River County Summer 1999 Beach Survey Table 2 Surrey Beaches Beach Survey Count Percent of Sample People Count Percent People 1 Sections 1 & 2 37 12.9% 78 9.6% 2 Section 3 942 49.5% 432 53.1% 3 Section 5 106 37.6% 303 37.3% 4 Section 7 4 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 287 100.0% 813 100.0% Although 287 surveys were conducted, the survey represents 813 beach uses. This is because in most cases the individual respondent to the surrey was part of a larger group of beach users who came together to enjoy beach activities. On average there were 2.9 people in each group or party surveyed. However, the number of beach users in a party varied by beach from a average of 2.17 at Sections 1 & 2 Beach to a high of 3.09 at Section 3 Beach. So an a "people" or beach user bases, Sections 1 & 2 leach represents a smaller portion of the sample than it does on a "survey" basis. 4D C> 0 11 Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 By Place of residence The following tables show beach users (people) by place of reported residence. Table 3 Percent Beach Users by Place of Residence Interpretation: This table represents the percentage of individual beach users on each beach by place of residence. The numbers inside the table represent the percentage of people on each beach by place of residence. For example 35.9% of the people in the parties found on Sections 1 & 2 Beach resided in Indian River County. The numbers in the extreme right column represent the percentage of respondents on all beaches who resided in a particular place. For example 46.1 % of the people in the parties found on all beaches resided in Indian River County. Overall, the survey found more than half of the beach users found on the beach were not residents of Indian River County. Beach users were classified as residents if they indicated that they resided ill Indian River County or as visitors if the indicated that they did not live in Indian River County. Visitors were identified by their place of residence: Bevard County, Martin County, St Lucie County, other Florida, other United States, or Foreign. Visitors were also classified by length of stay. Overnight visitors reside outside Indian River County and indicated that they remained in Indian River Comm overnight. Day visitors indicated that they did not live in Indian River County and that they did not remain in Indian River County overnight. % People on Each Beach Home Location 1 Sections I & 2. 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All Indian River County 35.9°% 45.1% 50.2°% 0.0% 46.1% Brevard County 23.1% 10.4% 8.6°% 0.0% 10.9°% St. Lucie County 0.0% 0.7% 4.0% 0.0°% 1.8°% Martin C•:7unty 0.0% 0.9% 0.0°% 0.0°% 0.5°% Other Florida 30.8% 20.8'°% 23.8% 0.0% 22.9°% Other US 5.11% 19.4% 12.9% 0.0°% 15.60% Foreign 5.1% 2.1% 0.7°% 0.0% 1.8% na 0.00% 0.5% 0.0°% 0.0% 0.2°% Total 100.0°% 100.0°% 100.0°% 0.0°% 100,0°% Interpretation: This table represents the percentage of individual beach users on each beach by place of residence. The numbers inside the table represent the percentage of people on each beach by place of residence. For example 35.9% of the people in the parties found on Sections 1 & 2 Beach resided in Indian River County. The numbers in the extreme right column represent the percentage of respondents on all beaches who resided in a particular place. For example 46.1 % of the people in the parties found on all beaches resided in Indian River County. Overall, the survey found more than half of the beach users found on the beach were not residents of Indian River County. Beach users were classified as residents if they indicated that they resided ill Indian River County or as visitors if the indicated that they did not live in Indian River County. Visitors were identified by their place of residence: Bevard County, Martin County, St Lucie County, other Florida, other United States, or Foreign. Visitors were also classified by length of stay. Overnight visitors reside outside Indian River County and indicated that they remained in Indian River Comm overnight. Day visitors indicated that they did not live in Indian River County and that they did not remain in Indian River County overnight. 40 40 0 • Indian River County Sunnier 1998 Beach. Survey Table 4 Percent Residents and Visitors Interpretation; Tile numbers represent the percentage of respondents who are either classified as residents or visitors who were interviewed at each beach. For example, 35.9% of the beach users interviewer) at Sections 11 & 2 Beach were classified as residents; 46.1% of all the respondents interviewed were classified as residents. Table 5 Breakout of Indian River Resident Regnoridents °% People on Each Beach on Each Beach Home Location 1 Sections 1 & 2, 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All Residents 35.9°% 45.1% 50.2% 0.0°% 46.1% Visitors 64.1% 54.4°% 49.8% 100.0% 53.6% NA 1 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0°% 0.2% Interpretation; Tile numbers represent the percentage of respondents who are either classified as residents or visitors who were interviewed at each beach. For example, 35.9% of the beach users interviewer) at Sections 11 & 2 Beach were classified as residents; 46.1% of all the respondents interviewed were classified as residents. Table 5 Breakout of Indian River Resident Regnoridents Interpretation: The numbers represent the percentage of beach users by area of residence with Indian River County who in the interviewed parties at each beach. For exantl,le, 60.7% of tite beach users at Sections I & 2 Beach resided oil the mainiand in Indian River County east of I-95 and west of the intercoastal waterway; 19.7 percent of all the beach users interviewed responded that they lived in Vero Beach. As might be expected, Jaycee bark had the largest percentage of Vero Beach respondents. °% People on Each Beach Place 1 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section S. 4. Section 7 All 1 &1 On Island E AIA 0.0% 2.6°% 0.7% 0.0°% 1.60% On Island W AIA 10.7% 7.7°% 5.3% 0.0°% 6.9% Mainland E of 195 60.7x'% 73.3°% 51.3°% 0.0% 63.5°% Mainland W of 195 10.7°% 6.7% 9.9% 0.0% 8.3°% Vero Beach 17.9°% 9.7°% 32.9% 0.0% 19.7°% Total 100.0% 100.0°% 100.0°% OA% 100.0% Interpretation: The numbers represent the percentage of beach users by area of residence with Indian River County who in the interviewed parties at each beach. For exantl,le, 60.7% of tite beach users at Sections I & 2 Beach resided oil the mainiand in Indian River County east of I-95 and west of the intercoastal waterway; 19.7 percent of all the beach users interviewed responded that they lived in Vero Beach. As might be expected, Jaycee bark had the largest percentage of Vero Beach respondents. 4D • tit...., Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey Chart 1 Breakout of Vero Beach Respondents Breakout of Vero Beach Respondents On Island E AIA 14% On Island W AIA 4% Mainland 0 821/6 This chart shows a breakout of area in which the people in the Vero Beach "respondent groups" live. It is for all beaches, the interpretation is that 14%© of the Vero Beach respondents indicated that they live on the Island east of AIA. 3.2 VISITORS Of all respondents 35.2% indicated that they were Overnight Visitors. Table 6 Percent Overnight Visitors by Beach Interpretation: 49.8% of the :303 beach L=sers at Section 5 Beach indicated that they were not Indian River County residents and were staying overnight in Indian River County County. About 43%U of the overnight v s tors reported staying in a hotel or motel. The breakdown of lodging by type is shown below in Chart 2. Overnight Visitors Response 1 Sections 1 & 2. 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All Visitors Percent Visitors 50 237 151 0 64.1% 54.9% 49.8% 0.0% 438 53.9% -1 s7cai 70 434 303 0 81 Interpretation: 49.8% of the :303 beach L=sers at Section 5 Beach indicated that they were not Indian River County residents and were staying overnight in Indian River County County. About 43%U of the overnight v s tors reported staying in a hotel or motel. The breakdown of lodging by type is shown below in Chart 2. O i 0 Indian River County Sutntiler 1998 Beach Survey Chart 2 Overnight Visitor Lodging Where They Stayed Other/NA Own Beach 7% Renta tlCondo 9% Property 15% A'� Relatives! Hotel/Motel Friends 715 43% 26% Interpretation: 26% of the visitor respondents staying overnight in Indian River County reported staying with reittti vcs of Ia iends, 15 % of die visitor respondents staying overnight stayed in their own property. NN IAT THEY ENJOYED As might be expected most respondents (88.5%) enjoyed swinuninglsunbathing, followed by walking or jogging (56.41/o), shelling (30.3%), fishing (16.4%) and other activities, sucli as surfing, sports, or reading (12.91/6). Table 7 Enjoyed Activities Beach Response 1 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All 1&2. Swim/Sun 75.7% 91.5% 88.9% 0 88.5° Fishing 29.7% 16.2% 12.0°, 0 16.4% Suri 10.8% 1141% 6.5% 0 10.8% Walk 51.4% 54.9% 60.2% 0 56.4% Shell 24.3% 32.4% 29.6% 0 30.3% Other 16.2% 14,1% 10.2% 0 12.9% CA C> 4 • Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey HOW THEY GOT THERE The majority (80%) of the respondents drove to the beach, almost 12% of the respondents where staying on the beach. Those who drove found parking plentiful or adequate (87°/0). The table below indicates the percent responses as to whether parking was plentifitl, adequate or insufficient. Table 8 How the Parties Got to the Beach Table 9 Parking Availability Beach Response 1 1 Sectiors 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All Response 1&2. 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All Staying here, Waltz 2.7% 23.9% 25.9% 0.0% 22.0% Walked, hike from 5.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.0% 1.7% Home 23.5% 45.0% 37.0% 0 38.8% Drove a car 91.9% 74.6% 73.1% 0.0% 76.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Table 9 Parking Availability Interpretation: 73.5% of the respondents who drove found parking plentifitl at Sections t & 2 Beach .diile for all beaches, 49.1% of the respondents who drove found parking plentiful. Parking Beach Response 1 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All 1&2. Ple-I ifs it 73.5% 33.0% 1111.5% 0 "9.1 % Adequate 23.5% 45.0% 37.0% 0 38.8% Insufficient 2.9% 22.0% 2.5% 0 1 171 a%, Percent Drove 2.9% 22.0% ^ 2.5% 0.0-=/.l Interpretation: 73.5% of the respondents who drove found parking plentifitl at Sections t & 2 Beach .diile for all beaches, 49.1% of the respondents who drove found parking plentiful. do M • Indian River County Summer 1598 Beach Survey HOW OFTEN THEY CAME, HOW LONG THEY STAYED On average respondents came to the beach 54 days a year. The average number of days reported at the beach by place of residence as follows: Table 10 Number of Beach Visits Per Year Respondents at Jaycee Park on average came to the beach slightly more often than respondents at the other beaches higher. This may be because a larger percentage of the respondents at Jaycee Park were Indian River residents and Indian River residents tend to visit the beach more frequently than do nonresidents. However, there is no statistical difference between the average number of days between the fhree beaches. Beach Response 1 Sections t&2. 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. A. Section 7 All 55.41 43.17 57.62 0.00 50.18 Mean Std pew 90.78 69.89 95.29 0.00 83.01 Count 37.00 142.00 108.00 0.00 287.00 95% Confidence Interval Width 29.25 11.50 17.97 0.00 9.60 Lower limit 26.2 31.7 39.6 0.0 40.6 Upper limit 84.7 54.7 75.6 0.01 59.8 Respondents at Jaycee Park on average came to the beach slightly more often than respondents at the other beaches higher. This may be because a larger percentage of the respondents at Jaycee Park were Indian River residents and Indian River residents tend to visit the beach more frequently than do nonresidents. However, there is no statistical difference between the average number of days between the fhree beaches. i 40 O 0 Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey Chart 3 Number of Visits to at the Beach Per Year 35.0% 30.0°% 25.0°% 20.01°% 15.0°% — 10.0°% 5.0°% 0.0°% Once 1 Monthly 12 Weekly 52 2 Weekly 104 Many 104+ Visits Per Year Table 11 Number of Days Per Year At Tlie Beach by Place of Residence Home Location Average Times Indian river County 86.5 Brevard County 31.0 St. Lucie County 52.1 Martin County 12.0 Other Florida 7.4 Other US 6.3 Foreign 2.7 na 1,0 Total 50.2 Interpretation: On average Indian River County residents taking part ill the survey visited tate beach 86.5 times per year or about 1.6 times per week.. Residents taking part 11l the survey front St. Lucie County visited the beach once a week, on average. 4D C7 Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey Table 12 Hours Spent at the Beach Per Visit On average respondent groups spent 3.8 hours or approximately half a workday ai (11C beach. NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY PARTY The number of people in the surveyed parties ranged from a low of I person to a high of 10 people. The average number per party was 2.9 people. However, this average varied by beach as shown below. User groups were smallest on Sections 1 & 2 beach. Table 13 Number in Party Beach Response I Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4- Section 7 All 1&2. 3.73 3.75 3.77 0.00 3.76 Mean Std Dev 1.56 1.62 1.78 0.00 1.67 Count 37 142 108 0 J_ 287 -1 95% Confidence Interval Width Width 0.50 0.27 0.33 0.00 0.19 Lower limit 3.2 3.5 3.4 0.0 3.6 Up2er limit 4.2 4.0 4.1 0.0 3.9 On average respondent groups spent 3.8 hours or approximately half a workday ai (11C beach. NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY PARTY The number of people in the surveyed parties ranged from a low of I person to a high of 10 people. The average number per party was 2.9 people. However, this average varied by beach as shown below. User groups were smallest on Sections 1 & 2 beach. Table 13 Number in Party Beach 1 Sed4ons 2'oed6on3 33ectioriS, ti. Sectiun7 All 1 &2. Mean 2.17 3.09 2.91 0.00 2.90 Std Dev 1.42 1.67 1.68 0.00 1.67 Count 36 140 104 0 280 95% Confidence Interval Width 0.47 0.28 0.32 0.00 0.20 Lower limit 1.7 2.8 2.6 0.0 2.7 L222 -r -limit 2.6 3.4 3.2 0.0 3.1 a* 0 C7 Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey The average number of people per party also varied by whether the respondents were a resident group or a visitor group. Table 14 Average Number in Patty by Residents and Visitors VALUE OF A BEACH DAA!' The table below summarizes the responses to the question "If You could put a dollar value on a day at the beach" . Table 15 Average Value of a Day on the Beach by Beach Number in PartyI Residents Visitors 2.80 3.82 All Groups 1 2,90 VALUE OF A BEACH DAA!' The table below summarizes the responses to the question "If You could put a dollar value on a day at the beach" . Table 15 Average Value of a Day on the Beach by Beach Interpretation: On average the value placed by respondents on a day at the beach was 113.00 at Sections 1 & 2. The average value placed on a day at the beach for all beaches was S 1 1.71. The 95% confidence interval for the average value: is from 510.69 to 512.74. Bruch 1 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All 1&2. Mean Value $13.00 $11.73 $11.24 $0.00 $11.71 Std Dev 9.90 8.31 8.97 0 8.80 Count 37 139 107 0 283 15111. Confidence inter"a.l Width 3.19 1.38 1.70 0.00 1.03 Lower Limit $9.81 $10.38 $9.54 $0.00 $10.69 Upper Limit $16.19 $13.12 $12.94 $0.00 $12.74 Interpretation: On average the value placed by respondents on a day at the beach was 113.00 at Sections 1 & 2. The average value placed on a day at the beach for all beaches was S 1 1.71. The 95% confidence interval for the average value: is from 510.69 to 512.74. 40 ab Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey DOLLARS SPENT The table below summarizes reported average daily expenditures for each party. Table 16 Reported Average Daily Expenditures Beach Response t Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7 All 1&2. Food Mean 40:08 60.13 39.61 0.00 $50.03 Std Dev 42.30 57.80 38.68 0.00 50.30 Count 12 83 69 0 164 !Entertainment Mean 0.00 37.73 11.71 0.00 $29.42 Std rev 0.00 33.01 10.36 0.00 31.08 Count 2 22 7 0 31 Shopping Mean 32.50 55.80 50.26 0.00 $51.67 Sid Dev 45.73 49.03 54.48 0.00 50.39 Count 4 25 19 0 48 Lod gm U Mean 60.71 167.02 105.50 01.00 $138.41 Std Dev 30.34 75.83 66.39 0.00 78.90 Count 7 42 20 01 69 95% Confidence Interval Food Vvidih 2.7.93 12.43 9.13 0.00 7.701 Lower limit 16.2 47.7 30.5 0.0 $42.3. Upper limit 64.0 72.6 48.7 0.0 $57.7 Entertainment Width 0.00 13.79 7.67 0.00 10.94 Lower limit 0.0 23.9 4.0 0.0 $M5 Upper limit 0.0 51.5 19.4 0.0 $40.4 Shopping Width 4482 19.22 24.50 0001 1425 II[ +® • e • limit limit Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey -12.3 36.6 25.8 0.OI $37.4 77.3 75.0 74.8 0 0 $65.9 35 30 25 zN > 20 9 15 10 5 ■seckors 1 & 2 6 wsecta 3 ® Sector 5 WSector 7 Chart 5 Income Distribution By Beach Income Class Width 22.47 22.93 29.10 0.00 18.62 340 Lower limit 38.2 144.1 76.4 0.0 250 5119.8 a 200- Upper limit 83.2 190.0 134.6 0.0 w $157.0 Interpretation: Tlie numbers represent the average dollar expenditures for visitors respondents reporting non -zero expenditures. [Sectors 1 8 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS [ Sects 3 50 Chart 4 0 — - 35 30 25 zN > 20 9 15 10 5 ■seckors 1 & 2 6 wsecta 3 ® Sector 5 WSector 7 Chart 5 Income Distribution By Beach Income Class Age Distribution by Beach 350 r 340 n 250 a 200- w 150 100 [Sectors 1 8 2 [ Sects 3 50 [ Seclar 5 0 — - ■ Seelae 7 1525 26-40 41.55 56 65 65r NA Total f age I 35 30 25 zN > 20 9 15 10 5 ■seckors 1 & 2 6 wsecta 3 ® Sector 5 WSector 7 Chart 5 Income Distribution By Beach Income Class C-1 F-3 0 • Description n 7_ C_. t P --- "4-;,-i 1�edC1 u1 i7i �t 1 vF`1- L- � ," Under Public Ownership Tnrlinn -River APPENDIX b 4b i 9 0 BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INDIAN RIVER i [GHV rUQ F IYS HAF 1S OWNED WY THF ;TATE +. FtJVI!,•, KPOVT1"EH} 40 i • BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 02/14/94 Page: 1 DBS ID Number: 001.00 Access Name: SEBASTIAN INLET STATE PARK Descriptive Location: E OF AIA, S OF SEBASTIAN INLET Estimated Beach Frontage:9900 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 50 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK DBS YD Number: 002.00 Access 'Name: UNNAMED ACCESS Descriptive Location: AlA SOUTH OF MCLAR,TY MUSEUM AT T--13 Estimated Beach Frontage:60 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: UNDEVELOPED LOTS DBS ID Number: 003.00 Access Name: AMSERSAND BEACH PARK Descriptive Location: AIA NORTH OF T-16 Estimated Beach Frontage:105 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 12 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK DBS ID Number: 004.00 Access Name: UNNAMED ACCESS Descriptive Location: AIA AT R-18 Estimated Beach Frontage:200 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: UNDEVELOPED LOTS DBS ID Number: 005.00 Access Name: UA::":'.d°"ED ACCESS Descriptive Location: AIA, ITORHT OF OCEAN HIDEAWAY ROAD Estimated Beach Frontage:100 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: UNDEVELOPED LOTS DBS ID Number: 006.00 Access Name: OCEAN HIDEAWAY PARCEL Descriptive Location: AIA, OCEAN HIDEAWAY ROAD Estimated Beach Frontagpr520 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 20 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: UNDEVELOPED LOTS DBS ID Number: 007.00 Access Name: TREASURE SHORES PARK Descriptive Location: AIA, AT 110 PLACE Estimated Beach Frontage:1750 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 78 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK do C> 0 i BFAACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 02/14/94 Page: 2 DSS ID Number: 008.00 Access Name: UNNAMED ACCESS Descriptive Location: AIA, AT log PLACE Estimated Beach Frontage:730 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: UNDEVELOPED LOTS DBS Ill Number: 009.00 Access Name: GOLDEN SANDS PARS{ Descriptive Location.: A1A, NORTH OF SANDERLING LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:1000 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 101 Entrance/Parking Pee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARI DBS ID Number: 010.00 Access Name: WABASSO BEACH PARK Descriptive Location: AIA, SP, 510 Estimated Beach Frontage:350 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 31 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK DBS 1Dn be . 011-00 Access Name: Y SEA GRAPE TRAIL BEACH ACCESS Descriptive Location: AIA, 1.45 MILES S OF SR 510 Estimated Beach Frontage:77 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 23 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: STREET END DBS ID Number: 012.00 Access Name: TU TILE^ TR -ATL BEACH ACCESS Descriptive Location: AIA, 2.2 MILES S OF SR 510 Estimated Beach Frontage:65 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 32 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: STREET END DBS ID Number: 013.00 Access Name: BEACHCOMBER LANE. Descriptive Location: BEACHCOMBER LANE AND AIA Estimated Beach Frontage:80 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: STREET END DBS ID Number: 014.00 Access Name: TRACKING STATION PARK Descriptive Lc=ation: AIA AT CORAL ROAD Estimated Beach Frontage:1230 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 81 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK r ,a 91 BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 02/14/94 Page: 3 DBS ID Number: 015.00 Access Name: JAYCEE PARK - CONN BEACH Descriptive Location: AIA AT MANGO DRIVE Estimated Beach Frontage:2030 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 160 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK DBS ID Number: 416.40 Access Name: BVEhCHLAND BLVD Descriptive Location:. BEACHLAND BLVD (SR -60) AND AIA Estimated Beach Frontage:1.60 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 96 Entrance/Parking Fee Access Type: STREET END DBS ID Number: 017.00 Access Name: HUMISTON PARK Descriptive Location: A1A, AND DALIA LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:540 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Management Plurpose: Recreation DBS ID Number: 018_00 Access Name: FLAME VINE LANE Descriptive Location: FLAME VINE AND OCEAN DRIVE Estimated Beach Frontage:50 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: S'T'REET END DBS 1D Nnraber: 019.00 Access Name: GAYFEATHER LANE Descriptive Location: GAYFEATHER LANE AND OCEAN DRIVE Estimated Beach Frontage:25 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 30 'Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: STREET END DBS ID Number: 020.00 Access Name: RIO MAR DRIVE Descriptive Location: OCEEM BEND AND RIO XkR DRIVE Estimated Beach Frontage:50 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 5 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Tvsae: STREET END DBS ID Number: 021.00 Access Name: LADY BUG BEACH ACCESS Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND LADYBUG LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 40 i 0 9 BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC 014NERSHIP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 02/14/34 Page: 4 DBS ID Number: 022.00 Access Name: SOUTH BEACH PARK Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND EAST CAUSEWAY BLVD Estimated Beach Frontage:810 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 147 Entrance/ Parking Fee. $ Recess 'Type: PUBLIC PARK DBS ID Number: 023.00 Access game: SANDPIPER LAME Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND SANDPIPER LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN 'WALKWAY DBS ID Number; 424.00 Access Name: JASMINE LANE Der.criptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND JASMINE LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet �3uiuber of Parking Spaces; 0 Entrance/Parking Fee Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY DBS ID Number: 025.00 Access Name: COQUINA LAND Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND COQUINA LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet Number of barking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY vas ID Nlumbmr 02 v.^ n v�vu Access Name; PIRATE COVE Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND PIRATE COVE LANE Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY DBS ID Number: 027.00 Access Name: TURTLE COVE Descriptive Location: OCEAN DRIVE AND TURTLE COVE LANE Estimated Beach Front.age;i0 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access 'T'vnp- PrngSSTRFAN WAT,KWAV DBS ID Number: 028..00 Access Name: SURFSIDE TERRACE Descriptive Location: SURFSIDE TERRACE AND AIA Estimated Beach Frontage:10 feet Number of Parking Spaces: 0 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 4D s HEACHFRONT PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 02/14/94 Page: 5 DBS ID Number: 029.00 Access Name: CAVALLA ROAD Descriptive Location: CAVALLA ROAD AND A1A Estimated Beach Frontage:l0 feet Number of Parking spaces: 1 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PEDESTRIAN WALMIAY DBS ID Number: 030.00 Access Name: ROUND ISLAND PARK Descriptive Location: AIA, 200OfN OF COUNTY LINE Estimated Beach Frontage:790 feet Number of barking Spaces: 20 Entrance/Parking Fee $ Access Type: PUBLIC PARK 4W 0 0 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FWRIVA FJAN I TO: Jeff Tabor, P.E. { coastal Engineer FROM: James E. Rosich Environmental Planner DATE: January 13, 1996 RE: Amount of Publicly -owned. Eeachtront Shoreline its Indian River County The amount of publicly-awnod beachfront shoreline throughout the County is as follows: PARKS TOTAL SHORELINE; (lineal feet) Sebastian Inlet SRA 10,500 Indian River County 7,620 city of Vero Beach 3,251 Beach Access 300 SUB -TOTAL 21,671 UNIMPROVED TOTAL SHORELINE ( lineal feet) Archie Carr NWR 1,853 (excluding Treasure Shores) Cairns tract 1,550 (not in ACNW'R) SUB --'TOTAL 3,403 TOTAL 25,074 (+4,8 Miles) 4.8 miles / 72.4 miIGH - 11.48 publicly owned Please be advised that the figure for the Sebastian Inlet SRA may include the section of the park located in Brevard County. I suggest you contact the park st (561) 589-9659 to confirm this. Excluding beachfront narks and unimnroved Parcels, there are an additional 29 access Ylocations in County. Assuming each beach access is approximately ten (10) feet wide, the total should be approximately 360 lineal feet. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact mU at extension 215. Attachments UAjU2W0%"X% ,]t C11 40 u it i w Ito -ts, 6 o a e tl n r r P H o •+ ^ f O e v W b Y �� ,. r ri Y b r r r o• ++ r ail.0 12,2 Flour* 10.8 x..l-.r1u. xwn lx.r. INDIAN FIVER COUNTY l.rtW.IW lrN _ TEACH ACCESS LOCATION MAP �rwl 0*0& Ilrrrir acsaw rw141 1¢aw lirwll l Q.1li. •cl..le Trop.rrrl pla l Nolw.. . 4k,ar. 94f4, YWi! leak. tao�ir.r 11 6rri. rilVl F1ero laws. M1k rwe. t.r{..W a...& ti..rm eseelr w'iw••" Mao co. %! do" Wotan aim mall" ^ T L A N T I e 0 G 9 A N � ii: a..ati� l:eue. hn !. �er�w p fir■ VIOW 619"m ` = 1. 97rHI lrrN `-97. �15werlN lee. f. 9.yfwW. leve lw w.I.ir Rtitn �a9.....s r..w ��as. 9rr twr H. MKtto tl� ler wrtw lfW 7a. 7teaer s two SA a9- olYl.m.►r Stare 19','1 . rnwUtw I:ew ti....YIiN t:orrla t.wIlu.t yyyl. uwr 9i ea ewrita[per 4e. a ta. stool, I lr. 0-40l8 c b34 ;we1MlIIM ~ oa. 1isa.va Woo.olreleol ww" Cv-0 .. rrl 1Nwr poll, *Kw +•9.ie logyµ. A/+fM 111. 9'i;Y y` warrwnow" • INDIAN RIVER. COUNTYSWOR FLORIDA 9.1.. /lt9wr.s C9!lfv++++ d9oa 12.3 M C> i • MC$F.i TION AND OPM SPACE those comprising the north beach complex. Golden Sands is fourteen acres in sizer has paved paarking, restrooams, dune crossovers, picnic areas, and sandy beaches. The city of Vero #Memel► operates and maintains four beachfront paxrkc within its city limits. Jaycee Park and Conn Beach are continuous and often considered as one beach park. ' Jaycee Park has a full range of facilities including parking,'restroome, showers, picnic tables, a lifeguard tower, potable water, erlec-- trio service and 575 feet of boardwalk. Conn Beach has no facilities other than parking andelectric service. C9bineed, Jaycee mark and Conn Reach make up 9.3 acres and have approxi- mately 2,100 lineal feet of shoreline. The primary activities at Jaycees Park and Conn Beach are swimming and sunbathing. Humiaton Beach Park is located just south of S.R. 150 in Vero Beach and is the smallest municipal beach park in the County. yacilitiea at. Humissaton Beach includes parking, restrooma, showers, picnic tables, potable water, electric servicer: and a 446 foot boardwalk. A children's playgrOUftd in li°ia:&'O, in the four acre park, and its approximately 530 lineal feet of shoreline offer goon access to swimming, sunbathing, and scubas diving activity. south Beaagh Park is located in the southern suction of Versa Beach's city limits. This park9ls facilities include pawed ro parking, reatomu, ra`racwucs, iif.:y Baru to+� rs, dun* x'ca+acaa •era, picnic tables, potable water, electric service and a 525 foot boardwalk:. This park is comprised of 5 acres and has 1,030 lineal feet of shoreline for activities Ruch as swimming and surfing. Indian River County also -has two walkways located north of Indian River Shoreu. These walkways have paved parking and offer access to the beach by elevated dunes crossovers. Listed below are the remaining public and private beach access .sites and the numbers of parking apaaces available at each. Access. Site No._ of Parkins_ Spaces. 1. Beachcomber Lane a 2. Bahia Mar Road 0 :3. Sexton Plaza 95 ere _ Aa�wovi n�► L.nt.r 0 S. _Fl Gayfeathe►. Lane: 0 6. Riomar Drive 5 7, Ladybug Lane 0 0.. Sandpiper Lane 0 9. Jasmine Lane 0 10. Cog -Ana Lane 0 11. Pirate Cove Lane 0 12. Turtle Cove Lane 0 13 40 i i RECREATION AND 0Pt_. SPACE ELEMENT Access Site No. of Parking Spaces 13. Corona Lane U 14. Treasure Cove Lane 0 15. Wyncove Drive 0 15. Smugglers Cove 0 17. Gceanridge circle; 0 16. Angler's Cove 0 19. Surfaides Access 0 20. Cavalla Road 4 21. Moorings; Lantern Lane 0 22, St-. Christopher Laine 0 23. Tamrick Road 0 ° River and Lake Parks Like beach parks, lake and river park's are special recreation facilities. Because of their unique characteristics, these parks also warrant separate consideration. There are nine County owned parks that aro located on rivers, lakes or the Indian River Lagoon. Each park is classified as being either a neighborhood park, speciality park or an urban district park, depending on the facilities and the number of L L 3.a. L_ j�rA,�.. �/'!l ViJ lel each �+iaiA cars OL: \:W1A4i141LI CL IL i:. bA\L' il4R'.�.f11 VsI .,aid. yli'� till GJb Rlib. lake park areas are located in the northoast section of the Countyl however, Blue Cypress lake park is located in the west part of the County, while hound Inland Park is located on the Barrier Island in the e3xtreame southeast nart of the County. The Xiwanin Hobart Park is considered to be a lake park due to the presence of several lakes located within the park's boundaries. There are two other parks that are located in the County but are owned or maintained by government agencies other than Indian River County. The Sebastian Inlet. State Recrettion szreH it nvned by the State of Florida and offer■ access tv moth the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon. The United States government owns the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge which in located in the Indian Rimer Lagoon near the City of Sebastian. Listed below are brief descriptions of each river and lake park ~' area .nwner'9 h.- Indian River r-ni517%V. t --.h& ste!tP Of Plnrric" and t�ho U..3, Government. s R^3tdea the parks liated below, there arp two other county owned public river accesses not located within parks. These are the Gifford Dock Roars boat dock 'and,. the Oslo Road boat ramp. Both Arc facilities accessing the Indian Rivnr. Kiwanics f obart Park - Located6 east Ms park is the largest and most park areas. it is approximately facilities as baseball, softball, outdoor grills, and foot trails. N 14 of U.S. 11 south of Wabasso, developed of the County owned 659 acres and includes such basketball, picnic tables, Several lakes located within