HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-187of
•
Indian ;ver County
than lo.'w Coyty-
10..� ry
each Presem tion .pWn
COMM d na is - Phase I
• sii) chid
SOU es amd Cing Plan
7R4R4
\ G
Isl, lid
Indian
' River Shores
� t
cc Of
r.
-- -- __ _J ------ `-- — I R-86 _Q
:yty.
of
40
•
Indian Diver County
Beach Preservation Plan
Economic Analysis — Phase II
Funding Sources and Financing Plan
June 1999
Applied Technology and Management, Inc.
2770 NW 43rd Street, Suite B
Gainesville, Florida 32606
352-375-8700
• to
M
e
Executive Summery
In July 1998, the Indian River County Board of Canty Commissioners
authorized Applied Technology and Management, Inc., to undertake economic
studies and funding analyses to formulate alternative plans to finance the costs
of the County's Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). This work was to be performed
in two phases. The Phase I economic studies and alternative funding analyses
are presented in a report titled "Beach Preservation Plan - Economic Analysis
and Cost Allocation Plan" (ATM, 1998). The purpose of the Phase I economic
work was to examine the economic viability of beach restoration along five (5)
planning sectors of the County's shoreline, analyze storm protection and land
loss benefits, compile summer recreational beach use benefits and identify
alternative sources of revenue to fund the County's BPP. This report quantifies
the benefits to be derived by individual beneficiary groups over a 30 -year project
horizon.
Thie rannrt ronmecnte the work product for Phase II The f Vha 04.aGe n
..r......., r ......... .... r.......... v purpose v: u:c : Haat U
studies is to compile new winter recreational beach use data, revise the annual
recreational benefits and formulate ret:,"—ended funding sources -1 u
,.
financing plan. This report includes supplemental work to determine the value of
the County's winter recreational beach use and the costs associated with an
extension to the beach restoration project in Sector 3.
Recreational Benefit
The total recreational value of the County's 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 user survey was
conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on the Indian River
County beaches during summer and winter months. These surveys were
M/REPORTS/98980A08114199 ES -1
GW11999199.11.98980
de
•
•
•
( , conducted between August 13 and October 11, 1998 for the summer period and
between March 26 and April 10, 1999 to determine beach user characteristics for
winter months.
These surveys determined that, on average, the value placed on a day at the
beach by respondents to the summer survey was $11.71 and the value placed
on a day at the beach by winter respondents was $ 14.32. The average value of
a day at the beach was multiplied by the number on days spent on average at
the beach for each beach sector to determine the total recreational benefit. The
net present value of the recreational benefits over the 30 -year project horizon is
estimated at $71,719,063 for the entire project area.
Storm Protection Benefit
The storm protection benefit resulting from the beach restoration program was
computed for oceanfront property within a project area. The following factors
warp taken into cnncirieratinn• �M., w ti,;paI.0 .. �a^'���- `
U -_
hunt crvsiuil 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 $31,106,269.
Distribution of Project Benefits and Costs
The initial beach restoration projects will restore and improve 8.3 miles of
shoreline along the County's '12 miles of barrier island beaches. The restore;:
beaches will be renourished at intervals of approximately 8 years throughout the
30 -year project horizon.. The present value of the initial beach restoration project
is approximately $16,286,567, based on a total initial project cost of $17,685,540.
M/RE PORTS/98980A08/14/99
GNV/1999199-11.98880 ES -2
•s
0
•
r]
The total 30 -year present worth benefits associated with storm protection
($31,106,269 or 30.3 percent) and recreational use ($71,719,063 or 69.7
percent) is $102,825,332. The total 30 -year present worth cost for the County's
beach restoration projects is $33,884,070, resulting in a benefit to cost ratio of
3.03 to 1 (3:1), confirming the economic importance of improving the County's
beaches.
Recommended Funding Sources and Financing Plan
Four primary sources of revenue are available to the County to fund the cost of
the initial beach restoration projects. These sources are recommended based
the funding sources identified and evaluated in Phase I. As described above,
initial project costs are estimated at $17,685,540 to restore 8.3 miles of shoreline.
Funding sources recommended to finance these costs include:
• State BECP Funds
Is Tni iriefnow lnnr nnf T.—
• Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (local options tax)
• Special Assessments
Total State Grant Funds (BECP) that the County is anticipated to receive is
estimated at $8,727,423 based on the following State contributions:
Q Sector 1 - 100 percent cost share or $3,329,609
• Sector 2 - 50 percent cost share or $1,224,478
• Sector 3 - 50 percent cost share or $1,864,858
• Sector 5 - 50 percent cost share or $2,308,478
• Sector 7 - Not available
WREPOR T&'98980A08/ 14199
GW11899/99.11.98980
ES -3
s!
40
•
6
Tourist Development Taxes (TDT) generate about $1.0 million annually and the
County is allowed by statute to expend up to 50 percent of these revenues on
beach improvement projects. Based on collections of the tourist development tax
in 1998, and assuming no increase in collections over the next 5 years, this
revenue source will provide $504,200 annually, or $2,827,650 over the 1999-
2004 project implementation period.
The Local Government Infrastructure Surtax, also referred to as the local option
sales tax, was evaluated to determine (a) the amount required to fund the
remaining balance of the project cost ($6,130,467) and (b) the amount required
from special assessments to pay the remaining balance if $1.0 million is
dedicated from the local option sales tax.
To defray the entire balance of the remaining initial project costs ($6,130,467)
using the local option sales tax, the County would be required to allocate an
average of $1.25 million annually from these tax collections. These collections
mjrrPntly nrnvirla nnnrnvimotcly $Q million 4� the County on an
average annual
basis and provide a source of revenue available through the 1999-2004 period.
Special Assessments are available as a source of revenue to fund a portion of
the remaining project costs should the County determine that the required $6.13
million in local option sales tax funds are not available for this purpose. Two
requirements exist for the imposition of a 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 a special benefit. The storm protection element of the
project clearly provides a special benefit to coastal property and the storm
protection benefits received by each parcel provide a sound basis for allocating
these costs.
M/REPORTSM89BOA061 I V99 ES -4
GRv/1999N9.11.98980
*0
40
11
L
As an example, if the County elects to fund an average of $1,000,000 annually
from the local option sales tax, special assessments as a source of revenue are
proposed to fund the balance of $1,130,467 in remaining costs. If special
assessments are used to fund a portion of the project costs, the assessment
amounts are proposed to be based on the degree of storm protection benefits
received within the project Sector, excluding government owned lands which
would be paid from the County and State contributions. Examples of potential
special assessments are given in Chapter 5.5 of this report for property located in
each of the beach restoration project Sectors.
It is recommended that the County use State BECP funds, tourist development
tax funds and a portion of the local option sales tax funds to defray all project
costs attributable to recreational benefits and secondly, apply the balance of
these funds to pay costs attributable to storm protection benefits with the
remaining costs funded by special assessments.
WREPORTS/98980A08/14199
GW11999/99.11.98980 [S-5
•i
40
s
0
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1
1.1
PURPOSE................................................................................................................
3
1.2
BENEFIT CATEGORIES...........................................................................................
4
2.0
STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS...........................................................................5
2.1
DATA COMPILATION AND BENEFITS METHODOLOGY ......................................
5
2.2
CALCULATION OF STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS...........................................6
2.3
TOTAL STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS............................................................
12.
3.0
RECREATIONAL BENEFITS..................................................................................21
3.1
RECREATIONAL BENEFITS METHODOLOGY.....................................................21
3.2
DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL BENEFITS ..............
24
3.3
EVALUATION OF BEACH USER SUREY RESPONDENTS ...................................
25
3.4
TOTAL RECREATIONAL BENEFITS......................................................................
28
4.0
PROJECT COSTS..................................................................................................31
4.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................31
4.2
PROJECT COSTS..................................................................................................
33
5.0
RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES................................................................41
5.1
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................
41
5.2
TOURIST DEVELOPMENTTAXES ........................................................................43
5.3
STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM (BECP) FUNDS
44
5.4
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX.................................48
5.5
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.....................................................................................
51
5.6
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ..........................
56
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A --- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMER 1998 BEACH SURVEY
APPENDIX B — INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WIN TER 1999 BEACH SURVEY
G W119991w l 1.9898010 l I m
as
w
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Indian River County Beach Preservation Projects..................................9
Indian River County Land Value Summary .............................................10
Property Characteristics..........................................................................13
Valueof a Beach Day.............................................................................25
Total Indian River Beach Counts............................................................26
User Classification By Sector..................................................................27
EstimatedBeach Days............................................................................27
Annual Recreational Beach Benefits.......................................................28
Present Value of Annual Beach Recreational Benefits ...........................29
Project Design Features for the Indian River County Beach
Preservation Plan Projects......................................................................34
30 -Year Cost Projections For Indian River County Beach Projects
(By Sector), Sectors 1 & 2.......................................................................36
30 -Year Cost Projections For Indian River County Beach Projects
(By Sector), Sector 3...............................................................................37
30 -Year Cost Projections For Indian River County Beach Projects
(By Sector), Sector 5...............................................................................38
30 -Year Cost Projections For Indian River County Beach Projects
(By SectCO3 vector 7
..............................................................................39
30 -Year Cost Projections For Indian River County Beach Projects
Summary.................................................................................................40
Government Properties Fronting Beach Restoration Projects ................42
Summary of Total Estimated Project Benefits by Beach Sector .............45
Summary of Irstlmated Project Costs and Schedule of Activities for
the Indian River County Beach Restoration Program .............................49
Local Options Sales Tax Funding at $1,250,000 Annually .....................50
Local Option Sales Tax Funding at $1,000,000 Annually .......................52
Local Option vales Tax Funding with Variable Annual Allocations ......... 53
Total Estimated Project Costs and Revenue Source Funds
($1,250,000/yr)........................................................................................57
Total Estimated Initial Project Costs and Revenue Source Funds
($1,000,000/yr)........................................................................................58
Procedures and Associated Tentative Dates to Implement Special
Assessments...........................................................................................59
GNV/199 M-11.98980109l11tag
of
0
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Beach Sector Location Map, Indian River County Beach
PreservationPlan....................................................................................2
2 Sectors 1, 2 and 3 Existing Conditions...................................................7
3 Sectors 5 and 7 Existing Conditions.......................................................8
I oral Benefits of Beach Consurtiption at a Zero Price .................
5 Estimation of Area Under the Demand...................................................23
WJV11999M 11.93e00o91ii/A
®f
•
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
area~, almost 40 percent of Indian River County is critically erod=ed. The causes
of this erosion vary from downdrift 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 restoration as described in
the Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan (SPP). Sector 1 and 2
(Ambersand Beach), Sector 3 (Wabasso Beach), Sector 5 (Vero Beach) and
Sector 7 (South County Beach). Highway AM parallels the entire beach with
access to the barrier island via CR 510 at Sector 3 on the north beach and via
CR Fn and SR 656 at Sector e ---'
a' � Dca-1 arca iur ine centrai and south beaches.
Figure 1 provides a descriptive map for the eight (8) beach sectors identified in
MU or -r-.
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 hp.ar_.h raeniimno Mot 0,_l., C ai
• ..y a,MU UVOUMb UIC iluiifuer one
tourist destination in Indian River County, but County residential users comprise
an average of 41 percent of all beach users.
These 22 miles 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 overall inflation rate. Tourism continues to be the major industry
oe 4eamiiszarvoarrorurr owi9W ME
t
!0
a
0
Figure I
Beach Sector Location Map
hidian River County Keach IN-eservation Plan
t y HI[N[Il�bil tYltt[(tJ�t[
M1
so
4D
0
in the County. Therefore, the County has a vested interest in the preservation of
this valuable natural resource.
Continued erosion has limited the availability of quality beaches and has
contributed to the increased cost of protecting the shoreline. Additionally, an
unprecedented number of seawalls have been constructed over the past three
(3) years, further degrading the quality of the shoreline. "Earlier attempts to
artificially protect upland structures included rock revetments, seawalls, and sand
filled tubes.
Without adequate large-scale shore protection mechanisms in place, the number
of seawalls is expected to increase. Prudent management 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 restoring the County's beaches. The following economic analysis
and cost allocation provides two alternatives for financing such a pian.
1.1 PURPOSE
Thi.r ate:_
purpose of chis di,diysis is to examine the overall economic viability of beach
restoration along five (5) planning sectors of the County's shoreline and to
determine the benefits attributed to those individual beneficiary groups who are
expected to realize these benefits over the design life of the identified projacts.
This report compiles new economic data and information, analyzes project -
related benefits to identified beneficiaries and evaluates alternative funding
984M&PH82REPORT/ORAFTMOI 9WME
3
as
O
•
sources to provide a financing plan to implement the County's long-term
comprehensive Beach Preservation Plan,
1.2 BENEFIT CATEGORIES
Beach restoration projects provide two types of benefits, including storm and
erosion protection benefits and recreational benefits. For Cne purpose of
estimating project benefits, oceanfront properties were grouped into planning
sectors. These sectors represent a portion of shoreline 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, because of their
location, have no beach erosion.
When looked at from an economic point of view, a restoration proiect, 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 un in inrraaspr#
property values greater than what they would have been if the restoration
projects had not been completed.
98-9"'HS1f ICVORTIDILM: r%ot 99M1dF
It
of
•
2.0 STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS
2.1 DATA COMPILATION AND BENEFITS METHODOLOGY
Project benefits associated with storm protection and erosion losses were
generated for properties that front on the ocean. These benefits were calculated
for propeieies within the immediate project area that will directly benefit from the
placed sand. The storm protection benefits derived from a beach restoration
project reflect the engineering design features of that project and are based on a
30 -year project horizon. Storm protection benefits to upland properties are
based on the following:
• Prevention of land loss,
• Prevention of damage to major habitable structures, and
• Anticipated cost savings realized by not having to maintain or repair the
existing seawalls fronting individual properties (including both private and
public).
Storm protection benefits are a dirert regWt of fha nnneonnof a :^:ide, sandy
1....... nce
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.
Historic erosion data and beach profile survey data were used to evaluate
erosion rates and present structure vulnerability within the project area (refer to
98-96WH32REPORTIORAFT/M19WME 5
•o
M
•
i the BPP). Structure vulnerability of oceanfront "developed" parcels is considered
a function of length of the seawall or revetment, mean high water line, 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 1986 to 1997. Figures 2 and 3 provide
general location maps and typical photographs depicting the characteristics of
properties that front the proposed beach restoration projects and Table 1
summarizes the sand volumes recommended for each project area.
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 the land protected and the cost to build an erosion control
structure for storm protection or the costs of maintaining or repairing an existing
erosion 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 the expected erosion rates over the next 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 land loss value consists of the discounted stream of future losses
over a 30 -year period. The extent of loss varies by sector of shoreline according
to the erosion rates. These losses also consider land valuers haaeh vjirlfha -i
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
98 W"82REPORTIORAFT106019WAE
6
of
ob
D
-1
r
•0
69
40
•
based on established Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
monuments.
Table 1
Indian River County Reach Preservation Projects
FDEP Monument
Sector Location Project Type and Sand Volume Recommendation
1 & 2 R-4 + 400 ft north to T-17 feeder beach: 700,000 cubic yards
3 R-37+290 ft south to T-48. beach restoration: 453,000 cubic yards
5 R-74 + 600 ft north to 0-W beach restoration: 540,000 cubic yards
7 T••100 + 95 ft north to R- beach restoration and structures: 330,000 cubic yards
107 + 105 ft south
An estimate of land values for the purpose of calculating dollar value of land lost
due 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 of one (1) square foot of oceanfront land varied between $3.48
and @7v- .Orivv �r foa _
w�-gvvcriniicitt, single iainiiy residential, multi-Tamily residential,
commercial and time-share land use properties (refer to Table 2).
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. QrPnnfmnt nrnnnr4ino full • 4t IrX
r-•-�-w•••�.. n v nvc kJ) L-CIL"9UfICS Including:
government, single family residential, multi -family residential, commercial, and
timeshare properties. In addition, oceanfront properties are comprised of two
subcategories: (1) properties with an erosion control structure, and (2) properties
without erosion control structure.
9G4e PMSTREPORT/DRA"/OW1 BBMAIE
9
of
40
0
S
Table 2
Ssi ieii ..� FaE Lail'"' � s e a.o>aaGea vaid,¢3 dk� 1e/€914AY;.
t -area
Value/Square
Sector
Property Catagory
Foot
9
Governmental
$3.48
2
Governmental
$5.07
Single Family Residential
$11.59
3
Governmental
$4.29
Single Family Residential
$11.46
Multi -Family Residential
$19.48
Time Share
$29.90
5
Governmental
$9.35
Single Family Residential
$10.81
Multi-Familv Residential
$9n 1A
Commercial
$18.33
Time Share
$29.90
7
Single Family Residential
$9.91
98.13198-980/17. WK41060f 99KME
of
•
Properties With Existing Erosion Control Structures
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. Construction costs for new seawalls or revetments were assumed to be
$750 per linear front foot for residential properties. Maintenance costs for
seawalls and revetinents were estimated at approximately $17 per front foot per
year for existing erosion control structures.
Properties Without Existing Erosion Control Structures
The "without project" benefit to unarmored (i.e., non -hardened) oceanfront
properties is whatever actions are in the oceanfront property owners' economic
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 applied. If
the major habitable structures on the property 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
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 15 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.
O8-?e(WHS2REPORTtDRAFTMO1 VMKME
ti
of
40
•
0
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
Line permit for shoreline armoring of vacant properties would be granted by the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 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
erosion 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
i
experienced, and the properties that are located sufficiently landward from the
mean high water line. The resulting storm protection and land loss prevention
benefits calculated for each beach area is summarized in Table 3.
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 ratp m11st hek cilhtroM-4 G --
the bonds interest rate. Though the inflation rate has fluctuated over time, the
average rate of inflation for the past two years has been two (2) percent. In
effect, the real discount rate is, therefore, three (3) percent.
OB -B WPHS2RE PORTJDRAFT=O19WKMF.
12
•f
a
Kod�rKorvo��f
rio
w
i28a�OV22g81pj�'.
mµ5
^ffA
--
�v
eea
of
NN�M;±ttMN„7�N�M�M
1. 11�y`QQQ(Y,
t'Y
11! YLL si
{fdS
O� N
I!I
zzzzzzzzzzzzs>
�8
zzzzzzzzzzzzza
a
-------------------
¢
9
rc�
H
5x
asygas
„
N N
N N
��oo gag
N N
aggaaana
N N
�
ap
EE
ES55u5_�m_
g
t��X
3<EEa
U
i
U z.�
hNnN��N���Ny�fA�N
W U
O �
<
V
oo
3
a
0-------------------
4
E
Y
r
xxxYx$i
!
ol�gx¢O?'0oj$}QagOQjQ{+000000p�¢¢0O
-----------------
Y
S
O O
YO
QQ
75
75
-•
,O
F
w�wowow
o.-..
of
40
iO
�C14P'i'➢i0��0��001P
IP 101D
C1101PNbfP�010�b1+1��10�mN��Of
�IP
101D
IPN
�ib
Oin
l�PN���i
�o
���
�NmNpp��
m�pQ`�
p®�pmup®3p®��p®Np®�Ypml
pp�p
pCNp vp®1
pp�p ppNp
�pNp �Op
m-�Op�p
���-p
��yQy
Yyl epm
map
P
POmmal
�p �p
Q�nyQyy`SP
pp yplm
�p
OU�jI
�jC
O.�Y�i//{(�a�aVJJCOPi��ifj�({Y�YyyO��PyyC��C�fyy
^t�p�OlmO..m�O.-
V
���
'e
ry
NNMMq�
mQ 0{py��y0yyy
77fOOOP��yYyyy
Mt�M�
{yYN�y yVy
PV
OyTyyy��p
�M
i���('f
�N�
NM
��0pp1Q
�pQNpy
H�MNM�NyI��MMM�NM���MMM�MNMNIYi
sNpoy
�Nfypy
�Iyp��YCf
ym�ym��
iso
p$Rbt
5
'Z22z>2Y)»»Y>z22»»»»>2zZz»»»»2Y2z2>zY>2Yz2>�Z
li
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
z
LL I
�
�
z
r
rc
rc
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N g
0a�a�ae�a�a��a��a��a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a��e���a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�$a�a�a�a�
s
g
N
N 6A
V
�Qg5
g�Qgj
�Qgj
a
SS
S80SSSS0888
6655665666�$000000000000000000$006
0 5
I Q
�t
I IM
i»>»»»>gii»»iii»>i»a>
PIPIP
PI
PI PIP
PI
PIPIPIP
P P
PIPIPIPIPIPIPI
PI
PI PI
PIP
PIPIPIPIP
PI
GIGIPI
PIP
of alPl
Pl
of of
of of
nl of
I -1-I
«cc«<t««<a««<c««c<a««<aaa<a«<aa«aaa««<
4««««««t«<6G«
V
RR'R1313I�Ri3t3�RR�2iC��C�RS��ICSC�B�PSPS�PSPS�ARRAA
gi
ii
iiia
{i�
gii
giii$i
agi
ggi
gi
i
HUR�igi
i
�g R
i
.00000000g.57�$90y7Q4��$0�S$¢4j
=q
o
0$V
000�0000oo0...
'
oN
Nof
I��R
111111
Y
-NI'ICY�IPrOO.4�����R�-�pRtpAA1C>eRRkR�FtRX1RAiRR�fia:7rirr.srR��a
of
i
00000000000��-OOOOOOOOOOOO��O...�n
��
}nx��4�3txxxxffiE��3&3S
JSxJtx"�p�$�SB�n�
NUNNIaIat71
HOW
9
19 1 1
1 a I a
2NO
R
$ ism
m2m$2m2R
Rig
mMR-Smm88888
88
8?
b
Eg j
838!$
y9{g
dpA
OQj
pp
O 10
p�0
yy��
pp
W8
&.5
NOrr
$$�j
?
g
>}rzzZ2z2z)}zzTrzZ}}>zrYTzzz>T>r
mZ
�i
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrzzzzzzzzzzz
�
S
II
�
---------------------
J�JJ
JJJ
J'j»JJ
J
]�
Mj
����dl�m��13
�aDm��c➢�tO
HOO�
��9.
mfO
�LL
d�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�dF�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�Z�
xbsi
a
vi
m
a
~
S85SS888SSSS88SSBS8SSSS88S1113SSSS
gg
gggggg
gggg
gg
gg
gg
i
WIN
««<a«««a««<at««4t«Qta4
I
$�gg
12
IC 78
g
i�
g
7C
gg�gg
iC1CVAW
�g
��n
B
11111S111
y�
i
i
1
NOQ{(,p�.�y{r��-�O,QgaoT,o
00000000'
00
sQgQ0s
�
}Qja0j
A
111tMaga
gg
aci89t
r:
�BStd$E16
1
of
40
s�
x
xxxxx
do�5o.��I���g����°'�g�m�Y��$84?n
xxxx
x�xxxxxxxxxxxx�xxxx
�Ixxyt�t$xxxxyexxyty!xxxx
�16885{�Isa8s�93g�d%trl3�g
h
O�OG�OO'sDO��00
dOOCGOdOOdO
O6ddGdGCGdRCl4N1V
N�-f.ri
dod�CI
VI�GNY)^
8mh
�l�N
Raq
Si
�RO
pp��ryp
Ybgo�I
fryE
YI
,pp
�ppjGN
Q
Imp
aftP
unil�^�S
g
$ �y �Ny �p
Cn 1�Ot.00
tOV �P tP
nO
tm�N
m1{Npq
_yob_
mlbV
-.._�.
y�€,g@
F w
NANNNN
p�pmgNmq
mmm
��tl�mpll1
1�Ip�I
q�yOa�yV��yO
NMN^M
yqOS�!N�yyW��Yy��f�•y�•�O�y��O�N
N �N�^y
M
^N f�MnA
M N
N
^1�
N M
^N
� M
Imp ��Q gry�V !�f�yh�lnV
M^ M N� N
any
M
ryl.b�gp
Yf ON
N
a �yry��1`n�pT
yP�m{�
VI
N N
M��^�
g-------------------
�$o
Si$n$;��.
�R�n����nR�8n8$an8$gn$8�Sg8
N8OqGq$
SZ8iZoo$$yp�8
II --
�- N
{i �
8
R$Ao
0o0
$$$$
$$$
$$$
dSY8
-
80
- -_
$ v
og$o
m=
>zz»»z»>z»»Iz»>z»rz»>z»>zz>z>z»z>z>zzz»»z»
a
zzzz»
zzzzzE
»
»
»
»
»
»
.
»
»zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
»>
»pp>
U
Z`lmdw
a
$$$$$$
b
�
E
g-g=`pan�pDB
a
sy$
x
°M
8g�
E
E
E
.EEE
��
3��338j�
p»ppp>g»
w
20
'��pvV��N�msE�5S���mgg
INDIA!
�a$5
N
�
N
FgE
NNNW.9
FyE
E E
E
jlMIs
EF9
EEE
FEF FgE
y E
NN�Wy9
F9EF9 E
FEF
E EEF9
E �FJE
NN
m m, 0$
O 1 Jl
a 109
NudJ_l
O$
�
(
�
000
f
K€
�j111111 �E
F
3
U
U
$��
Jl>
m
>
mmm
e�
F
w r
-
E
0
H
a
tC-
d
m _
~ � �
w 9
8g
o$
8888$888
,00000ai'ss
8888g
So'o'8
88gg888$888
sS88oS'ooaj'oS
88
o888$8SS$8E��$$S$dS�d3
gggggggggg
g
gggg
gg
a
v I
Q
c
Manglele
j
Qp2ggm
y b
P
b b
PIaIPIP
b]�
1>IS>
66668$
b aa
PI`IPIP
b
b b
>>>>K>>�{W
6]ya$Cpj
olnlo
L 8$�
aa
I
Islelele
bsQ
M! dQ
O 6
WW>S!>>>�gobOmg$
6
z ^I"4gImIXbcEIOI.-I
aa¢
999999a
g
$N Jyp
� 31�
g
PI
y�
zQl'I�I°•
S>
>
yi p i
mm
a<
sx
A
��
2
sR$Q�,pywgQj
Qsy■SSSWm
T
�Q
mill'l�'�QQjj
mill
11
1yyQQ((
OO
M
ONO��6mm���������
7Qj
1191
;jj
11
sj
g
W�O"'W�N�-q
Ng
iyp,
p �-
m
_A
pV
-
-
l
00$0oo
coo
0000
pg0 �pp0{0
oo0
��OQ$�f..
osado
$�o�J-q 00
',q
ro
n
-
ZaFpRnRRFIBPRStSFl7I%t�IRR7R9:7�739Y:9�5ihZXR�S
o®
d
x
xx
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
��
�x
x
om
NMIm
tYG�e-�N�NOO��G
Oe]O�
SIV
C1a CI
a-NIV
IV
.-
I.IO.�OIV
eVOYI
OIVGN�.-fV��l.l^
�.-^B�Omi
�n
Naeyy
87:
fo�y�y�I^��
0000N
y�
OO�N�:�Offpp
bbNaO
""^8�$'''2f
Fenn
FS
gF�
m
�{^��£�ffi^�'SNd
mm01
f.
Q
ie �'v^Rg��'a4
b
i^
g
.]�
Eu
n�ry
ry
�n
��
---------------------------------------------------
R8$���8��8�885iSto888�53���8�J'��goo�'8g��g4�Sg88����-
€I
7
-
-
- -
-8-
E
--
zzz>zzzz>zzzzzzzz
»
>r>z>>
>>zz»
»zzrzzzzzZ2zzzz>zz
o
u
KC
^
�G
K
K
¢
------------
(
K
0:8IA8
`.y
S
E
i
E
IIgE
6
U��
eo N^
UUU
OyU§fg
i
L5
z
en
so
E S
Yo
yy
6
—
fi
i
ppy
[3
U�>G
U
V
O
B
g
g
s�_pp5pp5
�`j
»
»
»
$��6syr�>
.QW
bQ
�.
mWF�`
U
s
��
E4
I
E
q$'
CSiiEiEi
ow
u'u9i
LL1 u
U
--
�
7
,
H x
Q
888
S
-------
2
MIME
801
_
008
ISIM-1111
8
x0S_Ox_0OOx0—O
;
�M10�
�
W
�Ip
�vl���
�N�l�tO
l^•l }{
i3
�
3
�
N�N
��NNN
yx
�7fi
}x gyp(
i�Zi
Qy
E
g
F
o^0000
o aoaoo
ei�
^o
o^
ago
o
o
^
N0000
neennsnnnnn
��
pFt
Ff>:fq
.q
FS
8
of
40
a
r0^
-Nr.--hi
1VOf
.�IVG
�-
^CN
.�G
�I��ONflONN
'»e
�������SA8m���s�m�ry�y��
aavw
v4ana''vv3
n�{yI
�^Etqp
mVO(}yY�o'�
�
pyy�mv�MQ�^
�N'N^NNNN^wMw
o°<(p�j�a�rnB�MNN�
AR
N„^NNNw
MY/LIN
�9
w€
Cs'i
^N
SPIRo'8.
88
88
9
8pp
N Nis
Q
SS88
BSia
>ZY>ZY}ZZZZZZZ}Z}Z>Y
Y 22222>Y2>Z>�>Y2>ZZ}}Y
Zi
LE
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzz>ZZZZZZZZ2YYZY2>ZzzzzzZzzz
o
MnYn11+1
7�777�Q777777
N
N N
N N
4j
$
€ REM
Qg.g
1.
jyj ''QJ
5
QbQ (5e
�
{,{yy
p
x
Qb
s
��.6N2��UVU��a��6g��g�}g����a�
�S
bbee
$
E$mmeab'd
N
6
��00
JUMPED
pg
00�
aa�.
m
5
I
2
z 2
i
w
f
ML
-----------------------------------------------------
8888818
w v
S 0 0
0
5 0
0 0
O
0 0
O
O S
S
O
O O
S
XX
S O
S
O S
S �a66
S 11
666
O 9
LL
I33333
Hill
333:#£
3�355��E�E
�386i
ia�99
FiiB�Yi:iRl��68
o883g8
lu�
ggg
ull
m�
R
N
z �
ZZZ
F
���888
000-gq
00000
01
000
00000000000
dig
ogog0000
I-14
ooOoo
-
o -O
O"rg000'b
i
R_H^MER
_
_
HN
FI
CINNN
CIN N.�
NNN
NNIrVh
C11YF �`
Nnnm
o.
oo?�ry
?3�o
awRAml1111
14NnigRn14six
m
RA
gQ779Pejan
Clit
St'pR�
of
40
of
40
i
The results of the storm protection benefits analysis (Table 3) by beach sector
for beach restoration improvement projects along the County. On the basis of
these calculations, the net present value of the storm protection benefit over a
30 -year project horizon are estimated at $31,106,269 attributed solely to the
values of land loss prevention, new seawall construction, and cost savings for
seawall Maintenance.
98-9 W".*,2RE POR TA3RATT/DF.10199MME
20
••
4D
E
3.0 RECREATIONAL BENEFITS
This section provides an analysis of recreational benefits for the proposed beach
restoration projects in Sectors 1&2, 3, 5, and 7. Recreational benefits are difficult
to calculate because constructed beachfront is provided to users free of charge.
I hus, 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
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 restoration, then area OPQ 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 demanded in total is OQ.
Beach restoration i n the hcach h..
.�....,,... ............... a. a... .::il:.r :.vv ana. aia.ua.n yr 1nwlcAJinly lulwo Itivilal c1luct, UCiilill
widths, between the dune line and the shoreline, thus lowering congestion. This
raises the demand for beach visitation, illustrated in Figure 4 as a shift from D to
U. Total benefits are now area OPV and net benefits attributable to the project
are the trapezoid, PP'Q'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 Ftatistical estimation procedures.
Q6 -Q8 PMMEPORT/DWT=O1 MOM 21
of
AD
•
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 a recreational project.
In the absence of beach restoration, erosion would 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 the County have already
experienced significant erosion. Under these conditions the benefits attributable
to the project are a substantial portion of the total benefits derived from a
continuously maintained beach. For example, Sector 7 has suffered so much
erosion 4hwt ft is ha. dly ,d buy t6_
,� ...y used �y ��.0 public. There is also a serious lack of public
parking in this beach area.
0 830PIMREPORT/OIWTWO1RM,T(ME
22
•0
•
0
C'7
Figure 4
Total Benefits of Beach Consumption at a Zero Price
P
P'
P
O Q Q, Q/t
P
P'
PA
Figure 5
Estimation of ArPA t Inrlar fha r' -ri
O Q, Q/t
90-9&W HS2REPORTA)RAFT/0601 K"E
23
so
40
i
( ' 3.2 DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL BENEFITS
An improved beach is a semi-public good and recreational benefits are
distributed to all users at a zero or near a zero 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, two beach surveys were conducted to ascertain the characteristics of
beach users on Indian River County beaches. A summer survey was conducted
on various dates between August 13 and October 11, 1998. A winter survey
was conducted on various dates between March 26 and April 10, 1999.
The combined surveys interviewed 1,358 adults age 16 and older. In the survey
the interviewers sPIPCtP(i /11 nnn .rlul+ f- :..+...:,.... _
- ---acted %•1 --. ..""IL — uncivl�ri IIUIII 8auh group of beach
users. Interviews were conducted from morning until late afternoon on four
areas of beach +11-lat will be re$eU_CU
. The reSUIIS Of the two SUfYeyS are
presented in the appendices
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 a zero price, it is necessary to estimate users average
willingness to pay to use the beach. A key question asked of the beach user. 'If
you could put a dollar value on a day at the beach, whai would it be worth to
your The answer given is a estimate of the beach user's average valuation of
the beach. Some claimed that they would pay nothing for the use of the beat h
while others said they would pay "whatever was necessary."
9040 HSMPORTAWFTMOIMXMF
24
•o
40
The dollar amount that beach visitors would be willing to pay for a day's beach
use is summarized in Table 4
Table 4
Value of a Beach Day
ouurce: l ums ana Moss 199tf and 1999
Indian River County Beach Users Survey.
The interpretation of the table is as follows: On average, the value placed on a
day at the beach by respondents to the summer survey was $11.71 and fhe
value placed on a day at the beach by winter respondents was $14.32. The 95
percent confidence intervals for these Pstlmates ranged between $110.169 ald
$12.74 for the summer survey respondents and $13.77and $14.88 for the winter
survey respondents.
3.3 EiALUA T iON OF BEACH USER SUREY RESPONDENTS
Table 5 was developed from beach count estimates provided by the Indian River
County and Vero Beach lifeguards, beach counts taken by survey takers, and
tourist tax data for 1998. The estimates for both the summer and winter periods
are shown in the table below. The summer data has been revised to reflect the
latest information.
954OWPHUREPORTMRAFT001M ME
25
Summer
Winter
Mean Value
$11.71
$14.32
95% Confidence
Interval
Width
$1.03
$0.56
Lower Limit
I $10.69
$13.77
Upper Limit
$12.74
$14.88
J
ouurce: l ums ana Moss 199tf and 1999
Indian River County Beach Users Survey.
The interpretation of the table is as follows: On average, the value placed on a
day at the beach by respondents to the summer survey was $11.71 and fhe
value placed on a day at the beach by winter respondents was $14.32. The 95
percent confidence intervals for these Pstlmates ranged between $110.169 ald
$12.74 for the summer survey respondents and $13.77and $14.88 for the winter
survey respondents.
3.3 EiALUA T iON OF BEACH USER SUREY RESPONDENTS
Table 5 was developed from beach count estimates provided by the Indian River
County and Vero Beach lifeguards, beach counts taken by survey takers, and
tourist tax data for 1998. The estimates for both the summer and winter periods
are shown in the table below. The summer data has been revised to reflect the
latest information.
954OWPHUREPORTMRAFT001M ME
25
so
40
s
Table 5
Total Indian River Beach Counts
Beaches
Summer
Estimate
Winter
Estimate
Annual
Estimate
Sectors 1 & 2
10,466
9,470
19,936
Sector 3
36,920
33,403
70,323
Sector 5
99,680
90,069
189,749
Sector 7
4,030
3,648
7,$78
Total
151,096
136,590
287,686
_---- - --•••I ---- ' -- �;; ; — is uuiubl Vw lla allu F'ouss
1998 and 1999 Indian River County Beach Users Survey and 1998 Tourist Tax Data.
Summer data revised.
Table 6 shows 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
t Island in Indian River County. A respondent was classified as County Mainland if
the ,espolldent 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 night in the county where
classified as Day Tourists. Respondents who lived outside of Indian River
County and where spending the night, but not in a rental condo or motel where
classified as Non Paying Tourists. Respondents indicating that they were not
enunfv reQirlan4c n—i ud•nro n r.r..4;-- ate_ _
.�j+cllaan ly Tllc night Irl a motel, hotel, or rental condo
(paying rent) were classified as Paying Tourists.
W geOIPHS?REPO!tTNfW T/u:0191..'KML
26
of
40
Table 6
User Classification By Sector
Classification
Summer Winter
County(Island)
6.4%
13.8%
County(Main)
39.7%
21.6%
Tourist (Day)
15.6%
7.3%
Tourist (Non -pay)
Tourist (TDT)
Total
14.6%
23.6%
100.0%
21.1%
36.2%
100.0%
Oource: gurus aria Moss 19su and 1999 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 days by classification
and beach sector. This estimate is shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7
Estimated Beach Days
Classification
Summer
Winter
Total
Est. Beach Counts
151,096
136,590
287,686
Breakout by classification
r 3Iy(IOIUI1 j
a,o64
8,847
26,511
County(Main)
60,030
29,504
89,534
Tourist (Day)
23,603
9,992
33,595
Tourist (Non -pay)
22,116
28,838
50,954
Tourist (Pay)
35,683
49,409
85,092
OUMUe. V.unis anu moss Java & lava inaian River county Beach Users surveys.
Summer survey data revised.
YILEUN MEPORTAMAFTAB°1QMWE
27
of
•
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
Annual Recreational Beach Benefits
Source: Curtis and Moss 1998 and 1999 Indian River County Beach
Users Surveys. Summer survey data revised.
However, the marginal benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions
regarding the impact of beach restoration. In this report, we make the
assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the
restoration project "saves" the beach, then the marginal value of the project can
be construed to be the total value of the beach.
RECREATIONAL VALUE OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT
The restoration of the County's beaches has a design life of 30 years. Each
year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $3,659,053' in
'This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $3,659,053.47, which when multiplied by
30 yields $109,771,604.09 the 30 -year total benefit, 77ie $3,659,053 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are
all the values in this report. The $3,659,053.47 value was used in the calculation. This is_iust an example
of why some of the numbers may not appear to add in this chapter.
W9Wffl K 33RE POR naRM T/06019WKM E
28
Summer
Winter
Tota
County(Island)
$151,874
$228,404
$380,278
County(Main)
$688,767
$418,053
$1,106,820
Tourist (Day)
$292,090
$144,345
$436,435
Tourist (Non Pay)
$278,037
$405,496
$683,533
Tourist (Pay)
$341,749
$710,238
$1,051,987
Total
$1,752,517
$1,906,536
$3,659,053
Source: Curtis and Moss 1998 and 1999 Indian River County Beach
Users Surveys. Summer survey data revised.
However, the marginal benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions
regarding the impact of beach restoration. In this report, we make the
assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the
restoration project "saves" the beach, then the marginal value of the project can
be construed to be the total value of the beach.
RECREATIONAL VALUE OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT
The restoration of the County's beaches has a design life of 30 years. Each
year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $3,659,053' in
'This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $3,659,053.47, which when multiplied by
30 yields $109,771,604.09 the 30 -year total benefit, 77ie $3,659,053 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are
all the values in this report. The $3,659,053.47 value was used in the calculation. This is_iust an example
of why some of the numbers may not appear to add in this chapter.
W9Wffl K 33RE POR naRM T/06019WKM E
28
of
40
•
recreational benefits (refer to Table 8). Obviously, if the annual benefit is
multiplied by 30 years a value of $109,771,604 results. But, because we are
looking at future income flows, and one dollar thirty (30) years from now is not
worth one dollar today, it is necessary to reduce or discount these future flows
back to the present. At a 3.0 percent real rate of interest, the present value of
recreational benefits over 30 years is $71,'19,063.
Table 9 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.
Table 9
Present Value of
Annual Beach Recreational Benefits
Sectors 1 & 2
Summer
I Benefit
Winter
Benefit
Annual
Benefit
30 Yr
Total
Present
Value
% PV
County(Island)
$10,466
$7,274
$17,740
$532,189
$347,704
6.8%
County(Main)
$38,375
$37,459
$75,834
$2,275,034
$1,486,389
28.9%
Tourist (Day)
$29,654
$17,820
$47,474
$1,424,221
$930,512
18.1%
Tourist (Other)
$19,188
$23,276
$42,463
$1,273,897
$832,298
16.2%
Tourist(TDT)
$38,375
$40,732
$79,108
$2,373,228
$1,550,544
30.1%
Total
$136,058
$126,561
$262,619
$7,878,568
$5,147,447
100.0%
Sector 3
Summer
Benefit
Winter
Benefit
Annual
Benefit
30 Yr
.Total
Present
Value
% PV
County(Island)
$22,062
$71,209
$93,271
$2,798,134
$1,828,156
10.4%
County(Main)
$173,486
$109,126
$282,612
$8,478,348
$5,539,312
31.4%
Tourist (Day)
$54,152
$21,270
$75,422
$2,262,657
$1,478,302
8.4%
Tourist (Other)
$58,163
$88,318
$146,481
$4,394,428
$2,871,091
16.3%
Tourist (TDT)
$125,351
$178,024
$303,374
$9,101,229
$5,946,270
33.7%
Total
$433,212
$467,948
$901,160
$27,034,797
$17,663,132
100.0%
988EOfPH82REPORTAMA"MW19MME
29
of
40
Table 9
Present Value of
Annual Beach Recreational Benefits
Continued
Sector 5
Summer
Benefit
Winter
Benefit
Annual
Benefit
30 Yr.
Total
Present
Value
% PV
County(Island)
$88,768
$117,446
$206,215
$6,186,443
$4,041,900
8.7%
County(Main)
$473,432
$267,778
$741,209
$22,236,278
$14,528,028
31.3%
Tourist (Day)
$2.07,126
$104,024
$311,150
$9,334,507
$6,098,682
13.1%
Tourist (Other)
$184,934
$277,173
$462,108
$13,863,228
$9,057,513
19.5%
Toudst(TDT)
$166,441
$479,181
$645,622
$19,368,657
$12,654,474
27,3%
Total
$1,120,701
$1,245,602
$2,366,304
$70,989,112
$46,380,597
100.0%
Sector 7
Summer
Benefit
Winter
Benefit
Annual
Benefit
30 Yr. Total
Present
Value
% PV
County(Island)
$30,578
$32,475
$63,052
$1,891,574
$1,235,856
48.9%
County(Main)
$3,475
$3,690
$7,165
$214,952
$140,438
5.6%
Tourist (Day)
$1,158
$1,230
$2,388
$71,651
$46,813
1.9%
Tourist (Other)
$15,752
$16,729
$32,482
$974,447
$636,653
25.2%
Tourist ( T D i)
$11,583
$12,301
$23,884
$716,505
$468,127
18.5%
Total
$62,546
$66,425
$128,971
$3,869,128
$2,527,887100.0%
All Sectors
Summer
Benefit
Winter
Benefit
Annual
Benefit
Present
30 Yr. Total Value
I % PV
County(Island)
$151,874
$22.8,404
$380,278
$11,408,339 $7,453,616
10.4%
County(Main)
$688,767
$418,053
$1,106,820
$33,204,611 $21,694,168
30.2%
Tourist (Day)
$292,090
$144,345
$436,434
$13,093,035 $8,554,309
11.9%
Tourist (Other)
$278,037
$405,496
$683,533
$20,506,000 $13,397,555
18.7%
Tourist (TDT)
$341,749
$710,238
$1,051,987
$31,559,619 $20,619,415
28.8%
Total
$1,752,517
$1,906,536
$3,659,053
$109,771,604 $71,719,063
100.0%
t yvo m t yyy roman nrver county tseacn users Survey ana I Yyts 7 purist Tax Data
969EQPN82REP0RTMRAFTmot9w"AE
30
of
w
i
•
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 Sebastian Inlet on the downdrift oceanfront
properties. These planning initiatives recommended 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 from
providing storm damage protection and the reinstatement of sand bypassing is
recreational enhancement of the beach.
The principal means of maintaining the beaches, which is economically and
environmentally feasible, is beach restoration and subsequent renourishments.
Beach restoration involves identifying a suitable source of borrow sand, and
transf-erring Thai sand GV the shoreilnu to create an additionai beach width and
height at an elevation suitable to protect the upland property and infrastructure
from a moderate to severe storm event.
Given that the shoreline restoration alone does not eliminate the erosion problem
which predicated the activity, the beach will continue to erode until a
rnnint�nnnr+aewexn+,nr "rcnni.rie I—ent" of thoohomlina via.TL
. . 11 n
1 ha debufi ievei
of storm protection for the beach restoration projects should enable the shoreline
to incur damages from a 15 year return interval storm (with a 5 year return
interval along Sector 7, excluding the stabilizing influencing of the proposed
structures) at any time between the initial restoration and subsequent
renourishments.
FB OMPHS2REPORPMW VOAWKME
31
of
40
•
:7
An eight (8) -year renourishment interval is sought for project cost effectiveness,
maximum funding participation by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (for those projects which are eligible for state support), and realistic
sand placement volumes as advance restoration. It is assumed that sand
requirements for each identified shoreline sector targeted for restoration is
available and of suitable quality so as to minimize the overfill requirements. That
is, the sand must be compatible, or of higher quality, with the '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.
The estimated total sand volume to initially restore the shoreline sectors
envisioned to receive sand is approximately 2.03 million cubic yards. The
borrow area(s) for this sand will be identified by Indian River County in a offshore
geotechnical study presently underway. 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 sand quantity estimates to be
refined.
The beachfill projects are assumed to require approximately 2.03 million cubic
yards of sand placed along a total of approximately 44,000 feet (8.3 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. Preliminary estimates for unit
beachfill volumes range from 40 to 53 cubic yards 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.
96-9WPHS2HEP0HTIDWTMOIr4WE 32
of
w
•
The orientation, length, individual weight of armor stone and the on -center
spacing of shore protection structures, as well as the total number of structures
to be constructed in Sector 7, can only be adequately determined through
detailed engineering analyses that is scheduled for completion in August -
September 1999. Wave refraction/diffraction and shoreline evolution modeling
may be required to establish such design parameters and to evaluate and
validate the structures' function and benefits.
Nearshore hardbottom 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 determine the final beach restoration fill volumes. A
summary of "preliminary" design features for each of the BPP projects is
provided in Table 10.
4.2 PROJECT COSTS
Uniform sand unit prices are assumed for the purpose of plan development and
costing purposes at $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 if to
shore, 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.
"-Q8(M 2REroarroRAf TMOIMWE 33
••
s
I
L
N
J
I
N
C
Cl)
my
l0 a
O
U
q{
OC
m m
•�
C E
°
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
C
O
0
p
0
�..�>
m
r�i
I
C e•,N
"M -61
N
A
t0
Of
(O
r7�
C' m 7
N
f00
00
t0
O
(1
l] Y? ID
N
�
cff
Q
N dE
U(�CE„
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
OO
O
Y
�
00 � A
(0
V'
co
((00
l{7
W a�
N
N
N
V)
CP';
L)EQ�
I
C
C
C
C
C
Ct
Wd J
Ih
co
n
(D
n
M
.p OI
C
EJy
0
N
0
N
m
�
n
(n
OL
c
to
to
W
v
h
a
L
Q)
0
In
Of
4;A
y
c c
0 0
c
0
00
0 m
0
L
o
•a
o u u. a
o
N M
y'nj �.0..
�
N
4
h
O t
0
N N
a
o�m
no
L
D «0 O
avv
M
m 0 m
O 0 0
o
c Z7 y
E + 3
� c �
c 0 12
m c m
� m �
mEm
V L
.o c
chi a `mo
O
0. uo. Vi
—N M
so
LA
E
An analysis of present worth cost and annualized cost of the plan recommended
construction (restoration) and maintenance (renourishment) was conducted to
provide an analysis of long-range costs for planning and budgeting to implement
Plan recommendations. The year of construction and maintenance events is
assumed for this computation. A three (3) percent discount rate (five percent
interest and a two percent inflation factor) was further assumed and applied
uniformly throughout the analysis. The results of the computation, by planning
sector, are provided in Tables 11 through 14. 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.
As shown in Table 15, 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 $33,884,070.
96 aPk4'YN$M F C1fATIUfW T1O10147iY.%AE. 35
of
0
0
TABLE 11
30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH
PROJECTS (BY SECTOR)
Nourishment Volurne =
52.7
cy%ft
10 -Year Storm Loss =
11.0
cy/ft
Annual Erosion =
4.1
cy/ft
Total Loss =
43.8
cy/ft
Unit Cost =
$7.00
per cy
Renourishment Interval =
8
years
Initial Fill Volume (CY)
Sector Len th =
13,272
feet
700,000
BEACHFILL
Construction
$4,900,000
2
3%
��!$4,618,720
Deb-iyil died Permitting
$490,000
1
3%
$475,728
Contingency
$388,565
1
3%
$377,248
Construction
$3,047,251
10
3%
$2,267,441
Design and Permitting
$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
n47 ')5l
- - -
26
34�
�� •°^ ^^.
.y
Design and Permitting
$304,725
25
3%
$145,538
Subtotal Construction Cost
$14,041,754
$11,505 519
Total Reach Cost$15,834,494
-
$11,505,99
Initial Reach Cost
_ _
- $5,778,565
Initial Reach G6st (Present)
$5,471,696
98-980rrb11-15. WK4Contingency/053099KME
00
O
•
•
TABLE 12
30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH
PROJECTS (BY SECTOR)
Nourishment Volume =
10 -Year Storm Loss =
Annual Erosion =
Total Loss =
Unit Cost =
Renourishment Interval =
Sector Lenoth =
BEACHFILL
Construction
Design and Permitting
16.1
3.4
43.3
$7.00
8
10,892
cy/ft
cy/ft
cy/ft
per cy
years
feet
3,168,861 2 3%
$316,886 1 3%
$251,287 13%
uonsirucuon
$2,073,837
10
3%
Design and Permitting
$207,384
9
3%
;Construction
$2,073,837
18
3%
Desi n and Permitting
$207,384
17
3%
Construction
$2,073,837
[IeSinn nnryl Denv.itti•, ••
mnn>
Subtotal Construction Cost
$9,390,371
----- ---- _—
Total Reach Cost
$10,580,696
Initial Reach Cost- ---- - - - ---
$3,729,715
Initial Reach Cost (Present)
�o �s�„, u � �- i�.ven^mon::ng°f1CyN�3U88hiv1c
Initial Fill Volume
452,700
$2,986,9551
$gym Fir,
$243,968
$1,543,129
$158,942
$1,218,161
$125,471
$961,6271
$99,048
$7,644,958
L -
$7,644,958
$3,538,580
of
1
TABLE 13
30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH
PROJECTS (BY SECTOR)
Nourishment Volume ---46.2
cy/ft
10 -Year Storm Loss = 17.4 cy/ft
Annual Erosion = 2.9 Cy/ft
Total Loss = 40.6 cy/ft
Unit Cost = $7.25 per cy
Renourishment Interval = 8 years Initial Fill volume (CY)
Sector Len th = 11,684 feet 540,000
BEACHFILL
Construction $3,915,000 4 3% $3,478,427
Design and Perrni I Tine cnn o
o v o $358,278
Contingency $310,456 1 3% $301,413
Construction $4,965,249 12 3% $1,378,386
Design and Permitting $196,525 11 3% $141,974
Construction $1,965,249 20 3% $1,088,111
Desi n and Permitting $196,525 19 3% $112,075
Construction $1,965,249 28 I 3 CR A, R qR 4R.R,
uesign and Permitting $196,525 27 3% $88,473
Subtotal Construction Cost $9,810,746 $7,806,102
of to 0ach–00st
Initial Reach Cost $4,616,856 --- —
,Initial Reach Cost (Present) $4,138,118
98-980/Tb11-15. MContingency/053099KME
of
40
•
TABLE 14
30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH
PROJECTS (BY SECTOR)
tvounshment volume =
40.1
cy/f - -- -
10 -Year Storm Loss =
21.0
cy/ft
Annual Erosion =
4.9
cy/ft
Total Loss =
60.2
cy/ft
Unit Cost =
$6.30
per cy
Renourishment Interval =
8
years Initial Fill Volume
Reach Length =
8,221
feet 330.000
LL
t-onstruction
$2,079,000
4
3%
$1,847,165
Design and Permitting
$207,900
3
3%
$190,258
Contin enc
$164,863
1
3%
$160,061
Construction
Design and Permittin
$2 n3n gt;n
$203,026
12
11
30/
3%
$1,423,982
$146,676
Construction
$2,030,258
20
3%
$1,124,105
Design and Permitting
$203,026
19
3%
$115,783
Construction
$2,030,258
28
3%
$887,379
Design and Permitting
$203,026
27
3%
$91,400
Subtotal Beachfill Construction Cost
$9,151,615
$5.986.662
STRUCTURES
Construction
$940,000
6
3%
$787,235
Design and Permitting
$94,000
5
3%
$81,085
Contingency
$74,541
1
3%
$72,3.70
Subtotal Structures Cost
$1,108,541
$940,690
Tota each Cost - -
$10,260,156
$6,927,492
-
lnitlal Reach Cost -
$3,560,304
-
lniti-a Reach Cost (Present)
$3,138,174
98-980/Tb11-15. WK40ontingency/053099KME
40
mb
TABLE 15
30 -YEAR COST PROJECTIONS FOR INDIAN RIVER COUN`i i BEACH
PROJECTS SUMMARY
Project Cost I $47,777,6221 I I $33,884,070
Initial Project Cost 1 $17,686,6401 1 1 1
Ilnitial Project Cost (Present) I I I I $16,286,5671
98.980rrb 11-15. W MContingencyl053099KME
••
M
0
5.0 RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report describes the recommended funding sources for the
proposed beach restoration and subsequent renourishment projects. The
recommended sources of funding are based on the Phase 1 Report titled "Beach
Preservation Plan, Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan" (ATM, 1998).
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 second goal of the sand replenishment project to the Indian River
County shoreline is recreational enhancement of the beach. These objectives
are important in the identification of, and establishment of, a final financing plan
to implement the County's Beach Restoration Program.
As discussed previously, the total 30 -year present worth benefits associated with
storm protection and recreational use is $102,825,332 (summarized in Table 16)
and the total 30 -year present worth cost for the County's beach restoration
projects is $33,884,070. These values result in a benefit to cost ratio for the
County's long-range beach restoration Plan of 3.03 to 1 (3.03:1). The high
benefit to cost ratio (3.03 to 1) demonstrates that the County's beach restcratic;�
program is an highly important project that is economically justifiable.
YB-980"IS2REPGR TIOW TMOI9%,KM[
41
o(p
410
11
•
Table 16
Summary of Total Estimated Project Benefits by Beach Sector
98.980frable7 7. WK052999KME
Beach
Total
Sector
Storm Protection
Recreational
$11,321,771
1 & 2
$6,174,324
$5,147,447
54.5%
45.5%
$27,434,150
3
$9,771,018
$17,663,132
35.6%
64.4%
$53,897,125
5
$7,516,528
$46,380,597
13.9%
86.1%
$10,172,2.86
7
$7,644,399
$2,527,887
75.1%
24.9%
$102,825,332
$31,106,269
$71,719,063
30.3%
69.7%
98.980frable7 7. WK052999KME
0•
G
A description of the primary sources of revenue recommended to fund the
proposed beach restoration project is provided in the following section of this
report.
5.2 TOURIST DEVFI_OPME T .TAXES
Indian River County imposes a tourist development tax (TDT) of three (3)
percent, which generates approximately $1.0 million per year. The County
currently allows a statutory maximum of 50 percent of the tourist development
tax revenues to be spent on beach improvement projects.
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's beaches with up to 50 percent of the revenues
derived from the tourist development tax. These funds are available to be
pledged to secure revenue bonds issued by the County for this purpose.
The current 50 percent revenue contribution can be applied to fund the cost of
the beach restoration projects. Based on actual collections of the tourist
development tax in 1998, and assuming no growth in collections over the next 5
years, this revenue source will provide $504,200 annually to the Beach
Restoration Fund, or $2,827,650 over the 1999-2004 project implementation
period. The tourist development taxes imposed by the County are collected in
accordance with section 125.0104, Florida Statutes. The tourist developmC."t
tax is levied at three (3) percent and currently generates more than $300,000 for
each cent.
98-90UPH52R£PORT/DfW TN6019i4KME
43
•!
do
0
Although only imposing the tax at the three (3) percent rate, the County has the
authority to impose a maximum rate of four (4) percent of the tourist
development tax, with the additional one (1) percent available to finance a
professional sports franchise facility. However, the revenues derived from the
additional one (1) percent are restricted in use and cannot be used for beach
improvement prole-cs. Therefore, no additional percentage of the tourist
development tax revenue will be available to fund the proposed beach
restoration project.
5.3 STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM (BECP)
FUNDS
The criteria for state "BECP" participation in the funding of beach restoration
projects depends primarily on the public beach access conditions within the
project area and the location and purpose of the beach restoration and, or sand
bypassing project. The rules for determining state funding require that eligibility
for funding must provide for a public access with at least 100 parking spaces
within a one-half (%) mile radius of the access; thus, for a beach to be
considered 100 percent accessible there must be one (1) public access with 100
parking spaces, located every one (1) mile.
FDEP determines project cost sharing in part based on formula values of beach
frontage which is deemed "publicly accessible." For example, a "Primary Beach
Access Site" is defined by the state as having a minimum of 100 public parking
spaces and restroom facilities on-site. Table 17 provides a summary of all state,
county and city owned government property that fronts on the Atlantic Ocean
and which is designated for beach improvements in the County's beach
restoration program.
N %&WHS2RF.P0RT/DWTM01 ^M
44
LLLL
r
olo�
N
WSWo
in
8k
o§�RS8,pp
WW
F
er-RI�crnvof
o
lNosillorV
on'-
�M c$s
I
N
lop
co
f-
LL
i
'
'L
LY
'rl 'L
O -
W
M
t m
O m
mmmmmmmmmmmzm
aa.aaaao
IT
as
a
v
c
Nom-
aha
aaaa
MO
m
E �'
N S
u%N
c
m cwwww
LLLLLLLLa
ci m
Oa
'y CC
!q
CC
N
CCCCCCCmC
fQ
N'g
VI
U�
yN
ypN
QQm
Um
���mmmmm
�
R cccccccccccvc
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
c m
>4
mmmEEEE
C
VJ N
m
N N
m m
N N
m m
N N
m m
,pA
N N
m m
F
N N
m m
m p
N
m m
a
}}
't5
Q,' C
m
N
N
C>>>>
N
m m
m m
m
a
E-
A
m
fAtgfgVlfq(gWWWVIWQvI
a
m m
Aa.OaaaMM
m m
m m
m m
m m
A
a m
m
m mE
(0
c
'60600
o
y
X,
m
a
��Q��
Q
U
J]
c
CD
E
t y to
m
01�
cUi�
}�g}mg�
m�Ngmmmm��mggggj
cc
'o
'o
c
'o
c:
'o
(D
4)
u
U�(nv�i
v�iint�n
tii
rn�n�n
UU
U
U
jy0
vv
U
m
A.� m
ac 8888S8S8SSS$S8
w
��ti��
8S8
�p
S$888888
�-
OD
F O v W
CD
WWW
OD
W W
W W
W W
��
p W
tp
W oDlaa
tp
[O
tpq
f.0
p
.rte Wr
W
W lV'-
IpI pm
1 G �Pt0ffOiafOcMD[6
(p
NN
�p �p
NON'
M
M
.`
_i_
E N
.. MMMC7
«
an G!
N N
W N
NN N
MMMMMMMM�
W N
N N
N N
N N
N
c fid
.
fiti
ti'fif3ffifi'SS
m
mm
m
m m
COm
ara
LN
mmmmmmmmmmWN
m�
�CyOE
NrnNNrn
m
E
m $ 222222222222
mmmmmm0mmm
NW
0N$e
>m>>
a
Q
a
OQa6
2
a>>
a
aaaa
.2aaaa¢a¢
°
mdCtt�mpp1
14-2)
t
t
t2x
xx
x
x•-
U o
i xxsxxz=azxxx$�
��
�
C4 cli
�
i7.,OOOOOOOOOOOOO
ON
r'
-p
O
OONrO
C14
opQgO
O
o
IZdQ$
i
�
K �
N
tl� `tlgM(l
� OD
�tgN�j l�tlq�J�
a0 aD
'ttlg�(�
aD
�
�
M
����
M
M ,c_yS
N
N
N N
N N
N N fV
N
N
N
N
N N
"•
N
rNM
V N
W n CD
NMY
*-NM
rNMQ
W
WA
W rN
Qualifying Project Costs
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 restoration pro ect areas without 100 percent
public access can qualify for partial funding based on the available access. 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. Thus, for a 100 -foot wide public access
easement, the qualifying project length is:
100' + 2640' + 2640' = 5380'
If an individual access has more than 100 parking spaces, qualifying length of
shoreline is not increased proportionally. The maior advantage to hnvinn
additional parking above the 100 -space minimum is that the project criteria for
narkina spacEes will scn_rA hinher, anc! fhiic may be ranker,! on the list of projGct3
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 local funding program to provide the balance of the non -state
funds required to construct the project(s).
Public facilities that satisfy the state's requirements for access are eligible for
reimbursement 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 mapping, state and
federal permit acquisition, construction plans and specifications, acquisition of
96 f*0V"i52REPORTWAr TMOI4MWE 46
( easements, turbidity monitoring, hydrographic monitoring, revegetation and turtle
monitoring.
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.
These criteria apply to the Sector 5 project area and, in the future, will apply to
Sector 3 project area for the sectors first renourishment. In addition to these
qualifying criteria, the state considers projects which are constructed to improve
sand bypassing (across inlets) to downdrift shorelines and shorelines where
governments own all upland properties within a project area. The former is the
basis for the 50 percent state funding participation in Sectorsl, 2 and 3 and the
latter is the basis for the 100 percent state funding participation in Sector 1.
The qualifying project costs in Sector 1 are based on 100 percent State BECK
funding as government land fronts the entire Sector 1 shoreline. Sector 2
qualifies for 50 percent State BECP, for a total qualifying cost of $4,554,087 in
Sectors 1 and 2. These qualifying costs are based on the project cost estimates
described previously in Chapter 4 of this report (i.e. Tables 11-15). The
qualifying project costs in Sectors 3 and 5 are based on 50 percent State BECP
funding, or $1,864,858 and $2,308,478, respectively. State BECP funds, as a
primary revenue source, will provide a total of $8,727,423 over the proposed 3-4
year project implementation period. These costs includa the costs of
construction, field investigations, design, permitting and monitoring, and
survevinq.
98.9NNHSIREP0RT4)+W TM01 nVME
47
i 0
5.4 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX
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 Sales Tax Formula which provides approximately $9 million for
Indian River County on an annual basis. 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 and secondly, storm protection benefits allocated to the
County residents.
Alternatively, annual infrastructure surtax revenues of $1.0 and $1.25 million
were evaluated to determine the potential of this revenue source to fund the
Beach Restoration Fund. As described above, these funds are a potential source
of revenue to implement the County's beach improvement projects over the
remaining five year period authorized by the 1989 referendum (i.e.1999 through
2003). Assuming that the County funds the beach improvement projects by
dedicating $1,250,000 of these funds annually for the next 5 years, these funds
will provide $6,250,000 for the Beach Restoration Fund. Thereby, State BECP
funds ($8,727,423), tourist development tax funds ($2,827,423), and the local
government infrastructure surtax revenues at $1,250,000 annually ($6,250,000)
provide a total of $17,805,073 to fund the Beach Restoration Fund. This
amount exceeds the total estimated project costs of $17,685,540. A summary of
the estimated project costs to implement the BPP is provided in Table 18 which
summarizes the anticipated project related expenses. Table 19 provides a
summary of the expected monthly contributions from these sources of revenue,
assuming an average of $1,250,000 in funded by the local infrastructure surtax,
to pay the costs of the initial work to construct the four (4) beach restoration
projects.
B9%0,PRS2REPQHTMRAFTMO1", "[ 48
•0
•
4
Summery
Month -
Date
Year
Description
March
1999
- �0.
510,000
April
i 1999
geotechnical, permit lees
May
1999
geoteeh"IkA -
June
1 1999
hardbotan mapping
July
11999
I eotechn"e . haidbottom map
-
August
1999
despn
September i 1999
_ eesgn, pemtgtirg
-
October
11999
_
_penng5ng
November
1999
I permaurg, easements
-Decemberl
1999 I
pennbting, easements
January
'000 _f 2000 {
_
peAtirg, easements
February
12000
paimglMg, easements_
March
' 2000 1
i
permitting,. -easements
April
2000
_
"documents
_ May
1 2000 -1
bid documents -
lune_
July
2000
2000
I
_ _ _- bid documents --
bidsolicJtation
August
2000
_
bid review, contrudion --
September
1.2000
eonatruaion baseline
October
( 2000
-----
pretonsWdbn survey
November
12000
_
consWts(on mobilization
December
1 2000 -- --
consin @on Sectors 1,2 d 3'
-constructionSector
January
February
2001
2001 I
i2&3
construction Sectors t, 263
_-March
_2001 I
consinrction Segors 1,2 6 3
April
May
2001 I
( 2001
CdrI jVUq rr Sectors 1,2 d 3
dose out proletxs _
-State
June
12001 _1
reports tri and Fed Govl
_Jul
2_00_1.. _
Sector e d 7 mm
Design and Other )loyal,
Permitting cMeEngancies,
Engineering Construction Surveying maintenance) I Total
_November
December
_ January_.
February
2001
2001
-2002pemidurIg
_2002
-_-- montodngreport
$10,000
--
- �0.
510,000
-Jx^_^�^B__ _.. _..
_ _
- ._--_-- pertNtiin
53.000
_- $3.000
53000
March
2002__..--____
oaarpmentAatirg _
53,000
APni
_ May
June
July
August
September
October 12002
_November
Ueccmbcr
_ January }
_February
_ March �
-- Me
100[
_ 2002
2002
2002_
2002
_2002 I
2002 _
2002
2003
_ 2003
2003 I.-_construdbn4ctor667
2003
I- _ 1•yearmonitoit
__mongodrg report.__
bid documents
_bidducumenis-----
-bid salitstlon - ---
_ bid award, contracting" .--
520,000
-- 523,000
- _ 515,000
- 520,000
_
_
-----
--
— _--
5175,000 _
$50.000
-
-- —
rwnabudionbaseline $25,000
_ pre"n surveys $15,000 SI,000,000
510000
$20,000
construction Sector e 6 7• _ ns,Doonoa0000
__ construction Sector b 6 7 573,000 _ 32,000,000
_ oonstn: Sector5a 7 $73,000 $1,000,000
$30,000 $934,000
esearTrruents-.7- $3,000
-- —
_
_ June
)uiJ
2003 j_
LUVJ
August
2003
----
Seplember—
_
October
November
December
2003
2003
2003 i
6 -month mcr torbq
monNodng report __-----
—
—
---
_--
SSO,0i10
520,000 --
January
2004—
February
2004
-
March
April
May
June
2004--
2004
2004
2004
tatup
------- ------
- -
1.yesr62-yearmon9odng_
nronaonnp report -.. -., --.
$130,000
530,000 ----
July
2004
August
2004
---- -. -----
-- ---
Se temher
2004
.. - -- - -
- - ---
Note s:
TOTALS:
1 167 000
S 14 994 000
574000(1 3
I. • Includes Sector 3 Additional Deachfrll
2. • Includes State Flat Fee
3. Assume State Reimbursements in 60-90 days from County Payment
4, Assume Slate will Advance Construction Costs Following Selection of Contractor (Oct 2000 and Oct 2002)
a«.,e aiawe,a it rsr
of
AD
Table 19 Local Options Sales Tax Funding at $1,250,000 Annually
REVENUES ToURISTTAx
OPTION. SALES TAX ASSESSMENTS GRANTS TOTAL REVENUES;
MARCH 1999 $72,750 _ 372 750
APRIL 1999 ""
573,500 I $32,500
MAY 1999 145.350-- ---- -'- - ���� ---5106000__-
JUNE 1999
JULY 1999
AUGUST 1999
SEPTEMBER 1999
OCTOBER 1499
NOVEMBER 1999
DECEMBER 1999
JANUARY 2000
FEBRUARY 2000
MARCH 2000
APRIL 2000
MAY 2000_
JUNE 2000
JULY 2000
'ALIG-UST 2000
SEPTEMBER 2000 '
OCTOBER 2000
NOVEMBER 2000
DECEMBER 2000
JANUARY 2001
FEBRUARY 2001
MARCH 2001
APRIL 2001
MAY 20_01_
JUNE 2001 _
JULY 2001 I
AUGUST2001 -
SEPTEMBER N01
OCTOBER 2001
NOVEMBER2001_
DECEMBER 2001
JANUARY 2002
I. 'Voo
MARCH 20_0_2
APRIL 2002
MAY 2002
JUNE 2002
JULY 2002
AUGUST2002
SEFIIMIIE_R 200.2_
OCTOBER 2002
NOVEMBER 2002
DECEMBER 2002
JANUARY 2003
FEBRUARY 2003
MARCH 200.3_
APRIL 2003
MAY 2003
-
JULY 2003
AUGUST 2003
SEPTEMBER 2003_
OCTOBER 2003
NOVEMBER 2003
DECEMBER 2003
JANUARY 2000
FEBRUARY 2004
MARCH 2004
APRIL 2004
MAY 2004
JUNE 2004
JULY 2004
AUGUST 2004
SEPTEMBER 2004
TOTAL
$29,500
S30,500
$28,300
$26,750
$28,000
---
$22,650
528,000
I _
I -
-
I
- ---------------------
------
$1,250,000
- $42,500
$55,000565,500
- - $20,000 _
- -
515,000
S10.000 --
-------- 510,000
310000
$72,000
-S__
-
_ $41,750
-- $38,000 --
S32.F50 1
$1,288,000 "
$38,250_
$80,650
__
_
__ 5101
-_ S48,250
57,500
$88,150
572,750 --
_ -"-
$7,500
S80,250
873,500
- -- --
-- S7,500
_
$81,000 - -
543,350"-
529 500
-'---..-_-.-
$30,500
--_----- _--
$7,500
- - -- 510,000__
_
---- -- -
539,500
f - 57,500
__
$38,000
528,300_ _
I
_ 57,500
$35,800
826,750 -
--
$10,000
---""--
$36,750 -
S28,000__ _
_, _ ----
--- $12,500
$40,300
522,650
$28,000 _
$38,250-
SWAM- -
-
$1,494,500
_
$1,517,150
51,250,000 _ 53,810,000
53,088,000
-- --- -- --- - $25,000
- _ -S25---
,0003'05,650-
- ----
$63,250
$72,750_
573,500
__ $25,000
57,500
597,750
581,000
$45,350_
_
$2,500
$47,850
529500_
_ $1,000
530,500
530,500 -
_
55,000
$35,500
828,300
526,750_-
-
S5.000
$33,300
- SS,000
_
$31,750
$28,000
$22,650
528,000
---------_-_---
- $92,500
6120,509
$20,000
_ 51,250,000 $2,500
_
542,650--
SI 80,500
$38,250_
$80,650
$72,75050
57 3,500
$45,350 -_--
._ -
$5,000
55,000
__ $12,500
.e,.--
_ ---- ------ ---$25,000--
543250
585,6
$85,250
-
$i6i,000
- - 570,350
$_29,500 . _ _
-_
510,000
S39,500
530,500
$28,300_
526,750 --
-
512,500
$43,000
$7,500
533,800
- -" - 310,000
-
$36,750
528,000
- -_ --
_ SI? 300
$45,500
$22,650
528,000 _
s3 8,250
- -
_-
- $92,500
_
SI 15,150 - -
_
$2,070 000
- - - -- 5110,625 --
$3,348000 --
5148,875
572,750 -
S73,500 _ --
$45,350
- ---
3110625
3191,275
__ 523,000
- -- - $7,500S-8-1-
--
$97,750 -
-
__ ,0
- ---- - $0
-
545150
SU --
-- $29,500 --
528,300 _ _
$26,7_50
528,000
$22,650
$28,000 _. _
$38,250
S80,650-
572,750
$73,500
S45,350-
529,500
S30.S00
28.300 . _
526,750-_-
$
2,827,650
---- �-
-so
-- " --- -- 50
- --
---$30,500
528,300
- ---- -- SO
$26,730
- ------ 525,000
-___ 310,000
-- - -- ----
-
553,000
31,250,000__- $0
-- - - t0
-"
_$32,650
--51,278,000
- -
$80,650
SI0.000
575 ,000
-- ------ - --
515,000
- -- SO
- - - - -
SO
_ _ -- - _ --- S0 _ - _
- 50-------
56,250,000_ $0 ---
-. _ _ S8 576 750
--""
582,730
-------
5148 500
$60,350
-- 529.500 --
--$30 300
$28 300
_ 326730 --_
S17.654,40 -
II -
R..;..e m-ioosel sa �e ru
to
do
Alternately, if the County dedicates $1,000,000 to fund the beach improvement
projects on an annual basis over the next 5 years, this source of revenue will
generate $5,000,000. This source of revenue combined with the State BECP
and TDT funds described above provide $16,555,073 in total funds. Table 20
provides a summary of the expected monthly contributions from these sources of
revenue, assuming an annual dedication of $1,000,000 in from the local
infrastructure surtax to pay the costs of the initial work to construct the four (4)
beach restoration projects. An alternative variable rate annual dedication that
results in a total $5,000,000 from the local infrastructure surtax is given in Table
21. Special assessments are proposed to fund the balance of $1,130,467 in
project costs. This source of revenue is proposed to pay in accordance with the
associated distribution of storm protection benefits to Sectors 2, 3, 5 and 7. A
description of the resulting assessments is given in the following sections.
5.5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Special assessments are a home rule revenue source that counties may use to
fund local improvements or essential services. As established by rase 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 Counhf 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,
which is subject to the assessment, derives
WO&WHSMEPOHTIOM TMO199/Wr
51
64
Lj
Table 20 Local Option Sales Tax Funding at$1.000.00OAnnualiv
MA
API
MA
JUP
JUL
AU
SEF
OC'
NO
DEI
,JA?
FEE
'MA
APF
MA
Jul,
AL
AUI
SEP
OC1
NO_`
D_E(
JAN
FEB
:MAI
APR
MA'
JUN
JUL'
AUC
SEP'
OCT
NON
DEC
JAN
F9131tiiP
APR
MA)
JUNI
JULI
AUG
SEPI
OCTI
NOV
DELI
JANI
FEBF
MAR
APR[
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT(
NOVI
DEC[
JANL
FEBR
MAR,
APRII
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGI
SEPTI
ENUES
RCH 1999
LIL 1999
Y 1999 .
IE 1999
Y 1999
:,UST 1994
TEMBER 1999
fOBER 19.99
VEMBER 19_99
:EMBER 1999
WARY 200_0
RUARY 2000
UL2000
Y 2000
E2000
Y 2000
;UST 2000
TEMBER 2000
- -
'OBER 2000
BMBER2000 _
EMBER 2000
UARY 2001 1
-- - -- . .
RU_ARY 2001
WH 2001 - -
f 2001 I
E 200 _
12001
IUST2001
FEMBER 200.1
OBER 2001
'EMBER 2001 i
EMBER 200I 1
UARY 2002 _ I
WARY 2002
TOURIST TAX
S72,750
573,500
545,750
$29,500
$30,500
-_-
$28,300
$26,750
528,000
$22,650
528,000_
$38,250
$80,650
573,500
$45,350
-
529,500
530,500
$28 300__
$26.750
$28,000
_522,650
_$28,0_00 _
$38,250
580,650 _
$72,750
$73,500__
545,350
$29,500
530,500
528,300
526,750
$28,0005500
$22,650
$28,000_
538,250 __
_ 580,650 _
-
OPTION. SALES TAX
---
-__
- --
_ -
- - -.- - - -
- --
ASSESSMENTS
-- -" --
----
---
-
-- - - ---
--;----
GRANTS
- - - - -
--
532500
$30,000 --
-- 542,500
TOTAL REVENUES
-
$72,750
- ---
5106,000
$75,350
- ---
,000
- - - ------ 555,000
--- - ----- - $20,000
- -- --- -- --$15,000 --
- ----- ---SI0,000 ---
__ $22,120_ 510,000 __
- 5110001000--- $89,88_0 $10,000
-- - -" _$56,000 510000
--
$85
585,500
548,300
- 541,750 -
$38,000 --
$54,770
$1,127,580
1.127,50
$56,000 _ $7,500
5144,150
--- ---- - S14,000 $7,500
S94,250 -
$6,000 _ 57,500
_ -
$6,000 $7,500
- ---- - -
_ $2,000 $10,000
- ----- --$5,000 57,500
__;87.000
_ $58,850
S41,500
543,000
_
$5,000 $7,500
$40,800
$4,000 _ _510,000
$40,750
- $12,500
S40,500
__ 522,120 $1,494,500
S1,539,270
$1,000,000 $89,880 53,810,000
_ _ __ $56,000 $25,000
_
$4,92 7,880
$119,250
556,000 525,000
$14,000 $25,000
$6,000 57,500
5161,650
$111,7M
$87,000
- $6,000 52,500
553,850
_ $2,000 $1,000
_ $5,000 $5,000
532,500
540,500
SS,000 S5,000
$38,300
54,000 $5 000
-
- ---- -$22,120 $20,000--
51,000,000 589,880 52,500
- 564770
51,120,380
__ $56,000 55,000
$56,000 55,000
-
$99,250
$141._650
-=
L 2002
2002 -i45-.3756---
-__ -
i 2002 _ - - L -
'
UST
UST 2002 I
EMBER 2002
-BER 2002 i
EMDER 2002
WIDER 2002
JARY2003 I
VARY 2003
CH 2003 i
L 2003
2003
2003$29,500-
2003
JST 2003
EMBER2003 I
)BER 2003 I
sMBER 2003 i
:MBER2003
ARY 2000
UARY2004
H 2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
1ST 2004
_ -
3MBER 2004
-
TOTAL i
573,500
$29,500 -_ - -
530,500
$28,300- -_
526,750
_ $28,000 _
522,650
_528,_000
S38,2S0_
580,650
572,750
S7►,500
545,350- - -
___
$30,500 _
528,300
$26,750 --
528,000- -"
$22,650
528,000 _
$38,250
$80,650
$72,750
573.500
$n5,350
529,500
530,500
528,300 -
$26,750
52,827,650
_ _____ __
$14,000
$12,500
- --- 56,000 587,500
_$99,250
$167,000
56,000 S25,000
-__--
$76,350
$2,000 $10 ,000
$41,500
SS,000 $12,500
_ ___- ----------- - $5,000 __ 57,500
- - 54,000 $10,000
_ _ $17,500
522,120 $92,500
-- $1,000,000 $89,880 52,070,000
$48,000
$40,800
540,750
545,500
5137.270
_ $3,187,880
-- -$56,000 $110,625
$204,875 --
___- 556,000 _ 5110,625 _
----
$247,275
-$14,000_ $25,000
- - --- - -
-------- -- i _
SII1,7_SO -
$87,000
$0
- -- ---- S6'� - SO
-
$51,350
_ $2,000 __ SO
$31,500
_
- - $5,000 SO
-" ---f
$35,500 --
O---
- -- --$5,000-
533,300 --
- -----_ ---
--$30,750
_ $25,000
- -
__ _ azz,l2o _-_5_io-000
$110001000 589,880 -- --
------------ S0
- --- --
__ 556,000 _ SO
- ---S56,000
----- "--
$56.000 _ SO_
-----_.-_ _
514,000 SIO,000
- ---- _
- -$6= ----. -- -- $75,000 -----4,500
56000 $15,000
$2 000 --- - SO -
-- - -- S5000 _.. SO
- - -- _ - -- - - - - -
- -- --S4.1---
_ - _-- - SO
55,000000 $1330,000 S8576,750
553,000
-------
$54,770
--
_ $1,117,880
-$94,250 -
$136,650 - -
- - -
596.750
- --
$154.,500 _
S3I $66 350
{
517,734,400
of
ab
0
Table2l Local Option SalesTaxFundingwith Variable Annual Allocations
REVENUES
MARCH 1999
APRIL 1999
MAY 1999
JUNE 1999
JULY 1999
AUGUST 1999
SEPTEMBER 1999
OCTOBER 1999
NOVEMBER 1999
DECEMBER 1999
.JANUARY 2000
FEBRUARY 2000
MARCH 2000
APRIL N00.
MAY 2000
JUNE 2000
JULY 2000
AUGUST 2000
SEPTEMBER 2000
,OCTOBER 2000
'NOVEMBER 2000 �
DECEMBER 2000
j JANUARY 2001
FEBRUARY 2001
MARCH 2001 j
'APRIL 2001
MAY 2001
:JUNE 2001 �
JULY 2001
I AUGUST 2001
jSEPTEM BER _2001 j
!OCTOBER 2001
NOVEMBER 2001
DECEMBER 2001.
i JANUARY 20_02
FEBRUARY 2002
MARCH 2002
j APRIL 2002
MAY 2002
JUNE 2002
JULY 2002
AUGUST 2002
SEPTEMBER 2002 -
OCTOBER 2002 j
NOVEMBER 2002
DECEMBER 2002
JANUARY 2003
FEBRUARY 2003
MARCH 2003
APRIL 2003
.MAY LUU3
JUNE 2003
JULY 2003
AUGUST 2003
SEPTEMBER 2003 I
OCTOBER 2003
NOVEMBER 2003
DECEMBER 2003
JANUARY 2000
FEBRUARY 2004
MARCH 2004
APRIL 2004
MAY 2004 j
JUNE 2004
JULY 2004
AUGUST 2004
SEPTEMBER 2004
TOTAL S
TOURIST TAX
1,72,750
573,500
$45,350
$29,500
$30,500
528,300
$26750
$28000
S22,650
528,000
$38,250
-
S8Q650
$72,750
- -
$73,500
$45,350
$29,500
530,500
_---_.---------_-__.--_
V8,300
526,750
528,000
,650
$28,000-
OPTION. SALES TAX
ASSESSMENTS
GRANTS
TOTAL REVENUES
$32,500
1,3
I 0,000
- - T42,500
$55,000 --- - - -- --- -
_S20,000
- -- --- 515,000
-
$72,750
5106,000
575,350
$72,000
S8 sss soo
548,300
541,75 0
$10,000
--__
$38,000 _
Itjl
522,120 $10,000
SI 300,000 - -_. 589,880 -- - -
___-- --_-510,000
-- ----- -
- -- - $56,000 $10,000
554,770
-1, 7,880
SL427,880
-
5104,250__
_ _ S56,000 _ $7,500 _
S144,150
- - -- 514,000_ _ $7,500
- $6,000 _ __ $7,500_
_ ..---_ - -- -- $6,000 57,500 ------
-- -- -
_ _ _ _ $2,000 $10,000 -
- - -
$5.000 $7,500
- _ S5,000 $7,500
_ -1
$94,250
$R7,000 _- -
$58,050
- - 541,500
543,000----
540,800
-- - $4.000 _$10,000 -
S 12,500522
_ 522,120 1, 1,494,500
_$j,300,000 589,880 53,810,000
-
540,750--
--.
540,500 _
_$1,539,270
$5,227,880
_S38,250 _-
-_
$56,000
$25,000
5119250 -
S80,650
$56,000
525,000
5161,650
572,750
--
$73,500
$45,350 -
-" - ---
$14,000
$6,000
$25,000
_57,500
--- --
5111,750
$87,000
_
- _ $6,000 52,500
$53,850
529,500
$2,000
SI,000
$32,500
530,500
- -
-
55,000
$5,000 _
540,500
528,300 _--
_
$5,000
$5,000
$38,300
528,000 --
$4,000
$5,000
-592,500
535,750
$120,500
522,650
$28,000 -_
S1 200,000
$22,120
$89,880
520,000
52,500
564,770
$1,320380
538250
__
580,650_
_01750
_
_ --
$56,000
556,000
$5,000
55,000
-
349250
$141,650_
- - --
$99,250
.,
- ",vw $12,3uu
$73,500
545,350 -
529,500-
_$30,500--
- -
S6,000
$6,000
$2,000
$87,500
$25,000
$10,000
5167,000
$76,350 _
541,500
----_-_-- 55,000 512,500--
---_548,000
$28,30_0__
_$26,75_0 .--
--
S5,000
$4,000
$7,500
$10,000
540,800
$40,750
$28,000
..$22,650-_-_ -
-----_-- --
$17,500
545,500
$2$000_
$38,250
- $600,000 - - --
-
$22,120
- 589,880
592,500
52,070,000
_ $137,270
52,787,880 -
- -
SSb,000
$110625
$204,878 -
S80,650
572,750
$56,000
$110,625
-
$247 275
573,500 --
$45,350
$29,500
530.500
_f2 -__.----
$28,300
526,750
$28,000
$28,000
$38,250
$80,650
72,750
$73,500
$45.350 -- - --
$29,500
530.300-
$28.300
$26,750
2,827,650
-- -
S 14,000
56.nnn
525,000
1,7 SM
.
5111,750 -
ae"7,piwti
- - - - 56,000 so _
---
$51,350
- - - -- _ $2,000 SO
- - S3 L500 _ -
$35.500
- - - --
--__ $5000 $0
-- - $5,000 gp
- ------------
-- - --54,000 $0 -- -
$25,000
_ _ 522,520 $10,000
$600,006---- $89,880 - -- jp - -
- -- --- -- -- -- f0--
-- ----- -
SS6,000 SO
_ - _ -
------- -1,14,000--- 510,000
----" --_
56,000
-"----.-._-_ ------._--_-- 575,000
----_- ---- _._ __ $6,000 _ S15,000 ---
"-----�----
_ _ 52,000 $p
.---------- ----- --- -
---- - --- $5.000 ---- -- -. _so..
. -.. - - SS,000 _ SO
14.000 - - --
__ --.. - - - -- �---SU ---
$5,000,000 $0S0,0GW S8,S76,750 _-
- '--
$33,300
----
__- 530,750
t5-4.770$22,650
55
- - -
- --S94,250
5136,650
- --.
$96,750
- - -- -
$154,500
---------
566,350
- _------
53t.5^0
---535,500- -
533,300
- -- --
_ 570.750
$17,754,400
m -d Qb-10.9 ' 59 12 rm
I)*
40
•
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 assessment-. 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 :"leeks, (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. Furthermore, the benefit need not
be determined in relation to the existing use of the property. See Cily of
Haiiandaie v. Meekins, 237 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), affd, 245 So. 2d
253 (Fla. 1971).
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
904EpiP MEPOR-(MWTftOiWnWE 54
of
•
essential to the public welfare but fail to provide the special benefit necessary for
the imposition of a valid assessment.'
Development of Special Assessments
If the County elects to fund an average of $1,000,000 annually from the local
infrastructure surtax, special assessments as a source of revenue are proposed
to fund $1,130,467 of the remaining project costs. The previous sections of this
chapter provided an analysis of four primary sources of funding to finance the
initial beach restoration project costs, this section provides an example of how
special assessments can be used by the County as a project cost allocation
method to fund approximately $1,130,467 over the five year project
implementation period.
An analysis of the cost allocations to individual properties for each beach sector
is based on distributing $358,510 to Sector 2, $220,632 to Sector 3. $106.942 to
Sector 5 and $444,382 to Sector 7 to provide $1,130,467 in revenue to fund the
beach restoration project costs. Assessments were computed based on a
distribution of costs according to the degree of benefits within the Sector. As an
example, special assessments of $3,735 for a single family residence with 55
front feet, $6,074 for a single family residence with 110 front feet and $18,223 for
a 330 foot parcel at the south terminus of Sector 2 are proposed. Similarly,
special assessments are typically $1,557 to $2,412 for single family residences,
with condominium complexes ranging from $3,750 to $14,062. The Disney
2For example, in Crowder v. Phillips,
146 Fla. 440, 1 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1941)Crowder v. Phillips, 146 Fla. 440, 1 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1441), a special assessment for tte
establishment and maintenance of a hospital was found to not 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 property. Additionally, in
Whisnant v. Stringfellow,
50 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1951)Whisnanl v. Stringfellow, 50 So. 2d 885 (Fla 1951), an assessment for the county health unit was held to
\� be invalid In that it benefited everyone in the county, regardless of their status as property owners.
96-aaQ4l182REPORTlOW M601 WatKmE
55
••
0
0
Resort complex, fronting 1,700 front feet, would pay a special assessment of
$61,155 in Sector 3.
In Sector 5, special assessments ranged from $1,160 to $3,058 for a single
family residence with 100 to 220 front feet to a maximum of $7,371 for a
condominium with 450 front feet. Sector 7 special assessments ranged from
$4,400 to a maximum of $13,700. These higher assessments generally
represent combined parcels with greater ocean frontages (190-220 front feet).
These special assessments were computed based on a distribution of costs
according to the degree of storm protection benefits calculated in the Sector
excluding government owned lands. In Sector 1, which is comprised of all
government owned parcels fronting the ocean, no special assessments were
assigned due to the 100 percent project cost contribution from the State of
Florida. Tables 22 and 23 summarize these funding sources for each of the
proposed local infrastructure surtax funding amounts.
5.6 Implementation Process for Special Assessments
To implement special assessments as a revenue source for the beach
restoration projects, the County is required to follow specific procedural steps. In
addition to these steps public meetings such as workshops are included to
provide for comments from interested groups and residents of the County. The
required procedures and recommended hearings, with tentative dates to
implement the activity, are summarized in Table 24 which follows.
96',+65PHS2RCPORT/DIW TKk:015M Mf: 56
••
40
Table 22
Total Estimated Project Costs and Revenue Source Funds ($1,250,000Nr)
Total
_ Beach Sector
Storm Protection
Recreational
$11,321,771
Benefits in Sectors 1 & 2
$6,174,324
$5,147,447
Sector 2
$1,224,478
54.5%
1,111
45.5%
1 1 MIM
$27,434,150
Benefits in Sector 3
$9,771,018
$17,663,132
35.6%
64.4%
x
$53,897,125
Benefits in Sector 5
$7,516,528
$46,380,597
13.9%
86.1%
$10,172,286
Benefits in Sector 7
$7,644,399
$2,527,887
75.1%
24.9%
$102,825,332 Total Benefits: $31,106,269
$71,719,063
$17,685,540 Total Project Cost: $7,799,150
$9,886,390
30.3%
69.7%
Total State BCAP: Sector 1
$3,329,609
Sector 2
$1,224,478
Sector 3
$1,864,858
Sector 5
$2,308,478
Sector 7
$0
of
1-
•
11
Table 23
Estimated Initial Project Costs and Revenue Source Funds ($1,000,000/yr)
$11,321,771
Benefits in Sectors 1 & 2
$6,174,324
$5,147,441
54.5%
45.5%
$27,434,150
Benefits in Sector 3
$9,771,018
$17,663,132
35.6%
64.4%
$53,897,125
Benefits in Sector 5
$7,516,528
$46,380,597
MMMAM=11 1.11
13.9%
86.1%
$10,172,286
Benefits in Sector 7
$7,644,399
$2,527,887
75.1%
24.9%
$102,825,332
Total Benefits:
Qi, +na n-
$17,685,540
Total Initial Project Cost:
-
', -,cVa
$7,799,150
$7 i,71y,063
$9,886,390
30.3%
69.7%
Total State BECP:
Sector 1
$3,329,609
Sector
$1,224,478
Sector 3
$1,864,858
Sector 5
$2,308,478
Sector 7
Qn
so
4D
Table 24
Procedures and Associated Tentative Dates to Implement Special Assessments
July 13-20, 1999
BCC Workshop and BCC Meeting to approve Plan of Finance
Assessment Plan approved by BCC ^—
19QO
August 17, 1999
Draft ordinance circulated for review by working group
August 31, 1999
Working group comments received and ordinance sent to County
in final form
September 14,
Ordinance approved for public hearing by BGC and distribute draft
1999
initial assessment resolution for review by working group
Seotemhpr 9R_
nrdin a ca einacteu
1999
October 18, 1999
Initial assessment resolution adopted by BCC
October 25, 1999
Assessment notices published and mailed
November 16, 1999
Public hearing held and final assessment resnlutinn adnn+-A 1—
BCC - - _
July 15, 2000
Assessment resolution certified to the Property Appraiser on
behalf of the Tax Collector
VA 9WPH52Ri.P1)RT/t)fWTN"jnj(ME
59
i•
/appendix A
Indian River County
Summer 1998 Beach Survey
of
40
s
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
1. INTRODUCTION
This survey is part of a study designed to develop an economic assessment of the estimated
benefits of a beach nourislunent plan for selected 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
beach 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 of beach users who were interviewed
using the survey instrument shown in the appendix.
The survey, conducted under the general direction of Dr. Thomas D. Curtis, interviewed
287 adults age 16 and older from August 13 to October :1, 1998. Interviewers selected
one adult to interview from each group of beach users. Interviews were conducted from
morning until late afternnnn nn tl;e ti.ree selected��___-_-
a -as of beaches in Indian River County.
No beach users were found in the fourth area.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the distribution of interviews by day and beach
Table i
Survey Dates
Date
1 section
Date of Sutve�
Beach
2 Section 3 3 Section 5.
__
Section 7 All
vgkC UI ouivey
182.
8/13/1998 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
9/6/1998 Su
5
2.3
31
0
59
9/7/1998 Mo
3
14
12
0
29
10/6/1998 Tu
4
0
0
0
4
10/10/1�l4A -,L.
6
11
8
0
2t)
10/11/1998 Si
r,
14
0
0
0
/oral
37
1 12
106
O
07
sa
J
0
F]
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
Table 2
Survey Beaches
Beach
Survey
Count
Percent
of Sample
People
Count
Percent
People
1 Sections 1 & 2
37
12.9%
78
9.6%
2 Section 3
142
49.5%
432
53.1%
3 Section 5
108
37.6%
303
37.3%
4 Section 7
0
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 survey 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 on a "people" or beach user bases, Sections 1 & 2 beach represents a smaller
portion of the sample than it does on a "survey" basis.
so
G
0
0
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 tl a ta6iP rPnrPQPn} fht rlP PnfA nrnon. ie an 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 ill 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 (bund more Ihan 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 in Indian River
County or as visitors if the indicated Ilial they did not live in Indian River Counly. Visitors
were identified by their place of' residence: Bevard County, Martin County. St Lucie
County, otter Florida, other Uniled Stales. or Foreign. Visilors were also classified by
length of, %lay. Overnight visilurs reside outside Indian River Comity and indicated Ilial
they retoained in Indian Rivet Count o\vrnivill. 1):n disilots inuicaled That llw\ did nol
live in Indian River County and Iftal tine\ did not winain in ludian Rivet Count\ oveuni.Hht.
% People on Each Beach
Home Location
1 Sections 1 & 2. 2 Section 3
3 Section 5.
4. Section Z
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 County
1 0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
Other Florida
30.8%
20.8%
23.8%
0.0%
22.9%
Other US
5.1%
19.4%
12.9%
0.0%
15.6%
Foreign
5.1%
2.1%
0.7%
0.0%
1.8%
na
0.0%
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 tl a ta6iP rPnrPQPn} fht rlP PnfA nrnon. ie an 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 ill 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 (bund more Ihan 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 in Indian River
County or as visitors if the indicated Ilial they did not live in Indian River Counly. Visitors
were identified by their place of' residence: Bevard County, Martin County. St Lucie
County, otter Florida, other Uniled Stales. or Foreign. Visilors were also classified by
length of, %lay. Overnight visilurs reside outside Indian River Comity and indicated Ilial
they retoained in Indian Rivet Count o\vrnivill. 1):n disilots inuicaled That llw\ did nol
live in Indian River County and Iftal tine\ did not winain in ludian Rivet Count\ oveuni.Hht.
6 6
El
•
7
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
Table 4
Percent Residents and Visitors
Interpretation: The 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 interviewed at Sections I & 2 Beach were classified as residents; 46.1%
of all the respondents interviewed were classified as residents.
Table 5
Breakout of Iridian River Resident Respondents
_
% People on Each Beach
Nome Location
1 Sections 1 & 2.
2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7
All
Residents
35.9%
45J% 50.2% 0.0%
46.1%
Visitors
64.1%
54.4% 49.8% 100.0%
53.6%
[b!A
0.0%
0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
Interpretation: The 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 interviewed at Sections I & 2 Beach were classified as residents; 46.1%
of all the respondents interviewed were classified as residents.
Table 5
Breakout of Iridian River Resident Respondents
_
% People on La__ pCgGi_
Place
ns 2 Section 3 3 Section S. 4. Section 7
1EZ2.
All
I
On Island E AIA
0.0% 2.6% 0.7% 0.0%
1.6%
On Island W AIA
10.7% 7.7% 5.3% 0.0%
6.9%
Mainland E of 195
60.7% 73.3% 51.3% 0.0%
63.5%
Mainland W of 195
10.7% 6.7% 9.9% 0.0%
8.3%
Vero Beach
Total _
17.9% 9 7% 3L.J /V 0.0 io
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
o
-19
19-0 0%
IIIterprelation: "Ile numbers rapwsent lite percentage of beach user~ by area of residence
with Indian Ri"'er County "rho in the inlen'icwed parties at each beach. Pur example.
60.7'%. of the peach users at Sections I k 2 Beach resided on the nutinland in Indian Rivet
County east of 1-95 and "rest o1, the intercoastal "rater"ra\; 19.7 percent of all the beach
users inlerviet"'ed responded that Ihcy lived in \'cro Beach.
/\x ntis.hl be ezpecled..la\'cee 11:nk had the tawc"l percenlatt. of \�clo Beach wSpolident..
e®
40
•
•
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
Chart I
Breakout of Vero Beach Respondents
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 users at Section 5 Bench indicated that they, werc
not Indian River County residents and were staving overnight in Indian River County
County.
About 43`:;, of Ilio overnight visitors reported Slavin-, iu a hotel or motel. 'I'lie 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
i-ercent Visitors
50 237 151 0
64.1% 54.9% 49.8% 0.0%
438
53.9%
Total
78 432 303 O
813
Interpretation: 49.8% of the 303 beach users at Section 5 Bench indicated that they, werc
not Indian River County residents and were staving overnight in Indian River County
County.
About 43`:;, of Ilio overnight visitors reported Slavin-, iu a hotel or motel. 'I'lie breakdown
of lodging by type is shown below in Chart 2.
•6
40
E
k1.1'
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
Chart 2
Overnight Visitor Lodging
Where They Stayed
Other/NA
7% RentattCondo
Oven Beach 9%
Property
15%
w
Relatives/ #\HoteMotel
Friends 43%
26%
Interpretation: 26% of the visitor respondents staying overnight in Indian River County
reported staying with relatives or friends, 15 % of the visitor respondents staying overnight
stayed in their own property.
WHAT THEY ENJOYED
As might be expected most respondents (88.5%) enjoyed swimming/sunbathing, followed
by walking or jogging (56.4%), shelling (30.3%), fishing (16.4%) and other activities, such
as surfing, sports, or reading (12.9%).
Tahle 7
Enjoyed Activities
Beach
Response
t 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%
Surf
10.8%
14.1%
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%
as
•
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 (bund parking plentiful or adequate (87%).
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
r__
Parking
Beach
Response
Beach
All
Plentiful
Aciequate
Insufficient
Response
1 Sections
2 Section 3
3 Section 5.
4. Section 7
All
1&2.
Staying here, Walk
2.7%
23.9%
25.9%
0.0%
22.0%
Walked, bike from
5.4%
1.4%
0.9%
0.0%
1.7%
Home
Drove a car
91.9%
74.6%
73.1%
0.0%
3
76=0'%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
Table 9
Parking Availability
r__
Parking
Beach
Response
_
t Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5. 4. Section 7
1&2.
All
Plentiful
Aciequate
Insufficient
73.5%49-1-33.0% 60.5% 0
23.5% 45.0% 37.0% 0
2.9% _ 22.0% 2.5% 0
2.9% 22.0% 2.5% 0.0%
i°
38.8%
12.1%
12.1%
Percent Drove
Interpretation: 73.SIX, ol'ihc respondurts rho drove luund Larking plentiful at Sections I fi
2 Beach \%-Itilc li)t all beaches. I`), t'1 of Ilse r pondenls \010 drove liwnd parking
plenti Ful.
Indian River County Sumner 1993 Beach Survey
HOW OFTEN TREY CAME; HOW LONG THEY STAYED
On average respondents came to the beach 50 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
Respondent's aJaycee 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 three beaches.
Beach
Response
1 Sections
2 Section 3
3 Section 5.
4. Section 7
All
t&2.
55.41
43.17
57.62
0.00
50.18
Mean
Std Dev
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
0.0
59.8
Respondent's aJaycee 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 three beaches.
00
4D
•
L]
Indian River County Summer 1998 Beach Survey
Chart 3
Table 11
Number of Days Per Year At The 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
Uther Florida
7.4
Other US
6.3
Foreign
2.7
T3
1.0
l'otal
50,2
IIItL!Ipw1;j1!o!I: Oil Indian Comily reside is lakin:• pIII III !lie NtII\e\ vislied
the heach 56.5 limes poy \Vc;I, oI nhcxil j,6 limes lwi wcek.. Residcnls Iakins,, pail III [lie
sulvc.v lion) St. Lucie V11,111Cd the hC;ICI1 011CL! ;t week- (111
so
40
11
•
i
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 at the
beach.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY PARTY
The number of people in the surveyed parties ranged from a low of l person to a high of 10
people. The average number per party was 29 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 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5 4 Section 7 All
r --�-- 1 P 2 -- ----
Mean
0.32
2.17
Beach
0.20
1.42
Response
1 Sections
2 Section 3
3 Section S.
4. Sedion 7
All
0 47
1&2.
3.1
1.7
Upper limit
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
287
95% Confidence Interval
Width
0.50
0.27
0.33
0.00
0.19
Lower limit
3.2
3.5
3.4
0.0
3.6
U er.limit
4.2
4.0
4.1
0.0
3.9
On average respondent groups spent 3.8 hours or approximately half a workday at the
beach.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY PARTY
The number of people in the surveyed parties ranged from a low of l person to a high of 10
people. The average number per party was 29 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 Sections 2 Section 3 3 Section 5 4 Section 7 All
r --�-- 1 P 2 -- ----
Mean
0.32
2.17
Std Dev
0.20
1.42
Count
0.0
36
95% Confidence Interval_
Width
3.2
0 47
i_owerlimit
3.1
1.7
Upper limit
2.6
3.09 2.91 0.00 2.9U
1.67 1.68 0.00 1.67
140 104 0 2.80
0.28
0.32
0.00
0.20
2.8
2.6
0.0
2.7
3.4
3.2
0.0
3.1
•0
s
10
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
_
Number in Party
Residents
2.60
Visitors
362
All Groups
2.90
VALUE Or A BEACH DAY
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
Inlerpretation: On average the slue placed IW respondents on a day at the beach was
S13.00 at SeclionS I & 2. The average yalua placed cm a day ;•I Iltc bLach til all butches
was S1 1 .71 . l Itc 959,. couliduicc inlet cal lin the :nett; . value is lium 7 IQ.G`J to C12.7�1.
Beach
I Sections
2 Section 3
? Suction 5.
4. Section 7
All
1&2.
Mean Value
$13.00
$11.73
$11.24
$0.00
$11.71
Std Dev
a an
RV 31
8 97
0
8.80
Count __
37
139
107
0
283
95% Confidence Interval
Width
3.19
1.38
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
$0.00
$12.74
Inlerpretation: On average the slue placed IW respondents on a day at the beach was
S13.00 at SeclionS I & 2. The average yalua placed cm a day ;•I Iltc bLach til all butches
was S1 1 .71 . l Itc 959,. couliduicc inlet cal lin the :nett; . value is lium 7 IQ.G`J to C12.7�1.
e•
A
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
1 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 Dev
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
Std Dev
45.73
49.03
54.48
0.00
50.39
Count
I 4
25
19
01
481
Lodging
Mean
60.71
167.02
105.50
0.00
$138.41
Std Dev
30.34
75.83
66.39
0.00
78.90
Count
7
42
20
0
69
y5 -/o Connaence
Interval
Food
_
Width
2393
1243
913
000
7 70
Lower limit
162
47 7
305
00
342 :,
Upper limit
64.0
726
48 7
00
557 7
Entertainment
Width
000
13 79
7 67
000
1094
Lower lined
1 0
23 9
4 0
00
Sit) 5
Upper hrml
0 0
51 S
19 11
I1 U
5. 10 4
Shopping
W du I
1.�
19 , ,
24 t,n
o 00
t a 25
of
dD
0
Indian River County Sumner 1998 Beach Survey
Age Distribution by Beach
Lower limit
-12.3 36.6
25.8
0.0
$374
Upper limit
77.3 75.0
74.8
0.0
$65.9
rL
200
Lodging
Q)
W
Of
150
Width
22.47 22.93
29.10
0.00
�—
18.62
50
Lower limit
38.2 144.1
76.4
0.0
$119.8
p Sector 5
,Upper limit
83.2 190.0
134.6
0.0
16-25 26-40 41-55 56-65 65, NA Total
$157.0
liyc
Interpretation: The numbers represent the average
dollar
expenditures
for visitors
respondents reporting nonzero expenditures.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Chart 4
Age Distribution by Beach
Chart 5
Income Distribution By Beach
35
30
25
v 20
o c
$ a 15
a 10
N Sectors 1 8 21 0
� Se It 3
x
pSecl« i Income Cla•,•. V, ,,,
I
350
—
300
c
a
tl
250
c
0
rL
200
Q)
W
Of
150
■ Sectors 1 & 21
100
�—
■ Sector3
50
NEI I'
p Sector 5
o Sector 7
16-25 26-40 41-55 56-65 65, NA Total
■All
liyc
Chart 5
Income Distribution By Beach
35
30
25
v 20
o c
$ a 15
a 10
N Sectors 1 8 21 0
� Se It 3
x
pSecl« i Income Cla•,•. V, ,,,
I