Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2014Impact Fee Update Workshop Board of County Commissioners January 22, 2014 Impact Fee History • 1986 County -wide traffic impact fee ordinance and fee schedule adopted • 1997 Traffic impact fee schedule updated • 2004 Traffic impact fee schedule. updated 2 Impact Fee History (Cont'd) • 2005 Impact fee study approved, ordinance and fee schedules adopted for traffic and 8 non - traffic impact fees • Entered into agreements County/ each municipality County/School Board • Still in effect 3 fiu /-? c •aoiY 2/6/2014 Impact Fee History (Cont'd) • Non -traffic fees: 1. EMS/Fire 2. Correctional Facilities 3. Public Buildings 4. Law Enforcement 5. Library Facilities 6. Solid Waste Facilities 7. Parks & Recreation 8. School Facilities 1 Impact Fee History (Cont'd) • 2009 5 impactfees temporarily suspended for total of 1 year due to economic downturn• required active construction and C 0 within 18 months of building permit. • Suspended EMS/Fire, Correction Facilities, Public Buildings, Law Enforcement, Solid Waste Reduced all fee categories 5 Impact Fee History (Cont'd) • 2009 Impact fee update approved using updated trip length and credits (Duncan) and trip rates (ITE); updated fee schedule adopted Reduced most fee categories 6 Impact Fee History (Cont'd) • 2010 5 impact fees suspension extended 1 year • 2011 3 impact fees suspended for 1 year • 2012 3 impact fee suspension extended 2 years Expires March 31, 2014; in February, BCC will need to consider extending until new fee schedule is implemented 7 SUMMARY: REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL FEES SINCE 2005 Land Use SF Home Retail Bank w/drivein Industrial Unit 1500-2499sf 1,000sf 1,000sf 1,000sf 2005 2009 Schedule Schedule $10,124.75 $13,181.74 $30,354.95 $3,941.58 5 Fees 3 Fees Suso. Susv. $9,388 $8,390 (-7.28%) (-17.13%) 56,340 53,242 (-51.90%) (-75.5%) $15,403 513,346 (-49.26%) (-56.03%) $3,539 $2,464 (-10.21%) (-37.49%) 58,926 (-11.84%) 54,210 (-68.06%) $13,884 (-5426%) 52,695 (-31.63%) Impact Fee Proportions Residential• Traffic + 50% Schools + 20% Non- residential: Traffic: Fire/EMS• +75%-95% +2% 11% 9 2/6/2014 Traffic Impact Fee Revenue Contribution Road project revenues: • FDOT funds • Local option sales tax • Local option gas tax • Traffic Impact Fees 31 % of projected revenues in 2035 LRTP 10 • 2013 Tindale -Oliver hired to conduct update of all 9 impact fees - Review formulas, policies, previous studies - Use best available data *Data from county departments, school board staff; ITE 9'h Edition, regional and state-wide databases - Update land and construction costs, credits _ Review LOS for 8 non -traffic fees 11 • Provide alternatives for reducing non- residential impact fees • BCC direction: updated fee schedule that reduces non-residential fees while minimizing or avoiding increases m residential fees and providing adequate revenues to mamtain LOS 12 2 • Purpose of Today's Workshop • Consider Tindale-Oliver's initial report : Discuss formula assumptions and fee reduction alternatives Provide direction 13 Going Forward • Follow up on direction provided at today's workshop (additional workshop possible) • Coordinate with School Board staff • Identify changes to comprehensive plan and fee ordinance • Address implementation issues (e.g. appeals and individual assessments) 14 Going Forward (Cont'd) • Final report and proposed fee schedule • Public Hearing #1 • Pubhc Hearing #2 (adoption hearing) I5 2/6/2014 Workshop Focus • Items covered in initial report Data • Assumptions Methodology • Affordable growth approach • Alternatives: what to ' buy down" and by how much 13 Workshop Format • Consultant presentation • Board Q&A • Public Q&A • Wrap-up and Board Direction 17 18 3 .\tC::TU• 4`R TT :E 3n.;0 # a :vs l••eyoureftwani son-. sawn In law smell.. Ann — w.vaAam•r 2/6/2014 4 _ _ _... 0_14011 • r.agr LS . _ .axfq -- (I. w.vaAam•r 2/6/2014 4 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study January 22, 2014 Presentation Overview Methodology Findings of Technical Study Transportation Impact Fee Other Impact Fees ® Next Steps Overview of Impact Fees • Impact Fee Definition: One-time capital charge to new development - Covers the cost of new capital facility capacity - Implements the CIE and CIP Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Overview of Impact Fees • Why Impact Fees? - Maintain current Level -of -Service (LOS) — Calculate cost of growth — Potential large developments - Most needed when: • High growth • Limited funding Methodology • Consumption -Based Fee Calculation Full update of all impact fee variables • Affordable Growth Strategy - Based on future growth rate & available funding — Buy -down (subsidy) options Presentation Overview Methodology Findings of Technical Study Transportation Impact Fee Other Impact Fees Next Steps s B. Total — All Fees Current fee rates for edurationd facilites are included in all fee totals Land use'` i4, 4Current t Calculated tit .. Use '_%Qonge All Fees i-vn5tu D t 2005 201 n/a._ 1,.1,.4. Current: yti'Calculated 4 ctu� :iiirintStuudy Date2005/✓�e<0142014 k 1$10 742h"`� ' ` 9f 8te�. a Family(2 14. % '-- . .-...ice ,Yti =-M Id F Oy — $4 817 $5910:r-.‘"+22 10742 7% - Single Family M.8% Bank'(/Ddveln). �$15AA i7 'fj5834� ♦4:3%h _.. 3f3...nxw _ _x.,$4817 -... __;$5406 12.2% Office $9696 ,$9533 •- '2.9%';•' 515404: k�. '$7598 507%R -4.9% �,,.- �hcturifa Office _.- $5696 $63416 ;$97i92 3 1-46.5% r. _- — 561% = Ret 0 - 52,203 r52095S9v4 i"E 570%.5 ! 990 FasstFood Res_ � $43 878st $57 016 ,. , $6,341 ,, ._.$9 292 e Current fee rates for edurationd facilites are included in all fee totals Findings of Technical Study Transportation Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee ® Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Oslo Rd from 43rd Ave to 27th Ave; from 43id Ave to 58th Ave — 66th Ave from 4th St to 49th St — 53r4 St from Kings Hwy to Indian River Blvd — 17th Lane SW from 27th Ave to 20th Ave — 20t" Ave SW from 25th St SW to 17th Lane SW — College Lane Rd from IRSC Ext. to 66th Ave O Future Projects (CIP): — 66th Ave from 49th St to Sebastian City Limits — CR 510 from CR 512 to Indian River — 43rd Ave from 12th St to 26th St 0 Transportation Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Calculation: Demand x Cost - Credit = Impact Fee Cost of Development Future Contributionsto Transportation Transportation Impact Fee • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) % Change Cost per VMC: +8% Credit: +49% Demand: +t% Effect on Fee t 4 Fee: -5% 2 Use Total _ t ,4.-. All Fees Affordable: .ttr' e,tGowth Yi " %Orange - :. (from Current) 1,.1,.4. Current: yti'Calculated — k •tl ;,).,„�? ei Land :iiirintStuudy Date2005/✓�e<0142014 $9388 � 1"' ss: (K f) 10742 h$9841 Single Family M.8% _ _x.,$4817 __;$5406 12.2% M lu-FamBy •- 515404: 116834 '$7598 507%R Banliia'%Dth/Vi) Office _.- $5696 —55533 -_;$2,500 — 561% 52,203 r52095S9v4 i"E 570%.5 ,. , $6,341 ,, ._.$9 292 e Ret II _ �.-$4 206 ` ..-33.7%. 15,7:01481 '^ 251447 • 34.3,8712,._.71 'x-41 Current fee rates for educational facilities are included in all fee totals Findings of Technical Study Transportation Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee ® Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Oslo Rd from 43rd Ave to 27th Ave; from 43id Ave to 58th Ave — 66th Ave from 4th St to 49th St — 53r4 St from Kings Hwy to Indian River Blvd — 17th Lane SW from 27th Ave to 20th Ave — 20t" Ave SW from 25th St SW to 17th Lane SW — College Lane Rd from IRSC Ext. to 66th Ave O Future Projects (CIP): — 66th Ave from 49th St to Sebastian City Limits — CR 510 from CR 512 to Indian River — 43rd Ave from 12th St to 26th St 0 Transportation Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Calculation: Demand x Cost - Credit = Impact Fee Cost of Development Future Contributionsto Transportation Transportation Impact Fee • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) % Change Cost per VMC: +8% Credit: +49% Demand: +t% Effect on Fee t 4 Fee: -5% 2 Transportation Impact Fee ®Cost Component • Sources • Local roadway improvements • Recent new construction/la ne addition projects throughout Florida • FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) Transportation Impact Fee e County Roadway Construction Cost Trend (Urban) 53.503.020 so 0065-:$u MaArs Masa ,a13�,0 201 2025 2006 2037 x035 mos 2012 2013 Transportation Impact Fee o State Roadway Construction Cost Trend (Urban) so 200%4017 Statewide Avg $2.4 Me O $2.OMma 02.0 u 2035 1036 rax 20311 2009 2012 2013 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 1.10 120 0.70 0.60 x 0.s0 0.30 0.00 Transportation Impact Fee Historical Trend in Value of 11 of Fuel Tax dPt dba' e ?el ii i¢t �.a Efficiency a i.na0on 1960 ► 2010 1 10 OSO 0.70 o !050 0.40 0.30 0.10 Transportation Impact Fee &dura Projected Decrease in Value of 1C of Fuel Tax 2014 2015 2016 2017 2015 2015 2020 25:01 2022 20E 2024 2025 2014 ► 2025 3 Transportation Impact Fee • Credit Component - Revenue sources: • State Funding • County Funding: Fuel and sales taxes & grants — Sales tax set to expire at the end of 2019 • Credit is calculated assuming no re -adoption Transportation Impact Fee • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: :land Use -.;Wrtent:h;? 6alcurited,c•!.;' %Change MFekraoitir.19" -451•1-r- 1,- r • c .:'1 1 {3 5 3ra-%�". ., $4 595 3-ww�rLx,. ,SinBlfamily Iry (21(29 p n i 'ri_ M It1 F Ih'•r..'..:.. $2,489. $2,811 .. Px$13346e4 ;P d $14,166y 4.„. v kl(*/nein) �y,--X12.9% u6.1%* -- CNtice• $3893> 351: .�--rTea-14 �"''S1 510"x' f T° .11.8%.- - Manufaccttu ng __ T .J _. RetaR .-. ._... -$3,242.71 -.$6,519 _-...:. . .. . •101:1%-`, Fast Foo4d Rest. 0 a"r•Wrto on 546,601 `�*-X535,651=u :30.7% Transportation Impact Fee • Affordable Growth Strategy - Calculated Based on: • Rate of Growth • Available Non -Impact Fee Funding - By Area and/or Land Use Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee • Affordable Growth Strategy - Target Area: • None (Countywide) — Target Land Uses: • Non -Residential 140% 12o% Ito% ii 80% o 60% a0% 20% 0% Transportation Impact Fee Affordable Growth Level -of -Service Curve L r 'M • 4." tctICt-'•j ..M I m• 'ImpM F »r t e Lof.etvlce t- 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2% 4% 9% 10% Avg. Anmul Growth Rate Transportation Impact Fee • Affordable Growth Scenario 3 fan Annual Growth Rats 10201 4 c .:'1 1 {3 p n i y til nor ^r -,'r w Annual Growth Rats 10201 4 Transportation Impact Fee • Affordable Growth Strategy If residential fees are adopted at 100%, non- residential fees can be reduced by 55% (adopt at 45%) 0 Other Impact Fees Program Areas Correctional Facilities — Solid Waste Facilities - Public Buildings — Libraries Emergency Services — Law Enforcement — Parks & Recreation Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Other Impact Fees • Impact Fee Variables — Facility Inventory — Level -of -Service — Cost Component — Credit Component - Demand Component Findings of Technical Study Correctional Facilities Correctional Facilities • Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Jail Expansion Phase IV • Future Projects (CIP/Master Plans): — No major projects anticipated 5 �e , . Transportation Impact Fee • Indian River County— Rate Comparison: Land the Gortrrc'--i:' Calculated -.',i Affordable' ,': Brevard-. St Lucie Martin ._ _ .. _ _ -cr•arm i.__:. wenn :,: ...wunh wean Sti 209 203�.�. 2D14 -7000y� 2009 -1`f,2012r aatr 4 4. 4?4-. Y+bl2` v9ki. ari.` S ter"' �'$ s3-" eF ____ ,_'^t`-, r Single Family(M t) $4595 _+ $a,35a $4, 351 $4353 54,Z35 $Z B3545: MuliFFaMly i_ $2489 ;- - - $2.8111 1 .•'52622_ -.$3,562 $2815 f ,x$2,811"-' 11-Th1 Bank '� - 3,3 kc» 2,503 t $s -:ar$� 1_ 114,166 ,-$23,331 .a.,.IW ._ Office .. '_ $3,893- - -t$4s63' :,$1961 _ '..:SSo58 z=$1.282 -. X52,198ti � n4. ufact r6�8` sd W'$ 513, SI.S30 5680 rtye3 �2.D' E$uP45'� .. $3,242±.: _`$6519 -x`$2,934 ', x..$5220 __.$2,503 .55,183 Fat Food z. tals34-.wz $46,601 '520 ''9209 539291' $Z,5�03 515,693.. 0 Other Impact Fees Program Areas Correctional Facilities — Solid Waste Facilities - Public Buildings — Libraries Emergency Services — Law Enforcement — Parks & Recreation Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Other Impact Fees • Impact Fee Variables — Facility Inventory — Level -of -Service — Cost Component — Credit Component - Demand Component Findings of Technical Study Correctional Facilities Correctional Facilities • Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Jail Expansion Phase IV • Future Projects (CIP/Master Plans): — No major projects anticipated 5 Correctional Facilities • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) %Change Effect on Fee Inventory: LOS: Cost: Credit Demand: +113% +42% (actual) +75% +77% -2% At 1 1 8 iftere Fee: +67% Correctional Facilities • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: 7. ._ :. 3Iand Use. 1 ;:n. t f dy D �.f.... Current,- , • Calculated... 2011 ��. :t %Change,', . :pi47'4 "1.4 2005 i • Indian 1 land LI .'- tKc m 200 tare i014p 77,1‘7177/....(t d 14 -. $1741 ;i 5290. e t 2 667%'-;' t3' --r5> � F m -(2K unnn Mind-Fam(ly- • : $103 ,� �l $160 - -, +55.3% T.7.1 ,,' $ $43y5 --� x+11444%-' n?-,. I Bank (w/Drlve4 )`h OFR ,2 $157. ' $191 �`' __. 4 21.7% mm:anvt°sn (jam ` x$56 L'} � nt r" 151 4 y, != -$290'„-. M8 .S, - :9.G%''1. ( $95 /tiU Retail": 5320 • $452' +41.3% lid Fast FO -OB Rt - ^$885 $1699-_ i ♦92.0%'4 $103 5160 8 Correctional Facilities • Affordable Growth Scenario • s4 '77 Impact F Id 4. sow. • -i 'L•._t, `Vtt. z_ _.• 1•11--- , • 1• • 'I C.00% 1L3% 2.03% 3a.% 4.00% 5.00% 6.03% 713% 6.00% 9 iam% Annual Growth Rats Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Findings of Technical Study Solid Waste Facilities Solid Waste Facilities • • Facilities Built Since Last Study: 0510 Customer Convenience Center Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center • Future Projects (CIP): Upgrade/Expansion of Centers 6 1J �,•:) :pi47'4 Correctional Facilities River County — Rate Comparison: • Indian 1 land LI .'- tKc m 200 tare i014p 77,1‘7177/....(t d . cornanh, T2014 h t +2oaa 1 .. cem unnn tocm StudyD : Sinal F mfy(7K sip i nt r" 151 4 y, != -$290'„-. ' 501- ' - �.. (- _ $72 `�y I 548e _54 • Muhl Fancy- $103 5160 $0 563 5252 ,.1 flank(. !___) k517eas. . ..55435 - :o'.:x lei.4'(7S47I44 tea, ,Offc $157 5191 Som 534 $362. Mem/bat/fog,,..p. $56 ,:' 6 $95 .t 1 1l $�... .. n/ "5 $176 ?`I Retad ' 1 $320 . - 5452 $0. 5160 .- ~.$670 Fnt Food R L _, ._t r• "188ac 57 s1699µ_ 4 -i -50f1.,-- ' 'S42,847 -. 3 $229 . Findings of Technical Study Solid Waste Facilities Solid Waste Facilities • • Facilities Built Since Last Study: 0510 Customer Convenience Center Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center • Future Projects (CIP): Upgrade/Expansion of Centers 6 Solid Waste Facilities • Methodology Differences: — Excludes landfill (already funded) - County outsourced waste collection - Inventory includes Customer Conv Ctrs • For residential use only Solid Waste Facilities • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: land Use i:y'.:{ .5 Gwent •f_'' :Gktdated' 1••,%Change Study Date lab Use ,!^,'"="S' l- Affordable Brevard Growth County . rut f City of Ft. Pierre m M1��' l ir n, -"'_')Die e. Date --.r ) 7.. $144; a87.0%, 'K Si ad ng F Family (2Kst r... $77.=4'# 4 - l :n _M -$56'. . $79 = Family f) „0-F Ily,-" t36.2%?::: $150 'i. (4..-$121,139 - y 50'+t e,48 k(ro Nn) .. --_30091 3. Offi $96 300% . - $0== .. &$242 -ti Multi -Family ' $58 z; $)9 - 50 . facturg •,-'$B9 -.$92.x.-. 3. sank i jr 44 zn. Retail 5242.:; $0-•- 100% '_ F Fast Food Rest S33. - y $0"-- 300%x_ '_ Solid Waste Facilities • Affordable Growth Scenario 160% I'0% 0% 040% Im% 7.02% amx 4.02% 540% 6.40% Im% Annus Growth R.t. ADO% 01123% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study .. - 71a • Indian lab Use Current -2035 v - Gkudated Affordable Brevard Growth County . City of North Port �201 111.#.. City of Ft. Pierre m M1��' l ir Study -"'_')Die e. Date --.r ) 040% Im% 7.02% amx 4.02% 540% 6.40% Im% Annus Growth R.t. ADO% 01123% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Findings of Technical Study Public Buildings Public Buildings • Facilities Built Since Last Study: - New County Admin Bldg Complex - Transit Admin Bldg - Supervisor of Elections Bldg Emergency Operations Center • Future Projects (CIP): - New Courtroom Facilities 7 Solid Waste Facilities River County — Rate Comparison: • Indian lab Use Current -2035 v - Gkudated Affordable Brevard Growth County . City of North Port �201 111.#.. City of Ft. Pierre m M1��' =T2 i Study -"'_')Die Date --.r ) Single 4 - l :n Family f) F`Xa" $150 'i. $?3 1- strzoa - g+ 3. .. Multi -Family ' $58 z; $)9 - 50 . .:$1I0 •,-'$B9 -.$92.x.-. 3. sank i pp 121 ^ S121.. -N- d 4,� .Y: 50 r K £N R. F (w/DN In $61 s•$ss At4 '_ Off M - , • �. N $b] 3Ma¢ " 2°2 '$zs9 "a . t^e... Retail �— zez —_. $o . So - N -'-:$la .$i;. ....:•---7-11- ist -F S Food� 1 w 4 }-..ac �.r .S N _.5)a0 . �xe_H Fzi:�51.38: L- "y R'. $33a;+'- b'9. _= $0 '1,.:IE xi'e._ 5� - Findings of Technical Study Public Buildings Public Buildings • Facilities Built Since Last Study: - New County Admin Bldg Complex - Transit Admin Bldg - Supervisor of Elections Bldg Emergency Operations Center • Future Projects (CIP): - New Courtroom Facilities 7 Public Buildings • Methodology Difference: Used 24 -Hour Functional Population • Recognizes a more balanced distribution between residential and non-residential land uses Public Buildings • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) %Change Effect on Fee Inventory: +105% LOS*: -13% Cost: +16% Credit: -88% Demand: +81% Used LOS Standard. Achieved L05: +23% 4 4 4 4 t Fee: +255% Public Buildings • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: _: land Use _ 1 urrent,.', calculated t e_•.% Change • • Indian Land Use • . Current ' Affordable sL LuUe Grorth County `' -CaaaltWated 2014-� 2014 _, 2W9+2012.u.�++:d _ngl Fs IIy iZK n'�-.m. 5211 j' -t . ' $74 75a 5% t._ ,yam • k; K, t taMuh Fa IN, --`t $124' "$413 233.1% $1 221_vS:t1 Y - y . 1-1 $1:1224 #-g.l% B Nn) u 11 /11. libiii I) ' nk ( I X533 .�' 50.3% 'fiy$3841,t�.�t - 'ti{$246 r,�'J ytCuff }355%t J Muht.Famd/ hct f 8 '2 �_ $413 - y .. .$�13 . 5301 , $1,569': -.:. $1,165 ,-257%--.- -. R t il taw =$1.221 1 _ $4,360 v1.1% 'Itw L563 —, y5504 i`$4 33 1 - Fart Food R st Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study f_ :' • Public Buildings • Affordable Growth Scenario ICON 3 wx 40% 0% Annual Growth Ran Public Buildings River County — Rate Comparison: iyi • . • • Indian Land Use • . Current ' Affordable sL LuUe Grorth County `' -CaaaltWated 2014-� 2014 _, 2W9+2012.u.�++:d LeMy �� Onj62IX15 t._ ,yam • k; K, t } 1 .. tt.1 1c .1' Y - y . L..' u 11 /11. libiii I) • Ciet mn r X533 .�' .. Annual Growth Ran 8 Public Buildings River County — Rate Comparison: iyi • . • Indian Land Use • . Current ' Affordable sL LuUe Grorth County Charlotte Martin County counn9ty• -CaaaltWated 2014-� 2014 _, 2W9+2012.u.�++:d LeMy �� Onj62IX15 klr�erim0/12K,-fj L..' :es: $]46 �SJM X533 r $W6 .f , i. 5211' Muht.Famd/ $12 _ �_ $413 - y .. .$�13 . 5301 _"5646 ,' 52]0 .'- Sink({/D t 1 taw =$1.221 t $1y122 4 'Itw L563 —, y5504 '- $554,, E-, $551 Office x $192 -y $256 5297 16 $254-._ ' �' w- .]T...6sza 3 r.J.., •• ct M ulrM rlo9 -h -ciao' 51557 Retail ' '.,- $1569 . $1166; : $606 $SOa T'.. 5551 $391- __ Fut 5500..-vo$2482 Food Rest i $4,333 L}$4,3&1 i_$2,2771 4 z.C.$1,57 - _ 8 Libraries • Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Brackett Library • Future Projects (CIP/Master Plans): - No major projects anticipated Libraries • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) Change Effect on Fee Inventory: +37% LOS*: o% Cost: +9% Credit: -93% Demand: -7% • Used LOS Standard. Achieved LOS: +28% t t t 4 Fee: +43% 'dr r ID b bh: Libraries • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: - Land Use ryCurrent2 '- Calculated SISter 411.. ...T 5ti Angle Family sfj: _Ivt l miry' 391. Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Libraries • Affordable Growth Scenario Ar- ti". Libraries i*, • Indian River County Lend Use .- Gwent Cekulattd — Rate Comparison: Affordable Brevard St. lisle Growth County Candy Martin Cormty Fv> r -t . n-2000 StudyDal 2005"$= 2014!0.1,441 011 d* 2DI19 2012a 4 _ ;222ma 20x .T - - • aul omr — In 57 55 .� I1 ;k Findings of Technical Study Emergency Services 9 Ar- ti". Libraries i*, • Indian River County Lend Use .- Gwent Cekulattd — Rate Comparison: Affordable Brevard St. lisle Growth County Candy Martin Cormty r -t . n-2000 StudyDal 2005"$= 2014!0.1,441 011 d* 2DI19 2012a 4 _ ;222ma r... Familyi- liK $6/F's° 3 $21] 27 Mun4Fa H - 5292' I $391 1 $37S _..538 �$3a0 $521 Findings of Technical Study Emergency Services 9 Emergency Services • Facilities Built Since Last Study: - Fire Station #12 (new) — Training Center • Future Projects (CIP): - Fire Stations #13 & 14 - 3 Trucks/Vehicles Emergency Services • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) Change Effect on Fee Inventory: +7% LOS: -4% (Actual) Cost: +19% Credit: +29% Demand: -3% t 41- 4 4 Mar Wed Fee: +12% Emergency Services • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: .. land Use4" 1rrent F112005 t .Calculated-- %Change' County Calculated �. , 3014 Services — Rate Affordable Growth S udy Da St Lucie county # :_m' • Indian laird Use Datek y2014 rre5 12014 _ ._ , rr j. � -+� $3186 � Siatiean* Single f y,(2K,if) • $285 11.6% �'m8 1 saes $599 24slrm. - $180:" •, ' 180 40% ri-=M ItFF mllye ' "$35 i.. $287 wY $470 tom. t 11 s aB'enk ( /D N )'{ +63.8%- .y ti .5 oar sar off .. : $252.771a- .:'.$206- _183%'--'-' uo.-Z +''-nom` - 105 Yw551.. °I" -103A Y-^.al_ �..5287As ,—' fac'turidigi "f' $9p 1d Q4% Office-.: '` $252 �, llt II '. .. ; $516 _ $489 ._" _. .a- `-.•$80 ', $1636 &-;$ 'So . Fast Food Best a++` .,4$1,42 --t 18.9%r 9O fg$ :el Q3__ x.$74 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Emergency Services • Affordable Growth Scenario 3 gm 0% Animal Growl% tate - Study 1'7 � Emergency River Curtenta-. •- .r�2005, County Calculated Services — Rate Affordable Growth Comparison: Brevard County •���lAu St Lucie county # Martin Catty zo12_ • Indian laird Use Datek y2014 rre5 12014 _ ._ , rr Siatiean* L 5213. 1 saes $599 24slrm. -$318 $93 "$35 i.. .5557.E wY 1 t tom. t 11 s Mu Family 4 .y ti .5 a t .•.n c, - Study 1'7 � Emergency River Curtenta-. •- .r�2005, County Calculated Services — Rate Affordable Growth Comparison: Brevard County •���lAu St Lucie county # Martin Catty zo12_ • Indian laird Use Datek y2014 rre5 12014 _ Siatiean* 5213. saes $599 24slrm. -$318 $93 "$35 .. .5557.E wY . Mu Family _ :$180. ' $180_.. 520 . _581 --'s113 `Ban $599 -' uo.-Z +''-nom` - 105 Yw551.. °I" k-issa N->-) * Ss �..5287As 7-C2$410 as a sv Office-.: '` $252 �, :••..$206 -- ..$0 1.-544 1$r329 `-.•$80 ', 'So . Manufacturing �i 9O fg$ :el Q3__ x.$74 22 maim Betallratirl ' $516,•, 5489 ", Son - .-":$207 'µ.$SIJ '; $319 '.'. Fast a....- airibasr..`T�v-x Food Pa ..cem.-1. y €...51424 tL51,B36- ,� y$0 r 4-.taa5.552 17`Y,+�h __'557554 ' 10 Law Enforcement • Facilities Built Since Last Study: — Crime Scene Building — SunSky Parcel Purchase • Future Projects (Master Plan): Additional Facilities Law Enforcement • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) Effect on Fee t t t °/• Change Inventory: +45% LOS: -8% Cost: +43% Credit: -100% Demand: -2% Ate ORS Fee: +73% Law Enforcement • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: 47f-1-.:-.-1 Land Use' -r.' r Cturcrtt zc`_hlndated ., C. ,'' 4' 2014{ %Change 1 :'tr u Stud 0 t _ n ' 2005»L it5t .a..e . Singl #$435! �`4 ,73.3%E$ F nilly (2Kzf)„it +$251 71157_7. .47 i :MIt u-Famfy :.- ".5152 -• ".64.5% Bank MualEanaly _ $1S2 1 '•- " .$x50 SffA T ':.$184 :$760 ;154:9% -4 * fl /D ivN) fd:..z$251 a { l-"`:$840:-. 505 •- Off $221 ._. $281:: q N` OR :. $221,,. $xdl '......j aEglirc + 7.2% � _552 c� $140 PM f7t- nB.Lt4 $79 $452`= r.� 5]9' '-. $666.. :447.3% Ret IIre- -M.a.-d -1 ��• " FoodR L'�j;�` s a $1;247 p i $25WY�,,,, .00.5% F it .. 1 -.. Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Findings of Technical Study Parks & Recreation 0 0 Parks & Recreation Facilities Built Since Last Study: — North County Regional Park Ball Fields — South County Regional Park Multipurpose Fields — Gifford Park Facilities — Parks Maintenance Complex Future Projects (CIP): — West County Regional Park — South County Regional Park Multipurpose Facility — Oslo Boat Ramo & Parkine 11 n7 Law • Indian River Land Use . Current .T3j Enforcement County — Rate Comparison: Calculated 4 N:ordtlly SL lube Man.inCotmty Gnnyth ` County .. y ,.ryy [hadone County ._. Study DH f nun�.Wr LC x009 •2434 MS Faro* (2K sn 5251 Single $435 §--.� ' 5435 + , -45 h=s'' 71157_7. .47 i -x06 e MualEanaly _ $1S2 1 '•- " .$x50 SffA T ':.$184 :$760 $55 - -- Ban41w/0 I ). Sx51a�- l-"`:$840:-. 505 5481_—+=t' 51131 OR :. $221,,. $xdl '......j aEglirc -.^$D4 _552 c� Ryd 8j r.� 5]9' $140 ?48tc ;:i5655 135'„ _5 -M.a.-d R II $452 -.$351 .. 1 -.. T� f ' ' II . F " -- '["" Fat Food Rat F -Si ,t °X51247- ' 52.500 52.500 's 5324. F , -. kgF.; � 5305 .52.75]'Fj - � -. Findings of Technical Study Parks & Recreation 0 0 Parks & Recreation Facilities Built Since Last Study: — North County Regional Park Ball Fields — South County Regional Park Multipurpose Fields — Gifford Park Facilities — Parks Maintenance Complex Future Projects (CIP): — West County Regional Park — South County Regional Park Multipurpose Facility — Oslo Boat Ramo & Parkine 11 Parks & Recreation • Single Family Residential (2,000 sf) Effect on Fee % Change Inventory: -7% LOS: -15% Cost: -5% Credit: -89% Demand: -7% 4 t 3 Fee: +30% Parks & Recreation • Indian River County — Rate Comparison: land Use. 41 It torrent s eye & County ,Ceiculated - g ". %unge Study 32014 n/a3�"''`�. 2005 71 * dankCaumy lune Manlncoumy CM rye tog2W9=r� SIngley ty(2K.sf)-41 1 5 11 ..c9,�' _ t ;x$4,817 , '$5,910 ,may $1499 exr �' arr.-. -'- saw } I.r.< t 4.1 Single mimily (22Kif) i85�-#$1 944'c^E '-i'+�..42t % $5696 $5533 .43 ".M ItFF IN-.-• ':.- fl - $906_x,. y -._$1,113 -+22.8%-,:'.: Parks & Recreation • Affordable Growth Scenario 0% t" . Current L2005/09. ^ & County .. £; P16 4 \*..., '.^.s laM Use SA s21+Dat E .. Cant -' E:. ?COS 4 ;1:C•20145,--7,---2014 Calculated * dankCaumy lune Manlncoumy CM rye tog2W9=r� SIngley ty(2K.sf)-41 1 5 11 ..c9,�' _ t ;x$4,817 , '$5,910 ,may Bk (w/DrNe-1 ).'" exr �' arr.-. -'- saw } I.r.< t 4.1 +9.3% ' Office:- $5696 $5533 220% 320% Anna owth 720% sen% sm% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Findings of Technical Study All Fee Programs Total — All Fees ' land Use i - . Current L2005/09. Parks River & County Recreation — Rate Comparison: P16 4 \*..., • Indian laM Use SA s21+Dat E .. Cant -' E:. ?COS 4 ;1:C•20145,--7,---2014 Calculated * dankCaumy lune Manlncoumy CM rye tog2W9=r� SIngley ty(2K.sf)-41 »�-EF2oo9 -r?! 2112 M 14F ily 1. ;x$4,817 , '$5,910 X227% Bk (w/DrNe-1 ).'" $ 15404,1±$16,8 +9.3% ' Office:- $5696 $5533 Sing fl - s $2095 .1.188 LL Ma fact rI -4.9% ;51,499p 1.9 Fan4N(22K .-..$1 M6.SX S•718s-!F:it� Muni -Family --._ '. 5906..E $1113 ,'_ _ 51,024 _.i .. 51.368. .- 51.972'_ 1. Findings of Technical Study All Fee Programs Total — All Fees ' land Use i - . Current L2005/09. �' Calculated , ,2014 %Change P' 3 n/_ Study Date -l. _ i *144%-_ SIngley ty(2K.sf)-41 ,$9,3888Ly$1074� M 14F ily 1. ;x$4,817 , '$5,910 X227% Bk (w/DrNe-1 ).'" $ 15404,1±$16,8 +9.3% ' Office:- $5696 $5533 -29%-- kri.2,70....•c; 3. s $2095 �g.-1 Ma fact rI -4.9% mo 0.ea0 $6341. $9292 M6.SX t$$43 8 8 Fest FOod P t e5 ' 1.557.01^ 6�: ,.+29 Current fee as fon educational (anilines are included in a8 tea totals 12 Next Steps • BOCC Input and Final Report • Additional Public Meetings • Adoption Hearing • Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study :'a; 4 3 Use Total All Fees = Affordable Growth Comparison: . %Gunge (from Current) n14� i.C11rte t y+..Calculated — t `aq+] 11.?' 2014�� Land ,9".2014 WdUu.' .Study -CakWat 1 2005/09 Oatee` „ Brenr County n/a "t�2009 St. tuck County MartinttAmt County y .200D .4.._2032 m—„? .Emergency Srvices- .- -5212- $260 _ +24161:, _- $102,332' --01% 3tJ1 0 742 9 841 SlrgtFamily2 � gSicngle Family.(2 Ksf)4= Y9 '3-3s8 �-. -11---;S? . +52cA z$130 Law $7,3�e �F- - r 1 3-1.59,18# 1 ,,_ L M.ItI-Famfly . :i$4817 _..$5910 ::.;$5406 �'-1% ,_ �,—$34982t. 5}550,000:7r---'- am Pu ;551683ai 71 - $4,817, .,$5,910 .,$5,406 - -.$5.773 . =a Bank 507% (w NnS515400 tt$7,318 $7598 .ti ./. T.'Libranes - Baylwiff t --.,-n�`i $50,000 Of6 _.-$5696_':$5533 51231 $],5946 'I yj I+-$22034, ^ 59x9+ 1-. ;x,875 X57' etr-r fa�itur� , u. p3' 2095y�.' - $5533 • 52:500 _--.$5,136.' .3-5.._ Rita ,- .-.'$6341 _ _ x:_$9,292 - .$4206 .,_. 337% -• I 4 ;.3`.. 8.4.2}nc =52.20 '1742.095,75.76 —.. $948 ra. 17 _ ... /M 1Y- =_ r. '$..3-.-.$1.34A 3-F tFoodfet+T-rte uan fVa Seta p" ,; _ ,. $6,341 : ,-$9,292. _ $1,206. 4387!8 y`X$57016 - $5,63] $25747 ' -413% $6,]95 F t Faod ges - ��.- 543,878 . 4557,0165:3- 1-`^i" -a55257q. j Current fee rates for educational facilities are included in all fee totals r > Next Steps • BOCC Input and Final Report • Additional Public Meetings • Adoption Hearing • Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 7 ) • Building of Area 4:a. -I: al Faalltfes'�i i Total River County All Fees Comparison: Comparison of ..' Program Area ;' n14� — — Rate Indian tCor, Dx WdUu.' i-. Current: 12005/09 .' -CakWat 1 . ' ,2011 Affordable Growth _ 2031 ea s;Corrctio Faal tl_l,-i Brenr County $35 467: 1' "t�2009 St. tuck County MartinttAmt County Study .200D .4.._2032 m—„? .Emergency Srvices- .- -5212- $260 _ +24161:, _- $102,332' -.,x$60,000 --01% SlrgtFamily2 � 4$197-rI X59,388 t bS10742-t&9 5 Enforcement +52cA z$130 Law $7,3�e �F- - r 1 3-1.59,18# 1 _=$242 . -5240 "' �'-1% nser ,l, �,—$34982t. 5}550,000:7r---'- am Pu Mutt Fai y - $4,817, .,$5,910 .,$5,406 - -.$5.773 . =a - -72 Jr- -.Gf-` blzc dinWings 4.5 tt$7,318 58.784 T.'Libranes - Baylwiff t --.,-n�`i $50,000 . -51%� 51231 $],5946 'I -1523,517J .. $] 9 a .' ` f 4_5115,404g 3-r ;x,875 ofl - -fit'. . , u. p3' --I:- $5,696 - $5533 • 52:500 _--.$5,136.' . = :.$7,23052.869 ': .,_. 1 I 4 ;.3`.. 8.4.2}nc =52.20 '1742.095,75.76 —.. $948 ra. 17 _ ... /M 1Y- =_ r. '$..3-.-.$1.34A y uan fVa Seta p" ,; _ ,. $6,341 : ,-$9,292. _ $1,206. - $5,63] -.53,875 _.. $6,]95 F t Faod ges - ��.- 543,878 . 4557,0165:3- 1-`^i" -a55257q. j -.i.Y�+ 3-"t•s $36,771.'�,t'$3,g75 m r > '�'2id3r 511,506 7 Program Building of Area 4:a. -I: al Faalltfes'�i i Cost :._.::2005 $232 rn Unit per Costs Square Foot 2013 %Change Comparison of ..' Program Area ;' Land Value '. 2005 Comparison tCor, .$150 ea s;Corrctio Faal tl_l,-i $35 467: 1' 41.7t $50,000 tri .Emergency Srvices- .- -5212- $260 _ +24161:, _- $102,332' -.,x$60,000 --01% 4$197-rI Enforcement +52cA z$130 Law : tibFaries. _=$242 . -5240 "' �'-1% nser ,l, �,—$34982t. 5}550,000:7r---'- am Pu 169' -- 3... '3+c =a -72 Jr- -.Gf-` blzc dinWings 4.5 �. 1,1 T.'Libranes - .;$102;332.: $50,000 . -51%� 13 Sr Land Values Comparison of ..' Program Area ;' Land Value '. 2005 per Acre 2013 %Change ea s;Corrctio Faal tl_l,-i $35 467: 1' 41.7t $50,000 tri Emergent' Services,.{ $102,332' -.,x$60,000 --01% La circem,,, Law Enforcemen % nser ,l, �,—$34982t. 5}550,000:7r---'- T.'Libranes - .;$102;332.: $50,000 . -51%� ' _,r _y ..$302,3332 -fit'. . , u. p3' Public Buulldmgst -µg $90,00�0"S . = : ye12% C. $34,136 $50,000.- +50% 13 VMT Comparison County Generated VMT % on Roadways VMT on n;, u VMT on Mode$.,`'In•County/ ±_ Model Year::: County, �1'.' Wide Roadways Model•Wide _:.'' Ro`` adumws'-_ . 2;974;81 64.4-439 :' : n'` -,'.c4,659,822` 7 694,681::, Source: Greater Treasure Coast Regional PI raring Model v3.4 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 14 STnnsgtutatl Asset Avg. Area n-''=ta Value Cost due otal AssLY T •- .Tets..,.it"t ..-::Value4_:i`_?:..c>ti...m...'177._ k5„$1590 e.- Distribution to Growth 14%if.SP' L5t"$22.20M i3'_ �r . 4 20% "•, . __ •.S $3170M'_ •• 2.5% .. $39.64 �'•�a •d -am Annual Program Sch_col _ $11.07 M2z- --.$13.80_;+:' =. $0.558 — 5773M =_ Parks —m$O.46 B:jn ' �:649S1;11• ^_'�,t' ;$9.27Mkt' $11:581 t Puha B Ildl gs ;I-, =`r`2$9943M _`:; - $1.39M $199M-'';-;- „$2.49' Cor(ecti alfadluesr," 'c $6793M T.,. $1.36M > $1.70* re L"2'$095 I i '1 :EmergecyServicer.ticr.'5.$41A0 -, -' $0.58M--",'::$°g3M.? ub T W.:41:'4 t 40.54 M y,,.s$26.87 M" ;t.,b$ T38 .3'`.; 4 Law;Enfo e e t.^. ___-$24.03M * ";: $034M i,.,4: $048 M:.; .50.60:"-. Solid Waste Y:6' X1$13%M, :y$020 M"�'-s.' .28M iTOLI__., _ 2.87B ', $4 26 M D -. _ $5749 M. $71.86. ''y Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 14 • • Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared for: Indian River County Community Development Dept. — Planning Division 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960 ph (772) 226-1237 January 15, 2014 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 I. INTRODUCTION 1 Methodology Legal Requirements Affordable Growth Strategy II. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level -of -Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Correctional .Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact=Fee Affordable GrowthyStrategy rSchedule Cornett t nal Eacilities Impact -fee Comparison 111. S e LID'WASTE FACILITIES'.�M«.. Facility Inventory i4u ServiArea and Population Cost Component Credit ComponentAt Net Solid Waste Impact Cost Calculated Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison IV. PUBLIC BUILDINGS Facility Inventory Service Area and Population 2 2 5 9 9 12 13 15 16 19 19 21 22 24 24 25 25 26 28 28 30 30 32 32 35 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 i Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Level -of -Service 35 Cost Component 37 Credit Component 38 Net Public Buildings Impact Cost 40 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule 40 42 44 46 46 49 49 52 53 54 Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fe tSchedule 55 57 Library Facilitieslmpact Fee.ScheduleCornparison ' -µr 58 60 60 63 63 Cost Component 65 Credit Component 66 Net Emergency Services Impact Cost 69 Calculated Emerges Services Impact Fee Schedule 70 Affordable Growth Strategy 72 Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison 74 VII. LAW ENFORCEMENT 76 Facility Inventory 76 Service Area and Population 78 Level -of -Service 78 Affordable Growth Strategy Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison V. LIBRARIES Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level -of -Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Library Facilities Impact %Cos Affordable GrowtlStrategy VI. EMERGENCY SERVICES Facility,lnventory Service Area an&Population Level -of -Service Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County ii Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Component Credit Component Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison VIII. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IX. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities Service Area and Population Level -of -Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Parks & Recreation Facilities n Impact Cost Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities<Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy 4x4vick Parks & Recreation Facilities: Impact Fee; Schedule Comparison X. TRANSPORTATIONt Deman l Componen Cost Component Tsn Credit Component Calculated Transportation Impactee Schedule 80 81 81 81 83 83 85 86 86 88 88 90 94 97 98 98 100 102 104 106 112 115 Affordable Growth Strategy 119 Transportation: Impact.FeetSchedule Comparison 122 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 iii Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Population Transportation Impact Fee -- Demand Component Calculations Transportation Impact Fee -- Cost Component Calculations Transportation Impact Fee -- Credit Component Calculations Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for Correctional Law tte Enforcement, Emergency Services, Governmment Buildings, Library, Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Master Fee Schedules etiet Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 iv Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Executive Summary • In response to high growth levels and the need to provide infrastructure to support this growth, Indian River County (IRC) implemented a Transportation Impact Fee in 1986. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees in eight more program areas. The technical studies for all program areas were updated in 2007; however, these technical studies were not adopted. Of the nine program areas, only the transportation impact fee was later updated substantially in 2009 by an internally generated County update using data from the 2005 and 2007 studies, resulting in a fee reduction for almost allthe land uses. The eight non - transportation program fees were slightly modified 'itmthe 2009 update. Since then, the County suspended the collection of five impactfee°types to promote construction during the economic downturn, and more recently extended suspension of correctional facilities, te. solid waste, and public buildings impact fees: Those three impact :fee suspensions are currently in effect. Indian River County has retained`:>Tindale-Oliver &Associates, Inc. (TOA) to prepare an ,. u pdate study to reflect changes tothe impact fee variables for all program areas. In addition, the direction received from the Bo rdof� County;Commissioners (BOCC) is to maintain the residentia land uses at the current leveland develop a methodology to reduce n on-residential impact fees. To addressthegoal of Affordable= reducingfeesfor nonresidential land uses, TOA developed the "tfsevs Growth methodology, which takes. into consideration revenues received from the existing developmentthat are used toward' capacity expansion projects. As population \ growth rates decrease, th`e,existingr development's ability to assist in absorbing new Nefr Val4: growths impact while maintaining thelevel of service (LOS) becomes more possible. The Affordable Growth method :calculates the necessary impact fee levels to maintain the mow; existing/achieved LoStgiven>a,: certain level of non -impact fee funding at an estimated growth rate. It is importantto note that whether to fund capacity expansion projects solely with impact fee collections r supplement them with alternative funding sources is largely a policy decision, allowing the County to contribute or limit non -impact fee funding in its service areas as appropriate based on its capital improvement planning goals and the n ature of its existing impact fee program. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County ES -1 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Generally speaking, impact fees must comply with the 'dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through a list of capacity -adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In addition, one of the requirements of the 2006'FIorida ImpactlFee Act is that the studies be based on most recent and localized data This technical report has been prepared to support1legal'compliance with existing case law .z°. e and statutory requirements. Although>the Florida courts have yet to expressly address the methodology underpinning the Affordable. 'Growth Strategy, this aspect of the report is based on the long-standing legal standards deScribed in thisreport. The technical report also documents the methodology components for- ;each:ofthe impact fee areas, including an evaluation of the&inventory, service area Nievel of=service (L®S), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as�nd sated. The report include results -for all program areas, with the exception of educational facilities. Because the initial results have not yet been reviewed by the India River County SchoolaBoari,;this section is not included in this report. Three prima?factors affected the County's impact fee levels: 1 • Since 2005,`theFCounty4built additional infrastructure and increased the capital asset inventory significantly in most program areas. This results in an increased asset value, which in turn, increases the impact fee. • In most infrastructure areas, the County used or is still using other revenue sources to supplement impact fees, such as optional sales tax revenues, ad valorem tax revenues, and other revenues. Depending on the program area and the level of on- going investment this results in an increase in the credit component for some program areas, which in turn reduces the impact fee. In others, if the investment was made in earlier years and are not projected to continue at the same levels, the Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 ES -2 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study credit may decrease compared to the previous study, which in turn increases the impact fee. • Finally, the demand component is adjusted to reflect the most recent available data, which affects different land uses at different rates. The following table provides a summary of calculated fees for seven representative land uses. The complete schedule has almost 50 land uses and a comparison of all fee categories is included in Appendix G. Table ES -1 includes the following • Current adopted fee; • Calculated maximum impact fee; and • Calculated impact fee using the Affordabe>Growth methodology. • Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County ES -3 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 1 O L II 3 O i•w l7 a in o N 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N $9,388 $10,742 $9,841 $4,817 $5,910 55,406 $15,404 $16,834 $7 598 $5,696 $5,533 $2,500 $2,203 $2,095 $948 $6,341 $9,292 $4,206 $43,878 557,016 $25,747 ,SI z- I or n IC. 2 mi u y ..I N m oo w V.• - a rt NNN 0 O0 m v e CO N ' E W1 U m 00 oo 00 m $2521 m to .+ a N _ O O 02I:: 0 to ul ma0 N CO .............................. CO C CO C CO C n/al n/aI $4,595 $4,354 $4,354 $2,489 52,811 $2,811 $13,346 $14,166 $6,374 $3,893 $4,363 $1,964 $1,351 $1,510 $680 $3,242 $6,519 $2,934 $35,651 $46,601 $20,970 . Lei r� • J'—! a .. V 3:3 ccccN C I Ior 1) 44 u co h N N n/aI co C to C ea C m C 9SZ$ Z6P$ 9401,1$' TZZ nt's ETV PiaZT BCL$ Cal ytmOJ9 pow*, Ju3JJn) algepioBy __ cauuPilnyallgnd 41;499 $1,944 's. $1,788 .41$1,4906 $1,113 it « $1,024 i 3 n/a n/a n/a C. K1• n/a n/a n/a :n/a n/a n/a o/a L n/a n/a :,yG7,A n/a F n/a n/a cu m a y a 3; O O, a von von. ` tons tor. von tit .oi. I` a r a 3 I •.O- O w ¢ ; c 'y e C , • C i rf Cc S# C .♦.4.1 C W. =I���.CO M; . U 111 _. O i4 U C C a MMCOM y Ci fjk \ C C E CO U. 0.0 -o 0 3in u U tel $79 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 N -° v� 0-0 u . o m m 1 trz CO C az C az 4.° C 'C � � to `'. .. - r rri N N .. 1-4 trz m NNNNWI C2 0C•I CV IN CO m 1_ CorrectionalFacilities • ITE LUC Land Use Unit (� Affordable ' j� Current II Calculated II Growth 1 RESIDENTIAL:. - . 0 . 0 NON-RESIDENTIAL: 0 N. 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 Law.Enforcement__ I ITE LUC Land Use , Unit I Current Calculated I AGroowthe RESIDENTIAL: - In e N o ry N - CC 2 o- O 0 r4 N o 0 .. N to 0 N 0 0 ul tor N oo N no NN to N to m O N m .-1 Ner c N u1m O N 0 N $435 0 hi N. oeoeo ICI N n N w N In N CV N $178 $157 e In N o Iv m N In co 01 N Vii el N. CV NN « CV 0 tt. n In 34 r n V. du 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf co 14. Lei m 0 o 1,000 sf v v 1,000 sf 0 0 0 0 0 " ro m o o 0 Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Bank/Savings Drive•In General Office Manufacturing Retail Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) Multi-Family/Accessory Unit 1 Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Manufacturing n ¢ Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 0 ry o n r. m o n 0 V «1 820 0 Ch m 01Z o CV n cm m o n 0 or m 820 934 Trz ro w v CO CO c a v O 0 N coc C a 0 c CO c O rou a c w N a c • 0 • c • 0 c N u °p}o �t 4 km /C -' n! zo ✓ V tt u • o 01 N tEche N c 3 a -`.m: 0 >L: 1- o uC O▪ .6 0) E a i. c t' u a w CU CO . _ 14. t. > N w C A .t. n 0 T w O O • N o V C Tit" y v E m m0 A -w c u Ex w Cu,s al •;-- w E _- Td E N to n E N • o - w c E 1 to n c a z5 t El « c lo * u H c tO v '^ I d • E o m d `y O C d —0., O - Z tit J v c L A •C z V c J u y d L L O d r L ...• . • e o w waD u `o m Q U U .... u w O «I N m O Vf Z Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study I. Introduction In response to high growth levels and the need to provide infrastructure to support this growth, Indian River County (IRC) implemented a Transportation Impact Fee in 1986. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees in eight more program areas, including: • Correctional Facilities • Solid Waste Facilities • Public Buildings • Library Facilities • Emergency Services • Law Enforcement • Educational Facilities • Parks & Recreation Facilities The technical studies for all program areas were updated in 2007; however, these technical studies were not adopted. Of the nine p gram areas, only the transportation impact fee was later updated substantially in 2009by an internally generated County update using data �s� 4 from the 2005 andr2007 studies, resulting in a�feeered ction for almost all the land uses. The eight non-transsportation program fees w slightly modified in the 2009 update Since then, the County suspended thecollection of five. impact fee types to promote construction during the ec no omit downturn and more rete t y extended suspension of correctional facilities, solid waste; and publicbuildingsimp et fees. Those three impact fee suspensions o:. are currently in effect. Indian Riverve.apty has retained Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to prepare an update study to reflect chang !!to the cost, credit, and demand components since 2005. It should be noted that figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fees tiathe County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. In addition, the study includes "affordable growth" calculations, which take into account the existing development's ability to absorb new growth and calculates the level of possible policy discounts without reducing the level of service. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 1 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Methodology The methodology used to update the County's impact fee program is a consumption -based impact fee methodology, which is used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land u se (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit of land u se in the case of all impact fee program areas with the exception of educational facilities and transportation. In the case educational facilities, studentgeneration rate is used and in the case of transportation, vehicle -miles of travel is used:A`consumption-based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of:Y cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. In addition, perlegal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account -for contributionsv of the new development toward any capacity expansion projects through other revenue sources , Contributions used to calculate the credit component include estimates of future none act fee revenues generated by the new development that will be used toward capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires the new development should not be charged twice for the same service. Legal Standard Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since he 1980s Generally speaking, impact fees must comply with the 'dual rational nexus lest, which requiresthat.they. we ti • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by n new development paying the fee; and • • Be spent •ina manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, oiTc typically accomplished,- through a list of capacity -adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as 'an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction.' § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify 9 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 2 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study procedural and methodological prerequisites, most of which were common to the practice already. More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the following: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or?amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the ImpacttFee Act and that the court may n ot use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90 -day notice period required to increase the fees and purp d to chan. etge thetstandard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB '360 also required the `FlNiS>orida Department of Community Affairs (now the Departnieya of Economic Opportunity) and Florida Department of Transportation ( were completed in 2010.Nciv FDOT) to conducfdies on "mobfees," which Acts • HB 7207 in 2011: Required+-adollar:for-dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency J- �F hc'�4 compliance, for other impact fees paihand other concurrency mitigation required. The credit must b"e reduced by the;percentage share the project s traffic represents of the adde 1t apacity of,the select improvement (up to a maximum of 20% or to an amount specified by dfdinance, whichever results in a higher credit). The courts have =.not yet taken up the issueof whether a local government may still charge an impact/mobility. fee inlieu of proportionate=share if the impact/mobility fee is higher that the calculatedhproportionate share ontribution. \toiS• HBA. 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also e ncouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series Nub of tools identified in section 3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes, including: .Aef 1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density. 2. Adoption of an area -wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function. 3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 3 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to e nsuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit. 5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non- vehicular .modes.. of transportation where existing or planned . community design will provide adequate level of mobility. 6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within u rban areas, multimodal transportation districts;and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or districts housing. for affordable or workforce Also, under HB 319, a mobility fee funding system expressly rri:ust comply with the dual r Via. rational nexus test applicable to traditional impact fees. Furthermore, any mobility fee VIS revenues collected must be used to implement the local government's4plan, which served weit as the basis for the fee. Finally, un r HB 319,analte tive mobility systtem, that is not ctwe mobility fee-based, must not imposewpon new development any responsibility for funding an existing transportation deficiency ® .. . > The following paragraphs provide furtherri:dy�etail710 on, • applicable here. th !generally, applicable legal standards Impact FeeDefinition .t . impact4fee isa one time capitakcharge levied against new development. ax An impact fee is designnee cover the ''portion of the capital costs of infrastructure Vitik capacity consumed4bynew development. %• The principle purpose pf an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement1programfor the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established as a condition for improving property and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 4 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Authority to Impose Impact Fees in Indian River County • IRC is a non -charter county. o A non -charter county derives its authority from the state constitution and statutory sources; o A non -charter county may adopt: ordinances that are not inconsistent with.. general law; and o A non -charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that do not conflict with municipal ordinances. • The fiscal burden of providing countywide services must be borne p g y by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporate&areas of the county. This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements. Although the Fl Ca courts have yet to: expressly address the methodology underpinning the Affordable Growth Strategy, this aspectof the report is a t. based on the long-standing legal standards described in This section. The'technical report also documents the methodology omponents for each f the impact fee areas in the following sections, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area, level -of -service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components �Informationsupporting this analysis was o btained from the Countyandkother sources, as indicated Affordable Growth Strategy One of the'stud'y4goals is to evaluate the possibility of providing impact fee discounts to n on-residential land uses TOA d veloped the affordable growth methodology, which takes into co sideration revenu s receivedfrom the existing development that are used toward :tepi. capacity expansion projectsit calculates the necessary impact fee levels to maintain the e xisting/achieved{LOS given a:ycertain level of non -impact fee funding and estimated growth rate. Three components of thaffordable growth concept include a rate of growth analysis, fee buy -down by geog ap'hic<area, and fee buy -down of most favored" land uses. • Rate of Growth Analysis — The rate of growth concept allows impact fees to be sensitive to the growth rate within the county. This approach reconciles the relationship between consumption -based and needs -based impact fee methodologies and generally reduces fees in built-up communities that are experiencing relatively slow growth rates compared to the size of the existing development base, while maintaining the existing LOS. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 5 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Buy -down by Geographic Area and Geographic Goals — This approach allows jurisdictions to place a priority on select Activity Centers or the Urban Core to incentivize more efficient land use patterns as set forth in their Comprehensive Plans. For example, the geographic area buy -down could be used to meet the goal of increasing density and creating a more diverse tax base in the Urban Core, identified by the jurisdiction, by leveraging other revenues to offset impact fee costs while maintaining the current LOS. At this time, Indian River County does not have such high-density areas and is interested in countywide discounts rather than buy - down by geographic area. • e. Buy -down of "Most Favored Uses" — Thisa'approach developed by TOA allows communities to establish policies for targeted land uses related to overall benefit and need for specific uses throughout:: the jurisdiction or tin targeted geographic areas of the county. These benefits,:may also include improvedkrevenue generation through a more diverse tax base that brings economic stability invthe future. Indian River County indicated an interest in encouraging non-residential development countywide in order to promoteeconomic development. bta As presented in the chart below, the Affordable•Growth Impact Fee concept is driven by the tee communities' economic ,development and; growth" management goals, available funding, and the desired/acceptable L®Ssfor various program areas: This approach provides the Countymtgwith the nece"ss.ar information to achieve a flexible program that supports Y ;� .,� p g the community:s,planning goals Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 6 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study More specifically, the concept of affordable growth incorporates the following thought process and analysis: • Impact fees calculated under traditional methods are not sensitive to growth rates experienced in the community. For example, as explained previously, the consumption -based impact fees are based on the value of asset that is being consumed by the new development. These calculations are not affected by slow or high growth rates and do not consider the contributidrhs of the existing development to maintain the current achieved LOS. • Historically, many jurisdictions within Florida experienced high growth rates, which y 4:Y required a significant amount of investment in new infrastructure. With slower growth rate in recent years, the burden of new growth has started to become more manageable. Indian River County experienced an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent between 2000 and 2008, which is�;estimated to decrease tapproximately 1.4 percent over the next 25:years • :.. • Affordable Growth incorporates the existing%community's ability to absorb a lower growth rate with existing revenuessfrom current development while maintaining the current/achieved LOS. Impact fees calculated correctly and adopted at the maximum level; would allow a community to maintain its LOS for a given increment of infrastwcture without any tadditional evenue contributions beyond what was contributed from they new developmental When additional funds from existing ,1 _.., development arealso used toward the expansion of the same infrastructure, the L®Swill improve • It is important to note that whether to fund capacity expansion projects solely with f impact fee ``collections:or supplement them with alternative fundingsources is .' largely a policy decision, allowing the County to contribute or limit non -impact fee funding in its service areas as appropriate based on its capital improvement planning goals and the nature of its existing impact fee program. If the County desires to improve the LOS, there will be a need for supplemental funding in addition to impact fee revenues. Alternatively, if the County is satisfied with the existing LOS, the Affordable Growth Strategy reduces the impact fee levels and maintains the existing LOS as long as there are other dedicated revenues sources, such as sales tax, ad valorem tax, etc. For example, in the case of programs that are critical to the safety Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 7 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study and well-being of the residents (such as emergency services, law enforcement, etc.), the County may want to improve the LOS. Alternatively, a program area such as public buildings may not be as critical, and the County may decide to provide impact fee discounts in order to support planning and economic development goals and still maintain the existing LOS. As part of the impact fee update study, TOA evaluated the feasibility of applying the Affordable Growth approach to the County's impact fee program areas. The application of the Affordable Growth approach to each program area isincluded as part of the impact fee calculations in the following sections of this report. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 8 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study II. Correctional Facilities Correctional facility impact fees are used to fund capital construction and expansion of services related to land, facilities, and capital equipment required to support the additional correctional facility demand created by new growth. Currently, the correctional facilities impact fee is suspended in Indian River County. This section presents the results of the correctional facility impact fee update study for the Countyland will serve as the technical support document for the updated correctional facilities£impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated withthe development of the correctional facilities impact fee. These include: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level -of -Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net CorrectionalFancilities Impact Cost • • Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable GrowthaStrategy • CorrectionalbFacilities Schedule Comparison These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this section, with the result being the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory The correctional facilitiesnventory includes the County's jails and other related facilities that are primarily for the provision of corrections and does not include any of the buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by the County, Indian River County has a total of 258,000 square feet of correctional facility -related space. This includes the square footage of all four phases of the Correctional Facility as well as other related buildings, such as the guardhouses, warehouse visitation building, and maintenance shop. Table 1 presents a Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 9 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study summary of the correctional facilities land and building inventory, including a total land value of $1.8 million and a total building value of $63 million. As previously mentioned, these values do not include building space or land associated with other County departments. The building value per square foot is estimated based on research on recently built correctional facilities, discussions and information from architectural and construction companies, and the insurance values of the existing correctional facilities in Indian River County. This value is estimated at $250 per square foot fo correctional facilities and $125 per square foot for the other ancillary facilities included in the inventory. Appendix F ,.. h:s provides further detail on the building cost estimates The land value for correctional facilities its analysis of vacant land values and parcels sold well as the value of land where, the curre estimated at $50,000 per acre based on an in the County over the last three years as ntfacilities are located (seeAppendix F). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 10 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County L 0 elsc a1 tot:• ea cla LL fa O szomO cc 7 cu O c c0 Tu U E w O v N (0 tc Y c Lrl N AV). c t CO CU t 4-0 a) E 171 0) v E co 4J L C▪ O N Y co U 0 4) co aa c 5 m c 0 47-1 ro E c w CV) N U ,.0 w To C - v a E O v c 0 0 c ra C 0 U ro N c =a c v U 3 0 a E 4J c0 O 0 E z To O c c O aJ Y - O U i C 4J E ro L a 0 0) C U O� w c •o ro v a E 6 Lr) c Lr) in 0 uv _ CL aJ cu E o roN 4) L � 4) c _0 0 0) Oac c 7 ri N m 0 v v v M E N v o _ r > cc U 00 c 0 a 1' O H c 0 0) lD N CO c a c 0 U 0) c co c January 2014 000'580'9n 00S'ZT$ 0 N' r -I N 0 OOS'OTT'T$ 8 N LA ri �, .a s c (dui in CU �' Ol -a fa fa1'. ri _ Q1 le -13 -0? e m :I N r-1 L? a� R. O $45,250,000 OOS'ZT$ $12,500 OOS'OTT'T$ $246 O i%? M etc UD 'Q = ON1 mJ :> j - `--1 000'005$ o 0 m CO ." ���� C C C c 0 41 sli Y h. tA o p0p is N O is Ln i? .- in c •3 Q1 E J CO > EV),i/)i {/} 142 rr)�0 .- CO c CO c CO C b CO c ZTL € es1 of LID .r. Ill Vl OE ..13 Z ri i =, 3 d 0 ri I N ' R O tOv a. 0) h O V1 enfa — •_ 0 cp O Oa o 0 O ri $ r-1 0 .. ce. 257,900 v Operational Capacity Beds (7) .:>0 f:�Opc -`rout Og Talk ami a 0) i \ CtS \ L'\ ..."•••• to �L♦ji o L gml i0 00 o rte. �10 1(4 -. O• In -10 i 2008 �t � O O m a+ H fa 00 oo 01 r G. •: '3 a IRC Correctional Facility Phase I05l IRC Correctional Facility Phase III IRC Correctional Facility Phase IV Guardhouse Guardhouse Maintenance Shop Warehouse Visitation :$'. Land Value perAcrel9l 4051 g� .: rcovi .-5 C: La.1' a 3 Facility Description IRC Correctional Facility Phase I(5) {n a O. To OD C 'a v *12 CO cc 7 cu O c c0 Tu U E w O v N (0 tc Y c Lrl N AV). c t CO CU t 4-0 a) E 171 0) v E co 4J L C▪ O N Y co U 0 4) co aa c 5 m c 0 47-1 ro E c w CV) N U ,.0 w To C - v a E O v c 0 0 c ra C 0 U ro N c =a c v U 3 0 a E 4J c0 O 0 E z To O c c O aJ Y - O U i C 4J E ro L a 0 0) C U O� w c •o ro v a E 6 Lr) c Lr) in 0 uv _ CL aJ cu E o roN 4) L � 4) c _0 0 0) Oac c 7 ri N m 0 v v v M E N v o _ r > cc U 00 c 0 a 1' O H c 0 0) lD N CO c a c 0 U 0) c co c January 2014 • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study In addition to land and building costs, the correctional facility services also require the use of necessary equipment and vehicles. As presented in Table 11-2, the total vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $2.8 million based on information provided by the County. Table 11-2 Correctional Facilities Equipment and Vehicle Inventory (1) Source: Indian River County, (2) Total value (Item 3) divided b units (3) Source: Indian River County Service Area and Population The correctional facilities' fee program requires the use of population data in calculatingacurrent;Ievel of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensiQedplanning1process, this Impact fee study considers not only the residenVorrpermanent population°of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitorsas well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted .ice Y:s✓¢a seasonal popu alien will be used in all population estimates and projections. Weighted seasonal population. projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County4st2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, correctional facilities is oneof the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 12 Impact Fee Update Study Facility Description SI Unitsw Unit Value(Z) Total Value(3) Vehicles 19 ,$31437 -4 $597,295 Vehicle/Radio Equipment 377 ;hi 4 $1,172 $441,953 Weapons _2112 ' 64 $98,375 Office Equipment 1 $31,784 �, $31,784 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 3 $19,966 ' . $59,899 Electronic Equipment 9 4... 1 $1,077,078 $1,077,078 Equipment Computer E ui p q p �> "20 ,x$4,099 Ne81,977 Miscellaneous E q ui ment p-.. A ® , : °ti:$9, 806 $40240 Total Vehicle E ui ment Cost'` q p _ ma .,.. ,601 $2,780 . (1) Source: Indian River County, (2) Total value (Item 3) divided b units (3) Source: Indian River County Service Area and Population The correctional facilities' fee program requires the use of population data in calculatingacurrent;Ievel of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensiQedplanning1process, this Impact fee study considers not only the residenVorrpermanent population°of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitorsas well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted .ice Y:s✓¢a seasonal popu alien will be used in all population estimates and projections. Weighted seasonal population. projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County4st2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, correctional facilities is oneof the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 12 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Level -of -Service As presented in Table 11-3, there is a relation between population growth and the need for correctional facilities.. Table 11-3 presents the average daily jail population over the last ten years, along with the corresponding population. The relation between the population and jail population is used to establish a general trend in the need for correctional facility beds, and to account for random fluctuations, the three-year average number of bookings and population also is shown. Table II -3 Service Area PopulationandpJail Bookings (1) Source: Appendix A,Table A-1 (2) Source: Indian River County The level -of-service (L®S) for correctional faci ity services is expressed in terms of jail facility beds per residents Using 'this method, Indian River County's current achieved LOS is 4.14 beds4per 1,000 resident"'. The County's current adopted LOS standard for correctional facilities is 4.5' beds per 1,000: residents. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted standard, ::impact fee calculations for correctional facilities are based on the K achieved LOS. As mentioned previously for impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to capture workers, visitors, and residents to xygr calculate the correctional facilities impact fee. In terms of functional population, the current LOS is 4.37 beds per 1,000 functional residents. Table 11-4 summarizes the calculation of the county's current LOS using both weighted seasonal population and functional population. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 13 Impact Fee Update Study Year Population"' Average Daily Jail Population(z) 3 -Year Average Change in 3 -Year Average Population Bookings Population Bookings 2003 126,869 473n%aL n/a tttn/a n/a 2004 131,175 529 n a a4n/a /bit , n/a 2005 134,573 543 ,„ 130,872' 515 n/a n/a 2006 139,121 562',` 134,956 ‘,545 3.1% 5.8% 2007 143,177 544 ?-138,957 ek 550 3.0% 0.9% 2008 145,212 537x].',42;503 .548 2.6% -0.4% 2009 145,356 513 1445MI X531 1.5% -3.1% , 2010 145,854 , 518 523 $ 0.6% -1.5% 44.fr 145,474 41,1%, 2011 146,325;,,y,. V490, `*145,845' '507 0.3% -3.1% 2012 147,118:3 44a 6 %1'46;432 '485 0.4% -4.3% (1) Source: Appendix A,Table A-1 (2) Source: Indian River County The level -of-service (L®S) for correctional faci ity services is expressed in terms of jail facility beds per residents Using 'this method, Indian River County's current achieved LOS is 4.14 beds4per 1,000 resident"'. The County's current adopted LOS standard for correctional facilities is 4.5' beds per 1,000: residents. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted standard, ::impact fee calculations for correctional facilities are based on the K achieved LOS. As mentioned previously for impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to capture workers, visitors, and residents to xygr calculate the correctional facilities impact fee. In terms of functional population, the current LOS is 4.37 beds per 1,000 functional residents. Table 11-4 summarizes the calculation of the county's current LOS using both weighted seasonal population and functional population. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 13 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table 11-4 Current Level -of -Service (1) Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population an dTable A-8 for functional population 2) Source: Table 11-1 3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item41), multipled by 1,000 4) Source: Indian River County; LOS standard for functional resident iss calculated based on the ratio NTS of actual LOS in terms of weighted population us functional population Table 11-3 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian ..River County, and counties with correctional facility impact fees throughout the State:of;F orida. The LOSis displayed in terms of permanent population for`201'2,for all entities;because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these entities, as was for Indian River County. In addition, the number of beds for all jurisdictions presented m;the following table is based �,.. on gross beds. As presentedµ Indian River Countys LOS Is within the range of these counties. It is importaann, t requires to note thatsthe construction of correctional facilities tend to be "lumpy" and significants investments for large, scales of construction. Indian River County completed its most recent expansion in 2008; which was funded primarily with sales tax revenues and currently doesnot have any plans to build additional jails. In addition, the average daily. occupancy of- approximately 450 inmates represents 75 percent of the available functional capacity. As mentioned previously, correctional impact fees are not 4 being collected in Indian River County at this time, and there appears to be sufficient capacity available to accommodate additional inmates due to growth in the near future. This will be addressed further in the Affordable Growth section of the report. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 14 Impact Fee Update Study Population(1) Component Year2013 Weighted _Population Functional Population 148,001 140,186 Number of Beds(2) 612 612 LOS (beds per 1,000 residents)13l , 4.14 4.37 Adopted LOS Standard (beds per 1,000 residents)l4l 4.50 4.75 (1) Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population an dTable A-8 for functional population 2) Source: Table 11-1 3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item41), multipled by 1,000 4) Source: Indian River County; LOS standard for functional resident iss calculated based on the ratio NTS of actual LOS in terms of weighted population us functional population Table 11-3 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian ..River County, and counties with correctional facility impact fees throughout the State:of;F orida. The LOSis displayed in terms of permanent population for`201'2,for all entities;because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these entities, as was for Indian River County. In addition, the number of beds for all jurisdictions presented m;the following table is based �,.. on gross beds. As presentedµ Indian River Countys LOS Is within the range of these counties. It is importaann, t requires to note thatsthe construction of correctional facilities tend to be "lumpy" and significants investments for large, scales of construction. Indian River County completed its most recent expansion in 2008; which was funded primarily with sales tax revenues and currently doesnot have any plans to build additional jails. In addition, the average daily. occupancy of- approximately 450 inmates represents 75 percent of the available functional capacity. As mentioned previously, correctional impact fees are not 4 being collected in Indian River County at this time, and there appears to be sufficient capacity available to accommodate additional inmates due to growth in the near future. This will be addressed further in the Affordable Growth section of the report. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 14 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table 11-5 Level -of -Service Comparison (1) Source: Each jurisdiction's espective Sheriff's Offi' eor Correctional Facilities Department r Sax. (2) Source: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (3) Gross beds (Ifeme1) divided by the,2012 permanent population (Item 2) divided PoStas by 1,000Jor eachajurisdiction qtexc Table'll 4 provides the total asset value per resident As shown, total asset value owned by the County amounts to $67.9 million or $111,000 per bed. The total impact cost per functional resident for correctional facilities in Indian River County is calculated by multiplying the Total cost per by the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1000, which is approximately $485 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 15 Impact Fee Update Study Jurisdiction 1r Gross II Beds ill i 2012 .Permanent Population__ '' LOS (Beds per' .1,000 ' Residents (3) Osceola County 873 280,866 3.11 Brevard County 1,709 545,625 3.13 St. Johns County 664 196,071 3.39 Collier Count ,304 1304 329,849 3.95 Hernando County 818 st n'•,173,104 4.73 St. Lucie County 1,370 J,; 280;355 4.89 Indian River County (Existing) °;712ve 139 5.11 Highlands County j 504 98,955 >, 5.09 Citrus County 760 1.40,761v 5.40 Okeechobee County '232 °;39,805 5.83 Charlotte County 960 ...: ; � 163,357 5.88 (1) Source: Each jurisdiction's espective Sheriff's Offi' eor Correctional Facilities Department r Sax. (2) Source: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (3) Gross beds (Ifeme1) divided by the,2012 permanent population (Item 2) divided PoStas by 1,000Jor eachajurisdiction qtexc Table'll 4 provides the total asset value per resident As shown, total asset value owned by the County amounts to $67.9 million or $111,000 per bed. The total impact cost per functional resident for correctional facilities in Indian River County is calculated by multiplying the Total cost per by the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1000, which is approximately $485 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 15 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table 11-6 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Source: Table II 1 Source: Table 11 2 Source: Table II 4 Total asset value divided by the number of beds (Item Source: Table 11-4 • Net asset value per bed (Item 4) -multiplied by the currentorrectional facilities LOS (Item 5) divided by 1 000 (7) Percent of building value, land val eland equipment value ofithetotal asset value Credit Componen To avoid overcharging newideveloprnentfor the correctional facility impact fee, a review of ‘ irkte the capitahfinancing .program for correctionalkservices was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine.any potential revenue -credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Capital Expansion Expenditur>estCredit The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on Nge the capital expansion projects that were completed over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years. The average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. The County completed Phase IV expansion of the correctional facilities in 2008, which was funded with sales tax revenues. Since then, there have not been any capacity expansion Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 16 Impact Fee Update Study f Description _ } Percent of ,Total Value'' Figure — Building Value(1) $63,327,000 93.22% Land Value(1) $1,825,500 2.69% Equipment Value(2) $2,780,601 4.09% Total Asset Value ,$67,933,101 100.00% Number of Beds(3) 612 Net Asset Value per Bedl4'kmNw:s, $111,002 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Resident' e a 4.37 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident'•' $485.08 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Source: Table II 1 Source: Table 11 2 Source: Table II 4 Total asset value divided by the number of beds (Item Source: Table 11-4 • Net asset value per bed (Item 4) -multiplied by the currentorrectional facilities LOS (Item 5) divided by 1 000 (7) Percent of building value, land val eland equipment value ofithetotal asset value Credit Componen To avoid overcharging newideveloprnentfor the correctional facility impact fee, a review of ‘ irkte the capitahfinancing .program for correctionalkservices was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine.any potential revenue -credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Capital Expansion Expenditur>estCredit The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on Nge the capital expansion projects that were completed over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years. The average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. The County completed Phase IV expansion of the correctional facilities in 2008, which was funded with sales tax revenues. Since then, there have not been any capacity expansion Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 16 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study projects and there are none programmed for the next five years. This spending associated with a portion of the Phase IV expansion results in an average capital expansion expenditure of $2.3 million per year. Since the review of these expenditures spanned Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average functional population for this same period. As shown in Table 11-7, the result is an average expansion cost of $16 perfunctional resident. It should be noted that although the optional sales tax will expire in 2019, this analysis assumes that, if the sales tax is not re -adopted, another revenue source will be used in the future. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 17 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study �y L C a) 0. X W C O co 0. ra W Q to U c� °L 0 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study January 2014 $22,756,006 $22,756,006 140, 3011 N loo Lfl N N N N a�-1 Average Annual Capital Expenditures(2) Functional Populationi31 <A." ;: Expenditure per Functional Resident(4)• A FY 2008 FY 2009 1 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 1 FY 2013 w. itt1L ; 4 I 11 I 900'9SL'ZZ$ 900'9SL'ZZ$ 'Housing Unit E Construction COII f— Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study January 2014 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost The net correctional impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table 11-8 summarizes the calculation of the net correctional facility cost per resident. The first section of Table 11-8 identifies the total impact cost as $485 per functional resident for correctional facilities. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the impact fee. The credit calculation includes a total of approximately $299 per functional resident. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $186 per functional reside t, Table II 8 Net Impact Cost perFunctional Resident (1) Source: Table 11-6 (2) Source: Table 11-7 • (3) Source present value okthe capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a wv discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years The discount rate was provided by Indian River ounty. (4) Total impact cost e residerit:(Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table 11-9 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table 11-8. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 19 Impact Fee Update Study Calculation. Step Impact Cost Revenue Credits ImpactCost �rr> .,. • Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident iT) P... „_ $485.08 - a Revenue Credit Avg Annual Capital Exp nsion,Credit pe FunctionalrResident(2)N $16.22 Capitalization Rat 1 is .. . 2.5% Capitalization Perioch(in years).; 25 Capital Expansion Cred er Functional, Resident $298.84 • <Net Impact C x. _ . Netlmpact Cost per-FunctlonaI Resident(4) $186.24 - (1) Source: Table 11-6 (2) Source: Table 11-7 • (3) Source present value okthe capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a wv discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years The discount rate was provided by Indian River ounty. (4) Total impact cost e residerit:(Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table 11-9 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table 11-8. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 19 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table 11-9 Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule LUC . Land Use Impact - Unit ' RESIDENTIAL:. -. - Functional ' Total i Current er ; Admin Percent Resident Impact Fee per], Functional l Fee !1 Impact Adopted '1 Coefficientl'I ' X31 t i !, rn ;' Change ) Izl a Resident _,1 _ _ ,. Fee i. Fee l. -. _ 210 Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf du 1.40 $260.74 $6.52: . $267.26 $154.78 72.7% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du L52 5283.08 $7.08. . 5290.16 5174.25 66.5% • 2,500 sf or greater du 1.69 5314.75 57.87 $322.62 5188.60 71.1% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.84 5156.44 53.91 5102.50 56.4% :5160.35 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $182.52 $4.56 • $187.08 $126.08 48.4% •TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: .. _ .. -. 310 Hotel room 0.65 5121.06 53.03 ` 5124.09 5101.48 22.3% 320 Motel room 0.60 5111.74 52.79 $11453 5101.48 12.9% 252/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 5171.34 54.28 $175.62 5109.68 60.1% OFFICE & FINANCIAL - - - 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,WOsf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 5212.31 55.31 -$217.62 $190.65 14.1% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,003 sf 1.66 5309.16 $7.73 .$316.89 $190.65 66.2% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 2.23 $415.32 510.38. $425.70 5217 30 95.996 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf 2.28 5424.63 S10.62 $435.25 5178.35 144.0% 710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 5186.24 54.66 5190.90 5156.83 2L7% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 5158.30 53.96 _. 5162.26 $83.03 95.4% .�... :INDUSTRIAL• ..._ ... ... ....,... 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $93.12 52.33 595.45 $56.38 69.3% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28'x:. $52.15 51.30 .553.45 543.05 24.2% 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 ?S' 511.17 $0.28 .$11.45 58.20 39.6% 110 General light Industrial 1,000 sf t 40:69 5128.51 53.21 $13L72 $76.88 71.3% n/a Concrete Plant acre Ai:: l':$5 5288.67 $7.22 $295.89 5169.13 74.9% n/a Sand Mining acre 'cm: V 0.20 c:v.. $37.25 $0.93 $3&18 521.53 77.3% _.._ RETAIL - .. - _. . 820 Retail 1,000gsfai *:1t 2.37 '.$441.39 511.03 $452.42 5319.80 41.5% 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos}A 1.91 $355:72 $8.89 .$364.61 5192.70 89.2% 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 ifs. t,, 1.47 $273:77; 56.84 5280.61 5190.65 47.2% 932 Restaurant 11000sf' iC 6.78 is 51,262.71 ;$'.531.57 $1,294:28 $821.03 57.6% 934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru ..4tz.• 1,000 sf N:Thl &90.. 51,657.54 'S41.44 $1,698.98 5884.58 92.1% 850 Supermarket %K.% LL000sf `1;;33.2:05 5381.79 59.54 $39L33 5227.55 72.096 942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop VVi *7'1,000 sf \1:50 $279.36 56.98 $286.34 571.75 299.1% 947 Self -Service Car Wash ' service bay 0.87 5162.03 54.05 $166.08 5211.15 -2L3% 853 Convenience Marketw/Gas Pumps 441,003 sf IN ¢?.;v?q„ 5.83 C:t*. 51,085.78 527.14 $1,112.92 5474.58 134.5% 890 Furniture Store- [ cp`i,� 1;000 sf 2:'0.23 '( $42.84 51.07 $43.91 $35.88 22.4% RECREATIONAL: - - 430 Golf Course vt::`S. `» holef.49. V 1.08 :4 5201.14 $5.03 $206.17 5273.68 -24.7% 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance StUdiO?b k?31 $575.48 514.39 $589.87 5265.48 122.2% 1,000 sf.3it:, 3.09 412 County Park 4,'r':\ ck-..=• acre N 4, 0.20 537 25 $0.93 _ $3&18 $17.43 119.0% 491 Tennis Court . Adis= :.. X k4 . stt2court 3.16 5588.52 514.71 :5603.23 5259.33 132.6% 420 Marina .s--ainett, , berthikz. Y'-1 0.19 535.39 $0.88 $36.27 517.43 108.1% GOVERNMENTAL 732 Post Office WS`. '?tc, '\. , 1,000 sf 1.62 $301.71 $7.54 - 5309.25 5198.85 55.5% 590 Library =, \?;\, 'S ''411,000sf 1.76 $327.78 58.19 - $335.97 $192.70 74.3% 733 Government Office Complex\ 't'::. ‘1.,000 sf 1.39 5258.87 56.47 .$265.34 5151.70 74.9% MISCEUANEOUS: - - -- - ` 565 Day Care Center?, Y,* 1,000 sf 0.89 $4.14 5169.89 5112.75 50.7% 5165.75 610 Hospital `."2.s'. .C:°.'{ 1,000 sf 1.37 5255.15 56.38 $26L53 5175.28 49.2% 640 Veterinary Clinic r "1 1,000sf 2.54 5473.05 511.83 $484.88 5182.45 165.8% 560 Church �c fi- 1,000 sf 0.51 $94.98 52.37 597.35 559.45 63.8% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,113.72 527.84. 51,14156 $948.13 20.4% 520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 0.06 $11.17 $0.28 ' $11.45 510.25 11.7% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student . 0.07 513.04 50.33 513.37 510.25 30.4% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 514.90 50.37 $15.27 $13.33 14.6% 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $18.62 50.47 511.28 69.2% $19.09 n/a Fire Station 1,000sf 0.63 $117.33 52.93. .5120.26 570.73 70.0% Note: gsf = gross square feet (1) Functional resident coefficients from Appendix A, Table A-12 for residentia and lodging land uses and Table A-15 for non-residential land uses. (2) Proposed impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table II -8) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land use. . - (3) Fee per functional resident (Item 2) multiplied by 2.5% to determine the administrative fee. (4) Sum of fee per functional resident (Item 2) and administrative fee (Item 3). (5) Source: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee; fees are currently suspended (6) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 5) to the total impact fee (Item 4) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 20 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy In the case of correctional facilities, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between Fiscal Years 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $2.3 million per year of non -impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure 11-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated in this report. This level is considered the investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the Coin may charge the maximum amount of correctional facilities impact fee calculated 'ilthe historical levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County woulgTnot need any impact fee revenue to continue to maintain the current LOS. It should be noted that the historical avertage non -impact fee contribution is based on spending made for the last jail expansion, whichr-was completed in 2008:.. Since then, the County did not have any nonimpact fee spending"and does not have any capacity expansion projects programmed in .the°?GIP. This is construction in that correctional facilities tend to require provide sufficient capacity nfor a longer.:term than mentioned previously fife current jail population functional capacity �.a. reflective of "lumpy" nature of jail large scale investments that most other infrastructure types. As is approximately 75 percent of the jail. 30096 25096 20096 15096 _= 10096 5O% 096 Correct„_nal Facilities Impact'Fee— Affordable Growth Approach Em- IRCAAverage Annual Growth _,•Totattest Mazimurri Impact -fee —..-_1(905 Curve: 10•111•11M1 11111.1-.01M • 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.0096 4.00% 5.0096 6.00% 7.0096 8.00% 9.00% 10.0096 Annual Growth Rate Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 21 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's correctional facilities impact fee program, a comparison of correctional facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table 11-10 presents this comparison. As presented, Indian River County's calculated fee is within the range of fees adopted by other Counties. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 22 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County Table 11-10 0 (a 0. 0 046 0) GJ 1 GJ GJ LL 4+ t1 f0 0. E GJ U c0 LL f0 c O (1) W O u tri m c > co (a C O C3 O s U I %OOT Residential• '����� CC cc C _- � T— M SI4' C I O i = O a) U 2 %OOZ n r m In O O tD L CU N Ol _ c 0 U O N U c 0 /.4 $488 N ta NJ m to s. O lD to le CD L} in N CT N N tn• a) O re N ri u C O a) 0 N a) U Y 0.4 %001 M. M. - EO ' el $258 ri (/1 ri Lf1 c-1 L11 in Brevard County(s) 2000 %OON N VT \ b.'C m i/} 'u1 LDD ri in .V? N fl Ain cg �} a In C O i .. 0 iX w O,' o 2N tn. O tm/T t/} £CCOto. 'tA N N N gl C i ; c , en V U L II (a i+. M (a c O vT 0 V} O •in SO: .t/a jO t in Ali Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study III. Solid Waste Facilities This section provides the results of the solid waste facilities impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the solid waste facilities impact fee: • • • • • • • . Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Cost Component Credit Component Net Solid Waste Impact Cost Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison These various elements are summarized in"this'section. It should be noted that solid waste impact fees are not very/common and there is limited; literature ,- tiSolid waste operations are typically an Enterprise*Funn daditend to be self sufficientin terms of funding. In the case of Indian River County,. the Solid :'Waste Disposal District (SWDD), a dependent district, provides the solid waste5services At this :time, the solid;,waste impact fee istsunded in Indian River County. Prior to the suspension, the Countycharged a ° solid waste impact fee to both residential and non- residential land uses. These>fees were calculated taking into account both the landfill and garbage trucksused for waste collection. Since the last study, the County started outsourcing the aste collection service. The landfill is used by both existing and new 44, growth on a continuous basis, and as such, it is difficult to establish a need directly tied to - new growth. As such, in,this study, the impact fee calculations are based on the customer convenience centers, which are used only by residential land uses. Given this, the revised fee schedule includes only residential land uses. Facility Inventory As mentioned previously, the SWDD has the landfill site and also operates five customer convenience centers throughout the District for the collection of Class I waste, yard trash, Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 24 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study cardboard, newsprint, and mixed recyclables. The landfill and operations of the customer convenience centers are funded through an annual non -ad -valorem assessment and tipping fees charged at the landfill. In addition, an outside contractor provides waste collection services. As explained previously, the inventory related to the new growth consists of the customer convenience centers, which are summarized in Table III -1. The value of customer convenience center buildings and land are based on the most recently built center and the value of existing properties. :A'more detailed explanation is provided in Appendix F. Table III -1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities Invento Source:Indian River Coun Based on"thertost of on-going expansiori>.ofsthe Oslo Customer Convenience Center Acres(Item 1 multiplied by the d value per:acre (Iteemm�6) Sum of the building building (item 3) a d and value (Item`£4) Based'on a review of va uesgof land where existing facilities are located and vacant land sales and values Service Areaaand Population Solid waste facilitiesare provided on a countywide basis. Because customer convenience centers serve only the'r:.,esidential customers, weighted population is used in this analysis. The County's current weighted seasonal population estimate and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1 (countywide). Cost Component Table III -2 presents a summary of asset value related to the solid waste impact fee and resulting value per resident ($94 per person). It should be noted that this amount also Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 25 Impact Fee Update Study Facility Description Facility Value (2) I Land 1 Value (3) Total Facility & Land l Value (4) Acres(1) Transfer Stations: Winter Beach Customer Convenience .Center 19 5 4 $2 600,000 $391,0001 $2,991,000 Roseland Customer Convenience Center .. 1.38 4..., T$2,600,000 $27,600 $2,627,600 Gifford Customer Convenience Center "t 10.81 'x=$2;600,000 $216,200 $2,816,200 Oslo Customer Convenience Center Nkl, ``;11_61 $2;600,000 $232,200 $2,832,200 Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center _ '', `. 4 75. $2,600;000 $95,000 $2,695,000 Total ``r "" ,, kqS 10 x$13;000,000 $962,000 $13,962,000 Land Value Isis . ' per Acre 4: 4. , $20,000 - Source:Indian River Coun Based on"thertost of on-going expansiori>.ofsthe Oslo Customer Convenience Center Acres(Item 1 multiplied by the d value per:acre (Iteemm�6) Sum of the building building (item 3) a d and value (Item`£4) Based'on a review of va uesgof land where existing facilities are located and vacant land sales and values Service Areaaand Population Solid waste facilitiesare provided on a countywide basis. Because customer convenience centers serve only the'r:.,esidential customers, weighted population is used in this analysis. The County's current weighted seasonal population estimate and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1 (countywide). Cost Component Table III -2 presents a summary of asset value related to the solid waste impact fee and resulting value per resident ($94 per person). It should be noted that this amount also Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 25 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study reflects an average annual residential solid waste generation rate of 0.7 tons per capita per year. Table III -2 Net Impact Cost per Resident (1) Source Table III -1 (2) Source Table III -1 (3) Sum of the total building value (Item 1) and*the tota_bland value (Item 2) (4) Source: Appendix A TableA-1, Countywide (5) Total asset value (Item‘divided by population (Item 4) (6) Each component divided bytot asset value 3' Credit Component To avoid overchargingnew development for,the solid waste facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program fpr customer care facilities was completed. The purpose of this rev ew waas o determine any potentiaLrevenuecredits generated by new development that aretbeing used forgexpansion:of capitaracilities and land included in the inventory. As presented: in Table III -3 the County�'uses an average annual amount of $252,000 of the SWDD's revenues toward the construction/expansion of customer convenience center expansion. This amount resultin an annual expenditure of almost $2 per resident, which is used the calculated the imp ct3fee credit. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 26 Impact Fee Update Study Capital Asset Component 1 -- J.' Figure Percent of Total (6) Value -- _— Total Building Value(1) $1300,000 93% Total Land Value(2) 4 ' $962,000 7% Total Asset Valuel3l$ 13,962,000 o 100/ 2013 Populationi4i001 M1 Total Solid Waste Asset Value per Res.ja ntlsl $94:34 (1) Source Table III -1 (2) Source Table III -1 (3) Sum of the total building value (Item 1) and*the tota_bland value (Item 2) (4) Source: Appendix A TableA-1, Countywide (5) Total asset value (Item‘divided by population (Item 4) (6) Each component divided bytot asset value 3' Credit Component To avoid overchargingnew development for,the solid waste facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program fpr customer care facilities was completed. The purpose of this rev ew waas o determine any potentiaLrevenuecredits generated by new development that aretbeing used forgexpansion:of capitaracilities and land included in the inventory. As presented: in Table III -3 the County�'uses an average annual amount of $252,000 of the SWDD's revenues toward the construction/expansion of customer convenience center expansion. This amount resultin an annual expenditure of almost $2 per resident, which is used the calculated the imp ct3fee credit. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 26 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Q) c a) 0. X W c 17) c 0. X W ON U a ra a f0 io 4-1O COel N - - . $2,106,493 000'096$ $1,250,000 o to tom ^" $5,031,4931 N. rl ID N 0• 0 Cr el NN in tD N '.1 O N N LL LL' 1 1 1 11 0 4" oni3i :. ,9 ro Expenditure per Resident(4) • ..ti`�A; �. N �„ 1 N, LL 1 p O O L.0>••1 m in i s $960,0001 itures�Z� >; W. • v N LL 1 1 1 o 0 Irl 8 el N i/} N} i s ...41.F M N I).',moi LL 4-"14. —l ellt No )1, - LL LL 1 . 1 4p'L? 0 O 0ittl ".. 111).§ y 1!1 N L1 j :k�i.•' iY� h. 1 1 I r .irex ei I N } LL 1 A 'gib: 11 1 / o riotN } It $2,106,493 1 K1'1 $2,106,493 4n ' 8 1 N LL 1 1 1 11 1 CO 8;- N >•• u. 1 1 11 1 —c 0 Y a "C u in I 1al I0 O CI Roseland Customer Convenience Center Gifford Customer Convenience Center Total Ismere CustomerConveni lo Customer Convent H c O_ c Q • X 0) T 43 ra (0 Vr irL k• 41 U O (0 0• ) Y =a c 0) O_ X v v L T c 0 0) -ou c T c 7 O U 4) c c0 c u 0 M E 0) c co Gifford Centers) cn 0) 0) 4-4c 0) 0) c L c (0 too 4) co N R0)' 4-▪ 4 T 0) 0) -o '.�.. ai". tYFT•is avmre oPer 8 L Y T Y 3 • c � 7 • U CO a v O cc c T (0 C a) T 70 > -D -0 H 0 1 > :Es a c c W O O_ C. X (0 E o E N E °) 4-0 c an c O 4O+ ri "c c < 0) 0) X _o a) ra co Y Q O_ x_ fO u c c v c fl c a(o Q a) uno ((00 vni C m Tea a c 0 V v c (0 c Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. N N January 2014 • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Net Solid Waste Impact Cost The net impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table III -4 summarizes the calculation of the net solid waste impact cost per resident. Table III -4 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident 1) Source: Table III -2 (2) Source: Table III -3 (3) Source: The present,valu�e of the capital improve mentcredrt per functional resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. (4) Total impactcost per resident (Item4 5Itessahe capital expansion credit per resident (Item 3) > ak 10. A Calculated Solid WasteImpact4Fee Schedule :.., The calculated solid waste impact feer,.each residential land use is presented in Table III - 5. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons perv.unit byfla d use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $79 for the .multi -family residential land use to $160 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet orimore space. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 28 Impact Fee Update Study Calculation Step Impact Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) • •• $94.34 Revenue Credit teer<14 Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(2) - $1.70 Capitalization Rate K :. <:ilk 2.5% Capitalization Period (in sP 25 years) • Capital Expansion Credit per FunctionaI4 esident(3) $31.32 Net Impact Cost w # v ; Net Impact Cost per Functional Resider ( . A•• $63.021 1) Source: Table III -2 (2) Source: Table III -3 (3) Source: The present,valu�e of the capital improve mentcredrt per functional resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. (4) Total impactcost per resident (Item4 5Itessahe capital expansion credit per resident (Item 3) > ak 10. A Calculated Solid WasteImpact4Fee Schedule :.., The calculated solid waste impact feer,.each residential land use is presented in Table III - 5. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons perv.unit byfla d use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $79 for the .multi -family residential land use to $160 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet orimore space. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 28 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table III -5 Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC . , ... ._ - `Net Cost !t Calculated Land Use i Impact Residents � • tiUnit 3, to per Impact (j ii per Unit I:1. 131 __.:_.__ _ .. ii. _4,,Resident. _,__,Fee._. -- _- - --.. Admin Fee al ._ ._..-- Total Current • i Percent Impact Adopted' PI Isl Isl ;.Change ' Fee Fee - -• RESIDENTIAL- --.- 210 Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 2.05 563.02 S129.19 $3.23 $1.3142 $76.88 72.2% Single Family (1,500to 2,499 sf) du 2.23 563.02 $140.53 53.51 ..$144.04 $76.88 87.4% .Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 2.47 $63.02 5155.66 $76.88 107.5% 53.89 $159.55 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.23 563.02 577.51 51.94 579.45 $5&43 36.0% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 1.44 52.27 $93.02 • $63.02 $90.75 $76.88 21.0% -..'TRANSIENT, ASSISTED/GROUP ' .. ...., 310 Hotel room n/a n/a $0.00 50.00 521.53 -100.096 $0.00 320 Motel room n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00.. $0.00 521.53 -100.0% 260 Nursing Home bed n/a n/a $0.00 $33.83 -100.036 $0.00 $0.00 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00 563.55 -100.0% $0.00 ..OFFICE& FINANCIAL•-- " _ _ -. - _ • .: - - 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 .$0.00 5120.95 -100.096 $0.W Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf n/a n/a 5120.95 -100.036 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf n/a n/a 50.00 $0.00 5120.95 -100.096 $0.00 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf n/a n/a 5120.95 -100.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 710 General Office 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 $0.W. _. -100.0% $0.00 $96.35 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 -100.0% 50.00 • $0.00 $96.35 INDUSTRIAL:. _.. .. _ .. - _.. , 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 -: $0.00 524L90 -100.0% $0.00 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4&18 -100.0% 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf n/a ,(Q %n/a 50.00 $0.00 ... $0.00 $19.48 -100.0% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf n/a I_ritar n/a $0.00 50.00 50.00 $24L90 -100.0% n/a Concrete Plant acre .n/a rM.„ n/a $0.00 $0.00 . $0.00 $218.33 . -100.0% n/a Sand Mining acre t�s:n /a 50.00 -100.0% :' :, n/a 50.00 $0.00 $21&33 .. , .'RETAIL 820 Retail Center 1,000sfglae n/a ilia N. 50.00 $241.90 -100.0% $0.00 50.00 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos x" n/a n/a $0.00. 50.00 $0.00 539.98 -100.096 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000sf. - n/a n/a 'x:;'4'$0.00 $0.00. $0.00 $120.95 -100.0% 932 Restaurant 1,000 sf ;,%y n/a .GSA. n/a Mi$0:00 -100.096 $0.00 $0.00 $33&25 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf N?-,. n/a $0.00. 50.00 -100.096 r' n/a $0.00 $33&25 850 Supermarket ?p•;1,000 sf % n/a $0.00 ' 50.00 . -100.0% ?r n/a $0.00 $434.60 942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop G.? a111,000sf n/a !., n/a 50.00 $0.00 $20.50 -100.096 $0.00 947 Self -Service Car Wash serJice bay• n/a . n/a $0.00 $0.00. . -100.096 50.00 578.93 853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps '{.i;000sf"-.:.`.'ii'.,, •n/a . ram/a • $0.00 $0.00 .. 50.00 543460 -100.096 890 Furniture Store „va•i�s. 11000 sf -%•Ch;'L'n/a `err/a $241.90 -100.0% 50.00 50.00 .50.00 . _.. ..RECREATIONAL.,. -.. 430 Golf Course t :1 NeSts hip' ei v °-`ice' n/a `4$t n/a -100.036 $0.00 $0.W .50.00 538.95 492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio. J. ° ..A 1,000if,',:; t n/a - n/a $0.00 $120.95 -100.096 50.00 50.00 412 County Park ?., eV site '% 43. n/a n/a $0.00 50.00 -103.096 $0.00 587 13 491 Tennis Court 'S;_':'2.�S =*". :?.°.`..court '892\ n/a n/a $0.00 -100.096 50.00 $0.00 518.45 420 Marina .fiat'7u •+s.:F. "tiertlin,. 'kt n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00 $46.13 -100.0% $0.00 .. GOVERNMENTAL' -. 732 Post Office '%.. .Fni` . 1,000 sf ' n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 596.35 -100.096 590 Ubrary "VSs, ''7:?::1,000sf n/a n/a $0.00 596.35 -100.0% $0.00 50.00 733 Government Office Complez9} VA. " 1;000sf n/a n/a $96.35 -100.096 $0.00 50.00 50.00 571 Jail `e ?a, N;wi bed n/a n/a $0.00 -100.0% $0.00 $0.00 516.40 • MISCELLANEOUS: _ - .. .. . 565 Day Care Center,;::, a 1000 sf n/a n/a $0.W $0.00 5241.90 -100.0% $0.00 610 Hospital `k5a. ,,k;{' ;j` 1,000 sf n/a n/a 50.00 . - $0.00 50.00 $85.08 -100.0% 640 Veterinary Clinic \e':.'+at' 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0.00 ' 50.00 $120.95 -100.096 50.00 560 • Church 1,000 sf n/a n/a 50.00 $33.83 -100.096 $0.00 50.00 444 Movie Theaterw/Matinee screen n/a n/a $0.00 $0.00 5120.95 -100.0% 50.00 520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student n/a n/a 50.00 $12.30 -100.096 $0.00 $0.00 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student n/a n/a 512.30 -100.0% 50.00 50.00 $0.00 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student n/a n/a 50.00 $13.33 -100.0% 50.00 $0.00 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student n/a n/a $13.33 -100.0% $0.00 50.00 50.00 n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf n/a n/a $96.35 -100.096 $0.00 50.00 _. 50.00 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Source: Appendix A, Table A-2 Source: Table III -4 Residents per unit (Item 1) multiplied by the net cost per resident (Item 2) Calculated impact fee (Item 3) multiplied by 2.5% to calculate the administrative fee Sum of the calculated impact fee (Item 3) and the administrative fee (Item 4) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 6) to the total impact fee (Item 5) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 29 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Figure III -1, due to the availability of a Targe amount of non -impact fee revenue and relatively low growth rate, the County does not need any impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. If the County decides not to use the recurring revenues toward future customer convenience centers, the calculated impact fee for a mid-size single family home would be approximately $210 ($94.34 multiplied by 2.23 persons per housing unit) and the full impact fee would be needed for this service 160% 140% 120% Figure III -1 Solid Waste Impact Fee — Afforrdable`GrowthApproach .. 100% To 80% O I- 60% 40% 20% 0% „C Average "Annual:.t Iy v r rr.; . Total Cost Maximum Impact Fee LOS Curve 1 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% Annual Growth Rate Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison h •. As mentioned previously, solid waste impact fees are relatively rare. Table III -6 presents the comparison of Indian River"County s existing and calculated fees to those jurisdictions that do collect a solid waste impact fee. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 30 Impact Fee Update Study 0 ..r." 11 i 111 +-• a U NI COO COA Residential: • Non -Residential: I N CO 1.4 Ln CO v el el t/) N M el 4.4 O LI) el t4 rMi V} t/} s8 O ;° Z t0 0 O. 4 M_ U %os OSS$ 06$ ri N 8 ih 08L$ tn. o ,a > C ECCI C U 0 0 ri 0CD \ � C \ C 0 C ro \\‘—i C as C r-1 t/? ' 0 O N 15. . �+ O U am to <...,.,.s oA Y• of W „� > oo N %00I I au t^/: N 11./- N, •'1.441.4i/) t { A M '. '? .. ice/? V t t 3 +, �O O Q j 0$ "4>1•;•••4514:d y rmi 0 N zge C ID R. 3 V en ri ON %ooi ,y0- 0; " ;0 t/)• O i/) O 1.4 • ,y 4=1 O C 1,000 sf V) 0 0 ele ut 0 0 rib. Is 000`1 V1. 00 0 ri Land Use Adoption Percentage J ly (2,000 sf) Light Industrial Office (50,000 sq ft) Drive -TI tH Cr O O O 0 ri Drive -TI .(0 4-0 a) cc C E O co co O E C = _ m a) C_ a) 1- 3 a; u 1i r O V V) °v 0 O 0) roC QJ 0.0 fa CU > c0 C 0 QJ CU CU 4-4u CO U Source: Indian River Co O '0 ZLI- O O U U a) ai O 0 O O V) V) ri N m V) 1.0 U C VI a, m U OLel Ln 06 a) 0 0) To C >ft a eleaa C00 Q D CD a). u CD a E January 2014 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study IV. Public Buildings Public buildings impact fees are used to fund the land purchases and capital construction and expansion of facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional government service demand created by growth. • There are several major elements associated with the development of the administrative facilities impact fee. These include: Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level -of -Service • Cost Component 44, • Credit Component • Net Public BuildingsIrnpact Cost:; •4% fe "ttir Calculated Public BuildinkImpact Fee Schedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Public Buildings Impact Fee:Scheduletomparison 2 Facility Inventory The public facilities inventory includesgfacilitieesthat are primarily for the provision of esseitit county services and do not include=d nykof the buildings included in the calculation of otherrimpact fees. int According to`inforrmation provided by Indian River County, the County has approximately 565,000 square feet of generalpublic facility space. This includes the square footage of both primary and support 'buildings. Support facilities are defined as trailers, facilities without air-conditioning, facilities that are unlikelyto be occupied g,�� p' by personnel. Table IV -1 shows a summary of the public buildings inventory and the current value of buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 414,000 square feet of primary bulding space and 151,000 square feet of support space. Building value of the facilities included in the inventory was estimated based on insurance values, estimates for future buildings, and cost information obtained from other Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 32 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study jurisdictions. This analysis resulted in an estimate cost of $210 per square foot for primary buildings and $50 per square foot for support buildings. In addition to building value, land values were estimated for future land purchases. Land value was determined primarily through a. review of the value of parcels where the current public buildings are located, as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser, and an analysis of vacant land sales and values of 1 to 15 -acre lots in Indian River County. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $90,000 per acre. Additional information is included in Appendix F. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 33 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County v " N - ✓ i c0 O. a E O > u_ f6 x cu w L � a C Q O) cu 0) i T O 0) O) s 4-4 0 CO U a CO VI V CO C ra CU QO0 • r0 U C 0 VI O) t co" U � m c E cc -o -0'7 .gr cur f0 To= LI O > L 3 -o -0 O) v C 0 .> CO N O 4-t tifi(3 0) C O) c0 f0 O coo 4 v > O O O c O a - v to n • 7 O 00 > 0) 0 > 40 -0 =0 00 N c C 113 Q H •_C Q1 O O0) u O O "O O f0 f0 7 x 0 .-1-N m v to LO m January 2014 e 00 0) .4-1 _3 Primary Buildings OZZ'EOL `L£$ 00£'88£'8$ 0 006`9£8't$ $4,857,900 Ot£'£L6't$ 00000 $4,564,200 0 N b M M 0 N 01 $1,109,450 2 N O . . N N. . 000 0 L11 u1 t/T tn. i/} Tv? "0 NM J (Q > $171,000 00£`S6t$ 00171700't $ $257,400 $1,204,200 1 . oriel p1` vim o 0m of 000 t11 tm4./1.4./1 o O' N N` n1 1 N 000 mal N N' CO CT) in -VTt/} 1. 11). CIO N 'a = 3 m > OZ£'681 `L£$ 00£'LtZ'8$ 0 Tr rift lD m CN 0 00S58'£$ 0N 08616SS'9$ 000 `09£'£$ (0 CI $87,021,480 000'68L'9$ O in lD ell -d CO N. 0S9'ZLS'L$ $94, 594,130 $167.17 01 ie LC 0 UO` r` r` t%} /,/T y _ trl 11:1 a) Q c-1 re. 111, : ` O 'rte P N .--1 CO 0 LD r el -i IS) 00 N N 00 In CO m fn ril .# X4.77 p0 i 06 itlie-. ..1. LA t:r1 O1 N co m ,.y "1 u1 Q1 %.0 en _. 1-1 ei Y c ami CO15 LL L c6 N al o N. re O m r-1 Oi r`N o 0 o o cr co" NO In m :ao �: r` .� 00 x'00 m P O o o (0 tio't ,414,388 O oo N Idi m r` LD ^'ham UP'rsr 565,841 C l tp . tS 5 v L. CD 44 a '- Ca LOOZ 0 01 'l' 01 N lD o Aa ri_e s zN' d O G' CDt':'t� �0 . 0 0 4'"g , lD 00 4: Vii 'cc - Total -- All Buildings �.. Unit Cost(6) p & O 0 % cns \ OnSiy Oji Oji d O rc-i •u ra u_ t Building Courthouse - Judicial Complex(5) tration Annex Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities Building lections Sub -Annex (43rd Ave) gency Operations Center ety Building . i . !dings. A it Subtotal -- Support Buildhngs in. Building Ca O a a 0 H v " N - ✓ i c0 O. a E O > u_ f6 x cu w L � a C Q O) cu 0) i T O 0) O) s 4-4 0 CO U a CO VI V CO C ra CU QO0 • r0 U C 0 VI O) t co" U � m c E cc -o -0'7 .gr cur f0 To= LI O > L 3 -o -0 O) v C 0 .> CO N O 4-t tifi(3 0) C O) c0 f0 O coo 4 v > O O O c O a - v to n • 7 O 00 > 0) 0 > 40 -0 =0 00 N c C 113 Q H •_C Q1 O O0) u O O "O O f0 f0 7 x 0 .-1-N m v to LO m January 2014 • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Service Area and Population Indian River County provides government services to all residents, workers, and visitors the benefit of government services. As such the service area was determined to be the entire county. To be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted seasonal population is used in „all population estimates and projections. As mentioned previously, weighted seasonapulation projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided yin, <the Indian River County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, public buildings is one of the program areas where functional population istused to capturethe presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. ``A more detailed explana on .of weighted and functional poulation estimates is provided in Appendix .A:t • Level -of -Service Based on the informationmprovided by the County; Indian River County's 2013 achieved level -of -service (LOS) is 2.80ksquare feet of4primaly facilities per weighted resident. Table IV -2 presents the calculation of the existing:;.L®S. In addition, the adopted LOS standard is .413 `. 1.99 square feet per resident. The County s Five -Year, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the addition of approximately 10,000 'square feet; of public buildings space. With this additional investment; the LOS is estimated at 2.78 square feet per resident by 2017. Given that both. the current and2017 estimated LOS are higher than the adopted LOS standard, the impact fee calculations e exbased on the adopted LOS standard, resulting in more conservative impact fee levels. Theadopted LOS standard is converted to square feet per functional resident, which resulted 'in 2'10 square feet per resident, as shown in Table IV -2. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 1 Indian River County 35 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IV -2 Current Level -of -Service (1) Source: Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-11 (2) Source: Table IV -1 ._ (3) Total square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide population (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County (5) The CIP includes the addition ofr OO square feet of'pubuildings space over the next five years (6) Future public buildings square footageqItem5) divided Icy tlie,2017 population <4.al Stt Table IV -3 presents a:cornparison of IRc4s LOS standard with the LOS standards of other counties. It is important to jurisdictions is not note that the publicding builsquare footage for different �� readily available in k? 1format to provide an 'apples -to -apples' information,. obtained froma recent study on the LOS analysis for Basis for the comparison included in Table IV -3: comparison. As such, governmentabuildings was a A54, Itt siS Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 36 Impact Fee Update Study 1 Component �� __ `_Year 2013 Weighted 1 Population Functional __ Population j Population(l) 148,001 140,186 Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings)(�) 414,388 414,388 Achieved LOS (Sq. Ft. per Resident)a31 2.80 2.96 Adopted LOS Standard (Sq. Ft. per Residents)a41 '`: 1.99 2.10 Future LOS: Population -- 2017(�1 ;:>k t, 152,612 144,582 Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings) 424,388 424,388 Achieved (SqLOSFt.per Resident 161 ) . *> . x_2:78 2.94 (1) Source: Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-11 (2) Source: Table IV -1 ._ (3) Total square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide population (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County (5) The CIP includes the addition ofr OO square feet of'pubuildings space over the next five years (6) Future public buildings square footageqItem5) divided Icy tlie,2017 population <4.al Stt Table IV -3 presents a:cornparison of IRc4s LOS standard with the LOS standards of other counties. It is important to jurisdictions is not note that the publicding builsquare footage for different �� readily available in k? 1format to provide an 'apples -to -apples' information,. obtained froma recent study on the LOS analysis for Basis for the comparison included in Table IV -3: comparison. As such, governmentabuildings was a A54, Itt siS Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 36 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IV -3 Level -of -Service Comparison 1) Source: Table IV -1 for IRC; yktiillie7tOtMty Government•<Buildings & Law Vs Nweasa. ver Enforcement Facilities Level-of.Service Analysis, 2010' for -'other Jurisdictions (2) SourceBEBR2012 final population estimates (3) Primary square footage divided by:permanent popu ation (Item 2) Cost Component Intv The cost component oftthe study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings and land. Table IV -4 provides`asummary,of all capital costs which amounts to $240 per square '3' ,' foot of public'buildings, and $504 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 37 Impact Fee Update Study --- r _.._ County — Total Square Footage Primary Squarer) Footage ____ Permanent Population(2) Sq. Ft. per Resident(3) Seminole 770,029 710,096 428,104 1.66 Hernando 319,946 313,305 173,104 1.81 Palm Beach 3,431,780 2,588,451 1,335,415 1.94 Pasco 1,027,749 922,219 468,562 1.97 Manatee 829,913 763,290 1,2330,302 2.31 Polk 1,692,402 1,416,373 <`606,888 2.33 Brevard 1,418,931 1,370,073 `` 'x-545,625 2.51 Collier 1,436,493 891384 329;849 2.70 Osceola 969,392 4807;020 280, 866 2.87 Escambia 1,263,692 1872,880 299,511 2.91 Indian River 565,841 414,388 ,x,139,446 2.97 Marion 1,357,640 1,045;175 '332,989 1'3.14 Charlotte 664786 641,994 <C 163,357 '3 93 St. Johns 773 347 .* 771,047 196,071 3.93 1) Source: Table IV -1 for IRC; yktiillie7tOtMty Government•<Buildings & Law Vs Nweasa. ver Enforcement Facilities Level-of.Service Analysis, 2010' for -'other Jurisdictions (2) SourceBEBR2012 final population estimates (3) Primary square footage divided by:permanent popu ation (Item 2) Cost Component Intv The cost component oftthe study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings and land. Table IV -4 provides`asummary,of all capital costs which amounts to $240 per square '3' ,' foot of public'buildings, and $504 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 37 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Table IV -4 Public Building Total Cost per Functional Resident 1) Source: Table IV -1 2) Source: Table IV -1 3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (Item 2) 4) Source: Table IV -1 5) Total buildingand land value(Item 3)divided by primarybuild�ingYsquare footage (Item 6) Source: Table IV -2 7) Building and land value per square foot (-Item 5) multiplied'13y building square footage per functional •resident (Item 6) YrtWON" tem (8) Percentage distribution of building value and landwalue in relation to;the combined building and land value Credit Component Are 14.4 ern To avoid overcharging deve epment for the public buildings impact fee, a review of the capital‘fancing.�program for public buildings was inconducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potent al,rfievenuecredits that should be considered for revenues generateedd by new development that "could be used for capital facilities and land expansion for public buildings. To estimate an average annual non -impact fee expenditure, capital projects funded 'during the past five years and programmed for the next five years were reviewed. Based on this analysis, a credit for these expenditures is provided in Table IV -5, which results in an average annual credit of $5 per functional resident. It should be noted that a Targe part of this is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. The credit calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re -adopted. If the sales tax is re -adopted, the credit calculations should be evaluated to determine if a revision is necessary. r. Sterke Ate Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 38 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Component - - - - _ Total Building Value(1) i Figure Percent of Total Value%8• $94,594,130 95.14% Total Land Value(2) $4,832,100 4.86% Total Building and Land Value(3) $99,426,230 100.00% Primary Building Square Footage(4) a 414,388 Total Building and Land Value per Square Foot(5) , $239.94 Adopted LOS Standard - Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident- .et..:. 2.10 Total Impact Cost per Functional Residentl'I ..: $503.87 1) Source: Table IV -1 2) Source: Table IV -1 3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (Item 2) 4) Source: Table IV -1 5) Total buildingand land value(Item 3)divided by primarybuild�ingYsquare footage (Item 6) Source: Table IV -2 7) Building and land value per square foot (-Item 5) multiplied'13y building square footage per functional •resident (Item 6) YrtWON" tem (8) Percentage distribution of building value and landwalue in relation to;the combined building and land value Credit Component Are 14.4 ern To avoid overcharging deve epment for the public buildings impact fee, a review of the capital‘fancing.�program for public buildings was inconducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potent al,rfievenuecredits that should be considered for revenues generateedd by new development that "could be used for capital facilities and land expansion for public buildings. To estimate an average annual non -impact fee expenditure, capital projects funded 'during the past five years and programmed for the next five years were reviewed. Based on this analysis, a credit for these expenditures is provided in Table IV -5, which results in an average annual credit of $5 per functional resident. It should be noted that a Targe part of this is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. The credit calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re -adopted. If the sales tax is re -adopted, the credit calculations should be evaluated to determine if a revision is necessary. r. Sterke Ate Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 38 Impact Fee Update Study c v Vn Gl ro 0 f c LL Oi I to In to c_ v v c u d O 0 • CO On To a v Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study n E N in N E ocu a • c > > v 2 N d To ToLnL C .3 C a a o a c a v a v a c ry N n e' v c — N C 4. o a> {rat; 0 CU N m m • v C CU • gel L kd _ ., c u— v`C > > 11 %> • 3 - r a n o u L o a!= c 3 0 L ▪ a v C3 a c c u C • v y w y c N n ” 1 o II! N V < c o — c to r year (Item 6) divided by 0 v n n o 'o c 9 c x' r al V vN to 0) n.n n av a y n n c m o v m` a to c > c n a v v y c = I •5 1 y va CO -0 u o u 0 0 o a a a a E Lin oa H a' on • < C X v c 5 y a n u a.o u n 00 0 In r ,.rvmv In lorco o a 88 o O tch RI m aVa t/11 a M 01 4•4 n rn N Q N Court Facility Surcharge: 6' IN pp O N Qp IS N 1 1 1 1 (Subtotal -- Average Annual Expenditures Funded with Sales Tax Revenues(2) Average Annual Expenditures per Resident (Sales Tax)(3) 1 I i Subtotal -- Average Annual Expenditures Funded with Court Facility Surcharge Revenues(4) („ <� ITntal Puhlir Ruildinos Fxnansinn Fnnenditures ner Year(6) X _ ti?t3S it , 11 , Intl 0 $2,118,5081 111 I.'•CO o T Ir N N 1 .1 $359,6801 •I • :9' T M. • • i1 , $306,586 5306,586 N 03O -1 no fse LLi $4,152,6401 $4,152,640 c O • W 0 ,O d N 0 c o ItO Expansion of Fiber Optic Network Displaced Courtroom (Additional Offices) Emergency Operations Center Subtotal -- Expenditures Funded with Sales Tax Revenues New Courtroom Facilities Subtotal -- Expenditures Funded with Court Facility Surcharge Revenues n E N in N E ocu a • c > > v 2 N d To ToLnL C .3 C a a o a c a v a v a c ry N n e' v c — N C 4. o a> {rat; 0 CU N m m • v C CU • gel L kd _ ., c u— v`C > > 11 %> • 3 - r a n o u L o a!= c 3 0 L ▪ a v C3 a c c u C • v y w y c N n ” 1 o II! N V < c o — c to r year (Item 6) divided by 0 v n n o 'o c 9 c x' r al V vN to 0) n.n n av a y n n c m o v m` a to c > c n a v v y c = I •5 1 y va CO -0 u o u 0 0 o a a a a E Lin oa H a' on • < C X v c 5 y a n u a.o u n 00 0 In r ,.rvmv In lorco • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Net Public Buildings Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the Cost Component and the Credit Component. Table IV -6 presents the calculation of the net public buildings facilities impact cost per functional resident. The first section of Table IV -6 identifies the total impact cost as $504 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the capital expandion expenditure credits for the public buildings facilities impact fee. The net impact cost per functional resident (third`section of2the table) is the difference t4.4CC between the total impact cost per functional.•resident of $504 and the total revenue credit of $24 per functional resident. The results" a net impact cost of$480 per functional resident.Vir Table IV -6 Net Public Building IImpact•Cost per Functional Resident (1) Source: Table IV -4 .. (2) Source: Table IV -5 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 2.5% for 5 years for sales tax and 25 years for the court facility surcharge. The estimated discount rate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total cost per resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Based on the analysis conducted in this section a public buildings impact fee schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table IV -7. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 40 Impact Fee Update Study Revenue Credits Calculation Step Impact Cost Sales Tax Court Facility Surcharge Total — _ . Impact Cost I, ... Total Impact Cost per Function aResident�i $503.87 Revenue Credit �"ct ". Avg Annual Capital \frt Expansion,Credit Amount per Functional;Resid ntili $4.94 $0.18 iargr Capitalization Rate 2.5% 2.5% Capitalizatioon,Period (in years) ... 5 25 Capital Expans o ,Credit per Resident $22.95 $0.84 $23.79 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost iaj per Functional Residentl $480.08 (1) Source: Table IV -4 .. (2) Source: Table IV -5 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 2.5% for 5 years for sales tax and 25 years for the court facility surcharge. The estimated discount rate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total cost per resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Based on the analysis conducted in this section a public buildings impact fee schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table IV -7. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 40 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IV -7 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule i Calculated ; 'Functional ITE LUC Land Use Impact Resident t Impact NI) Unit 1, Functional h Coefficient ii Resident(2) •1! ee per (', Admin 11 Total E Feel'I ! Impact , ) (4) i. FeeFee ! Current I Adopted 1 tsl ';i Percent Change tsl - RESIDENTIAL: - ..... - _.._r__ Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 1,500sf du 1.40 $672.11 $16.80 5688.91 5187.58 267.396 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.52 5729.72 518.24 1747.96 5211.15 254.2% - 2,500sf or greater du 169 5811.34 520.28 $83L62 $228.58 263.8% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.84 $403.27 510.08. • .5413.35 $1.24.03 233.3% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 5470.48 $1L76 5482.24 $1.52.73 215.7% .TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: -. 310 Hotel room 0.65 $312.05 $7.80 ' $319.85 5234.73 36.3% 320 Motel room 0.60 $288.05 57.20 ' $295.25 5234.73 25.8% 252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $441.67 51104 545271 $319.80 41.6% OFFICE&FINANCIAL- _ 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less 1,000sf 1.14 5547.29 513.68 5560.97 51,306.88 -57.1% ' Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000sf 1,000sf 1.66 5796.93 $19.92'.. $816.85 51,306.88 -37.5% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000sf 2.23 $1,070.58 526.76 $1,097.34 51,490.35 -26.4% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000sf 2.28 $1,094.58 527.36 $1,121.94 $1,220.78 -8.1% 710 General Office 1,000sf 1.00 5480.08 $12.00 $49208 51,076.25 -54.3% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000sf 0.85 $408.07 510.20. $418.27 5568.88 -26.5% . INDUSTRIAL: . ... ... . 140 Manufacturing 1,000sf 0.50 5240.04 $6.00 .5246.04 5384.38 -36.096 150 Warehousing 1,000sf 0.28 _ 5134.42 53.36 .5147.78 529520 -53.396 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000sf 0.06 ' {SJAF.0 528.80 50.72 $29.52 $41.00 -28.0% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000sf 0.69 5:-'/ 5331.26 $8.28 $339.54 $524.80 -35.396 n/a Concrete Plant acre /1:55? . 5744.12 518.60 5762.72 51,158.25 -34.1% n/a Sand Mining acre &a.:0.20 Kt S. 596.02 52 40 598,42 5148.63 -33.896 RETAIL: 820 Retail 1,000sfgla' OW 2.37 'a$i;137.79 528.44 $1466.23 $1,569.28 -25.796 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos.`.: J' 1.91 '$916.95 . 522.92 5939.87 5944.03 -0.4% 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 ifcf 1.47 $70532 , 517.64 - 5723.36 5935.83 -22.7% 932 Restaurant 1,000sf\ 4. 6.78 as 53,254.94 ;..N $81.37. 53,336.31 $4,02108 -17.096 934 Fast Food Restw/Drive-Thru 1,000sf `4',K; • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Table IV -5, the County will use $694,000 per year of sales tax revenues for the next five years. In addition, the County uses approximately $25,000 per year of recurring non -impact fee funding for capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure IV - 1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of public buildingsiim"paet fee calculated, if the historical levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land use and continue to/rnaintain the adopted LOS grozo standard used in the calculations. If the County decides to buy -down all non-residential land uses at 100 percent (e.g., $0 impact fee for non-residential landes), the residential land uses need to be charged at approximately 52percent`to maintain the; adopted LOS Per �, , tar . standard. As mentioned previously, these calculations§assume that the sales tax will not be re -adopted in 2019. If the sales ax is re=adopted in 2019 or another revenue source �ee . becomes available for public buildings capital projects, 'these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level'of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between v/ethe minimum levels calcul edin this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard . PublicBuildings,Impact Fee —Affordable Growth Approach Nat 12046 -- 100% 100% 80% To 60% H 40% 20% 0% EMIL VEIL Total <Cost - - Maximum Impact Fee IRCAverage _ Annual Growth �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 0.0096 1.0096 .2.0096 3.00% 4.0096 5.00% 6.0096 7.0096 .8.0096 9.9096 10.0096 Annual Growth Rate. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 42 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IV -8 Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule - Affordable Growth (1) Based on annual growth rate of 1.4% and non -impact fee spending of $719,000 per year for the next five years and $25,000 per year afterwards (2) Source: Calculated 100% impact fee from Table IV -7 multiplied by affordable growth adop ion rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. Fees are currently suspended. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 43 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study ITE LUC il i, Land Use Impact Unit - 'Affordable° Growth AdoptionChan Ratel'I Total Impact Fee(2) Current Adopted Feel') Percent 'f e(4) Changel Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 1,500 sf du 100% • $688.91 $187.58 267.3% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% _ 4747.96 $211.15 254.2% - 2,500 sf or greater du 100% $831.62 $228.58 263.8% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 10096 $413:35 $124.03 233.3% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 100% 5482.24 $152.73 215.796 TRANSIENT, ASSISTED,' GROUP: v 310 Hotel room 52% $166.33 $234.73 -29.1% 320 Motel room 52% $153.53 $234.73 -34.6% 252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 52% $235.41 $319.80 -26.456 OFFICE& FINANCIAL 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,003 sf or less 1,000 sf 52% $291.70 $1,306.88 -77.796 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000sf 52% $424.76 $1,306.88 -67.5% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000sf 52% $570.62 $1,490.35 -61.7% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000sf _ 52% $583.41 $1,220.78 -52.2% 710 General Office 1•000 sf:?; 52% $255.88 $1,076.25 -76.296 760 Research & Development Center 1,000:sf1 52% 5217.50 $568.88 -61.896 INDUSTRIAL 140 Manufacturing ,s'C1';000sf£;?9, 52% $127.94 $384.38 -66.796 150 Warehousing ,31,000sf>52% ' '$71.65 $295.20 -75.7% 151 Mini -Warehouse 11000sfX5296.� $15.35 $41.00 -62.6% 110 General Light Industrial a 1,000 sf 5296.a.5176.57 5524.80 -66 4% n/a Concrete Plant - a acral, 52% `'e', $396.61 $1,158.25 -65.8% n/a Sand Mining CI,. `'`'•v acre:/' 52% 551.18 $148.63 -65.6% RETAIL: 820 Retail "44';, 1,000's`fgla 52% $606.44 $1,569.28 -61.4% 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash . Ni' ;,fuel post; 52% 5488.73 $944.03 -48.2% 841 New/Used Auto Sales see• • t VaX ;;<.1;000sf I 52% $376.14 $935.83 -59.8% 932 Restaurant ' TL Ati ri:oO sfh 52% $1,734.88 $4,021.08 -56.996 .'aY;: , 934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Th?d, a pCiQ2 S' 1,000sf" 52% $2,277.36 $4,332.68 -47.4% 850 Supermarket `\: :3� 4;IN, 1,000sf 5296 '$524.55 $1,114.18 -52.9% , 942 Automobile Repair/Body.Shop sf.Va's r ‘4;:r4, 1,000sf 52% $383.82 $137.35 179.4% .. 947 Self-Service,Car.Wasli :� NZIK -N,..ti. 'S service bay 5296 5222.62 $1,034 23 -78.5% 853 ConveniencefMarke withda3P.umps 'K 1,003 sf 5256 51,491.80 $2,326.75 -35.9% 890 1,000 sf 52% 558.86 $174.25 -66.2% Furniture Store" 3; 'RECREATIONAL 430 Golf Course hole 52% $276.35 51,339.68 -79.4% 492 Raquet Club/Health Club`/Dance Studio" 1,000sf 52% 5790.67 $1,301.75 -39.3% 412 acre 52% $5L18 $83.03 -38 4% County Park `S:\ A't 491 Tennis Court Court \ 4*.V..MY court 52% $808.59 $1,272.03 -36.4% 420 Marina W berth 52% $48.62 $84.05 -42.1% GOVERNMENTAL 732 Post Office 1,000sf 52% 5414.53 $1,134 68 -63.5% 590 Library 1,030 sf 52% 5450.35 $941.98 -52.2% 571 Jail bed 5256 5355.68 $477 65 -25.5% MISCELLANEOUS:' 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 52% $227.73 5773.88 -70.6% 610 Hospital 1,000sf 52% $350.56 $858.95 -59.2% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000sf 52% $649.94 51,253.58 -48.2% 560 Church 1,000sf 52% 5130.50 $292.13 -55.3% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 52% $1,530.18 $4,648.38 -67.1% 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 52% 515.35 $71.75 -78.696 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 52% 517.92 $71.75 -75.0% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 52% $20.47 $92.25 -77.896 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 52% $25.59 $79.95 -68.096 n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 52% 5161.20 $347.48 -53.6% (1) Based on annual growth rate of 1.4% and non -impact fee spending of $719,000 per year for the next five years and $25,000 per year afterwards (2) Source: Calculated 100% impact fee from Table IV -7 multiplied by affordable growth adop ion rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. Fees are currently suspended. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 43 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • , Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's public buildings impact fee schedule, the County's calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedule and those in similar or nearby jurisdictions. Table IV -9 presents this comparison. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 44 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study _ L =? VI � Al 8 Al c y Residential: in V N .� O Ni N § N w Ill --1 '..i N 10 IA C V? 4A - STO'i$ -'? ri O Al 'i 1 N $1821 $316 N LA N w N N u _ - C Q d u x p S a�a N Ocl 1.3 N in i t N illv lin LA awn Zi0'i$ - u O U O N N .,, lD tD n N Al n Al N $558 tD LD 01 N $895 T m V1 M N n_ >o Co u 'N V $ 1 8 N FA N LA N N N1.42 a L CA yt ' 6 G i>. C r 0 U u M $ i O ri L. . i;% 1'a V? �l, X r m N $551 to tnn Vf CU N 13 —« J, C_... r N V A NtA N lab rl $336 t�D N T N y !O 'In N_N S 'tn S In tit Ir., > lI c w' N g y i tn Otil Ng 1.0 N Al N ilit trt jl00 = C� U >Iv C m� mo cI W- a T CO t 3 w O a I m o N co c n : n .n-1 N tD N N w tD N m CO N N A- N ri N r a CI n II u0 m O r %OOL R n N o R m N all aco ttDD el N 1-4 COO m c np Ln § '-1 VI § rl ul § rl IA § rl In § rl • • Land Use Date of Last U.date Adoption Percentage p •O d cc pco 2 Light Industrial Office (50,000 sq ft) 'Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru Ln ri Q vl 8 >. 11 co CV c in z ndexing. Fees are c c c .0 CO P. .c v `w > 0 A 0a ar 0 v C COaI C al v > a C t CO o d C at C L oal^ m,2:c o— a, a 0 a >e c a 0ih ClirU C�!O/ O m.= {Di%ya) N Ne> 47. d,� e a ,0ya.c E 3 vI. a C J a o CO a a, a. n > Cu .0 O W N A LL .0 y 1•;`) O a! CL 4! o a E o c y at 0 VI E IS t " Baa` c v E 0 w e p COa al CI: a ECO �" g: 1:: ' > E m C �N a n E m m o o Q c to it E nco ao0 E> c a p y ` o C m c>= o c u E c 3 oJ v E p m D o p > a O N N Ca 60 p 0.) m re C Nf y 00 c a$$ti C c E C • C U F.0 r C E a a c a >, o a C UCOOa>«0O Co Co ._njWz> •Vwd a C C OL;0jc171 oa�C >0 o al `°a Ln _Et O a a 9 N o Co F F C ti V> V V xw. H "o u u u aI u c u u v u u II u n D Oo 0 0 0 o J o 0 0 0 0 ID to to to VI to u to to to to to el IN m o to to n CO m I � • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study V. Libraries Library impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of library services related buildings, land, and materials/equipment required to support the additional library facilities demand created by new growth. This section provides the results of the library impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the library facilities impact fee: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level -of -Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Library Facilities ImpaceGost • Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Library Facilitiesdmpact Fee Schedule Comparison ,, ¢.. These various elements are summarized inthis section. It should be noted that library impact fees are charged«to;residential land usesonly. Facility Inventory The IRC Library Service operates five4 ibr.aries with a total square footage of 110,000. The following tabletpresents the inventory of library facilities. The building value is estimated at $240 per square "foot based on.:recent library construction and insurance values of existing libraries. Land value•for.library buildings is estimated at $50,000 per acre based on value of current parcels and an analysis of recent vacant land sales and values. Appendix F provides additional information on building and land value estimates. • Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 46 Impact Fee Update Study • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County on, c — c `m cC "0 "16 1- $6,312,550 OZ£`8S6$ o rq $7,200,000 $7,200,000 $26,456,880 $26,871,630 $240 Crlii0 Cr i.3VT OO N a)' -0 3 00 cgorN 06 CO opo o ri in O m V) a)m 0 1-1 ID 1 in v a (Ca c- J> O O OSL`SOZ$ e/u C c ,vt N I-1 O O� Building Value per SquareFoot(8) s *at . Iai ain N w (O@ 3 O tin O` LI. CCo N it 25,445 Cf Ol m m-1 V1 Ail 0 fiO. Om' • m N O rl Land Value perAcre") =� N Li Q, o COri f1. to e/u co C no C la N 01 }' >. 7 OS? ri 01 ri c9 C O ON C. 9S ` Cn r( 1600 21st Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1001 CR 512, Sebastian, FL 32958 2000 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 329$0 tax; 487543rd Avenue, Vero Beach, FL32967 , 6155 College Lane, Vero Beach, FL329 6 4 C • O 0. V CU .0 >b• 4.9U CO LL (Main Library 1North County Library (Law Library ivities Center Library Brackett Library (O 0H ibraries are not included because they are either not • v 6i C 6.0 LL 0 X_ c a) Ja (6 Q � a) (OyV) c O () "0Le tlaif ro 4m. cu s Yt' QJ C0 (o U 0 CO C CO J C 0 0 OJ C (O c a) i O (O a) • v T T D CO c E L O O v m >flc as E > _ i_+ CO 4' C f0 U crE } o a) 3 u E c C (o > a) (O N (O > a) _c' la E o (c T C N O (o C "O a) L) - O v O N O9 13 c 3 i) 7 E O V1 Q V1 V1 m L m U1 kr) o0 a c 0 U a) CE c (O c U C a, fO 0 0 °ZS W" 0 v (O C 1- N a) twmoo a D a) a) 4-0L U CO a E N January 2014 • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study The five facilities identified in Table V-1 house a wide variety of materials available to the public. Table V-2 presents the inventory of library materials. Table V-2 Library Material Invento Source: Indian Ri'IverCounty (2) Nurnber of units multiplied by the Yost (3) Total value for all library;matenals divided by the total units for all library materials In addition to the available material, the IRC Library System owns a variety of equipment, both for public use and for its own operations. Table V-3 presents the inventory of equipment for public versus operational use. It should be noted that impact fee standards are based on the equipment for public use, excluding the equipment used by the library staff. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 48 Impact Fee Update Study Description Books: Units(11 Unit Cost(l) I Total Value(2) _ Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 9,724 _ $25 5243,100 Law Library 225 $80 $18,000 Main, North, Brackett Libraries: - All Books 443;181- R,. $53 $23,488,593 - Electronic Resources . $100 $2,881,200 28;812 - Electronic Books 1,525 ell. $100 5152,500 tw.cv - Serials 4 :..m;, r 14,027 ‘75 $1,052,025 - Books on Tape/CD :`t 15,023 $75:te, $1,1261725 Total - Books ,512,517 $28,962,143 Online Resources: • Online Resource Subscriptions'".`" t ... , Mik $4,0941 $278,392 Other Library Items: Music CDs . `4" 16,200 ,\ $15 $243,000 DVDs: 's, x` 24 798 ) $20 $495,960 Videos :; )% ",'" ;: 4, 6 $15 $65,790 Print Subscrip ns‘ "I fir 1,775 "re $39 $69,225 Other Print Marais ials y 24,775 $50 $1,238,750 Total Other Library Items etbi-.. 71,934 $2,112,725 4;;x '-4 " Coal as A Ili ary Materials -... e y., ‘584,519 $31,353,260 Total Va ue j° Pi :.. per Item $54 Source: Indian Ri'IverCounty (2) Nurnber of units multiplied by the Yost (3) Total value for all library;matenals divided by the total units for all library materials In addition to the available material, the IRC Library System owns a variety of equipment, both for public use and for its own operations. Table V-3 presents the inventory of equipment for public versus operational use. It should be noted that impact fee standards are based on the equipment for public use, excluding the equipment used by the library staff. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 48 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V-3 Library Equipment Invento 1) Source: Indian River County. 2) Number of iteem'Tmultiplied y the unit cost ServiceArea and0Population Library services are provid'ed.on a countywide basis and the impact fee is charged only to residential land uses. A&$%such, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, countywide weighted seasonalpopulation is used in the calculation. The County's current population estimates and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. Level -of -Service The following table provides a summary of the current LOS as well as the adopted LOS standard for library buildings, books, other library materials, and computers in Indian River County. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 49 Impact Fee Update Study �_ Copiers Equipment-:_ r . .._ --- - — _ Number - Publics r of Items"' Unit - . ,Cost —", r Total ^. Equipment -I . Value"' �. _ Staff �' Total � 6 4 10 $7,000 $70,000 Book Scribe Copier 1 0 1 $16,500 $16,500 Laser Printers 10 6 16 $2,136 $34,176 Computers 121 74 ,195 $900 $175,500 Large Print Readers 1 0 `�=. ' 1 $5,000 $5,000 30" TV 1Q 1 $800 $800 45" TVs 1 % ,1 $2,000 $2,000 52" TVs 1 ,0 1 $2,356 $2,356 42" TVs T 0 1 $1,527 $1,527 46" TVs 0 1 $2205 $2,205 32' TVs 3 0 3 $2;428 , $7,284 Dollar Changer 1 ., 0 1 $2,955 >, $2,955 Laminator Ws. It 1 $1,265 $1,265 $1,265 Camcorder a 1 $800 $800 LCD Projectors 5 0 5 $2,500 $12,500 Total - All Items :, 154 `' 85 X239 , $334,868 Total - All excludin c g eters p _ ) 4" u33 " .4. 11 _x. 44 $159,368 1) Source: Indian River County. 2) Number of iteem'Tmultiplied y the unit cost ServiceArea and0Population Library services are provid'ed.on a countywide basis and the impact fee is charged only to residential land uses. A&$%such, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, countywide weighted seasonalpopulation is used in the calculation. The County's current population estimates and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. Level -of -Service The following table provides a summary of the current LOS as well as the adopted LOS standard for library buildings, books, other library materials, and computers in Indian River County. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 49 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V-4 Level -of -Service (2013 (1) Source: Table V-1 for buldings, Table V-2 for materials, anw&Tahle V 3 for computers and equipment (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (3) Square footage/count (Item 1) divided by population: Item 2) multiplietby 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County a (5) Source: Table V-3; only computers and equipment'available for public use are included As presented in the table, the County's current4L®S is abovethe adopted L standard for all elements, except for other library equipment. For impact fee calculations, the adopted LOS standard is used in order to ensure newAdevelopment;:is not overcharged. In addition, a ten,. review of the CIP indicated that there -are no capital expansionmprojects programmed for the next five years. As such the existing L is likely todecreasesomewhat, which suggests that it is preferable to use the adopted LOSstandard;toprovide a more conservative approach. A comparisonokh'e current4lndian River -County L®.S, the adopted LOS standard, LOS of the efs_.. other::Florida counties, and the suggested State) standards is presented in Table V-5. The via comparison includes counties with a population of 100,000 to 750,000, and is based on the information obtained from the Library Directory with Statistics, published by the *r` Department of State, Divisionof Library and Information Services It should be noted thatthe current LOS figures included in the table for Indian River County represent figures provided by the Division of.t Library and Information Services and reflect FY 2013 data with the use of permanent population. To be able to provide an "apples -to -apples" comparison, 2013 data is used for Indian River County and its peer group. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 50 Impact Fee Update Study Item Sq.ii Fo tae g / Count(l) — — 110,237 ,ZI i; Population jl 148,001 (per LOS (p 1,000 0 Residents)(3� ; L - Adopted LOS Standard (per 1,000 Residents) (4) Library Buildings (sf) 745 580 Library Materials (items) 584,519 148,001 3,949 3,200 Computers(5) 121 148,001`- 0.8 0.7 Other Library Equipment (items)(5) 33148;® 1 0.2 0.2 (1) Source: Table V-1 for buldings, Table V-2 for materials, anw&Tahle V 3 for computers and equipment (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (3) Square footage/count (Item 1) divided by population: Item 2) multiplietby 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County a (5) Source: Table V-3; only computers and equipment'available for public use are included As presented in the table, the County's current4L®S is abovethe adopted L standard for all elements, except for other library equipment. For impact fee calculations, the adopted LOS standard is used in order to ensure newAdevelopment;:is not overcharged. In addition, a ten,. review of the CIP indicated that there -are no capital expansionmprojects programmed for the next five years. As such the existing L is likely todecreasesomewhat, which suggests that it is preferable to use the adopted LOSstandard;toprovide a more conservative approach. A comparisonokh'e current4lndian River -County L®.S, the adopted LOS standard, LOS of the efs_.. other::Florida counties, and the suggested State) standards is presented in Table V-5. The via comparison includes counties with a population of 100,000 to 750,000, and is based on the information obtained from the Library Directory with Statistics, published by the *r` Department of State, Divisionof Library and Information Services It should be noted thatthe current LOS figures included in the table for Indian River County represent figures provided by the Division of.t Library and Information Services and reflect FY 2013 data with the use of permanent population. To be able to provide an "apples -to -apples" comparison, 2013 data is used for Indian River County and its peer group. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 50 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V-5 Comparison — (per 1,000 residents) of IRC Current LOS to Florida Standards r Item IRC Achieved LOS (per 1,000 h) Residents)h) 745 IRC LOS.. Standard (per 1,000 . Residents)(1) I FL Public Library Standards I2) St. Lucie Avg. of Peer Z Avg. of Other Group(4) j FL Count_ iesl5l� 1 .Essential ii Enhanced __' , I Exemplary Library Buildings (sq. ft.) 580 Library Mater als' ) 600 700 1,000 2,074 Library Materials(3) 3,949 3,200 2,000 3,000 4,000 0.8 Computers online resource subscriptions. . 0.8 0.70 x0.30 0.50 1.00 (1) Source: Table V-4 (2) Source: Standards for Florida Public Libraries, 2004; Updt�pi'il 2013 (3) Library materials include books, online resources, subsetiptions`�`, and other library items IRC's adopted LOS standard for buildings does not meet the Florida Library Association's (FLA) essential standards. However, the County's adopted standard: for library materials and computers and achieved LOS for allotlera areas are between the enhanced and exemplary LOS standards established by the State The following table provides a comparison of the current IRC LOS to those of surrounding counties. IRC's LOS Is higher than sur eundi gtcounties in areas, except for computers. itt In terms of computers; IRC ranks second after Bre erd County. Comparison of IRCCurrentLj ®Silo Surrounding Counties (per 1,000 residents) Item Per 1,000 Residents Indian River (Existing)I3i Brevard Osceola Okeechobee St. Lucie Avg. of Peer Z Avg. of Other Group(4) j FL Count_ iesl5l� Library Buil dings (sq. ft.) Sx745 ';Z00 337 388 317 422 500 Library Mater als' ) n;949 2,66 1,011 2,256 1,146 1,898 2,074 Computers(2) ,0.'8 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 (1) Library matenalsfor IRC includelbooks, CDs, DVDs, videos, print, and online resource subscriptions. Library materials forother counties include books, serial subscriptions, and Audio/video volumes (2) Source: Department ofzStatet-..Division of Library & Information Services, 2009/10 Library Directory with Statistics; Includes publiecomputers only (3) Source: Table V-4 (4) Peer group includes jurisdictions with 100,000 to 750,000 service area population (excluding IRC) (5) Includes all jurisdictions in Florida (excluding IRC) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 51 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Component Costs are calculated separately for facilities and items/equipment. Facility costs are based on the estimated cost to add the next library building, and the cost of library items and equipment is based on the estimated current value per unit. Buildings and Land Table V-7 summarizes the calculation of library facility andland values. The total impact cost or total value per resident for library buildings and landin Indian River County is $141. Building and Landj ostgper Resident Element Figure Total Building Value (1). $26,456;8,80 _ Total Land Value(Z) M«.. a $414,750 Total Building and db1E&z (3) lue .w N $26,871,630 BuildingSquare Footage : 110,237 Total Building and Land Cost a(Sj- . per�Square Footcjk. $243.76 Adopte&L"oS;Standard (sf per 1,000 residents)(6) 1 > `. �.., 580 TotalJ6lding inc nalland Cosi ppe.r, Residnt %.; $141.38 (1) Source:Table Vein (2) Source: TTable V-1,1 (3) Sum of<buildingvalue(Item 1) andland value (item 2) . Source: Table>V Building andand value (Itemt3) divided by building square footage (Item 4) ‘14j (6) (6) V-4Table (7) Total building andland per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by the adopted LOSS (Item 6rdivided by 1 000 Library MateriaIsfand Equipment The following table provides a summary of library materials and equipment costs per resident, which amounts 175. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 52 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V-8 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident Library Materials Value Element - per Item(1) 1 Figure - $54 Adopted LOS Standard for Materials per Resident(2) 3.20 Library Materials Value per Resident(3) $172.80 Computers - Unit Value(4) $1,450 Adopted LOS Standard for Computers per Resident(5) 0.0007 Computer Value per Resident(6) $1.02 Other Library Equipment Value ek per Item(2) amu;. $4,829 Adopted LOS Standard for Other Library Equipment t per Resident(8) 0.0002 Other Library Equipment Value per Residents Or $0.97 Total Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident. $174.79 (1) Source: Table V-2. (2) Source: Table V-4 (3) Library materials value per item (Item 1) multipliedbwtheeadopted LOS standard for materials per resident (Item 2' (4) Source: Table V-3; Total value;divideihby.the number of items available for public use (5) Source: Table V-4 (6) Unit value of computers (Item 4) multiplied bythe adopted L®Sjstandard for computers per< esident(Item 5) g u (7) Source: Table.V-3; Totall value divideddbythenumber ofitems available for public use (8) Source: Table V-4 444, (9) Other libraryequipment cost (Item 7) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for other library equipment per resident (Item 8) (10)`S6m,of library matenaIs;.computer,;and otherx:Iibrary equipment costs per resident (Items and 9) 9 `... Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development, a review of funding for library capital expansion of projects over the past five . years and those programmed for the next five years was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, that are being used or will be used to fund the expansion of capital facilities, land, and materials for the County's libraries program. This review suggests that historically the County used primarily State grants to fund a portion of capacity expansion over the past five years and has no capacity projects included in the CIP. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 53 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Capital Improvement Credit Table V-9 summarizes the library related capital expansion projects that are funded by state grants. The table includes recent expenditures for the years 2008 through 2017. The average annual capital expansion expenditure during this five-year period is $0.34 per resident. This figure is calculated by dividing the average annual total capital expenditure amount for the ten-year period by the County s average population during the same time period. Table V-9 Historical Library Capital Expansion jkb, ding Sources (1) Source Indian River County (2) Average expenditure per year (3)„so�urce: AppendixRA, Table A 1 �� (4) Average.annual capacity expansioritexpendrtures$(Item 2) divided by the average annual population (Item 3) wivc sft)k Net Library' Facilities Impact Cost cg The net impact fee per residence is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table V-10 summarizes the calculation of the net library impact cost per resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 54 Impact Fee Update Study Fiscal Year —JI__ State Library h) Grant_— , Total — -- Construction of Brackett Library FY 2008 $0 $0 L $0 FY 2009\Nen;0 $300,000 x$300,000 FY 2010 ' $200,000 $200,000 nCkPelatt• FY 2011- FY42017„ Ye Total x$4.4.:., ;` $500,000 $500,000 Average Annual Capacity Expansion, VAcite Expenditures(2) $50,000 $50,000 Average Annual Populationl3l '"; :, 148,070 Capital Expansion Credit p r Residen & (1) Source Indian River County (2) Average expenditure per year (3)„so�urce: AppendixRA, Table A 1 �� (4) Average.annual capacity expansioritexpendrtures$(Item 2) divided by the average annual population (Item 3) wivc sft)k Net Library' Facilities Impact Cost cg The net impact fee per residence is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table V-10 summarizes the calculation of the net library impact cost per resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 54 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V-10 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost Calculation Step Impact Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost Building and Land Cost per Resident (1) $141.38 Library Materials Cost per Resident (2) $172.80 Library Equipment Cost per Resident (3) 51.99 Total Impact Cost (4) �:Ar $316.17 Revenue Credit .. .:., Average Annual Capital Expansion Credit pertResident (sl $0.34 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) e k 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resider( (61 $6.26 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Resident('i $309.91 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Source: Table V-7 Source: Table V-8 Source: Table V-8 The sum of building, land, materials_:and equipment costs (Itemsal, 2, and 3) Source: Tablet/ Source: Tresent value of the capitalimprovement'credibper functional resident (Item 2) aVa:discount rate>bf 2.5% with'avcapitahzation period of 25 years. The discount rate was provided by Indil"rn River County arre Total impact costper residenr(Item 4) less total credit per resident (Item 5) attic Calculated Library Facilities Impact,Fee Schedule crikt The calculated, library impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table V-11. 16, The net impactcost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons per unit by land use The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $391 for the multi-farhilyaresidential land use to $785 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet or more space.° Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 55 Impact Fee Update Study • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County _c s U H 0) 0) LL i✓ U (5 0. E �+ u co L1. mcsco L 1 fo 1 U U e2 . 1000 Gar ruCcr U) QJ v Y ro C_ E a to 0 t+ c a) a 0) CU 0_ Y 0 Y CU C A T.? T▪ r N E C E p al ro w CI) r a✓ a ro 4-, Y ro a-• U C ro E V a a. E a L 4-448 E N TOP 0 i-+ a y O a+ a" V C s - C a▪ ) 0 t • a • roa a c LL G) Y 7 c u 7 a O c w O _ • 4- C D▪ O ro c a a C _ 4-0 U a C L a • L N • d `. Saar Agawar ri N m stLn 10 i 1 ▪ T c 7 O N a L to > a D c a CO a a LL c ++ U (9 0 E U c 0 ro LT) 0 a 03 0L) 0 a ro -O C H January 2014 0 N t; ct 0 .--1 rri 0 ri 1p ct 0 N rri m 0 al t` Ni Ln N oo O L!1 41 O� 1` In ri Ni N Ne - n m 0 O ST .0 N rl to 1.0 in $E'80L$ $784.62 N N G 01 M Vf $457:431 00 00 111 ri 00 N nt ri CT. a=-1;, rdi a -i 1.0 ri ri ri 1 irn Lr) al V} Impact Fee (3) .,m. ri O� ri e a1 20; 1 :V) s $765.48 ri ri oo m in N l0 WV .V> m la V? ri a1 a1 O m in- ri 101 a1 O m tn- ri 01 a1 O m in “"r1 01 a1 O m Vr ri a1 a1 O m in 111 O Ni N Ni 2.47 1.23 1.44 ly (less than 1,500 sf) ly (1,500 to 2,499 sf) ly (2,500 sf or greater) ly/Accessory Unit RV Park (tied down) e2 . 1000 Gar ruCcr U) QJ v Y ro C_ E a to 0 t+ c a) a 0) CU 0_ Y 0 Y CU C A T.? T▪ r N E C E p al ro w CI) r a✓ a ro 4-, Y ro a-• U C ro E V a a. E a L 4-448 E N TOP 0 i-+ a y O a+ a" V C s - C a▪ ) 0 t • a • roa a c LL G) Y 7 c u 7 a O c w O _ • 4- C D▪ O ro c a a C _ 4-0 U a C L a • L N • d `. Saar Agawar ri N m stLn 10 i 1 ▪ T c 7 O N a L to > a D c a CO a a LL c ++ U (9 0 E U c 0 ro LT) 0 a 03 0L) 0 a ro -O C H January 2014 • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Table V-9, the County uses approximately $50,000 per year of n on -impact fee funding for library capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure V-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated above. This level is considered the investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Given that the available n on -impact fee funding for library capital facilities is very,lirnited, the County needs most of the impact fee (approximately 95 percent) to maintain ,the'adopted LOS standards used to x�� calculate the impact fee. In addition, library impact fees are charged only to residential land u ses and the County's primary focus at this time is3to provide some impact fee relief to non- residential land uses. 100% Figure V4 , Library ImpacF Affordable Growth Approach 8096 -. 60% 4096 —. 20% 0% IRC<Average. Annual :GroWth. Imme • • TotaliCost Max muriithmpact.Fee SCurVe fleaME e=1, 0.00%. 1.00% I 2.00% 3.00% 4.0096 5.0096 6.00% Annual Growth Rate Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 57 7.0096 8.0096 9.00%. 10.0004) Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Table V-12 Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule — Affordable Growth T Residential Land Use Affordable Growth _ Adoption Rate (1) Total Impact Fee' ' {{� _1L Current is Adopted Feel31 ' Percent Change(4) I Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) 96% $625a6 $41110.75 41.8% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) 96% 5680.05 $495.08 37.4% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) 96% $753.23 $537.10 40.2% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit 96% $375.09 $292.13 28.4% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) 96% $439.13 $357.73 22.8% (1) Calculated based on the average annual growth rate of1.4%1nd non= mpact fee funding of $50,000 per year. (2) Source: Calculated impact fee from Table V-11 multiplied by the affordable grow th adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include2 5% administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Iteern 2) to the total impact fee (Item 19 Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule.Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's library impact fee program, a �a ++'.-w,.. comparison of library; facilities impact itee schedulesrwas completed for other Florida counties. Table V2=13 presents .this companson. As presented, Indian River County's calculated fee is higher •than fees adopted >'by other Counties, which reflects the high f investmenthIevelsato the ountys>Ilbrary%facilities 10 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 58 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County ( Impact Fee Update Study 0 19 1 a V .c M N lA > ar d dlro LL J2 d'eu G .0 aft coa lari C �> N i N C O 2 70 N v . 1 $527 N. N N t\ IN LA: N v a C --->. RI po m 7 N O 2 u .y $245 OLT$ C71 rrl .A O o C Gas « •oN C 3c 8 01 O x u ° LOT$ N tri o O_> o --- V 0 U ¢�2V, O .moi en .A C 00 ey N ft- N N to moi›. — LI 0 V g 02 N al N $228 CU n z. -0 C0 g II o N LI V 8 v 1-4m 4./1 an din TOTS CU a _ k �C 0 N el n- N .A � -1 N o N . . ro 17 > c d 7 m` 0= , ifor 01 N to N m N ° ill it C N V N %OOT 5495 N 01 N CO cil .A • C O , I I,O K c:a Ina _. m 3� t7 cN m V/ m a 'C_ C....4. _ 1I .01. to p N u g Oeti •. CO .A C N in In IC E O G. W v N N CC a VI Q § VI Land Use Date of Last U.date Adoption Percentage Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) ;2,000 sf) N mOI m o "rc o Y r 3 a n O Cl c 4-4 A a o a o N $ arf o P E 2 v El c a C CU u u E a r y a •r - .c m> C in L la atO o d v a E i 0 y a ' �r C.0 ea ro E u ar u .. E a "E a •- Lei L.1- c E E C o co o ., a`, E rsi 0° D op E r mv* V`E a ei N y N vv- o E a 0n0cC Q on p N o va0a coo c E c tr c y ar n o .c a 1O E t o O J > a m vi 071 tom O Q m0 m Cr m C a7$ aai E 0 4i E C m LL c.0 L_ C > era c V co G G 3 rocV > .y ry ce>yV a V Oy �c �ja cV — V Oj c> ` c n 0 mar a, I1 CO mCOcaa9yyso N . I- m of V V V 2 2 2 u u u u u u u u u uua II J o J>>> J DO> O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a VI VI VI VI VI VI VI N N N N O e. N e4 N m Q VI 0 n m m e-1 el ti Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study VI. Emergency Services This section provides the results of the emergency services impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the emergency services impact fee: • • • • • • • • • Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level -of -Service Cost Component Credit Calculation Net Emergency Services Impact Cost Calculated Emergency Services ImpactFee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Emergency Services ImpacttFee Schedule Comparison 1 These various elements are summarized in'the remainder'of this section with the result being the calculated emergency services>impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory Table VI -1 VI-1presents the building and land invent, for Indian River County. Indian River CountyPcurrently has a total of 12 fire/EMS stations. In addition, the County has a training 06 tower and owns the Ia d where Station 13 will be built. Table VI -1 summarizes the County's emergency; services land and building,inuentory. The value of buildings and land are based on recent construction, insurance and land values of the existing facilities, vacant land sales and values of parcels with similar characteristics, and information obtained from other jurisdictions. A more detained explanation of building and land value estimates is included in Appendix F. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 60 Impact Fee Update Study • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 0 c a) c 0.0 Da c -0 to J c isc= 7 J a) 3NJ m 'O._ To ate+ (CO.. oH CO co n in L r) V N NI in CD IN N in in 0 NJ t�O o in ( $2,104,9801 S 03 m 01 in m� Ln co in com LID $2,343,3601 o m $2,160,3601 0 001 m in $192,600( N V in O Ol N .�-0 t0 N V? m -O N C ., 7 J > ro \ cnicycotzr000 O O Ln V? O 0 m t0 O 0 o m N inini/? O 0 t0 V rI O 0 N m r -I 0 O O m i/? 0 0 O t0 to $423,000 0 0 0o 00 N V? 0 0 to co- 01 in 0 0 O O st N in co \ C 0 O t0 ni CT ri in 0 O t0 N 01 t0 .-1 in O GO O tD ih r L? C0.13 = 'd a) ' f0 m > 00 tD o n in LO m 011 ri in. ( $2,411,500 p0p V m 01 085'856'1$ 0 00 0 00 Ott l0 m 08Z'£Z9't$ 09£'0Z61$ 0 N m 109L'£Z8`t$ 09£'OZ6't$ O LIDC� 001 m J� N N i? Land Value per Acre(8) ‘46„,- N 01 3/4 N i? r�-I rr co 40 iniR CD (O i+ 3 d a) y LL 03 ri •V O ri t0 m V 00. _ 0 in I?'� N: 01I co: t` I'm m !AO N o 00 M tO m ri M m N cc- LO 00 m IN /x. 0 N Ln L!1 27.7 t0 N Ol l0 LO 00 m N R,K 2,604 2,604 t0 C 85,433 .;^'. 14- O ... 3 Q z 0so >� 8' C Cl?N O f..40"?Vgi 2.72 2.18 LO N in 0 32 0 00: o 4,1 pa O 1OO \ C 3.21 wy.x. .., 28.21 .-1 N 4` i -i L N ' L S. CO N 3 } a m IC t0 00 01 ri 2007 4 NV 0 O O N S . n; O O N 0 O Ni LO CO O1 ri t0 CO O1 s, 01 Q1'O 01 y£x�i i 01 O N S. LC)01 Ol 01. rr--7. ,1, N• '� g, 20088 00 o } LL R ��„^^�' o-.. v: N ri �` r I Location(1) 1500 OId Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach, FL 32960 13301 Bridge Plaza Dr, Vero Beach, FL 32963 290043rd Ave, Vero Beach, FL32960 1500 9th St SW, Vero Beach, FL 32962 6580 Old Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach, FL32967 101 South A1A, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1215 82nd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 329664' 1115 Barber St, Sebastian, FL32958 1640 US 1, Sebastian, FL 32958 00to 0�1. N M J 2555 93rd St, Vero Beach, FL'32963r >. h„FLf32967 Pis 010 NI m 44404th St, Vero Beach, FL 32968, , 'i . L2 L) E E --I ut :: K c • 0) m a)' > D c > (Building Value per Square Foott F —44414 LL >.• (O a 2`.° CD _C t o z tNO m Ln (NJ C Facility Description Fire Station 1i5i (Fire Station 2 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 Fire Station 6 Fire Station 7 Fire Station 8 Fire Station 9 Fire Station 10 Fire Station 11 Fire Station 12 Training Tower(6) Planned Station 13 (0 1- c O c E O C V) a) 7 ro v roU C 7 N C 0 U 4-0 C 0 U C 0) U 0) C Y O a Q) L CU co a _ Y L L a) ,0 o I— a c> O c LEL LL L X O• a W C O N ri a a Q) 4-1 C 0) 0 c 0 i=. cc 01 a 0 C 0 LL X_ a C a) a a 0) 0) to C O a+ CO U 0 0 a C (a 0) N (O E C v v a) - C + ' O C - i a a) a V IA 7 C_ 00 . c Y O a. c N u 7 Cl an Q O T O 'C ai> Y�YO al � H 0) CO of u a W O a) (0 • a C roY roC 1) U > 0) C U 4) 0) L OA c l0 0 c L n >. C 7 0 U 0) c co La C a) u 0 N L > -a a b -0 u >. C N C _o a) co vl -O lega) 0 c a, c 00 N 7 "6 a E i? N a) C ra � °) 0) o a) 0) 7 7 E co 2 to u c roa n r O 0)4- 00 a E E E 3 O 7 7 COIta z N CtO C 0 ri N 0 czt Ln l0 N CO a c 7 0 U .12 > C a C U C V) a) c 0 0 Q W 0) 0 0) io -o C a N 0) 4-1 a 0- . . LLU CO a E January 2014 • • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study In addition to land and buildings, the IRC emergency services inventory includes the necessary vehicles and equipment required to perform its services. As presented in Table VI -2, the total vehicle cost is approximately $15 million. Table VI -2 Vehicle Inventory and Values (1) Source: Indian River County,; (2) Units multiplied by unit cost Table VI -3 presents theleq ipment inventory and related costs River County. TableVI-3 Equipment Inventory and Values Description Description Ladder Truck M 2 Unit Cost(3) $800,000 Total Value(2) $1,600,000 Brush Truck 8 $193000 $387,000 $1,544,000 Dive Rescue Unit 1 AT30,000 24 $130,000 3,000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 ">$156;000 $150,000 Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 a W $150 coo Radio (vehicle); 4 48 $4,000 $150,000 Marine Fire Boat 1 $100,000 $13,000 , $100,000 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 417 $20,000 µ `,. $20,000 Fire Engine MSA, Airbags 0, $46.5,000 60 0140,000 16, Ambulance 17 $27$000 1 $3,85900 Total fir._ $292,068 Suction Unit $14,959,000 1 12 $1,000 (1) Source: Indian River County,; (2) Units multiplied by unit cost Table VI -3 presents theleq ipment inventory and related costs River County. TableVI-3 Equipment Inventory and Values Description Units per Station i1) Total Units (12 Stations) (2) Unit Cost (1) Total (3) Value I ;Turnout Gear rv" 15 $2,150 $387,000 180 Tapp ck23z:; 24 $32,000 $768,000 Rad o(portable) rt. 5 60 $4,000 $240,000 Radio (vehicle); 4 48 $4,000 $192,000 Stretcher 1 1 12 $13,000 $156,000 Thermal Imairs _ ,.:; .: 1 12 $9,800 $117,600 MSA, Airbags 0, 5 60 $10,885 $653,100 Spreader, Ocutter, K12 1 12 $24,339 $292,068 Suction Unit 1 12 $1,000 $12,000 Total $Z817,768 1) Source: Indian River County 2) Units per station multiplied by 12 (number of stations in Indian River County) 3) Unit cost multiplied by total units Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 62 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Service Area and Population Emergency services are provided by the County in the unincorporated areas and most municipalities. The Town of Indian River Shores, however, maintains its own fire department. Therefore, the proper benefit district for emergency services is the entire county excluding the Town of Indian River Shores. For impact fee calculations, the current 2013 countywide functional population estimate, excluding Indian River Shores, is used, which is provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. Because simply using weighted population does not fully; address all of the benefactors of e mergency service, the "functional' weekly 24 hour population approach is used to e stablish a common unit of demand across different land uses ISeeyAppendix A for further information). Level -of -Service Typically, level of service for emergency services is expressed in terms of stations per 1,000 104, K<; residents. Usingthis method, IRC's current service(=LOS) is 1 station per 11,963 residents or 0.084 statioftlpe;1,000 residents TheCounty's adopted LOS standard is 0.089 stations per 1,000°`residents. ;Since the °achieved LOS'S lower than the adopted LOS standard, the achiev d@LOS is used in theme ct fee calculations. As mentioned in the previous sections, LOS needs oto be measured using functional population to capture all residents; workers and visitors that benefit from emergency services. In terms of re functional population is calculated at 0:088 stations per 1,000 functional residents. Table VVli&`, summarizes the calculationof the LOS standard using the 2013 population and functional population. zga Aef The County has plansto add two stations over the next five years. This would result in a LOS of 0 095 stations pert 000 residents. However, since this LOS is not yet achieved, the e xisting LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 63 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VI -4 Level -of -Service (2013 1) 2) 3) (4) 5) 6) (7) 8) Source: Appendix Al Table 4 11. Figures exclude popul tion of Indian River gibles. Source: Table VI -1 Population (Item 1) divided bythe=number of stat ons4Item 2) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by=thelpopulation (te ,1) divided by 1,000 Source: Indian River County Source: Indian River County Capitatilmprovemehtplan 2017 population divided>by the futu numb r of stat�ons<(Item 6) tate NUM VMS*, Future number of station (Item 7) divided the 2017 population multiplied by 1,000 led et tr Table VI 5,comparesAhe levels of service for other Florida counties as well as the state of . -9'�Z>, adz Florida..The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for the service area of alluentities. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 64 Impact Fee Update Study — -- — Calculation Step - 1 1 __ T _j`Populat,on Year 2013 Weighted Functional Population Population(') 143,561 136,323 Number of Stations(2) 12 12 Population per Station(3) 11,963 11,360 LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(4) , 0.084 0.088 Adopted LOSS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(s) A 0.089 0.093 Future LOS:_a. Population -- 2017(') 148;034 140,598 Future Number of Stations(6) .. frA. 14 Future Population per Station('); , '.;.> 10,574 4 _ s 10,043 Future LOS (Stations �($,. per 1,000 Residents),., 0.095 0.100 1) 2) 3) (4) 5) 6) (7) 8) Source: Appendix Al Table 4 11. Figures exclude popul tion of Indian River gibles. Source: Table VI -1 Population (Item 1) divided bythe=number of stat ons4Item 2) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by=thelpopulation (te ,1) divided by 1,000 Source: Indian River County Source: Indian River County Capitatilmprovemehtplan 2017 population divided>by the futu numb r of stat�ons<(Item 6) tate NUM VMS*, Future number of station (Item 7) divided the 2017 population multiplied by 1,000 led et tr Table VI 5,comparesAhe levels of service for other Florida counties as well as the state of . -9'�Z>, adz Florida..The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for the service area of alluentities. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 64 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VI -5 Level -of -Service Comparison (1) Source: BEBR, 2012 final populationestim tes. (2) Source: County websites and the U.S 4 Administration, Nationa =;Fire Department Census m (3) Service area population Ite1) divided number�o-f. is ations (Ite (4) Number of stations<(Item 2�divided by the service area population (Item 1) divided by 1,000 Cost Component Table »VI-6'summarizes the :total current_ emergency services, inc tiding: of land, buildings, and equipment for • Twelvee"stations with :.<total asset value of $23.6 million for buildings and land and $17.8 milii'on for vehicles and equipment, for a total asset value of $41.4 million; and • An average value of $3p5;million per station. 4.04 In addition, Table VI -6 presents the total impact cost per functional resident for emergency services in Indian River County, which is calculated by multiplying the net asset value per station by the LOS (stations per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000 The total impact cost for emergency services provided by the County is $304 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 65 Impact Fee Update Study Jurisdiction Service Area Population (1) (2012) Number of Stations(2) LOS (Stations) per.1,000 1 (4) Residents)___ Residents per Station(3) Okeechobee County 39,805 2 19,903 0.050 St. Lucie County 280,355 17 16,491 0.061 Hernando County 173,104 14 12,365 0.081 Osceola County 180,821 16 • te 11,301 0.088 Indian River County 135,510 12 11,293 0.089 Collier County 293,343 28 , . 10,477 0.095 Citrus County 132,285 13 . 10,176 0.098 ,;, St. Johns County 176,128'18 9,785 0.102 Charlotte County 146,373 17 • 610 0.116 Martin County 128,332 4, 15: 8,555, 0.117 Brevard County A ;• 205,690:r:04:1,3T 6,635 ' 0.151 Highlands County '98;955 scxe21 4,712 0.212 (1) Source: BEBR, 2012 final populationestim tes. (2) Source: County websites and the U.S 4 Administration, Nationa =;Fire Department Census m (3) Service area population Ite1) divided number�o-f. is ations (Ite (4) Number of stations<(Item 2�divided by the service area population (Item 1) divided by 1,000 Cost Component Table »VI-6'summarizes the :total current_ emergency services, inc tiding: of land, buildings, and equipment for • Twelvee"stations with :.<total asset value of $23.6 million for buildings and land and $17.8 milii'on for vehicles and equipment, for a total asset value of $41.4 million; and • An average value of $3p5;million per station. 4.04 In addition, Table VI -6 presents the total impact cost per functional resident for emergency services in Indian River County, which is calculated by multiplying the net asset value per station by the LOS (stations per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000 The total impact cost for emergency services provided by the County is $304 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 65 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VI -6 Total Impact Cost (1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) (7) (8) (9) Source: Table VI 1 Source: Table VI 1 Source: Table VI 2 Source: Table VI 3 Source: Table VI 1 Total asset value divided number of stations (Item 5) Source: Table VI -4 Cost per station (Item 6) multiplied brthe=LOS (Item 7<)'divided by 1,000 ,ate Distributiomof;building, land, vehicle, and equipment values Credit Component To avodrYoverchargiig new development fo the emergency services impact fee, a review of .w the capital financing program for :emergency services was completed. The purpose of this review was„to determine any potentiahrevenue credits generated by new development that a are being used for expansionMof capital facilities, land, vehicles, and equipment included in the inventory. It should be noted that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, orL}operations expenses, as these types of expenditures cannot be funded with impact fee revenue. Capital Expansion Expenditure Credit To calculate the capital expansion expenditure credit per functional resident, the historical capital expansion projects and those programmed in the CIP are reviewed. During the time period from 2008 through 2017, the County allocated an average annual non -impact fee funding of $757,000 toward emergency services capital facilities. The annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 66 Impact Fee Update Study Description :__- Building Value(1) i ___----------- Figure - Percent of� 1 Total Valuel9). $21,926,140 52.97% Land Value(2) $1,692,600 4.09% Vehicle Value(3) $14,959,000 36.14% Equipment Value(4) $2,817,768 6.81% Total Asset Value $41,395508 100.01 Number of Stations(5) & , 12 Cost per Station(6) 4fr 449;64 (7) LOS(7) --x 0.08 Total Impact Cost per Resident($ $303.57 (1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) (7) (8) (9) Source: Table VI 1 Source: Table VI 1 Source: Table VI 2 Source: Table VI 3 Source: Table VI 1 Total asset value divided number of stations (Item 5) Source: Table VI -4 Cost per station (Item 6) multiplied brthe=LOS (Item 7<)'divided by 1,000 ,ate Distributiomof;building, land, vehicle, and equipment values Credit Component To avodrYoverchargiig new development fo the emergency services impact fee, a review of .w the capital financing program for :emergency services was completed. The purpose of this review was„to determine any potentiahrevenue credits generated by new development that a are being used for expansionMof capital facilities, land, vehicles, and equipment included in the inventory. It should be noted that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, orL}operations expenses, as these types of expenditures cannot be funded with impact fee revenue. Capital Expansion Expenditure Credit To calculate the capital expansion expenditure credit per functional resident, the historical capital expansion projects and those programmed in the CIP are reviewed. During the time period from 2008 through 2017, the County allocated an average annual non -impact fee funding of $757,000 toward emergency services capital facilities. The annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 66 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident.. Although the County used some sales tax revenues toward emergency services capacity projects, because this amount was insignificant (less than 1 percent of non -impact fee spending), a separate credit for sales tax revenues was not calculated. As presented in Table VI -7, the result is an average annual expansion cost of $5.55 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 67 Impact Fee Update Study • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County nal population (Item 3) ri N M Li L Y v c a) a x CU c O 0) c 0_ X a) Y o. co U c c v ha O CU CO January 2014 82 4./1. � 1.0 $2,080,6741 r $852,6081 $1,800,000 880 bri 1� Tr' Optional Sales Tax Revenues 1 0 Emergency Services District Fund and Optional Sales Tax Revenues 1 $7,568,3891 o td. 136,435 $5.55 Average Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures(2) ‘at, w: Average Functional Populationiii «..r••..*%• .. rt Capital Expansion Expenditures per Functional Resident (4)A < 1r 'M d a % 1 $1,600,0001 $457,000 O S co 1 r 0, 00 N H I 1 1 00 O 8 N in $225,000 1 1 4 1 p S 1 I I $426,304 1 I �£3r 1 a Cm m 5Q 887 ri f aM CV lA 0 0 rs11 tNA Q m in I FY 2010/11 1[FY 2011/12 , 1 s 0 1 1r r 1 4 Oi. Lf1 4./1P 1 1 1 1 1 la az VI lab 1 I rn N 01 O CO CI r-1 I 1 1 1 1 1 626'086'i$ 01 O m 0 W O N $40,2311 I 1 1 I 101 0m N NN a CO 01 N H Fiber Optics EOCTraining Center Fire Station 12 Fire Station 13 Fire Station 14 Med Unit Fire Pumper One Quint (Fire Apparatus) Fire Station 12 Total Capital Expansion Expenditures nal population (Item 3) ri N M Li L Y v c a) a x CU c O 0) c 0_ X a) Y o. co U c c v ha O CU CO January 2014 • • s Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Net Emergency Services Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VI -8 summarizes the calculation of the net emergency services impact cost per functional resident. The first section of this table identifies the total impact cost as $304 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the emergency services impact fee totaling approximately $102 per functional resident which is equal to the net present value of the capital expansion credit per functional resident. The net impact cost per functional resident is the between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit. This resultsin` a net impact cost of $201 per functional resident. Net ImpactCost>per FunctionalResident (1) Source: Table VI -6 (2) Source: Table VI -7 (3) Average annual capital imp rovement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 2.5% for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per functional resident (Item 3) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 69 Impact Fee Update Study Impact Cost/ Credit Element Impact Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost : .. ettt Total Impact Cost �zt perrFunctional q ... m Resident(1)°w a: $303.57 Revenue Credit A Avg Annual-apitalalrnproveentaCredit;-per FunctionalsResident(2) $5.55 m Capitalization Rate o 2.5% Capitalization Period (in ears) 25 Capital Improvement Credit perbResident . $102.26 Net Impact Cwe'iost` , Net Impact Cost p Functional Residentl4l 1 $201.31 (1) Source: Table VI -6 (2) Source: Table VI -7 (3) Average annual capital imp rovement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 2.5% for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per functional resident (Item 3) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 69 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Table VI -9 presents the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule developed for Indian River County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously presented in Table VI -8. The table also includes a comparison to the current/adopted fees. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 70 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VI -9 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC '. • I ,.. -RESIDENTIAL _. _. I FunctionalI Land Use _ Impact II Resident 111 Unit II It1 { _ i.-_ _ it _Coefficient f.___. -. - - ... - ... _ Net Impact l., Admin Fee PI (ii Fee(3) .. ti - Total - Impact Fee(4) _Fee _ I Current Adopted { ISI f _Fe__ -JL_ __- ?ercent Changels)'. -- 210 Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500sf du 1.43 5287 87 $7.20 16.5% $295.07 $253.18 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.54 5310.02 57.75 11.5% - $317.77 5284.95 - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.72 5346.25 58.66 5354.91 5308.53 15.0% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.87 5175.14 54.38 . 5179.52 5180.40 -0.5% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 5197.28 54.93 $20221 5186.55 8.4% _ - ',TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310 Hotel room 0.65 5130.85 53.27 5134.12 5164.00 -18.2% 320 Motel .room 0.60 $164.00 -24.5% 5120.79 53.02 5123.81 252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 5185.21 $4.63 , $189.84 $176.30 7.7% " - .OFFICE& FINANCIAL:' ' - - - - - - 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less 1,000sf 1.14 5229.49 55.74 $235.23 5306.48 -23.2% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000sf 1,000sf 1.66 5334.17 $8.35 $34232 5306.48 11.8% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000sf 2.23 $448.92 511.22 $460.14 $349.53 31.6% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000sf 2.28 5470.46 $287.00 63.9% $458.99 511.47 710 General Office 1,000sf $201.31 55.03 5206.34 $252.15 -18.2% 1.00 760 Research& Development Center 1,000sf 0.85 5171.11 $4.28 31.6% $175.39 5133.25 INDUSTRIAL•_ - 140 Manufacturing 1,000sf 0.50 - $100.66 52.52 5103.18 590.20 14.4% 150 Warehousing 1,000sf 0.28, 556.37 $1.41 -17.1% 557.78 569.70 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000sf 0.06 i 512.08 $0.30 -7.1% 31238 513.33 110 General Light Industrial 1,000sf ,.;0.69 , $138.90 53.47 _ $14237 $123.00 15 7% n/a Concrete Plant acre255 $312.03 57.80 5319.83 5271.63 17.796 n/a Sand Mining acre I J' 0.20 9N, 540.26 51.01 $41.27 534.85 18.4% RETAIL-' - 820 Retail 1,000sfglari 7 2.37 '$477.10 511.93 $48903 $515.58 -5.1% 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel p`os: ' 1.91 $384:50 59.61 $394.11 5310.58 26.9% 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,00dsfs`3+ 1.47 $295.93 & 57.40 5303.33 5307.50 -1.4% 932 Restaurant 1,000sfN:5s.6:78, $1,364.88 S'; A $34.12 5.9% $1,399.00 51,321.23 934 Fast Food Restw/Drive-Thru r.. 1,000sf 2890 $1,791.66 `2$44.79 $1,836.45 51,423.73 29.0% 850 Supermarket tbz t)1,000sf i2.05 $412.69 $10.32 . $423.01 536593 15.6% 942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop ' a`1/4.1{000 sf 1.50 5301.97 57.55 $309.52 5109.68 182.2% 947 Self -Service Car Wash tiseryiFe! b`a'ys '0.87 , 5175.14 54.38 $17932 $340.30 -47.2% 853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps ' ¶1;000 sf'' ;44:`,-,..,.5.83 ',A$1,173•64 529.34 57.3% $1,20L98 $764.65 890 Furniture Store t!:15-fil W_.. -1;O30sf >',:;<v'?a_0.23 ' 1 $46.30 51.16 .$47.46 557.40 -17.3% RECREATIONAL 430 Golf Course "'si. •5 . hoie •s.a4 it- 1.08 ' 5217.41 55.44 $222.85 5439.73 -49.3% 492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio'E't. -pl 1,000 if 3::•S $622.05 515.55 $637.60 $427.43 49.2% 3.09 412 County Park NSac A31" acre l,. j 0.20 $40.26 51.01 $41.27 527 68 49.1% 491 Tennis Court ,1;, ',:t"!„ ' t)ffi . qivcourt '_`a 3.16 5636.14 515.90 5652.04 $418.20 55.9% 420 Marina ,e w':?. :"N 'Vt.,. 'tieith".t5,,, '7 0.19 538.25 50.96 539.21 527.68 41.7% GOVERNMENTAL _ 732 Post Office NMs. VA. ts 1,000sf 1.62 5326.12 58.15 - .•$334.27 $319.80 4.5% 590 Library �:'2a„ ;. ' yo:'1,000sf 5354.31 . 58.86 ,5363.17 5309.55 17.3% 1.76 733 Government Office Complex4Wr ,. 41..M \1'iCOO sf • 1.39 5279.82 5243.95 17.6% 57.00 5286:82 571 Jail?, {"A bed 0.87 $175.14 $4.38 5179.52 5156.83 14.5% MISCELLANEOUS: 565 Day Care Center :\c5.'' -fir' 1,000sf 0.89 5179.17 54.48 5183.65 $181.43 1.2% 610 Hospital \&W/O'.1,0005f 1.37 $275.79 5281.88 0.3% 56.89 5282.68 640 Veterinary Clinic' 1,000sf 2.54 5511.33 $12.78 5524.11 5294.18 78.2% 560 Church - 0.51 5102.67 52.57 $105.24 596.35 9.2% 11000 s 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 51,203.83 530.10 - 51,233.93 51,527.25 -19.2% 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 . $1238 517.43 -29.0% 512.08 50.30 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 . • $14.44 517.43 -17.2% 514.09 50.35 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 516.10 $0.40 ' .516:50 521.53 -23 4% 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $20.13 50.50 $20.63 51845 11.8% 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-14 for residential land uses and A-15 for non-residential land uses (2) Source: Net impact cost per resident from Table VI -8 multiplied by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) 3) Source: Calculated at 2.S% based on the current fee 4) Sum of the net impact fee (Item 2) and the administrative fee (Item 3) (5) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.596 administrative fee. (6) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 5) to the total impact fee (Item 4) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 71 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy In the case of emergency services, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $757,000 per year of non -impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, the County is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure VI -1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum calculated impact fee. This level is compared investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of emergency services impact fee calculated, only approximately 8 percent of thisamount is needed to maintain the current/achieved LOS due to non -impact fee contributions from the existing development and low rate of population growth. If the impact fee is adops:at a level higher than 8 percent, the LOS is likelyto improve Ion as the Count p g ycontinues to spend approximately $757,000 of non -impact fee revenues per year toward capacity projects. In addition, if the County would like to charge no fee$to non`=residential land uses, it can do so and still maintain the existing LOS3as long as the fee(for1residential land uses is adopted at 11 percent. 16036 14096 120% 100% 80% To60% 4096 20% 0% Emerer% Cee gency Services Impact Fee Aseas tea vkree Figure VII -110?) ;Affordable Growth Approach IRC -Average Annual'GroCAI th .Total Cost: Mixiniumf I rripact feM' CeSCurve 1 1 1 (10096 1.00% 2.0056 .3.0096 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% Annual Growth Rate Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 72 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VI -10 Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule - Affordable Growth (1) Based on annual growth rate of 1.4% and non -impact fee spending of $757,000 per year (2) Sou ce: Calculated 100% impact fee from Table VI -9 multiplied by affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1 (3) Sou ce: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the total impact fee (Item 2) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 73 . Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study ITE LUC Land Use -Impact Unit Affordable Growth Adoption Rate (1) Total Impact Fee(2) Current Adopted Pee (3) Percent Change)9) RESIDENTIAL: Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 1,5COsf du 11% - .$32.46 $253.18 -87.2% -1,500 to 2,499 sf du 11% $34.95 $284.95 -87.7% - 2,503 sf or greater du 11% ; '$39.04 $308.53 -87.3% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1156 $19.75 $180.40 -89.1% 240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 11% ' $22.24 $186.55 -88.1% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310 Hotel room 0% 50.00 $164.00 -100.0% 320 Motel room 036 $0.00 5164.00 -100.056 252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0% $0.00 $176.30 -100.096 , OFFICE&FINANCIAL 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less 1,000 sf 0% $0.00 $306.48 -100.096 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000sf 0% _, 50.00 $306.48 -100.0% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 4$0.00 0% $349.53 -100.0% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf 0% :$0.00 $287.00 -100.0% 710 General Office 1,000sfA ' , 0% . .$0.00 $252.15 -100.0% 760 Research& Development Center 1,000 gf.0 r 0% -$0.00 $133.25 -100.0% INDUSTRIAL 140 Manufacturing ` ,1;000sf 0,6, 0% ..-$0.00 $90.20 -100.056 150 Warehousing E - _ ;000 sf 5;"096 $0.00 $69.70 -100.056 151 Mini -Warehouse a§ i 1,000sf mte-nt., $0.00 $13.33 -100.0% 110 General Light Industrial Ni s, 1,000sf 05-6•%"..$0.00 $123.00 -100.096 n/a Concrete Plant ' macre A's 096 % $0.00 $271.63 -100.0% n/a Sand Mining „F,.?. ` acre3ii1° 0% $0.00 $34.85 -100.096 RETAIL: 820 .-t‘t%-b. Retail 1,000sfgcal,h. 0% $515.58 -100.0% $0.00 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station VA '"t ?fuel pos.'E (N.,, 0% $0.00 $310.58 -100.0% 841 ' 0% $0.00 $307.50 -100.0% New/Used Auto Sales 61;000 sf 932 Restaurant , •. , %.1;000sf: ;'- 0% . $0.00 $1,321.23 -100.0% 934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru ` V 1,000 sf r 0% $0.00 $1,423.73 -100.0% 850 Supermarket \:\ - l�.,� -. ?\ 1,000sf 0% $0.00 $365.93 -100.0% 942 Automobile Repair/Body,Shop N 4-•% +szr n QF072:1,000 sf 0% $109.68 -100.0% $0.00 947 Self -Service Car,Wash'j -" , ,=kc, , service bay 0% $340.30 -100.0% $0.00 853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps, *^a?s, "N ep 1,000sf 0% $0.00 $764.65 -100.0% 890 Furniture Store V.1\ 1\ 'VI `ct4 . 1,000 sf 0% $0.00 $57.40 -100.056 RECREATIONAL: 430 Golf Course= Y hole 0% - $0.00 $439.73 -100.0% 492 RaquetClub/Health CIub/Da"ticeStudio aM 1,000sf 0% $0.00 $427.43 -100.0% 412 County Park NZS 1N. a acre 0% $0.00 $27.68 -100.056 491 Tennis Court ?S' ' court 0% - $0.00 $418.20 -100.0% 420 Marina berth 0% $0.00 $27.68 -100.0% GOVERNMENTAL 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 0% $319.80 -100.0% $0.00 590 Library 1,000sf 0% $0.00 $309.55 -100.0°4 733 Government Office Complex 1,000sf 0% $0.00 $243.95 -100.0% 571 Jail bed 0% $0.00 $156.83 -100.0% MISCELLANEOUS: . 565 - Day Care Center 1,000 sf 056 $0.00 $181.43 -100.0% 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 0% $281.88 -100.0% $0.00 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000sf 096 $0.00 $294.18 -100.0% 560 Church 1,000 sf 056 $0.00 $96.35 -100.096 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 056 $0.00 $1,527.25 -100.0% 520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 0% $17.43 -100.096 $0.00 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0% . $0.00 $17.43 -100.096 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0% $21.53 -100.056 $0.00 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0% . $0.00 $18.45 -100.0% (1) Based on annual growth rate of 1.4% and non -impact fee spending of $757,000 per year (2) Sou ce: Calculated 100% impact fee from Table VI -9 multiplied by affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1 (3) Sou ce: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the total impact fee (Item 2) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 73 . Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's emergency services impact fee program, a comparison of impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table VI -11 presents this comparison. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 74 Impact Fee Update Study O 0. E 0 7 L tl O N N C1 5 11 U XI f0 �. roE V a >. C d 11) E W Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 17-1 C •-•>'• L C O VI 0 O ~ IN e 1 Residential:. 001 N - . Non -Residential:• CO N b h N N O la CO O el N _ C '" 'C i o 0 N oco gy 1/' IN el N CO O .el N O CO n H a .'+. ILII a>. 12 C toO r V tD N1-1 .p 8 N N r+1 N p O 1•n N el 1 rn . I to el pM N 0 Ci -F C C C O CU 0 2 O N N 'y M N CO o M N N.1 l el NC — s_ mid _. C V 00 V Nel gm'i NinI in. N In N IDN ul > C0 1.1 3 O V O N �o b M CT 0) 06$ tD rg N 0t n po A to a d - GP> — c `m o U U T INrl %00T N N .r -I N N V) 001COIMD N N to /. el n N _ G m uc o O 8 8 00D N 0 4.4 06$;.; 3 cx d "8 h '8 h rn N . N E J C 0 I m 0 Li N N n N R 01 n. t N N N .in ,nn H 'i CU I => L C w O y V 0 N r. O N 76 el g N W N O1 el to pp O W pOp V) pp pOp V1 .0 - O > c iD m u° pp O Nri O CO N CO C tQ{ Vf r. ON N $1051 5552 > it XN w 8 $285 m N el to N to N N ID el N N n CO N IA Cr N Cr .•,� N 0 O :.A > K C cC d_ w CI .":c.emr. .0 3 O a M N 0 •0 c m an tn. N N H _ a a IDSd III0 LI m IN %00T 5318 N ti N b ry o Ol v.W N $470 up to ri- C np 8e$ Q Q § Q §§ Q Land Use Date of Last U. date Adoption Percentage Light Industrial Office (50,000sq ft) Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru InL4 N in O 8 > LL d c c ID y ¢ 0 0) 03 0. effect through. 0 C a C a o above ra E a Cr o N CJ m -o CIE 6, C3 a O CJ 0 to [¢o n Y d V cil �C C >dI;�s N E y a 'C n ' -1-76.• w L.y y al n a > LL w N > C 0 L 1 j; N -0 alCO C dco a W N d d O LL L O C1 an w 1.I •+ V a d c u u 0 V/tii n3 13) oy .0 C C .0Ill IC .. E E W 1-. L aL -oyC . N 0.- C :iota)" pvn« u E vc E c y E cc t pcE E rlf a LLn o .` y al : n E u�pEtnO a�o�Eu °'d> Eovco �o p oE N y v m3>vo'>cc o'c cl E o0 d o 061; J w E dm N'^oba�mp¢bOcO�cLL5>c >.0E'°cVE8_ 3 nm o a ac ca na>>oao>,�,i-EU>a cV COcc>>>>>c m > toj t; o O >> Lia: u c o v w o 0 »>"2?t a III u c c c m d d t+ 0 ..;1 d E L C L a .- > d J tdi C L 0 a d .c .. o y •I>D w 1� F- C w O u1 O u O O 2± 2 v1 a d 1.) 1.) v LI tdi LI LI tdi tdl LI LI tdi V U d II D O 0 0 0 0 0 D O 0 0 0 -0 0.ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to N m Q N 0 n OO 01 Oel ti el el me•1 Ni • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study VII. Law Enforcement Law enforcement impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of police service related land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional law enforcement service demand created by new growth. This section of the report presents the results of the law enforcement impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated law enforcement impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated with thedevelopment of the law enforcement impact fee. These include: • Facility Inventory • Service Area and Population • Level -of -Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Law Enforcement ImpacUost • Calculatedthaw Enforcement Impact • AffordabGrowth Strategy • Law Enforcement mpact.Fee ScheduleComparison .34.34m44,1434= Facilify-0Inventory ' Accordingxto;information provided bythe IRC Sheriff's Office (IRCSO) and the County, Indian River County :has 68,000 square feet of building space and almost 13 acres of land c, associated with la:wcenforcement services. Table VII -1 presents this information. Building value is estimated based on recent construction, insurance values of existing buildings, and information from other Florida jurisdictions. Land value is based on the value of parcels where existing buildings are located and an analysis of vacant land sales and values. Additional information is provided in Appendix F. It should be noted that, in addition to these buildings, IRCSO leases several buildings to accommodate substations and storage facilities. For the purposes of this impact fee study, the inventory includes only the space owned by the County. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 76 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County Table VII -1 related or not) 0 00 C 3 0 a c cL 01 z E L 01 a, _O L b Y 4• �, O c O 0 a) 0 Q) 3 L `co L.= la 6 CU 6 H OJ m mQ' rn f0 45 c E E 0u0 Y C 0 U�co L U O 0) N Q CO CO a, v c 0 ro y, U 0 roc 0J N CO E _c 4-4 tn v CO U CL O 0J > CO c c (0 U f0 c la l 0) la C 01 U OJ 0 CU C O O -.c, 6 -0 =<tiv -o E _ 41 01 QUO D a 6 w L L =N O 4-4a, E 3 TT O_ C ba CD _ f0 4, 01 > (3 00 D t0/} N c > U1 c "O > v la O a c •' D v v co 00 C 6 U fp" C =01.13 (Aim f0 _0 U '5 Y `� - to • L 4-1 O N a.) 10 -• u a1 f (0 O 5 Lo E u o E ez Z co Q vi Lel i rl N m lf1 lD i- 00 cl Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. N January 2014 ono c "a •3 CO 3 oo . A >. o ii— cm $2,072,700, o 0 00S'OTZ$ o 0 o 0 1005'TZO'T$ $2,745,2001 00L'ST$ 0 d o g n O 1-1 N o ri 0 in 3 V1 ,^_, ri V1 m N v1 'B Ol C 7 CO RI 1 OOS'TOT$ OOS'TZ$ 005'0T$ a Z Q Z OOS'LE$ o o O 005'Z$ o O Ln OO 000`05$ o oN o Dec 00V C 'a 3 CO ; $6,666,400 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 co 00 $2,645,200 0 N mi 0 0 O01 Q 0 N U le Ql el Land Value per Acre(9)?' Ayak '• � ` . N N a O ON O 0 Q1 i/1re .Ni el ...t4 000 Cr) l/i V1 n L) Q1 V? N t/? ..... a CU O1 am 00 u to,: O 22,. u a a OO 00 t0 C...:' m O Nib M. c1'a 4krl "N O Q \\ Z Q Z 0.75 O 0 cV um) ' 0 O ci N O l0 VI N a•i Building Value per Square Foot, .#: * . ; ; . ••* r YearTotal Square Number of ,1, Square Acquired/Footage on (1) Acres(l) Feet(l) ll (2) Built _____ ._ _!L_._._ _ !___.Site N e it V•VQ. .... it N N 00 M Ste, SW) ' 5871 el Q1 el} EN O Q1 � N $ N & • CI el COI.O £ N CD 0': 'hi --1 CO el 40 1,1 al ami a --I? 00 Q1 ; n. ail < s, E3'� e'''X - f Ln N N _. 00 a Q1 ) li a:. •:. . z 000o Q1 el 0000 Q1 r^•i Q Z m0 o N ler Z Q Z rI t Miscellaneous Support Buildings On -Site: Q Z, .Q Z '` O N .mi o N istration Building pound General Services Building cene Evidence Addition Courthouse Security Courthouse Civil Process SunSky Office Space Scene Building ase8 Storage Bldg/Maintenance Shed Tv Ise related or not) 0 00 C 3 0 a c cL 01 z E L 01 a, _O L b Y 4• �, O c O 0 a) 0 Q) 3 L `co L.= la 6 CU 6 H OJ m mQ' rn f0 45 c E E 0u0 Y C 0 U�co L U O 0) N Q CO CO a, v c 0 ro y, U 0 roc 0J N CO E _c 4-4 tn v CO U CL O 0J > CO c c (0 U f0 c la l 0) la C 01 U OJ 0 CU C O O -.c, 6 -0 =<tiv -o E _ 41 01 QUO D a 6 w L L =N O 4-4a, E 3 TT O_ C ba CD _ f0 4, 01 > (3 00 D t0/} N c > U1 c "O > v la O a c •' D v v co 00 C 6 U fp" C =01.13 (Aim f0 _0 U '5 Y `� - to • L 4-1 O N a.) 10 -• u a1 f (0 O 5 Lo E u o E ez Z co Q vi Lel i rl N m lf1 lD i- 00 cl Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. N January 2014 • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the IRCSO also has the vehicles and equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table IV -2 summarizes the equipment and vehicle inventory. Table VII -2 Equipment and Vehicle Inventory (1) Source: Indian River County (2) Calculate bdividing the total€,value by numberof units Service Area and Population iff Law enforcement;services<are ,providedtby.the IRCSO in the unincorporated areas of the �. County Municipalities ;within =•IRC have theirimwn police departments. Therefore, the proper benefit district foresaw enforcement is the unincorporated county and weighted • seasonal population for unin;corporatecounty is used in the impact fee calculations. In addition, because law enforcement services are provided to all land uses and all residents, visitors, and workers, the functional population for unincorporated county is calculated and used as well. Appendix»Aprovides further information on population estimates. Level -of -Service Based on the information provided by the County the Indian River County's 2013 level -of - service is 1.89 law enforcement officers per 1,000 weighted residents. The County's adopted LOS standard is 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Table VII -3 presents this information. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard and new Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 78 Impact Fee Update Study Equipment ( Units(1) 281 Unit t21 Value $13347 Total Value(1) ___1 — — --� Vehicles $3,750,435 Vehicle/Radio Equipment 1,577 A>$1,523 $2,401,999 Weapons 450 ;:;. ;$535 $240,733 Office E q ui p ment $148,292 sl tz $148,292 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment <° 2 $65,266 `;. $130,532 Electronic Equipment s $196,760 196,760 ., 1 Computer Equipment 4.1 $1,,6.04;426 $1,604;426 Misc Equipment b. Any $890,490 $890, 0 911 Center Equipment`, ,,_ 76:$7,723 $586930 Total Equipment Value • ''i $9,950,597 (1) Source: Indian River County (2) Calculate bdividing the total€,value by numberof units Service Area and Population iff Law enforcement;services<are ,providedtby.the IRCSO in the unincorporated areas of the �. County Municipalities ;within =•IRC have theirimwn police departments. Therefore, the proper benefit district foresaw enforcement is the unincorporated county and weighted • seasonal population for unin;corporatecounty is used in the impact fee calculations. In addition, because law enforcement services are provided to all land uses and all residents, visitors, and workers, the functional population for unincorporated county is calculated and used as well. Appendix»Aprovides further information on population estimates. Level -of -Service Based on the information provided by the County the Indian River County's 2013 level -of - service is 1.89 law enforcement officers per 1,000 weighted residents. The County's adopted LOS standard is 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Table VII -3 presents this information. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard and new Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 78 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided, the achieved • • LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. The County does not have any new law enforcement capital facilities programmed in the Five -Year CIP; however, the Sheriff's •. Master Plan identifies needs for .additional administrative space and a crime scene investigation unit. The estimated cost for this project is $25 million to $30 million. Due to lack of funding, this project is not yet programmed. Since the timing of this project is not known yet a future LOS estimate is not calculated. While the 2013 LOS is 1.89 officers per 1,000 weighted residents, in order to calculate the law enforcement facilities impact fee, the LOS needs to be calculated in terms of officers per 1,000 functional residents. Table VII -3 also illustrates the calculation of the current LOS using the total functional residents within the service area. The current LOS of law enforcement facilities is 2.11 officers per 1,000 functiona`I:residents. TableAV11-3 Level of -Sere e(2013 Component Year 2013 Weighted Population Functional Population_ I Po ulation(1) p.. _ :� 97,681 87,590 Number o elefficers(z);'' ,. 185 185 L®S'(officers per 1)000 residents) 1.89 2.11 Adopted LOS Standard,(officersper 1,000 re dents)(°) 2.09 2.33 (1) `-Source: Appendix�A ble A-1!for.weighted population and Table A-11 for functional population; Unincorporated population (2) So�urte:•Indian River County Sheriff s Office (3) Numbf officer (Ite) divided by the population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County xer Table VII -4 summarizes 'a°.LOS comparison between Indian River County and other Florida counties. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for all jurisdictions because a functional population analysis has not been completed for these entities. The LOS comparison is based on the permanent population for 2012, as this is the most recent population data available for all jurisdictions. As presented in this table, the Indian River County s LOS is on the high end of these other communities. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 79 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VII -4 Level -of -Service Comparison 1) Source: Indian River Countya nd.Florida Department of.= aw Enforcement Crim al Justice Agency Profile Report,2012t (2) Permanent population (Itemdidedhbythe numberr"ofiofficers (Item 2) divided by 1,000 Cost Component The cost component of the study, land, vehicles and equipment ce Tab1e amountsYto approximately $130;000 per sworn law evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings, 5V11-5 provides a summary of all capital costs, which enforcement officer. tee. Table VI145also presents the cost perjfunctional resident for the impact fee analysis. This 40, cost was calculated as the totalcapital cost of approximately $130,000 per officer multiplied by the LOS of hofficers per 1 000 functional residents divided by 1,000 As shown in the following table, the total: impact cost per resident is approximately $274 for law • a Set er • enforcement facilities. LL Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 80 Impact Fee Update Study Jurisdiction = — Collier County jService Area i Population j ,,, i —(2012 )— I--- Number of Officers"', .LOS (Officers 1 per 1,000 Residents) (zj __ 293,744 270 0.92 St. Johns County 176,721 219 1.24 Highlands County 77,041 99 1.29 Charlotte County 146,373 a 189 1.29 Citrus County 140,761 e e., '" 181 1.29 Hernando County 165,4025,# 216 1.31 Okeechobee County 34;227, Py VS 47 1.37 Martin County w� 12 8; 656 1183 1.42 St. Lucie County 4471;457 '137 1.92 Osceola County?: 180,821 358 198 Indian River County (Existing) '1192,795 185' 1.99 Brevard County 223;;781' 474 ": 2.12 1) Source: Indian River Countya nd.Florida Department of.= aw Enforcement Crim al Justice Agency Profile Report,2012t (2) Permanent population (Itemdidedhbythe numberr"ofiofficers (Item 2) divided by 1,000 Cost Component The cost component of the study, land, vehicles and equipment ce Tab1e amountsYto approximately $130;000 per sworn law evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings, 5V11-5 provides a summary of all capital costs, which enforcement officer. tee. Table VI145also presents the cost perjfunctional resident for the impact fee analysis. This 40, cost was calculated as the totalcapital cost of approximately $130,000 per officer multiplied by the LOS of hofficers per 1 000 functional residents divided by 1,000 As shown in the following table, the total: impact cost per resident is approximately $274 for law • a Set er • enforcement facilities. LL Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 80 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table VII -5 Unit Cost per Functional Resident (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Source: Table VII -1 Source: Table VII -1 Source: Table VII -2 Sum of building value (Item ');land value (Item Source: Table VII -3 Total asset value (Item 4) divided by number of officers (Item 5) Source: Table VII -3 2);tand>.vehicle/equipment value tem 3) . 04 (8) Total asset value per officer (Item 6)#multipliethby,the LOS (Item 7s),divided by 1,000 ay: Credit Component A review of historical expenditures as well as projects programmed in the Five -Year CIP suggested :that there were .no non-impactfee funding used toward capacity projects between 2008 and 2017es ,As sucl a credit fornon-impact fee funding is not needed. Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Given that there isno credit net law enforcement impact cost is $274 per resident, as shown previously in Table VI1=5. Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land uses and is illustrated in Table VII -6. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 81 Impact Fee Update Study _ Component 1' I' I, Cost it $13,450,200 Percent of Total Valued ) Building Value(1) 55.98% Land Value(2) $628,000 2.61% Vehicle and Equipment Value(3) $9,950,597 41.41% Total Asset Values°I 4 x$24,028,797 100.00% Number ofOfficersisl �Yr 185 - Total Asset Value er Officer(6) p.� .:ti $129,885 Level -of -Service (Officers/1,000 Functional Residents)(') l'4,,. 2.11 Cost per Functional Resident(8) . $274.06 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Source: Table VII -1 Source: Table VII -1 Source: Table VII -2 Sum of building value (Item ');land value (Item Source: Table VII -3 Total asset value (Item 4) divided by number of officers (Item 5) Source: Table VII -3 2);tand>.vehicle/equipment value tem 3) . 04 (8) Total asset value per officer (Item 6)#multipliethby,the LOS (Item 7s),divided by 1,000 ay: Credit Component A review of historical expenditures as well as projects programmed in the Five -Year CIP suggested :that there were .no non-impactfee funding used toward capacity projects between 2008 and 2017es ,As sucl a credit fornon-impact fee funding is not needed. Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Given that there isno credit net law enforcement impact cost is $274 per resident, as shown previously in Table VI1=5. Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land uses and is illustrated in Table VII -6. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 81 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table V 1-6 Calculated Law Enforcement Im Note: gsf = gross square feet (1) Source Functional resident coefficients from Appendix A, Table A-13 for residential and lodg'ng land uses and Table A-15 for non -re idential land uses (2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident Table VII -5) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land use (3) Fee per functional resident unit (Item 2) multiplied by 2 5% to determine the administrative fee (4) Sum of the fee per functional resident (Item 2) and the administrative fee (Item 3) (5) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (6) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 5) to the total impact fee (Item 4) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 82 Impact Fee Update Study -______ ITE LUC ,1 Land Use Impact I Unit _ .._-..__-.._ _ '�. ___.-._ Itcoeffidentlrl.l( 24 -Hour i Functional Resident Fee per ' - Functional , - ni ! Resident I - - =-_i r f Admin Feel) -_- Total Impact wl Fee. - �- _ Current Adopted •6) Fee Percent Changel6l , , _ RESIDENTIAL: ... _ -. - - _ Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 1,500 sf du 1.43 5391.91 59.80 $401:71 5223.45 79.8% 1,500 2,499 . _ - to sf du 1.55 5424.79 510.62 $435.41 5251.13 73.4% - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.73 $474.12 511.85. 5485.97 5271.63 78.996 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.89 5243.91 56.10 - .5250.01 5151.70 64.896 240 Mobile Home / RV (Tied Down) du 0.89 5243.91 56.10 $250.01 5161.95 54.4% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP.. . . _, . - 310 Hotel room 0.65 5178.14 54.45 - 5182.59 5143.50 27.2% 320 Motel room 0.60 5164.44 54.11 - 5168.55 $143.50 17.5% 252/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 5252.14 56.30 5258.44 $154.78 67.0% OFFICE & FINANCIAL: 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 5312.43 $7.81 - $320.24 5268.55 19.2% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,003 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 5454.94 511.37 - ` 5466.31 5268.55 73.6% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 2.23 5611.15 515.28 - $626.43 5306.48 104.4% • 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf 2.28 5624 86 515.62 - $640.48 5251.13 155.0% 710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 5274.06 56.85 $280.91 5221.40 26.9% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 5232.95 $5.82 5238.77 5116.85 104.3% INDUSTRIAL 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50. 5137.03 53 43 5140.46 578.93 78.0% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 t.) 576.74 51.92 `.. $78.66 $60.48 30.1% 151 Mini-Warehouse/Storage 1,000 sf .-0.06' 516.44 50.41 - 516.85 512.30 37.0% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf .4 0.69. 518910 54.73 , 5193.83 5107.63 80.1% n/a Concrete Plant acre fteVe 1.55 Is, 5424.79 510.62 , 5435.41 5237.80 83 1% n/a Sand Mining acre . 6``45 v 0.20 \. 554.81 51.37 $56.18 $30.75 82.7% RETAIL... RETAI-. - .. 820 Retail 1,000 Seigle: 2.37 564952 516.24 5665.76 5452.03 47.3% 944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel poi» 1.91 5523:45 . 513.03 5536.54 • 5271.63 97.5% 841 - New/Used Auto Sales 1,000sfsp A. 1:47 s 5402.87:ip,. 510.07 5412.94 5269.58 53.2% 932 Restaurant 1,030 sf 'e'9iA, A638 51,858.13 x:4$46.45 $1,904:58 51157.23 64.6% 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru t;,?;g ?2,1,000 sf YiE1.1; 8.90 52,439.13 '560.98 $2,500.11 51,247.43 100.4% 850 Supermarket 4% Mv1;000sf ' 2.05 5561.82 ', 514.05 $575.87 5320.83 79.5% 942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop ' Ya, 1,000'sf..? 1:5o , 5411.09 510.28 -. .$421.37 $116.85 260.6% 947 Self -Service Car Wash service b`ay.:'a 0.87 5238.43 55.96 - 5244.39 5298.28 -18.1% 853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps C1,000sfUZ 5.83 539.94 _.51,637.71 5669.33 144.7% N$1,597.77 890 Furniture Store `4K 1;005 sf , w.31'"r`,0:23 4.- 563.03 $1.58 $64.61 550.23 28.696 RECREATIONAL: •- - - 430 Golf Course .krs11a. ') hole:?‘ 1.08 $295.98 57.40 $303.38 5385.40 -21.3% 492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 'S&D.,. r^ _ 1,000 SO: \ 3.09 $846.85 $21.17 $868.02 5375.15 131.4% )°�? 412 County Park 'A _> facre -:off 0.20 554.81 51.37 $56.18 523.58 138.3% ."..(A? ;•tt-t 491 Tennis Court /` .o>>"' c-R..:r ".A Ng& 'coca- . V' 3.16 5866.03 521.65 - 5687.68 5365.93 142.6% 420 Marina C. �1 Ni,':Li, �cr&?\ bertli t 0.19 552.07 51.30 .553.37 $24.60 117.096 GOVERNMENTAL 732 Post Office Ni?1 Yr.'s. t lt1,000 sf 1.62 511.10 $455.08 $279.83 62.6% $443.98 590 Library `C,i :7%. M¢1o00sf 1.76 5482.35 512.06 $494.41 5271.63 82.096 733 Government Office Complex `C;,:. V.,$1 1,000sf 1.39 5380.94 59.52 ' 5390.46 5214.23 82.3% 571 bed 0.87 5238.43 55.96 5244.39 5137.35 77.996 jail , 1...d MISCELLANEOUS: - - - - - 565 Day Care Center `(F.s t'v F . 1,000 sf 5243.91 56.10 5250.01 5158.88 57.4% 0.89 610 Hospital `L.?7v 1,000 sf 1.37 5375.46 59.39 5384.85 55.8% 5247.03 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000sf 2.54 5696.11 $17.40 - $713.51 177.3% $257.28 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 53.49 5143.26 $84.05 70.4% 5139.77 444 Movie Theaterw/Matinee screen $1,638.88 540.97... $1,679.85 51,337.63 25.696 5.98 520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 0.06 516.44 50.41 516.85 514.35 17.4% 522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 519.18 50.48 519.66 514.35 37.096 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 521.92 $0.55 ..-. 522.47 518.45 21.896 0.08 540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 527.41 50.69 528.10 516.40 71.3% n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 0.63 5172.66 54.32 $176:98 599.43 78.096 Note: gsf = gross square feet (1) Source Functional resident coefficients from Appendix A, Table A-13 for residential and lodg'ng land uses and Table A-15 for non -re idential land uses (2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident Table VII -5) by the functional resident coefficient (Item 1) for each land use (3) Fee per functional resident unit (Item 2) multiplied by 2 5% to determine the administrative fee (4) Sum of the fee per functional resident (Item 2) and the administrative fee (Item 3) (5) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (6) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 5) to the total impact fee (Item 4) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 82 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Affordable Growth Strategy Currently, it appears that the only funding source available for law enforcement capital facilities is the impact fee. As such, unless another revenue source is identified, any reduction in the impact fee will result in a decline in the LOS. In addition, the current achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, the Sheriff's Master Plan identifies two projects that are estimated to cost approximately $25 million to $35 million. These projects are not yet programmed due to lack of funding. Given these, the policy decision should focus on the LOS n dwhether the adopted and/or existing LOS should be reduced or impact fees and/ontother revenue sources should be used to maintain/improve the LOS. SP eft Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Com p arison As part of the work effort in updating Indian RiTerCounty's law enforcement impact fee schedule, the County's calculatedmpact fee sch d lea s compared to the adopted fee S. schedule and those in similar or nein y�,j dictions. TableAIII-7 presents this comparison. • Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 83 Impact Fee Update Study 0. CI 4 CO 0. E am c 0 u i m cc 41 c u to LL. LI roE c 41 Cl 4.3O moW J 41 to V C '�. .0 MI` c O 7 ry h0 u N Ob 'y N Non:Residential: 1 O m to O co N - n .-I V to N O In .-I N C o w .N -I ryC 5 o N U ` a�1.4 '" to $1581 a N VT N N VT el V tAo N N ry . C p? tD III seC •.c G 2 U c 8 O m N LO N n/a n/a CO C n/a m C ~.... .T to •ro c pp w S C G' O u ti ''1 1/. N v el rs1 elelt VT el CTI N $187 V G p v rt OlOl V1 r. 1 IA n m N .-I in V) N CO V? f t0 al .y V/ LN • ` u -",•••• p C O U o O o N to 1 Vl _t 4 et m I -4.m l VT !9,`r C'J m m N sm V T $335 2d„ j C '• O c S IC 0 N u° %OOT t4 N H I CO N CV .rnn .h S y •`_ � ar _ '- ? m tJ CC 20j 7 ILoi U %OOT Ory in aA m to m V/ 1pn N m VT - c;I o$ T •� 8 8 x 1-1 Npp I" el NN N triN 01 VT` N 'y o cu > i El m1 C �• 0 el ul m a VT h VN? to tWA gdoi to Nw. Nn •�..0 lee np O O O O V Land Use Date of Last U.date Adoption Percentage .... 44 C :13), to CC O Light Industrial Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru Cr - in oQQ O g riI-1- tn o V o ll) E CO O OD c 4! u 14- CO z 00 CO c 0 c c 0 0 O 0 0 0 O V v c 00u a iJ i c 6(3 cu - 0 c0 am O tC 0 a 0 • a yu • a .11. fpm <'va O a to/ • • v v • •0 c c cu °1.a a ta.3-'y, .0 O O = t• O C CU > 4 CO E w It; 0 e •Eva $ Lei o u 1 , v ill *> c .. to tcu N H Ec u o v E w c E C a 0 to • y C o CO. - 0 v-0 C > c 0 0 0 2 Cl ▪ CU CO o m m to 4•1o .0 C U. 'c c 0 E c n > a i o — 0 G c 1 ) d o > of a o o c c pp C r 1. po aC y a . 1 >. 0 =vE m y c cc o a > C a y -' t O c C w r 1n V 1.> o' V - u 61 u O c V II 1- S_ " v M v 0 00 0 0 0== o a v v v vl u u V N N m a N E c O N A 0.'. v tety • Y E N LL ce3 • 01 c • CU o0 .• 417:::1 ° E E N • ro 0. 0 o - c C > C d w c E • 9 06 m - C 0 C Ill L) as C c U V 0 a 0 C C CO co ` L m x x u u m m o N eel m roC c 0 0 c 0 u O ▪ 00 00 00 ✓ v v v 1p 1� co of el .i Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • VIII. Educational Facilities Educational facilities impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional school facilities demand created by new growth. This section of the report will present the results of the educational facilities impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated school impactrfee schedule. Ste paS frat Naer Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 85 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study IX. Parks & Recreation Facilities This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the parks and recreation impact fee. To develop the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule, multiple e lements must be addressed, including: • Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities • Service Area and Population • Level -of -Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost • Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilitsmpact Fee Schedule tbk • Affordable Growth Strategyel • Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schdule1Comparison These various elements are summarized throughout this section, with the result being the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule:`' n Inventory of Land andRecreationoFacilities Accordmg> to innfor�mation p ided''by RC the County owns 29 parks located in the u nincorporated countyIn addition, there are parks where the land is not owned by the County; but the facilities are Asuch, only the facilities in these parks are included in the inventorrParks that are owned by the County, but located in cities are excluded since the easa,, .. impact fee is collected only in"the unincorporated county. Finally, recreation facilities that generate revenue such as golf4courses and the shooting range) are also excluded from the inventory. IRC parks -and recreational facilities can be classified into three different types, depending on the population and areas they serve and types of amenities offered. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes definitions of each park type. Table IX -1 provides the parks and recreation inventory used as the basis for the impact fee. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 86 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 4- c u E 'c N m p c cro 3 O V v '12 > 3 c ea v v c o a S c N n c a o 0 oo '. N m O to V N 1.3> CL 0 c � A V Q) c4.4 m a E co ar N -. -. e TO = o' >73 u mom e E= I- v0° N c.. I- U to E —oE E$ in .. to o E s N o 0 N N I t I N e e m 7 To me — N LL NoN cr ,r -- .. a to Soccer I Field o o .o m E 0 CC .. N .. .. .l m m t m .. m .. m m m .. m m m m m m m Restroomsl e 0 03 Nm N _ .. .. .. .. N e .. .. .. .. .. .. m _ m o m .. n .. .. .. N m .e m e N n .. to .. N r m m en N _ e m N E r o a u ... .. Olympic Aquatic Center o o ... .l o 'm�.�-: g E g n Multi -Purpose Building (sf) oo1E n n .4 S / ai E m cooE Maintenance Facility o co 8 co ;0 12 60 y � a .: f+e�x 1 • p . .. . . N Lifeguard Tower a o .n N ta 0. — N o 0 \y 8• 1 M; ;a? 8 i�S K-�1 o nS j8 cri 8 914 ta logging Trails (miles) e t to It e el el dRJ .. �yNtzt .N el N ::y °� 7 / l - �o P1 M vs' ch. 0 oY . 3 .. .. ....TT . r.ttt 4 ?: i L yyy a:: 4 ': w /, _ :-- to n c0 > o' - 3 o o n n CU E- '." to: . h 5 '1 IN IcoE c V U - 0 8 N MC Cin. 3 'C p4 is bc. N Canoe Launch o ., e N a. aE ec N e N... . N i`' 4� mj N mE 00 18 4 a r V N . . .. - N $ y -. ivu a ti u 2 N o in 2 2 C C C K K K C Z Z Z C C C R C Z C C Z Z 5 C U 2¢¢¢¢¢ Z Z co ri 0 County ICounty p 2 I 51RWMDIr1 51RWMDIt1 County County County County C > County c > c > County 1 County County County County County County County County County County County County County 1 County County 1 County I 8 — ter r c m d 8 .. 8 in L° e 8 n N r 14.30 e 8 N 8 ri 137.92] 2 8 $ 8 .. Q n I 5.84 issmol 0.301 0.50 8 n m ai 8 r. .. o 72.701 ER N 17.001 8 .. 8 IA 8 m n 8 ..Ti Lei a 34.351 .4 511.24 Name of the Park/Facility 45th Street Dock IAmbersand Beach Park Blue Cypress Lake Park Boat Island C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area CR -512 Recreation Area Dale Wimbrow Park Donald MacDonald Park Gifford Park Golden Sands Park Grovenor Estates Park Helen Hanson Park • Hosie -Schumann Park TI 0 LI TOIL0 CC IRC Parks Maintenance Facility IRC Shooting Range toe S. Farman Park Kiwanis-Hobart Park MLK Park — —I North County Regional Park Oslo Road Boat Ramp Pine Hill (Lone Pine) Roseland Community Center [Round Island Beach Park Round Island Park West Sebastian Canoe Launch Park South County Regional Park Tracking Station Beach Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Complex) Wabasso Beach Park IWabasso Causeway Park Wabasso Island River Park Wabasso School Park West Wabasso Park Total (County Owned) Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks TOTAL 1 4- c u E 'c N m p c cro 3 O V v '12 > 3 c ea v v c o a S c N n c a o 0 oo '. N m O to V N 1.3> CL 0 c � A V Q) c4.4 m a E co • • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Service Area and Population IRC provides parks and recreation facilities and services in the unincorporated areas of the county. The municipalities provide these facilities and services within their respective jurisdictions. As a result, the parks and recreation impact fee analysis will 'consider only unincorporated county area population and parks and recreational facilities located within the unincorporated county area. Appendix A, Table A-1, provides the estimated unincorporated area population for 2013 and the projected unincorporated area population Are through 2040. Parks impact fees are charged only to residential land uses. As such, the weighted seasonal population per housing unit is used to measure demand from each residential land use, which is presented in Appendix Level -of -Service The current LOS for all county -owned and maintained neighborhood �'community and regional parks in unincorporatedco`unty is 5.59 acres per 1,000 residents. Table IX -2 presents the calculation of the current L®Sfor,,each par1% included in the inventory, as well as Indian River County's adopted L standardtof 6.61 acres. per 1,000 residents. The impact fee cannot charge, new growth eatrate to0correct existing deficiencies. In addition, there needs to be a commitment to continue providing the LOS used in the impact fee calculation which is'typ cally achieved thro gh the adopted LOS standard. For impact rr_ n� . x a x fee calculation'`�purposes, this; study used ,the lower of the two figures to provide a conservative approach:: With this approach the current achieved LOS is used in the calculatiomof the parks anthrecreation.impact fee. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 88 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IX -2 Current Level -of -Service (2013 (1) (2) (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A 1; Unincorporated Counti Source: Table IX -1 Current regional parks number of acres (Item 2)%divided by the unincorporated(population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 residents . (4) Sum of current neighborhood parks number of acres and;currentmunity parks number of acres. `Ice zgzer (5) Current neighborhood/community parks number of acres(ltem44) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1), multiplied by 1 OOr'e-sidents. (6) Sum of current regional parks LOS (It m 3)'and)current neighborhood/community parks LOS (Item 5). (7) Source: Indian River County Table IX -3 presents other Florida counties 4 comparison,:; Indian River acreage per -1,000 residents an other communities SE comparison of the pariksand recreation adopted LOS standards of to IndianRiver Countyadopted LOS standards. Based on this County adopted LOS standards are in the range of the required Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 89 Impact Fee Update Study Calculation. Step MS 2013 Unincorporated Population" 97,681 Current Regional Parks Number of Acres(2) . 511.27 Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)131 5.23 Current Neighborhood Parks Number of Acres(2) 34.35 Current Community Parks Number of Acres(2) 1.03 Total Number of Acres (Neighborhood and Community)i4i 35.38 Current Neighborhood & Community Parks LOS Component (Acres 1,000 Residents)i5i 0.36 Current Total Parks LOSp000 ( Acres 1 Residents) (6) 16iate1`a.. :., 5.59 Adopted Total Parks LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)' 6.61 (1) (2) (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A 1; Unincorporated Counti Source: Table IX -1 Current regional parks number of acres (Item 2)%divided by the unincorporated(population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 residents . (4) Sum of current neighborhood parks number of acres and;currentmunity parks number of acres. `Ice zgzer (5) Current neighborhood/community parks number of acres(ltem44) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1), multiplied by 1 OOr'e-sidents. (6) Sum of current regional parks LOS (It m 3)'and)current neighborhood/community parks LOS (Item 5). (7) Source: Indian River County Table IX -3 presents other Florida counties 4 comparison,:; Indian River acreage per -1,000 residents an other communities SE comparison of the pariksand recreation adopted LOS standards of to IndianRiver Countyadopted LOS standards. Based on this County adopted LOS standards are in the range of the required Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 89 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County ( Impact Fee Update Study Table IX -3 Level -of -Service Comparison doptedLOS standardsprovided on yyi elude community regional, and �£c other siVitt r types of parkssa� nd exclude lova Parks *vim � (2) Source Brevard County Comprehensive Plan (3) •Source Martin. County FY 201=3 Capital Improvement Program (4) Source CollierzCounty 2013 AUIR (5) Sout. rcgterernando Cou,�nty Coromprehensive Plan (6)aSource: Citr,.uuss County Comprehensive Plan (7Source Okeechobee County Parks & Recreation (8) Se TableT X2 (9) Source =Indian R v County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (10) Source St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (11) SourceVmart Charlotte 2050 Comprehensive Plan 12) Source-4Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (• )Sour \sceola County Comprehensive Plan (14)=Source St. Johns County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Master Plan Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 90 Impact Fee Update. Study __ Brevard Jurisdiction. — — — — ( 105 Standard' j (Acres per.1,000 1 1 ' Residents)hl County(2) 3.00 Martin County (3) 3.00 Collier County(4) 3.90 Hernando County(5) sk a �.. 4.00 Citrus County(6) sne' 4.50 Okeechobee County(7) ; � 5.50 Indian River County(Existing) (8) ( g) s;4 5.59 Indian River County (Adopt) 6:61 St. Lucie County(10): 7.50 Charlotte County(11) 10.00 Highlands .r. County (12) � 8,. °1 r 10.00 Osceola County y " M j . 10.00 a St. Johns County(4) "afi , 28.00 Average< excluding IRC),"Ma Use J"z, 8.13 doptedLOS standardsprovided on yyi elude community regional, and �£c other siVitt r types of parkssa� nd exclude lova Parks *vim � (2) Source Brevard County Comprehensive Plan (3) •Source Martin. County FY 201=3 Capital Improvement Program (4) Source CollierzCounty 2013 AUIR (5) Sout. rcgterernando Cou,�nty Coromprehensive Plan (6)aSource: Citr,.uuss County Comprehensive Plan (7Source Okeechobee County Parks & Recreation (8) Se TableT X2 (9) Source =Indian R v County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (10) Source St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (11) SourceVmart Charlotte 2050 Comprehensive Plan 12) Source-4Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (• )Sour \sceola County Comprehensive Plan (14)=Source St. Johns County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Master Plan Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 90 Impact Fee Update. Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Land Cost Because of recent fluctuations in land values statewide, a detailed analysis of land values for each type of park (and the geographic subareas within the county) was conducted This analysis takes into consideration current land value of the existing parks as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser as well as an analysis of recent sales of vacant land similar in size and location to Indian River County's parks. Based on this analysis, an average land value of $50,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations. Appendix F provides the data used for this analysis. The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost gric of the land. Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/paving costs are also considered. These costs can vary greatly, depending on the4t pe of services offered at each park. Based on information provided by the County;as' well as information:'. from similarly sized jurisdictions and park types, basic landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs were estimated and are presented in Table IX -4. Table IX -4 LanidMCost perResident (1) 2) 3) (4) Source: Appendix F, TableJFlb Source: Indian River;County Source: Indian River County Sum of land purchase cost (Item 1), landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs (Item 2), and utilities and paving per acre cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table IX -2 (6) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by regional parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (7) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (8) Sum of land cost per resident for regional parks (Item 6) and neighborhood/community parks (Item 7) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 91 Impact Fee Update Study Facility/Calculation Step Cost per Acre Land Purchase;Cost per Acrel ' � $50,000 Landscaping, Siteiipseparation' and IrrigationiCosts We wswie1/21 (per acre) $5,000 Utilities and Paving(3i% (per acre) , $20,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $75,000 Regional Parks LOSu(acres per1;(200 Residents). 5.23 Land Cost per Reside Regio aljRark Component(6) $392.25 Neighborhood/Commun tyjParks L(acres per 1,000 Residents))s) 0.36 Land CoserResident - N ghborhood/Community Park Component(') $27.00 Land Cost pe R silent - All s(8) $419.25 Par (1) 2) 3) (4) Source: Appendix F, TableJFlb Source: Indian River;County Source: Indian River County Sum of land purchase cost (Item 1), landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs (Item 2), and utilities and paving per acre cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table IX -2 (6) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by regional parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (7) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (8) Sum of land cost per resident for regional parks (Item 6) and neighborhood/community parks (Item 7) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 91 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study. Facility and Equipment Cost The second step in calculating the total cost for parks and recreation services in Indian River County involves estimating the current value of recreational facilities. When available, the value for the parks facilities and equipment is estimated based on recent bids or purchases. made by the County for its park facilities. When recent bid/purchase information was not available, unit costs from the County's insurance reports and recent costs for similar facilities from other jurisdictions were used. As presented in Table IX -5, the total park facility value is $3 3 "million for neighborhood and It community parks and $40.7 million for regional parks'foca combined total of $44 million, including facilities, equipment, and architecture andPengineering(A&E) costs. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 92 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IX -5 Equipment/Bui dings Replacement Cost (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) SourceTable IX 1- Basdon insurance values of existing facilities, information from previous studies for IRC as well as information from otheraF..lorida jurisdictions SourcTable IX -1 Unit val(Item 2) multiplied sbythe numberrof units per facility (Item 3) Source: Tatile1 4,41/4 Unit replacementpvalue (Item2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 5) Sum of the total a uuee for comity parks (Item 4) and the total value of regional parks (Item 6) Facility and equipment value muitiplied by 12.5% based on discussions with Indian River County rftsW Sum of the facilities aeq aunt replacement value and the architecture, engineering, and inspection cost (Item 8) for each park Source: Table IX -1 Total facilities and equipment cost (Item 9) divided by the total number of acres (Item 10) for each park type Source: Table IX -2 Facilities and equipment value per acre (Item 11) multiplied by the level -of -service (Item 12) divided by 1,000 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 93 Impact Fee Update Study Facilitym _ Unit Valuem Neighborhood/ Community Parks • Regional Parks Total Cost $550,000 Description P Basketball Court Unit _ court $55,000 Count (3) 5 Total Value °' $275,000 Count Isl 5 Total Value m $275,000 Boat Ramp ' ramp lane $100,000 0 $0 18 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Canoe Launch launch $188,000 1 $188,000 4 $752,000 $940,000 Community Center sq ft $180 1,401 $252,180 6,006 $1,081,080 $1,333,260 Dune Walkover walkover $43,000 0 $0 7 $301,000 $301,000 Fishing Pier pier $12,500 1 $12,500 $187,500 14 $175,000 Jogging Trails mile $150,000 1.0 $150,`000 tr 5.5 $825,000 $975,000 Lifeguard Tower tower $25,000 0 d $o 5 $125,000 $125,000 Maintenance Facility sq ft $100 0 $Q 8,850 $885,000 $885,000 Multi Purpose Bldg sq ft $150 0 " $0 .;1.76,600 $11,490,000 $11,490,000 Olympic Aquatic Center center $3,000,000 ,0, _ $0 a.1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Picnic Pavilion pavilion $40,000 Ate V $200,000 5,4 $2,160,000 $2,360,000 Playground yg playground $90,000 At ,"S $450,000 8 ::sem $720,000 $1,170,000 Restroom restroom $85,000 "`.4 $340,000 28 re$2,380,000 $2,720,000 Soccer Field field $325,000 Nilo $0 $1,950,000 6 $1950,000 Softball Field field $500,000 N2 ift, $1,006,4666 # 12 $6000;000 $7,000,000 Swimming Pool pool t$2 000,000 0 'It. S $0 1 $2,000;000 $2,000,000 Tennis Courts court "x»;$50;000 w 1 Nngb,000 4 $200,000 $250,000 Volleyball Court court $20,000 1 V$25,000 3 $60,000 $80,000 Facilities and Equipment Replacement Value fa • $2,937,680 $36,179,080 $39,116,760 Architecture Engineering, and Inspection @ 12.550114 $367,210 $4,522,385 $4,889,595 $40,701,465 $44,006,355 Total Facilities and Equipment Replacement Value) $3;304,890 Total Number of Acres(1! '. U 35.38 511.27 546.65 Facilities and Equipment V Iue perAcre(' A* $93,411 $79,609 $80,502 Level-of-5ervice(12 iAN 0.36 5.23 5.59 and.Equipment ment Value RFacilities esid $33.63 $416.36 $449.99 _...� (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) SourceTable IX 1- Basdon insurance values of existing facilities, information from previous studies for IRC as well as information from otheraF..lorida jurisdictions SourcTable IX -1 Unit val(Item 2) multiplied sbythe numberrof units per facility (Item 3) Source: Tatile1 4,41/4 Unit replacementpvalue (Item2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 5) Sum of the total a uuee for comity parks (Item 4) and the total value of regional parks (Item 6) Facility and equipment value muitiplied by 12.5% based on discussions with Indian River County rftsW Sum of the facilities aeq aunt replacement value and the architecture, engineering, and inspection cost (Item 8) for each park Source: Table IX -1 Total facilities and equipment cost (Item 9) divided by the total number of acres (Item 10) for each park type Source: Table IX -2 Facilities and equipment value per acre (Item 11) multiplied by the level -of -service (Item 12) divided by 1,000 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 93 Impact Fee Update Study • s Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Total Impact Cost per Resident Table IX -6 presents the total impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in Indian River County. Using the current achieved LOS as previously presented in Table IX -2, the total cost for neighborhood/community parks in Indian River County is $61 per resident and the total cost for regional parks is $809 per resident, for a total of $869 per resident. Table IX -6 Total Impact Cost per Resident (1) Source: Table IX 4 (2) Source: Table IX 5 (3) Sum of the land value per resident(Item 1) and the facility value per acre (Item 2 Credit Component To avoid overcharging new developmenVfor capital cost of providing parks and recreation services, a review of the capital financing program for the parks and recreation program wascompleted: revenues within purpose of this view was to determine any potential generated'=by new deyelopment% other than impact fees, which have been used the last five years or planned to be used over the next five years to fund the „ expansion ,of capital facilities; land and equipment related to Indian River County's parks and recreation program. -Based on this review, Indian River County's parks capital expansion improvements are=being funded primarily with sales tax revenues (96 percent of total non -impact feee)_spending), and, at a lesser degree, with general fund and grantsr revenues. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit Between 2008 and 2017, Indian River County spent or planned to spend a total of $6.4 million for capital expansion of parks, resulting in an average annual capital expansion expenditure of $639,000. Since the review of these expenditures spanned 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average population for this same period. As presented in Table IX -7, the average annual capital expansion Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 94 Impact Fee Update Study _ _ _ - Component Park Type Total Neighborhood/ Community Regional Total Land Value per Residentl1l,,$27.00 _ $419.25 ,, $392.25 Total Facility Value per Resident(2) $33.63 $416.36 $449.99 Total Impact Costper Resident(3) ;$60.63 Naa $808.61 $869.24 (1) Source: Table IX 4 (2) Source: Table IX 5 (3) Sum of the land value per resident(Item 1) and the facility value per acre (Item 2 Credit Component To avoid overcharging new developmenVfor capital cost of providing parks and recreation services, a review of the capital financing program for the parks and recreation program wascompleted: revenues within purpose of this view was to determine any potential generated'=by new deyelopment% other than impact fees, which have been used the last five years or planned to be used over the next five years to fund the „ expansion ,of capital facilities; land and equipment related to Indian River County's parks and recreation program. -Based on this review, Indian River County's parks capital expansion improvements are=being funded primarily with sales tax revenues (96 percent of total non -impact feee)_spending), and, at a lesser degree, with general fund and grantsr revenues. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit Between 2008 and 2017, Indian River County spent or planned to spend a total of $6.4 million for capital expansion of parks, resulting in an average annual capital expansion expenditure of $639,000. Since the review of these expenditures spanned 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average population for this same period. As presented in Table IX -7, the average annual capital expansion Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 94 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study expenditure is approximately $7 per resident. As mentioned previously, a large part of this funding (96 percent) is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. This analysis assumes that the sales tax will not be re -adopted. If the sales tax is re -adopted, the credit calculations should be reviewed to determine if a revision is needed. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 95 Impact Fee Update Study • a Lig to 0. u. u 0.E c u° > C m v ProjectDescriptioni'1 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/1411FY 2014/15 I FY 2015/16 11 FY 2016/17 1 Total Sales Tax: O 1/1 Vf O 11.4 0.4 8O O N 4. O / O $3,3435451 ITZLITSV95 N H el t�G N Generdl Fund Revenues &`Grants: 0 N us - Vhf 101£'£Z$ 8 N Sales Tax. and General Fund Revenues and Grants: Total $169,394 \.$15 2101e$1;512,092: 50 $0 $2,043,545 $1,600,000 $0 50 $1,050,000 $6,390,241 Oa§ QQp N to p /1 1 1 Ca § 0 N H Subtotal -- Average Annual Expenditures Funded with Sales Tax Revenues121 A; 3'it Average Annual Expenditures per Resident (Sales Tax)i3I J;t, 1 1 it 1 . 1 1 1 • 1 11 1 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 11 • 1 i i Opo p 000"005"T$ oQp 8 0 DSD 1 i t H a $1,843,5451 `A. . 7 7 O an 1- .-1 l/} I i I t et i. 1 '.iA..+, 11 1 1 .h% 1 1 f J` 4: $1,512,092 51,512,092 (.. -et 4 0 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1-1N lli elH • I1 1 O C lA 1 i 1 • p a 1 l 0 m N A i t Parks Maintenance Complex Gifford Park Security House • West County Regional Park North County Soccer Lights South County Regional Park Fence Project Ph. II South County Intergenerational Multi -Purpose Facility Subtotal -- Expenditures Funded with Sales Tax Revenues Gifford Park Football Fields Irrigation of Football Fields (Gifford Park) Oslo Boat Ramp & Parking n E a NI- E g 0 SPE u N a >. „t n V lei O O y N 6 > 0 oam-0 m 0. c a a 0�_c CU c a a - ro .5 4-- •n L. v w ` a a 0 a a`+ CD to oo �a C till o c , otf i > > .LO. > ' a ' 'a O 3 v x'a oa as a x °' � a1 a n c — a c m c ._ m a to Z c o a v n 7 a t a n o a L_ J L_ J y c o 6 3 9 v j 0i a a a N = - a a•-:-1�' > c o c o `.`a Q a c ..o.. — 4.5. r m a oo o c w c o N a U 0 (CC 0 M„ r 0 v .. a .. a' d o > a to -0 OD u x o c o. o n o a c CO a I 1 1 i.2 Q mc — _ C _ 0 tai 0 un0 0 0 n aaaiD a " O °n o o > A N N N r N Q rI N In a to to n CO • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost The net parks and recreation impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table IX -8 summarizes the calculation of the net parks and recreation cost per resident for both neighborhood/community and regional parks. The first section of Table IX -8 identifies the total impact cost as $869 per resident for all parks. The second section of the table identifies the, re enue credits for the parks and recreation impact fee, totaling approximately $34 forralfrparks. The net impact cost per resident is the differentffbetween the totalyimpact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in-anet impact cost of $836 per resident for all parks. No Impact Cost per Resident (1) Source: Table IX -6 (2) Source: Table IX -7 (3) Source: The present valuesof the capital improvement credit per resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 5 years for sales tax expenditures and 25 years for general fund & grant expenditures. (4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 97 Impact Fee Update Study _- __- T - - -- TRevenue Im act p Credits I Calculation Step _ Cost ; + i Sales Tax General Fund & Grants Total I - _1 Impact Cost 4. ; Total Impact Cost (i) ,,a Ng per`Resident .\ :1 , $869.24 Revenue Credit - ��S ;;� .<... Avg AnnualiCapita resa, .:Expansion&Credit per Resident �z) $6.31 $0.24 Capitalization Rate t .. 2.5% 2.5% Capitalization -ea_ Period (in vears)_t.. 5 25 Capital Expansion Credit per p $29.32 $4.42 $33.74 Net Impact Cos Net Impact Cos`°p tResident(°) `;; $835.50 (1) Source: Table IX -6 (2) Source: Table IX -7 (3) Source: The present valuesof the capital improvement credit per resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 5 years for sales tax expenditures and 25 years for general fund & grant expenditures. (4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 97 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule • • Table IX -9 presents the calculated parks and recreation impact fee schedule developed for residential land uses. As previously mentioned, only residential development within unincorporated Indian River County is assessed a parks and recreation impact fee. Table IX -9 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule it I Impact , Land Use k' Unit • i Residential I Residents , per Unitl'I I Net Cost per Resident �ZI Net Impact (3) ( - Fee 1 Administrative 1 Feel4l I _ _ _ - Jt_ Total Impact _Fee Is) Current Adopted - (6) Fee Percent Changein: Single Family (less than 1,500sf) du 2.09 $835.50 •••,$1746.20 'F$43.66 $1,789.86 $1,334.42 34.1% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 2.27 $835'x`50 ;$%,896.59 '$47.41 .$1,944:00 $1,499.45 29.6% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 2.53 .$835:50'$2,113.82 $52`85 :$2,166.67 $1,626.45 33.2% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.30 $835!50 $1,086.15 $27.15 $1,113.30 $906.17 22.9% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 1.30 $835;50 $1,086.15 $27.15 $1,113.30 $965 68 15.3% (1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-3 (2) Source: Table IX -8 (3) Residents per unit (Item 1) for each !7 landtuse,category multipl edthy net cost per resident St (Item 2) (4) An administrative fee is assessed at2 5% of'thernet impact leek( enn 3) (5) Sum of the net impact fee (Item 3) and the,admihistrative fee (It4) (6) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2 5%-administratib'fee. "wk,. (7) Percent change from the rent adopted rates (Item 4) to the calculat� curtotal impact fee rate (Item 3) ` S < ..'< Based on a` V:iew.of capitaLexpansit n<lexpenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County Vie will use approximately $639,000Fper year of non -Impact fee funding over the next five years and $24,000 per year afterwards:t.As mentioned previously, during the next 25 years, the Wiz. County Is expected to grow: at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure IX -1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. The maximum calculated fee is compared iinvestment needed to maintain the current adopted LOS standard. Although theCounty may charge the maximum amount of parks and recreation impact fee calculated, theCounty needs approximately 92 percent of the maximum impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. As mentioned previously, the available non- impact fee consists primarily of sales tax revenues These calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re -adopted in 2019. If the sales tax is re -adopted, the Affordable Growth calculations should be reviewed to see if a revision is necessary. In addition, the County is targeting non-residential land uses for potential discounts and the parks and recreation fees are charged only to residential land uses. Affordable GrowthEStrategy Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 98 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 12096 10096 Figure IX -1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee — Affordable Growth Strategy 80% — tn 6096 40% - 2096 0% • IRC Annual Average Growth, •Total `Cost :Maximumampact<Fee ies uriie; • 0.0096 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.0096 Annual Growth Rate Table IX -10 presents discounted impacttfeeschedule. Table IX 1U F; Calculated,Parks& Recreation Impact FeSchedule Affordable Growth • (1) Calculated based on a average annual spending of $639,000 for the next 5 years and $24,000 per year afterwards and an average annual growth rate of 1.4% over the next 25 years (2) Total impact fee from Table IX -9 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 99 Impact Fee Update Study I -- --- Land Use - -r- 1Impact Unit Affordable Growth AdoptionFeel�1 Rate (1) Total Impact Current Adopted Fee13% Percent Chang e�41 Residential Single Family (less than 1r5 o sf) ' du 92% $1,646.66 $1,334.42 23.4% Single Fam yft(1,500to 2,440)„ 92% $1,788.48 $1,499.45 19.3% Single Familyy:(2500sforgreate) du 92% $1,993.33 $1,626.45 22.6% Multi-Family/Acc ssory Unit ,:$ du 92% $1,024.24 $906.17 13.0% Mobile Home/RV Pak (tied,do n) du 92% $1,024.24 $965.68 6.1% (1) Calculated based on a average annual spending of $639,000 for the next 5 years and $24,000 per year afterwards and an average annual growth rate of 1.4% over the next 25 years (2) Total impact fee from Table IX -9 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 99 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison • As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County's parks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison impact fee schedules was completed for surrounding counties and other jurisdictions throughout Florida. Table IX -11 presents this comparison. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 100 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table IX -11 O 1- a E O li u 0. E era ro 0 `u cc 03 11- 0 TTOZ IE0AjunOp.. sugor'35 a° 8 N n of in N 1\ a N t\ a ZTOZ IZ1IA4unop u!peW ti N N cm NT V N N Ol N N N N Ol N N Highlands County" 2006 O 0 $757 N el CO Hernando County110l 2005 el ti el Collier Countyl9l 2010 en N In. co co h no m N - Th.O 4- c v o- N u.� 0 V1 l0 I..0 in VT lll IN Totin VT (n Q - VI- N — 0 Vim' rm C It o %00T el VT ate aWa N O N ID s u C 0 O u .I 1 2006 $924 'LDJD V V NI J Q1 0 C i 0 0 N V I O U01 a° 8 ,.y m r eti VT pp e-1 V/ •-I N Existing(4) 2005 %OOT i GI ti 9065 l0 m N c O Li fc Affordable Growthj3l 2013 co oo 00r - "1 V N N N VT _5 Calculated1�1 2013 g, e -I QQ V ri VT CO IETT'TS 1.° c •0 C X a ti v r Cy 'O I Date of Last Update Adoption Percentage 0 C -43 N W cc Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) Cr O N E LL a m C iel m 0 c a CO °1 0 a C C 0. L CON 0 O C :Fv v 0 0 19 v > '!, OC0 n O 0 • v i 0 a c a OO 0 (12 v 0 0 z 0 mla v cu -o 0 c E c 3 o El'ono no a E o 1' 0 It' • > E L> 0 u O w 0 C mCU W d E LL • u > a > a E z a c . c — Qj u. E E v E N in0 o t o E E nI c a v N o a o o O' E y c E r o °' v1 v a •- E � o v a p o al ? o Cl c v tv > > °l O E ru c E 'c w v o 0> E o v "'m O °d • Z 'c o G m 0 c o3 °O c E oa LL c m.s m c • E E c°D .. C a L c >, C E O- Lj d u 3 n c 1 V U p> O a > >, Z E Z.LD> u04 -,....00 --CC >.> > > >, 3 ._ 01 O0 > l▪ 0 (0 v C O O V OO lJ O. O O • X X C u 0 V l'1 c c U c C 9 0 0 c c a a n- u .. eV ` _1 c L O N CO I- C of O u V 10 V 2 S 2 v1 a u u u u u u u u u u u u E y 0 t a c E °1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N N VI N VI N N V1 N N N O ti N en eel N 01 Q Vl lO 1� CO 01 .1 .y ey • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study X. Transportation Indian River County's Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was most recently updated in 2009 to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. This section of the impact fee report provides the results of the transportation impact fee analysis and consists of the following sections: • Demand Component • Cost Component • Credit Component • Calculated Transportation Impact Fee/Schedule • Affordable Growth Strategy • Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison <� , n As in the case of other impact>fee4.pr..ogram areas;. the methodology used for the transportation impact fee study follows "a consumption- ased impact fee approach, in which new development: scharged based upon .theproportion of vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) that each unittof newtidevelopment isexpectedto onsume of a lane mile of roadway n etwork. Includedinthis`documert a transportation impact;fee. given land use is: The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is expressed in units of VMT (daily vehicle -trip generate•rate times the trip length times the percent new trips [of total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. The trip generation is expressed in average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The cost of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle mile or lane mile of roadway capacity. The credit is an estimate of the future non -impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to transportation capacity e xpansion construction projects. Thus, the impact fee is an 'up front" payment for a portion of the cost of building a lane mile of capacity directly related to the amount of necessary support material used in the calculation of the general equation used to compute the impact fee for a ,[Demand x Cost] — Credit = Fee Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 102 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule that is not • • paid for by future tax revenues generated by new development. It should be noted that the information used to develop the impact fee schedule was based on the most recent, reliable, and localized data available. The following input variables used in the fee equation: Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Percent new trips • Interstate and toll facility discount factor Cost Variables: • Cost per lane mile • Capacity added per lane mile Credit Variables: • Equivalent gastax4credit.(pennies) • Present worth • Fuel efficiency • Effective£days,per year A review of impact fee" variables' anckcorresponding recommendations are presented in the • following subsections. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 103 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Demand Component Travel Demand 1 The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is measured in terms of the vehicle miles of n ew travel a unit of development consumes on the existing road system. • Number of daily trips generated; • Average length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system and is captured by new kde development. • As part of this update, the trip characteristics`•'variables were obtainedprimarily from two :.:� . sources: (1) trip characteristics studies previouslyconducted throughout'Florida by TOA Pe, Institute of Engineers' (ITE) Trip (Florida Studies Database), and (e2 Generation report (9th edition). � The Florida Studies Database:, is included in Appendix 6. This database was used to .ems determine VMT, which is developed from tnp ;length percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses in the eeffeeschedu The data%the trip characteristics database is based on actual land duseestudies asndiwasgcoll cted throughout Florida using machine traffic counts kir . and site specific land use origin destination seNfea urveys. In addition, trip generation data from usaums to the ITE9Edition Trip Generation report was used. In instances where trip generation was ; < r?.. .. available'from the ITE Trip Generation •report and the Florida Studies Database, ad blended average calculation was used:=to increase the sample size. Interstate and Toll"Facility Discount Factor api This variable is used to recognize that improvements to Interstate highways are funded by the State using earmarked and Federal funds, while toll facility improvements are funded with toll revenues. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements, and the portion of new development's travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system u sually is eliminated from the total travel for each land use. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 104 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility discount factor, the loaded highway network file was generated for the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v3.4 (GTCRPM). A select link analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within Indian River County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin or destination within the county. Currently, the only interstate/toll facilities in Indian River County are 1-95 and the Florida Turnpike (SR 19). The limited access vehicle miles of travel`(Limited Access VMT) for trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian River County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total Indian Riyer, County VMT was calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian/River County for all roads, including limited access roads, located within Indian RiverCounty. The I/T discount factor of 17.3 percent was determined by.,,dividing the total Limited Access VMT by the total Indian River County VMT. By applying thissfactor to the total Indian River County VMT for each land use in theifee,schedule, tf educed VMT is then representative of only the roadways which are funded by impact fees Appendix B, Table B-1 provides further detail on this calculation. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 105 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Cost Component • The cost of providing roadway system capacity has decreased in recent years. Construction costs increased significantly in Florida between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, the housing market growth, and other factors. Appreciation in land values also resulted in higher right-of-way (ROW) costs during the same period. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and in recent years, communities have experienced a decrease in construction costs, returning tolevels seen before 2005. Cost information from Indian River County, other Florida Counties, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was reviewed to develop aunit st for all phases involved in the construction of one lane -mile of roadway capacity. The following subsections summarize the methodology and findings of the total unitecost analysis for county and state roads. Appendix C provides the data and other support information utilized`inthese analyses. 4 County Roadway Costs + This section examines the right-of-way W) construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect tttonsportat on. capacity improvements in Indian River County. Forx his purpose, recent bid3da• atta for.ongo projects provided by the 0 County and recent`constructionsbid data from county roadway projects throughout Florida were used to identify4andprovidecsupporting cost data for county improvements. The cost 4, for each roadway capacity` project 4 'QA, construction/engineering inspection (CEI),°R®W4 and construction. 45 �' separated into four phases: design, Design andWCEl Design coststfor county roads were estimated at 10 percent construction phase costs based wWwon a review of cost .data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additionardetail is4provided in Appendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for county roads were estimated at 9 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-16. Right -of -Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 106 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study construction, to build a new road. A review of recent ROW cost data for Indian River County identified 12 recent improvements with acquisition data. Using the construction costs for these improvements, a ROW factor of construction was calculated for each improvement, ranging from six (6) to 150 percent, with a weighted average of approximately 41 percent. This calculated local factor was consistent with county road ROW factors observed in recent impact fee studies throughout Florida and was used as the basis for ROW costs in Indian River County. As seen in Table X-1, this amount is equal to approximately $0.66 million per lane mile for county roads. 'additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables C-4, C-5, C-11, and C-12. Construction The construction cost for county roads was based on a review of local and statewide projects. A review of recent construction ost data for Indian River County identified 12 recent capacity expansion improvements throughout the County. Based on these improvements, a weighted average cost of $1 80 million ",per lane mile was calculated for use in the impact fee calculation(as seen in Table X=1) This figure was compared to the average construction cost per Zane. mile observed in other jurisdictions throughout the state. These statewide projects averaged approximately $218 million per lane mile for construction. Therefore ompared totem stawidedata, local Indian River costs are approximately 83,percent of‘the statewide average. °Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables, C6; C-7, C -137 -and C-14. Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads Cost Phase Design(1) Right -of -Way(?) Construction(3) CEI(4) Total Cost Cost per Lane Mile Urban Design $180,000 $738,000 $1,800,000 $162,000 $2,880,000 Rural Design $149,000 $613,000 $1,494,000 $134,000 $2,390,000 Weighted Average $159,000 $656,000 $1,598,000 $143,000 $2,556,000 (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-4 (3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-6 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-8 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 107 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study State Roadway Costs This section examines the ROW, construction, and other cost components associated with state roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Indian County. For this purpose, recent bid data from state roadway projects throughout Florida and the FDOT's Long Range Estimates (LRE) were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for state improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four phases: design, CEI, ROW and construction. D esign and CEI D esign costs for state roads were estimated at 9 percent construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent tram. sportation impact tee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail isrovided in Appendix ppendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent ofconstruction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected fo recent transportato impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is providedtinAppendix C, TableS-16. Right -of -Way D ue to a lack of County, a review of`R; local right-of-way acquisition cost data #or state roads in Indian River W costs om recenransportation fee studies throughout Florida was conducted Based onithis�review ROW for to roadways was estimated at 44 percent of the .;construction; cost forestate roads A`s1shown in Table X-2, this amount is equal to approximately $0.78 rnlllion per ;lane mile. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table G1QNes 1. Construction A review of recentstate road capacity improvements in Indian River identified three projects from 2008 a d'`2009'(SR 60 and SR 5 widening). These three projects averaged approximately $2.95 million per lane mile for construction. However, due to the small sample size, these projects were blended with 49 additional capacity expansion projects throughout Florida, which resulted in a weighted average cost of $2.44 million per lane mile. An analysis of county roadway improvements, where a larger sample of local projects was available, in relation to statewide county road improvements, indicated that construction costs average approximately 83 percent of construction costs statewide. Based on this conclusion, the construction costs for state roadways in Indian River County Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 108 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • were estimated at 83 percent of the state average of $2.44 million. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-15. Table X-2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-5 3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-7 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-9 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average,cost per lane mile for county and state .roads is presented in Table X- Wkte 3. The resulting weighted average .cost of approximately $2.59 million per lane mile was la utilized as the roadway (cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee .., ` , scheduleThe weighted average costper lane mie includes county and state roads and is 'imbased on weighting`Yahe lanemiles ofbiiroadway improvements in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP.); Compared to"theqprevious transportation impact fee update, the estimated cost of $2.59 million representssa slight increase in the unit cost per lane mile for roadway. The previous cost, established in ai2004>Traffic Impact Fee Study, was estimated at $2.46 million. This represents a five percentincrease in the roadway unit cost per lane mile since the 2004 study. Compared to recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida in the past few years, the unit cost per lane mile estimated in this update is considerably lower. Recent unit costs have ranged from approximately $2.91 million to $4.44 million, with an average cost of $3.61 million. The lower costs in Indian River County can be attributed to the lower construction costs observed in recent local bids as well as the mix of planned Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 109 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Phase __ _ 1 Cost per Lane Mile Urban Design Rural Design J Weighted i _Average__ $196,000 Design11l $220,000 $183,000 Right-of-Way(2) $880,000 $730,000 $781,000 Construction13) $2,000,000 $1,660,000 $1,776,000 CEI (4) $220,000 $183,000 $196,000 Total Cost $3,320,000 $2,756,000 , $2,949,000 (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-5 3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-7 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-9 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average,cost per lane mile for county and state .roads is presented in Table X- Wkte 3. The resulting weighted average .cost of approximately $2.59 million per lane mile was la utilized as the roadway (cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee .., ` , scheduleThe weighted average costper lane mie includes county and state roads and is 'imbased on weighting`Yahe lanemiles ofbiiroadway improvements in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP.); Compared to"theqprevious transportation impact fee update, the estimated cost of $2.59 million representssa slight increase in the unit cost per lane mile for roadway. The previous cost, established in ai2004>Traffic Impact Fee Study, was estimated at $2.46 million. This represents a five percentincrease in the roadway unit cost per lane mile since the 2004 study. Compared to recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida in the past few years, the unit cost per lane mile estimated in this update is considerably lower. Recent unit costs have ranged from approximately $2.91 million to $4.44 million, with an average cost of $3.61 million. The lower costs in Indian River County can be attributed to the lower construction costs observed in recent local bids as well as the mix of planned Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 109 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study urban and rural designed roadways. Compared to other jurisdictions, Indian River County plans to construct a greater proportion of rural designed roadways, which are less expensive than roadways with urban design characteristics. Table X-3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects in Indian River Count (1) Source: Table X-1 (2) Source: Table X-2 (3) Lane mile distribution (Item'4) multiplied by the design, ROW, construction, and CEI phase costs by jurisdicti�to develop+a?weighted average average cost per lane mile (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17tems (a)) a'6) we4 Capacity Added per'Lane Mile An additional component 4 f�tl e,tran'sportation Impact fee equation is the capacity added per Zane mile (alsoWknow 4.4:*) *5 maximu7.m service volume added per mile) of roadway :. constructed. To calculate the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of constructed future roadway, an analysis- of the 2035 projects (see Appendix C, Table C-17) was conducted to reflect the mix of county and state road improvement that will be built in the future. As showntin,Table X-4 the resulting average capacity per lane mile calculated based v on these projects is 8255. The updated capacity added per lane mile estimate of 8,255 is approximately three percent less than the figure used in the 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study. It should be noted that this figure (8,499) was not changed as part of the 2009 update. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 110 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Phase - County Roads(1) .State Roads(Z) County and State Roads(3) Design $159,000 $196,000 $162,000 Right -of -Way $656,000 $781,000 $667,000 Construction $1,598,000 $1,776,000 $1,614,000 CEI $143,000 $196,000 $148,000 Total Cost $2,556,000 $2,949,000 $2,591,000 Lane Mile Distribution(4) 91% 9% 100% (1) Source: Table X-1 (2) Source: Table X-2 (3) Lane mile distribution (Item'4) multiplied by the design, ROW, construction, and CEI phase costs by jurisdicti�to develop+a?weighted average average cost per lane mile (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17tems (a)) a'6) we4 Capacity Added per'Lane Mile An additional component 4 f�tl e,tran'sportation Impact fee equation is the capacity added per Zane mile (alsoWknow 4.4:*) *5 maximu7.m service volume added per mile) of roadway :. constructed. To calculate the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of constructed future roadway, an analysis- of the 2035 projects (see Appendix C, Table C-17) was conducted to reflect the mix of county and state road improvement that will be built in the future. As showntin,Table X-4 the resulting average capacity per lane mile calculated based v on these projects is 8255. The updated capacity added per lane mile estimate of 8,255 is approximately three percent less than the figure used in the 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study. It should be noted that this figure (8,499) was not changed as part of the 2009 update. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 110 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Table X-4 Weighted Average Vehicle -Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile (1) Source: Appendix C Table C-17 (2) Source: Appendix C Table C-17 (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by laneles added (Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county.afiateroads (Item 2) divided by the total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development "is assessed based on the cost per vehicle -mile of capacity. As shown in Tables X--3 and X-4, the cost,and capacity for county roads have been calculated based on typical roadway improvemee is As shown in Table X-5, the cost per VMC for travel within IRC is a p y pproximatel. $314. Thiaverage cost per VMC figure is Mx used in the impact fee calculation determine the "total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle-miles.of travelLconsumed. For.each vehicle -mile of travel that is added to the;road system ;;approximately $314 of roadway capacity is consumed. Table X`5 Weighted Average Cost<per VehicIeMile of Capacity Added Source Source County Roads Lane -Mile if ) Add ed''__ _ 201.90 Vehicle Miles of Capacity 1,632,287 (3) Cost per VMC(3� VMC Added per Lane..Milel3l 8,085 State Roads 19.00 191,352 10,071 Total 220.90 1,823,639 State Roads Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(4) 8,255 8,255 $313.87 (1) Source: Appendix C Table C-17 (2) Source: Appendix C Table C-17 (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by laneles added (Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county.afiateroads (Item 2) divided by the total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development "is assessed based on the cost per vehicle -mile of capacity. As shown in Tables X--3 and X-4, the cost,and capacity for county roads have been calculated based on typical roadway improvemee is As shown in Table X-5, the cost per VMC for travel within IRC is a p y pproximatel. $314. Thiaverage cost per VMC figure is Mx used in the impact fee calculation determine the "total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle-miles.of travelLconsumed. For.each vehicle -mile of travel that is added to the;road system ;;approximately $314 of roadway capacity is consumed. Table X`5 Weighted Average Cost<per VehicIeMile of Capacity Added Source Cost per Lane Average VMC Added per Lane Mile (2) (3) Cost per VMC(3� — — -- County Roads _ —_ 1$2,556,000 8,085 $316.14 10,071 $292.82 State Roads '_ $2,949,000 Weighted Average $2,591,000 8,255 $313.87 (1) Source: Table X-3 (2) Source: Table X 4 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 2) It is important to note that capacity projects eligible for impact fee funding include not only new construction and lane additions, but also associated intersection improvements, traffic signalization, and other amenities and technology improvements that allow for additional vehicle capacity. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 111 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 1111 Credit Component • • Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of non -impact fee revenues (converted to equivalent gasoline taxes) generated by a new development over a 25 -year period that is projected to be expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. County w ate at% A review of the County's historical roadway financing program FY 2008-2013) and the FY 2014- ar 2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shows thal roadway projects are being funded by a combination of fuel taxes, sales tax, grants, developer funds, and transportation impact fees. Currently, capacity -adding projects in the countprimarilyfunded with fuel4tax and sales tax lek, Ate revenues. Based on the FY 2014-20W CIP and discussions4.with-County staff, it was:assumed that %essales tax revenues will only be available fund transportation capacity over the next five years, and will not be a recurring revenue source. Therefore, only4ve years of sales tax revenues are included in the credit calculations. If the sales tax isre-adoptedsin 2019 or a different revenue „ogee, source is allocated to tthhetransportation capacity toxreplace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures may need torbekrevised A shown inY Table -X-6, the sales<tax portion of the county credit was separated from the, total county credit and all non -impact fee funding allocated to transportation capacity wasconverted to equivalent.gas tax revenues. A total gas tax equivalent revenue credit of 111`pennies wasgivenforusales.tax revenues and 5.6 pennies was given for all otheryrevenue sources. State State expenditures'on state roadsawere reviewed, and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to statektprojectswas estimated. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects wastdemined from projects spanning a 10 -year period (2009-2018). This period represents past expenditures (from 2009 to 2013) from the FDOT Work Program and the projected expenditures (from 2014 to 2018) from the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A list of capacity -adding roadway projects was developed, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, interchanges, traffic signal projects, and other capacity -addition projects. This review (summarized in Appendix D, Table D- 3) indicates that FDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 15.5 pennies of gas tax Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 112 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study revenue annually, which is within the range of what is observed in most other Florida jurisdictions. In summary, Indian River County contributes approximately 16.7 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while the State spends an average of 15.5 pennies for state roadway projects in Indian County. Therefore, a total of 32.2 pennies of credit are included in the impact fee calculation to recognize the future capital revenue that is expected to be generated by new development from all non -impact fee revenues, as shown in Table X-6. Table X-6 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Taxtl evenue Equivalent Pennies per Gallon 1 (1) Source: Appendix DTa�ble D2 �� (2) Source: Appendix D Table D-3 (only)accounts‘fore5_ years of sales tax<revenues) (3) Source: Appendix D, Table D;4 Present Worth Variables Facility/Life The "r:.oadway facility life getway reasonablelife of a roadway.° eft _f .fir inthe impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the Interest Rate This is the discount `rate .at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of thecgasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 2.5 percent was used in the transportation impact fee calculation based on the estimate obtained from Indian River County. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 113 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Appendix D, Table D-8 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following e quation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. Fuel Efficiency= EVMTRoatt,a,,Type : E VMTVehicleType NIP UVehicleT}pe 1RoadwayType The methodology uses non -interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles(i.e., passenger cars and other 2 -axle, e� p g 4 -tire vehicles, such as vans pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e., single -unit, 2 -axle; 6 -tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used"byy each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a "weighted"Suetefficiency value that reflects the • e xisting fleet mix of traffic on non interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel e fficiency data were obtained frornthe most recent Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2011. Based on the calculation fuel efficiency rate to used in the updated impact Effective Days per Year: - completed _in,Appendix D, Table D-8, the -,.. An effective'3655days!per year ofoperation ,was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. s=� -_. However, this will not bethe casefor all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g. schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. equation is 18.19 miles per gallon. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 114 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix E, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix E illustrates the following: • Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips); • Total impact fee cost; • Annual gas tax credit; • Present value of the gas tax credit; • Net transportation impact fee; • Current Indian River County impact fee;;and 'vs 2er • Percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the current impact fee. • It should be noted that the net impact fee illus ated n` Appendix E is not necessarily a „ recommended fee, but instead represents'<the technically; defensible impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Indian; RiverCounty. For clarification purposes, the :calculation of an impact fee for one land use category is presented. In the following example, the net/impact fee Nktrecalculated for the single-family residential detached landr;use category (ITE LUC&..210) using information from the impact fee mcluded in Appendix, E, Table E;1. For each land use category, the following t to4calculate the net irnpact^fee: schedule equations are utilized Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost - Gas Tax Credit Where: Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (1 — Interstate/Toll Facility Disc. Factor) x (Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 2.5% interest rate & 25 -year facility life Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 115 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Annual Gas/Sales Tax = ((Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (Effective Days • • per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category: • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.81). • Assessable Trip Length = the actual average tripflengfor the category, in vehicle -miles (6.62). • Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gastaxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (6!62'+ 0.50 = 742). ate. that are alreadyonthe roadway tketfea • % New Trips = adjustment factor to account (100%). • Divide by 2 = the total daily miles offtravel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate*Iength*% new trips) is divided. by two t _preventthedouble-counting of travel : • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.19). Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category as follows: Total Impact Cost = ([7.81 * 6.62 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.173) *a($313.87) _ $6 710 Annual Sales Tax Credit = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 *•($0111 /18.19) _ $62 Sales Tax Credit = $62 * 4.6458 = $288 Annual Credit for Gas Tax and Other Sources (171.81 *'712* 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.211 /18.19) _ $118 Gas Tax Credit = $118 * 18.4244 = $2174 Total Credit =$288 + $2,174 = $2,462 Net Impact Fee = $6,710 — $2,462 = $4,248 Total Impact Fee (with 2.5% adminfee) _ $4,354 A comparison of calculated fee schedules to the current adoptech<fee by land use is presented sPerb in Table X-7. The detailed lee schedule that includesghe calculations shown above is rr presented in Appendix E, Tablet: Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 117 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table X-7 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ITE LUC land Use ( .. - _ ___ _..... . ' Unit I _ 1__ _ ., Total Impact ': Total I; Net Admin.., I• I 121 ..Cost_111- •1 Creditill !Impact Fee,_Feenl J Total Net Impact FeeN3 Current [Impact FeeIsl -%-- Change .RES/DENTIAL -. '. Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 1,500 sf du $5,370 $1,964 53,406 585 . -$3,491 $3,048 15% - 1,500 to 2,499sf du 56,710 $2,462 $4,248 $106 - $4,354 $4,595 -5% - 2,500 sf or larger du 57,904 $2,900 55,004 $125 .55,129 $5,157 -1% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du $4,369 51,627 52,742 569 ' .752,811 $2,489 13% 240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du 52,490 5940 -"51,550 $39 51;589 51,789 -11% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: _ 310 Hotel room 53,410 $1,254 52,156 554 . $2,210 $2,874 -23% 320 Motel room $2,442 5918 51,524 538 -51,562 51,554 1% 620 Nursing Home bed 5826 5332 $494 512 5506 5443 14% 252 Assisted Care living Facility (ACIP) bed $910 5355 $555 514 ..$569 5636 -11% OFFICE& FINANCIAL: 'J - - 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less 1,000 sf 515,277 55,675 $9,602 5240 $9,842 513,746 -28% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 522,258 58,262 513,996 5350 .$14,346 513,746 4% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000 sf 517,815 57,304 510,511 5263 _ $10,774 $10,900 -1% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000 sf 523,401 59,581 513,820 5346 ' $14,166 513,346 6% 710 General Office 1,000sf $6,783 52,526 54,257 5106. 4 $4,363 53,893 12% 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 55,040 51,876 53,164 579 53,243 52,868 13% • : INDUSTRIAL: 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 52,349 5876 $1,473 537 - 51,510 51,351 12% 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 52,189 5817 . $1,372 534 51,406 51,259 12% 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 5796 $313- 5483 512 $495 5884 -44% 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 54,286 $1,605' '°) . 52,681 567 ' $2,748 52,464 12% n/a Concrete Plant acre $11,600 ,$3587' $8,013 $200 58,213 55,517 4996 n/a Sand Mining acre 51,487 .f5? $461 $1,026 526 $1,052 5707 4996 RETAIL 820 Retail 1,000sfgla $10,680' $4,320 4T.":‘,.. $6,360 5159 56,519 53,242 101% 944/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. A$8:923 53,841 `C-455,082 5127 - 55,209 $5,727 -996 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000sf .F'513,324 55,030 ••$8,294 5207 $8,501 510,361 -18% 932 Restaurant 1,003 sf .534060 513,417 $20,643, 5516 521;159 522,706 -7% 934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 578,855 533,391 $45,464 . $1,137 $46,601 535,651 3196 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 515;628'. .$6;593' 59,035 'C'r$226 $9,261 511,458 -19% 942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop Q3,00Dsf 510,632: $4:113 $6,519 N5163 - $6,682 58,026 -1796 947 Self -Service Car Wash seiGicebay ., 58,454 %$3,545 5123 55,032 514,954 -6696 $4,909 853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf„ s*:yt542,534 $19,282 523,252 $581 $23,833 $26,066 -9% 890 Fumiture Store 1,000sfr. '132, 160 5793' \ 51.367 534 51,401 51,407 096 RECREATIONAL: 430 Golf Course .ALP • ii$. hole N S -Ti 527,636'. X'$10,121 `L5' 517,515 5438 4517,953 511,529 56% 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dancestudib7 t x.1,000 sf (0 .$20690 $7,723; 1 $12,967 5324 513,291 511,095 2096 412 County Park 60t1 acre '4-N'$1;361 $502 5859 $21 - - 5880 5736 20% 491 Tennis Court Ni.. .?:'court \$24,315 59,079 515,236 5381 515,617 512,485 25% 420 Marina Na:. / • boat lierth '$2,289 5835 51,454 536 51,490 5997 49% GOVERNMENTAL - - - - - - - 732 Post Office :jai/- F 15. 11000 sf - v rf$25,310 59,452 $15,858 5396 516,254 514,554 12% 590 Library i$Y:bi, \-;�'?'b. k1;000 sf `$41,072 515,045 $26,027 5651 - 526,678 $18,373 45% 733 Government Office Complex $:a -1;0000 517,169 56,409 510,760 5269 - 511,029 59,873 12% 571 JailC'r`y.. F 1 beds"h 53,382 51,273 52,109 $53 4 52,162 5399 442% . MISCELLANEOUS: - - 565 Day Care Center 1" 1,000 sf 513,825 55,865 57,960 5199 _ 58,159 59,068 -10% 610 Hospital "tc.,�, Li d' 1,000 sf $8,746 53,195 $5,551 5139 :55,690 4 55,442 5% 640 Veterinary Clinic `xI'il_. ..#i `3 1,000sf 524,697 59,226 515,471 5387 515,858 53,599 341% 560 Church , 1,000 sf 54,150 51,586 52,564 564. 52.628 $2,653 -1% 444 Movie Theaterw/Matinee `''' screen 527,036 511,268 515,768 5394 523,312 -31% 516,162 520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 5576 5212 5364 59 4 5373 5153 144% 522 Middle School (Private, 6.9) student - 5814 5313 5501 513 -$514 5153 236% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 5859 5332 5527 513 5540 5551 -2% 540/550 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) student 51,547 5562 5985 525 - 51,010 $669 51% n/a Fire Station 1,CXVsf 51,260 5539 5721 $18 -- 5739 $1,C08 -27% (1) Source: Appendix E, Table E-1 (2) Total impact cost less the total credit (3) Net impact fee multiplied by 2.5% to determine the administrative fee (4) Sum of the net impact fee (Item 2) and the administrative fee (Item 3) (5) Source: Indian River County; fees shown include a 2.5% administrative fee Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 118 - Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Affordable Growth Strategy • • As presented in Table X-6 and Appendix D, in addition to impact fees, the County will uses a combination of gas tax, sales tax, and grant revenues to fund the transportation system. In terms of affordable growth calculations, it is important to note the following: • Consistent with the methodology used by many Florida jurisdictions, impact fee calculations are based on the adopted LOS standard, which is lower than the current achieved LOS. In other words, under tlecu`rrent methodology, even with the full impact fee, unless the County usesother revenue sources, the current achieved LOS for the system will deteriorate andmore congestion will be experienced. It is Indian River Countys'policy to conduct a Zink -by -link capacity analysis and ensure that no link drops below LOS standard As such, affordable growth calculations are prepared using the current achieved LOSS When the fee is calculated using the current achieved Lit: amounts to $12,700 for a mid-size single family home, compared<to $1,354 per home calculated using the adopted LOS standard. As such, the standard methodology used for transportation impact fees Nsi results in fee levels that slows down thekdegradation of the system, but does not generate sufficie tevenues tomaintainthe existing conditions when they are better than> Yadopted LeS standard h A. A • Asfinentioned previously,fthecredit calculations assume that the local option sales Q tax will t .be re -adopted in 20'19. \1n addition, the County had to defer maintenance expenses since,2006 through the CIP period due to lack of funding for a capacity projects.'.As such the. available revenues for transportation capacity are liket gdecrease int� future The Affordable Growth calculations are based on this reduced funding and do not take into account funding from the State since the County does? of control the State budget. If the sales tax is re -adopted or other 4ali `e revenue sourcesttecome available, these calculations will need to be revised. • Although the medium population projections from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) suggest an average growth rate of approximately 1.4 percent through 2040, the high projections indicate almost a 2 - percent annual growth rate. To mitigate the uncertainty of growth rates and given that even if adopted at 100 percent level, impact fees will not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current LOS and that the transportation system will Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 119 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • continue to degrade, the high growth projection is used in the affordable growth • • calculations for the transportation impact fee. Based on this scenario, the County would need approximately 90 percent of the fee for all land uses, as long as an additional funding of $10 million per year is available for the next five years and $2.7 million per year afterwards, with an average annual population growth rate of 2 percent. As presented in Figure X-1, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of transportation impact fee calculated, if the historical levels of non -impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land uses and continue to maintain theyadopted:ALOS standard. Alternatively, if the County adopts the residential land uses at 100 percent, the fees for non- residential land uses could be reduced byuwto„55percent(or ado Pat 45 percent)to p\. p maintain the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned -previously, the level of=discount is more of a policy decision and could be atahy:;level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent. 120% 100% 80% To 60% f- 40% 2096 tteaia Figure X-1 Transportation!ImpactFeFee— Affordable Growth Strategy AdoptedOSStandard -C-_ IRC Average Annual Growth - Total ton Maximum.i mpact•Fee- - LOSCurve. 0% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.0096 5.00%- 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.0096 10.00% Annual Growth Rate Table X-8 presents discounted impact fee schedule. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 120 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table X-8 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Scenarioll1 (1) All fees shown include a 2.5%administrative fee (2) Source: Calculated based on an average annual spending of $10 million for the next 5 years and $2.7 million per year afterwards, and an average annual growth rate of 2.0% over the next 25 years (3) Total net impact fee rates from Table X-7 (prior to admin fee) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 121 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study ITE LUC Land Use Unit Affordable if Growth 13 Adotion ! P Rate(2) ` Total Net Impact Fee n1 Current Impact Fee 141 r i 1% Change i - RESIDENTIAL 210 Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf du 100% ,$3,491 $3,048 15% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% $4,354 $4,595 -5% - 2,500 sf or larger du 100% $5,129 55,157 -1% 220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 100% $2,811 $2,489 13% 240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du 10096 $1,589 51,789 -11% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: 310 Hotel room 45% $994 52,874 -65% 320 Motel room 45% $703 $1,554 -55% 620 Nursing Home bed 45% 5228 $443 -49% 252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 45% $256 5636 60% OFFICE & FINANCIAL 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000sf 45% $4,429 513,746 -6896 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000sf 45% $6,455 $13,746 -53% 911 Bank/Savings Walk -In 1,000sf 45% 54,848 $10,900 -56% 912 Bank/Savings Drive -In 1,000sf A45% - 56,374 $13,346 -52% 710 General Office 1,000sf L' -,'z` 't5% $1,964 $3,893 -50% 760 Research & Development Center 1,00O,sf a' zr . 45% $1,460 $2,868 -4996 INDUSTRIAL 140 Manufacturing .A-1;000-sf '451/4, $680 $1,351 -50% 150 Warehousing /?ti'1;000sf 45sa. ..5632 51,259 -50% 151 Mini -Warehouse V 1,000sf 45%' 5222 5884 -75% 110 General Light Industrial x:1;000 sf AN 45% $1,236 52,464 -50% n/a Concrete Plant 'Sae A ee, 45% $3,696 55,517 -33% n/a Sand Mining t7•-.° 45% ' $474 $707 -33% acren RETAIL: 820 Retail`" ''% S1.000sfgla e;' A5% $2,934 53,242 -10% 944/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car WasWQ\ fuel pos. V5% $2,344 55,727 -59% 841 New/Used Auto Sales'l �i:11000 sf:f 15 . 45% . $3,825 510,361 -63% 932 Restaurant ` s N 1 V; t •1;000 sf Skas% 59,521 $22,706 -58% 934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thini t '4 �. i'.41,000 sf 45% .:520,970 $35,651 -41% 850 Supermarket .L.1 \-1;00osf 45% $4,168 511,458 -64% . „ 942 Automobile Repair/BodyShopC's ` sa c'rah.., f000sf 45% 53,007 58,026 -6396 947 Self -Service Cal -Wash 'S.;6h., h ' 'service bay 45% •$2,264 $14,954 -85% 853 Convenience'Market with Gas Pumps N%. 1,000sf 45% $10,725 $26,066 -59% 890 Furniture Storey '‘,..a,... 1,000sf 45% $630 51,407 -55% , • RECREATIONAL 430 Golf Course� A hole 45% $8,079 $11,529 -3096 492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Stutlid 1,000 sf 45% .$5,981 $11,095 -46% 412 County Park acre 45% - $397 5736 -46% 491 Tennis Court Nckr court 45% .57,027 $12,485 -4496 420 Marina boat berth 45% $670 5997 -33% GOVERNMENTAL: 732 Post Office 1,000 sf 45% $7,314 $14,554 -50% 590 Library 1,000sf 45% $12,005 $18,373 -35% 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 45% $4,963 59,873 -50% 571 Jail bed 45% $973 5399 144% MISCELLANEOUS: 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 45% - 53,672 59,068 -60% 610 Hospital 1,000sf 45% $2;560 55,442 -53% 640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 45% .$7;136 $3,599 98% 560 Church 1,000sf 45% 51,183 52,653 -55% 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 45% 57,273 523,312 -6996 520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 45% . 5168 5153 1096 522 Middle School (Private, 6-9) student 45% 5231 5153 51% 530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 45% $243 $551 -56% 540/550 University/JuniorCollege (7,500 or fewer students) student 45% $454 $669 -32% n/a Fire Station 1,000sf 45% • .5332 51,008 -67% (1) All fees shown include a 2.5%administrative fee (2) Source: Calculated based on an average annual spending of $10 million for the next 5 years and $2.7 million per year afterwards, and an average annual growth rate of 2.0% over the next 25 years (3) Total net impact fee rates from Table X-7 (prior to admin fee) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 121 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Indian River County transportation impact fee program, a comparison of calculated fees to transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was completed. Table X-9 presents Indian River County's calculated impact fee and a comparison to transportation impact fees in the surrounding and other jurisdictions in Florida. It should be noted that the differences in fee levels for agiven land use can be caused by several factors, including the year of the technical study; adoption percentage, study n vg" methodology including variations in costs, credits and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County 122 Impact Fee Update Study O 15 E V d Ol ti X CLI to F E O co t O a 1 c F Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Lo O 1.Lnv 0 o N.47 f...} arty K OqC ..>$o OJ kej CIO aa Cpw ` O _C ort.. ,.0 O ron O E aa) v/o 0) 0 ... �..E c CU a tins/ a E a' E a- 4- l• E a c 0 E a d O C E c O E o O i " ` O u OC D a 0 O n a > a 1r, p c o m e 'c o> A a 1-Q 1-C F a Z C ' C N d d 0 v v c E c v E r E ' E c 01 ` E o r a .� E 11 E ° IA a 1.51 - al c dco :.i a 0 0 0 E Al Co 0 t0 v a 1 E> oD o v A o d SE p c o O0 v o. o c w c E c o o v A p d E p a ao 0 N O O d « y v 0 N 117.11 c5 '0 c'E O6 al v mO C 8 LL C m C E m c"o L 'C • c «a 0'c t' d v 3 CC E a O u c 0. > a J > « « Li c U c r >> OJ JO > j v 'o 0 o t° c, v u o o .. n 00 > V u 0 O O o V 0 x x 9 t v .. u u c c c C N 41 j a J I-` N C L C C a _ x 1- CO CO` O v1 l0l u 0 0 x Z .n eiJuu�UUUCU al UUuu°J"; 0 pJ J 0 J J 0 0 0 J J 0 0 0 t0 N N in N N in N an vol vol ie N en C N t0 r 00 T OO H rq rn mo e1 _ in Cel L > c J hO U __ _ O N aR y V V1 Non -Residential: IN N in eti N IN ril e1 N N n 1t t'�1 N ri O U1 Ql N W o Ol N C _ 2 Jo U ey 00 N. 0O an Owl 1-1el tn W 4.4 el CO in rn al t0 el _ ___ _ -v C « L c CO J O X v o O N 5 y a vtDi m I.DD o m N vi CNO ti to gm 808'00T$ c >•• to c c J d O X tJ -- O N o m ey el N T£0'£$ m iir N v el V%im/ ul 01 m N 1. CU o> V3 O V O N %00T - t\ tri en m m R V1 ori Nal al N O0O O r-1 N II - al . N N $74,793 — . min y V O V O O N \ b cO Owl N CO N mm 00 N r- V N onppp O N oNpp V N / D m O -• U V Ol %OOT ` N n N �J s. i Ol in O t0 ni N .may N Dl// 'a el ,N N H in. to - '1.0 01 .�-I In /. 01 it J C J N cy N N ,o :it r\ co N el N m 1011 VN? £05'Z$ ) m loll N al CU _ CU u O -21 L.. c . C y Y u 0 N ti O N ey m t0 1 m N. ot .--1 o O N N RQ 01'Ol el N N -i Ol N CO N N e ti N 13 17.1 > C 22 m O co u $ %OOT LA c o N ry N mn N N VI. N I W 00 c in H W p N %00T in In N laD Q r. N 00 rel N N MM N. M -1 N tD Lei. m Ni. N C J i1 Awl W IR co -5 c i y d um A t O 5 wO a 0 - =Y m cc O c N N co all N T N reel 4.4 Ol N N - O 0.1 IC U ... rn R 5, 111 m O r`m (II tm0 CAtDO eel N t e l O tD C np § § § o • Land Use Date of Last U'date Adoption Percentage a c a Oill N C Single Family (2,000sf) Light Industrial Office (50,000sq ft) Bank w/Drive-Thru Fast Food w/Drive-Thru 0 8 0 g O) ¢ Lo O 1.Lnv 0 o N.47 f...} arty K OqC ..>$o OJ kej CIO aa Cpw ` O _C ort.. ,.0 O ron O E aa) v/o 0) 0 ... �..E c CU a tins/ a E a' E a- 4- l• E a c 0 E a d O C E c O E o O i " ` O u OC D a 0 O n a > a 1r, p c o m e 'c o> A a 1-Q 1-C F a Z C ' C N d d 0 v v c E c v E r E ' E c 01 ` E o r a .� E 11 E ° IA a 1.51 - al c dco :.i a 0 0 0 E Al Co 0 t0 v a 1 E> oD o v A o d SE p c o O0 v o. o c w c E c o o v A p d E p a ao 0 N O O d « y v 0 N 117.11 c5 '0 c'E O6 al v mO C 8 LL C m C E m c"o L 'C • c «a 0'c t' d v 3 CC E a O u c 0. > a J > « « Li c U c r >> OJ JO > j v 'o 0 o t° c, v u o o .. n 00 > V u 0 O O o V 0 x x 9 t v .. u u c c c C N 41 j a J I-` N C L C C a _ x 1- CO CO` O v1 l0l u 0 0 x Z .n eiJuu�UUUCU al UUuu°J"; 0 pJ J 0 J J 0 0 0 J J 0 0 0 t0 N N in N N in N an vol vol ie N en C N t0 r 00 T OO H rq rn mo e1 • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 4.4 chfr Appendix vetPopulation • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Population All impact fee program areas (except for educational facilities and transportation) require the use of population data in calculating current levels -of -service, performance standards, and future demand for capital facilities. With this in mind, a consistent approach to developing population estimates and projections is an important component of the data compilation process. To accurately determine demand for services, as well as to be consistent with Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan; not only the resident, or permanent population of the County, but also the seasonal residents and visitors were considered. Seasonal residents include visitors to hotel til motel facilities, visitors to RV parks, visitors that stay with relatives and friends and part-time residents, which are defined as living in Indian River County for lessthan six months each year. Therefore, for purposes of calculating future demand for: capital facilities for each impact fee program area, the weighted average seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. References to population contained f in rthisrreport pertain tothe weighted average seasonal population, unless otherwise noted. Indian River County provides all of the services areas included i n, the impact fee program countywide, with the�exeeption of the following‘three programra eas: • Law enforcement, which-:isprovided nA"unincorporated county; • Parks and recreation services, also prov.ided only in unincorporated county; and • Emergency: services",''•:fv of Indian River Shores provided 'countywide with the exception of the Town Given the differences in services areas; population estimates are provided separately for these three areas. Table A-1 presents the population trend for Indian River County. The projections indicate that the population of Indian River County is estimated to increase by 40 percent between 2013 and 2040 countywide. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-1 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-1 Weighted Population Trends and Projections (1) Source: Appendix Al Table A-18 (2) Source: Appendix Al Table A-21 (3) Source: Appendix Al Table A-24 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-2 Impact Fee Update Study Year 2000 Weighted. Seasonal Population Figure Indian River County 11) I: Unincorporated (2) it Indian River County IRC, Excluding Indian (3) River Shores 119,351 75,723 115,707 2001 121,732 77,277 118,028 2002 124,110 78,824 120,426 2003 126,869 80,523 123,128 2004 131,175 84,000 127,403 2005 134,573 86,741 Ist< r 130,792 2006 139,121 89,255 4. 135,292 2007 143,177 U 92,824' 139,413 2008 145,212 693, 905' ',, 141,287 2009 145,356 ,94;014 *41,452 2010 145,854 ,,YM' 96,546 e143;732 2011 146,325 Vea, 96,955 142; 202. 2012 147,118 W97,461 142, 966 2013 148,001 97681 . t 4;; 9 143,561 2014 148,964;_ _, 98,316; 'e 144,495 2015 150,081< ` ' 99,053° ., 145,578 2016 151,175 ` .+ Ns 99,776 146,640 2017 152,612 4;: . ff100,724 I fk 148,034 2018 ,' x ,154,214 te 16081%, $ 149,588 2019 *,155,911 1 4102 901•. -,4 .. 151,234 2020 157 705 w 104,r 085 A5, 152,974 2021 159;470 W105,250 154,686 2022 titk 1644'3 5106,566 156,619 2023 163 563 . '.,t , X107,951 158,656 2024 fi ... , S 771 109409 160,797 2025 y 168;091 a ,110,940 163,049 2026 176:44,4, w 112,493 165,330 2027. `s"172,950 114,147 167,761 Z 2028 W75,526 e" 115,848 170,261 "912029 0178,124 117,562 172,780 2030. 180 743 119,290 175,320 2031 `. 4183,381 121,032 177,880 2032:6,031 122,781 180,450 2033 ` ;-(14 188,710 124,549 183,049 2034 191,428 126,342 185,685 2035 194,165 128,149 188,340 2036 196,923 129,969 191,015 2037 199,699 131,801 193,708 2038 202,495 133,647 196,420 2039 205,289 135,491 199,131 2040 208,079 137,332 201,837 (1) Source: Appendix Al Table A-18 (2) Source: Appendix Al Table A-21 (3) Source: Appendix Al Table A-24 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-2 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size • • The residential land uses to be used for the impact fee calculations are the following: • Single Family • Multi-Family/Accessory Unit • Mobile Home/RV (tied down) Table A-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Indian River County. This analysis includes all housing units, both o ccupied and vacant. To address fairness and equity issues between ;;land ruses and to be consistent with the County's current fee schedules, the single family land use "is iered based on three categories of square footage: less than 1,5 0 square feet, 1,500 to 2;499 square feet, and 2,500 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering..` of impact fee assessments for ski the single family residential land use category, an`analyslswas completed based on housing ,0,6 u nit size and persons per housing uni Pa4,This analysis<utilized national data from the 2011 ,,- American Housing Survey (AHS) and date fron. the 2000°and 2010 U.S. Census Reports to Nett examine this relationship. Because the 2010 Census)data do provide population by land k �. u se, a comparison ofzweighted averagepopulation per housing units between the two Census data sets was conducted and the resulting ratio was' applied to the residents per housing unit figure for each land use. yes Scare Table•A-2 • Residents per Housing Unit (Countywide) (1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-3 Impact Fee Update Study Housing Type Populationl”' Housing Units(2) Ratio(3) Residents / Housing Units(4) .Residents / Housing Units 1 151 with .2010Adj i Single Family t 86,733 36,240 2.39 2.23 - Less than 1,500 sf a.. 92% 2.20 2.05 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf Sa 100% 2.39 2.23 - 2,500 sf or greater ' .. 111% 2.65 2.47 Multi-Family/Accessory 19,533 14,792 1.32 1.23 Mobile Home 10,516 6,786 1.55 1.44 Weighted Average 116,782 57,818 2.02 1.88 (1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-3 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-3 Residents per Housing Unit (Unincorporated IRC) (1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonakpopulation) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derma :from the 2011 American (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 adjusted downward by 6 decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and>2010 a Table A-4 Housing Survey .8:percent to reflect the Residents per Housingnitq(IRCexcludingl duan River Shores) . Housing Type _ Population(1) ri Housing 2) Units( Ratio(3) I1 iL_Unit_s_4'___i_with2010Adj's� Residents / i Housing f —2.44 Residents / Housing Units Single Family 54,671 22,384 __ 92% 2.24 2.27 - Less than 1,500 sf - 100% 2.43 92% 2.24 2.09 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 100% 2.44 2.27 - 2,500 sf or greater 18,571 111% 2.71 2.53 Multi-Family/Accessory 11,944 8,536 Mobile Home 1.40 1.30 Mobile Home 7,454 5,378 2.06 1.39 1.30 Average VA 113 98 a. 54,972 2.04 1.90 Weighted Average 74,069 36,298 (1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonakpopulation) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derma :from the 2011 American (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 adjusted downward by 6 decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and>2010 a Table A-4 Housing Survey .8:percent to reflect the Residents per Housingnitq(IRCexcludingl duan River Shores) Source: 2000>Census, Table I-33'(adjusted1for peak seasonal population) Source: 2000Census, Table H-30 Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey 041161 Population (Item 1<)'divided bythousing units (Item 2) Residents per housing_ ;unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the decrease in people per hong nit between 2000 and 2010 Functional Population Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 A-4 Impact Fee Update Study Housing Type Population(1) f Hous ng Units (2) f Ratio(3) Residents / Housing 1 Units(4) _ Residents / Housing Units with 2010Adj(5) Single Family %.. _ ,84,211 `x.'1434,673 ____i 2.43 2.26 - Less than 1,500 sf a 92% 2.24 2.09 - 1,500 to 2,499,sf ,_ 100% 2.43 2.26 - 2,500 sftor;gre ate r; - 111% 2.70 2.52 Multi Fami y/Accessory 18,571 " ;013,513 1.37 1.28 Mobile Home '10,516 X61786 1.55 1.44 2.06 Weighted Average VA 113 98 a. 54,972 1.92 Source: 2000>Census, Table I-33'(adjusted1for peak seasonal population) Source: 2000Census, Table H-30 Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey 041161 Population (Item 1<)'divided bythousing units (Item 2) Residents per housing_ ;unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the decrease in people per hong nit between 2000 and 2010 Functional Population Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 A-4 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study n umber of employees, since the service -demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24 -hour -day, 7 -days -a -week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functionaipopulation coefficient of 0.76 (128-hourpresence divided by168 hours in one week VA person commuting into the ,e4 erf county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 ? (50 -hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly; a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averagiaours per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the. presence of all peop.fe within the community, whether residents, workers;;or visitors, to<arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. This form of adjusting population tohelp measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merel weighting. r• esidents two -,thirds and workers one-third • OCAV (Nelson and Nicholas 1992) By `estimating theyfunctional and weighted population per unit of land use.across all majorr, certainbfacilitiesand uses ,in a community, an estimate of the demand for the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and n on-residential land uses. ars Residential Functional Population �;..., Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to yew three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of the Indian River County functional population, an analysis of the County s population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4 hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables A-5 and A-6. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-5 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-5 Indian River County Population & Employment Characteristics 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Source Estimated based on data from the2010 U.S. Census and the Bureau Transportation Statistics, Census Transportaton�Planning Package (CTOO) Pt. Sum of workers who live/workain IRC and workersho liveelsseewhere but work in Source: 2010 U.S. Census Total workers living in IRC (Item Source: 2010 U.S. Census School age population (Item 5) divided by the`.:tensus population,(Item 3) Census population )tem 3) less totatebrkers ' '_A:__ ^ "`'_.._t.. __d -reiiintsischool age popu�ation< Item 5) iSa Population net of worker anthschool ageipopulation (Item 74) divided by census population (Item 3) divided by the censusppopulation (Item 3) • for Functional Population Pop. Group Item/CalculationStep Figure I Workers who live and work in Indian River County Effective Hours(3) (2010)(1) 47,755 Workers who live in Indian River County but work elsewhere (2010)(1) 8,560 Total workers living in Indian River County?) 15 56,315 Indian River County Census Population (2010)131 138,028 Total workers as a percent of population (4) 40.8% School age Coefficient(5) population (5-17 years) (2010)(5) •:'. 19,444 School age population as a percent of population 14.1% Population net of workers and school a p of ,o tiontes g p •, p (') 62,269 population as a percent of total (8) p paion440, 45.1% 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Source Estimated based on data from the2010 U.S. Census and the Bureau Transportation Statistics, Census Transportaton�Planning Package (CTOO) Pt. Sum of workers who live/workain IRC and workersho liveelsseewhere but work in Source: 2010 U.S. Census Total workers living in IRC (Item Source: 2010 U.S. Census School age population (Item 5) divided by the`.:tensus population,(Item 3) Census population )tem 3) less totatebrkers ' '_A:__ ^ "`'_.._t.. __d -reiiintsischool age popu�ation< Item 5) iSa Population net of worker anthschool ageipopulation (Item 74) divided by census population (Item 3) divided by the censusppopulation (Item 3) • for Functional Population Pop. Group Hours Residence(1) at Percent of Population(2) Effective Hours(3) Workers we 13 40.8% 5.3 Wstudents 15 14.1% 2.1 0ther.$t r 20 45.1% 9.0 (4) Total Hours a Residence 16.4 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5) 68.3% (1) Source: Assumed (2) Source: Table A 5 (3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) (4) Sum of effective hours (Item 3) (5) Total hours at residence (Item 4) divided by 24 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-6 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study The resulting percentage from Table A-6 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table A-8. Non -Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing e stimated functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional .resident population, now used `�. internationally'. . This method uses trip generation data from.the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and. T®A's T"r=,i_q yCharacteristics Database, information of passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land u se, and other variables. Specific calculations include: 44. • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percenhto, avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips) Is, t. c.. • Visitors per impact unit based o:n occupants aper vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours week per impact um multiplied by five days in {roe. • Visitor hoursp e day:timesreleva shopping) a:work week impact unit visitors multiplied by number of hours per week, suchaas five for offices and seven for retail as nine worker -hours per day Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by'employees and visitors a h land use. Table A-7 also shows the functional population coefficients for non-residential uses in Indian River County. The wtfunctional population coefficients in Table A-7 were used to a.k� e stimate the County's functional population in Table A-8. Nee 1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-7 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study c cu Wk O U f0 Q 0 a c u C u - f0 (J C CD - to 4n O c, O O 71 N cml C 6 4 J O 0 LL a J. IJ CI O O 0.270 0.271 n N 6 1.173 IN O 0.5721 0.497 ITE Code 140 at 2.13 weekday trips per employee, page 164. ITE Code 150 at 3.89 weekday trips per employee, page 193. ITE Code 710 at 3.32 weekday trips per employee, page 1252. ITE Code 730 at 11.95 weekday trips per employee, page 1304. ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from page 1561. Trips per retail employee from the following table: Assumed Sq Ft per Trips per Weighted Retail Scale Center Size Trip Rote Employee l" 1 Employee Share Trips Neighborhood c50k sq.ft. 50 86.56 802 69 40.0% 27.60 Community 50k -250k sq.ft. 250 49.28 975 48 30.0% 14.40 Regional 250k -500k sq.ft. 500 38.66 1,043 40 20.0% 800 Super Reg. 500k -1000k sq.ft. 1,000 30.33 676 21 10.0% 2.10 Sum of Weighted Trips/lk sq.ft. 52.10 (3) Trip per employee (Item 2) multiplied by 0.5. (4) Journey -to -Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1.32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip (5) Daily Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1.38 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.73 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip (6) [Daily occupants per trip (Item 5) multiplied by one-way trips per employee (Item 3)] - [(Journey -to -Work occupants per trip (Item 4) multiplied by one-way trips per employee (Item 3)) (7) Typical number of days per week that indicated industries provide services and relevant government services are available. (8) Table A-6 for residential and the equation below to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land -use categories except residential includes the following: flDays oer Week x Employee Hours in Place) t (Visitors oer Employee x Visitor Hours ner Trin x flans ner Weekj (24 Hours per Day x 7 Days per Week) (9) Trips per employee for the services category is the average trips per employee for the following service related land use categories: quality restaurant, high -turnover restaurant, supermarket, hotel, motel, elementary school, middle school, high school, hospital, medical office, and church. Source for the trips per employee figure from ITE, 9th ed., when available, or else derived from the square feet per employee for the appropriate land use category from the Energy Information Administration from Table B-1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey (2003). (10) Includes Federal Civilian Government, Federal Military Government, and State and Local Government categories. 11 S. ua re feet •er retail em• Io ee from the Ener:s Information Administration from Table B-1 of the Commercial Ener: Buil din: Surve , 2003 8 C Y d > cu 0 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 '8 a . o . o o a. ri 8 ri 8 ri 8 8- 8 .; 8 s 8 `Y._ n•-- co 16 O lel > W S O S O 90'0 01 o O ti O n 3tV T8'0% So r` N ocoa N.. Al ::m-.00 /m -;r ;m, CO - m - 1.73 n ..i 4 l` i 1.73 m n ri O . r. 4-1 O -• � q ; asa E o 1' n-. o 3_ �m iw. m . m ., m .. m ., a rei .i ren .. ell*. .-i 5.4.y ;.i A im ear N CU a a' I O w el yel WI Q. +. m #o &t6 ;C r"i m ,c):ul COLAO - U O n y a o4 z a; W y E a; o v, wt in E a .a' W = 3.02 3.02 m r1 3.02 a+ 03 m o r4 1 3.32 i.c N m el • 8 a; 9.00 8 ai 8 a; 9.00 8 a; - - 9.00 8 o; 8 a; u 8 j us ._ c 0 m e %i 0 1-1 m OST 820 0ro n c 730 0 to m c c u to Ea a o n w i •Z c o ro a a Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Transportation, Communication, Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, Real Estate --0 0 - v .-CU Ln - E c 0 0 a c 0 -a > c c vi a CO u O a > 0 0) (0 c CU a D CU CU L (O CO a E 00 Q January 2014 s Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Table A-8 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2013 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Source: Table A-1 for population andt200Woods & Poole for.employment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River resident coefficient (Item,2) The total employment %County baseline data Item 1) multiplied by popula on by category, is them Ate employment categories (e.g., natural resource�s�construction, etc), The total functional populationtSthe sum of, the residential functional employment functionaa'I population 9 101) of?;the employment figures population the functional from the nine (101,085) and Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-9 Impact Fee Update Study 2013 Weighted Population Category 1 Indian River County Baseline Data(1) 148,001 1 Functional Resident 'i j Coefficient(2) ; 0.683 Functional Population(3) 101,085 Population Employment Category Natural Resources 4,228 0.379 1,602 Construction 3,560 0.271 965 Manufacturing 2,480 0.270 670 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,876 0.271 508 Wholesale Trade :_ $1926' a. 0.271 251 Trade �,� ''� oe •Retail "` 9, 526 Y••, --- 1.173 11,174 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate S.. ' 8,066 vs, 0.292 2,355 Services 32,704 4 0.572 18,707 Government Services,, 5,772 0.497 2,869 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 39,101 2013 Total Functional Population(5) 140,186 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Source: Table A-1 for population andt200Woods & Poole for.employment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River resident coefficient (Item,2) The total employment %County baseline data Item 1) multiplied by popula on by category, is them Ate employment categories (e.g., natural resource�s�construction, etc), The total functional populationtSthe sum of, the residential functional employment functionaa'I population 9 101) of?;the employment figures population the functional from the nine (101,085) and Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-9 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-9 Unincorporated County Functional Population — Year 2013 (1) (2) (3) Source: Table A-1 for population anth20135W,00ds & Poole forremployment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River County; baseline data resident coefficient (Itemr2) (4) The total employment population by category is theosum ofhthe employment figures from the nine Air ,ate ,�a etAV employment categories (e.g , natural resources,- construction, etc!) The total functional"' population �Yis the sum `of the residential`functional population (66,716) and employment functionalpopulation(20,874) ^(Item 1) multiplied by the functional (5) 141, %SifA Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-10 Impact Fee Update Study Population Category Indian River County Baseline Data(1) Functional Resident Coefficient(2) Functional i, Population(3) 2013 Weighted Population 97,681 0.683 66,716 Employment Category Natural Resources 2,832 0.379 1,073 Construction 1,730 0.271 469 Manufacturing 1,661 • ,,, 0.270 448 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,256 0.271 340 Wholesale Trade 60: 0.271 152 Retail Trade 1.173 6,764 5,766 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate .„,. 3,919 ; ; 0.292 1,144 Services 15,891 0.572 9,090 Government Services 2,805 1 ttc.0.497 1,394 Total Employment by Category Population(4) ", ` $ `" 20,874 2013 Total Functional Populationlsl r 87,590 (1) (2) (3) Source: Table A-1 for population anth20135W,00ds & Poole forremployment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River County; baseline data resident coefficient (Itemr2) (4) The total employment population by category is theosum ofhthe employment figures from the nine Air ,ate ,�a etAV employment categories (e.g , natural resources,- construction, etc!) The total functional"' population �Yis the sum `of the residential`functional population (66,716) and employment functionalpopulation(20,874) ^(Item 1) multiplied by the functional (5) 141, %SifA Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-10 Impact Fee Update Study • s • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study Table A-10 IRC excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population — Year 2013 (1) (2) (3) Source: Table A-1 for population andr2013 Woods & Poole fo employment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River resident coefficient (Item -2) !baseline data(Item 1) multiplied by the functional (4) The total employmentspopu ation by categ ry is the employment categories (e.g., natural resources; construction etei). (5) The total functional ,population s, the sum off:the residential employment functional population4(38,271)" the employment figures from the nine Table A=11 presents the 2040, 2040,ed on the 2013 the annual population growth Table A-1. functional population (98,052) and County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through functional population figures from Tables A-8 through A-10 and rates om the population figures previously presented in Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-11 Impact Fee Update Study - Population 2013 Weighted Population - . Category Indian River CountyFunctional Baseline Data(1)A 143,561 Coefficient(2) Resident Functional Population(3) 0.683 98,052 Employment Category Natural Resources 4,189 0.379 1,588 Construction 3,469 0.271 940 Manufacturing 2,457 =;4 0.270 663 Transportation Communication, and Utilities Mw 1;859. 0.271 504 Wholesale Trade ,912 0.271 247 Retail Trade �•'9 387 1.173 11,011 if, 04 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, 7,859. 0.292 2,295 Services ,:9v 31,867 „.: 0.572 18,228 Government Services 5,624 ';0;497 2,795 Total Employment by Category Sreik... 38,271 ao.. 2013 Total Functional Population(5) 136,323 (1) (2) (3) Source: Table A-1 for population andr2013 Woods & Poole fo employment data Source: Table A-7 The functional population is Indian River resident coefficient (Item -2) !baseline data(Item 1) multiplied by the functional (4) The total employmentspopu ation by categ ry is the employment categories (e.g., natural resources; construction etei). (5) The total functional ,population s, the sum off:the residential employment functional population4(38,271)" the employment figures from the nine Table A=11 presents the 2040, 2040,ed on the 2013 the annual population growth Table A-1. functional population (98,052) and County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through functional population figures from Tables A-8 through A-10 and rates om the population figures previously presented in Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-11 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-11 Indian River County Functional Population (2000-2040) (1) Source: Table A-8 for 2013 total functional population (2) Source: Table A-9 for 2013 total functional population (3) Source: Table A-10 for 2013 total functional population Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-12 Impact Fee Update Study Year Functional Population Indian River County Unincorporated In•• n •i • o (z) IRC Excluding Indian RiverShores(3) 2000 113,139 70,691 110,023 2001 115,402 72,105 112,223 2002 117,710 73,547 114,467 2003 120,300 75,165 116,985 2004 124,390 77,721 120,962 2005 127,624 79,742 . 124,107 2006 131,963 82,453 4." 128,327 2007 135,790 132,048 84,844 2008 137,691 ;86,032 69 133,897 2009 137,829118 86, 134,031 2010 138,242 • 86,376 414,433 2011 138,657 .. 86,635 134 836, 2012 139,350 mge87,068 135, 510,t_ 2013 140,186 _ .87,590 136,323 2014 141,167, 137,277 887:103 2015 142,15h ; 88,82bn 138,238 2016 143,150, . 89,442 139,206 2017 144,582 tk .`90,336a„140,598 2018 , „ 146,172 4‘10, r1.,,.. 91; 330 x . 142,145 2019.1' ?e 147,780 w is ,92 335 " r: _ ' ' 143,709 202021 14 ;553 93!443 145,434 2021 E1' 1515198 94,471 147,034 2022 N kith, 153;1:95,699 148,945 X2023 le&;. 15W5n„ , ' -, x96,943 150,881 2024;x,, %`,157;1172 ',.., , 98ct203 152,842 2025.** 159; 372 -`4.034 99, 578 154,982 2026 N ‘: 161603100,972 157,152 2027 `1 :.164,027 . 102,487 159,509 2028 vs 166,487 104,024 161,902 x;2029 TiV8,984 W 105,584 164,331 203O..1/4 M171.519 107,168 166,796 2031 0. 2174't 092 108,776 169,298 2032 110,299 171,668 ,. 176,529 2033 `,a n 179,000 111,843 174,071 2034 181,506 113,409 176,508 2035 184,047 114,997 178,979 2036 186,624 116,607 181,485 2037 189,237 118,239 184,026 2038 191,886 119,894 186,602 2039 194,572 121,573 189,214 2040 197,296 123,275 191,863 (1) Source: Table A-8 for 2013 total functional population (2) Source: Table A-9 for 2013 total functional population (3) Source: Table A-10 for 2013 total functional population Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-12 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for e ach land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and n on-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Indian River County was calculated for the single family, multi -family, and mobile home/RV land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 and 2010 U(40 S;Census. Besides the residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses such.ashotels, motels, nursing homes, and assisted care living facilities (ACLF) Secondaryysourcessuch as the IRC Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, ares ed to determine the o ccupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes/ACLF land kuses. As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee service areas to be analyzed. For residential»>and transient land uses, these �•7 coefficients are displayed in TablesA4 through A-14 44-140 Non -Residential Land Uses A similar approach is residents for non-residential land uses. mak, ° -*,4 suc Table A-15 reports basic assumptions andcalculations, h as trips per unit, trips per e mployee, employeesper impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants;,per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc*)aper impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for- non-residential land uses The final column in the tables shows the e stimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use create the demand component calculation 'ofsthe cost per schedules. the certain impact fee programs and will be used in the unit for each land use category in the select impact fee Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County A-13 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-12 a) T c 0 U a W .O J e ssy co L Hea co c aJ H a) ce L O 1- c al N aJ cc fo 1 u. tenia •-e 412. c 0 V G1 c ea c January 2014 Y y C0 a al y az az C. Y al= C I- a D •- wc Residential Single Family Detached V ri V1 ri l0 ri b8'0 01 d dnor9 'paislssly'3ualsupil lDD l d lDD l d IN 01 d 1- ._ vm a N . al >. al 0.3 N N N sortation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition ily, and mobile home land use from Table A-2; estimates for the hotel/motel land use is based on data obtained from other Florida; o mes. River County Chamber of Commerce. Average hotel/motel occupancy rate for 2007 through 2012. Source for nursing home/ACLF oc ian County Profile. Average occupancy rate for 2011 and 2012. o k, 9th Edition imes 0.683. For Transient, Assisted, and Group it is: lace Days oer Week) + (Workers Per UnitX Work Hours Per Day X Days oer Weekll T co n O in 3 o G 3.= 01 0l 01 -- a, :'= c a- D 41a. o 3 0 0 o Vm N > ._ N Y 0 co w = a 0. 12 ZT lr,D ul a 44mI Q Q CC a 4 co 701-a 1•' in as C C ^• CU i +' .O wC w •N D m ._ c 2.05 m N N N a N m N ri ,t,„ 1.44 €o' o 0 o 0 i--1 J. F = J 210 r( 210 r4OO 240 ori 320 1 OZ9/ZSZ r Cl. = E np du vCIJ du Wooa wooJ -aa a) u -a a c 5 co C a! a. 7) as rc - Less than 1,500 sf - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or greater Multi-Family/Accessory Unit --C-- 3 o 0 a al H Hotel Nursing Home/ACLF Mobile Home/RV I a) O 2 tenia •-e 412. c 0 V G1 c ea c January 2014 • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County Table A-13 A 0 U w 4S ra .; O 0. O t1 1 ra 61-0 G1 N C J C al N C f0 1— C ea 'Coea a .O a) re O W N i.+ 01 01 CC To O U LL Y c -0 r o Lnv L o rom ai LL. ., u Q E Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. In rl January 2014 Y a 01 a I'a N rc Y a C C 15 D ;3 41 a Residential Single Family Detached V ri SS.t . J m ri 0.89 co o Transient, Assisted, Group• t0 0 LO 0 Ol 0 a= 0. s a >. a 0 n n n > 0 CN Y 7 O O CT CI 01 ''' YC a a LS'0 0 0 O TIt N_ N i a Y 7 N R = a a a e. s _ N rl Zt LO rl )n Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition i mobile home land use from Table A-3; estimates for the hotel/motel land us :ounty Chamber of Commerce. Average hotel/motel occupancy rate for 2007 unty Profile. Average occupancy rate for 2011 and 2012. Edition .683. For Transient, Assisted, and Group it is: Pays per Week) + (Workers Per Unit X Work Hours Per Dav X Days oer Week)) a C a+ +'a c s_ Q z a. CU a. O: pd if O � 4 u u C + C N U CC O . ✓ .. %TS - 0- 1-1 Ln .. r t••• -* i' 01 I- .... 0.s N c cu ^ a o c• i aai = 0 cr > a1 o ni n N ni m U1 ni o m i 0 m ri #O n `ri. o n'.,0 o y =i ri, • F -? J 210 210 0 0 oa o rn o in N Y U y_ f0 'C D 7 "O 7 "O 7 "O 7 "O 7 E O O E O O bed -O CU CA n .a C a J To Y -a V, CU cc L- 1,500 to 2,499sf - 2,500 sf or greater Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Down) v p = Nursing Home/ACLF Mobile Home/RV I 0 0 Ln rib. C 0 L Y N viJ a O 2 Y c -0 r o Lnv L o rom ai LL. ., u Q E Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. In rl January 2014 • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table A-14 • +.>c 7>s• Uto 0) a 3 c a) cis a) c U ca a E U c V) a) i+ v 0 u, oa ci 0 a) c l0 ri Q January 2014 Y Cy a) a_ c Y a) C O •O m d 0 Residential Single Family Detached 1.43 11.1 ri n. ri L8'0 0.98 Transient, Assisted, Group 1 0.651 0 co o 0.921 1- a Y CU T a, CC 3 O N rn. rn m r- 0 on 1..Y 3 O 0 = 01 01 01 � ar '= O - 160a N� in o 0.44 d 0 CO N o r Li Y O 0 ami = a a 0 _ 12 Z1 )n Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition 1 mobile home land use from Table A-4; estimates for the hotel/motel land us :ounty Chamber of Commerce. Average hotel/motel occupancy rate for 2007 unty Profile. Average occupancy rate for 2011 and 2012. Edition .683. For Transient, Assisted, and Group it is: + s • t• • •. 1• . 1, sfekll v « Q a) C +_ fiW 3 72 D VI Q zr a 4,a. ooar,rn oro Ce 0 U N. V C u 0 e L!1 rdi s.. e ri 111. Ao, ri " 01 \ im w a ryC ai L !' 7 O C lA y D 01 O N LO N N N tr) N 1.28 . 1.44 40 1� 0 n0 0 ;,.« J 012 210 O OZZ 240 310 320 0 U 03 Y C CLC > 'O > -0 > -0 > -0 > -0 O O woa bed - Less than 1,500 sf • 1,500 to 2,499 sf CU ro a) OD Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Nursing Home/ACLF -0- 3 3 0 0 -o a) F Mobile Home/RV I 0 N 0 0a1 V'1 Nr 0 O 2 41 +.>c 7>s• Uto 0) a 3 c a) cis a) c U ca a E U c V) a) i+ v 0 u, oa ci 0 a) c l0 ri Q January 2014 • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Functional Residents for Non -Residential Land Uses N Q C if; 0 > '1 0 • ON 0) 0 A 00 D- C C 1- I — C c ~C O wa el C W w r x O V Office & Financial 1 1.14 tO l0 el M N Ni CO N N 001 to 00 O ' : , O 1 O to O 0.28 0.06 m to O 1.55 O N O " - 2.371 el m .-i 1.47 6.781 O m co Ll O r4 O to I-1 N.-. co 05 5.831 0.231 , 00 O ri pl O M 0.201 tO .-I ni m rI Ori Governmental N t0 t0 N ri m M ri N CO O d 0 Lt >. a 0 Lin to LID t0 V1 1l1 to N N to to to N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to N N N c a a x to > 0 8 r 8 r m o .�-1 o 8 r 1.001 1.00 n o n o 8 r 8 r g.... r 8 T Ri o 8 r n o 0.25 0.50 8tiRoN 1 0 0 EA 06 N 0 r 0 0 ti 1.00 0.251 g ; g g r _ — mrt O tn N 20.75 lm0 m el n M N Ni 0.85 Oor N 1.0 Q N 2.51 m V1 VI N N: O ��{{ Q 117.08 23.10 97.94 461.78 77.39 m m N m W M 586.61 M Q M N m C tD M M N tD N O Q Lri Q 3.40 m m 32.671 N N vi O r1 '1 _ C' O. o. 4- = u I. O 01 N Cr .-1 1.42 N Ln .--1 N to r1 1.28 1.28 1.38 co M .--1 co M r1 co M r1 W M r1 W MN r1 M .-1 N N ri 1.73 1.85 1.85 N to .-i N to .-1 N N r1 N to r1 N V1 r1 - c 0 ° C 2.39 m M N m M N 2.39 2.39 co N r1 1.20 co N r1 O N r1 Y `O 7 •x° m m m m m m m m m m m .pp m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m >�_ 3 N O) ii N.?. c C N LL N m N N M M N H to lD O ID N tO m N ZS'S l0 O Q N m i iv. CO N W l m Q M 00 N p 8 M i N 4? lNO 00 N rMi Q .-I fO.1 00 V1 V01 LinN N tm0 to N o .-1 DNl N 387.571 Ln N co N .-i Q D .-1 N nil m .-1 pp Q i O C to N N CD m .M-1 n N ,in v C C to o_E cu 2.67 3.90 O LT (KI N st;s° N M I6 �.'. M 'm (V / m N .-i N m O M O O r1 M t'V N le t!1 LID t0 O •O : it rN ON to N �i� .. .. 1 m Oi 10.90 1.18 0 to N 0.50 O to N N Q O Q r1 N O O N m O Q .-1 O tD N Q No O r1 3.60 N N Ncuca d .a O, n I E E .--1 Owl 8.91 34.69 30.94 N MN M 'N N M r1 <V S.L Cl CO m O m -r1 'tp ,N 'O �m N O m N O M $' 'IO` \ YC /J] gl f0 \ CC 3 N C t r o C^ YY .4 N :00 CO d CO lC <: n/a N N. C .IE m r1 fJ r1 N to O• N t0 N...N C n/a .-1 Lin Q N Ill O N N M to N 52.52 to N N O to IV LiIZZ-t," ,� d — AA F 7 m CO M IN N Q COONl .-i tm+1 m 11.03 8.11 I 3.82 to M .CD 1-1 fJ tD IQ AD tin p '0 ,lr xyt, 42.70 M N N 00 • Y$110 ttOO tD OD ;1=1 CO. ni P M Q .--1 jr. \43194 "•0 775:14 ID 0 to a 5. 3S-741 OMlb 1 N 4, r 2.28 38.70 m N .m-1 CO 56.24 27.92 5.50 A' to c V. 0 .1 w 0 ri w 0 '1 .... 0 '1 .8r 0 r7 .8r 0 '1 V. 0 ri ppm 0 ri V. 0 .1 1,000 sf acre 92 m Kt m to § " y I. O Y= hIn :O 44 88 O I.1 8 O t E ime'l 8 ;O tt .8 'O service baye .8VI O 4Ke VIVI V. O �} A .L �t A 41 :..pp`n .O Ip court .0 8 O lAm. O tn 8 O bed Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less Medical Office/Clinicgreater than 10,000 sf Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Research & Development Center Manufacturing Warehousing 0) 00 N O Of In O 0 CO C_ General Light Industrial Concrete Plant m' � C �.- n s Gasoline/Service Station New/Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru Supermarket ,f;3$ Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps k;• Furniture Store Golf Course 1 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court CO i u C.0 o VI a Library Government Office Complex ty -. r V O N N 720 N .-i m 1 912 O N N O l0 N O .-1 O .-1 rI o .-1 110 fa m \\ C m Ccil 820 tD m :7-3 el N m m Q m m 058 N g 947 853 O m CO 430 492 412 491 420 732 590 733 571 N Q C if; 0 > '1 0 • ON 0) 0 A 00 D- C C 1- Table A-15 (continued) Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Functional Residents for Non -Residential Land Uses One -Way Visitor Functional Trips Per Trips Per Employees Worker Occupants Days Per Impact Unit Ili Iai Iai Factor @ lel (r) Visitors(8) Hours Per hal Resident ' Unit Employee Per Unit (5) Hours Per Trip (9) Week (11) J-- --- — -50%_l - --- .AL -- -__ Trip— Coefficient rn 0o O n m .-1 et Ln N .-1 Ln O m m Ln to o Ci n 0 Ci 00 0 0 0 .-L 0 m Lo 0 ation Handbook, 9th Edition, when available r r r ler person (usually employee). When trips per person are not available, the employees per unit is estimated. percent urvey 1) - Employees]. + (Visitors X Hours/Visit X Days/Week))/(24 Hours x 7 Days) Ll1 N n n n Ln to Ln in n 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8t (V (+1 (OV N.: m 6.45 24.44 N C Co Ln N .-1 tb O W O W O 0.95 N ~-1 . ri 1.42 . ri 001 .-i 2.39 '1 ri N . i ti . 1 1.20 m 01 al al m m 01 01 01 01 iontt0 Lei fel0 O O Ln V ZEES LID LO O W O CO O O .=1 L. ;(V Lm0 N Obi N •0 4,O O N Q CO 0 • Ql O 0 0.16 40.70 Oti 0 iV 26.731 o in C n/a 20.64 53.12 .-L n V. .m tm a in 'f m to N N m n�;� •LO +• CO .i n N cn .-1 40.12 .ti m LD LO 0 .1 1.29 LO .y n ei O lV 5.40 8VI O .-i in 8 O 14 Ln 8 O .-i ifi 8 O .-i screen C ED > N C CU j .n C CV > Ln C 03 j h .i „8 71 O Day Care Center A a 0 2 Veterinary Clinic 1 Church Movie Theater w/Matinee ;Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 6-8) ;Private, 9-12)_ University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students Fire Station O Ln 1-1 O LD O W O Lo Ln O ni to N to 530 0 \ O0 Ln \ C ▪ z. a� U 0 ✓ co 'Lr a c A C L1 C u T a E m Q Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Total Weighted Seasonal Population Projections (Countywide): Table A-16 IRC Permanent Population Projections Year 2000 Permanent Population 112,947 2001 115,200 2002 117,450 2003 120,062 2004 124,137. 2005 127,352 2006 131,656 2007 135,494 2008 137,420 2009 137,557 2010 138,028 2011 138,694 2012 139,446 2013 140,283 2014 141,195 2015 142,254 2016 143,463 2017 144,826 2018 146,347 2019 147,957 2020 149,659 2021 151,455 2022 153,348 2023 155,342 2024 157,439 2025 159,643 2026 161,942 2027 164,323 2028 166,771 2029 169,239 2030 171,727 2031 174,234 __ 2032 176,752 , 2033 179,297 E 2034 181,879 2035 184,480 2036 187,100 2037 189,738 2038 192,394 2039 195,049 2040 197,700 Table A-17 um_ beasonai Year 2000 ropuiarion rro Seasonal Population 15,248 2001 15,552 2002 15,856 2003 16,208 2004 16,758 2005 17,193 2006 17,774 2007 18,292 2008 18,552 2009 18,570 2010 18,634 2011 18,169 2012 18,267 2013 18,377 2014 18,497 2015 18,635 2016 18,363 2017 18,538 2018 18,732 2019 18,938 2020 19,156 1 2021 19,083 2022 19,322 2023 ,19,573 2024 \19;837:,,, 2025 20,115' i? 2026 20,243, 2027r, 20,540 ..42 -02 -reg h 20,846 V-2029 VA121,155 1 X2030 P21,466 263a. &;:;21}779.. 2F'? 2032 "riri Vi 22,6941;11 X2033 4.1"‘t22,412 2034%, 7,712 '22'735 20351) , 233;060,, 2036 *c >i, 23,388 2037 eel 23,717 ";203811 24,049 `2039..e 7 24,381 2040' 24,713 Table A-18 ections IRC Weighted Seasonal Population Protections Year !< 2000 r{ Permanent i i Population 112,947 1 Seasonal Population , _ _ , 6,404 4 Total Weighted 4 Season Pop. 119,351 2001 115,200 6,532 121,732 2002 117,450 6,660 124,110 2003 120,062 6,807 126,869 2004 124,137 7,038 131,175 2005 127,352 7,221 134,573 2006 131,656 7,465 139,121 2007 135,494 7,683 143,177 2008 137,420 7,792 145,212 2009 137,557 7,799 145,356 2010 138,028 7,826 145,854 2011 138,694 7,631 146,325 2012 139,446 7,672 147,118 2013 140,283 7,718 148,001 2014 141,195 7,769 148,964 4015 142,254 7,827 150,081 46, 2016 143,463 7,712 151,175 M2017 144,826 7,786 152,612 -21518‘. 146,347 7,867 154,214 2019...Jb 147,957 7,954 155,911 2020 \ •t% 149,659 8,046 157,705 2021 "11151,455 8,015 159,470 A2022 1535348 8,115 161,463 22023 1551,342+ 8,221 163,563 2024 157,439 8,332 165,771 s2025 159,643 8,448 168,091 '2026 161,942 8,502 170,444 20273 164,323 8,627 172,950 a. 2028 ' 166,771 8,755 175,526 '2029 169,239 8,885 178,124 2030 171,727 9,016 180,743 2031 174,234 9,147 183,381 2032 176,752 9,279 186,031 2033 179,297 9,413 188,710 2034 181,879 9,549 191,428 2035 184,480 9,685 194,165 2036 187,100 9,823 196,923 2037 189,738 9,961 199,699 2038 192,394 10,101 202,495 2039 195,049 10,240 205,289 2040 197,700 10,379 208,079 Notes: Table A-16: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates Table A-17: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 Table A-18: Seasonal population from Table A-17 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 A-19 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Total Weighted Seasonal Population Projections (Unincorporated County): Table A-19 IRC Permanent Population Projections Year 2000 Permanent Population 71,660 2001 73,130 2002 2002 74,595 10,287 2003 76,202 2005 2004 79,493 11,403 2005 82,087 2008 2006 84,466 12,011 2007 87,843 2011 2008 88,866 12,102 2009 88,969 2014 2010 91,366 12,299 2011 91,899 2017 2012 92,378 12,363 2013 92,587 2020 2014 93,189 12,595 2015 93,888 2023 2016 94,686 'S13,093A, 2017 95,585 13.;27-64'n 2018 96,589 2027,1 2019 97,652 N, 13,759 2020 98,775 x2030 2021 99,960 99,053 2022 101,210 5,090 2023 102,526 .44:4033 2024 103,910 2018„ 2025 105,364 , 15;220a 2026 106,882 t>- 2037 1 2027 108,453 ' 15,873 2028 110,069 2040g" 2029 111,698 105,250 2030 113,340 2031 114,994 2023 2032 116,656 , 2033 118,336 a- 2034 120,040 ' 2035 121,757 X2026 2036 123,486 112,493 2037 125,227 5,694 2038 126,980 110,069 2039 128,732 v 2029 2040 130,482 117,562 Table A-20 um_ aeasonat Year 2000 roputamon rro Seasonal Population 9,674 2001 9,873 2002 10,070 2003 10,287 2004 10,732 2005 11,082 2006 11,403 2007 11,859 2008 11,997 2009 12,011 2010 12,334 2011 12,039 2012 12,102 2013 12,129 2014 12,208 2015 12,299 2016 12,120 2017 12,235 2018 12,363 2019 12,499 2020 12,643 ,( 2021 12,595 2022 12,752 2023 42,918 2024 'S13,093A, 2025 97,461 13.;27-64'n 2026 13,360, 2027,1 13,557-: A/2028 -N N, 13,759 %12029 V113,962 `ti x2030 f `14,167 2031 99,053 61414;374.- ?,-.1).:62032 5,090 kr 14,5821 .44:4033 W 44,792 2034'$e, 2018„ 45;005 2035 z , 15;220a 2036 vc i 15,430 t>- 2037 1 15,653 '2038 :4 ' 15,873 `2Set"} Y 16,092 2040g" 16,310 Table A-21 ections IRC Weighted Seasonal Population Protections Year 2000 Permanent Population 71,660 Seasonal ' t Population 4,063 Total Weighted. __Season Pop. 75,723 2W1 73,130 4,147 77,277 2002 74,595 4,229 78,824 2003 76,202 4,321 80,523 2004 79,493 4,507 84,000 2005 82,087 4,654 86,741 2006 84,466 4,789 89,255 2007 87,843 4,981 92,824 2008 88,866 5,039 93,905 2009 88,969 5,045 94,014 2010 91,366 5,180 96,546 2011 91,899 5,056 96,955 2012 92,378 5,083 97,461 2013 92,587 5,094 97,681 2014 93,189 5,127 98,316 12015 93,888 5,166 99,053 x2016 94,686 5,090 99,776 :*2017 95,585 5,139 100,724 2018„ 96,589 5,192 101,781 2019 cl , 97,652 5,250 102,901 2020 N 6., 98,775 5,310 104,085 2021 `99,960 5,290 105,250 6022 1101210 5,356 106,566 2023 102;526& 5,426 107,951 r. 2024 103,910 5,499 109,409 a. 2025 105,364 5,576 110,940 X2026 106,882 5,611 112,493 202i>, 108,453 5,694 114,147 rii4 2028w 110,069 5,779 115,848 v 2029 111,698 5,864 117,562 2030 113,340 5,950 119,290 2031 114,994 6,037 121,032 2032 116,656 6,124 122,781 2033 118,336 6,213 124,549 2034 120,040 6,302 126,342 2035 121,757 6,392 128,149 2036 123,486 6,483 129,969 2037 125,227 6,574 131,801 2038 126,980 6,667 133,647 2039 128,732 6,759 135,491 2040 130,482 6,850 137,332 Notes: Table A-19: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Unincorporated population is assumed to be 66 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of unincorporated population to total population from the previous five years. Table A-20: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 Table A-21: Seasonal population from Table A-19 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 A-20 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Total Weighted Seasonal Population Projections (Countywide, excluding Indian River Shores): Table A-22 Table A-23 Table A-24 IRC Permanent Population Projections Year 2000 1 - Permanent 1 Population 109,499 2001 2001 111,695. 15,385 2002 113,964 2004 2003 116,521 16,709 2004 120,567 2007 2005 123,774 18,050 2006 128,033 2010 2007 131,932 17,657 2008 133,706 2013 2009 133,862 17,942 2010 134,127 2016 2011 134,786 17,982 2012 135,510 2019 2013 136,075 18,582 e! 2014 136,959 2022 2015 137,986 48,986 2016 139,159 2025 2017 140,481 2026 2018 141,957 19,924`(.1 2019 143,518 20,221 2020 145,169 '4'x-2029 2021 146,911 r>.^20,822 2022 148,748 !2032' 2023 150,682 X2033°%t 2024 152,716 X22053 2025 154,854 2036 Ny 2026 157,084, N 2027 159,393 ra 23,328 2028 161,768 2040V 2029 164,162 £2022 2030 166,575 156,619 - 2031 169,007 150;682+ 2032 171,449 , 2033 173,918 160,797 2034 176,423 \ 2035 178,946 157,084 2036 181,487 2027, 2037 184,046 167,761 2038 186,622 161,768 2039 189,198 -` 2029 2040 191,769 172,780 Year 2000 Seasonal Population 14,782 2001 15,079 2002 15,385 2003 15,730 2004 16,277 2005 16,709 2006 17,284 2007 17,811 2008 18,050 2009 18,071 2010 18,107 2011 17,657 2012 17,752 2013 17,826 2014 17,942 2015 18,076 2016 17,812 2017 17,982 2018 18,170 2019 18,370 2020 18,582 e! 2021 18,511 I% 2022 18,742 2023 48,986 _ 2024 %r19j242 2025 19, 51'2W: 2026 19,635 -. .2027? 19,924`(.1 2014 136,959 20,221 •' .<2028ti $so,, '4'x-2029 NV 20,520E \2030. r>.^20,822 2031'" , ?21;126. !2032' `c( 21,431e;'': 140,481 X2033°%t 21, 740 2034. X22053 2035 22;368,, 2036 Ny A 22,686 2037 i N 23,006 .2038 41 ra 23,328 •••0-39,m, 7 23,650 2040V 23,971 Year 2000 Permanent Population 109,499 Seasonal Population 6,208 Total Weighted Season Pop.__ 115,707 2001 111,695 6,333 118,028 2002 113,964 6,462 120,426 2003 116,521 6, 607 123,128 2004 120,567 6,836 127,403 2005 123,774 7,018 130,792 2006 128,033 7, 259 135,292 2007 131,932 7,481 139,413 2008 133,706 7,581 141,287 2009 133,862 7,590 141,452 2010 134,127 7,605 141,732 2011 134,786 7,416 142,202 2012 135,510 7,456 142,966 2013 136,075 7,487 143,561 2014 136,959 7,536 144,495 ,(2015 137,986 7,592 145,578 ," 2016 139,159 7,481 146,640 2017 140,481 7,552 148,034 2018 6, 141,957 7,631 149,588 2019-1 143,518 7,715 151,234 2020 N As, 145,169 7,804 152,974 2021 N146,911 7,775 154,686 £2022 "148;748 7,872 156,619 2023 150;682+ 7,974 158,656 W. 2024 152,716 8,082 160,797 X1,2025 154,854 8,195 163,049 `2026 157,084 8,247 165,330 2027, 159,393 8,368 167,761 k4 •2028�� 161,768 8,493 170,261 -` 2029 164,162 8,618 172,780 2030 166,575 8,745 175,320 2031 169,007 8,873 177,880 2032 171,449 9,001 180,450 2033 173,918 9,131 183,049 2034 176,423 9,262 185,685 2035 178, 946 9,395 188,340 2036 181,487 9,528 191,015 2037 184,046 9,663 193,708 2038 186,622 9,798 196,420 2039 189,198 9,933 199,131 2040 191,769 10,068 201,837 Notes: Table A-22: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Population excluding Indian River Shores is assumed to be 97 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of the population excluding Indian River Shores to the total population from the previous five years. Table A-23: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 Table A-24: Seasonal population from Table A-22 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of the year (assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 A-21 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study AppendixB Transportation Impact Fee` YComponent Calculations Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Demand Component • • This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor Table B-1 presents the interstate and toll facility discount factor used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. This variable is based on data from the Greater Treasure Coast regional travel demand model, specifically the 2035 projected vehicle miles of travel, accounting for roadway improvements included in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. It should be noted that discount factor excludes external -to -external trips which represent traffic that goes through Indian River Co nty, but does not necessarily stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not come from development within the county The I/T discounttfactor is<used to reduce the VMT that the impact fee charges for each land use erG. Table,B-1 Interstate Toll FacilityDiscount Factor Roadway % VMT _1 17.3% VMT (2035) 838,313 1195 & Turnpike (SR 19) "p1n •tether Roads. vet 4,005,935 82.7% l Totah(=AILRoads) ,. 4,844,247 100.0% :Total (Interstate/ToIIRoads) ti 838,313 17 3% Source: Gr a eTreasure Coa tRegional Planning Model v3.4 Single FamikResidential Trip' Generation Rate Tiering As part of this study; an updatedo the tiering of the assessed impact fee for the single family residential (detached);.land_use to ensure equity by size of home, is included. To facilitate ... this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip - making characteristics of households in the United States. Table B-2 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the current adopted impact fee schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County B-1 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study household income levels. In addition the 2011 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. Table B-2 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics Source: FL Studies for LUC 210, shown later in thisappendix WCes The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses areeuincluded in Tables B-3 nd B-4. First, the data shown in Table B-3 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units between 1,500 and 2,499quare.feet in size ($63) is slightly lower than the overall average income for the U.S ($62,831). Then, in Table B-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS'database for a number of different -,ert9 income levels and raged related to the resultingiAHS income'data in Table B-3. CalculateSingle FamilyyTrip Characteristics 2011 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size Annual Income') Lessfhan Calculated Values Excluding Tiering Trip Rate Assessable Trip Length Daily VMT Ratio to Mean Single Family (Detached) 7.811 6 $62,831 h,, 51.70 1.00 24,181 365 66.25 1.000 Source: FL Studies for LUC 210, shown later in thisappendix WCes The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses areeuincluded in Tables B-3 nd B-4. First, the data shown in Table B-3 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units between 1,500 and 2,499quare.feet in size ($63) is slightly lower than the overall average income for the U.S ($62,831). Then, in Table B-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS'database for a number of different -,ert9 income levels and raged related to the resultingiAHS income'data in Table B-3. CalculateSingle FamilyyTrip Characteristics 2011 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size Annual Income') Lessfhan 1,500 sf, w $42,156 1500 to 2 A99 sf ,,. $62,563 of $42,156 42;500 sf or ore $79,443 A e age of ATP -Houses $62,831 Source 2011 American Household Survey Table B-4 NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category 2009 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income Annual ' VMT/HH Days Daily VMT Ratio to Mean Normalized to 0.995 Average of $42,156 19,241 365 52.72 0.796 0.800 Total (All Homes) 24,181 365 66.25 1.000 Average of $62,563 24,053 365 65.90 0.995 1.000 Average of $79,443 28,349 365 77.67 1.172 1.178 Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 B-2 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $42,156 annual income category. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 19,241 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $62,563 (24,053 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.800. Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing unit size (Less than 1,500 sf) to generate a daily VMT of 41.36 for the new tier, as shown in Table B-5. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typical trip:rate of 6.25 trips per day. ie Table - 65 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land`Use, Tier 1 Estimation. of Trip Rate by Tier Tri Rate (1) P Assessable Trip Length(2) Daily VMi3l Ratio to Mean(4): Single Family (Detached) Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf Its 6.25 6:62 41.36 Nib 800 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 ` . e 6.62 51.70 1.000 2,500 sf or larger 920,m m% 712 60.90 1.178 (1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Iter 2)tfor each tiered single family land use"'eategory (2) Source: Table6=2 (3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4),divided by the total daily VMT or#the 1,500 to 2,499 sf tier for each ie ed sf single family land use category (4) Source TabI4. TableB=6 illustrates the�r.impactthat the incorporation of the trip generation rate tiers for the singlfamily (detach d) land use ave on the County's calculated impact fee schedule. 4:414; Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier Table B-6 Impact of Tiering Schedule on Fee Trip Rate (1) Assessable Trip Length Daily VMT Net Fee (2) Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf 6.25 6.62 41.36 .' $3,491 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 $4,354 2,500 sf or larger 9.20 6.62 60.90 $5,129 (1) Source: Table B-5, Item 1 (2) Source: Appendix E, Table E-1 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County B-3 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 20 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. TOA estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a transportation impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Databasearidthe Institute of Transportation th o ? "i Engineers'(ITE) Trip Generation reference report (9 edition) In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (9th edition) and Florida Studies tripjgeneration rate (TGR) data are itete available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips; generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGRdata from the TE reference report is used in the fee calculation. The trip generation rate for each respectiveland use is tie" using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the sitetstudied The traffic cont hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions forthe residentialnd uses and att,all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is�obt edkthrough origin destination surveys that ask respondents • vr whereethey>came frommprior to<arriving at the 'site and where they intended to go after leaving the site: The results ofthese surveys;were used eto estimate average trip length by land use. The percent destination survey new trip variable is has published an article new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin - process a trip Wpe (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. TOA entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 B-4 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Mini -Warehouse (ITE LUC 151 Total Size ITE Blended total 451.3 784.0 1,235.3 5 14 Average Trip Length: .n/a. Weighted Average Trip Length: ,'n/a Weighted Percent New Trip Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: III Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Single -Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210 1.53 2.50 2.15 Location Size/Units Date Total # Interviews location Size (1,030 sf) _ Date Total# InterWews It Trip Length InterviewsTrip Gen Rate lime Period Trip Length Percent New TripsVMT 12/13-18/92 Source Orange Co, FL 107.0 - - - 1.45 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 89.6 - - - L23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 84.7 - - - 1.39 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 93.0 - - - 1.51 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 77.0 - - - 2.18 - - - - Orange County 63 8 55 4 �w �Ra""'-'. 7.30 'it:N/A \ Total Size ITE Blended total 451.3 784.0 1,235.3 5 14 Average Trip Length: .n/a. Weighted Average Trip Length: ,'n/a Weighted Percent New Trip Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: III Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Single -Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210 1.53 2.50 2.15 Location Size/Units Date Total # Interviews #Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip lengthy Percent New Trips VMT Source Gwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.80 - 4 Fm45:4O N/A 31.32 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.40- .'i, 6:10:9 . N/A 32.94 Street Smarts Sarasota Co, FL 76 Jun -93 70 70 10.03 - 5.^Ui`, f6.00,M Aak N/A 60.18 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 79 Jun -93 86 86 - 9.77 =8x< ' 4A0 N : ` .N/A 42.99 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun -93 75 75 8.05 h, - 5.90N/A 47.50 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 152 Jun -93 63 63 8 55 4 �w �Ra""'-'. 7.30 'it:N/A \ 62.42 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun -93 123 123 6.85 ."\4'r "- 4.60 N/A., 31.51 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 97 Jun -93 33 33 13:20MA 9 - 300 N/AkOM i. 39.60 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun -93 146 146 16.63Mr - 8.40 N/A - 55.52 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 393 Jun -93 207 207 \7:76. - 5.40 N/A 'M. 41:90 Sarasota County Hernando Co, Fl 76 May -96 148 148 10.01 .'. 9a -6p 4.85 N/A 'i48:55 , Tindale -Oliver &Associates Hernando Co, FL 128 May -96 205 205 8.17` ;Z @;,%,9a -6p 6.03.Y , N/A 49.2a Tindale -Oliver & Associates Hernando Co, FL 232 May -96 182 182 7.24 •3at<7.9a-6p s.cie50 h N/A 36.49M. M Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Hernando Co, FL 301 May -96 264 264 8.93 Xi7"91f6p. ,.ti3:28 N/A 29.29 •sa .Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct -97 230 - 5.30 '9a=5P.M: 7:9Dtf N/A 41.87 '@" 1iidaie-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 142 Ott -97 245 f 8-4'.i .='fin.. 5.20 9a -Sp i tVaib N/A 21.32 'Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co, FL 150 Oct -97 160 =i . 5M0 9a-SpNg M1.0.80 N/A 54 00 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Charlotte Co, Fl 215 Oct -97 158d`,`. ..' 'd1.,.7.60 9a -5p ' i4.60. N/A 34.96 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, Fl 257 Oct -97 225 'F:° i 'v%7:6Dr.. 9a -5p '47:40 N/A 56.24 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 345 Oct -97 161 7:00 %R'.1, 9a -5p 6.60s'73,.L N/A 46.20 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates =' Charlotte Co, FL 368 Oct -97 152 -`@ 6.6044 ' 3'9a -5p 5.70 2 Mk, , N/A 37.62 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 383 Oct -97 516 -'a : 8.40 `4 ?;9a -5p„ 5.00 .§N/A 42.00 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Charlotte Co, FL 441 Oct -97,» x„195 - . 8.20 'z9a=5p ., 4.70 'WIN/A, 38.54 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Charlotte Co, FL 1,169 „Goat -97p w348, - 156.10 .4.9aa4PISF, W8.00 'MN/A1 48.80 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL 90,.Dec=99.'-'24019a14..�G��( - 1280 ,a �,8a-6p .1 e':i1140 r.. N/A 145.92 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL 400 > :.qiv ,�AA DCc-99. 3899�4W. - x47.80 a la8a'-6p ""6:461g% e9 N/A 49.92 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co, FL 49 ' Apr -02 170VA 3 - 36.70yr M. 7a -6p 10.20 , N/A 68.34 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Lake Co, FL 52A'p"r:02 212 INbu - 10A0 7a -6p 7.60 N/A 76.00 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Lake Co FL 126 'Apr -021St 217 g?- 8.501 7a -6p 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Pasco Co, FL 55 Ap7-02 ?°:' 133 a a,.._,.. - 6.80 W N., 8a -6p 8.12 N/A 5522 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co, FL -,,....60 Apr -02 , 1064 '-k'�a.. 7.73 V VA 8a -6p 8.75 N/A 67.64 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co. RAM ME.70ia'.., Apr -02 M% 188 ' '-`.,'€'17td A_ 7.80 ` S.,V 8a -6p 6.03 N/A 47.03 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Pasco Co; FL' &a"" -a,-, X74 N,,, Apr -02% 188 - 'V2z`' X8.18 wsa 6p 5.95 N/A 48.67 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Pasco Cd?Ft 189." 'Apr -02 '261?: - -7:46`^+.. XE:g6p 8.99 N/A 67.07 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Madon Co FOr 102Apr`-02 167,., - `8.02WAS h 7a -6p 5.10 N/A 40.90 Kimley-Horn & Associates Manors CO?FL 105 `Apr-02?&Z,. 169 `.$3. - 7.23' ve' .^. ' 7a -6p 7.22 N/A 52.20 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marian CO7Ft\ 124 Apr=O2'J °'+ 5, 170 - 't :alt- 6.04 7a -6p 7.29 N/A 44.03 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marion CO;FL 132 Apr -02`,w`; its, 171 �i'='at 7.87 7a -6p ' 7.00 N/A 55.09 Kimley-Hom&Associates Marion Co, FOAM , 133 Apr -02 N W... '2O9 \c'e;a5. 8.04 - 7a -6p 4.92 N/A 39.56 Kimley-Hom & Associates Citrus Co, FL 111 Oct -03 V 273 ?'. ?. 8.66 7a -6p 7.70 N/A 66.68 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Citrus Co FL VWik7.31 Oct -03 155# - ' 5.71 7a -6p 4.82 N/A 27.52 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Citrus Co, FL ' 3068 Oct -03 /146A - 8.40 7a -6p 3.94 N/A 33.10 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 't364%59 Oct -03 345:tt - 7.20 7a -6p 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Citrus Co, FL 374,M, Oct -03 248is$, - 12.30 7a -6p 6.88 N/A 84.62 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Lake Co, FL 42 ?a ,Dec -06 :12213t,S1 - 11.26 - 5.56 N/A 62.61 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co, FL 51 t:'a Dec -06 A 346M 1&22 - 9.46 N/A 172.36 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 59 VDec-06 .)x•144: - 12.07 - 10.79 N/A 130.24 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Lake Co, FL 90 DeC=064..4 .4 1194 - 9.12 - 5.78 N/A 52.71 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 239 Dec -06s385 - 7.58 - 8.93 N/A 67.69 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr -07.4% Ar 516 - 8.02 7a -6p 8.16 N/A 65.44 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Hernando Co, Fl 95 Apr -07 - 256 - 8.08 7a -6p 5.88 N/A 47.51 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Hernando Co, FL 90 Apr -07 338 - 7.13 7a -6p 586 N/A 41.78 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Hemando Co, FL 58 Apr -07 153 - 6.16 7a -6p 8.39 N/A 51.68 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Collier Co, FL 74 Mar -08 503 - 12.81 7a -6p 3.05 N/A 39.07 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co, FL 97 Mar -O8 512 - 8.78 7a -6p 11.29 N/A 99.13 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL 315 Mar -08 1,347 - 6.97 7a -6p 6.55 N/A 45.65 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL 42 Mar -O8 314 - 9.55 7a -6p 10.98 N/A 104.86 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Total Size 10,380 55 Note: Georgia studies are not induded in summary statistics. 13,130 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 - Average Trip Length: Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.79, 6.62 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.81 Indian River County B-5 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Multi-Family/Apartment and Residential Condo/Townhouse (ITE LUC 220/2 Total Size Total Size (TL) 4,103 3,631 Total Size 3,467 ITE 1480 Blended total 21,947 LUC 230Studies are highlighted I Total Size 636 ITE 10024 Blended total 10,660 13 88 4 56 Average Trip Length: . _ Weighted Average Trip length: 4.84 5.10 LUC 220: Multi -Family Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.31 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.65 Blend of FLStudies and FTE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.60 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Mobile Home Park (ITE LUC 240 LJ Ur 71r - rnndofinwnhnine 4.97 5.81 5.76 Location Location Size / Units Date Location Size/Units Date Total At Interviews SI Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun -93 42 42 5.78 - 5.20 N/A 30.06 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 243 Jun -93 36 36 5.84 - - N/A - Sarasota County Marion Co, FL 214 Apr -02 175 175 6.84 - 461 N/A 31.53 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marion Co, FL 240 Apr -02 174 174 6.96 - 3.43 N/A 23.87 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marion Co, FL 288 Apr -02 175 175 566 - 5.55 N/A 31.41 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marion Co, FL 480 Apr -02 175 175 5.73 - 6.88 N/A 39.42 Kimley-Hom & Associates Marion Co, FL SOO Apr -02 170 170 5.46 - 5.94 N/A 32.43 Kimley-Horn&Associates lake Co, FL 250 Dec -O6 135 135 6.71 - 5.33 N/A 35.76 Tindale -Oliver & Associates lake Co, FL 157 Dec -06 265 265 13.97 - 2.62 N/A 36.60 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 169 Dec -06 212 - 8.09 - 600 N/A 48.54 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 226 Dec -06 301 - 6.74 - 2.17 N/A 1463 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr -07 456 - 4.09 - 5.95 N/A 24.34 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Hernando Co, FL 176 Apr -07 332 - 5.38 - 5.24 N/A 28.19 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Hernando Co, FL 31 May -96 31 31 '6.12 _ 9a -6p • 4.98. N/A .30.48 " Tindale-Oliver&Associates ' Hemando Co, FL 128 May -96 - 1 128 128 6.47 9a -6p 5.18 N/A 33.51. ' Tindale -Oliver & Associates •• Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr -02 198. 198 4.77 9a -6p - N/A - Tindale -Oliver & Associates . Pasco Co, Fl. 248 Apr -02 . . -353. .. . 353 4.24 9a -6p 3.53 . N/A 14.97 :. Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size Total Size (TL) 4,103 3,631 Total Size 3,467 ITE 1480 Blended total 21,947 LUC 230Studies are highlighted I Total Size 636 ITE 10024 Blended total 10,660 13 88 4 56 Average Trip Length: . _ Weighted Average Trip length: 4.84 5.10 LUC 220: Multi -Family Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.31 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.65 Blend of FLStudies and FTE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.60 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Mobile Home Park (ITE LUC 240 LJ Ur 71r - rnndofinwnhnine 4.97 5.81 5.76 Location Location Size / Units Date Total # Interviews t gTrip Length ~nt. /Interviews Trip Gen Rate „ Time Period, ' "n`i �, s, Trip Length TO. :l' Percent New Trips VMT >‘' Source Marion Co, FL 67 Jul -91 22iri ?22'-9- 5.40 48hrigN .2.29 N/A 12.37 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co, Fl 82 Jul -91 58 '"ms's 98 .•a; , a..10.80 24hr. t 3?.1 3:72 N/A 40.18 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, Fl 137 Jul -91 22 Nan, 'q' M3:10 24hr. f4:88't% N/A 15.13 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Marion Co, FL 188 Apr -02 147 N..N. o%- `x'351%�Sn. 24hr. '5.48 N/A 19.23 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 227 Apr -02 173 '"Y -,C?+ . 2:76W ham 24hr. 8.80 Via. N/A 24.29 Kimley-Horn & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 235 Jun -93 100 100 g:.;.% 3.51 NW. dam. .-. 17.90 Sarasota County 5.10 ..N/A Marion Co, FL 297 Apr-02sa>x. , 175 - I 4.78 24hr%' . 4.76W;N/A 22.75 Kimley-Hom&Associates Sarasota Co, FL 996 Jun'93i 6 .1,181 181 ;` :.� . 4.19 °d.. ,z . 4.40 N/ACS 18.44 Sarasota County Hemando Co, FL 1,892 SMayl960 ON425k 425 PRO.4.13 a$9a%p°.Ak4:13. -N/A 17.06 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 4,121 9 1,303 Average Trip Length: 4.84 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: Senior Adult Housing - Attached (ITE LUC 252 4.17 Location t- ?g, 4Slime /Units z�.y,�:; - , Date Tota30 a<eza t teMews? r8T Alength Interviews; p Gen Rate Tria 4 :Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct -91 726 726 2:46Z7.1. 24hr. 3.28 - 8.07 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size FIT Blended total 208 230 438 1 5 Average Trip length: 3.28 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.23 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Congregate Care Facility ( ITE LUC 253 2.46 3.44 2.97 Location Size / Units • xs Date Total d t, •c interviews dTrip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Park, FL 72 4 Aug -89 A 25M 19 3.50 9am-5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Palm Harbor, FL 200 Oi+89 ifaissge 40 - 9am-5pm 3.40 69.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Total Size ITE Blended total 272 388 660 460 2 2 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 83 Average Trip Length: 2.80 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.08 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6 Weight d Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and RE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.50 2.02 225 Indian River County B-6 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Hotel (ITE LUC 310 Location Size (Rooms) Date Total Size ITE Blended total 6,944 4460 11,704 21 10 164 Average Trip length: • .. 6.25 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 Weight d Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Motel (ITE LUC 320 5.12 8.17 6.36 Location Size (Rooms) Date Total 0 InteMews ft Trip Length�. ,c Interviews Total II InteMews It Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug -89 134 106 12.50 7-lla/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct -89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Orange Co, FL 70 - - - 1.85 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 211 - - - 2.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 112 - - - 2.78 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,495 - - - 3.50 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 123 - - - 3.70 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, Ft 130 - - - 4.29 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,499 - - - - 4.69 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 19D - - - 4.71 - - - - Orange County Orange Co. FL 123 - - - 4.81 - - - - Orange County Orange Co. Fl 105 - - - 5.25 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 120 - - - 5.27 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,584 - - - 5.88 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 128 - - - 6.10 Orange County Orange Co, FL 174 - - - 7.03 - -, S"v.%'�,+ - - Orange County Orange Co, FL • 144 - - - 7.32 - ,o.Y= 3 - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 98 - - - 7.32 - Are" - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 106 - - - 734,E '�-:. -. - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 100 - - - 7.37 - AN. ,=ate . - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 - - - 7.66r c. .i. Wir - ' - Orange County Total Size ITE Blended total 6,944 4460 11,704 21 10 164 Average Trip length: • .. 6.25 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 Weight d Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Motel (ITE LUC 320 5.12 8.17 6.36 Location Size (Rooms) Date Total 0 InteMews ft Trip Length�. ,c Interviews Trip Gen Rate lime Period '`ATN9' Trip Lengths 4'.;>'.*tDY,se ' V Percent New Trips T VMT �yA. Source Pinellas Co, FL 43 Ott -89 46 s (M24,,, - 10a --2p? 2.80 65.0 - NTiiidale-Oliver& Associates Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct -89 32 M3 22 - 12p -7p""3?„ X3.80 69.0 - Tindale -Oliver& Associates Pinellas Co, FL 120 Ott -89 26 22 s%s, - 2p -7p v 15:20 84.6 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Total Size RE 222 2,160 3 10 104 Average Trip Length: 3.93 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 444 5.63 Location A Size (Screens), > fid'TotalIt Date IS:-.. Interviews If Trip Length°ss. £L Interviews Tdp Gen Rate: Time Period Of Trip Length: Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 8 V2:60 89 151 VA $$ 116 113.10W 2p -8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co, FL 12 Sep -89 . 122 n el:4 116 63.40M* 2p -8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size ITE 20 10 estimated 30 273 Average Trip length: 2.30 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (6th): Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: w Health Club (ITE LUC 492 83.28 153.33 106.63 LocationSize Size (1,000 sf) 2S (1,000 sF) '»St'a'b. Date Totalft 'Q eTdp Interviews IITripLength InteMe Gen Rate F Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL Si`_; Mar -86 Wf33 Ys 31 NgSaY - - 7.90 94.0 - Kimley-Hom & Associates Total Size ITE 15 1 33 Average Trip Length: n/a Percent New Trip Average: 94.0 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Day Care Center (ITE LUC 565 32.93 Location Size (1,000 sf) klbEA Date ;ri ... Total u OInterviews pTdp Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug -89 94 66 66.99 7a -6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Pinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep -89 179 134 66.99 7a -6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Tampa, FL - Mar -86 28 25 - - 2.60 89.0 - Kimley-Hom & Associates Total Size ITE Blended total 15.6 35.0 50.6 2 7 301 Average Trip Length: L20 Weighted Average Trip Length: 203 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2 Weight d Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99 74.06 7L88 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County B-7 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620 Total Size ITE Blended total 120 714 834 1 6 74 Average Trip length: 259 Weighted Average Trip Length: _ 259 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and 111 Average Trip Generation Rate: Clinic (ITE LUC 630 2.86 2.74 2.76 Location Size (1,000sf) location Size (Beds) Date Total 4 Interviews 47rip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Lakeland, FL 120 Mar -90 74 66 2.86 lla-4p 259 89.0 6.59 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Oct -89 280 252 - 9a -5p Total Size ITE Blended total 120 714 834 1 6 74 Average Trip length: 259 Weighted Average Trip Length: _ 259 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and 111 Average Trip Generation Rate: Clinic (ITE LUC 630 2.86 2.74 2.76 Location Size (1,000sf) Date Total Interviews 4Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, Fl 103.9 Aug -89 614 572 37.03 la -430p 5.10 93.0 175.63 Tindale -Oliver &Associates St. Petersburg, FL - Oct -89 280 252 - 9a -5p 4.10 .ice.. 90.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec -92 - - 3.60, Total Size ITE 103.9 224.0 327.9 1 2 894 Average Trip Length: 4.60 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 93.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: FTE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and FTE Average Trip Generation Rate: General Office Building (ITE LUC 710 37.03 31.45 33.22 location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total It Interviews x Trip Length InteMews Trip Gen Rate.`, .FYI:-.b�i limePedod �e' Trip length Percent ew Trips VMT >, Source Sarasota Co, Fl 14.3 Jun -93 14 14 d46:85'Ai.i" - 11.30 - 57529.41 Sarasota County Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec -92 - - '4:30a - 5.40 - -, Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec -92 - - 3.60, - 5.90 - ' : `-`dS'A. Street Smarts Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct -89 431 388 18.49'`? ` .7a -5p 6.300N 90.0 104.84`x"c Tindale -Oliver & Assodates St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep -89 291 274 - ` is e7a-5p 345M 94.0 - ;�, Tindale -Oliver &Associates Total Size 742.1 ITE 15,522.0 5 78 736 Average Trip Length: 6.46 Weighted Average Trip Length: .5.15. Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Medical -Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720): 10,000 sf or Less Site Tues:, Ian 11 Wedr . Jan 12 Thur., Jan 13 TOTAL AVERAGE .AVERAGE (per 1,000 sf) Trip Length Size (1,000 sf) - .IN OUT - IN OUT IN OUT' ' IN OUT IN OUT AN r OUT -TOTAL Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 6.30 22.22 Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22 Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 2434 Site4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 " 139 139 46.33 46.33 4633 46.33 92.66 Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71 Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64 Average 17 59 17.71 35.30 30.4 Average (excluding Site 4) 1184 11.99 2383 Medical -Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720 Location ;Size (1,000 sf) Date Total4 {Interviews aTnp Length a-). Interviews „.Y Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL 'f'�-e'o,- Mar -86 Nrg 33 4 26 ' r - - 6.00 79.0 - Kimley-Horn&Associates Palm Harbor, FL "-Z14.6 h. Oct -89 t104.M 76 33.98 9a -5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale-Oliver&Associates St. Petersburg, FL 'ea Nov -89 3.4M 30 5/20 9a -4p 1.20 8&0 - Tindale -Oliver& Assodates Hemando Co, FL ss:4ti' Fa May -96 390 a 349 28.52 9a -6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co, FL 28.0 Ng a May -96 2D� 189 49.75 9a -6p 6.06 93.8 28264 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 ' Oct -97 ��2� '.W 186 49.50 9a -5p 460 92.1 209.67 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 ‘O& 97, 186 31.00 9a -5p 3.60 8L6 91.04 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 O3.{ --9Z . : W$V 324 39.80 9a -5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct:03 L 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov -03' ' - 340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec -03 '- - 20 2936 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Orange Co, FL 50.6 - - - 26.72 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 23.5 - - - 16.58 - . - - - Orange County Total Size ITE Blended total 298.6 11 763 - Average Trip Length: 5.07 450.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5-55 748.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 88.9 Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3259 36.13 34.72 Indian River County B-8 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Business Park (ITE LUC 770 Location Size (1,000sf) Date Total4 Interviews p7rip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate lime Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Collier Co, FL 14.1 May -99 - 55 33.48 8a -6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Collier Co, FL 66.0 May -99 - 43 11.53 8a -6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL 211.1 May -99 - 284 17.91 8a -6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Total Size ITE Blended total • 291.2 6�.0 6,579.2 3 16 Average Trip Length: 440 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of Fl Studies and in Average Trip Generation Rate: Shopping Center (ITE LUC 820 17.22 12.44 12.65 location Size (1,000sf) Date Total4 Interviews 47rip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL - Mar -86 527 348 - - - ,t 66 0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates . Tampa, FL - Mar -86 170 - - - 1.70? -s g aS - - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar -86 354 269 - - fir` 76.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar -86 144 - - - ,'2.50 rie Kimley-Hom & Associates 5t. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug -89 384 298 - 11a -7p ii WI3.60 78-0 - Tindale -Oliver & Assodates St. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep -89 400 368 77.00 10a:7p!t 180 92.0 127.51 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Largo, FL 425.0 Aug -89 160 120 26.73 10 -r -6p': 3' 130 S a75.0 46.11 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Dunedin, FL 80.5 Sep -89 276 210 81.48 N. 9a -5p" 1.40 x.76.0 8669 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep -89 485 388 3.20 ` 80.0-,„ - Tindale -Oliver & Associates 9a -6p Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct -89 674 586 -. - - 87:0:,#e - Tindale -Oliver &Associates Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul -91 - - ,--„� � - 130 74.0 a. - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul -91 - - - 1.30 73.0 ' _-'iia.- Tindale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 68 64 "aft - 3.33 94.1 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 208 154 - „ - 2.64 P,, 74.0 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep -92 300 185 - '% 12a -6p ,- 1k 61.6 --`�. k. King Engineering Associates, Inc. Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep -92 300 192 - 12aE6p , � 64.0 - NE gking Engineering Associates, Inc. Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec -92 - ,6yt.- 46.00 isnior 70.0 103.04 '.6 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec -92 -';, 27.00 j r8.50 84.0 192.78p1- Street Smarts Sarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun -93 58 ICS5s , tu. 122.14 - `" ne3.20 - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co, Fl 146.1 Jun -93 65 W65. ma`s M 5153 - %2.80., - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun -93 57 v50, *W. §..7§lite,.._ - ',3:a0 1, - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co, Fl 191.0 Jun -93 62 62 BOOM -; h.. - 5.80M fit, - - Sarasota County Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May -96 608 331‘1/4"4. 77.604+t9'a.76p 4 68 ..V k .54.5 197.85 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct -97 a.... - - 1 Cl‘ 73.50 M4,9a=5px 1.80 V'57:1 75.56 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Charlotte Co, Fl 191.9 ,hnxi Add- - 40rt-97,Z�;c rr^ � - � ;x.72.00 .,r . �A9r5p',r�' `x:92.40 .. N50:9/ 87.97 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co, FL 51.3O�t-9alga 924.0- (43.00 9a' -S1?" 2.70r_ 51.8 60.08 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Lake Co, FL 67.8 0 , ,Apr01 246 ;; 177 '1.02.60Jt X3.40; ;'a., 71.2 248.37 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co, Fl 72.3 Apr -01 44413 ' 8 376 v65i30 .'. ' - 4.50-x? V 59.0 173.37 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 65.6 041702 222 W - 145.64 9a -5p 146 46.9 99.62 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Pasco Co, FL 75.8�AOr-02:� 134 It 38.136: 9a -5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct -03 , - 1. J34 .. 8a -6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale -Oliver &Associates 55.84%t<° Citrus Co, Fl ,,.w*.,,91.3 Nov -03''4 S. rercn •390 54.50 `ct ,a.8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Bozeman, MTM ratialfts,. Dec -06 - 359,E s '359 "lav x.46.96 �� 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Bozeman`NTI. s. 159.9M Dec -06 N. 11561?"502 *r56:49 Niall 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Bozeman';' -MF 35.9 '? Dec,06 `329aks 329 ;69.30'.r ,, - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Average Trip Length: . Weighted Average Trip Length: Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 8-9 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 4.00 3.50 3.00 a) a E 2.50 Lown 2.00 1.50 1.00 Figure B-1 Shopping Center (LUC 820) — Florida Curve Trip Length Regression 0.50 0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL -Studies data for LUC 820 90% 80% 70% N Shopping Cent(LUC 820) — Florida Curve Percent NeTrips Regression a 60% 50% -00 c 40% d u a 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 B-10 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study New Car Sales (ITE LUC 841 Total Size ITE Blended total 459.7 570.0 1,029.7 8 15 288 - .Average Trip Length: ..'4.60 Weighted Average Trip Length:. 4.60 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and fTE Average Trip Generation Rate: Supermarket (ITE LUC 850 23.22 3230 73.25 Location Size (1,000 sf) Location Size )1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews #Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct -89 152 120 - 9a -5p 4.70 79.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Clearwater, FL 43.0 Oct -89 136 106 29.40 9a -5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tind ale -Oliver & Associates Orange Co, FL 116.7 - - - 22.18 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 99.8 - - - 13.45 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 39.1 - - - 10.48 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 66.3 - - - - 28.50 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 46.7 - - - 40.34 - - Tindale-Oliver&Associates - Orange County Orange Co, FL 34.4 - - - 2345 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 13.8 - - - 35.75 - - - - Orange County Apt -02 87; 2 - V719:79 .g` i` 24hr Total Size ITE Blended total 459.7 570.0 1,029.7 8 15 288 - .Average Trip Length: ..'4.60 Weighted Average Trip Length:. 4.60 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and fTE Average Trip Generation Rate: Supermarket (ITE LUC 850 23.22 3230 73.25 Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews # Trip Le gth Interviews Trip Gen Rate ., Time Period .two x,Percent •Trip Length, /. _.. New .Tdps VMT Source Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug -89 163 62 106.26 9a` -4p,' ' 2.08 N. tV?56.0 12377 Tindale-Oliver & Assad ates Total Size fTE Blended total 62.0 156.0 218.0 1 4 163 Average Trip Length: _ 2.08 Weighted Average Tdp Length: 2.08 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Service Station w/Convenience Market (ITE LUC 853 106.26 10224 103.38 Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total# Interviews ..nteMews IS Trip Length &Intq Trip Gen Rate 419W10:„ Time Period 1` :Trip Length q Percent New Tnps VMT Source Tampa, FL - Mar -86 72 Wgg&A.,, - -a200 4.63 - - Kim' ey-Hom&Associates Marion Co, FL 1.1 Jun -91 77:120 39 ' 544.80 24hr. '-'%0.89. 26.0 126.07 Tind ale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 2.1 Jun -91 66 'b-'24' t?„C.997.60, 24hr. '11:672,. 36.4 606.42 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 4.4 Jun -91 85 .25`41 `486.70'x. 48hrs. 1`.06.ft3. 29.4 151.68 Tindale -Oliver & Assad ates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 96 38Wa - F^; 3ty.- 1.19W0 eri.t. 39.6 - Tind ale -Olive r & Associates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 78 16 WAb - ' K.='z�rn. 1.06 'E0420.5 - Tindale-Olive r&Associates Tampa, FL 2.3 10/1.345/92! aura,. 239 74 - .`hili a. 1.06 31.'1s - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Ellenton, FL 3.3 10/20-22/92Y sem.:124. 44 '+;( ., - 424hr KED.96 '1353'b - Tindale-Olive r&Assodates Tampa, FL 3.8 r W10-12/92' ti4V.142.ax 23 !: Si241iir M3.1.3th,.. 16..4 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co, FL 2.5 Aft Apt -02 87; 2 - V719:79 .g` i` 24hr '1:62MJn.. 32.8 322.19 Kimley Hom&Assodates Marion Co, FL 2.5 ;MAP 23 Nit ;p - 610:46M 324hr. 1.77VA Ear 117 126.61 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 3.0 ?Apt -02 59 vea?F - 606:02M , 24hr. 0.83 - 32.6 195.00 Kimley-Hom&Associates Total Size ITE Blended Total 25.1 30.0 55.1 45.6 9 10 15.6 1,148 Average Trip Length: 144 Weighted Average Trip Length:_ 151 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 27.7 Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and rrE Average Trip Generation Rate: Furniture Store (ITE LUC 890 639.68 845.60 775.14 Location •e.. Size )1,000 sf) Date Total # ±.2h,••e>.9.. .einterviews #Trip length InteMews) Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 'Cd a15.0 7/28-30/92 '64. 343 ti - - 4.63 52.5 - Tind ale -Oliver & Assodates Tampa, FL twe16.9 Jul -92 W.(68 M. 39 ' - - 7.38 55.7 - Tindale-Oliver &Associates Total Size ITE 31.9 897.0 2 13 132 Average Trip Length: 6.01 Weighted Average Trip length: 6.09 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2 Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.06 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County B-11 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Drive -In Bank (ITE LUC 912 Total Size ITE Blended total 25.2 9 1,407 ..Average Trip Length: _ /38 21.0 7 - Weighted Average Trip Length; 146 . 46.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 23.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Restaurant (ITE LUC 932 246.66 148.15 159.34 location Size (1.000 sf) location Size (1,000sf) Date Total Interviews it Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL - Mar -86 77 - - - 2.40 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa, Fl - Mar -86 211 - - - - 54.0 - Kimley-Hom & Associates Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug -89 113 52 - 9a -6p 5.20 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Largo, FL 2.0 Sep -89 129 94 - - 1.60 73.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Seminole, FL 4.5 Oct -89 - - - - - - - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 2.3 Jun -91 69 29 - 24hr. 1.33 42.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL ' 3.1 Jun -91 47 32 - 24hr. 1.75 68.1 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jul -91 57 26 - 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier Co, Fl - Aug -91 162 96 - 24hr. 0.88 59.3 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 116 54 - - 1.58 46.6 - Tindale -Oliver &Associates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 142 68 - - 2.08 47.9 - Tindale -Oliver &Associates Hernando Co, FL 5.4 May -96 164 41 - 9a -6p 2.77 24.7 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 2.4 Apr -02 70 - - 24hr. 3.55 54.6 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 17 May -02 50 - 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size ITE Blended total 25.2 9 1,407 ..Average Trip Length: _ /38 21.0 7 - Weighted Average Trip Length; 146 . 46.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 23.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Restaurant (ITE LUC 932 246.66 148.15 159.34 location Size (1.000 sf) Date Total R Interviews ft Trip Length Interviews A Trip Genlime Tdp Gen Rate Mgr Period Trip Length Percent New, Trip �+`r. VMT S Source Hernando Co, FL 6.2 May -96 242 175 187 51i9J � . 9a -6p 2.76 72.5 W375.00 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Hemando Co, FL 8.2 May -96 154 93 102.71K 9a -6p 4 15 60.2 01256:43 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Pinellas Co, FL St. Petersburg, FL 5.0 Oct -89 74 68 13/60Ve h. 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 '243.9815,. Tindale -Oliver & Associates Kenneth City, FL 5.2 Oct -89 236 176 12788 $4p -730p 2.30,464, 75.0 220.59 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Pasco Co FL 5.2 Apr -02 114 88 82.47 %a '9a -6p 3.72Wa as 77.2 236.8a $c1'..Tindale-Oliver&Assodates 1.60lun.91 Pasco Co. FL 5.8 Apr -02 182 102 116.97 '9a=6p> 43:49 56.0 228.77 ' .Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Orange Co. FL 8.9- 46 - .> *.-. 52.69 "4:Mka ft9flS#tr - -NWORAt Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 - - �, 62.12 -NM . ?W - - a" Orange County Orange Co, FL 6.7 - -:`t?i - tr.- 82.58 - "V WA.- - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.4 - - `.."-. "0 M91.67 - ' - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 - - ' a"t . - x'95.33?:. 48.8 425.04 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.2- 252 - ='1„ '98.0613 > - Y $> - - Orange County Orange Co. FL 5.5- 182 - -�E.'iia 100.18M $n.- - .:. - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7 - - -%;:. 4. 105.84 ` n -t..), - �.- - Orange County Orange Co, FL 4.6 'i +Tr„ - -a M.129.23 -rr4i11 n. - .fiP - Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.0 164 9,1if`=iYs. - t S126.40 33.7 ',rte,.-.--i°�' Tindale -Oliver &Associates - Orange Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7"-' "' ""lcg.'- - v:ig 132.32-'.`$=°R1A'.n, 71.4 1024.99 - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.0 et - :'1 ' - X135.68 ,rte . eF'.r,�,'Y - Orange County Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.6 "g �- - 'moi - 145:59 e - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.4 °:q»T -. Y9_ - 147.441 ' - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.9 Na. - 2F - 147.74We Orange County Total Size ITE Blended total 152.8 21 1,102 Average Trip length: ' 3.07 38.0 14 - Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.17 250.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru (ITE LUC 934 109.84 127.15 116.60 Location s""- •i9ze(1,000 sf) Date Total fl I ews o Triplengtl, Ince Le s� Tdp Gen Rate Time Period Tdp length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, Fl 3&.4. Mar -86 W61t$s -' - - 2.70 - - Kimley-Horn&Associates Tampa, FL NV:` --:z . Mar -86 306 - - - - 65.0 - Kimley-Hom & Associates Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 lla-2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale -Oliver &Assodates Pinellas Co, FL 4.30NFEBg. %. Oct -89 456M1 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 86578 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Tarpon Springs, FL - ' ;MOct-s9 :2331 114 - 7a -7p 3.60 49.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Marion Co, Fl 1.60lun.91 a 60. ` 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 . 466.84 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Marion Co, FL 4.00 F1un914.. 'i 75'?' 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL - Au`g=91.'.•3(M...'166 44 - - 191 66.7 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Collier Co, FL - Aug -91 & 118 40 - - 1.17 33.9 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May -96 ' V 136 82 31183 9a -6p 168 60.2 315.27 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Hernando Co, FL 3.13 May -96 168 82 547.34 9a -6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale -Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 2.20 Apr -01 376 252 934.30 - 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale-Oliver&Associates lake Co, FL 3.20 Apr -01 171 182 654.90 - 4.10 47.8 - Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Lake Co, FL 3.80 Apr -01 188 137 353.70 - 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale -Oliver & Assodates Pasco Co FL 2.66 Apr -02 100 46 283.12 9a -6p 5.10 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Pasco Co FL 2.96 Apr -02 486 164 515.32 9a -6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Pasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr -02 168 120 759.24 9a -6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Orange Co, FL 8.93 - - - 377.00 - - - - Orange County Total Size ITE Blended total 48.8 63.0 111.8 34.0 13 4,463 21 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 530.19 496.12 51100 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County B-12 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Automobile Care Center (ITE LUC 942 Total Sire ITE Blended total 42.6 6 519 .. _ Average Trip Length: - 2.74.. 102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip length: ..3.62 - 144.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2 107.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FLStudies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Service Station with and w/o Car Wash (ITE LUC 944 & 946 37.64 31.10 31.43 Location Size (1,000 sf) Location Size (1,003 sf) Date Total Interviews #Trip length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New Trips VMT Source Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 124 94 - 9a -Sp 3.07 76.0 - Tindale -Oliver& Associates Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 110 74 - 9a -Sp 2.96 67.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Jacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3-4/90 132 87 - 9a -Sp 2.32 66.0 - Tindale -Oliver &Associates Lakeland, FL 5.2 Mar -90 24 14 - 9a -4p 1.36 59.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Largo, FL 5.5 Sep -89 34 30 37.64 9a -5p 2.40 8&0 79.50 Tindale -Oliver &Associates Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov -92 41 39 - 2-6p 460 - - LCE, Inc. Lakeland, FL . - Mar -90 54 42 - 9a -4p 2.44 7&0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Sire ITE Blended total 42.6 6 519 .. _ Average Trip Length: - 2.74.. 102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip length: ..3.62 - 144.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2 107.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FLStudies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Service Station with and w/o Car Wash (ITE LUC 944 & 946 37.64 31.10 31.43 Total Size ITE LUC 944 (vfp) RTE LUC 946 (vfp) 0.6 48.0 120.0 1 6 10 238 Average Trip Length: 1.46 Weighted Average Trip length: 1.90 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 944): ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (WC 946). Blended ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position: Self -Service Car Wash (ITE LUC 947 168.56 152.84 157.33 Location Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total p Interviews p Trip Length Interviews Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New PercentGen Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 0.6 Nov -89 70 14 - 8am-5pm 1.90 23.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug -91 168 40 - - 1.01 23.8 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates 11 Dec -09 304 Va`-P"' 30.24- `4"e, Total Size ITE LUC 944 (vfp) RTE LUC 946 (vfp) 0.6 48.0 120.0 1 6 10 238 Average Trip Length: 1.46 Weighted Average Trip length: 1.90 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 944): ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (WC 946). Blended ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position: Self -Service Car Wash (ITE LUC 947 168.56 152.84 157.33 Location Size (Bays) Date Total4 Interviews pTdp length Interviewsi6gakIrOA Trip Gen Rate Period Triple gth iSu::a69:% Percent New Trips VMT ��, Source ; Largo, FL 10 Nov -89 111 ,{a.84 - 8am=Spm&.0412.00V 7&0 - Tilidale-Oliver&Assodates Clearwater, FL - Nov -89 177 £ `W..*iesa - 10arn•Spiht ?130 61.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Collier, FL 11 Dec -09 304 Va`-P"' 30.24- `4"e, '4."2.50 57.0 - Tindale -Oliver & Associates Collier, FL 8 Jan -09 186tti i''T'fi°•. e ??3)22.75 - 'ts 196 72.0 - Tindale -Oliver &Associates Total Size Total Size (TGR) ITE Blended total 29 3 778 Average Trip Length: -1S4 19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length:• 2.18. 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 67.7 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and RE AverageTrip Generation Rate: yothi ' t Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 27.09 108.00 43.94 Indian River County B-13 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Appendix C Transportation Impact Fee em • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Cost Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the transportation impact fee update. Backup data and assumptions are provided for all cost variables (for county and state roads), including: • Design • Right -of -Way • Construction • Construction Engineering/Inspection • Roadway Capacity Urban Design vs. Rural Design Due to a lack of roadway construction data for rural -design roadways, the costsper lane mile sMa: for these types of roads was calcuiatedusing an adjustment factor. This factor was based on the rural -to -urban design cost ratioF.fromm the most rete t�District 7 Long Range Estimates (LRE) provided by FDOT.. .Ba�,�sed on he.. LRE, the.cost for `rural -design roadway capacity s%g, expansion (new road construction or lanesaddition) is approximately 83 percent of the cost of urban -design roadway improvements. `For all subsequent tables (for county and state roadways), costs are p sented' or urban -des gn roadways, with the rural -design roadway costs beinetiretilated using the cost ratio from Table C-1. ita Table C-1 Rural Design Cost Factor Improvement Cost per Lane Mile Rural Design. Urban Design Ratio A X 072 Lanes: $2,392,343 $3,383,918 71% 4Lang7 $1,918,228 $2,382,206 81% 0-6Lapes $1,626,803 $1,944,969 84% 2-4 Lanes $2,897,987 $3,439,476 84% 4-6 Lanes $3,229,018 $3,833,955 84% 4-8 Lanes $2,145,375 $2,532,536 85% 6-8 Lanes $4,061,468 $4,569,033 89% Average $2,610,175 $3,155,156 83% Source: FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates, 2013 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 C-1 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Design County Roadways The design cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a•. review of the design -to - construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the design factors ranged from 6 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 10 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for county roads was calculated at 10 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-10 for additional information) aa. State Roadways Design Cost Adjustment — County Roads Road TypeDesign Design Cost per Lane Mile' Section Design Distribution(�1 Weighted Cost per Lane Mile �31 Urban Design $180,000 NS, 34% $61,000 Rural Design $149,000 _ ,66% $98,000 Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $159,000 1) Design cost*is>estimated at 10% ofconstructio o tkbased on recent TIF studies in Table Cd(Item a)5 r (2) SourceAppendix C, TableC-17 (Itemsnd' >czad) (3) Design cost 'per lane m le (Item 1) mule plied by the associated section design weight (Ite) for eaeh*design type andded together. The designcost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction _:.. t cost per lane;mile. This factor was determined through a review of the design -to - construction costratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For stateroadways, the design factors ranged from 10 percent to 14 percent, with a weightedaverage of 11 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for state roads was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. See Table C-10 for additional information. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 C-2 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table C-3 Design Cost Adjustment — State Roads 1) Design cost is estimated at 11% of construction Table C-10 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied weight (Item 2) for each design type and added( cost based on recent TIF studies in Right -of -Way by the associated section design together. The ROW cost reflects the total costof the acquisitionsalong a corridor thattwas necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to.widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. -< County Roadways •To determine a RQWs acquisition cost per; lane 'mile for county roads, TOA conducted a a rP review of recently completed R®W..acquisitionsand current ROW estimates along capacity �„-‘,„4.) L • expansion _projects in Indian River County and also reviewed ROW estimates from recent si transportation impachfee studies from otherSunties in Florida. For impact fee purposes, :tea the R®W.cost for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile.This factor was determined through a review of the ROW -to -construction cost km.. ratios for county road unit costs from recent local projects and in previously completed impact fee studie• s "-througho tpFlorida. For county roadways in Indian River County, the ROW factors range&fFbm 613ercent to 150 percent with a weighted average of 41 percent, as shown in Table C-11. This factor is consistent with the ratio of ROW to construction cost observed in other Florida jurisdictions, as shown in Table C-12. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for county roads was calculated at 41 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County C-3 Impact Fee Update Study Road Type,,,Design Design Cost per Lane Mile(1) Section Distribution Design Weighted Cost per - Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000 Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000 Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $196,000 1) Design cost is estimated at 11% of construction Table C-10 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied weight (Item 2) for each design type and added( cost based on recent TIF studies in Right -of -Way by the associated section design together. The ROW cost reflects the total costof the acquisitionsalong a corridor thattwas necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to.widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. -< County Roadways •To determine a RQWs acquisition cost per; lane 'mile for county roads, TOA conducted a a rP review of recently completed R®W..acquisitionsand current ROW estimates along capacity �„-‘,„4.) L • expansion _projects in Indian River County and also reviewed ROW estimates from recent si transportation impachfee studies from otherSunties in Florida. For impact fee purposes, :tea the R®W.cost for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile.This factor was determined through a review of the ROW -to -construction cost km.. ratios for county road unit costs from recent local projects and in previously completed impact fee studie• s "-througho tpFlorida. For county roadways in Indian River County, the ROW factors range&fFbm 613ercent to 150 percent with a weighted average of 41 percent, as shown in Table C-11. This factor is consistent with the ratio of ROW to construction cost observed in other Florida jurisdictions, as shown in Table C-12. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for county roads was calculated at 41 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County C-3 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table C-4 Right -of -Way Cost Adjustment — County Roads (1) ROW cost is estimated at 41% of construction cost based on recent IRC improvements in Table C-11 (Item 2). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by theaassociated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together: State Roadways Due to a lack of local acquisition data, the:RoW cost for state rod was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW -to -construction.. cost ratios for, state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout. Florida. For ,state roadways, the ROW factors ranged from 20 percent to 71 percent, with a weighted average of 44 percent. For purposes of this update=study, the ROW cost for state roads was calculated at 44 percent of a * t the construction costtper lanernile (see Table C 12rfor additional information). Table k-5 WayeCost Adjustment — State Roads 'Section Design 'Distribution(2) • Weighted ROW Cost per Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $880,000 34% $299,000 Rural Design $730,000 66% $482,000 Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $781,000 1) ROW cost•..is,.estimated'at 44% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in Table C-12 (Item (2) Source: Appendixt, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 C-4 Impact Fee Update Study Road Type ROW Cost per Lane Milem Section.Design -Cost Distribution's' Weighted ROW per Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $738,000 34% $251,000 Rural Design $613,000 66% $405,000 Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile .'$656,000 (1) ROW cost is estimated at 41% of construction cost based on recent IRC improvements in Table C-11 (Item 2). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by theaassociated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together: State Roadways Due to a lack of local acquisition data, the:RoW cost for state rod was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW -to -construction.. cost ratios for, state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout. Florida. For ,state roadways, the ROW factors ranged from 20 percent to 71 percent, with a weighted average of 44 percent. For purposes of this update=study, the ROW cost for state roads was calculated at 44 percent of a * t the construction costtper lanernile (see Table C 12rfor additional information). Table k-5 WayeCost Adjustment — State Roads 'Section Design 'Distribution(2) • Weighted ROW Cost per Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $880,000 34% $299,000 Rural Design $730,000 66% $482,000 Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $781,000 1) ROW cost•..is,.estimated'at 44% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in Table C-12 (Item (2) Source: Appendixt, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 C-4 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Construction County Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent local county roadway capacity expansion projects identified 12 improvements over the past five years. These 12 improvements (detailed in Table C-13) had a weighted average construction cost of approximately $1.80 million per lane mile. In addition to local data, a review of recently bid projects throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C -14a total of 49 projects from 13 different counties provided a weighted average cost pit mile of $2.18 million per lane mile. Based on this review, it was concluded that construction costs in Indian River County are lower than the costs observed elsewhere in the'state. Morebspecifically, roadways costs in Indian River County are approximately 83 percent of costs observed statewide. Due to the large amount of local data, the county roadway construction cost used to calculate the transportation impact fee was estimated at 80 million; per lane mile for urban -design county roadways. Tab ..0-6 Construction Cog -Adjustment — County Roads Road Type Urban Design Construction Cost per Lane Mile(1) $1,800,000 Section:Design :Distribution(2 34% $612,000 Rural Design $1,494,000 Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile 66% $986,000 $1,598,000 1) Source. fa/Wee-13. RR al,design is esti ated at 83% of urban design costs (see Table C-1) 2) Source: Appendix _C -Table C=17,(Items c and d) 3) Construction cost per lane m lei' (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight (Item 2);for each design type and added together. s. State Roadways A review of construction &cost data for recent local state roadway capacity expansion projects identified three improvements with an average construction cost of approximately $2.95 million per lane mile. • SR 5 (US 1) from S. of Oslo Rd to S. of Indian River Bend • SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of 82nd Ave to 66th Ave/CR 505 • SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of 1-95 to W. of 82nd Ave/CR 609 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 C-5 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study In addition to looking at local data, a review of recently bid projects located throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C-15, a total of 52 projects (including the three projects in Indian River County) from 26 different counties estimated a weighted average cost per lane mile of $2.44 million per lane mile. Due to the lower construction costs observed between local county roads and statewide county improvements, and the small sample size of local state road improvements, the e stimated state road construction cost was adjusted downward to provide a conservative e stimate for use in the impact fee calculation. This adjustment was based on the ratio of local county roadway improvements to statewide county:roadway improvements, which, as previously mentioned, is 83 percent. Therefore, thesweighte average construction cost per lane mile for all state road improvements (Including local and statewide data) was adjusted by 83 percent. Based on this analysis, a construction cost of $2.00 million per lane mile for u rban -design state roadways was used to calculate the transportation impact fee for Indian River County County. Table C-7 SA - Construction Cost Adjustment — StatelRoads , � amu, 4` 1) Source: Tab115. Rural>design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs Nath t �2) Source: AppendiiixC, Tabl4C-17 (Items c and d) 3) Construction cost 'per laneile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section ro'design weight (Itemt2) for each€design type and added together. Construction Engineering/Inspection County Roadways The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI -to -construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 4 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 9 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County C-6 Impact Fee Update Study Road Type Construction Cost per LaneConstr. (1) Mile Section Design Distribution'�' Weighted Cost per (3) Lane Mile Urban Design $2,000,000 ; 34% $680,000 Rural Design $1,660,000 i 66% $1,096,000 Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile $1,776,000 , � amu, 4` 1) Source: Tab115. Rural>design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs Nath t �2) Source: AppendiiixC, Tabl4C-17 (Items c and d) 3) Construction cost 'per laneile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section ro'design weight (Itemt2) for each€design type and added together. Construction Engineering/Inspection County Roadways The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI -to -construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 4 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 9 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County C-6 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table C-8 CEI Cost Adjustment — County Roads 1) CEI cost is estimated at 9% of construction cost bait -den recent TIF studies in Table C-16 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the,,associatednsection design weight ,mss.. (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The CEI cost factor for state roads was estimatedas a pe cr entage per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ratios for state road unit costs in<•.prevev`iously completed impact Florida. For state roadways, the CEI=.facto"rs ranged frompercent to 17 percent, with a weighted average of 111percent. For pur:.poses ofsthis.updatestudy, the CEI cost for state st\"��; roads was calculatedll percent of the construction cgstper lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information). • of thSconstruction cost CEI -to -construction cost fee studies throughout Road Type CE Cost Adjustment State Roads CEI Cost per Lane Mile(1) Section Design Distribution(2) Weighted CEI = Cost per Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000 Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000 Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $196,000 1) CEI cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in Nigr Table C-16 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County . C-7 Impact Fee Update Study Road Type CEI Costper.Lane Mlle(1) Section Design Distribution �2 Weighted CEI Cost per Lane (3) Mile Urban Design $162,000 34% $55,000 Rural Design $134,000 66% $88,000 Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $143;000 1) CEI cost is estimated at 9% of construction cost bait -den recent TIF studies in Table C-16 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the,,associatednsection design weight ,mss.. (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The CEI cost factor for state roads was estimatedas a pe cr entage per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ratios for state road unit costs in<•.prevev`iously completed impact Florida. For state roadways, the CEI=.facto"rs ranged frompercent to 17 percent, with a weighted average of 111percent. For pur:.poses ofsthis.updatestudy, the CEI cost for state st\"��; roads was calculatedll percent of the construction cgstper lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information). • of thSconstruction cost CEI -to -construction cost fee studies throughout Road Type CE Cost Adjustment State Roads CEI Cost per Lane Mile(1) Section Design Distribution(2) Weighted CEI = Cost per Lane Mile(3) Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000 Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000 Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $196,000 1) CEI cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in Nigr Table C-16 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County . C-7 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County c0 O cc a tv c0 i✓ LIf OSS +N c 0 U 1 0 1 u cc Ll tn 0 U c 00 01) 0 2 eimj c r O N U a, > -0 a c D v v .4J U (0 a E U c N a) 4-00 cnQ L 0 v (0 c 00 U January 2014 $3,385,978 10% 0 0 0 %t7T 1 %0T o 0 0 I%0T 0 0 IoOT %0T 0 03 %TT e o Tr ri o o c r4 c Ts-rri ei CO CC c to LA a) o r4 ri rio r•1 rowlTNI-1 N 8SZ'S60'£$ 000'ESE'E$ 000'OOZ'ES $2,170,000 000`00S`E$ I000'000'Z$ $2,847,800 000`006`Z$ 00 A N O N 0 0 ri Q71 m W N 01 01 N ri O O Q1 3 -r3 L o6 0 0 o xi re oo CO v cr o m v CV N C ri e. CC of a+ co I 0 0 VN} i%? i%? 1.4 1.4 iN/� N Ni. Yu $154,643 OET'ZL£$ $217,000 $420,000 M N l0 N ni !# l0 0 0 O o 00 1 O CO m N r -I rig . N O o 0 0 Ln O %D ° m r-I,� ,. Ln 0 000 o N O N ao c Qi o r* Qi Do o ri o m Qi ci pp ON a r-1 0 M N dm 0 ri ri O th 0 M V)• V)• m% V} M V" M 1/' N V? M V? N VT N V? M V)• m V} M V> �� f0 -0 c0 o cc 4-1.U c O C ai:r m .� O L 4.4 U) = M" rl, r dm r -I 0 0 0 ri h $3,079,0511, 8% 00 �I O "r-1. o r -i tri, o X00 cfea 0 F� 0 N K • 0 l0; 4 t� "r -i ri o N o c ri j9. %TT 4' %ZT o 0 ei ri • VA, h 0 01 Q1 0 00 Ln N V? Ln 009 N 00 N to ri- [/l rt N 0 ri ri Q1 V) 4740,000 N r`; ri Ln 10 &tN i% Qb0,0994Z$,, $2237, 000 000 OOT'ES O' 000`80L'T$ 0 0 o; O; crF N; ;V• ,t ` PP .. $2,400, 000 $2393,940 0 O 0 0 0 O i:ri NT Ln 00 Ln Ln N -LA N ri d• Q1 riN V1 to o Ol Ln ri V> 4v rr-1 sLfl Act N V1 0 0 O 00 N V1 S U c to .( 0 01 lm0 ct n 1-1 l0 M in 0£0'SEZ$ $246,324 $232,882 0 t.0 0 0 0, 0 O, f( t NJ V,1•. e 30 k0 ve “Lfl `t"el. ate,` ...' 435 _$308,000 0 LO Ln Ol ci; QQ O O 40: tori- � rN (4 n;10 01 ori N M V} $=264,000 O O; O, t&5. X00 o'N in N; N .cis. Olw 01 ri Q1 N V) 0 000 N ri N V7• E S LS 1 00 N;e1,:O1 ri in M N M V) ei Cr N in N ri V? L a); Citrus N ors c (o c O •L Pasco v a) . in Leon Nto L � L v Sarasota/North Port 0) City of Orla do, Average 41 cc Hillsborough/1 O u Ln 0 C ay L 0 -C an Ln O O > U O U O a O U 2 f0 u s- ca a) 2006 1 900Z 2006 2006 2007 N O N LOOZ 2007 2008 00 2009 CI) 2009 0 ri 2012 1 N N 0 N 0 N O N O N O N O N 2 eimj c r O N U a, > -0 a c D v v .4J U (0 a E U c N a) 4-00 cnQ L 0 v (0 c 00 U January 2014 • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County c 7 O u c ea N 4' c a E a) O Q E \ f c OC O u, 1 1 o el N %OST 0 to V %0Z ' CT CO 0 ID %ZT el LII el C Construction Costs $525,000 STL'988'T$ 000'OOL'T$ TZ£'60T'£$ $2, 504,423 o ori o ,.„. $7,605,993 coN - M Vaal N ZOZ'ZT8'£$ m N to m § N N oN V? N OOp tD Vf i ' 1 .0 N Y U CO l E. �3 1 1 CO Lr)N N 0 00£"85L"E$ $3,221,638 000'005'r$ N N m v1 V V y VD •V 01 va $10,567,637 $24,755,481 a w d;N C -0. Ln 3 Q; O 0.54 o in 6 1.00 mmv to N Ln .-1 ti 00 2.00 0000 m m N in to ri co 34.26 N'O , a a C "O 1 N -2a, N N N N M 51 1 ' S Q: M N 2/3 N OD �._.I ni V1 w2;OOOo J N N N iV1 o 2.04 L0 fl o�� N0 N 1.50 O n �uyi ;[� 4 co w� '�: Urban; Urbane Urban Urban Urban Urban ,Urban L CO :o 0 .0 O CCS 7 co CO Total C O pOa y. VN 1 a 0tA a c"'j D . Feature 2 to 3 Lan$ 1U to 2D Lane y c (pp J':J v c ...,. „....r4;N OO t0.'c .: v c m J O c'Oto 3 Lanes v c J v C s. nest 2U to 4D Lanes; 0to2U/2D M aJ c co J fa 0 ,1 ^J' 2U to 40;1 fV y.., O. O O e070F0 OPJ ..s0;O O iii 7 @ i N i CU N o_ -a a N a v a 4J u Completed Complete& Complete& 10) a Gl c a 0) GJ a a a G1• n CIO c.r,0O c ,tt c. o VVC' !o s cn v U U 00 u0 o u it* 50 O )0 e� 00 0O m aa > N W N 2009 m S O1 S cn S O --1..-1'6 O OTOZ 2011 N 0 el 2012 N 0el CVm To 20th Ave 17th Lane SW 21st St SW 66th Ave 74th Ave SR 60 Lateral H Canal Indian River Blvd 27th Ave 58th Ave in r ti in r a From _-- 27th Ave 3 N VI el N 25th St SW Extension IRSC 66th Ave V) L - el 2 VI 0.0 c Y Lateral H Canal 43rd Ave 43rd Ave 4th St SR 60 C • c . 3 �a N m a J O , _c ass vii > a _c VI > a L College Lane Rd in 66th Ave 53rd St 53rd St II '4d 'PH ols0 III '4d "P8 01s0 66th Ave 66th Ave L to Ot ID e 0. '. O In 0 1.06026 o tD O 0 ID O 0 el O o tD O 02025 02025 O LO O O Lt1 O 02031 tD0 0 v c 0 .Y U c 0 U T T � a✓ C 0 U .> L 0 c (a C a) o ` c tio to ri N U c to a (0 U O VIN a`) 0 Q] c H a) 0. D a) a) Ll Y U CD Q E rn U January 2014 • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study v CO O 7 t▪ w O ✓ a) a) Y 4L' O U a) a) 17 V▪ I a) a w) U COo. E c Ua) a) ti a) l 0 c O 0 4) c co c U C Loc. a) (0 0 0 Q L > 0 a) (0 c 1- 0 ri 0 January 2014 O NI O M %OZ C o O o O L (O O O 0 O DI O ri O O ri C O O (O O c c o V1 N M ri ri W O DI ri LI" r-1 N O ll1 c DC c y 0) o V) M lD in m M In N M dm d- $1,430,919 66L`OSO`E$ SZT'b81 `£$ 1000'£8£'£$ 000`00Z`E$ 000`OLT `Z$ 000'00S'£$ 000'000 'Z5 $2,847,800 $2,900,000 0 CO A N O O N Ltn 01 N 01 N 0 0 01 c0 Lei 06 R 00 0 to aL+ 000 cn '.0 M 00 0 m ct N v c.' c u in in i a in in in 4.4 06L'T SL'T $ OOS`LOS$ *al Z9b'1$ $954,5431 000`£9£'1$ 000'00E1$ NV 000'055$ 000 `005 `Z$ 000'SOE'T$ s88'80Z'T$ rn oo dw 0 o 00 1 1o rn rn N, 0 0 0 t°n1 6 v LD40; 00to oin tn2 . r ,ri in r -i r-; A RCD (0 (5 O ate+ c 7 O O • 6 ci". DO feu Cf 4....f1 (n U r. t00 l0 r e 0 M y 0 00 N ft, o N Ln $3,079,051 i,s. 26% %TZ%, 1ZO'116'Z$ 0 tN, N o N42%I�h. SCO r'D m O N 11:1-tQ1 P. • o` k t rd' u1 0 m Cil yik 26% 0 ri cr 0 t11 o in cr O :ri le m; d ute Cr Ln 00 to 01 rn ON oo u1 to CO 00 ti LD `�� qt 0 o O O 00 N N. c1, u1: fes; $2660, OQQ 0 0 0 d0 no :, O 01 to . $2,800,0001 �3 $1,708,000 000'00b,Z$$. 0 '.. $2,400,000 0 0 O O o • ;ty. 0 Cr 01 M: C1' km �.t�/} O s0 O t\, m ON iN/? N ri ,O °d'k :s ",,i- O ri t%� In ' lO in d 01 d r in tin t/)• t/} in $ U 0 CC $1,751,790 01 Ol U1 d` 00 N t/? M to 00 CO-. tip £ZT `S00`T$ N ri t11 d` t11 00 ri Ol Ol to in 0 O 0 O l.00. 601`858$ 00010Z-11$ 000'Z08$ 0 O'; Ot j0; m' ri: i/1= �O" kOO 0 ri O 0000 O 0 u1, tri 'tfl 0 O ri O; 0 O O fV > LD inr ozr, N ri 00 O 'l tt $1;080,000 t0;Tit O O: O' 00 O r -I i/? :Lf1 'N _LO go 01 N d e1; ti c i 00 1.4 d i!} In cry s Z. 3 O V L a) Crus t.n6 C o Pasco a Y _11�> L a) co Leon ter L a) >Ilod L a Sarasota/North Port • :: Orange amp° 10 'a 0 a) 24 [Hillsborough/1 c f O f0 a, a O V o i G0 Uo L (O — — CO 0 0 0 =2 (0 0) 2006 2006 0 0 2007 2007 0 0 2008 2008 2009 OTOZ TIOZ ri 0 2012 ZTOZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v CO O 7 t▪ w O ✓ a) a) Y 4L' O U a) a) 17 V▪ I a) a w) U COo. E c Ua) a) ti a) l 0 c O 0 4) c co c U C Loc. a) (0 0 0 Q L > 0 a) (0 c 1- 0 ri 0 January 2014 • M • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 1 L.Uunty c al O C J . 7 0O_� 4-0 11 C N Cft-. U $1,009,615 $3,773,430 000'OOL'T$ W 01 OO N 1-1 Vi CO CO id lMD 14 U N Cr, O1 ONO in' $3,802,997 $1,258,8391 $1,657,479 VVDD N V1 ON rdia N $3,405,474 $1,753,584 C _O :5 r in U C 0 u 0 0 V1 N .'-1 N V 00 . an I000'OOL'T$ N M O1 M N V R N N an 10001000"1$ OM1 O1 tri lel N tn N CO c-1 VMi Si rq O N N 1-1 co n1 vt $6,628,935 $20,773,3891 $60,077,800 ..-H 0 0 U L>. CO m i'E.n . . CO N NNM D N o o N rn 53,221,638 000'005'T$ 1� N N M 0 V Lf $245,445 ID v 01 LID N $10,567,637 524,755,481 CU N 10Mgt C d S Q V1 O 034 Vl O 0 '-I £SZ VI .--I .-1 W 0•00001 0 Nom�`` t0 'M M ',N N Vl ' lD 34.26 1 1 -co) al N N N N N V V M N m N N ai -Cili C C C N a al m —_ 0 2 N VI O N N O VI N 'O. l0 `V1 O N 3N .--1 .-1 Vl O �{ O N 05'0 0 N r Vi N 0 V1 VI r OI MI N n Ny A C Ege C Ck 0 to -• ti VOI 0 . C 'l d p al .0 ?O _ Urban `I Urban Urban Urban Urban c f0 .e O AUrba<� ,gip n c 1f0 . sem c. O �� `i`t0 4 '�� 2 4O .,-8y� 15� wunLy nvau nnNIv 10 2 to 3 Lanes4l �P c J 0 N O D .--1 al C k`f0 JJ N O 0 na VD ryt! ... O O v C vo J ate) C RI J 'M ro LO, 4 l`Lanes a qC t0 yyJ i •O 0 2U to 4D Lanes, 2U to 40 Lanes N 0 N O N 2 0 Zito 4 Lanes 1— TN rO l0 •r to Y Ca N 0) 0) al CL v 01 a) CL Completed Completed j Completed v al al CI v 01 a) CL v v al CL 10 a) a) a . `" ,Ongoing �pC 3C lap O .10.0 C fCO t O U U 0 00 0 o I -ca CLI t LD 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 0 0 N OTOZ ti 0 N 2012 0 N 2012 120th Ave 17th Lane SW 21st St SW 66th Ave 74th Ave SR 60 Lateral H Canal CO a) K C m C 27th Ave 58th Ave 16th St 49th St Construction 1 27th Ave H N H ti N 25th St SW 'Extension IRSC a) a .0 lD LO N L D e--1 Kings Hwy Lateral H Canal 43rd Ave 43rd Ave 4th St o Lip K N C O a _ U. W o Vl y C�pp J .0 .-1 N ° a r �+ N 20th Ave SW College Lane Rd Le) s tel 1-1 166th Ave 53rd St 53rd St _ L a K o N O III '4d "pd ols0 66th Ave 66th Ave tt t CU O` CL 05013 LO o 0 06026 I 8o4 0 0 06021 02025 SZOZO ri O 0 0 T£OZO 8 0 C O CO 7 COU 0) CU •F) •N U CO Q E a) L 0 a) c 7 O nelfa niaMAk •max Waal' Ca3d x - U O 4- 3 3 t on 4O 3 N CU 0.0E N c O N L � > 0 Q > D C N LL u CO a E 0 c vi a) N f0 U VI O Vl _ay W a) 0 a) c H January 2014 • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study eo 0 LL 4O 0▪ 0 O L O 1 N 1- 4O N O W u 7.441 C7 C GO 41 F • > O 0. A cc C O V O ✓ O 7 N O 4.) 0_ _d m .ni C O$ O 2 '' N 0 0 an 1 51,664,1221 'it O N n N an m O cl n N 1 $2,499,9781 8 S tr. m �D tn. m N N .r N T N p�� 0,1 Vl 51,322,855 52,036,548 53,145,340 03 m O VI $3,187,5251 O 8 N O T in O 8 N O 8 V• 1O V• .m-1 cn VI N CO o H 01 N m tel pmOt� N tO % n N vt .-i gi 52,469,791 {_ $4,458,5301 ni �mif N O,Oi_ O N m Si O V O nib m ✓t pqm. O IS N_ O N O 8 O N n N Va n N an0 vt 52,815,0821 01 O O vt 0 n in in Vi 14 N n1 1-4 N 53,903,657 OD ur - N. N Construcilon Cost $12,035,894 I 51,560,483 03 8 V 01 •a•ry $ .4 $ g me `rv° 1 $10,099,911 25 rgn nnV e CD m$ 8 1 53,017,443 n N 8 m fl r‘i n oqi m -4 cl n o vmi e q< 25 4.4 $5,966,000 $16,000,000 $14,720,000 U1 m CV '• 4IO 40 n bS $14,576,3931 `sa & $18,918,599 1 523,184,354 m a46 nat°il.inn. n ••"• $ n ,7i mNI.. 'yvyo� �i anisry CV m r in 40DS 4 6 510,327,3831 8 m 8 m- � rmiLel `� ^- e n8 o in �o-. o .4N 14 o uo r 521,392,0391 c 73 IC m 1 8?8w888gr8<ui8S o n m m r o 1 ri o .1 N n n 5.00 1.30 2.00 ? .1 1 14.80, Z888 m N r 2.24 422222r8moao.o .1 n in o m N •n a vi o n88888888 vi n n n ac o n 0 0 -. 2& nv I"•=t 44 01 a-.ry a n n n n (-4 v ry n NI rn CV n n n n n n n a c n I 2 n n n n n n n n n n ry n ry n n n n n n r4 cm ,4-4 64 I EEO R .+ 5 m 8 56'0 ^ m o m e J o o 8 o m .. Ro 0.65 1.00 o J n .1 9 2.30 o r o d CV m .1 o r4 e m SmN$m$m o n ui n o ni r4 .1 m Q .4 o o $ r4 m88ryNnNn .. ni ni 14 o n uegin u81sacj Urban Urban a > Urban Urban j Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban fUrban 1 Suburban > > e? e,1Urban 'Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban > Urban Urban Urban j c a N Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban 1 Urban Urban 1 aew," Urban I i o o Oto2 1 2to4 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 4 to 0 n 2 too n 2to4/6 0.0:0 y /61 I 2to41 2 to • 2to4 0 n 0 e 0 IN e 0 IN CO v e 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 m 0 n n 2 to 1 0 n 0 n 2to4 0 e 0 MI 0 n 0 o 4to6 74 n n 0 CV 0 IN I 0 IN 4 to LLL I Status. Bid Bid m m Bid m _ f _a a_ a v_ mw�' _ _ 5 _ m 9•40 m m Bid ABid a_ m Bid m m m m 67 _ m _ FA _ m m Bid m m Bid m m 0 m m m Bid 00 Bid I a moo Bid I a m a m `� m 11 j g g g g g g 1'L g itptpOO'FCy 0 g g g 8 2008 g �PQj O tom$O.1$.00 O O '.O gg .O .O O1p'�Y g �j O K�j-✓�j O �j O g Opp O ppf N 2010 1 N N• N 0102 O N 0 2011 ry N N N N O r-4 o IN O eV O Cc 2013 1 �j O O To Davis Blvd oa C 1 Pipkin Rd Providence Blvd N. of Moody Bridge CR 319 v .42 , E 2 Linebaugh Ave Orange Co. Line Butler Ridge Dr 5R417 1Tradeshow Blvd ae. Winkler Rd AMA IA&W Bulb Rd star V (Challenger Pkwy Nat\ t,0 _ f LL r 3 _c -, (Orange Co`Une»., Buenaventura BIOdre\ x = X+ 64 y o -ro — H t-1 r .!> = w — a d t 'o o — a (Debrecen Rd \'.l";"Y 1 Tatum Rd 11.iA3 --. w N t� I W. of Camp Keais Rdra. Ne.1 i — le Bell Rd "A 1 2 gtimnri in d?of Winkler Rd Ext. Jones Loop Rd`s' be-soto Rd Gateway Blvd Corporate Blvd Sand Mine Rd 72nd St Starkey Rd N. of Sycamore Dr Notre Dame Blvd S. of Orange Blvd Duff Rd 1 en = Peruvian Ln Green Blvd 1 IPsnI — a — w From Rattlesnake Hammock Rd IE.F. Griffin Rd Ewell Ave Deltona Blvd S. of Sabal Creek Blvd US 301 River Pines Apts Douglas Rd °- v Ficquette Rd Ocoee Apopka Rd International Dr A&W Bulb Rd Pine Ridge Rd r c 0 2 Hiawassee Rd S. of SR 50 President's Dr Central Florida Pkwy US 192 FL Turnpike Crescent Lakes Livingston Rd Palm Springs Blvd-!t:?u5`Si ?' Douglas Rd „"„L•{ ' ✓ a 5 E - Coburn Rd1.\ 4 ! — Ilmmokalee'Rd$3w. �C'S'31 Oil Well Gride`Rif i•.'b. `' '',Avalon Park Blvd '�ICv e. 'McMullen Rd 11F$,:kk, NW 64th Ave / SW 81st Ave\`s?'" di d c CO �CC 2' C 6/ f Richardson Rdt<\ Chamberlin Pkwy.?; 6- m CC ,n Magnolia Park Ct \,111;\!"F Tri -County X41+5 Starkey Rd (CR 1) W. of Lyons Rd m in e D M Canal ° = tD US98 SR40 Golden Gate Blvd Description Santa Barbara Blvd Ext. Silver Connector Rd County Line Rd Debary Ave S. Williamson Blvd (Ph. ll) CR 466 (Segment A) Race Track Rd (Ph. l) John Young Pkwy CR 535 (Segments C and E) cc 0 0 tti u 1Destination Pkwy Gladiolus Dr(Ph. l) 'Gladiolus Dr(Ph. II) Toledo Blade Corridor Clarcona-Ocoee Rd Woodbury Rd Sand Lake Rd Taft -Vineland Road Extension Narcoossee Rd Osceola Pkwy (Ph. I) Poinciana Blvd (Ph. II) Old Lake Wilson Rd (Ph. I) Bruce B. Downs Race Track Rd (Ph. IV) , Fruitville Rd (Ph. I) Fruitville Rd (Ph. II) Colonial Blvd (CR 884) IOiI Well Rd (Segment 2) Oil Well Rd (Segment 4) ''Alafaya Tr Boyette Rd (Ph. ill) m (Six Mile Cypress Pkwy ac 0. a North Cattlemen Rd Daniels Pkwy Rouse Rd CR 5355eg. A Goodman Rd Bryan Dairy Rd SR 806 (Atlantic Ave) Seminole Pratt Whitney Rd Burnt Store Rd (Ph. l) Seminole Pratt Whitney Rd Kathleen Rd (CR35A) (Ph. II) Bartow Northern Connector (Ph. I) Tymber Creek Rd Collier Blvd (CR 951) .+ n N N N n n N N N N .1 41 .1 N N N N N N N N r- n— .1 41 - 41 N I 7 O 11 .1 1-0 .r N N N .1 O Q .+ O .-• .4 N .1 �r c O— u ud O6 6 n --J n 1 Hillsborough o0 04/Cc = i 000 CO ro 1 Orange 0 al 4/ 4.4 -0 to u Orange Orange m nO O Orange v OO Osceola O 4.3 O 0/ o 112n0Jogsll!H 1 CO O ± o NN 4.41GG0 i. 4.4 J du_O u v Orange 00 a6. ± Ou m Lee -p In Lee 1 Orange Orange V Oa — — Palm Beach Palm Beach cli — t co A m E o. n 0 d N 0=..F >+ d A o u m Zr./ 10 CCL Cc m 0 C E (N • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study n o f§ c Is 71.4 Q� L g I A O 8 u O, 4.0 - ea m b -i .en $2,565,854 51,284,286 52,127,762 $1,314,125 $2,867,860 _$2,570,388 re 8 N $1,277,0491 S NNNNNNNNN 8 w m Oti m b__m o ry 1 51,158,5321 NN $5,546,7871 ,s}, $3,927,2031 8 vxv7 .vi mni• ry 52,442,6211 54,757,149 $3,276,0981 1 59,660,5241 8 NNNNNNNNN:xan04A 11:4A462416: A4 m en a IN 8^ w b e �$ -_,J0082§ co 0 7;.Cvaax77�xv.,. rel 0 w�tio � N '$14,953,562 �_ $35,929,914 qv^ 0 N 1 - 57,366,557 Ors. 0 1 Nla0$VImgtrv0�0 � RI 1N, 0 O NN 1$ 6 47 n 2: g �Nm 8 �i O ry co 1 53,856,688 Qeu m man^ sH N n 1 $7,145,2121 e co NN.n M .�o a m 514,782,862 rv^ N �. $16,278,889 0 4-4 015 NN A e. n un tel 0 c NNN w n g 58,694,472 N $12,8550921 _ $14,025,932 N mm NN ni$3m ,4�,' N m N $5,167,891 �i nix -- m �N �7i NV ^� v Vt • C 'a iv ~am 1 24.12 m v n 0 0 ry of 8ffi N edm 8.20 [ 2.80 8 m m A 2 .+ m 4 W 3.02 3.44 2.60 .i .. n M .. .. n �o .-i ^ .. ^ - W m .-1 %a Si r m ri 1 Total (Adjusted Indian River County Cost per Lane Mile) 1 ja ry v N N re Al n r•0 N N N N N Al r• re 474 N N N N N N to AIN 4 N N N v n A4 4 -1 reN N NN N .e Al Al n eV N N N N Length 2.08 .O .i 2.15 m m o$ m ni 8 8 ry F ry v 1.40 Si .+ „ .4 0.98 1.78 4.36 1 .+ 1.72 1.30 e O O 1.48 1 v m 5.87 0.72 m m .+ 8 O m m O .4 r4 5.07 n .. .r 0 in 0.45 m 8 of 8 n 8 .r 8 .-i 8 O r m 3.45 8 m 0.40 CO ti re .. Design Urban 1 Urban J Urban 7 Urban J Urban O m J J I Urban Urban 1 Urban Urban Urban O D / S J J Urban 1 Urban Urban Urban 1 7 J J J J Urban Urban J J Urban Urban 1 J Urban Urban Urban Urban J J Urban 1 J Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban h Urban N 1v ry ry [ 4to6 4to6 p N e v'Q 45-4O v %` 2to4T 2 t&4": ry ry 2 to 4 to O tot N i li4to6 n0 4 t 6 v N e m Al AI AI to et 4 to e O to2 1 N 2to4 0 v 2 too v v e N N 2 too m Bid Ca - 1 Bid m m m m m m fBid 1 Bid .o �._Bid 1 m Bid'' i ` m Bld m Bid 1 m m Bid m m Bld m m Bid Bid Bid m m Bid Bid Bid m Bid 1 m m � 1 > in gQ 6 qQ 6 �+ 6 `C= 8 C? �. Al f N Jr, 444 QQ re 6 re 5'� E &�+ Ai D4- 0 n s: n o re I 2010 0 em ra, r� .y 04-4 re 2011 1 ItOZ 2011 0 de r 2011 N n n ry 2012 Al n N n 2012 1 re et re o N N r o N N n n n n ry n S. end of Choctaw Bridge IN. of Gibsonton Rd S. of Indian River Bend 66th Ave/CR 505 • c Walden Rd IW. of 82nd Ave/CR 609 u i Desoto Rd a [Six Mile Cypress Pkwy CR 675 529'S. of CR 42 ... °'+. tic ^ zv5i C S. of Commerce Rd ef.144•1a/ SR 10 (US 90) �k'S•Pw �S [Marion County Line _ h 1 W. of Hancock Rdsi'vs o 5. of Moor's Lodge\ "C`•?:+. N. of CSX R/R Bridged ''Y:•). San Carlos Blvd NiA N:`of CR 5404 \am 14 2 Edgewood Dr dn.^A.. '04 N. of Knighti Griffin 'V4 :( T' el � 3315 44 D 4 - E. of Parsons Ave W. of Radlo Rd QA's•» Reed Ellis Rd• , 0.3 miles N. of Ai -Orn lake Sof Countryside Blvd. N. W. of.CR 587/Mariner Blvd W. of Good Homes Rd Old'Jennings Dalton Lane n Dr iss Rangeline Rd 1 W. of Australian Ave o .nm N. of Cidco Rd Fee Ave 1 N. of Fowler Ave cc 0 1 E LL �., IS. of Balm Rd m O� u a' i 'Good Homes Rd [Dempsey Mayo Rd To m 3 'Wood St a' r 1.Tower Rd US 41 (5. of Alico) Erie Rd Sumter Co. Line NW 72 Avenue j A o i N . of CSX R/R Bridge Gulf Rd MP 5.860 N . of CR 204 ¢ - E w` i E. of Grand Hwy SR 655 (Recker Hwy) co cc .n S. of Moor's Lodge Corkscrew Rd S. of Manor Dr /r72` Okeechobee County Une "'lam 1 Brooks St 4yr v `o Z m W > 3 re a — MartirfLotner.Kingli.'Blvd 1 W.'of.Mighview E?of Santa Barbara Blvd"t04d. 7 v j 6 — cu ,E m Reed EllisRd '1 N. of CR 576/Sunset Pnt �6 d - M°' 3 7A 9 m SI E. of West Oaks Oakleaf Plantation Pkv&X, 1 Birchwood Pkwy Nk{`s.'N CR 833 Winkler Ave _ W. of Congress Ave N. of Ritchie Rd 1 N. of CR 540A sr c_ o i Melbourne Ave A ea m E ea 15 vi Littleton Rd 1 TEE sn EB LIS uopdpaseo 1U5 301 (SR 43) ^ X85{ cc 0 en o cc 0 cc 0 SR 10(Mahan Drive) SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) TOE sn 8e O L cc D [SR 739 0 Itoc sn) s£ asI (Perimeter Rd U5 27 SR 281 (Avalon Blvd) SR 281 (Avalon Blvd) cc h ISR 35 (U5 301) cc H [SR 50 SR 559 Extension SR 281(Avalon Blvd) SR 281 (Avalon Blvd) >> 0 US 98 (Bartow Hwy) CR 39/AlexanderSt ISR 688(Ulmerton Rd) ISR 60 (Van Fleet) cc N SR 574 (MIK Blvd) SR 84 (Davis Blvd) in cc 0 in cc 0 (ssas)61sn SR 823/NW 57th Ave SR 50 (Cortez Blvd) 8488 cc 0 cc 0 0 0 cc 0 �SR 739 1 A cc N SR710/Beeline Hwy I US 98 (SR 35/SR 700) N cc SR 507 (Babcock 5t) 1 SR 41 (US 301) 22To 0 H is �,,. • Neem .. 1 r....�n.O.. mm et an m vi.. m m.... v..^^...n^.. in Ln N.O r.n ry Al.... L ui v.. . in in N.. u ! 1 Hillsborough 1 Indian River = 1 Orange Indian River ne n I Sarasota Pasco Lee i Miami -Dade d Santa Rosa Santa Rosa St. Lucie 1 Sumter 3 Polk 1 Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Lee Polk St. Lucie a- 3 a 1 Polk 1 9 I Hillsborough 1 v° >> d Miami -Dade 1 1 Orange 1 i i J E co 1 Palm Beach 1 d o 1 Brevard 1 Brevard Hillsborough 2 47 7.4 ai O CO a a mco n v 0 n n a u 0 a c d v 0 0 O u O c v CO .o Q Oa v a O nii mA z c c c c • • • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 .O 0 4-1 4) r0 �H W 0 u 1 L O u f0 LCL 4-+ u 4) 0. e_ dA 1 4) _ W _ O .470u elmat _ 0 u ro T c O 0 G) c ro La c (.3 c N a) CO U 0 1 ) Q 03 > 0 a) To c 1- ri 0 January 2014 O ++ R CC u o 0 %Lt %St %0t 03 O %Ot 0 0 0 IMT 0 0 0 0 ro ON CO O O 01 O 01 c e rrl tn > 14 -13 RI CC 4) s+ ro in s: cn=0 0rst ' 0 $3,385,978 N N lOD CO N ri co c10 tC44 %i Ln N $2,380,000 000'00Z'E$ 1000'OOS'E$ l000`gv`z$ $2,000,000 $2,847,800 000`006'Z$ 0 O 0 0a1 N O� O tec O 0 N O^ 0�1 co 0rfti 0 M r I 00 est in LJJ u $354,442 t ,„ $474,464 ,zt, $442,849 N 1 l0. ,1;, 000'0ZE$ oo8'tt7Z$ 1000'08t$ 8EE`LOE$ KO 0 0 0 00 1 v ? O. 0 O N 00 tri rci V} V} V} V} V} L} V} In m 3 - CO O 0 0 O cc w u V =N' u 9, $t ' to '0 '.F. %L 4' tS0'6L0'E$ 0 0 $2,651,77815W ,9%, 0; X50 " i , 0 0, . essg O e -i p. rp -ft C 0.$0. C1 N 0' -1. - t �4 _ . `a ,a r•; A �' O o, r re,) fV $3,100;00.0. •o o 0' cl' nri CCI' o o° ra $1,708;000 to �O v .-1 in up N.. V} lie 000'0t?L't$ M`: ,rn. =. AD *lD N' .n 0r1 Ln o co In 00 lr1 111 N' V} V} o O' O -1 1-1 01 re./ V} to ' 00 N v} 19'Z$ Ivea+. N V} u YJ u v rft. Ln 00 0 00 'CiO $215,534 rl ye l0 r -I d V} 0 0 O dm' N 0 l0 UD co'lD CO N V} $372,400 OOL'EZZ$ 0 0 o CO c-1 V} OOE'ttt$ 0,0 o: a T..-. -00; 0; Ms VV 'lD Ln $201 0 0 o (..0n' D 0 - , ., gym: oo Ln ei N V} • r i L lDI 'rN{ rV} r -i N :in: 01 Ol 00 N rl V} V} ri--i ei=-1 V} c -1 in, ;•2 to _ 0 u L_ 0) i Pasco Lake Flagler ro Leon ter L 0) L v Sarasota/North Port Osceola City of Orlando ant Average it" Hillsborough/1 V) O > }' 0 0 O U O a O 0 im [0 Y L.0 O o 2007 LOOZ LOOZ 2007 00 0 0 CO 0 0 2009 2009 2009 OtOZ ttOZ NI 1"1 0 2012 0 0 ro T c O 0 G) c ro La c (.3 c N a) CO U 0 1 ) Q 03 > 0 a) To c 1- ri 0 January 2014 • • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Roadway Capacity As shown in Table C-17, the average capacity per lane mile was based on the projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Indian River County. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County C-15 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study ro a C 11:1 O r 0 G N C H Cl N C Imo 0 C c C Zit J ~ m O C 0 8 0J O: c 0 O • N U 0 d r0 • c4.7.: c v n C C V E ti C a CO• 0 O 05 > V O N C i T CO c c C C H � tN0 C 86,4301 al 27,7921 W t0 CO 45,198 62,5321 00 N m .m-1 O V Q1 N O 10 34,740 14,765 72,900 31,860 to Ol 93,4831 18,090 .-I lD m 35,8021 00 Ol rl 39,780 59,7781 m m O1 01 Vl N el rl CO rl m O N o ey N Vl n CO a m 01 1- O m Ne N !Unfunded Needs . .. 1 8 CO l0 to el N CO 13,8961 N 001 N CO N Ol Cr el gg00000o e l 0 N e l O N rrnn N rl rmn N rl m N el N Q rti 10L£'LT C co cr el N tO to el OL£'LT OL£'LT N�mmc m N rl In m V tri el el 01 tri el CO of el co al 0 00 .-1 18,090 mmm CO Oi el CO Ol OO t71 '1el 14, 80 mmm8N m 01 Lr ui rV el CD ui el N C l CO LK m 15,930 15,930 m Ql tri 00 rl O NN e4 O !OL£'LT 0m N CO Id el .-1 CO 0i u1 O m to 1 31,950 m C71 ri CO m$ CO ri CO CO N N 0 0011 e7 m 0 CON Lr CO 35,8201 31,950 31,950 31,9501 m 0 V) O v tri eel el 10£6'ST O ONO tri CO O 0~1 rri to O 0011 rri to 35, 820 35, 820 0 CON tri CO 8 u1 we e -f 15,9301 15,930 m 01 tri e l pp00 N lo rti N CO vi CO m 01 tri noo.1 m 01 tri el m a1 ui e l O Ol 0i to pN O 01 of to u0i 01 ri m N el pp O NJC7Ol CO tri m 0 0 co ai m 0 0 co of CO 0 CO to o el 0 CO to e el 0 CO Ln o el 0 00 N NJ el 0 ul v el 15,930 1 20,149 1 14,580 0 to o eel 0 to d - 0 0 0 0 Q1 tri e1 35,8201 35,8201 0 al Lc; el 0 01 tri el 15,9301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 8 W ai Cr) 0i m 0 0000 v el 31,950 15,930 Lane Description From To Improvement Length LanesMiles Added Added N8aN8NN888 ei CO OO m .-1 tC n V to N 4.00 1.70, 8 O 4.00 N el 9.40 2.00 4.00 888N88880888 m rV R CO IN IN V le CO O• .--I N 6.00 N8 m el 5.20 2.00 N N N N N N N N N IN 'NJ IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V N N N N N N N N N O 0 V N8to '7 ei 0 O O m fix's O:8 .r1'1 Se yN 845 O'1 rel N O 8 to L. 2.00 8NO O rV . 1 i:. 8O N rl 88O '1 N V ei 888 .-1 N N N N O ? rl 88888tom CO N O N .-1 l0 0 V ID 0 V Cc 0 N 2 to 4 A 17 O N - V, ;O NN +21o4 O. C N it { C N Om N a. C ;N N O N O 1' N. 0;00.:01#.0 O '''i rrYy�. l0 V 1 \O O O N 72.to 4 VN 0 N '4rr Oto2 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 V 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 Oto2 1 l0 0 0 LO 0 0 2to4 '0 0 V ri 0 N a. 'N Ai St. Lucie Co. Line CR 510 66th Ave T sn Intercoastal Waterway ocC 3 158th Ave O o 69th St 1‘1 0 u1 U Barber Str„?s..:a 69th St a CR 510 r Laconia St ' Heidi Battier Bridge 451h St th-Ave / ?t 58th Avesx _ St'Lucie' b Line •Wiz' / >. Q `L :CO 01 j � CD ar '¢ L D ID 66th Ave;, X253 a N 00 el 0 to Z v E C) LL' 15L.Lucie:Go Line Oslo Rd:" 4th St"' 20th Ave Shuman Dr CR 512 Intercoastal Waterway 1 CR 510 66th Ave v1 -c i Fm 'N '� !Highland Dr 53rd St in cc U 03 L l0 to el to D O1 _ Ln O1 _ 1St. Lucie Co. Line O O 141st St 69th St CR 510 26th St 69th St CR 510 CR 512 20th St Merril Barber Bridge 27th Ave 43rd Ave 't ; ' €F� T O O 66th Ave' , 58thAve Noy 58th Ave � .N., 66th Avert; .c °o I, PN olsO 8th St 18th St Old Dixie Hwy CR 510 Shuman Dr Q cc in u1 58th Ave 1 Tsn1 rl 015831 CR 510 t~ll Y U 1CR 512 d' 0 O 143rd Ave 43rd Ave 66th Ave > Q L t0D 166th Ave 82nd Ave 82nd Ave any PuZ81 ct -o c N C) tY !Indian River Blvd Indian River Blvd 25th St SW 26th St 27th Ave 4th St 12th St 53rd St 53rd St 69th St 58th Ave Q .c n 98th Ave 5th St SW el j el j CR 510 eN-1 V) U 26th St 1 0) s Cl 1 County County County C O U 1 County > C 7 8 County 1 County County County County County County County County 1 County County County County > C > 0 County County County County County County 1 County County 0 co to 1 State County County County c 0 O • N U 0 d r0 • c4.7.: c v n C C V E ti C a CO• 0 O 05 > V O N C i T CO c c C C H � • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study C 0. 0 to 0 0. ro C C F N • CU C C C C t0 C 0 N O u U1 O m 0 rro C 0 0 u a t0 C 1 1 Lane it I�Vehide Miles' 1 Jurisdiction Lanes Initial II Future Added 1 Description From To Improvement Length Miles 1 of Capacity 1(County/State) I �- Added Added Capacity I Capacity I Capacity II Added 1. Un unded Needs . . O ^ C O CO C V 01 00 .� 0011 V m 47,2861 Om1 tl1 .-1 Om1 ter .-i ID O1 1-. 15,9301 47,790 47,790 CV 00 O1 CO CO O1 CO CO .ttO ti CO n4 CO tD -4.W • 191,352 0o0 N N e1 W N N e1 Q 00 to O e1 to Q e•1 po W N N el m al V1 el 15,930 m 01 to e1 m 01 V1 e1 m 01 Via e1 em11 01 V1 .•1 to Ol to el COC 01 In e1 O 0n0 N 1-1 O 00 n N e1 O CO Q el O CO O e1 O CO Oml Ni. el O CO Oml to e1 O V1 e1 O Oml V1 N O Oml VI N O Oml V1 el O m V1 el 15,930 0 m N e1 CO .0 u '0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ** O~1 01 **�pp p m 7.00 7001 2.601 4.80 7.40 2.00 88 tV ri 2.00 88 LD LES 5.00 5.00 2 6 N 201.90 19.00 o R N 146.70 N N N N N N N N N N //,, �N il N N County Roads: State Roads: Urban Section Design: J Rural Section Design: IAu�i m tel m .-1 a (V 3.70 N. 1.00 ACr e m Cr; 0S7 N 8:888 . 17 'O O to2 O to2 N O O N O O O to.2!Y{,', N C0 O N • 0 O MN N 0 0 0 to 2 ri ;N ,O 0 N 0 0 `N to . 0 ab - i+t4 ,. 69th St 69th St CV 1.11 U Roseland Rd Fellsmere N -S Rd 2 174th Ave > a C W 33rd St 74th Ave i(} 82nd Ave > a -0 c W 58th Ave r ^?th.. 4 CU vC > a ,CC 1 1CR 512 .NI CC U Airport Perimeter Rd t sr) CR 512 66th Ave 74th Ave 26th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 20th Ave 20th Ave el If CCN z N E OA W LL Fellsmere N -S Rd 2 Fleming St Airport Perimeter Rd Fellsmere E -W Rd 33rd St 33rd St 74th Ave 12th St - V1 ') e1 Sth St SW to L M e1 17th St SW County County County County ECounty County > C > O U County County > c>. > O U County 1 > c 0 O U County Total (All Roads) c 1- 0 el c. C y v CO 0 O 0 co • L_ a 3 I! L• TIt»b O c• V a m z o c y 1 co O ,O N > tU c •= O y v c > d c v Cc 7 cu ti O • 0 z • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Appendix D Transportation Impact Fee •Component Calculations Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Currently, in addition to the capital support that ultimately results from State fuel tax revenues, Indian River County also receives financial benefit from several other funding sources. Of these, County fuel taxes that are collected in Indian River County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) ofithe Florida Constitution. • The State allocated 80 percent of this tato Counties after first withholding amounts issued pursuant to provisions of the State New pledged for debt service on bonds:. Constitution for road and bridge purposes; percent surplus canubesupport � • The 20used to su r j` p ttle; road construction �p�ogram within • Counties are not required to share the proceeds ofthis tax with their municipalities. 45.3/4 the county. 2. County Fuel Tax (61C/gallon). • Tax appliesfto every net gallon of motorarid diesel fuel sold within a county. Ver • Primary purposeeof these funds is to help reduce a County's reliance on ad valorem taxes;*4,44 w.r.. Proceeds areAodae usedtfor transportation -related expenses, including the reduction bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights-of-way; . the construction, reconstruction, operation, n.H maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportationpurposes • Counties are nottrequired to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 3. 1st Local Option Tax (up to 6C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County D-1 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. Each year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuektax revenues for each county in the state. The 2013-14. data represent projected fuelttax distributions to Indian River County for the upcoming fiscal year. In the table, theuel, tax revenue data are used to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel)that should be used to estimate the "equivalent pennies" of other revenue sources:JT)61e D-1 shows>the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calcu at n of the weightedaverage for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure .takes into account the differing amount of NW revenues generated for the various types of gas taxrevenues. The weightedaverage figure of approximately $0.74 million estimates the annual revenue that one penny of gas tax generates in Indian County. Table D-1'Wa.$` =. Estimated Fuel Tax9Distribution=Allocated to1Capital Programs for ,= radian Rive rCounty COI/panties, FY2013-14111 Tax 1 ConstitutionaIFuel Tax Amount of Levy L per Gallon Total Distribution Distribution Per Penny Awe.— Tere4. . $0.02 $1,592,578 $796,289 ;County Fuel Tax $0.01 $701,978 $701,978 hstocal Option (1-6(cents) :,. x, $0.06 $4,364,623 $727,437 Total "C . 1. $0.09 $6,659,179 WeightedAverage : $739,909 (1) Source: Florida Legi la ure's Office of Economic and Demographic Research taeo/http://edr.sfus ent/local-government/reports/ (2) The weighted average°distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100). Gas Tax Credit A revenue credit for the annual gas tax equivalent expenditures on roadway capacity expansion projects in Indian River County is presented below. The two components of the credit are as follows: Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 D-2 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • County gas tax equivalent pennies • State gas tax expenditures County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies A review of the County's historical roadway financing program (FY 2008-2013) and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2014-2017 indicates that a combination of sales tax revenues, fuel tax revenues, impact fees, developer contributions, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. With the Countylocal option sales tax set to expire in 2019 and the re -adoption and dedication to;etransportation unknown, a sales tax credit was given only for programmed expenditures in'the CIR.: If the sales tax is re -adopted in 2019 or a different revenue source is allocated4o transportat onscapacity to replace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures maykneed to be revised. As shown in Table D-2, Indian River County receives :a.cr:edit of 5.6 pennies4oybr the portion %of non -impact fee revenues (exc udgmsales tax) dedicated to capacity expansion projects a.. - such as new road construction, laneladditions))and intersection improvements. <a. County Gas Tax/EquivalentPennies Excluding Sales Tax _ — �.. Source - - --�- Cost of Projects ( Number of Years Revenue from 1 Penny. . Equivalent1 Pennies(4) Pro�ected'sCIP Expendits$(FY 20142017)Iii �'� �: ure °$18,612,373 4 $739,909 $0.063 HistoncakCounty Expenditures (FY 200812013)(2) $22,996,416 6 $739,909 $0.052 Total ^. $41,608,789 10 5739,909 .$0.056 (1) Source: Table D-5 (2) Source: Table D=5 (3) Source: Tab e D=1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 As shown in Table D-3, Indian River County receives a credit of 11.1 pennies for the portion of non -impact fee revenues (sales tax ONLY) dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements. In the impact fee calculation, this credit will only be applied for five years, as the sales tax will not be considered a recurring revenue source for transportation capacity Improvements. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 D-3 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table D-3 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (Sales Tax ONLY) (1) Source: Table D-6 (2) Source: Table D-6 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided • by number of years divided by revenuefrom 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 10 -yea period4(. om FY 2009•to FY 2018) were reviewed. For calculation purposesthe 10 -year period."was broken into two increments; historical (FY 2009-2013) and future: (f.Y2014-2018). ^ Information on historical projects' funding and the future year estimates w.as obtained from the FDOT Work Programs and the County's FY 2014-2018CTransportation Improvement Program (TIP). The use of a. 10 -year period, for purposes of developing a State credi 4or roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable credit, as it accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. The total cost of the capacityaadding projee for the five-year "historical" period and projectechin the five-year <Transportation Improvement Program are as follows: Cfr • FY 2009=2013 work plan equates to 20.5 pennies tak "Fr • FY 2014-2018‘work pinequates to 10.5 pennies The combined weighted average over the 10 -year period of state expenditure for capacity - adding roadway projects results in a total of 15.5 equivalent pennies, which is a slightly higher state credit than what is observed in most other counties. Table D-4 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table D-7. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 D-4 Impact Fee Update Study Source Cost of Projects hRevenue Numberof Years — 4 1 from 1 II I3� F —Penny-- $739,909 Equivalent Pennies(4) h--- - --_. Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2014-2017)111 — $59,458,414 $0.201 Historical County Expenditures (FY 2008-2013)(2) $22,319,296 6 $739,909 $0.050 ' Total $81,777,710 10 $739,909 $0.111 (1) Source: Table D-6 (2) Source: Table D-6 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided • by number of years divided by revenuefrom 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 10 -yea period4(. om FY 2009•to FY 2018) were reviewed. For calculation purposesthe 10 -year period."was broken into two increments; historical (FY 2009-2013) and future: (f.Y2014-2018). ^ Information on historical projects' funding and the future year estimates w.as obtained from the FDOT Work Programs and the County's FY 2014-2018CTransportation Improvement Program (TIP). The use of a. 10 -year period, for purposes of developing a State credi 4or roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable credit, as it accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. The total cost of the capacityaadding projee for the five-year "historical" period and projectechin the five-year <Transportation Improvement Program are as follows: Cfr • FY 2009=2013 work plan equates to 20.5 pennies tak "Fr • FY 2014-2018‘work pinequates to 10.5 pennies The combined weighted average over the 10 -year period of state expenditure for capacity - adding roadway projects results in a total of 15.5 equivalent pennies, which is a slightly higher state credit than what is observed in most other counties. Table D-4 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table D-7. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 D-4 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table D-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion _ Projected TIP (FY 2014 Source 2018)1�1 11 Cost of Projects i Number ofEquivalent Years - P Revenue , from 3i L- Penny -.-u.i ii - 1 Pennies (4) i - $38,959,997 5 $739,909 $0.105 Historical Work Program (FY 2009-2013)(2) $75,954,895 5 $739,909 $0.205 Total $114,914,892 10 $739,909 40.155 (1) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (2) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 4) divided by 100 .& silte Vat Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County D-5 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study x x co Cl To x n 1-1 0 O w 0 N. 0 0Y LL 3 3 U N G ix d c a c f0 co 0 ✓ c a x W 0. C E 0 c E co .a c u a 4- 3 LL so c f0 To u IA O G �.. a DO m N $553,8771 m N N 25 C V11 m W N N H n N m 1-1 ry CO N rr H w H oo N CD N M to o V�1 N $8,080,740 $130,7801 0 N iin 25 N N g N V1 1002'698'25 285 ,N 5750,000 $41,608,789 0 N UD NO N 9- 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 50 O aA O a O s 88 VI CI N N 10 $500,000 N N O Vl 8 N p g 51 el 1•• q g 8a N e N � N in N y• U. pp N 0 a0A 0I 0 0 0 0 pp pp p8 8 VNt p N CPI tV/ 55,1 N N p5� 8 8 Or.ii p 8 8 N N pQ p 8 O N p5 8 N 3,803,580 i N VA1NNNin O N r Um los toolNtANN pp pp n ti m $3,102,9381 tnM. pp p8 m N pN 8 8 N $500,0001 501 p p8 O N 8 E' R N N 9- U. 000000000000000 N N N N N V1 VV 2 O N N CO8 M H N I 5700,0001 p 8 VQ p 8 p p p 8 p .1 $150,000 $4,786,110 • � N IN U. to tool IA tOA V�1 N N N pO 8 8N o IA N N $6,270,3791 501 a J N \ IA 88 O VI 88 N Ns N 88 O 88 O N o. V O 4/19� 05 1. ZS/StOZ Ad 000001•40101-4000000000001A1 N N N N to L LA N00N CO N N N N N to N N N N N N VI. Vy N G 3 2008-2013: 1'1 N vel It t h N N in N V1 M N ti r• N H ,. M N tNA\ .O O %? O N Ix Ix N M O N a tF M H j h r H �v. IA tool n n, pp Q K -a ir . • .. '^ O N 1 LL 05 1 0 N 0 N $20,0671 vt 0 H $837 CI el Vi 0 N $25,748 0 N 0 N 4 :0 V1 ID :O W N 'c$0 •0 N 0 N A 0 aA p 0 N JS, f 0 Vf 01 t/N M O ,ono h N / N "'_ p. C' y✓ �.. 00 O N u.9- pp N et O to 1 VI N en N p p8 pO to m O N $266,380 m N o ANDD N Vol Vol in lJ in N in N \N •N in N N .N-' @ N N ! S:.N VI �`� FY 2007/081 5134,482 CO N u00i to N CO o N N t�A UCI co leo r• N N o ti N IN 0 ti N r -I N it N toot roof p 8 8 N N N tet $01 N N Vol 501 toot p of US N 4 FT . • On/From/To Powerline Rd from Barber St to CR 510 37th St from 58th Ave to 66th Ave• Oslo Rd from 27th Ave to Timber Ridge College Lane Extension - IRSC CR 512 from Sebastian River Middle to 1-95 16th St from 66th Ave to 82nd Ave 20th Ave SW from 17th St to 25th St 66th Ave from 12th St to SR 60 53rd St from Kings Hwy to US 1 Oslo Rd from 27th St to 43rd Ave 66th Ave from 4th Ave to 12th St 43rd Ave from 12th St to 18th St 43rd Ave from 18th St to 26th St 66th Ave from SR 60 to 49th St CR 510from 61st Dr to Indian River CR 510 from 70th Ave to 61st Dr CR 510 from CR 512 to 70th Ave Miscellaneous Oslo Rd from 43rd Ave to 58th Ave Countywide 1 Countywide 1Historical and Future Time Period Totals Oto 2) to 2) 1 Widen to 5 Lanes ;0 to 2) 'Widen to 5 Lanes 0 to 2) lU to 2D) 0 to 2) 1 Widen to 5 Lanes 1Widen to 5 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Right -of -Way Acquisition Widen to 4 Lanes Traffic Controllers Traffic Fiber Optic Total 0 E n 0 0 m n 0 0 u 0 co0c v 0 0 N Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study z 0 to to c 0)X fO 0) 713an N N 0 O O 0 } LL C 0 0 t.u 0 01 co F c V d C. Lux (0 CL 4-4c at E 4, O a E To c to u OJ 1. u. LL c (0 fO O N Crl O (O ft Ill f a .... m I. N N 5859,7971 $53,7431 025 O 0 N 1 -ii- vi N T ririN N $1,325,0001 2525or Vi f` O N N O N 00 T O N 1 $300,0001 § vi N N $825,000 §§mU§ti§§§§§§§25 n N N to N co 1- 00 n All 0 fn 00 N 0 tri o H m � ri N vi N N in U1 N g Co. VVo/ g$ N etc N 8 N N $81,717,710 NtooNN IemlD N > u. to. tot VOI tOONNtOo 10/188 pp W N p 88 § N p 88 00 N sol NNN p8 8O § N H 88 V1 c N p 88 O et p 88 § N p8 88 N § N p8 8 VI p8 8 $59,458;414 ~ IA H N �tOO M isi a. NtOO pp NtOo t0/INN o 8 tn a N pp 8 8 N $o1 VOlNton pp pp 8 8 VAIN N $7,300,000 pN pg 8§ g g N 8 g 8 Ill 8T. ne N ' Q00000000 N N, y u. two N t0/l N N VOl N N $2,179,834 p p8 O N p 8 N N p 8 N N p 8 N N tOo N p 8 Ion N f\ VOl $25,0001 po N pp 8 8 VQ1 N 5600,0001 pp pp 8 N O VVV1114-1 pp~ 8 N 0.0 N N a �'. N N N', 1.6 VOI N So N N N pp 8 N tOo VOl to pp 08 g p 8 N N N tO/l 5o1 50 N p o8 8 Ol N N ft N N N p 8 0 N 08 N 8 N p g Il0'4 §N I in rl N ' �. N ! N •O N LL N N OS ER p 8 N T N p 8 N T N p 8 n N 1 $105,000 N p p g 8 N N H N N 52,781,381 p M f0 O H > l N p g 8 l0 4.4 H pp g t� N N a p 8 8 N p 8 O ON p 8 N N� p 8. $14,368,4651 N f�V Tj M] O I 0 to N um 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 to 0 N 0 Vf 'O 0 N $0 0 N 0 Vl 0 N ws 0 N 0 N 0 to I $810,2381 0 N N N n 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 l a N CO N Si 41 0 N el .i N. H 0 N g tA 0 N N K ry -14 0 N 0 N N O N O to �. a N Mo N t0 h a v..; C} O Vl i$+ 0$ itit4k tn �`ely or - 44 Vl 0 ON ,�.yyam, I�r. 0 of i%ms^µ RS N ♦ N N N 4$ O� 4 $2,906,967 8 . g�++- N Ow of to0/f N N c0 tn.,: N N N N N N VOl in '4 O t4 '%tN H e N V3 N n in po N fi. myy* of 'c6 4.4 Y pO N +� / N 0C'to i VT IP N is<fitY po N po N H )F_ O a $390,697 CObNN aC Q 8 N N N n 0 $49,4621 $36,3871 H N N to 1t OOONQQ 'o 4.11lall. N tel tONNoNON tO CO. C an N Ii". n N t �' to 41 N :.l 5 f y $1,784;342 I A O N N 8 N 11- Oof N N n Q or ti N LO N H o o N o N o N o N o N o N o N o N O N o N o N op N o N In m n N N o N pp N o ,N CS. p N ! p ,to o o N N o. N $1,686,410 I 1 On/From/To Atlantic Blvd, W of 58th Ave 10510 Rd from 27th Ave to Timber Ridge 0> a C N fO 0 0 CC L I ti? vs L - 117th Ln from SW 20th Ave to 27th Ave 53rd St from Kings Hwy to US 1 0 Q L N 1n to N 0 a a I- 1141 r1 N V .- I 120th Ave @ 16th St 37th St @ Indian River Blvd 43rd Ave from 18th St to 26th St 45 St/58th Ave an co an Q 58th Ave @ 33rd St 58th Ave @ 37th St 58th Ave @ 69th St 66th Ave from 4th Ave to 12th St 66th Ave from 12th St to SR 60 J 66th Ave from 77th St to Sebastian City Limits 66th Ave from SR 60 to 49th St 69th St @ US 1 4th St @ 82nd Ave CR 510 from 61st Dr to Indian River CR 510 from 70th Ave to 61st Dr Miscellaneous 098S@P8OISO snoauellaxryy Countywide 1Historical and Future Time Period Totals - N.: 1 Description Lane Addition Oto 2 1Widen to 5 Lanes [Lane Addition (Oto 2) 1Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes Add Left Turn Lane/TrafficSignal IAdd Left Turn Lane/Traffic Signal Add Left Turn Lane Add Right Turn Lane `Widen to 4 Lanes Add Left Turn Lane Add Left Turn Lane Add Left Turn Lane Add Left Turn Lane 'Add Left Turn Lane 0 c 3 T 0 c Ti4.1 Oto 2) 1 Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Add Left Turn Lanes Intersection Improvements v 0 c 3 Q 0 c a 3 6.10 c 3 Q 0 v 3 1Intersection Improvements Right -of -Way Acquisition Intersection Improvements Traffic Fiber Optic To 1- C E 6 0 CIo CP 0. C O u ro a c v c 15 0 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study 0 d 0.O O .N W 0. X W u V E 0 c E 0 E t N O 0 c m 1- O 0. O 0 0 } C 0 O V d C W 'O o or N } LL 01 0 ftei 0 LL oIn o n Vi 1 O tA O. pp 15 027 924 $12,986,888 01 ` m N m 01 0 m N co n V1 to to H m Q V1 e 0 IA S18,74018631 ' $4,319,5751 m el e 0 N 1880'229'PS m m m ,Qy T N m CO m 0 O el N 0 o 0 0 m W .-i N m n m 0. n is V N N N vi v1 N o o W ' n N $7,387,034 0 O 0 o N CO m N 0 o 0 V .. m Q N -. m to IN. n Q N 0 0 0 0 m W $114,914,8921 ' IA W y u WOOo W N N V. w V VI 105 / N S. S VI N 0NN O 01. Al N 0 .t N 4. H $734,932 1ELO'ET9'E5 0 m 01 N N m W m 4/1- N um MAI 00000000000000000N0 000000000000OOOO0n0 to to to V. V. S. NV. N N V. V. V. 0Q O H ., m 0 .n $1,910,000 0 0IN0 0 .0 .n IN m o W O ti. 2014-2018: o 0 N J. - 0000000000000 N N N $1,690,000 o N 0 V. 0 0 -I el N $2,835,946 $2,210,000 0 N 0 0 0 N ei VI - V* _ $7,977,546 ' N ry to >-O W.1 0 N 0 V. 0 N 0 V. 0 V4 1 $706,5431 0 0 0 V. 0 IA 0 0 0 M. Q VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.Q el ael 0 V1 $o O N O O 0 N N n 0 N N d IN $131983,809 ZZO'OS9'E$ PTO? A41 N IA tOn VO. VI N S VI 'n N N N t0/. VI h 0 D Q et el N' 0 O 0 el b .n 1000'500'£$ VV p� VX N t0 01 No m co_N N $375,5231 to vi rvv. V. N m O O VI O N O N O le O o o N O V) O O N O o tr.N O n n n o N N Q Q n 0 vn O o to 7Air 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 V1 cY O O d to v✓ Q N CO n H V1 01 CO. Q in cn N 1 FY 2012 45 415 CA mi tll O. el ) $12,419 012 NI H 0 v $656,578 h O CI n an t0 m ri Lt.c S N O N O a? Q H VOi vOi 1.-i P.�,`, 4'to H O e 0 O b N 0 0 VV VV tn. IOi. UOn a Vt $39,733,209 2009-2013: tQ/1 LL Nan Q 00 � to $247,278 O co el o NN co m N NO.+ N m tm0 N .$385;420 mN ^ 01 N• .O • ;• 1' $5.9,$291 'N moo PI o V. N $104,802 0 K: t33t Sol 0001 SS . �'',+ N (,( c:: F VF Rip • >r' N' t0 O 0 fl.. y (. FY 2010 132 786 tc .Wi V. $32,957 $391,440: $35,750 N o N m m co 0 N $168,834 010000000000001 0 N N',n ry N... yit,o C�h It. a rm y K itn N J. //� O'• j .M �,h 7 ,m 1.01 14.1 1.0 • el tQ.1 Nm ' uNQi u. ni to VI e m .. VI $75,921 $200,000 0 V) o N to m ' ti 0 m m ri n $4,056,733 n Q m el 0 N o m t^ m cn 0 00 N 00000000 to N V. p/w G. a•O V. - an ` N .{: O r' -N V1 m b to a' On/From/To 82nd Ave from 26th St to CR 510 ISR 5/US 1 from St. Lucie Co. Line to S of Highland Dr SR 5/US 1 from S of Highland Dr to S of Oslo Rd SR 5/US 1 from 5 of Oslo Rd to S of Indian River Blvd Indian River County Enhance Traffic Signal System Indian River County Countywide Traffic Signal Equipment Upgrades Indian River County Countywide Traffic Signal Equipment Upgrades SR 60/Osceola Blvd from W of 82nd Ave/CR 609 to 66th Ave/CR 615 SR 60/Osceola Blvd from W of 1-95 to W of 82nd Ave/CR 609 16/17th St from 500' W of 14th Ave to W of SR 5/US 1 Indian River County IPA Signal Maintenance& Ops on SHS I-95/SR 9 @ Oslo Rd Interchange Indian River County Signal System Group 3 117th St S. of Indian River Blvd in Vero Beach (Schumann Dr @ Barber St 66th Ave from SR 60 to 41st St Indian River City IPA Signal Maintenance & Ops on SHS Indian River City IPA Signal Maintenance & Ops on SHS 82nd Ave from 26th St to CR 530 Oslo Rd from SR 9/1-95 to 58th Ave SR 5/US 1 from 53rd St to CR 510 SR 60 @ 43rd Ave CR 512 1. K• j C. n NA _Description - New Road Construction )Add Lanes & Reconstruct Add Lanes & Reconstruct Add Lanes & Reconstruct Traffic Signals Traffic Signals Traffic Signals Add Lanes & Reconstruct Add Lanes & Reconstruct Add lanes & Reconstruct Traffic Signals Interchange (New) Traffic Control Devices/System Add Turn Lane(s) (s)auet um' PPV Add Lanes & Reconstruct 1Traffic Signals Traffic Signals Funding Action 1 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Add Lanes & Reconstruct Intersection Improvement New Road Construction 1 Historical and Future Time Period Totals Pro) p ) 203879-1 1 228583-2 228583-4 228583-5 AI m et t0 CO N 228613-3 228613-4 228627-1 228628-1 230872-1 404740-1 410348-2 el W et Cr o I -I Q .1 m N o el 0 CO VI 0 425883-1 1 427804-1 427804-2 430214-1 el It el m 1 431724-1 el 01 el In Q 1 433239-1 — 1'0 1- • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study o 0 a) co %Et gdua r9 0 01 0 UD 0 N L bA ,a N 00 N i@j r1 O1 O1 e m 01 Fuel Consumed Gallons @ 21.4 mpg Gallons @ 6.3 mpg 15,048,457,944 7,343,968,254 22,392,426,198 20,137,477,377 1 O 0 0 O 0O 352,283,000,000 1 5, 209, 206, 349 1 000'000'srz'ooz'Z 1,480,128,000,000 25,738,730,159 _ Total Mileage a. 2,200,715 miles 65, 283,130,841 ETS'6S3'6SZ'56 m m 0 UD m U Hke > I M to O 0 32,818,000,000 O 0 N !Total ' 2,038,561,000,000' 162,154,000,000 o o ^O l o LD co 0 co N tv RI 4!It1 i 0 1— N °J i go*O 319, 465, 000, 000 0 0 o 0 N m 0 0 o 0I 01 O m rl a) • eq CI _. _J 'Other Arterial Rural Other Rural Other Urban Fuel Consumed Gallons @ 21.4 mpg Gallons @ 6.3 mpg 15,048,457,944 7,343,968,254 22,392,426,198 20,137,477,377 1 pg oo Ln oki crl owl N` ti 5, 209, 206, 349 [mil 25,738,730,159 _ Total Mileage a. 2,200,715 miles 65, 283,130,841 ETS'6S3'6SZ'56 01 01 ami ad el Cr: N el Fuel Consumed Gallons @ 21.4 mpg Gallons @ 6.3 mpg 15,048,457,944 7,343,968,254 22,392,426,198 20,137,477,377 1 78, 468, 686, 397 oo Ln oki crl owl N` ti 5, 209, 206, 349 UD Ln Lri Ln Ln co r -I (.6 rl 25,738,730,159 14,928, 271,028 65, 283,130,841 ETS'6S3'6SZ'56 D cc !Other Rural Other Urban •L a, t 4 L a) c N o Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admi ni strati on, Highway Statistics 2011, Secti on V, Ta bi e VM -1 Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data - 2011 by Highway Category and Vehicle Type c c a • O • • u O • tit ntac acor c 0 V 1- a) c c N C11 co a a) a) LL }r U CO a E O1 0 January 2014 • Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County • 1 O N co 0 Ploaa et c co N G) G C .) r 0) U c to es. N_ 0 w U t G) To c c Q Published March 2013 TABLE VM -1 CC 0IC F 0 U_ c C= J UJ J 7 CX N CO N0 N Ol Ol m . -i N m m 974,038 476,704 1,495,389 1,972,094 I 1-1 m N Ol N al CO m 0- m Ul N 0 R a 01 S N .--1N NJ Q 0 in N al Vl W ID 11 tD tD tD vl N ei MV -9, and MV -10), other data such as the R.L. Polk vehicle data, and a host of modeling techniques. FOr 2011, changes in a couple of States' truck VMT substantially impacted national truck VMT trends. Upon further review with the States involved, FHWA still considers these changes as material fact. However, FHWA will conduct further analysis when the 2012 data are reported by the States in 2013. (2) Light Duty Vehicles Short WB - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WM) equal to or less than 121 inches. Light Duty Vehicles Long WB large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches. All Light Duty Vehicles - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles regardless of (3) Single -Unit- single frame trucks that have 2 -Axles and at least 6tires ora gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 10,000 lbs. (4) Vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey(NHTS); For single unit truck and heavy trucks, 1 motor vehicle mile travelled = 1 person -mile traveled. (5) VMT data are based on the latest HPMS data available; it may not match previous published results. (6) The change in the number of buses is primarily due to the decline of reported public operated school buses. W Z - X W 0 C T Q 0 Q N N. C m Uri Z 7 0 cc W K 0 H U' ~ 0 0 2 N 4 N N N n in 1ft. tD N b a co N CO N m to. 01 . 1 tD m 47,942 83,069 ei .-I 0 .4 m N N 0 N n tD N m al tD O R N O ei tD N .-1 O O N tD R N to N Vl N - tD t0 R N a tD N ei a M t0 F .i Z :InM JJ U J = Q > Lo M` C N m o N N M tD a o1 N M 825,065 424,517 1,397,059 N tritD r1 N CO .4 a t0 a tD N N a ei a 00 m m N N m al ey Q I-1 a b m al m N t0 CO M N ei O to O .H N 2 0 L. m Z U m C C 1- 0 U tD ei I.0 NOl a ei N m N Ol N n a ei tD tD tD ei al 0TZ'8£ ST8'E£ tD N o Ni N 163,692 03 01 tD et Vl a N CO N tD Ol 1. tD t0 M tD tD .-1 Vl toO m M Dl .-1 05. N O V1 ei .-I. D1 V1 F 2 '^ D N W u 0 2 C Z 1- In tri am Dl Vl tD ei 0 o 0o ei 44,530 14,126 44,859 58,985 V1 V1 m 0 1-1W to O O1 ei N D1 V1 N In M m I -1O ei O N m co .-1 Q ei a d ei m N 7 m J 2m O d J 1-_ .0 WZ J Q ei tD Ol a ei V1 tD 0o N N a Ol O a 0 N N 82,652 294,541 377,193 N m N O tD a a ei N m .-- a tD oo al 00 to 00 .a-1 o CO .-1 Ol I� N m m Vl N a0 ei ti W D CO o N tD .4 ei CO O1 N N Vl o N m 0 N to Ni ei ei N 1- tD at V1 8,079 13,783 a tD 0 tD tD tD m N al 01 tD ei O N N 01 N 01 Ni CO N m 01 ei N 0 01 N ei ri C h 0 J H Uri- O }ei g U m a N a '1 CO tD ei O m m N 0 1. a m ei N m Dl N Ol N. N a .1 0 0 V1 00 ei 0 ei N O M m 00 el N. N N N Ol N Ol ei 0 ei a to N a el V1 V1 v N H 7 W m J U i= cl2 t7 > O J = Vl m 0 tD a .1 on CO m m N R M 0 N N LO N 0 Ol un N t0 CO a 01 Dl el to 0 e1 eim 1,444,384 2,043,409 CO 00 N el VI N a m ei 00 t0 0 Ol (dr, COV N N O t0 m l aCO o O ID a ei N ITEM Motor -Vehicle Travel: (millions of vehicle -miles) Interstate Rural Other Arterial Rural Other Rural All Rural Interstate Urban Other Urban All Urban Total Rural and Urban(5) WS UI lfdVeI imed i oalInncl cc .. W1-4 y ei e-1 0 N ei .--1 0 N .-1 e 0 N ei N 0 N ei ei 0 N .-1 .-1 0 N ei e-1 0 N ' 1 ei 0 N ei .1 0 N rl r-1 ei el 0 0 N N ei el 0 N ei el 0 N ei el 0 N c 0 V Q) c co 0 c a V) Q) N CO0 D Q) Q) LL 0 CQ C O 0 January 2014 • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study AppendikE %rtse .•> Calculated Transportat}iona:lmpact Fee Schedule CU t u v LL u A ey E w C CU O m CCI ~ o to U Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study e.rucllon Cost: $2,591,000 Interstate/Toll Facility Adlustment Factor 173% city per lane mile: 8,255 Cost per VMC: $313,87 • X 1 u. 1 X X % TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: X X X X X . X N X X X X n a X_ et X X X 53,048 "4 w w $1,789 w w " w w w 8 .-.. .: $ w 3 IN w — ILL ..'" E. w 51.259 m `^ w w `^ w LZLS$ co — N w te. -J w .r. mr�i � _ w w ^ .. _ � ; • w � UV � en . M + _. - _ a - w w . $ NI -- E 12 U.e. PC $85 I 5106 w ON w w ' ' w 5350 $263 vs .4 vs 512 www... 8 to 8 not 5207 I V. Po 1 to Pi 1 g $4,248 yq in r; ww I$2,156 $1,524 a $ pp g Pi ww 0 n 3< w w m .E x w S w n8155 x x Sia w J 7; . j m I $2,462 I 5 w -. R - -wn w ww ww IV tei 57,304 1 w ca S —m w ww ' 3., I$4,320 $ tos w en - w 5339 w w w $107 LES wwww - w $98 I w S0 $56 4 w w w-0 mi I $5D 1 w ELS 3. w w w A w w 5208 5242 I $en 0 w w $21 w w R en 0 5109 P. w rea $338 1' �� N w $2,561 w $829 N w 5295 I w w w S $8,457 w w w $276 go w 691'E$ RETAIL: _._.. __— w w 5 w 3 w -" $94 1 w $139 w $45 I - $60 w w w w w w w w w w w w0 $12 w 55,370 w yy0 w ny n cc -F "`' "" w — �.'n $22,258 w 0p w w w INDUSTRIAL: .. - _ J.. _... w w '^ w w $1,487 w^ wM PI w Yy. .`�. 48.67 74.56 36.96 r 0 we -me .; z_£z z z No 5 udies - Fl Studies • .Same as LUC 253 Appendix B) eu .... NA FL Sibdles - 0 bill— t3 N Same is LUC 770 (see Appends B) Same as LUC 710 E Same as LUC 710 3 - .. - .. - W P, Z. X 8 X m n m w Y X +L 7 go o a x m �R J!'F� e X } a X m m ida 4X Xym X m X e. X m Xe. n X m X n X n X r r FL Studies FL Studies (LUC 220/230) FL Studies FL Studies F.•9 Studies*. . s FIN "..lame as LUC 9121 t1{rte /M A +Same as LUC 770'( (see Appendix 0)� LU Same as LUC 71 ]10 Same as LUC 710; t r: a I . n -, N2 Same as LUC 710 Same as LUC 710 FL Curve FL Studies �- L 7.12 7.12 n CIES m 4,84 $ I 3.78 m `. e 9" ° " h 1*Z 7 h " '' .re. �� 5.65 J N N Pi I 2.40 I m 167 A3. qn m ID m 6.62 ui $N� a m M v in n 3.28 n u, LI u,co n n u: VY N ui m u, 5.15 n 2.64 - $ m _ .. FL Studies INNTS, ANS, Census) sc � E FL Studies (NNIS, ANS, Census) Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies 3 LL o. - Fo co ITE 9th Edition Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies FL Studies (Collier County) Blend ITE 9th &FL Studies g w 1- Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies € z w _ - c 0 — - s to c _0 - go Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies € = cu 2005 IRC Impact Fee Study 20051 RC Impact Fee Study c 0 - w tt co Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Tow 6.25 _ 5.63 2.97 I 23.83 3.56 6.97 9 2.00 42.70 28.25 $ c. ci np 9 -a 0 du 8 8 1 § § § § § § § § acre Itel 1,000 sl i 3 ' Sin&le Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 if Js 66e'Z 01005'1 gg 8 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Nome/RV (tied down) s = f gg 6 r z _ e v¢ a" 4 O0 0 - 0 (Medical Office/CIINc greater than 10,100 sl _ € 3 ntom e m c C u Research & Development Center c f E 3 Minl•Warehouse General light Industrial Concrete Plant E a = m Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash New/Used Auto Sales e m - - - 240 310 m m r n m m n $ .. 2 2 — 2 820 I 3 x $ 1932 • z c c u N i0 u' o to Jot F ro F 0) 4- e U X V m X X $ X O n X X OCC r v K e M X g N • m X X $ ry X N X e u -v. _ - w v N 58,026 w 8 w _ w 8 N $736 mo F w etlE"V•I w I518,373_._ 59,873 g S w „ is55 ESIS w 8 „E _- E• 8 y J. w a w w. - '^ 4.4„ - e x �^• vs„ 6 o .Nn 3. w w q N elt 5324 1 $36 553 1 I 5139 1 [ 5387 1 564 5394 Es w w s w - Rg Cc Le g „ x R $26,027 s - „ PIw s ww [ iss.s$ v. z$ a w w w w Li m n1 Foll. 0 1.11SCO ler Eq v. el 57,723 01 59,452 8m 1,273 I 55,865 CO 5212 m Pis 5562 I en le vs „ww„ 6„ o 'w m w' 5688 A w a „ $28 I ..wN 565 vs $486 5195 T25 u` 6 „ w 53,630 w „ 8 w w w Cr; w _ tel w w w w 8 - a4.4 w a w w Y 526 l IJ 0 578,855 NO I re n 517,169 $3,382 58,746 I $24,697 $27,036 I 5576 26.93's 7 65.92 54 10.78 C 44,05 — - 3 X _ is .. _ - _ .. - _ - - Fl Schedules ”, _'t. t: FLt. � Schedules _ Same as LUC 492 t 0 'i{- L. ;20091RC Transp. Impact Fee Study 2009 IRCT'arifp.- Impact Fee St dy'S aUSarne 3. ' LU710 Same as LUC 710 R. Studies VLF�hedules Same as LUC 630 _ (see Appendix 6) FL Schedules _ FL Studies EL Schedules FL Schedules FL Schedules FL Schedules 2009 IRC Trans p. Impact Fee Study 3 Y N e co X n n 54% X w w 01$1 J;^ f` M X sin r X%� .+.$ X � X a X co FL Studies I FL Studies Same as LUC 210 Same as LUC 710 ISame as LUC 710 Same as LUC 710 ..o 3 Y —r. 0 e Same as LUC 710 t 11 ',Same as WC 710 Ir idLaik-.1ne as LUC 211/,' m \.' . Fl Schedul I rocz �R� m6%,•:1 jy Fl Schedt es ' v%j� cSchedules hedules Same as LUC 210 2009 IRC Trensp. Impact Fee Study n 2.58 a M 2.01 in u n .n .n .n n I GOVERNMENTAL: 5.65 n Nkrir in in G n 5.60 /11 I 4.80 1 7.12 R 2.05 2.08 3.62 r .. 0 e 0 0 5.15 II n 0 e N N $;e . vs �c 01 n . el e e 6.62 0 a Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies Blend ITE 9th & Fl Studies ITE 9th Edition ITE 9th Edition ITE 9th Edition ITE 9th Edition K tu 8 `YK to w , ITE 9th Edition 1 ITE 9th Edition 2005 IRC Impact Fee Study Blend ITE 9th & FL Studies ITE 9th Edition ITE 9th Edition e co Blend ITE 6th & FL Studies S os cu ITE 9th Edition ITE 9th Edition ITE Regression Analysis 20051 RC Impact Fee Study a Or gm [ 103.38 a _v 5.06 os 2.28 38.70 a 56.24 27.92 5.50 m [ 1.29 —1 2.00 I et m 8 8 8 [ service bay 8 [ 1,000 sf 8 A 14 8 8 8 8 8 8 screen student student 8 ID o 13 Cc Fast Food Rest. w/Drive.Thru Supermarket is Q of 4 SeII.SeMce Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store IGollCourse Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court [Post Office - Government Orrice Complex Jail Day Care Center _iVi r > .. Moyle Theater w/Matinee Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 6.8) High School (Pdvate, 9-12) University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) Private) 6 — a 850 a m m m 430 492 412 . . nm Na. n N 1565 1 e 640 in 3 5201 522 530 055 /OPS 2 0 a n - CO n E ,oa = E a a' u a to 0 CPa 0 ro a 0 a ro w o c 0 ro roO co z o .41.71> d If 0 m n a_ a - 0 O F ELo o o ” E 1 o COo CO1.72 w a >- E as M a >o 0 ar E co t 3 to 4,1 CO oc 0. 0 0 r a d 3CO co z -C .0 • zr v c Er E A nv= v ea c o v o E m a tp co -0‘. 0 N 73roE a^' N E 0 3 co "Ow FE oCT00 O. CV E cir > m- 3 n .E Cry w F 11 w c v C0 0 Q >• ! O oN 0maft c c c Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for Correctional Buildings,4 Enforcenient,Eme:rgency Services, Public • lid Waste and Parks and Recreation ImpactFees • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study This Appendix provides a summary of building and land value estimates for all impact fee program areas with the exception of transportation and educational facilities. Information related to transportation cost estimates is included in Appendix C and cost estimates for educational facilities is included in Appendix G. Building Values For all of the program areas, the following information was reviewed to estimate building values: • Recent construction completed by Indian RiverCounty4(ifr.any); • Estimates for any planned facilities; • Insurance values of existing facilities;:` :' • Data from other jurisdictions for recentycompletedfacilities; and t • Discussions with architects/contractors. P The following paragraphs provide a summaryMfor each program area. Correctional Facilities ; As presented in Table F-1, the construction:`copst�associatedwith the County's most recent A a• Cie jail addition (completed in 2008)1 was $288;:=per square foot. There are no estimates available fofuture jail additionsdtthe insurance values of the existing jail buildings .. 1444 ranged from $140 to.$220 pertsquare foot It is/important to note insurance values are Vic; considered to provide estimates abelow the full cost since they typically do not take into consideration certain building components, such as foundation, architectural/design cost, furniture/fixtu_re/equipmentsecurity features, etc. Recent jail construction in other Florida counties and estimates obtained from construction companies and architectssuggested a range of $225 to $445 per square foot Given all this Nticr information, a unit cost of $250 per square foot for jail buildings is used in the study. This figure is approximately 8 percent higher than that used in the 2005 study ($232 per square foot) and 22 percent lower that the figure used in the 2007 impact fee study ($321 per square foot). Given that the most recent jail construction in Indian River County was completed at a cost of $288 per square foot, $250 per square foot represents a conservative estimate. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-1 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table F-1 Correctional Facilities Building Cost Source L_ E(l) year Building Cost per Square Foot $288 _ __ Construction of IRC Jail Unit 2008 Estimates fora Future Jail N/A N/A Insurance Values of ExistingJail Buildings(2) 2013 $140- $220 Recent Jail Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2009, 2013 $225 Estimates from National Construction Companies(4) , ,2413 $270-$300 Estimates from Florida Architects(5) 4 x.;;2013 $285-$445 Used in the Study __epot An X2013, $250 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Source: Indian River County Source: Indian River County, figures rounded tomearest $10 Source: AJAX Engineering and Florida Department of Correctional Facilities; figures rounded to nearest $10 Source: Reed Construction Based on discussions with industry architects for a experience To determine the buildingvalue of;the a ort facilities; such as the � pp�,� guard house, typical jail in Floridaed on their Niaw maintenance shop, etc ; Insurance value. of the existing bui dings was reviewed. This ttite; analysis suggested4a3unit cost4of $125 per square foot. sAre Emergency Services Facilities As part .ofthis'a.nalysis, T several Florida jurisdictions to obtain more recent cost information. The bids and estimates received in 2010 for facilities built in 2010 or 2012 range" from $190 to $300. per square foot (excluding furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits, •fees and *C: her similar expenses). The following chart presents the building construction cost trends based on bids, estimates, and other information o btained during the previous':impact fee studies completed by TOA. As presented, the vent ✓ ariation in station costs is relatively minor over the past few years. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-2 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 so Figure F-1 Fire/EMS Station Construction Cost per Square Foot • 1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Fire station construe cost,data collected from Florida jurisdictions In determining the appropriate unit cos�ttfor station construction in Indian River County,in addition to these trends, the following data was evaluate.. tei • The most recent firestation expansion and renovation project cost was aappprox matelyy $300 p squarewfoot (Stations 9 and 12) The County's cur•rent Capital Improvement Plan includes an estimate ranging from 280 to $325 for a'aprototype.Jire station. • The insurance value of existfnfire stations is $190 per square foot, which is, considered to be a conservative value. Based on the information summarized in Table F-2, a unit cost of $260 per square foot is used for fire station buildirngvalue. This figure is based primarily on local construction cost and estimates in Indian River County and is also consistent with statewide trends. Finally, it is almost the same unit value used in the 2005 study and approximately 5 percent lower than that used in the 2007 study ($273 per square foot). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-3 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Table F-2 Fire Station Building Cost Expansion Source Year Building Cost per Square Foot of Stations 9 and 12(1) 2010 $300 Estimates for Stations 13 and 14(2) FY 2013 - FY 2017 $280 to $325 Insurance Values of Existing Fire Stations(3) 2013 $190 Recent Fire Station Construction in Other Florida Counties(4) 2010-2012 $190- $300 Estimates from Florida Architects(5) ..e.-2013 $230 - $280 Used in the Study A t 2013 $260 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Source: Indian River County Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan Source: Indian River County, figures rounded to nearests$1 Source: Individual jurisdictions Based on discussions with industry architects for4a'irange of a typical jail in Florida based on their experience (includes adjustment for ff&e, site pr p ra ation, permits, etc.) ' �" In addition to fire stations, the Emergency Services building inventory includes the Training "y: . Tower, which was built in 2008. The tower&was built for$150 per square foot, which is also ~ used in the impact fee calculations.144 Law Enforcement Law enforcement buildings tenth to include;amwide range of buildings, such as office buildings, crime scenebuildings 'maintenance nsheds, etc. In addition, law enforcement facilities tend to:include both,pr me%buildings and support buildings, which tend to vary ev— significantly in terms of building cost. Given..h"is, it is difficult to have a comparable cost databa e4rom other jurisdictions' since the combination of these different types of buildings vary from\one jurisdiction to>anothe„Therefore, the estimates used in the impact fee calculations relied primarily on local data As presented in Table County recently completed the conversion of a warehouse to a Crime Scene Investigatiottenter, at a cost of almost $200 per square foot In addition, the estimates obtained from the Sheriff's Master Plan for a future Sheriff's Office Building and a new Crime Scene Unit Facility range from $250 to $300 per square foot. The insurance values of existing buildings average $165 per square foot and the value of support facilities is $65 per square foot. Finally, the available data from other Florida jurisdictions suggests a range of $175 to $270 per square foot for law enforcement facilities. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-4 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Given this data, the value of prime buildings is estimated at $200 per square foot and the support buildings at $50 per square foot. The value for support buildings took into .consideration the insurance values of not only law enforcement support buildings, but also those of public buildings, as presented in Table F-4. These unit figures provided a weighted average cost of $197 per square foot, which is 50 percent higher than the value included in the 2005 study, which was based on historical costs provided by the County and is the same value included in the 2007 study. Table F-3 arVj Law Enforcement BuildingA/alue • (3) (4) (5) Source: Indian River Countyit z� Source: Indian River County Shenff.,s Master Plan. Source: Indian River4County, includes buildings foi' which information.was available Source: Indian Rive ountyat,, includes�buildings forth information was available Recent impact fee studie-s representsaweighted average of prime and support buildings irit .,. sc:, PubIic1Bdildings Similar :to..law enforcement,buildings,public buildings also tend to include a wide range of buildings,such as offices, courthouses; maintenance buildings, parking garages, etc. as well ink as prime versus support buildings. The most recent public buildings constructed in Indian River County were-4ompleted rnb 2007. Given the changes in construction costs since then these cost figures wereconsidered outdated and not used. The County has plans to add approximately 10,000 square feet of courtroom space over the next five years, and the cost associated with this expansion is estimated at $200 per square foot. As presented in Table F-4, the insurance value of existing prime buildings averaged $210 per square foot and support buildings averaged $46 per square foot. Finally, the building value of prime and support facilities in other Florida jurisdictions for which information was available, range from $135 to $200 per square foot. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-5 Impact Fee Update Study Source — Construction of Crime Scene Investigation —--Square Centerv�. Year Building Cost per 1 Foot 2013 • $197 Future Planned Facilities(z) N/A : , $250 to $300 Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (pnme)131 < • 2013 ` _: $165 Insurance Values of Existing Buildmgs,.(support)col , C 2013 t $65 Recent Public Building Construction in ® ther, Florida Countie ISj„ 2010-2012 $175 - $270 Used in the Study -- Prime Buildings ts. 2013 $200 Used in the Study -- Support ortBuildings , 0 `2013 $50 • (3) (4) (5) Source: Indian River Countyit z� Source: Indian River County Shenff.,s Master Plan. Source: Indian River4County, includes buildings foi' which information.was available Source: Indian Rive ountyat,, includes�buildings forth information was available Recent impact fee studie-s representsaweighted average of prime and support buildings irit .,. sc:, PubIic1Bdildings Similar :to..law enforcement,buildings,public buildings also tend to include a wide range of buildings,such as offices, courthouses; maintenance buildings, parking garages, etc. as well ink as prime versus support buildings. The most recent public buildings constructed in Indian River County were-4ompleted rnb 2007. Given the changes in construction costs since then these cost figures wereconsidered outdated and not used. The County has plans to add approximately 10,000 square feet of courtroom space over the next five years, and the cost associated with this expansion is estimated at $200 per square foot. As presented in Table F-4, the insurance value of existing prime buildings averaged $210 per square foot and support buildings averaged $46 per square foot. Finally, the building value of prime and support facilities in other Florida jurisdictions for which information was available, range from $135 to $200 per square foot. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-5 Impact Fee Update Study • • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Given this information, the building value of prime facilities is estimated at $210 per square foot and support buildings at $50 per square foot. This results in a weighted average value of $167 per square foot for all buildings, which is within the range of other jurisdiction. It is also almost the same figure as that used in the 2005 study ($169 per square foot) and approximately 25 percent lower than the figure used in the 2007 study ($226- per square foot). Table F-4 Value of Public Buildings (1) Source: Indian River County Capital Im drovement Plan (2) Source: Indian River County, includes buildingskfor which information was available (3) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for'which informatiowas available °(4) Source: Recent impact fee studies, represents wei htedaveraga of prime and support ort buildings Libraries The most recent library construction in IndiannRiver County was completed in 2009 for a .. �,: building cost of.$263 perrsquare foot The current average insurance value of existing libraries Is;$206 per square foot, which tends toer present a conservative estimate. Finally recentdibrary construction in other,Florida jurisdictions provided an average building cost of $245 per -square foot. Given this •ir(formation, a building value of $240 per square foot is used in theIibrary impact fee \calculatigns. This figure is almost same as that used in the .14144 2005 study ($242¢per square foot) and represents a decrease of approximately 20 percent ti. • from the 2007 study ($296 per square foot). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County January 2014 F-6 Impact Fee Update Study Source Year Building Cost per Square Foot__ — — --- - -- Future Planned Facilities(') L4. N/A $200 2013 Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (pnme)(z) $210 Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (support)( 3) ,^ .r 2013. ; $46 i"^` Recent Public Building Construction in Other FloridaCounties (4) '3"4; • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table F-5 Library Building Value (1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Recent impact fee studies Parks & Recreation Facilities *O. The parks and recreation facilities impactifee inventory includes several recreational facilities. The value of these facilities is basecFon insurance values, information from other jurisdictions and discussions with the County staff Solid Waste Facilities The solid waste impact fee inventory several customer care centers. Due to the is ba ed on the recent reconstruction and 2.6 million: limited information onthese`facilities, the •et expansion of Oslo Convenien'cve:Center at a Land Values ttek art For each impact fee program area, land values were determined based on the following analysis°as data available'sr • Recent Iand.purchases&for the related infrastructure (if any); Alfwv • Value of current parcels as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser; • Value of vacant by size and by land use; and • Vacant land sales over the past three years by size and by land use.. It should be noted that the land value and sales analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser s database for those vacant properties that have not been sold for a while. This may be due to a lag in the update of land values. The following paragraphs summarize the data used for each program area. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-7 Impact Fee Update Study 1 Source — Year Building Cost per Square Foot Construction of Brackett Library(1) -- — — — — 2009 $263 Insurance Values of Existing Libraries(2) 2013 $206 Recent Library Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2010-2012 $245 Used in the Study 42013 $240 (1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Recent impact fee studies Parks & Recreation Facilities *O. The parks and recreation facilities impactifee inventory includes several recreational facilities. The value of these facilities is basecFon insurance values, information from other jurisdictions and discussions with the County staff Solid Waste Facilities The solid waste impact fee inventory several customer care centers. Due to the is ba ed on the recent reconstruction and 2.6 million: limited information onthese`facilities, the •et expansion of Oslo Convenien'cve:Center at a Land Values ttek art For each impact fee program area, land values were determined based on the following analysis°as data available'sr • Recent Iand.purchases&for the related infrastructure (if any); Alfwv • Value of current parcels as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser; • Value of vacant by size and by land use; and • Vacant land sales over the past three years by size and by land use.. It should be noted that the land value and sales analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser s database for those vacant properties that have not been sold for a while. This may be due to a lag in the update of land values. The following paragraphs summarize the data used for each program area. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-7 Impact Fee Update Study • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Correctional Facilities The land value estimate for correctional facilities was provided by the County during the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre) and was based on the sale of vacant land for 4- to 6 -acre parcels in West Indian River County (IRC) during the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre). West IRC is defined as the area between 58th Avenue and County Road 512 and represents the area -where the County is likely to build future facilities. To provide an apples -to -apples comparison to the 2007 study, vacant land sales for parcels with 4 to 6 acres in West IRC was conducted and supplemented with additional analysis, which is summarized in Table F- 6. The County has not purchased any land for correctionarfatilities since 2005 and the recent ver jail expansions were located on the existing Jail/ eriff ComplexSAs presented in Table F-6, ;h:: the value of parcels where the current facilities are located is approximately $46,000 per acre. To supplement this figure, TOA conducted an analysis of vacantland sales and values based on the data included in the Indian River County Property Appraiser database. Vacant land sales and values were:evaluated by land 'use, (residential vs. all land uses) and by size. As mentioned previously, this analysis suggestth that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in thevProperttyy Appraiser's database for those properties that have not been sold forta•while. Because correctionalkfa'cilities dot have tote located in centralized areas, it is thought to be appropriate to eval atewaluesofresidential properties, which tend to be lower than those forcommer.:ciaul_properties. In addition, values of all land uses are also provided. In terms of size, because the cu rent facilities are located on parcels with 10 to 15 acres, like., values and,�sales of similarsize parcels:were evaluated. Given that the land of current facilities is valued at $46,000 per acre, sales of 4 to 6 -acre parcels suggested `an:average£p ce of $51,000 per acre, and the remaining analysis provided a range of $13,000 per acre4o'$124,000 per acre for residential properties, an average land value of $50,000 per acrefor correctional facilities is found to be a reasonable estimate. This figure represents an increase of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study and a decrease of 70 percent from the 2007 study. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-8 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table F-6 Land Value Analysis - Correctional Facilities Average Land Value per Acre $45,600 Value of Current Parcels 2013 Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4to6acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 A $18,105 - 15 to 20 acres 201344 $21,353 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4to6acres 2013 4 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres - 15 to 20 acres Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres ▪ 6 to 15 acres - 15 to 20 acres X2013 Py 2013 2013 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres - 6 to 15 acres - 15 to 20acre5 Vacant LandSales: West IRC l'esidential itk Ni 201E 2013 $24,376 $22,622 $24, 620, $26,160 $26,741 k $32,543 - 4 to 6 acre`s AtiL Wi;61015 acres Pcfs1710 acres West IRC- A=11 Land Uses , ,- 4 to 6 acres t6 to 15 acres - - 15 to. 20 acres 2010-2012 2010-2012 X2010-2012 2010-2012 2010-2012 2010-2012 $31,644 $43,238 $59,271 $95,109 $51,252 $56,403 $97,836 Countywide - Residntial - 4 to 6 acres, - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 2010-2012 $42,109 561,063 - 15 to20acre's 2010-2012 $124,315 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4to6acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6to15acres 2010-2012 $63,042 ▪ 15to20acres 2010-2012 $130,357 Used in the Study 2013 550,000 (1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 F-9 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Law Enforcement The most recent land purchase for law enforcement facilities was made in 2011, for a price of $355,000 per acre. However, because the parcel included structures, this price is considered to be higher than what the County is likely to pay in the future for vacant land. Discussionswith the County and Sheriff's Office suggested that future expansions outlined in the Master Plan are likely to be located on the existing Jail/Sheriff's Complex and the recently purchased land. The current value of existing parcels is approximately $50,000 per acre based on information obtained from the Indian River County Property Appraiser. Given this and the range of related vacant land values andrsales is of $13,000 per acre to $66,000 per acre, an estimate of $50,000 per acre is used for.Iand value in the calculation of law enforcement impact fee. This figure represents an Nin se of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre)vand a decrease of470 percent from the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre). Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-10 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table F-7 Land Value Analysis - Law Enforcement Facilities (1) Source: align River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff's Office, the parcel included structures Emergency Services Typically, fire stations need to be located at or near major intersections and not in residential areas, for better access and minimum disturbance. As such, land value of these facilities tends to be higher. This can be seen in the current land value of existing fire stations at $102,000 per acre with a range' of $16,000 per acre to $171,000 per acre. The Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-11 Impact Fee Update Study Variable(1) Value of Current Parcels Year 2013 Average Land Value per Acre $50,702 Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) 2011 $355,104 Value of Vacant Land: West IRC- Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 6Ns,$12,855 -6to15acres 2013k'OP $18,105 West IRC- All Land Uses , ,, -4to6acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres A, $r 2013 „$24,376 Unincorporated - Residential - 4 to 6 acres vs 2013 $1054 - 6 to 15 acres 4,64 & 2013 $20,824, Unincorporated - All Land Uses s., enr 0 - 4 to 6 acres $23,844 N. - 6 to 15 acres -, k: 2013 $29,338 Vacant Land Sales: M`(. A . West IRC -Residential - 4 to 6 a e s kti.X201 .2012_ '41 43, 238 - 6 to 5 acres h ;:; H_2010-2012 :b $59,271 West IRC;-,AII LandUses 4 4 to 6 acres°inettv :;.;. X2010-2012 $51,252 6,to 15 acres, 12010-2012 $56,403 UnmcorporatedResidential : ; , -4to6 aces 2010-2012 $42,614 - 6 to 15 alga 2010-2012 $62,617 UnincorporatedAll Landtuses r.-2,4,to 6 acres . 2010-2012 $50,480 acres la.$t 2010-2012 $66,238 - 6 to 15 Used inth °Stu y 2013 $50,000 (1) Source: align River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff's Office, the parcel included structures Emergency Services Typically, fire stations need to be located at or near major intersections and not in residential areas, for better access and minimum disturbance. As such, land value of these facilities tends to be higher. This can be seen in the current land value of existing fire stations at $102,000 per acre with a range' of $16,000 per acre to $171,000 per acre. The Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-11 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study County purchased land for Station 13 in 2010 at a cost of $121,000 per acre. This information along with relevant vacant land value and sales information are summarized in Table F-8. Table F-8 Land Value Analysis - Emergency Services Facilities Variable (1) Value of Current Parcels Year 1- Average Land Value per Acre 2013. $101,802 Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) �. _2 , X2010 $120,517 Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential > K - 4 to 6 acres 2013%. X, $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres �. 2013 $18,105 West IRC All Land Uses,.. -4to6acres an $151/Z2Z, - 6 to 15 acres _ 3 $24,376 Countywide - Residential t;..". . N. - 4 to 6 acres , 2013 $21,884 - 6 to 15 acres 2013, $24,620 CountywideAtA,_II L"and Uses IV, 404-:ttit., °` 1 - 4 to 61tacresR� A 2013 $26,741 - 6 to 1 acres x 2014 $32,543 Vacant Land Sales: xr;. West IRC - Residentidl: ,-,.. . , ' < 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 ate` c es), 2010-2012 $59,271 West IRC - All and,Uses 4 to 6 acres., 2010-2012 $51,252 6 to�15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 aes 2010-2012 $42,109 - 6 to 15 acres;. a 2010-2012 $61,063 Countywide - A'llPLand Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $63,042 Used in the Study 2013 $60,000 (1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County; Represents land purchase for Station 13, made in 2010. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-12 Impact Fee Update Study Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Given this information, the high end of vacant land sales ($60,000 per acre) is used for the value of land for emergency services impact fee calculations. This figure is lower than the value of land where existing stations are located and represents a 30 -percent decrease from the 2005 study and a 60 -percent decrease from the 2007 study. Public Buildings Public buildings include a range of facilities from County offices and courthouses that need to be in central locations to maintenance facilities that have more flexibility in location. Given that the County has not bought any land for public buildings recently and programmed capital expansions will take place on existingiland, the land value of parcels where the existing buildings are located is evaluated; which averaged $89,615. This value is used in the impact fee calculations, and represents` a decrease opercent from the 2005 �, study and 50 percent decrease from the 20074study. feg Libraries As presented in Table F-9, the currentvalue of langwhere existing libraries are located averages $38,000, with a range of 000kper. acre to 5330;000 per acre. This information la along with the vacant sales values of Oto 6-acreiparcels suggests that an average land value of $50,000 per acre isaa-reasonable estimate. Thisfigureis 50 percent lower than that used in the 2005 study and 75 percent Dower than the,i2007 study,-, NI Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-13 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study • Table F-9 Land Value Analysis - Libraries 1' x,. Source: Ind awn River"CounPro ert A raiser Database ) �:. Y�:P Y Pp Parks: - It Indian River County's parks inventory includes parcels ranging from 0.3 acres to 140 acres. As such, a more detailed landvalue analysis was conducted, as shown in Table F-10. The 1430 value of current inventory averages $31,000 per acre. Given that the land values and sales A for different acreage groupings range from $17,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre, an average value of $50;000'per acre is found to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. This represents a 45 percent increase from the 2005 study and a 10 percent decrease from the 2007 study. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-14 Impact Fee Update Study Variable(1) Value of Current Parcels _ Year Average Land Value per Acre $38,929 _____ 2013 Value of Vacant Land: West 1RC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 West IRC - All Land Uses -4to6acres 2013`' $15,727 Countywide - Residential . 4 - 4 to 6 acres_ e�'�;�2013�.>. $21,884 Countywide - All Land Uses -4to6acres n 4.1-' 2013 $26,741 Vacant Land Sales:` West IRC- Residential - 4 to 6 acres L2010, 201 $43,238 West IRC - All Land Uses., Ne - 4 to 6 acres : ° , 201012012 $51,252 Countywide - Residential` en - 4 to 6 acres g 2010-2012 hs $42,109 �A114Land Uses �� a ,..;,... .� (4;Countywide - 4 to&,6ac a ,ms`s $49,868 2010¢2012 Used in the Study ; 2013 $50,000 1' x,. Source: Ind awn River"CounPro ert A raiser Database ) �:. Y�:P Y Pp Parks: - It Indian River County's parks inventory includes parcels ranging from 0.3 acres to 140 acres. As such, a more detailed landvalue analysis was conducted, as shown in Table F-10. The 1430 value of current inventory averages $31,000 per acre. Given that the land values and sales A for different acreage groupings range from $17,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre, an average value of $50;000'per acre is found to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. This represents a 45 percent increase from the 2005 study and a 10 percent decrease from the 2007 study. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-14 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Table F-10 Land Value Analysis - Parks Acreage R -- 0.5 to 4 acres 2013 PA Just Values per Acre (Residential)(1) L_—. West IRC. i Unincorporated _ $29,474 $94,797 4 to 6 acres $12,855 $18,754 6 to 15 acres $18,105 $20,824 15 to 25 acres $21,353 $22,985 20 to 60 acres$18,612 N, $17,334 40 to 130 acresw $19;851` $18,754 ' r Acreage _ r I 2013Sales per Acre (Residential)(1) West IRC L Unincorporated j 0.5 to 4 acres " 'y $100,046 M $147,086 4 to 6 acres y$.. $43,238$42,614 6 to 15 acres x$59, 271 $62 617 15 to 25 acres x$95;109 $84,919 20 to 60 acres' $74 $64,131 40 to 130 acres_ $47,10, ... $41,018 Used in they --Study $50,000 (1) Source Indian River County P operty'App a ser Database Solid Waste 14. The inventory of solid waste facilities6includesonly the customer convenience centers used ..:_ by residential iandkuses. These facilities are$typically built on previous landfills. Given the unique nature of these -facilities the current value of parcels where existing centers are located is used in the study; which averaged $20,000 per acre. 4.? 01. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. January 2014 Indian River County F-15 Impact Fee Update Study • • Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study Master Fee?Schedules d LL. .. a CI v d v a H d 4J u.ea2 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study N m O > ti O o To co ar c = 8� 0W9 Ino ro xtnxx mmmmmm 0%"44.x0 Xmomommelmm meio�o 2ento2 mi IC ni 4 �m�x�omom� L4. q. u! e E�VD Ifewwwwww 1. wwww .www $235 wwwww 5103 $58 N. 4.4 ww ww w 4-4 w $47 VS VS w wwww www 41 tn. www ne wwwww 0 14 41 I M ww en ww4/ IN 14 w r4 m ww ro or01 w 0 4.41 14 4.41 w CO no wwwww o e.4 In ri nig wwwC xxAA en X co 33.7% m rA.c aa co re cc re rentattrare CCcccc Cea ea CC crZ • a n/a1 ��a���Jc;cccc_I. ccccee cea cccccccc or cr. en Ctueg n/a AIWA CMCM n/al X X Y X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X m.. X Xn. n X X uXi X X 1.13 m o m XX m n m XXX X o X m X X X X m Xn. m T. w w w w w w w w w w % • 7 >5 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w en w ' 1m 1 w w w w w w 1 w \ w 1 w �.. w 1 M 006$1,3071 w 5384 w $525 w O. v $944 0.w w wIn' la.w w w44414 0 w w w w • n o N G %0'IZ %0'001- %0'OOt- %0;00Iy 1 %0'00t- O 6A O O o %0'001- %DOOt- %OOOI- O 4 O O 1%0OOt. O O O O .,.4 I%0'001- 0 0 0 MO'oot- •1 I%0'OOi- �O O %0'OOI- O %0'OOt- Ivoriot- O %0'OOI- I%o'oot- O O %DOOI- O I%o-oot- o o I%ovel- J O O I%0'001- O el mei 4/1. Vs wwww • AA4 e wwww&� �M� � ru �w re ?wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww r wwww wwww $242 Fw - " 41 w ^wwwww D »www Of Cs 41-4 w w 41 wwww ITE LUC Irl Land Use 1tt UnitC ctlonl Facilities 1[_ 1F---------1 Crret C Calculated . % y RESIDENTIAL:• - Single Family Detached X '.40n m X 564% 484% TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP: m n., m X 0 X A • - K 10 m a 56046 21.7%{ 95.4%{ o x m W x rmrn u m m n m - a � r ,X."40 e X • o X ai m 1& m o • RECREATIONAL: rn x r o W %t'8Ot -' GC —, or i W °u m er, Cl m pr m n� 14 MISCELLANEOUS: . I ne " m RR m o x r.. o e m m.. us o 44 nn r-Ir4 ww ww w w ww 1.1, 4" 41 ww Tr ww.4.42 en 4-4 US en 14 R VY.. • el to vi 1t v www \ in w ww 41 wN www $103 w w w. 4.4 4^ N. 4.4 w N. 4^ '�"" w $320 w w w w w w 4.. r 4" 4" w w w w no 4/7 w wwww np I3 du v v E E s n _-- 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf n ITC: $,o o 1,000sf - 1,000 sf 5 1,000 sf hole 1,000 sf 4. m court boat berth Is 000'1 o- —0 0 1,000sf 0 1,000sf screen student student student student - Less than 1,500 sf 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sl or larger Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV (tied down) - i Motel Nursing Home Assisted Care living Facility (ACLF) 5 - 2.ad 2 o Medical Office/ClInic 10,000 sf or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10000 sf 1Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office_ Research & Development Center [Manufacturing m 0 £ 3 o 3 - i General Ught Industrial Concrete Plant Sand Mining — s Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash New/Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Supermarket Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps (Furniture Store Golf Course (Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court , ISE i Post Office re Government Office Complex = Day Care Center Hospital Veterinary Clinic v Movie Theater w/Matinee Elementary School (Private, g-5) Middle School (Private, 6-9) High School (Private, 9-12) University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) Fire Station 220 320 620 I 252 944/ 946 430 492__ 420 ZEL 733 565 640 444 520 522 530 540/550 e/u N m O > ti O o To co ar c = Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study C.1 COU. 0 CO -c 10- 0) w c a 15 0 0 c -c c v c 0 ca wo 0 N Z' cC c c F aY- Ti St ev-I n .. ..n ncl Xo mn n..n al at �xi me m 47 e 42.2% VRI 32.4% m ..v eeXmm� v9i n m R' nv m n at .. m m Pr x e v v n v- .. n PP n n e m v9i .. nee • o w 510,7421 w w $2,971 www w $16,289] -- w 6 ww 4 w 9 w $29,0931 9 9ww 9 $30,6551 '^ ww w www '^ 1'4w $23 160j ww 4-1 4" en 411. 11.V 1111111 C w w $3,5391 ww $15,940 w 158E EI w w ww www w w www ww - $14 006 $13,5861 w $16,5841 w w w rn w w w $808 w I $ ~�en '.X nwwwww %ZS- %S'VI ta 4 -9n 6 .. %S'OI- _ oonxxx ....<4 rri mnaulam .. o vCO Ca Xaa�nnnea<' m . . . .. 55.7% 19.8% 19.6% 25.1% 49.4% nnnP .. v e aaaanmPaax m 4 �' .. n $9,842 $14,346 $10,774 $14,166 $4,363 $3,243 Let 0, r% 4" 1.01. www Prl w 546,6011 wwwa: $23,8331 6 •-.w ww $16,254 9 w w w wr. $3,242 $5,727 $10,361 $22,706 $14,954 $26,066 $11,529 $11,095 $736 $12,485 $997 cri 59,068 $5,442 $3,599 $2,653 $23,312 $153 en I-4 01 CO a I;i x�n�m mmm�_ ,,,, "`c � ea ccccc to re Al II„,,, ccccc ,re 0/0 n/a n/a ccc te reea. oral ccc re ren ccccc e0 in M rt.re cccc re n neantanannecte cccccccccc re 0' wwwww4 al 4 4 CCCCnnneanneenneo cc cccre ea V eccenenrerecara ccccacccccnnnrererenren ccccc ccccre re re n ccccaccccc 1. �I www c c c c c 1 .c c c c c c c< c c n/a c c c c c c c c •c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c .. X� • c c cc c cc P. Cccc TZ. 7 �CC f :i n c n cc M M c ea c to c re cc re reterenra cc ccc co ......................... re al n re CCCCccc re re re ta to es re CCC n ea - n x.-: zi_" c c c c C c c c c. °S AcC re ��Y C C 7...... c c c � j c v� c X C%! til Y [ [ C G ...010 G c c c c C c c c c c C c c c w w w w cc c CCcccc N v.r y CC ' _ . t•' C C C c C c c ...... C C C ....... c c ;rt a<ame n n n.c V !HAMMEN); ASSISTED, GROUP: naaa n .. W n .. 73.6% < %0'SSI 0 n I%E'V01 78.0% x0xxn m m CO mm xanaexe_N.0 a .„.4 h kl co F RECREATIONAL:•... 01 Xemeo 1-1 < GOVERNMENTAL: Gana a” emnoeoo0mo a r... m n I-0 nn CO ih o I.' .'I 13' rv1 4^0 et 4^ $486 wwN IN w wwwww w wwI-4 0 wwID LA wwCT in tnfz hi if: 4 rte/ '0e .;: � Iw wwww0 0 IN IN wwwIN T r. CO m VI. e.1 w $221 ro w w w w V.. 4^ www w w w ww Zi S " "" 4^. V. ww ww ,fl. wwM en Al w w ww www w en lon.wwww a — np a np a — rOOM ss OFFICE & FINANCIAL: is 000't 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf A A re la .. - 1,000 sf service bay 1,000 sf 1,000 sf tA 1,000 sf 1 CI court boat berth 0 _00 CI 0 a 0 i a student 1,000 sf — Single Family Detached less than 1,500 sf - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or larger Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV (tied down) Nursing Home Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf (Bank/Savings Walk -In !Bank/Savings Drive -In 'General Office Research & Development Center Manufacturing c 3 x Mini -Warehouse General Ught Industrial Concrete Plant cc � ct 11 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash New/Used Auto Sales c Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru i, Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store [Golf Course oc sa 2 cr c County Park ;Tennis Court F 'Post Office re = 'Government Office Complex MISCELLANEOUS: Day Care Center 71' x> 1E 15 Church Movie Theater w/Matinee Elementary School (Private, K-5) ]Middle School (Private` -9) High School (Private, 9-12) University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) C. ;j cxet n nv. n n m m e n 720 a a n n ....., c1 a a c a a COel LA CO e 492 << v n VI 733 ILS 59S 0 640 a 444 520 522 530 055/005 cal C.1 COU. 0 CO -c 10- 0) w c a 15 0 0 c -c c v c 0 ca wo 0 N Z' cC c c F ) w tu (c 4! 0.1 2 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study ta( $ f cuo0 INmav- ro ./. !!,,, 7.. ..0 ; ral. $Gor IE -87.7% ..... X0'00[• %0'001- .. . .,,,,,�,,,,,._� ... .. Iittuoot- %ff %0'OOI- %0'OOI- %0'001- %O00T- %o'001- .. %0'001- I%0'OOI- . %0'00T- 1%0'00T- . OOI- I%0'OOt- I%0001- ... I%0'OOT- %0'001- f%0'OOt- .. I%0'OOI- ... ;;;0,7=000 0044", . 000000 ,,,,,� 000000 , 4 0000000000400000 0404, . 0000 �„,��„�_» 000000000 , el rococo) on 0 0 10 cr 0 &'"" 4"\4 en &} E°;} \7tn.”$\}& !} J i\\7} \/yJJJ i ;E& e/u vu In $7531 un IA- / } \ƒ .. \ . . ^zx . . -65.8% - ,_„tt71 ,4^,\ N., $571 $583 ,.Pi ,K re {! „n en „u) 0 pi.„0 74 , , �,ffi. CV 58091 .0404 1-1 ue wy 0 , $2281 441 0 „en 40 $130 Mt err , 74 „ 74 0 tO 74 ter ;4'tI f71 rt $384[ , . / -, 0404, \� _, , - ° , , - \ !i \ \ %0'001- 0 .o %0'001- <;. .. %O'OOI- %O'OOI- 00 !{ - . 0 0 v [%0'001- w %0'001- n %0'OOT- %O'OOI- * 0 !k \\/ 00000 I%0'OOt- %0'00I- ;k ({ j§ I%0'OOT- ,6[ %0'00I- lot. %0'001- .. %0'00T- 00T- . %0'001- /' I%0'OOT- . % %00'OOt- 'OOI- f%0'OOI- %0'001- .. %0'OOI- %0'OOT- %0'OOS- %0'OOT- %0'OOT- .. 0404,,, y 0404,, ,�(//ƒ � 0404,,/\ /{` ,0//46•;• f©` /} ,,,,,00000 00000000 000000000 ,,,,,,,_, 0404,,, 0404,,74 71 al 0 74,en en,74 74 ® I}{/}a 1¶ 0 �f®�«--- 4/40 Irl,& \/ .ev Ria \ } . v¥y „1-1 re aa_� w2 ,Tr , re , 74 ---® %0'001• %0'00T- %0'OOT- %0'OOI- %0'001- . 1. e %0'OOI- %0'OOT- %0'00I- %0'00I- OFFICE & FINANCIAL: . %0'00I- %0'001- %0'001- %0'OOT- %O'OOT- | || . %0'OOT- %0'001- %0'001- %0'OOI- 0 � 000000§ ;////Z` kt§® %oro0r\R:x %0'001- 'W %0'OOT- %0'OOT-L_ %0'OOl-,vey, RECREATIONAL I 00000 m ... e GOVERNMENTAL: -. 1 0 z; _ 1%0'001; / %O'OOI- %O'001- %0'OOI- %0'00T- %0'001- %0'OOt- I%0'OOI- - . 0 04.00,, 0 0 0 00000000000 ,,,,0 0 0 0 „_„on C '40 4^4^4^4^, 0V °{\14 \ as{{7 1,y *&® a, . 1 MLSCElLANE012S: - ,�,,,,,,'4 I.- 40 ni 000&00 0 :� :°®® J044"4^77 $885 $228 $72 $211 $475 [=E= &i J »»Jr ® •CO E V1: ®- room ! I\\ np np np ... \ 1,000 s( I 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 st ; ; \ \ 1,000 sf \ 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf service bay 1,000 sf 1,000 s( + acre court boat berth \ 1,000 st 1 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf c student [ \!l; )/\ \ Lana use RESIDENTIAL: ' - — Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf 210 1,500 to 2,499 sf _ - 2,500 st or larger 220 Muld-Family/Accessory Unit 240 [Mobile Home/RV (tied down) Hotel Motel • [Nursing Home_ `Z.tt re u. § ) Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Research & Development Center [Manufacturing )# Mini -Warehouse General Light Industrial [Concrete Plant Sand AMMAR ) Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash New/Used Auto Sales [Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Supermarket Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store \ [Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park [Tennis Court Post Office { Government Office Complex [ Ile( Day Care Center Hospital Veterinary Clinic Church Movie Theater w/Mati nee Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 69) de} \ \ University/Junior Callege1500 or fewer students) [ c - on 310 320 252 I OPT 944/946 934 850 942 947 853 1 492 565 ' 610 640 560 520 I 540/550 1 ta( $ f cuo0 INmav- ro v L w d amara C v Cc Lino _a vv aL d 10 H V u. cuN 2 Indian River County 1 Impact Fee Update Study v LL 0 0 w `0 v Cl c 0 1) C d r tri c v 0 c 03 > .I O oN m 0 m c c r ul a.� v F 17 T < n 4.8% m m m x m e N. x v m m x x v o m 1 -74.0%1 n m -50.0%1 X n. m X Xn. m X X m m X m m m x n x m v m e n m x Nt x m m x m x w eel w Idle w ww w w ww w w ww ww IA 44 w 1 $25,7471 ww w 57541 w w $772 < v a w en w www eml 411- wwww w w w wwww 4" 41. $13,385 w w 4." 4/4 www w sen $30,365 ww en. en $14,0061 $13,586 w ww w 1060'L$ w en w 4". on w 'j In • A o t a m m � m m 0 m n m m 0 m n e X X m m m o o- n X X X m u m m m X m X X X m X X X m es n 0 rX, v m x m m x o et ww en el w CO 4" LA 4" Cn VC' n V% $228 V w et ww 0 CO w I en 01 ww le ern tee ww .ww $3,825 $9,521 $20,970 or- www SZL'OI$ w an 4" w ww w 4^ 4" wwww 411 nn VM Ln, 4" ro 4/1- 4.2 4" w 1 $13,746] $13,746 w 13 346 3 893 w ww w ww $35,6511 $11,458 $8,026 _ $14,954 ww $12`$51 w $18,373 w ww w ww w - tin 0'Q .CC �' X ry X .. X rv^ o 1-1 X -. c ea c .. c cc .cccc -70 eannerenea c c c c neemeames c c c c c c re c m c re re c c to.... � c c c c c c cet re re c— ea c- ee ............ tie to c or c re c re re c c re c n c re ............ es cc re re re c c to w N www CFI 0 w c c c c c 91% n/a c c no c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c en In 01 V 0 413 w c c c=n. c `.c f a '' 2 `c c cccc c c c . c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 11y 8 �� � F ` ccccc c cccccc � i � d. ea n ;CCC•C f •Ce a CCCCCM . h55i. t. on 7A 4C• CCC••C -fi'� CC0• =0 << n/a1 ��������eenceara <<c�ccc<<lc c c c c c c c c C. c F b rt rt£r or PV 4c v c c c n/al ,j f' <<�J c `• •:r c o c c c so c c c c or,c c c c c c c c c c c c co w 0 th M wm c c c c c c c c c c ffir• so S3" so. 4 c c � c ...... c 'vac A4 c p c c' c , c c c 3 c c c c c --- c c c c c c c Cs - X.. m n a n m n m b y n R 0 cti W 2 R$ " ry n .-i o b o e m .. .W v .. O .. m m .. X X m o m X m X X m ,.. n n 4 IV O 'l O v / i.s v 6 � n m n O n X A �n e-} b . m v ^ m .. n .. %O'Lit GOVERNMENTAL: n ` J O f m m ry CO n T MISCELLANEOUS: v us m m .n v b n v .. O m m ry m n 0 n E c�, ur 3 a.' - www IA 4" 4" 4" 4^ 4" w 4^ tel. Q V1to . IA 4A wwwS.i yry w • • 2 2 ¢ V C m w A -::a. $8681 195$'.G:t\ In' l: ww ww www w "'"' w In vs du 11 $162 ww vs OFFKE & FINANCIAL:. ww w w w vs """' wwIn' ww 4" 4" 4"4"4. Ye ww w an- ww www w wwww o_i- du —~ MOT �� 1 1000sf [ S 1 1,000 sf 1 1,000 sf A sod lam 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf service bay 1 1s 000't oco .CO0 acre court 1,000 sf SEaea 1,000 sf 1 I 1,000st screen I student 1 student _ -4 W 0 ISingle Family Detached - Less than 1,500 st - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 st or larger Muld-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV (tied down) & Zs u Nursing Home :Assisted Care Uving Facility (ACU) [Medical Office/Clinic 10,000sf or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Research & Development Center Manufacturing Warehousing [Mini -Warehouse General Light Industrial Loncrete Plant c i v, A cc Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash New/Used Auto Sales A re Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Supermarket Automobile Repair/Body Shop Sel(-Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store Golf Course [Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court c it i . C._ _ d= Government Office Complex jail 1 Day Care Center - 2 Veterinary Clinic Church Movie Theater w/Matt nee Elementary School (Private, g-5) Middle School (Private, 6[9) High School (Private, 9-12) ll O IllE 0 c u 3 za 0T. 2 Lu comer.4-4 es et on ry «ry n 01 01 nn . ........cc o „c,en M m,,,,tn el et mmIn 01 v vee01 v LT v in un n v, v,00v,v40 v et 9.0 et 1 520 r, u,ro en 540/550 1 cat v LL 0 0 w `0 v Cl c 0 1) C d r tri c v 0 c 03 > .I O oN m 0 m c c r