Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-169a a Ik May 2005 -Jn}ya�p.} 71 fh it It , � � r IS to „r t— .9t ':w'n�t .., it ItY If M, -. N x . 1 It r IW ' It Z �v e It ° lop � F X $r ilk ? � }. dr� w�vwy 'N* sx � "art s re€� w"' ,� a�'°�i z 'i ,yj• � ^ 'R = c ..aa. ..,.. . : 4ew , e � e ,:' 14 s. 5! ItIfS y„t a �� r ''yy��r�^ ^;w: It Fj X41: Malia . . •� /� d�� rFzr� e (This page left blank intentionally) I Y Table of Contents FINAL REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IMPACT FEE STUDY I . Introduction and Policy Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I . . . " I ' ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . I - 1 PolicySummary , . . " . " , I I I I I I I I I I 1 6 1 1 1 a a , I I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 0 1 a , 0 6 1 1 a 0 4 4 a 4 9 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 a 6 I -2 Overview . , , . , . , . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . * * to . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . I -3 Purpose of the Policy Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I -3 Legal Requirements for Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . 1 -3 ImpactFee Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3 ImpactFee vs . Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3 Legal Framework for Imposing Impact Fees . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . 4 . . . I -3 Authority to Impose Impact Fees in IRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Compliance with State and Federal Constitutional Requirements . . . . I -4 Defensible Impact Fee Methodology . . , , , , , , , . . . I . . . I . . . . . . . . " Ill " * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -4 Level of Service (LOS ) Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -4 RevenueCredits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -5 Impact Fee Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 5 Administration . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . too I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 5 Effective Date of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I - 5 Applicability of Impact Fees on Future Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 6 Intergovernmental Coordination and Countywide Administration . . . I - 6 Imposition , Calculation, and Collection of Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 7 Use of Impact Fee Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 7 DeveloperCredits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 - 8 Exempting or Paying Impact Fees from Other Revenue Sources . . . . . . I -9 Updating the Impact Fee Program and Indexing the Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll , I - 10 AppealsProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll . . . I - 10 LOS Standards and Fee Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 - 10 FundingSource Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 - 11 Review of Current Capital Funding Sources by Program Area . . . . . . . . . I - 11 Summary of Legal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I - 15 II . Current & Projected Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 1 Population Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1 Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3 FunctionalPopulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -6 III. Correctional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 40 . 0 . . . . . . . . . III - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . 1 III - 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 5 CostComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 7 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 i Impact Fee Study . 1 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -9 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 12 Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . III - 12 Proposed Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 13 FutureDemand Analysis . . . . . , . , . . . , . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . III - 15 EstimatedRevenues . . 1 . 1 1 . I . . . I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 15 IV. Solid Waste Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 . 11 , IV - 7 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . 66 , 666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 7 DemandComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . IV - 8 CostComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 9 CreditComponent . , . . . . . . . . . . . ' Ile ' 0000 , 94 . totes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . I IV - 13 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 18 Net Solid Waste Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 18 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . tell . . . . . . . . . " I ' ll , . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV - 19 FutureDemand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV -21 EstimatedRevenues . . " , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11111 * 4 . . . . . . . . IV -22 V . Public Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . 11 . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . Otto . . , . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . . . " I ' ll . . . . . . . . . . . V - 1 Population . , . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . too . , . . . . . . . . . . . * I . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6 CostComponent . . , . . . . . . . . . " Ill * * * . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1111 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 7 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll . . . . . . V -9 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . V - 12 Net Public Building Impact Cost . . . . , . . . 1 " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . I ' ll . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . V - 12 Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13 FutureDemand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 04 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 15 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16 VI. Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . VI - 6 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 6 CostComponent . . . . . . . . too I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . VI -9 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 VI - 14 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 19 Net Library Facility , Items , and Equipment Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 19 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use . . . I . . . I . . . . . . . " Ill . , , . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . " I " . VI - 19 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule . . . . too . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -20 FutureDemand Analysis . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 1111 , . . . . . . . . . 149 . 0 . . . . . . * 00 . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -21 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . toggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -23 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 ii Impact Fee Study r VII . Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 6 Levelof Service . . " , " " . . . . 4 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 00 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 7 CostComponent ' . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . * . . * to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 8 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . . . . . * too * , . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . . . I . e . , . . . . 0 . Mo . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 11 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 14 Net Fire/EMS Impact Cost . , . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . 9 . 000 . # o . * . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . I . . too * . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 14 Proposed Fire/EMS Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 15 Future Demand Analysis . , . . . . I . . . . . 11 . 1 . . . . . . too * . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 10 * 00 VII - 17 Estimated Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 18 VIII. Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 1 Inventory . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . fee " . . . . . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 . . . q . . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 1 Population . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . , . . . . . 11 . 11 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0 . 0o . . 0 . . . VIII -2 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 . 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 5 CostComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 6 CreditComponent , . , . . , , . , , , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 * 0 . 0 * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 9 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 13 Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . too . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 14 Future Demand Analysis , , , , , " . . . . . . . too . , . . . . . . . * * so , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vill - 16 Estimated Revenues . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vill - 17 IX . Public Education Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . IX - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 5 CostComponent " . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . * . . . . . . . . me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 6 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 9 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 13 Net Impact Cost per Student , . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . 0 . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 13 Student Generation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 14 Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 15 Future Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 15 Estimated Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 16 X . Parks and Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 1 Inventory . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . too * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 9 Level of Service Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 9 CostComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 11 CreditComponent ' , . , " . , , , , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . So $ . . . . . X - 16 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -21 Net Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -21 Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -22 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 iii Impact Fee Study Proposed Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule . . . , . . . . . . . 11 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X -23 FutureDemand Analysis . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 , 111 , 11 , . . . . 1 , . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -23 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 . 1 . . . . . . . . . X -24 Tables Table 1 - 1 Impact Fee Service Area Considerations by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -9 Table 1 -2 Current and Recommended Standards by Impact Fee ProgramArea . . 4 . . . . . . . I I . I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 " " a 0 0 0 ' * * q * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 . . . 1 I - 12 Table I - 3 Comparison of Fees by Impact Fee Program A . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . 1 - 13 Table 1 -4 Historical and Projected Capital Facility Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I ' ll 1 - 14 Table II - 1 IRC Population Estimates and Projections . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . II -2 Table II -2 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3 Table II -3 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit Excluding IndianRiver Shores . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . M . . . * . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -3 Table II -4 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unit . . . . . , . . . I . . . . . I1 -4 Table II - 5 Nationwide Residents per Housing Unit — Single Family . . . " I . . . . . . . . . . . II -4 Table II - 6 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit . . . . . . . 1 . 111 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5 Table II - 7 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores — Residents perHousing Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 5 Table II - 8 Unincorporated County Area — Residents per Housing Unit. . , . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6 Table II -9 24-Hour/ 7 -Day General Functional Population Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I -9 Table II - 10 11 -Hour/5 -Day General Functional Population Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 10 Table 11 - 11 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 (24 -Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 11 Table 11 - 12 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population - Year 2004 (24 -Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . 4 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 12 Table II - 13 Unincorporated County Area Functional Population — Year 2004 (24-Hour Analysis ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 13 Table II - 14 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 11 -Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 14 Table II - 15 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — Correctional Facilities (Countywide) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 15 Table II - 16 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — PublicBuildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . II - 16 Table I1 - 17 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — FIRE/EM S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . . 1I - 16 Table 11 - 18 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — LawEnforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . " I ' ll " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 . 1 . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . II - 17 Table II - 19 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule - PublicBuildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 11 - 18 Table 11 -20 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule — Correctional Facilities , Fire/EMS , and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . II - 19 Table III - 1 Land & Buildings Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -2 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 iv Impact Fee Study r Table III -2 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lII - 5 Table III - 3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -6 Table III -4 Functional Residents Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 6 Table I1I - 5 Land & Buildings Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 7 Table III - 6 Equipment Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8 Table III - 7 Programmed Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8 Table lII - 8 Unit Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 9 Table II1 - 9 Historical Capital Expenditures — Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11I - 10 Table I1I - 10 Revenue per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 11 Table I1I - 11 Credit per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 11 Table III - 12 Net Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 12 Table III - 13 Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 13 Table III - 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 15 Table III - 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 16 Table IV - 1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . IV - 3 Table IV -2 Current Level of Service , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 7 Table IV -3 Demand Component . . . , , , , , . , . . . . . . 11 , 0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . Mo . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 8 Table IV -4 Proposed Capital Expenditures — FY 05 /06 — 09/ 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 10 Table IV - 5 Planned Capital Expansion Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . IV- 11 Table IV -6 Distribution of Capital Expansion Expenditures . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I IV - 12 Table IV - 7 Historical Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 14 Table IV - 8 Changes in the Assessment Fee Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 15 Table IV- 9 Total Credit per Resident , , . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I IV - 16 Table IV - 10 Changes in the Fund Balance , , , , . . . . . . . . " lot * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 17 Table IV- 11 Net Impact Cost I . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 1111 . . . . . . . IV- 18 Table IV - 12 Single Family Solid Waste Impact Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 19 Table IV - 13 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I IV -20 Table V- 1 Summary of Public Building Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V -2 Table V-2 Leased - Out/Rented County -Owned Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 5 Table V -3 Leased Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 5 Table V -4 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V -6 Table V - 5 Level of Service Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . V- 7 Table V -6 Public Building Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 8 Table V - 7 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V -9 Table V - 8 Programmed Expenditures per Functional Resident . . 11 . 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 10 Table V -9 Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident 0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 11 Table V - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12 Table V - 11 Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident , . . . I . . . . . . . . . . I V - 13 Table V - 12 Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 14 Table V- 13 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16 Table V- 14 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . V - 17 Table VI - 1 Summary of IRC Library Building Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . VI - 1 Table VI -2 Summary of IRC Library Material Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -5 Table VI -3 Summary of IRC Library Equipment Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 6 Table VI -4 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V1 - 7 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 v Impact Fee Study Table VI - 5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to FLA Standards Library Materials and Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . VI - 8 Table VI -6 Comparison of IRC LOS to Surrounding Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 8 Table VI- 7 Comparison of Current LOS and LOS Standards . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . . . . . 111 . 11 . . . VI -9 Table VI - 8 Building Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 * 041090 , 0 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 10 TableVI - 9 Land Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 11 Table VI - 10 Summary of Building and Land Costs per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 11 Table VI - 11 Library Material Unit Costs . , ' . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at . . . VI - 12 Table VI - 12 Library Equipment Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . VI - 13 Table VI - 13 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident ' . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 111 . 1 . . . . . VI - 14 Table VI - 14 Library Historical and Programmed Capital Expansion FundingSources . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 111 , . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 15 Table VI - 15 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 16 Table VI - 16 Equipment Value Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . all . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . , VI - 17 Table VI - 17 Total Credit per Resident " " . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " , I ' m . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . 11 . 1 . . . . . . . VI - 18 Table VI - 18 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . all . . . . . . . 11 . 111 , . . . . . " I ' ll . . . . . . . . VI - 19 Table VI - 19 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . VI -20 Table VI -20 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -20 Table VI - 21 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 0 . 00 VI -21 Table VI - 22 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . VI -23 Table VII - 1 Land & Buildings Inventory . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . 1 . 111 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . VII -2 Table VII -2 Vehicle Inventory Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . VII - 5 Table VII -3 Capital Equipment Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . VII - 6 Table VII -4 Current Level of Service (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII -7 Table VII - 5 Current Level of Service Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 8 Table VII -6 Building Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . VII -9 Table VII -7 Station Equipment Costs " " . , . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 10 Table VII - 8 Five Year Programmed and Planned Capital Expenditures . , . . . . . . . . . . . . I VII - 10 Table VII -9 Impact Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . VII - 11 Table VII - 10 Six-Year Historical Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . l ' , , , . . . . . . . . . . 11 VII - 12 Table VII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 13 Table VII - 12 Percent of Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 14 Table VII - 13 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Will 15 Table VII - 14 Proposed Fire/EMS Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . a . . VII - 16 Table VII - 15 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . 144 . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 18 Table VII -- 16 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 VII - 19 Table VIII - 1 Land and Building Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 2 Table VIII -2 Current Level of Service (2004 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . a . . . . . all . . . . . . . . . VIII - 5 Table VIII - 3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . VIII - 5 Table VIII -4 Functional Residents Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -6 Table VIII - 5 Building and Land Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . 4 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -7 Table VIII -6 Equipment Cost . . . . . . . . 1 . 111 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . * * * . . . . 0 4 4 . . . . . . . VIII - 8 Table VIII - 7 Unit Cost per Functional Resident . , . . . . . . . . I ' ll . , . . . . . so . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . VIII -9 Table VIII - 8 Historical Capital Expenditures — Expansion/Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . lVilittlo Table VIII -9 Revenue per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . 111 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 11 Table VIII - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 12 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 vi Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 13 Table VIII - 12 Net Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 14 Table VIII - 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 15 Table VIII - 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 17 Table VIII - 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 18 Table IX - 1 Current Level of Service (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 5 Table IX -2 Facility Cost Per Student Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 0 . IX - 7 Table IX -3 Total Impact Cost per Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX -9 Table IX -4 State Revenue Credit . . . . I I . . . I I 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 11 Table IX - 5 2 -Mill Revenue Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 " . . ' . . . . . . . . . . IX - 12 Table IX - 6 Vacant Land Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 IX - 13 Table IX - 7 Net Impact Cost per Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 14 Table IX - 8 Student Generation Rate . . " . . . . 11 . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 14 Table IX -9 Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule . . , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . IX - 15 Table IX - 10 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 16 Table IX - 11 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 17 Table X- I Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory — Unincorporated County Area . , , , , . . . . " I . . . . . * . 0606 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -3 Table X -2 Parks & Recreation Facilities Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 10 Table X -3 Level of Service Comparison . . . . , . . . I I I I I . . * * * * * , . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 * . , . . . . . 4 . . X- 10 Table X -4 Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 11 Table X - 5 Utilities and Paving Cost per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 12 Table X -6 Total Land Cost per Resident . ' . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . X- 13 Table X - 7 Regional Parks Equipment/Buildings Replacement Cost . X - 14 Table X - 8 Community/Neighborhood Parks Equipment/Buildings ReplacementCost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 15 Table X -9 Programmed Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . " I . . . . . . " I . . . . . . . . . 11 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 16 Table X - 10 Unit Cost per Resident . , , . . . . . " 1 1 . 00 . . . . . 040 . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 16 Table X- 11 Historical Capital Expenditures — Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 18 Table X - 12 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident . , . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . X - 19 Table X - 13 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 20 Table X - 14 Credit per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -21 Table X - 15 Net Impact Cost per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -22 Table X - 16 Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -23 Table X - 17 Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact FeeSchedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -23 Table X - 18 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -24 Table X - 19 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -25 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 vii Impact Fee Study S Maps Map III - 1 Correctional Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 - 3 Map IV - 1 Solid Waste Facility Locations . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . 0460 . 040 . . . IV - 5 Map V - 1 Public Building Facility Locations . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . 094 . . . . V-3 Map VI - 1 Library Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 3 Map VII - 1 Fire/EMS Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 3 Map VIII - 1 Law Enforcement Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -3 Map IX - 1 Public Education Facility Locations . . , . . . 11 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . * a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' ll , . . . . . . IX -3 Map X - 1 County Parks Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7 Appendices Appendix A Population Estimate & Functional Population — Supplemental Information Appendix B Property Values — Supplemental Information Appendix C Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule — WGU Based Appendix D Current and Future School District Facility Inventories Appendix E Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees Appendix F Review of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area Appendix G Comparison of Selected Fees in Florida Appendix H Policy Presentation to Elected Officials Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 viii Impact Fee Study FINAL REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IMPACT FEE STUDY 1. Introduction and Policy Summary INTRODUCTION Indian River County (IRC ) has been experiencing significant growth over the past two decades . During the 1980 ' s , the county population increased by 51 percent and in the 1990 ' s by 24 percent . To address the infrastructure costs associated with new growth , the County retained Tindale -Oliver & Associates (TOA ) , in conjunction with Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle (FLC ) and Dr . A . Chris Nelson, to conduct impact fee studies for eight service/facility categories , including : • Correctional Facilities • Solid Waste Facilities • Public Buildings • Libraries • Fire/Emergency Services • Law Enforcement • Public Education Facilities • Parks The purpose of these studies is to create a legally defensible and economically supportable set of impact fees for the above areas . This final report identifies the methodology upon which each of the impact fees will be based , including the service area, level of service , demand , cost and credit components . This report starts with an overview of policy issues that should be considered in the implementation of new impact programs . The remainder of this report is organized in the following sections : Section Title II Current and Projected Population III Correctional Facilities IV Solid Waste Facilities V Public Buildings VI Libraries VII Emergency Services VIII Law Enforcement IX Public Education Facilities X Parks and Recreation Facilities Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 1 Impact Fee Study f { Appendix A Functional Population — Supplemental Information Appendix B Property Values — Supplemental Information Appendix C Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule — WGU Based Appendix D Current and Future School District Facility Inventories Appendix E Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees Appendix F Review of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area Appendix G Comparison of Selected Fees in Florida Appendix H Policy Presentation to Elected Officials Sections III through X are organized in the following manner : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Impact Fee Cost • Proposed Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues Policy Summary In response to the growth and development occurring in IRC , the Board of County Commissioners (BCC ) initiated a study of impact fees for eight service/facility categories . As part of this study , a policy summary was completed prior to the technical analysis contained in Section II through Section X in this final report . This Policy Summary is designed to provide a clear, concise , and easy -to -read synopsis of policy issues related to the potential adoption and implementation of impact fees in IRC . This section provides a summary of legal issues that are identified and discussed throughout the policy summary . Legal matters addressed herein merely summarize the comprehensive discussion set forth in Appendix E , which should be referenced as appropriate . The summary concludes with a review of legal requirements . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 1 -2 Impact Fee Study OVERVIEW Purpose of the Policy Summary • Introduce the concept of impact fees to the elected officials in IRC . • Summarize the legal requirements for imposing impact fees . • Discuss impact fee level of service considerations . • Discuss impact fee revenues and their effect on current capital funding of impact fee program areas . LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one -time capital charge levied against new development . • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development . • The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories . Impact Fee vs . Tax • An impact fee is a regulatory function established as a condition for improving property and is not established for the purpose of generating revenue . • An impact fee must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer . • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for infrastructure created by development . Legal Framework for Imposing Impact Fees • Legal standards and criteria have been established through state case law decisions that : ' o support local government authority to impose impact fees . o require that fees comply with state and federal constitutional requirements . Authority to Impose Impact Fees in IRC • 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 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 3 Impact Fee Study e \ o A non-charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that do not conflict with municipal ordinances . • The fiscal burden of providing countywide services must be borne by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county . Compliance with State and Federal Constitutional Requirements • Local government impact fee programs must satisfy the " dual rational nexus test" by demonstrating that : o the need for capital facilities created by new development is proportionate to the amount of the fee charged ; and o the expenditure of impact fee funds creates a reasonable benefit to the new development paying the fees . • Compliance with the dual rational nexus test is achieved by : o using a methodology that establishes a proportionate need for capital facilities ; and o implementing an ordinance that contains safeguards and restrictions to guarantee reasonable benefit to the fee payer . Defensible Impact Fee Methodology • A local government impact fee program must be based on a study that documents : o the need for additional capital facility capacity created by new development ; o the cost of providing needed facilities ; o the new development ' s proportionate share of the costs ; and o the maximum amount per unit of development consistent with the proportionate share . • The County may , by policy , charge less than the maximum amount per unit of development . Level of Service ( LOS ) Standards • The County must establish LOS standards for each impact fee program area . • The County must apply the same LOS standard to both existing and new development . • An " existing deficiency " is created when a County establishes a LOS standard that is greater than the current LOS . • New development cannot be charged a rate designed to correct an existing deficiency . • To charge new development based on a LOS standard higher than what exists today , the County must have a financial plan (non - impact fee revenue sources ) to eliminate the existing deficiency within a reasonable amount of time ( generally five years or less) . The following example illustrates this concept . o The current parks acreage level of service is 4 acres per 1000 residents . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I -4 Impact Fee Study o The County desires to establish a standard of 5 acres per 1000 residents (hypothetical example) . o The current population of the unincorporated county, including both permanent and seasonal residents , is approximately 89 , 000 . o An increase in the standard of 1 acre per 1000 population would require an additional 89 acres of parks acreage to be added to the inventory of parks acreage . o The County budgets the acquisition of 89 acres of park land using non- impact fee revenues in its Five-Year Capital Improvement Program . o The County can base its Park Impact Fee on a standard of 5 acres per 1000 residents because it has a financial plan to correct the existing deficiency . Revenue Credits • The County must evaluate the revenue credit that each unit of new development generates and could be used to fund new capital facilities (property tax, sales tax , etc . ) . • The present value of these revenues per unit of land use that historically have been used or projected in the future to be used for capital facility expansion is subtracted from the cost per unit of land use of providing capital expansion facilities ( i . e . , the revenue credit) . • The revenue credit ensures that new development does not pay more than its proportionate share of future capital costs . • As non- impact fee revenues increase for capital facility expansion (e . g . , sales tax) , the revenue credit increases and the impact fee decreases . • As non - impact fee revenues decrease for capital facility expansion (e . g . , reallocate sales tax to other capital investment or operating/maintenance) , the revenue credit decreases and the impact fee increases . IMPACT FEE IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Administration • The program must be easy for the public to understand through the use of web site access of the ordinance , an administrative manual , forms , impact fee schedules , and brochures . • If multiple impact fees are adopted , an Impact Fee Coordinator position will be necessary as a point of public contact and to manage the increased administrative responsibilities created by the program . Similar positions exist in counties with multiple impact fees . Effective Date of Implementation • The ordinance may be effective upon filing with the Department of State . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 5 Impact Fee Study w � • Most communities make the effective date of impact fees anywhere from one to six months after the adoption of the ordinance . • Delaying the effective date allows developments already in the pipeline to complete their application and get their building permit prior to paying the new impact fees . • Delaying the effective date results in lost impact fee revenue from development that occurs during the delay time period . Applicability of Impact Fees on Future Development • Impact fees will be charged against future development that creates a measurable demand for new capital facilities and for which no building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance . • Impact fees will not be charged against existing development (e . g . , home resales) or future development that does not create a new demand for capital facilities . • Examples of new development that will not pay an impact fee include : o developments where building permits have been issued prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance ; o developments that document no creation of a measurable demand for new capital facilities ; and o developments that are deed- restricted residential communities restricted to adults only (excluded from paying a Public Education Impact Fee) . • Impact fees for capital facilities that are provided by the County within only the unincorporated areas of the county must be charged against development within only the unincorporated areas of the county . • Impact fees for capital facilities that are provided by the County within both the unincorporated and incorporated areas ( i . e . , "countywide ") must be charged against development within both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county . • The Florida Supreme Court has held that those who benefit from the provision of County facilities must share the burden of providing those facilities so that the burdens of one group are not passed disproportionately to another group . • Countywide impact fees must be spent in a manner that reasonably benefits those in incorporated and unincorporated areas . Intergovernmental Coordination and Countywide Administration • Interlocal Agreements among the County , municipalities , and the School Board must be developed and adopted prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance to address the : o collection of countywide impact fees within incorporated areas of the county ; o administrative costs borne by municipalities collecting impact fees for the County ; Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I -6 Impact Fee Study r • o municipal reporting requirements concerning the collection and transmittal of impact fee revenues ; and o development of annual capital improvement programs to expend the fees . • The administrative charge borne by municipalities will be included within the impact fee and not as an "add -on" cost . Imposition , Calculation , and Collection of Impact Fees • Impact fees may be imposed as early as subdivision approval and as late as the issuance of the certificate of occupancy . • Most communities require payment prior to the issuance of the building permit . • A procedure must be included in the ordinance that allows the applicant to submit an independent impact fee calculation following a prescribed county methodology . For example , the current IRC Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance provides that : o the County Administrator or designee shall have the right to accept or reject the applicant ' s Independent Impact Fee Study ; and o an appeal of the County Administrator ' s decision may be made to the BCC . • Impact fee revenue must be deposited into segregated accounts to ensure that revenues will be expended for the provision of capital facilities for which the fees are collected . Use of Impact Fee Revenue • Collected impact fees may be spent only on the public facilities for which they were collected . • Fees cannot be spent for operations and maintenance and must be spent only for capital facilities and costs incidental to the capital facilities (e . g . , fees can be spent on additional library books because they are necessary to put the library facilities to use ) . • Impact fee revenues spent on privately -owned lands or educational facilities must revert to the School Board in the event the charter school ceases operation as a publicly -sponsored school facility . • Impact fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time to strengthen the nexus between the fee payer and the benefit provided by the capital facilities . • Most communities in Florida require fees to be spent within six years . • Reasonable geographic areas for the demonstration of benefit have been determined by the courts to be as large as countywide . • The determination of a proper benefit area depends on the background data and nature of the service being provided ( see Table I - 1 , which summarizes considerations associated with service areas and benefit districts in IRC ) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 7 Impact Fee Study A � • Reasonable administrative costs attributable to the provision of facilities for which impact fees are assessed also may be covered by impact fee revenues . These include the reasonable costs of maintaining an impact fee coordinator position , updating the impact fee ordinance/fee schedule , and covering administrative costs incurred by municipalities in the collection of fees . The costs should be fairly apportioned and documented . Developer Credits • To ensure that developers pay no more than their proportionate share of capital costs , developer credits are typically provided for monetary contributions, land dedications , and construction provided by developers toward the provision of capital facilities for which impact fees are collected . • The timing of the decision on developer credits must be specified in the impact fee ordinance (e . g . , credits may be granted only when the improvement is budgeted in the County ' s adopted Five -Year Capital Improvement Program , Capital Improvements Element of the County Comprehensive Plan , or School Board Five Year Capital Improvement Program) . • Requirements for Development Credit Agreements and the associated approval process must be specified in the impact fee ordinance . J Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 8 Impact Fee Study Table 1 = 1 Impact Fee Service Area Considerations by Program Area No . Program Area Service Area Considerations j Correctional Correctional facilities are provided on a countywide basis . The proper benefit Facilities district for correctional facilities is countywide . 2 Solid Waste Solid waste facilities ( refuse transfer centers , recycling and landfill ) are provided on a countywide basis . The proper benefit district for solid waste is countywide . 3 Public Public education facilities are provided on a countywide basis . The proper benefit Education district for public education is countywide . 4 Library Libraries are a countywide service . Books and items are available and shared among branches . The proper benefit district for libraries is countywide . 5 Fire/Emergency Fire services and EMS are countywide services, excluding Indian River Shores, Medical which provides its own fire and emergency services . The proper benefit district for Services (EMS) Fire and EMS is countywide, with the exclusion of Indian River Shores , Law Law enforcement services are provided by the County Sheriff' s Department in the Enforcement unincorporated areas of the county . The municipalities have their own law enforcement agencies . The proper benefit district for law enforcement is the unincorporated county . 7 Public Public buildings provide many services , some to unincorporated areas of the county Buildings and others to the countywide population (judicial complex, health department, tax collector, etc . ) . If public buildings are viewed as countywide, the standard of square feet per person will be lower than if only the unincorporated population is used . Thus, the fee will be more conservative if a countywide approach is used . The proper benefit district for public buildings is countywide . 8 Park and Park and recreation facilities are provided by the County and municipalities . Recreation Sebastian has adopted a Park and Recreation Impact Fee and Vero Beach has its own park and recreation system . For all parks , an unincorporated county fee and benefit district is recommended . Exempting or Paying Impact Fees from Other Revenue Sources • The BCC may exempt particular land uses or development projects ( e . g . , affordable housing or economic development projects) from the impact fee requirement . • To survive judicial scrutiny of exemptions : o exempted land uses or project types must be narrow in scope , clearly defined and consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies of the County . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I -9 Impact Fee Study • The BCC may establish a policy that pays the calculated impact fees from revenue sources other than impact fees . • If the County exempts particular land uses or development projects from the fee requirement and does not reimburse the affected impact fee accounts with non - impact fee revenues , the ordinance may be rendered ineffective as a mechanism for funding capital improvements necessary to serve new development and may be subject to legal liabilities . Updating the Impact Fee Program and Indexing the Fees • Typically , impact fees are updated every three years to ensure that development continues to pay a fee that is proportionate to its impact and receives a proportionate benefit to the fee paid . • Indexing is a method used to adjust the impact fee on an annual basis between periodic updates . Indexing of impact fees is becoming increasingly popular as a way to avoid significant increases when fees are subsequently updated . o Indexes must reflect cost increases that the County can reasonably expect to incur in the provision of needed capital facilities and be consistent with the underlying impact fee methodology . c Common indexes include the Consumer Price Index, local property appraiser records , and publications such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index . Appeals Process • Typically , provisions for appeals of impact fee decisions made by staff, the County Administrator, and the BCC must be defined in the ordinance or through existing County procedures . • The approach used by many jurisdictions is similar to the appeal process contained in the County ' s current Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance , as summarized below . o The County Administrator or designee shall have the right to accept or reject the decision made by staff concerning an impact fee ; and o Final appeal of the County Administrator ' s decision shall be made to the BCC . LOS STANDARDS AND FEE REVIEW Current LOS and adopted LOS standards in IRC were reviewed for each facility service category being considered in the impact fee study . In addition , performance standards from impact fees in other Florida counties were compiled and reviewed for comparative purposes . Summary data from this review of LOS standards and fees are provided in Tables 1 -2 and 1 -3 . Table 1 -2 provides the current LOS in IRC , the adopted LOS standard in IRC ( if any ) , and the recommended LOS standard for each program area . It should be noted that, for Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 10 Impact Fee Study op purposes of calculating the current levels of service , performance standards , and in calculating future demand for capital facilities for each impact fee program area , the weighted average seasonal population is used . Table I -3 provides actual fee comparisons ( single family residential land use) for each of the program areas being considered for impact fees in IRC . FUNDING SOURCE REVIEW Review of Current Capital Funding Sources by Program Area • The primary non - impact fee source of capital revenues for the eight impact fee program areas under study has been and will continue to be the County ' s Local Option Sales Tax . This tax was recently extended through 2015 . • Table I -4 provides a summary of the actual capital expenditures for capacity expansion projects during the last six years and the planned capital expenditures for the next five years . o Past sales tax capital facility expansion expenditures included : 1 . expansion of five parks , an aquatic center, and a shooting range ; 2 . a new north county library and expansion of the main library facility ; 3 . three new fire stations and additional support vehicles ; and 4 . land purchases for government buildings , sheriff evidence center, jail facility expansion , health department dental clinic , and touch screen voting machines . o Planned sales tax expenditures include : 1 . a new County administration building ; 2 . two new fire/EMS stations ; 3 . a new branch library in west county ; and 4 . a west regional park, indoor south county complex, and north park ball fields . • Over 75 percent of the School Board budget is funded with the 2 -mill tax assessment ( $ 137 . 9 million of $ 183 . 4 million) . o Approximately 27 percent of this budget is designated for expansion of the school system . • As discussed previously , the allocation of sales tax or other revenues to capital facility expansion has a significant impact on the magnitude of the impact fee . o As the use of sales tax or other revenue increases for capital facility expansion within an impact fee program area, the impact fee for that program area decreases . o Conversely , as the use of sales tax or other revenue decreases for capital facility expansion within an impact fee program area, the impact fee for that program area increases . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 11 Impact Fee Study Table 1 = 2 Current and Recommended Standards by Impact Fee Program Area IRC Fee IRC Current Recommended Program Area No CurrentLOSLOS IRC LOS Standard ; E 11 Standard 1 Correctional 2 .97 beds per 1 ,000 N/A Based on beds per 1 ,000 residents ; standard is set Facilities residents at 4 . 5 beds per 1 , 000 residents . 2 Solid Waste 2 . 2 tons/capita/year 1 .2 tons/ Based on tons per capita per year; final standard capita/year is set at 2 .2 tons/capita/year . 3 Public 144 . 71 SF , 117 . 26 N/A Based on square feet ( SF ) per student station ; Education SF , and 147 . 57 SF standard is set at 144 . 71 SF per elementary school per student station student station, 117 . 26 SF per middle school per Elementary , student station , and 147 . 57 SF per high school Middle and High student station , combined for a weighted average School , LOS standard of 139 . 07 square feet per student respectively station . 4 Libraries 580 SF per 1 ,000 527 SF per Based on SF per resident; standard for buildings residents 1 ,000 is set at 580 SF per 1 ,000 residents, plus 3 ,200 residents library items per 1 ,000 residents , 0 . 7 computer per 1 , 000 residents , and 0 .2 other library equipment per 1 ,000 residents . 5 Fire/ 0 .089 stations per 4-6 minutes Based on the number of stations per 1000 Emergency 1 ,000 residents of response residents ; standard is set at 0 . 089 stations per Medical time - service 1 ,000 residents . area : 5 mile Services radius within urban area 6 Law 2 .09 officers per N/A Based on the number of officers per 1 , 000 Enforcement 1 ,000 residents residents ; standard is set at 2 . 09 officers per 1 ,000 residents . 7 Public 1 . 99 SF per N/A Based on SF per resident; standard is set at 1 . 99 Buildings resident SF of building space per resident. 8 Parks and 6 . 22 acres of 4 acres per Based on acres of regional parks per 1 ,000 Recreation regional parks per 1 ,000 residents and acres of community/neighborhood Facilities 1 ,000 residents , residents parks per 1 ,000 residents for unincorporated IRC ; 0 .39 acres of standard is set based on 6 . 61 ( 6 .22 acres for community and regional parks and 0 . 39 acres for community and neighborhood neighborhood parks) per 1 ,000 residents , plus parks per 1 ,000 facility based LOS standards to be developed for residents each park type. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 12 Impact Fee Study . 4 Table 1 =3 Comparison of Fees by Impact Fee Program Area ( Single Family Residential Land Use ) # of Rage of Impact Fee per', Unit of Fee Counties Development No. : Prograniz Area in Sample oma' High ' 1 Correctional Facilities 5 $ 71 . 99 (Brevard) $ 143 . 00 (Wakulla) 2 Solid Waste 2 $ 64 . 00 (Monroe ) $ 160 . 00 (Brevard) 3 Public Education 12 $ 636 . 00 (Citrus) $ 9 , 708 . 30 ( Osceola) 4 Libraries 6 $ 63. 84 (Brevard) $296 . 56 ( Collier) 5 Fire/Emergency Medical 5 $92 . 73 (Brevard) $ 171 . 00 (Citrus) Services 6 Law Enforcement 5 $46 . 77 ( St . Johns) $ 135 . 76 ( Martin) 7 Public Buildings 5 $ 138 . 85 $ 319 . 20 (Collier) (Palm Beach) 8 Parks and Recreation 6 $ 53 . 00 (Wakulla) $ 1 , 296 . 07 (Martin) Facilities Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 1 - 13 Impact Fee Study M . Table 1 -4 Historical and Projected Capital Facility Expenditures Capital Expenditures for Capacity Expansion Fee No. Program Area Comments on Planned Projects Historical Planned (Last Six (Next Five Years) Years) 1 Correctional $ 1 ,083 , 500 $ 145815 ,983 Majorjail facility expansion planned Facilities 2 Solid Waste $737895149 $ 181322 , 000 Includes planned closure of existing landfill segments and construction of new landfill sections 3 Public Education Not available $42 , 867 ,006 From latest School Work Plan of Building Committee Recommendations , dated September 7 , 2004 4 Libraries $4 ,235 ,065 $3 ,340 ,000 Planned West Branch Library 5 Fire/Emergency $ 25657 ,760 $43482 , 147 Two new Fire / EMS stations Medical Services 6 Law Enforcement $678 ,624 $0 Office administration building expansion is proposed but not funded at this time . 7 Public Buildings $ 109123 ,458 $6 , 895 ,000 Funding for new administration building 8 Parks and $ 1538565006 $ 57800 ,000 West Regional Park, South County Indoor Facility , and North County Ball Recreation Facilities Fields Notes : 1 . The planned projects for all program areas except Solid Waste and Public Education are funded from the County Sales Tax . 2 . Planned projects for Solid Waste are funded from Solid Waste District revenues . 3 . Planned projects for Public Education are funded from state sources and the local 2 mills for capital facilities for public schools . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 14 Impact Fee Study Summary of Legal Requirements • Local government impact fee programs must satisfy the "dual rational nexus test. " • A non - charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that do not conflict with municipal ordinances . • The fiscal burden of providing countywide services should be borne by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county . • A local government impact fee program must be based on a study reflecting capital facility needs . • The County must establish level of service (LOS) standards for each impact fee program area . • The County must evaluate the revenue credit that each unit of new development generates and could be used to fund new capital facilities ( property tax , sales tax, etc . ) . • Impact fees are charged against future development that creates a measurable demand for new capital facilities . • Impact fee revenue must be deposited into segregated accounts to ensure that revenues will be expended for the provision of the capital facilities for which the fees are collected . • The determination of a proper benefit area depends on the background data and nature of the service being provided . • To ensure that developers pay no more than their proportionate share of capital costs , developer credits are typically provided for monetary contributions , land dedications , and construction provided by developers toward the provision of capital facilities for which impact fees are collected . • To survive judicial scrutiny of exemptions : o exempted land uses or project types must be clearly defined and consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies of the County ; and o the County must reimburse or, " rebate , " exempted fees with revenues from non - impact fee revenue sources . • Typically , provisions for appeals of impact fee decisions made by staff, the County Administrator, and the BCC must be defined in the ordinance or through existing County procedures . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I - 15 1mpact Fee Study M (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 1 - 16 Impact Fee Study IL Current & Projected Population This section identifies the assumptions and resulting population estimates and projections for IRC . Population estimates for 2004 and projections through the year 2025 ( in five- year increments) are presented and summarized in this section for use , as appropriate , within each of the impact fee program areas . Functional population estimates , as well as a discussion of what functional population is , also are provided in this section . Population Assumptions All program areas being considered for impact fees in IRC require the use of population data in calculating existing levels of service , performance standards , and in calculating 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 Chapter 9J - 5 , F . A . C , IRC ' s Comprehensive Plan considers not only the resident, or permanent population of the County , but also the seasonal residents and visitors as well . Seasonal residents include visitors to hotel and motel facilities , visitors to RV parks , visitors that stay with relatives and friends , and part-time residents , which are defined as living in IRC for less than six months each year. Therefore , for purposes of calculating the current levels of service, performance standards , and in 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 in subsequent chapters of this report pertain to the weighted average seasonal population , unless otherwise noted . Table II - 1 presents weighted average seasonal population trends for IRC , including total county area, unincorporated area, and the municipalities . Detailed tables pertaining to the calculation of the weighted average seasonal population are included in Appendix A . The bottom of Table II - 1 includes three possible population categories that are needed to support the impact fee program areas under consideration, including the countywide population ; the countywide population, less the population of the Town of Indian River Shores ; and the unincorporated county population . The population category selected for a given impact fee analysis will be consistent with the service area of that service/facility category . For example , correctional facilities are provided on a countywide basis ; therefore , countywide population will be used in the calculations of the impact fee for correctional facilities . In contrast, law enforcement services are provided by the IRC Sheriff' s Department only to the unincorporated areas of the county . As a result, the unincorporated population will be used in the impact fee study calculations for law enforcement services . Such a determination is made for each impact fee program area and discussed in each impact fee program area ' s respective section . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 1 Impact Fee Study Table II - 1 IRC Population Estimates and Projections Year Geographic Area 2000 1 , 2001 2002 - . , 2003 = , 2004 2005' 20102015 2020 2025 ; Unincorporated County 78,489 80,486 827160 841149 885710 905100 997288 110, 513 121 ,741 1321696 Incorporated County 45,310 46,263 47 ,226 48 ,431 49,683 50462 5508 61 , 894 68 , 183 74,318 Vero Beach 195436 19,646 19,667 191635 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sebastian 17, 703 18,379 19,020 19,993 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fellsmere 47209 4,309 4,399 4, 561 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indian River Shores 3 , 838 31802 3 , 882 31911 4,429 45590 5 ,490 6, 567 75854 9,394 Orchid 125 127 258 331 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Countywide Total Population 123,799 126,749 1299386 132,580 1389393 140,562 154,896 172,407 189,924 207,014 (weighted ) Countywide Population 119,961 1229947 125,504 128,669 133,964 1359972 149,406 165,840 182,070 1979620 Excluding Indian River Shores Unincorporated Population 785489 805486 82 ,160 84 , 149 88,710 909100 99,288 1109513 121 ,741 132 ,696 SOURCES : ( 1 ) 2000 to 2003 permanent population provided by IRC , based on 2000 Census and Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). (2 ) 2004 countywide and Indian River Shores population from BEBR 2004 population data. (3 ) Countywide population projections for 2005 and after are based on both permanent and seasonal population projections included in the IRC Comprehensive Plan. The seasonal population is determined by weighting each category of seasonal residents by the number of months of the respective peak season. (4 ) Unincorporated seasonal population projections for 2005 and later are based on the proportion of unincorporated to countywide population in 2004 (64 . 1 %). (5 ) Incorporated population projections for 2005 and later are determined by subtracting the unincorporated population from the countywide population. (6) Population projections for Indian River Shores are based on an the annualized growth rate of 3 . 64% from 2000 to 2004. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 2 Impact Fee Study , Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The IRC residential land uses to be used for the impact fee calculations are the following : • Single Family • Multi - Family • Mobile Home Tables II -2 , II -3 , and II -4 present the total number of housing units , population, and number of residents , including both permanent residents and seasonal residents , per housing unit for the residential categories identified above within the entire county, county excluding Indian River Shores , and unincorporated county areas , respectively . Table II -2 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit( ' ) Housing Residents/ Residential Land Use Units Population Unit Single Family 369240 84, 662 2 . 336 Multi -Family 14 , 792 20, 914 1 . 414 Mobile Home 65786 11 , 7471 1 . 731 Total 57,8181 1179323 2 . 029 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census , Tables H - 8 , H -305 H - 31 and H- 33 Note : Excludes boats , RVs , vans , etc . Table II -3 Countywide Residents per Housing, Unit Excluding Indian River Shoresz1 Housing Residents/ Residential Land Use Units Population Unit Single Family 345673 82 , 195 2 . 371 Multi-Family 13 , 513 209837 1 . 542 Mobile Home 6 7861 109782 1 . 589 Total L549972 1139815 2 . 070 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census , Tables H- 8 , H -30 , H - 31 and H-33 Note : Excludes boats , RVs , vans , etc . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 3 Impact Fee Study Table II -4 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unit( ' ) Rousing Residents/; Residential Land Use UnitsPopulation Unit Single Family 22 , 384 539341 2 . 383 Multi -Family 8 , 536 125606 1 . 477 Mobile Home 1 59378 83464 1 . 574 Total 369298 749411 2 .050 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census , Tables H- 8 , H-30 , H- 31 and H- 33 Note : Excludes boats , RVs , vans , etc . To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the residential single family land use category , an analysis was completed on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages with countywide information . This analysis utilized national data from the 2003 American Housing Survey (AHS) and from the 2000 Census data for Indian River County to examine this relationship . Table II - 5 presents nationwide information about the number of residents per housing unit ( single family) tiered in three different house sizes . Table II - 5 Nationwide Residents per Housing Unit( ' ) — Single Family Residents/ Ratio to Housing Housing Weighted Household Size Residents Units Unit Average Less than 1 , 500 sf 645875 263038 2 . 492 91 . 41 % From 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf 811587 29 ,317 2 . 783 102 . 10% 2 , 500 sf or greater 44 , 274 14 , 625 3 . 027 111 . 07 % Total 1909736 69 ,980 100. 00 % Weighted Average 2 . 726 ( 1 ) Source : 2003 American Housing Survey To calculate the tiering for the three different categories , national residents per unit ratios for each housing unit category were applied to the county ' s total residents per housing unit ratio for single family home . Tables I1 - 6 , II - 7 , and I1 - 8 calculate the final residents per housing unit . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II -4 Impact Fee Study Table II - 6 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit ( with Single Family Tiering ) Residents/ Ratio to , rotal Residential Land Use Unit Single Family Residents/Unit Single Family 2 . 336 100 . 00% n/a Less than 1 , 500 sf 91 . 27 % 2 . 132 From 1 , 500 to 2 , 499 sf 102 . 57% 2 . 396 2 , 500 sf or Greater 111 . 24% 2 . 598 Multi-Family 1 . 414 n/a 1 . 414 Mobile Home 1 . 731 n/a 1 . 731 Total 2 . 029 ( 1 ) Source : Table II -2 (2 ) Source : Table II- 5 Table II -7 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Residents per Housing Unit ( with Single Family Tiering ) Residents/ Ratio to , otal Residential Land Use , Unit Single F4mily Residents/Unit Single Family 2 . 371 100 . 00% n/a Less than 1 , 500 sf 91 . 27% 2 . 164 From 1 , 500 to 2 , 499 sf 102 . 57 % 2 . 432 2 , 500 sf or Greater 111 . 24 % 2 . 637 Multi -Family 1 . 542 n/a 1 . 542 Mobile Home 1 . 589 n/a 1 . 589 Total 2 . 070 ( 1 ) Source : Table 11 -3 (2 ) Source : Table I1- 5 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 5 Impact Fee Study Table II -8 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unit (with Single Family Tiering ) °Residents/ ' Ratio to Total Residential Land Use Unit Single Family ReAdents/Unit Single Family 2 . 383 100 . 00% n/a Less than 1 , 500 sf 91 . 27 % 2 . 175 From 1 , 500 to 2,499 sf 102 . 57% 2 . 444 2, 500 sf or Greater 111 . 24% 2 . 651 Multi-Family 1 . 477 n/a 1 . 477 Mobile Home 1 . 574 n/a 1 . 574 Total 2 . 050 ( 1 ) Source : Table II -4 (2) Source : Table II - 5 Functional Population Introduction For four of the eight impact fee program areas (Public Buildings , Law Enforcement, Fire/EMS , and Correctional Facilities) , it is appropriate to apply a concept referred to as " functional population " in the impact fee literature . In the case of Parks and Recreation Facilities , Library Facilities , and Public Education Facilities impact fee programs , because the fee is imposed only on residential uses, it is not necessary to use functional population . The Solid Waste Facilities impact fee schedule is based on the waste generation levels of different land uses . It should be noted that IRC uses the term " functional population" in the Comprehensive Plan but with a different definition (refers to permanent plus seasonal population) . This concept, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for these impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people . The Concept and Calculation of Functional Residents As IRC grows , it will need to expand its supply of public facilities . The expansion needs of some facilities , such as water and sewer, may be estimated using observed demand extrapolated into the future . The expansion needs for other facilities , however, may be more complicated . For example , the demand for police and fire facilities varies by land use in ways that are not always clear . How many " units " of police or fire service are needed to serve the needs of commercial , industrial , or single family residential Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 6 Impact Fee Study activities ? For other facilities such as emergency medical and rescue , it is difficult to allocate demand to land uses when many of the calls are related to crashes . The traditional method for estimating the current and future demand for certain facilities is to use the population as the basis . For example , some states have established a statewide minimum standard of 0 . 3 square feet of library space per capita based on the population of communities meeting minimum thresholds . Yet, communities with high volumes of nonresidents who use library services may need more than 0 . 3 square feet per resident to effectively meet this standard . In the case of police , fire , and emergency medical facilities , the higher the nonresident daytime population , the greater the need is for service relative to the resident population . Moreover, it is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees , since the service -demand characteristics of employees can vary considerably by type of industry . Using unweighted population and employment data to estimate facility needs may result in substantial error. For many facilities , there is a convenient way to rationally attribute demand by land use and to estimate aggregate demand for a community . This method is called " functional population . " Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24 - hours -per-day , 7 -days -per-week basis for public facilities providing around -the -clock services , such as police and fire/EMS services ( or alternative time period such as an 11 -hours -per-day, 5 -days -per-week basis for public buildings , which are open on the average only a total of 55 hours per week) . A person living and working in the community will have a functional population coefficient of 1 . 0 . A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0 . 76 ( 128 -hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week) . A person commuting into the community to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0 . 24 ( 40 -hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week) . Similarly , a person traveling into the community to shop at stores , perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0 . 05 . Functional population thus , is designed to capture the presence of all people within the community , whether residents , workers , or visitors , to arrive at a total estimate of effective population needing to be served . Functional population measures are important to gauge the demand for facilities serving the community 24 hours per day , 7 days per week for services such as police , fire , and emergency medical services , or 11 hours per day , 5 days per week for services such as public building services . This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the popular approach of merely weighting residents two -thirds and workers one -third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992 ) . By estimating the functional population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community , an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and in a future year can be calculated . The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 7 Impact Fee Study Residential Functional Population It is generally assumed that people spend one -half to two -thirds 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 IRC functional population for fees using a 24-hour versus 1I - hour approach , an analysis of IRC population and employment characteristics was conducted . Based on this analysis , it was estimated that, in the case of 24 -hour days , people , on average , spend 15 . 6 hours, or 65 percent, of each 24 -hour day at their place of residence and the other 35 percent away from home . In the case of 11 -hour days , people spend 3 . 8 hours , or 35 percent of their time , at their place of residence and the remaining 65 percent away from home . This analysis is presented in Appendix A, Tables A -9 through A - 11 , and resulting percentages are displayed in Tables Il -9 and II - 10 . Nonresidential Functional Population Developing estimates of functional residents for nonresidential land uses is more complicated than developing estimates of functional residents for residential land uses , given the varying characteristics of non-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 , information on passengers per vehicle , workers per vehicle , length of time spent at the land use , and other variables . Specific calculations include : • Total one -way trips per employee (ITE trips times 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips) . Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips times occupants per vehicle minus employees) . • Worker hours per week per impact unit ( such as nine worker hours per day times five days in a work week) . • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors times number of hours per day times relevant days in week such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping) . • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by considering time spent by employees and visitors at each land use . Table Il -9 shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential uses/categories in IRC for the year 2004 based on a 24 hours per day , 7 days per week analysis . 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 . Indian River County May 2005 II - 8 Impact Fee Study ! V Table II -9 24 - Hour/7 - Day General Functional Population Coefficients Journey- }k One-Way to-Work Daily V itoa Visitor Days 'Fun, =Codeln-place Trips Per Trips Per Occupants Occupants er Hours Per Population Land-Use o Employee Employee Per Tri Per Tri E to ee Per Tri Week Coetticientsltl` Residential 0. 650 Natural Resources N/A 9.001 3 .02 1 . 51 1 . 32 1 .38 0.09 1 .00 5 0. 271 Construction I10 9001 3.02 1 . 51 1 . 32 1 .38 0.09 1 .001 5 0. 271 Manufacturing 140 9. 00 2. 13 1 .07 1 . 32 1 .38 0.06 1 .00 5 0. 270 TCU, Warehousing 110 9. 00 3 .02 1 . 51 1 . 32 1 .38 0.09 1 . 0o 5 0. 271 Wholesale Trade 150 9.00 3 . 89 1 .95 1 . 32 1 . 38 0. 12 1 . 00 5 0. 271 Retail Trade - 820 9 . 00 67. 30 33 . 65 1 . 24 1 .73 16.49 1 . 50 7 1 . 406 FIRE 710 9. 00 3 . 32 1 .66 1 . 24 1 .73 0. 81 1 . 00 5 0. 292 Services 710 9. 00 3 . 32 1 .66 1 . 24 1 .73 0. 81 1 . 00 5 0. 292 Government Services 730 9. 00 11 , 951 5 ,981 1 , 241 1 . 731 2.93 1 . 00 7 0. 497 Trips per employee based on Trip Generation Seventh Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2004) as follows : ITE Code 110 at 3 . 02 weekday trips per employee, page 90. ITE Code 140 at 2. 13 weekday trips per employee, page 161 . ITE Code 150 at 3 .89 weekday trips per employee, page 190. ITE Code 710 at 3 .32 weekday trips per employee, page 1151 . ITE Code 730 at 11 . 95 weekday trips per employee, page 1200. ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from page 1451 . Retail - Trips per Employee Determination Assumed Weighted RetaifSeale Center Size Trip Rule Shave Trips Neighborhood < 50k sq. ft. 25,000 110. 32 40. 0% 44. 13 Community 50k - 250k sq. ft. 150,000 58 . 93 30. 0% IT68 Regional 250k - 500k sq. ft. 375,000 42. 76 20.0% 8. 55 Super Reg. 500k- 1000k sq. ft. 750,000 33 . 55 10.0% 3 . 35 Sum of Weighted Trips/ I k sq. ft. 73 . 71 One-Way Trips/ lk sq. ft. 36. 86 Square Feet/Retail Employee") 913 Employees per 1 ,000 sq. ft 1 , 0953 Trips per employee 67.30 Journey-to-Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001 ) (see http://nhts. orni. gov/2001 /index/shtmi) as follows : 1 . 32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1 . 24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip 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 ( 1 ) The equation to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land-use categories except residential includes the following. Umplovee Hours x Days per Week) + (Visitorsep r Emplovee x Visitor Hours per Trip x Days per Weekll (24 Hours per Day x 7 Days per Week) (2) Square feet per retail employee from Energy Information Administration (2002) from Table B- I of the Commercial Energy Building Survey 1999 Similar to Table II -9 above , the following table provides the general functional population coefficients for nonresidential uses/categories in IRC for the year 2004 based on an 11 hours per day , 5 days per week analysis . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II -9 Impact Fee Study Table II - 10 11 - Hour/5 - Day General Functional Population Coefficients Journey. Oue-Way < taWork - - Daily Visitor = Visitor Duye ' Faoctianal iTE Hours Trips Per Trips Per Occupants Occupants : Per - Hours - , Per 'Population Land-Use Category tCode Io'-Place Employee Employee ' 7Per Trip Per Trip Em to ee Per Trip Week ',"-Cuemcienta(tl Residenual I 1 0.350 Natural Resources N/A 9.00 2. 21 1 . 11 1 .32 1 .38 0. 07 1 .00 5 0. 824 Construction 110 9.00 2. 21 1 . 11 1 . 32 1 . 38 0.07 1 . 00 5 0. 824 Manufacturing 140 9.00 1 .57 0.79 1 .32 1 .38 0.05 1 . 00 5 0. 822 TCU, Warehousing 110 9.00 2. 21 1 . 11 1 .32 1 . 38 0.07 1 .00 5 0.824 Wholesale Trade 150 9.00 2. 87 1 .44 1 .32 1 .38 0.09 1 .00 5 0. 826 Retail Trade"' 820 9.00 50,47 25.24 1 .24 1 .73 12. 37 1 .00 5 1 .942 FIRE 710 9. 00 2. 72 1 .36 1 . 24 1 . 73 0.67 1 .00 5 0. 879 Services 710 9. 00 2. 72 1 .36 1 . 24 1 . 73 0.67 1 .00 5 0. 879 Government 1 730 9.00 9. 76 4. 88 1 . 24 1 . 73 2.39 1 .00 5 1 .036 Trips per employee based on Trip Generation Seventh Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2004) as follows: ITE Code 110 at 3 .02 weekday trips per employee, page 90, CTE Code 140 at 2. 13 weekday trips per employee, page 161 . ITE Code 150 at 3 .89 weekday trips per employee, page 190. ITE Code 710 at 3.32 weekday trips per employee, page 1151 . ITE Code 730 at 11 .95 weekday trips per employee, page 1200. ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from page 1451 . These trip rates are adjusted based on the hourly distribution of trips over 24 hours to detemane the trips taken during the 11 -hour period. Retail - Trips per Employee Determination Assumed Weighted Retail Scale Center Size Trip Rule Shure Trips Neighborhood < 50k sq. ft. 25,000 110. 32 40.00/9 44. 13 Community 50k - 250k sq. ft. 150,000 58.93 30.0°/ 17. 68 Regional 250k - 500k sq. ft. 375,000 42.76 20.0°/. 8.55 Super Reg. 500k- 1000k sq. ft. 750,000 33.55 10.0% 3.35 Sum of Weighted Tri ps/Ik sq. ft. 73.71 One-Way Trips/lk sq. ft. 36. 86 Square Feet/Retail Employe 121 913 Employees per 1 ,000 sq. ft. 1 .0953 Trips per employee 67.30 Percent over the 11 -hour period 75 Trips per employee over thte I 1 -hour period 50.47 Journey-to-Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHW A 2001 ) as follows : 1 .32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1 .24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip 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 ( 1 ) The equation to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land-use categories except residential includes the following: [(Employee Hours x Days per Week) + (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trio x Days per Week)l ( 1 I Hours per Day x 5 Days per Week) (2) Square feet per retail employee from Energy Information Administration (2002) from Table B- 1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey 1999 Since the four impact fee program areas that use the concept of functional population provide services in different areas of the county , it was necessary to develop functional population coefficients for each of these areas . These areas are : • countywide ; • countywide excluding Indian River Shores ; and • unincorporated county area . The functional population coefficients in Table II -9 , which are based on 24 hours per day , 7 days per week, were used to estimate the functional population indicated in Tables II - 11 , II - 12 , and II - 13 . The functional population coefficients in Table II - 10 were used to estimate the functional population in Table II - 14 , which is based on 1 I hours per day , 5 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 10 Impact Fee Study y days per week . These tables indicate that the ratio of functional population to population for the year 2004 is as follows : • 88 . 05 % countywide (24 -hour analysis) ; • 88 . 31 % countywide excluding Indian River Shores (24 -hour analysis) ; • 90 . 67% unincorporated County Area (24 -hour analysis) ; and • 83 . 07 % countywide ( 1 I -hour analysis) . Table II - 11 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 - Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) 4-Hour/7-Day 24-Hour/ -Day Year 2004 Functional Functional Population and Resident Residents Population and Employment Employment"' Coefficient(2) 2004(') Population ' Residents 138, 3931 0 . 6501 89,955 Employment Natural Resources 5 ,930 0. 271 13607 Construction 39710 0 . 271 15005 Manufacturing 3 ,650 0. 270 986 TCU, Warehousing 15680 0 . 271 455 Wholesale Trade 13250 0 . 271 339 Retail Trade 11 , 780 1 . 406 16, 563 FIRE 51440 0 . 292 15588 Services 225210 0 . 292 6 ,485 Government 5 , 770 0 . 497 21868 Total Functional Residents 121 ,852 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 88.05 % ( 1 ) Source : Table II- 1 (residential population estimate) and Woods and Poole Economics , Inc. Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector (employment population estimate) (2 ) Source : Table II-9 ( 3 ) Year 2004 population (Item 1 ) multiplied by 24 -hour functional resident coefficient (Item 2 ) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 11 Impact Fee Study Table II - 12 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 - Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) 24-Hour/7-Day '; 24-Hour/7-Day Year 2004 Functional Functional Population and Resident Residents Population '' and Employment ' Employment(l ) Coe11 fficient(2) ` 2004(' Population Residents 1339964 0 . 6501 87 ,077 Employment Natural Resources 53871 0 . 271 11591 Construction 3 , 588 0 '271 972 Manufacturing 35613 0 . 270 976 TCU, Warehousing 19663 0 . 271 451 Wholesale Trade 1 ,232 0 . 271 334 Retail Trade 117612 1 .406 16 ,327 FIRE 5 ,261 0 . 292 19536 Services 217480 0 . 292 61272 Government 5 , 580 0 .497 2 ,773 Total Functional Residents 118,309 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 88.31 % ( 1 ) Source : Table II- 1 (residential population estimate) and Woods and Poole Economics , Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector (employment population estimate) . (2 ) Source : Table II -9 (3 ) Year 2004 population (Item 1 ) multiplied by 24 -hour functional resident coefficient (Item 2 ) . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 12 Impact Fee Study Table II - 13 Unincorporated County Area Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 - Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) 2 1-Hour/7-Day 24-Hour -Day Year 2004 Functional Functio al Population and Resident Reside is Population and Employment EmployrnenO CoefricienP 2004[ ) Population Residents 88, 710 0. 6501 5702 Employment Natural Resources 45580 0.271 13241 Construction 2, 559 0.271 693 Manufacturing 2, 819 0 . 270 761 TCU, Warehousing 1 ,298 0 .271 352 Wholesale Trade 901 0. 271 244 Retail Trade 8,491 1 . 4061 1038 FIRE 3 , 752 0.292 15096 Services 15,317 0. 292 47473 Government 3 ,979 0.497 11978 Total Functional Residents I809437 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 190.670/0 ( 1 ) Source : Table II - 1 ( residential population estimate) and Woods and Poole Economics , Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector (employment population estimate) . (2 ) Source : Table II-9 ( 3 ) Year 2004 population (Item 1 ) multiplied by 24- hour functional resident coefficient (Item 2 ) . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I1 - 13 Impact Fee Study Table II44 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 11 - Hour/5 - Day Analysis ) 11 -Hour/5-Day 11-Hour/5-Day ' Year 2004 Functional Functional Population and Resident Residents Population and Employment Employment i1l Coefficient(') 2004131 Population Residents 138 ,3931 0 . 3501 489438 Employment Natural Resources 59930 0 . 824 4 , 886 Construction 3 ,710 0 . 824 33057 Manufacturing 39650 0 . 822 33000 TCU , Warehousing 15680 0 . 824 13384 Wholesale Trade 19250 0 . 826 1 ,033 Retail Trade 115780 1 . 942 225877 FIRE 51440 0 . 879 4,782 Services 22 , 210 0 . 879 199523 Government 57770 1 . 036 51978 Total Functional Residents 1149957 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 83 .07 % ( 1 ) Source : Table II - 1 (residential population estimate) and Woods and Poole Economics , Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector (employment population estimate) . (2) Source : Table II- 10 ( 3 ) Year 2004 population (Item 1 ) multiplied by 11 -hour functional resident coefficient (Item 2 ) . Additionally , the annual functional population figures were calculated for the 1998 -2009 period . These figures will be used to calculate the credit per functional resident and are included in Appendix A . Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use . This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses . Residential Land Uses The average number of persons per housing unit in IRC was calculated based on information obtained from the 2000 Census . In addition to single family , multi -family , and mobile home land uses , residential uses also include the accessory single family land use . Accessory single family units are considered to be equivalent to multi -family land uses . Besides those uses , residential uses also include hotels , motels , nursing homes , and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF ) . Secondary sources , such as ITE ' s Trip Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 14 Impact Fee Study Generation Manual ( Seventh Edition) , indicate persons by unit for hotels , motels , nursing homes , and ACLF land uses . As mentioned before , different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee areas to be analyzed . For residential land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Tables I1 - 15 , II - 16 , II - 17 , and II - 18 . The differences between the residential coefficients are the following : • Correctional Facilities : Residents per unit figures are countywide . For the Transient, Assisted , Group coefficients, 24 -hour days/7 -day weeks were used . • Public Buildings : Residents per unit figures are countywide . For the Transient, Assisted , Group coefficients , 11 -hour days/5 -day weeks were used . • Fire/EMS : Residents per unit figures are countywide excluding Indian River Shores . For the Transient, Assisted , Group coefficients , 24 -hour days/7 -day weeks were used . • Law Enforcement : Residents per unit figures are for the unincorporated county area . For the Transient, Assisted , Group coefficients , 24 -hour days/7 -day weeks were used . Table II - 15 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses Correctional Facilities ( Countywide ) eek �Reaidents/ . Adjusted Hou Workers 4FI nal`°Impact ITE Occupants OccupancyResidents at PerResidential Land Use UnitCode :PerUnt01e) lResidential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf Ndu 210 2. 132 . 386 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf 210 2. 39 1 . 557 21500 sf or Greater 210 2. 598 1689 Accessory Single-Family 230 1 .414 0. 919 Multi Family 220/230 1 .4140919 Mobile Home 240 1 . 731 1 . 125 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel Room 310 / 3201 1 . 800 80%1 1 . 4401 121 0. 51 91 0. 908 Nursing Home / ACLF Bed 1620 / 2521 6 0. 51 91 71 0.979 Notes: 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Occupancy rate for hote/motel is based on 9 months of the peak season at 90 percent occupancy and three months of the off-peak season at 50 percent. 3) Residents per unit times occupancy rate 4) Assumed. 5) Adapted from ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 6) Nine-hour work days are assumed. 7) Work days in the week. 8) For residential, this is Adjusted Residents Per Unit times 0.65. For Transient, Assisted, and Group, it is: [(Residents/Occupants per Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Wo[kers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week)] (24 Hours per Day X 7 Days per Week) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 15 Impact Fee Study Table II - 16 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses Public Buildings ( Countywide ) Work Week Resident,/ Adjusted Workers Work Functional Impact nm Occupants Occupancy Residents Hours at Per Day Days Per Residents Residential Land Use Unit Code Per Unit(l) Ratetn Per Unity '.Place") - Unit Homs[) Week( ) Per Unit Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2. 132 =0.495 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2. 396 21500 sf or Greater du 210 2.598 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 .414 Multi Family du 220/230 1 .414 MobileHome du 240 1 . 731 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel I Room 131013201 1 , 800 80%1 1 .4401 91 51 0.933 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 162012521 1 .250 95% 1 1 , 1881 81 0. 51 91 51 1 .273 Notes' 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Occupancy rate for hote/motel is based on 9 months of the peak season at 90 percent occupancy and three months of the off-peak season at 50 percent. 3 ) Residents per unit times occupancy rate 4) Assumed. 5) Adapted from ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 6) Nine-hour work days are assumed . 7) Work days in the week. 8) For residential, this is Adjusted Residents Per Unit times 0.35 . For Transient, Assisted, and Group, it is: f(Residents/Occupants oer Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Workers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week)] ( I I Hours per Day X 5 Days per Week) Table II - 17 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses FIRE/ EMS ( Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores ) Work Week Residents/0 Adjusted Workers Work Functional Impact ITE ccupants :; Occupancy I Residents Per Hours at Per Day Days Per Residents Per Residential Land Use Unit.' Code Per Unito" Rater Unita) ''Placei" Unitr6} Hoarson ::Weekm Unie) Residential Single Family 1 .407 Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2. 164 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2.432 1 . 581 2,500 sf or Greater du 210 2.637 1 . 714 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 . 542 1 .002 Multi Family du 220/230 1 . 542 1 . 002 Mobile Home du 240 1 . 589 1 .033 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel Room 1310 / 3201 1 . 800 80%1 1 4401 12 0. 51 91 71 0.908 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 1620 / 2521 1 ' 250 95%1 1 . 1881 161 a 51 91 71 0. 979 Notes. 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Occupancy rate for hote/motel is based on 9 months of the peak season at 90 percent occupancy and three months of the off-peak season at 50 percent. 3 ) Residents per unit times occupancy rate 4) Assumed. 5) Adapted from ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 6) Nine-hour work days are assumed. 7) Work days in the week. 8) For residential, this is Adjusted Residents Per Unit times 0. 65 . For Transient, Assisted, and Group, it is: [(Residents/Occupants Per Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Workers x Work Hours ver Day x Days Per Week)l ( 24 Hours per Day X 7 Days per Week) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 16 Impact Fee Study Table IM 8 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses Law Enforcement ( Unincorporated County ) Work Week Residents/ Adjusted , Workers Work Days Ft nctional Impact ITE . Occupants Occupancy Residents Hou4at Per Day Per Residents Residential Land Use Unit ': Code Per Unittsl Rates Per Unity) Place") Unitts) Hourst6t WeekOt Per Unitu): Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2. 175 1 .414 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2.444 1 . 589 2,500 sf or Greater du 210 2. 651 1 . 723 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 .477 0. 960 Multi Family du 220/230 1 . 477 0. 960 Mobile Home I du 1 240 1 .574 1 1 1 1 .023 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel I Room 1310 / 3201 1 .800 80% 1 1 .4401 121 0. 51 9 71 0. 908 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 1620 / 2521 1 .250 95% 1 1 . 1881 161 0. 51 91 71 0. 979 Notes. l ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Occupancy rate for hote/motel is based on 9 months of the peak season at 90 percent occupancy and three months of the off-peak season at 50 percent. 3 ) Residents per unit times occupancy rate 4) Assumed, 5) Adapted from ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 6) N me-hour work days are assumed. 7) Work days in the week. 8) For residentia, this is Adjusted Residents Per Unit times 0. 65 . For Transient, Assisted, and Group, it is: 1(Residents/Occupants oer Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Workers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week) ] ( 24 Hours per Day X 7 Days per Week) Nonresidential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for nonresidential land uses . Tables II - 19 and II -20 report basic assumptions and calculations , such as trips per unit, trips per employee , employees per impact unit, one -way trips per impact unit, worker hours , occupants per vehicle trip , visitors (patrons , etc . ) per impact unit, and visitor hours per trip , and days per week for nonresidential land uses . The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use . These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the respective impact fee and will be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the fee schedule . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II- 17 Impact Fee Study Table II - 19 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule Public Buildings 11-Hour Tripe Workers One-Way Viailor Functional Impact ITE Code ;.Per Trips Per Pe? Factor Q Worker Occupanb ':� Hours Per Daps Per Resident Land Use Unit Paget' Unit"' Worker") Unit " - 50'1. Hours Per Trip(`) Viaitonl`i Tripm Week Coeffieientt� = Office and Financial Medical Office ! ( 720 / 1190 36. 13 8.91 4.05 18.07 ') 1 ,37 20.69 1 ,02 5 5. 199 Bank/Savings Walk-in I ,OW s( 911 / 1672 I5G.48 44.47 3.52 78. 24 9 1 ,27 95 . 85 0.35 5 5.929 Bank/Savings Drive-in 1018) s( 912 / IGBS 246.49 72. 79 3 .39 123 . 25 9 1 .27 153 . 13 0. 15 5 4.859 Office 50,001) GSF or less 1 ,000 s( 710 / 1158 15.65 3 .32 4,711 7,821 91 1 201 4.681 L00 5 4.281 Office greater than 50,(8)0 GSF 1,1)1)(1 sf 1 710/ 1158 1 8 . 27 3.321 2.491 4. 131 91 1201. 2,471 1 .00 5 2.262 Industrial Manufacturing IMO sf 1 140/170 3, 821 2. 131 1 .791 1 .911 91 1301 0.691 1 .00 5 1 .530 Warehouse 1000 sfLI /199 496 3 .89 1 .28 2.48 9 1 .70 1 .95 2.75 5 1 . 176 Mini-Warehouse I (M sf /227 2.50 56.28 0,04 1 .25 9 1 .33 1 .89 0.750. 165 General Industrial 1 ,1810 sf0/99 6.97 7 .02 2.31 3.49 9 1 .30 2.22 1 fm 5 2.090 Concrete Plant Acre /A 15.6 3.02 5. 17 7.809 1 . 20 4. 19 1,(8) 3 4.608 Sand Mining Acre /A 2.00 3.02 0.66 I .W 9 1 .20 0.54 I .W 5 0.591 Retail, Gross Square Feel Retail 50,000 GSF or less)') 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 86.56 N/A 2.30 43.28 9 1 .70 71 .07 0.65 5 6.245 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF(1( 1 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 75 . 10 N/A 2.50 37.55 9 1 .70 61 .34 0.75 3 6,228 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF " 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 59,93 N/A 2.50 29.46 9 1 .70 47.59 1 .00 5 6.372 Retail over 200,000 GSF' 12) 1 ,(8)0 sf 820/1451 32.80 N/A 2.30 16.40 9 1 .70 25.38 1 .00 5 4.353 Gas/Service Station Fuel pos 944/1790 168. 56 N/A 2.30 84.28 9 1 .52 125.61 0. 15 5 3.758 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 841/1476 33.34 21 . 14 1 .58 16.67 9 1 .70 26.76 1 .00 5 3.723 Quality Restaurant I ,(8)0sf 931/1704 89.95 N/A 9.92 44.98 9 1 .52 58.44 1 .25 5 14.758 Hi h-Tumover Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 932/1723 127. 15 N/A 9.921 63.58 9 1 .52 86. 71 1 .00 5 15.999 Fast Food Rest w/ Dnve-Thm I (100sf 934/1751 496. 12 N/Al 10,90 248 061 91 1 .521 366. 15 0.23 5 17.240 Supermarket I OIX1 sf III 850/1524 102.24 87.82 1 . 16 51 . 12 9 1 .32 76.54 0.50 5 4.432 Self Service Car Wash Bays 947/1817 108.00 N/Al 0.50 54,001 91 1 .52 81 .58 2.50 5 4. 117 Convenience Store 1 ,0(K) sf f5-1-/ 1534737.99 N/A 2,0(7 369.18) 9 1 .52 358.87 0. 15 5 9.257 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 890/1649 5,06 12. 19 042 2.57 9 1 , 70 3 .89 IIJO 5 0.693 Recreational Golf Course hole 1 430/733 1 35 741 20,521 1 741 17871 91 1 701 28.6411 . 50 5 5.332 Racquet ClubMealth Club/Dance Stud 1 ,100 sf 492/867 32.93 N/A 2.U(l 16.47 9 1 .70 25.99 1,50 5 5 . 181 County Park Acre 412/634 2.28 N/A 1). 10 L 14 9 1 .70 1 .84 1 .50 5 0.332 Tennis Court court 1 491 /844 1 38701 45 .71 ().851 19,35191 1 .70 32.051 1 .501 51 5,063 Manna Berths 1 420/703 2.961 20,521 0. 141 1 .48 91 1 .70 2.371 1 .0ol 51 0.334 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 if 1 732/1231 1 108. 19 28.321 3, 921 54. 101 91 1 .20 61 .09 0.25 51 4.514 Library I ,WO s( 590/1080 1 54.0048. 85 1, 11 27.00 9 1 .20 31 .29 1 .00 5 3.749 Government Office Building 1 ,000 s( 7311/1200 68.93 11 .95 5.77 34.47 91 1 .20 35.59 1 .00 5 7.955 Government Complex I I1W s( 733/1242 27.92 7.751 3.60 13.961 91 120 13 . 15 102 5 4. 143 Jail bed 571 S.SU 2.501 2.751 91 1 .20 1 . 10 1 .00 5 1 .900 Miscellaneous Dav Care Center 1 ,000 sf 1 565/1026 1 79.26 28. 13 2. 82 39.63 9 1 .50 56.90 0. 15 5 3.081 Hospital 1 ,( 18) sf 1 610/1101 17.57 5 .20 3.38 8.79 9 1 .20 7. 16 1 .0(3 5 3 ,416 Vetennarv_ Clinic 1 ,000 sf N/A 32. 8 N/A 4.05 16,40 9 1 .37 18.42 100 5 4.988 Church 1,0(8) sf 560/IW3 9. 11 N/A 0.63 4.56 9 1 .70 7. 11 1 .00 5 1 . 162 Movie Theater with Matinee Screen 444/718 10,97 8.00 13. 75 5499 9 1 .70 79.73 1 .00 5 18.495 Elementary School Student 520/905 1 .29 15. 71 0.08 0,65 9 2.00 1 .21 2.00 5 0.287 High School Student 530/921 1 .71 19. 74 0.09 0.g6 9 200 1 .62 2.00 5 0.366 Junior/Community College Student 540/962 1 .20 15.55 0.08 0.60 9 2.00 1 . 12 2.50 5 0.718 Fire Station 10181st N/A 5.411 N/A 0.711 27(1 9 1 .20 2.54 3 501 5 URI Notes. 1 ) ITE Page for Trips per Worker data, if available. Otherwise, ITE Page for Trips per Unit data. 2) Source. ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 3) Trips per worker from ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition for page reported in adjacent column. 4) Trips per impact unit divided by trips per person (usually employee). 5) Various sources, such as ITE, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transportation Study. 6) [(One-way Trips/Umt x Occupann/fup) - Employees]. 7) Assumed. 8) ((Workersx Hours/Day x Days/Week) + (Visitors x HoursNisit x Days/Week) ( 1 I Hours/Day X 5 Days)] 9) Tnp rale is for 25,0( 0 sfgla 10) Tnp rate is for 75,(810 s(gla. 11) Trip rate is for 150,000 sfgla. It 2) Tnp rate is for 800.000 sfgla Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 18 Impact Fee Study Table II -20 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule Correctional Facilities , Fire/ EMS , and Law Enforcement 24-Hour One-Way Visitor , pips Functional Impact ITE Codef Tripe Per Trips Per Worker Factor Q Worke Occupants Hours Per Per Resident: Land Use Unit Pagett) Unita) Worker(3) Per Unite) so% Hours ` Per Tripler Visitor(e) Trip(7) . Week Coefficient"' Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 720 / 1190 36. 131 8.911 4.051 18.071 91 1 .37 20.691 imol 51 1 . 702 Bank/Savings Walk-in 1 ,11011 sf 911 / 1672 156AR 44.47 3.52 78.24 9 1 .27 95.85 0.35 5 1 .941 Bank/Savings Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 912 / 1685 246.49 72.79 3 .39 123 .25 9 1 .27 153 . 13 0. 15 5 1. 591 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1710 / 11581 15.65 3.321 4.711 7.82 91 1 .20 4,681 1 .00 51 1 .401 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 71 (1/1158 1 8271 3.321 2,491 4, 131 91 1 .20 2.471 1 .001 51 0.741 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 1 140/170 1 3, 821 1131 1 .79 1 .91 9 1 .30 0 69f 1 .011 -5F- 0. 501 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 150/199 1 4.961 3 . 89 1 .28 2.48 9 1 .31) 1 .95 0. 75 5 0385 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,011(1 sf 151 /227 2.50 56.28 004 1 ,25 9 1 .55 1 . 89 11.75 7 0. 076 General Industrial 14)1(1 sf 110/99 G 97 3.02 2.31 3.49 9 1 .30 2.22 L110 5 0. 684 Concrete Plant Acre N/A 15 .6 3 .02 5. 17 790 9 1 .20 4. 19 LI10 5 1 . 508 Sand Mining Acre N/A 2.11(1 3.02 - 0.66 1 .00 9 1 . 20 U.54 LOU 5 ! 0. 193 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,1()(1 GSF or Ices(") 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 86. 56 N/A 2.50 43 .2811 .70 71 .07 0.65 7 '. 2. 862 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF(... IA00 sf 820/ 1451 75. 10 N/A 2.50 37.55 61 .34 0.75 7 '. 2. 854 Retail 11(1,0(11 GSF to 200,000 GSF"" 11000 sf 820/ 1451 58.93 N/A 2.50 2946 47.59 1 .00 7 2.920 Retail over 200,000 GSF ") 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 32.80 N/A 2.50 16.4019 25 .38 1 .05 7 1 .995 Gas/Service Station Fuel pos 944/ 1790 168. 56 N/A 2.50 84.28 125.61 U. 15 7 '. 1 .723 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 841 /1476 33 .34 21 . 14 L58 16.67 26. 76 100 7 1 . 706 Quality Restaurant IAOUsf 931/1704 89.95 N/A 9.92 4498 58.44 1 .25 7 6.764 High-Tumover Restaurant 11000 sf 932/1723 127. 15 N/A 9.92 63.58 9 1 .52 86.71 1 .001 7 7.333 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thm 1 ,000 sf 934/ 1751 496. 12 N/A 10.90 248.06 9 1 .52 366. 15 0.25 7 7.902 Supermarket 11000 sf 850/ 1524 102.24 87. 82 1 . 16 51 . 12 9 1 .52 76.54 0.50 7 2. 031 Self Service Car Wash Bays 947/1817 1087 N/Al 0.511 54.00 9 1 .52 81 .54 0. 50 7 1 . 887 Convenience Store 11000sf831 /1534 73799 N/Al 2,001'369 00 9 132 558.871 0. 15 7 4.243 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 890/1649 5.06 12. 191 0.421 2, 531 9 1 .70 m9l LOU 7 0.318 Recreational Golf Course hole 4311/733 35. 74 2(1. 52 1 .74 17.87 9 1 ,70 28.64 1 .50 7 2.443 Racquet Club/Hcallh Club/Dance Stu 110110 sf 492/867 32.93 N/A 240 16.47 9 1 . 70 25.99 1 .50 7 2.374 County Park Acre 412/634 2.28 N/A 0. 10 1 . 14 9 1 .70 1 . 841 1 .50 7 0. 152 Tennis Court court 491 /844 38. 70 45. 71 0, 85 19.35 9 1 .7(1 3205150 7 2.321 Manna Berths 420/703 2.96 20.52 014 148 9 130 2.37 100 7 0, 153 Governmental Post Office 1 ,5110 s( 1 732/ 1231 1 108. 19 28 .32 3 .82 54. 1 (1 9 1 .201 61 .09 0,251 61 1 . 773 Library 1 ,000 sf 590/ 1080 54.(10 48. 85 L11 27.00 1 .20 31 .29 LUU 7 1 . 718 Government Office Building I ODU sf 730/1250 68. 93 11 .95 5.77 34.47 1101 35 .59 1 .001 51 2.604 Government Complex 1 ,000 sf 1 733/ 1242 1 27.921 3.60 11961 4 1 .211 13 151 1 .00 5 1 .356 Jail bed 1 571 1 5.501 2.501 2.201 2.751 91 1 .201 1 . lol I ()()1 71 0. 871 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 565/ 1026 79.26 28. 13 2.82 39. 63 1 .50 56.90 0. 15 5 1 .009 Hospital 11000 sf 61 U/ IT 17. 57 5 .20 3.38 4. 79 1 .20 7. 16 1AU 7 1 .566 Vetennarv_ Clinic 1 ,000 sf N/A 32. 8 4.05 16.40 1 .37 18 .42 1 .(N) 5 1 633 Church 1 .000 sf 360/ 1003 9. 11 N/A 0,63 4.56 1 . 70 7. 11 Lllll 7 4533 Movie Theater with Matinee Screen 444/718 10997 5.011 13.75 54.99 1 . 70 79. 73 1 . 00 7 8.477 Elementary School Student 520/905 1 . 29 15. 71 "S (165 200 1 .21 2.00 5 0 094 High School Student 530/921 171 19. 74 (1.09 11.86 2.011 1 .62 2.00 5 0. 1211 Junior/Community College Student 540/962 1 .211 15.55 0,118 11.60 2.(1(1 1 . 12 2.50 5 0. 104 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf N/A 5 .411 N/A 0, 70 2.70 91 1 .201 2r541 3 501 7 0.633 Notes: 1 ) ITE Page for Trips per Worker data, if available. Otherwise, ITE Page for Trips per Unit data. 2) Source. ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 3) Trips per worker from ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition for page reported in adjacent column . 4) Trips per impact unit divided by trips per person (usually employee). 5) Various sources, such as ITE, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transportation Study. 6) [(One-way Tnps/Uml x Occupants/Trip) - Employees ]. 7) Assumed. 8) [(Workers x Hours/Dav x Days/Week) + (Visitors x Hours/Visit x Days/Week) (24 Hours/Day X 7 Days)) 9) Trip rate is for 25 ,000 sfgla. 10) Trip rate is for 75,000 sfgla. 11 ) Trip rate is for 150,000 sfgla. 12) Trip rate is for 800,000 sfgla_ Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II - 19 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II -20 Impact Fee Study Ill. Correctional Facilities This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the correctional facilities impact fee . To develop the proposed impact fee schedule , ten major elements associated with the development of the correctional facilities impact fee must be addressed , including : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component 0 Existing Deficiencies • Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost • Proposed Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized throughout this section, and an impact fee schedule is provided . Inventory According to information provided by the IRC Sheriff' s Office (IRCSO) and the 2003 Master Plan for the County Correctional Facility , the county has one correctional facility, located at 4055 41St Avenue . This site has a total of 19 . 61 acres and is shared with the Sheriff' s Administration Building . The correctional facilities at this site include the following : • IRC Correctional Facility Phase I ; • IRC Correctional Facility Phase II ; • IRC Correctional Facility Phase III ; and • Two guardhouses . In 2003 , the County purchased additional land (26 . 7 acres) next to the existing correctional facility site . This additional land will be used for a future jail expansion that is planned to increase capacity by 384 beds . Table III - 1 summarizes the IRC Correctional Facilities buildings and land inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 1 Impact Fee Study Table 111 = 1 Land & Buildings Inventory Year Number Square Facility Description Acquired/Built of Acres Feet IRC Correctional Facility Phase I 1987 N/A IRC Correctional Facility Phase II 1 1988 N/A IRC Correctional Facility Phase 111 1991 N/A 67 , 716 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site : Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 Land for Correctional Facilities( l ) 1983 9 . 81 N/A Hammond Parcel for Future Jail Expansion 2003 26 . 70 N/A Total 36 . 51 671916 ( 1 ) The Correctional Facility Detention Complex and the Sheriffs Administration Building are located at the same site . Based on the review of aerial photos included in the "Needs Assessment and Master Plan for the Correctional Facility , " it was determined that each occupies 50% of the site . The County Correctional Facility location is shown in Map III - 1 . In addition to the land and buildings inventory , the IRC Correctional Facility has the following equipment for each of the 100 correction officersz : • uniform ( includes body armor) ; weapons ; and • equipment ( includes computer and portable radio ) . (This space intentionally left blank) 2 Source : Needs Assessment and Master Plan for the County Correctional Facility — Final Report — June 2003 — Table 3 . 5 . Indian River County , Jail Correctional Staff. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 111 -2 Impact Fee Study 1:134307 .04-IRC Impact Fee S1WyWapMCmmedlonal.mxd Created: May 25, 2004 Mass M CD CD I m N C7 A O ': O RD AVE Co a. M N 1 �G "NG = Z ; Coll Cir n —• o w s u I Co a J 3 Cn 1 o m ;N } O 1 3 } � { 1 O J }: d N n O C.R. 512 x 1 CR. 5D7 i i - N j DAVE 74TH AVE 11TH $T , - 86y a� ' TH AVE NTH AVE MTH AVE NTH AVE SCHUMANN DR 1 N � •T aw ' NTH AVE N y + p } 43RD AVE A r y N ;E27TH AVE X. / nTHAVE : H ��d uAH 31x10 ,r S y tic f ti PO • � � � :c �ppD^P _ a MN+ v CC { Daa3ntnrrrvioNllaaa • � p O fopr Y _ -POsu O CD v; r- N wn Ll ONEW � F e ''- N v r � 2 f. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III -4 Impact Fee Study ♦ L Population Since the IRC Correctional Facility serves all residents , workers , and visitors , the "functional, " weekly 24 -hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (Arthur C . Nelson , Estimating Land- Use and Facility Needs for Comprehensive Plans , American Planning Association, 2003 ) . Correctional facility services are provided on a countywide basis . Therefore , the proper benefit district for correctional facilities is countywide . The countywide functional population estimate is provided in Section II , Table 11 - 11 . Level of Service Level of service (LOS ) for correctional facilities is based on the number of beds per 1 , 000 residents . According to the information provided by the IRC General Services Department, the County ' s current LOS is 2 . 97 beds per 1 , 000 residents . Table III -2 presents the calculation of the current LOS . Although the facility currently houses 453 beds , it was designed for 411 beds . The additional 42 temporary beds are not included in the calculation of the current level of service . Table 111 .2 Current Level of Service Item Figure IRC Correctional Facilities -- Design Capacity (beds)( ' ) 411 Countywide Population -- 2004 (2 ) 1389393 LOS (Beds per 1 ,000 Residents) -- Design Capacity 2 . 97 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, IRC (2 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 Table III -3 presents a comparison of LOS in other counties to that of IRC . Since information about number of beds was not available for the other four counties , the average daily incarcerated population was used for comparison purposes . As presented , IRC has the third highest level of service after St . Lucie and Osceola counties . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I11 - 5 Impact Fee Study Table III -3 Level of Service Comparison 1 ' 1 — 2004 LOS Measure Indian River Martin Osceola " St Lucie Volus 'a Brevard Average Dail Incarcerated Po ulation 520 tZl 531 898 11064 13491 Not Population Served 126,796 (3) 1341491 210,438 211 , 898 470, 770 Reporting Average Daily Incarcerated Population per 1 ,000 Residents 4 . 10 3 . 95 4 . 271 5 . 021 3 . 17 ( 1 ) Source : Florida Department of Law Enforcement, County Detention Facilities Average Inmate Population , January 2004 (2 ) Average daily incarcerated population is for the January 2004 through October 2004 period, provided by IRCSO . ( 3 ) Source : Table I1- 1 IRC has budgeted sufficient funds to build 273 additional beds over the next five years . This will provide a total of 684 beds , and the current level of service will become 4 . 50 beds per 1000 residents . Based on discussions with County administration, this LOS standard will be used in this study and , thus , the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to adopt this standard . Table III-4 illustrates the calculation of the LOS standard using the countywide functional resident population . The LOS standard of 4 . 50 beds per 1 , 000 residents requires 5 . 12 beds per 1 , 000 functional residents , based on the 2009 countywide functional population . Table III4 Functional Residents Level of Service Calculation Step Figure IRC Countywide Population - - 2009 ( 1 ) 1519918 IRC Countywide Functional Population -- 2009(2 , 133 , 575 LOS Standard (beds per 1 , 000 residents)(3 ) 4 . 50 Required Beds to Meet LOS Standard(4 ) 684 Beds per 1 ,000 Functional Residents(5) 5 . 12 ( 1 ) Source : Appendix A , Table A- 1 (2 ) Source : Appendix A , Table A- 1 (3 ) Proposed, based on discussions with IRC representatives . (4 ) LOS standard (Item 3 ) multiplied by countywide population ( Item 1 ) divided by 1 , 000 . (5 ) Required beds to meet LOS standard (Item 4) divided by countywide functional population (Item 2 ), multiplied by 1 , 000 . Cost Component Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III -6 Impact Fee Study Historical/Replacement Capital Costs Table III - 5 summarizes historical and replacement costs of existing buildings based on the information provided by the County . The land value for correctional facilities shown in the table represents the replacement value and not the historical value . According to information provided by County representatives , the historical cost of land was $ 68 , 638 for 9 . 81 acres . The County ' s estimate of replacement value for this land is $ 343 , 175 ( or $ 34 ,982 per acre) , which represents an increase of 400 percent over the past 21 years . As presented , the future expansion cost is $ 51 , 633 per bed (2004 dollars) . The land cost included in this cost is based on $ 35 , 467 per acre , which is consistent with the replacement land cost used for the existing land . The building replacement cost is $232 per square foot based on the estimates provided by the Public Works Department and the Office of Management and Budget . The land cost of $ 35 , 467 per acre and building cost of $ 232 per square foot are used in impact fee calculations since they reflect the most accurate estimated cost to build the addition to the correctional facilities . Table 111 =5 Land & Buildings Costl ' 1 Year " Number of Facility Description Ac uired/Built Acres Square Feet Num er of Beds Land Cost Building Costal Current Buildings IRC Correctional Facility Phase I 1987 N/A N/A $4,273,234 IRC Correctional Facility Phase U 1988 N/A N/A $2,275,084 IRC Correctional Facility Phase UI 1991 N/A 1 67,716 411 1 N/A $5,597,251 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site(3) Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 N/A $ 13 ,000 Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 N/A $ 13 ,000 Land for Correctional Facilities(4) 1983 9. 81 N/A $343 , 175 N/A Total Current 411 $ 12,514,745 Cost per Bed $30,450 Future Expansion Hammond Parcel for Future Jail Expansion 1 2003 25 . 896 1 N/A $ 918,466 .00 N/A UtC Jail Ex ansion 2004/06 N/A 52,985 256 $ 12,299,637 Total Future Ex ansion 256 $ 13 ,218, 103 Future Expansion Cost per Bed $517633 ( 1 ) Source : Public Works Department, General Services Department, and Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) For existing buildings , historical cost is shown . (3 ) Total cost of miscellaneous buildings was provided by IRC . The cost was distributed among buildings based on the percentage of square feet. (4 ) The Correctional Facility Detention Complex and the Sheriffs Administration Building are located at the same site . Based on the review of aerial photos included in the "Needs Assessment and Master Plan for the Correctional Facility , " it was determined that each occupies 50 percent of the site . The historical cost for equipment is shown in Table I11 - 6 . The replacement cost for equipment was not available . Using historical (acquisition) values , however, results in a conservative estimate of equipment cost . The total cost was obtained from the IRCSO "Asset Report by Asset # , " and the figures were prorated between correctional facilities and law enforcement facilities based on information provided by the IRCSO staff. The resulting equipment cost per bed is $2 , 638 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 7 Impact Fee Study Table III =6 Equipment Cost Equipment Historical Cost" ) Vehicles $469 , 782 Radio Equipment $ 1489786 Vehicle Equipment $ 849070 Weapons $20 ,454 Office Equipment $ 183029 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment $ 159870 Electronic Equipment $23 , 922 Computer Equipment $ 1959065 Miscellaneous Equipment $ 1089265 Total Equipment Cost $ 190849244 Number of Beds 411 Equipment Cost per Bed $29638 ( 1 ) Source : IRC Sheriffs Office . Based on acquisition costs , as the equipment replacement values are not available . Proarammed/Planned Capital Costs Based on recommendations in the recently completed Correctional Facilities Master Plan, the County is planning to build a new correctional facility with 384 beds . Over the next five years , $ 14 . 8 million of optional sales tax revenue will be used to build the additional beds . Table III - 7 shows the details of this facility expansion by fiscal year . Based on the unit cost of $ 54 , 271 presented in Table I11 - 8 , this amount will be sufficient to build 273 beds . This expansion was budgeted before the Master Plan was developed . Therefore , the jail expansion funding will have to be revised in order to accommodate the cost of the remaining 111 beds into the budget to build the 384 -bed expansion . Table III = 7 Programmed Capital Costs ( ' ) Correctional Facilities - Programmed Capital Costs(l ) Capital Expenditures Fiscal Year Fiscal Year FiscaCY.ear Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Project Description 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 TOTAL Sheriff' s Projects IRC Jail Expansion 1 $ 10, 836, 8001 $3 ,9795183 $ 14, 815 ,983 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Unit Cost Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 II1 - 8 Impact Fee Study Table III - 8 presents the unit cost that will be used for the impact fee analysis . This unit cost was calculated as the addition of the building replacement cost and the equipment cost, which totals $ 54 , 271 per bed . The table shows a cost per functional resident of $278 under the LOS standard of 5 . 12 beds per 1 , 000 functional residents . Table 111 -8 Unit Cost per Functional Resident Component Cost Building and Land Replacement Cost per Bed ' ) $ 51 , 633 Equipment Cost per Bed(2) JZ, 638 Total Capital Cost per Bed (3) $ 549271 Level of Service(4) (Beds/ 1 ,000 Functional Residents) 5 . 12 Total Capital Cost per Functional Resident(s) $277, 87 ( 1 ) Source : Table III -5 (2) Source : Table III -6 (3 ) Sum of building replacement cost per bed (Item 1 ) and equipment cost per bed (Item 2 ) . (4) Source : Table III -4 ( 5 ) Total cost per bed ( Item 3 ) multiplied by level of service ( Item 4 ) divided by 1 , 000 . Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the capital cost of providing correctional facilities , a review of the capital financing program for correctional facilities was completed . The purpose of this review was to identify any potential revenues , other than impact fees , generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities , land , and equipment expansion of the correctional facilities program . Once these revenues were identified , a credit was given against the impact cost . Revenue Sources for Capital Expenditures The IRCSO has two different sources for correctional facility capital expenditures : • General Fund • Local Option Sales Tax Table III - 9 summarizes the capital expenditures and their funding sources over the last six years . This table also specifies whether the capital expenditure was a replacement or an expansion to existing capital facilities . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III -9 Impact Fee Study 10010111 Table III =9 Historical Capital Expenditures - Funding Sources � ' 1 Expansion/ Fiscal Year .:Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year `:Fiscal Year Total - Six Project Description Replacement 1998/99 1999/00 2000/Oi; 2001/02 2002/03 .- 2003/04 " Year History ' Bud et General Fund Jail Air ConditioningReplacement $9,600 $ 16,545 $26, 145 Jail PlumbingControls Replacement 2$28,000 13 020 $ 13,020 Jail Underground Tank Re lacement Re lacement $28,000 Misc. Jail E ui . Re lacement $ 10,845 $34,689 545,534 Total General Fund so50,620 527,390 $34,689 11 $112,699 O lionul Sales Tux IRC Jail Retrofit Phase I Replacement 5252,225 536,785 $289,010 IRC Jail Re-roof Phase I Replacement $9,445 $ 185,401 $ 194,846 IRC Jail Expansion - land Purchase Expansion $3, 500 $914,966 590,259 $ 1 ,008,725 IRC Jail Expansion • Study Expansion $74,775 $74,775 IRC Jail Intercom Replacement $ 134, 145 $ $58,966 , 145 IRC Jail Showers Replacement 558,966 5 $8 Jail Phase II & III Roofing Replacement $8,500 58,500 Jail Air Conditioning Replacement $24,000 5241000 Jail HVAC Improvements Replacement 524000 524,000 Jail Fire Sprinklers Replacement $60,000 $60,000 Jail Boiler Replacement $22,000 522,000 Jail Flooring Replacement $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Jail Water Conditioner Replacement $21 ,500 $21 ,500 Jail Kitchen Boiler Replacement $22,458 522,458 Total Opt onal Sales Tax so so $252,225 5491730 51,368,253 5288,717 I 51,958,924 Total Correctional Facilities SO 550,620 'S2799615 5849419 $ 1,368,253 5288,717 52,071 ,623 Total Expansion s0 I SO so 53,500 5989,741 $90,259 51 ,083,500 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Credit Calculation In calculating the credit component, capital expenditures for the past six years and programmed projects over the next five years were evaluated . As presented in Table III - 10 , capital expansion expenditures funded with non - impact fee revenues average $ 1 . 4 million per year or $ 12 of credit per functional resident . Over the past five years as well as the next five years , the County did not use or budget any revenues from the general fund toward jail facility capital expansion . Therefore , credit is given only for the local option sales tax . In addition, it is the County ' s intent to use impact fee revenues as the primary funding source for future capital expansion needs of the correctional facilities program and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount shown in this report toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County intends to use non- impact fee revenue sources as the primary funding source for capital replacement, operations and maintenance expenses . As such , credit calculations for the optional sales tax do not include an escalation factor . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 I1I - 10 Impact Fee Study Table III = 10 Revenue per Functional Resident Capital Expansion Functional Year Expenditures(1 ResidentS711 FY 1998/99 $0 1073599 FY 1999/00 $ 0 1101550 FY 2000/01 $ 0 112 , 312 FY 2001 /02 $ 3 , 500 1145683 FY 2002/03 $ 9895741 117 , 416 FY 2003 /04 $ 90 , 259 121 , 852 FY 2004/05 $ 10 , 8369800 1235875 FY 2005 /06 $ 3 , 9791183 126 , 246 FY 2006/07 $ 0 1289653 FY 2007/08 $ 0 131 , 096 FY 2008/09 $ 0 1335575 Average Functional Residents per Year ( 1999 - 2009) 1205714 Average Expansion per Year (FY 1998/99 - 2008/09) $ 15445 ,408 Average Expansion per Functional Resident $ 11 . 97 ( 1 ) Source : Tables III -7 and 111-9 (2 ) Source : Table A- 5 The credit per functional resident is determined by calculating the present value of the revenue per functional resident that is used to fund jail facility capital expansion . As shown in Table III - 11 , the credit is $ 169 per functional resident . Table III = 11 Credit per Functional Resident Component Figure Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident( l ) $ 11 . 97 Capitalization Rate(2 ) 5 % Capitalization Period ( in years)(3 ) 25 Credit per Resident(4 ) $ 168 . 70 ( 1 ) Source : Table 1I1 - 10 (2 ) Capitalization rate is estimated at 5 percent. (3 ) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years , which is typically when major renovations or replacement of capital facilities become necessary . (4 ) Present value of the average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident ( Item 1 ) over a 25 -year period (Item 3 ) with a capitalization rate of 5 percent (Item 2 ) . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 11 Impact Fee Study Existing Deficiencies As discussed previously , the budgeted improvements over the next five years will bring the LOS to 4 . 50 beds per 1 , 000 residents , which will be adopted as the standard . Therefore , there is no existing deficiency . Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total credit per functional resident . Table III - 12 presents the calculation of the net correctional facilities impact cost per functional resident . Table III = 12 Net Impact Cost Impact Cost / Credit Element Figure Impact Cost Facility Cost per Functional Resident( l ) $277 . 87 Impact Credit Total Revenue Credit(2 ) ( $ 168 . 70) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident $ 109 . 17 ( 1 ) Source : Table III - 8 (2 ) Source : Table III- I 1 The first section of Table III - 12 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $278 . The second section shows a revenue credit for the correctional facilities impact fee of $ 169 per functional resident . The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total revenue credit . This results in a net impact cost per functional resident of $ 109 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 12 Impact Fee Study Proposed Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A correctional facilities impact fee schedule developed for residential and non - residential land uses is illustrated in Table III - 13 . This schedule reflects calculations that were based on the LOS standard of 4 . 50 beds per 1 , 000 residents . Table III - 13 Impact Fee Schedule ( LOS Standard of 4 . 5 Beds per 1 , 000 Residents ) 24-Hour Functional Fee @ $109 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit C 11 oefficienttll Resident") Fee @3%�" Fee(4) Residential Single Family Lower than 1 .500 sf ( under air) du 1 . 386 $ 151 . 31 $4 . 54 $ 155 . 85 11500 to 2 ,499 sf ( under air) du 1 . 557 $ 169 . 98 $ 5 . 10 $ 175 . 08 2 ,500 sf or Greater ( under air) du 1 . 689 $ 184 . 39 $ 5 . 53 $ 189 . 92 Accessory Single Family du 0 . 919 $ 100 . 33 $ 3 . 01 $ 103 . 34 Multi Family du 1 0 . 919 $ 100 . 33 $ 3 . 01 $ 103 . 34 Mobile Home du 1 1 . 125 $ 122 . 82 $ 3 . 68 $ 126 . 50 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 0. 908 $99 . 13 $2 . 97 $ 102 . 10 Motel Room 0 . 908 $99 . 13 $2 . 97 $ 102 . 10 Nursing Home Bed 0. 979 $ 106. 88 $3 . 21 $ 110 . 09 ACLF Bed 0 . 979 $ 106 . 88 $ 3 .21 $ 110 . 09 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 1 . 702 $ 185 . 81 $5 . 57 $ 191 . 38 Bank 1 ,000 sf 1 . 941 $211 . 89 $6 . 36 $218 . 25 Bank w/Drive- in 1 ,000 sf 1 . 591 $ 173 . 66 $ 5 . 21 $ 178 . 87 Office 50 ,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1 . 401 $ 153 . 00 $4 . 59 $ 157. 59 Office greater than 50 ,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 0. 741 $ 80 . 86 $2 . 43 $83 . 29 Industrial Manufacturing 1 , 000 sf 0 . 501 $ 54 , 68 $ 1 . 64 $56 . 32 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0 . 385 342 . 03 $ 1 . 26 $43 . 2-9- Mini-Warehouse 11000 sf 0 . 076 $ 8 . 28 $0 . 25 $ 8 . 53 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 0. 684 374 . 71 $2 . 24 $76 . 95 Concrete PlantAcre 1 . 508 $ 164 . 68 $4 . 94 $ 169 . 62 Sand Mining Acre 1 0 . 193 $21 . 11 $0 . 63 $21 . 74 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 11000 sf 2 . 862 $ 312 .49 $9 . 37 $321 . 86 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 100 sf 2 . 854 $ 311 . 61 $9 . 35 $320 . 96 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200 ,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2 . 920 $ 318 . 81 $ 9 . 56 $328 . 37 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 , 000 sf 1 . 995 $217 . 79 $6 . 53 $224 . 32 Gas Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $ 188 . 05 $ 5 . 64 $ 193 . 69 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 1 . 706 $ 186 . 30 $5 . 59 $ 191 . 89 Quality Restaurant I ,000sf 6 . 764 $ 738 .41 $22 . 15 $760 . 56 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 7. 333 $ 800 . 55 $24 . 02 $ 824 . 57 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 7. 902 $ 862 . 61 $25 . 88 $ 888 . 49 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 2 . 031 $221 . 74 $6 . 65 $228 . 39 Car Wash Bays 1 . 887 $206 . 01 $6 . 18 $212 . 19 Convenience Store Ipo sf 1 4. 243 $463 .20 $ 13 . 90 $477. 10 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 1 0. 318 $ 34671 $ 1 . 04 $35 . 71 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 13 Impact Fee Study Table III = 13 ( continued ) Impact Fee Schedule ( LOS Standard of 4 Beds per 1 , 000 Residents ) 24-Hour Functional Fee @ $ 109 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Coefficient(l) Residenezt Fee @3%t3t Fee(4) Recreational Golf Course hole 2 . 443 $266. 70 $ 8 . 00 $274 . 70 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 2 . 374 $259 . 21 $7. 78 $266 . 99 County Park Acre 0 . 152 $ 16 .63 $0 . 50 $ 17. 13 Tennis Court Court 2. 321 $253 . 33 $7.60 $260 . 93 Marina Berths 0 . 153 $ 16 .69 $0 . 50 $ 17. 19 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 sf 1 . 773 $ 193 . 60 $ 5 . 81 $ 199 .41 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $ 187 . 61 $ 5 .63 $ 193 . 24 Government Office Building 100 sf 2 . 604 $284 . 31 $ 8 . 53 $292 . 84 Government Office Complex 100 sf 1 . 356 $ 148 .07 $4 . 44 $ 152 . 51 Jail (" Bed 0 . 871 $ 95 . 07 $2 . 85 $97 . 92 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 100 sf 1 . 009 $ 110 . 12 $ 3 . 30 $ 113 . 42 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 1 . 566 $ 170 . 91 $5 . 13 $ 176 .04 Veterinary Clinic IX0sf 1 . 633 $ 178 .27 $5 . 35 $ 183 . 62 Church 1 ,000 sf 0 . 533 $ 58 . 15 $ 1 . 74 $59 . 89 Movie Theater Screen 8 . 477 $ 925 . 42 $27 . 76 $ 953 . 18 School (Elementary and Middle ) Student 0 . 094 $ 10 . 25 $0 . 31 $ 10 . 56 School (High) Student 0 . 120 $ 13 . 08 $0 . 39 $ 13 .47 School (College) Student 0 . 104 $ 11 . 38 $0 . 34 $ 11 . 72 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf 0 . 633 $69 . 10 $2 .07 $71 . 17 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Functional resident coefficients from Section II , Table II - 15 for residential and transient, assisted, and group land uses and Table II -20 for non-residential land uses . (2) Proposed impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table III - 12 ) by the functional resident coefficient ( Item 1 ) for each land use . (3 ) Fee per functional resident (Item 2 ) multiplied by 3 percent to determine the administrative fee . (4 ) Sum of fee per functional resident (Item 2 ) and administrative fee ( Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Government uses are exempt from paying impact fees used to develop that same use . This is because legally , if the development does not create a demand for the facility or, indeed, mitigates the need for the facility , it should not pay the fee . In other words , a new jail will not pay the correctional facilities impact fee . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 14 Impact Fee Study Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section II , Table II - l . Table III - 14 presents the law enforcement facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Table III = 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Figure 2025 County Population( l ) 2073014 Adopted LOS Standard (Beds per 1 , 000 Residents)(2 ) 4 . 50 2025 Required Number of Beds(3 ) 932 Existing Number of Beds(4) 684 Additional Beds Needed ') 248 Total Capital Cost per Bed(6) FEE $ 541271 Total Capital Cost(') $ 1394599208 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (2 ) Source : Table III -4 (3 ) 2025 county population (Item 1 ) multiplied by adopted LOS standard ( Item 2 ) divided by 1 , 000 . ( 4) 411 existing beds plus the 273 beds that can be built with the programmed funding for the next five years . ( 5 ) 2025 required number of beds (Item 3 ) less existing number of beds (Item 4 ) . (6) Source : Table III - 8 (7 ) Additional beds needed (Item 5 ) multiplied by cost per bed (Item 6) . As presented in Table III - 14 , by 2025 , the County will need 248 additional beds . This would require an investment of $ 13 . 5 million over the next 20 years . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per functional resident calculated in Table III - 12 , it is estimated that the correctional facilities impact fee revenues through 2025 will amount to $ 6 . 6 million as presented in Table III - 15 . As presented previously , the County will need to make an investment of $ 13 . 5 million to accommodate 2025 demand . Thus , the projected impact fee revenues will need to used in conjunction with other revenue sources to meet the 2025 demand . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 15 Impact Fee Study Table III = 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Countywide New Estimated Year Population"' Population(2) Revenues , 2004 138 , 393 2005 1409562 21169 $208 , 202 2006 143 , 318 2 , 756 $2649548 2007 1461129 29811 $ 2699828 2008 1485996 2 , 867 $275 , 203 2009 1519918 2 , 922 $280 , 483 2010 1541896 2 , 978 $ 2853858 2011 158 , 245 39349 $ 3213471 2012 1619671 3 ,426 $ 3289862 2013 165 , 171 3 , 500 $ 3359965 2014 1 % 749 35578 $ 3435452 2015 1721407 3 , 658 $ 3519131 2016 175 , 781 3 , 374 $ 323 , 870 2017 179 , 223 35442 $ 3309398 2018 182 , 730 31507 $ 3369637 2019 186 , 308 3 , 578 $ 3435452 2020 189 , 924 3 , 616 $ 347 , 100 2021 1939215 35291 $ 3159903 2022 1969566 39351 $ 3213662 2023 199 , 976 31410 $ 3279326 2024 2033448 33472 $ 333 , 277 2025 2079014 33566 $ 3424300 $ 6 , 586 , 928 Fee per functional resident(4 ) $ 109 . 17 Fee per resident(5 ) $ 95 . 99 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table 1I- 1 ( some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are based on growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections . ) ( 2 ) Additional population per year. (3 ) New population (Item 2 ) multiplied by fee per resident ( Item 5 ) . (4 ) Source : Table I11 - 12 (5 ) To convert the fee per functional resident to fee per resident, fee per functional resident ( Item 4 ) multiplied by functional population from Table 11I -4 and divided by population from Table III -4 . As mentioned previously , the impact fee revenue projections are based on population growth estimates . For impact fee purposes, revenue projections serve only as an overall Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 16 Impact Fee Study guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If the growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III - 17 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 III- 18 Impact Fee Study IV, Solid Waste Facilities This section provides the results of the solid waste facilities impact fee analysis . There are ten major elements associated with the development of the solid waste facilities impact fee : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Demand Component • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Solid Waste Impact Cost • Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized in this section . It should be noted that solid waste impact fees are not very common and there is limited literature . This study reviewed other solid waste impact fees and used the methodology utilized in other solid waste impact fees . This method is based on capital expansion projects planned for the next five -years as well as projects through 2020 based on estimates included in the 2001 Solid Waste Disposal District ( SWDD) Master Plan . Inventory According to the information provided by the County and the 2001 SWDD Master Plan, the IRC SWDD has the following inventory of facilities : • The IRC Landfill Site is located south of Oslo Road , west of Range Line Road ( 74`h Avenue) , and east of Interstate 95 . This site has a total of 225 acres (or 262 acres including the landfill located southeast of the main parcel) and includes the following facilities/services : o Waste management shop and office ; o Class I landfill ; o Construction and demolition (C & D) disposal area ; o Materials recovery facility (MRF ) ; o Household hazardous waste storage facility ; o Waste tire storage / processing area ; o Used oil storage facility ; o Yard waste processing area ; and o Scrap metals storage area . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV- 1 Impact Fee Study • The SWDD also operates five customer convenience centers throughout the District for the collection of Class I waste , yard trash, cardboard, newsprint, and mixed recyclables . Used oil , batteries , and specific types of household hazardous waste are also accepted . The locations of the convenience centers are as follows : o Winter Beach Customer Convenience Center — 3955 651h Street ; o Roseland Customer Convenience Center — 7860 1301h Street ; o Gifford Customer Convenience Center — 4901 4151 Street ; o Oslo Customer Convenience Center — 950 151 Place . ; and o Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center — 12510 C . R . 512 . • In addition , the SWDD has approximately 334 acres of land to be used for landfill expansion . The following table provides a summary of the District ' s current inventory . Solid Waste facilities are also presented on Map IV - 1 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 2 Impact Fee Study Table IV - 1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities Inventoryl ' 1 Year Building Facility Descriptions Acquired �cres Square Feet IRC Landfill Site - includes admin . Class I ( segs . I , II) , C &D , retention 1977 , 1983 225 . 35 1 1804 C & D Landfill ( current - southeast of main 225 acre parcel) 1990 36 . 75 n/a Vacant parcel for future use (yard waste composting, stormwater management etc . south of landfill) 1993 65 . 88 1 , 560 Vacant Parcel north of C - 5 Canal for future Segment III of Class I landfill 1994 , 1996 , 2001 218 . 74 n/a Parcel north of C - 5 Canal for future Segment III of Class I landfill 1996 , 2001 19 . 69 37 , 540 Vacant Parcel west of I -95 for future use 1993 29 . 30 n/a Winter Beach Customer Convenience Center (transfer station) N/A 19 . 55 80 Roseland Customer Convenience Center (transfer station) N/A 1 . 38 80 Gifford Customer Convenience Center (transfer station) N/A 10 . 00 80 Oslo Customer Convenience Center (transfer Station ) N/A 11 . 64 80 Felismere Customer Convenience Center (transfer station) N/A 1 . 29 1 80 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV -3 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV -4 Impact Fee Study 1A34301 .04-IRC Impact Fee StudoMapstSolid_Waste.mxd Created: May 25, 2004 I I"r I mn 1 is r i � j f o P 00 tp A f NCA � . . 0 1 Cn N � i CL 1 d f T t d N y — p a 3C7ay , � 1 Is = cam .. = 3000 1 3 m 3 m � �. (D � oQ N � Z? U) m m J I A .. . w # . N V GAVEfly 74THII& 74TH ST41'p �J 66TH AVE WTH AVE BOTH AVEBOTH AVE u SCHUMANN OR CIO N � y : SB7N AVE. . y N y It gA43RD AVE 3 27TH AVE f N F n 0"p f` 20TH AVE x : ( It w Y r �� p pS tl3Ntl NVIONI O • /"a 1 F • � .. �C HV3'� a ej Y S JW v Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 6 Impact Fee Study Population Solid Waste facilities are provided on a countywide basis . The County ' s current weighted seasonal population estimate and future population projections are provided in Section II , Table 1I - 1 . Level of Service According to the information provided by the SWDD , IRC ' s current level of service (LOS ) is 2 . 2 tons of solid waste generated per capita per year. This figure includes residential and commercial Class I waste , construction and demolition ( C & D ) debris , and recyclables . The following table presents the calculation of the current LOS for the total solid waste generated in IRC , broken out by the three major components discussed above . Table IV -2 Current Level of Service Solid Waste LOS Generatec Annually (tons/capita/y Component Population (in tons)- Y 03/040) ear) Class I 1553228 1 . 1 C &D Debris 541295 0 . 4 Recyclables 911000 0 . 7 Total Annual Waste 300 , 523 2004 County Population(' 1385393 Current LOS (tons/capita/year) 2 . 2 ( 1 ) Source : SWDD ( 2 ) Source : Section II, Table II - 1 The IRC Comprehensive Plan states that the countywide LOS standard for solid waste generation is 6 . 5 pounds per capita per day . In terms of tons , this LOS standard equals to 1 . 2 net tons per capita per year . Because the current LOS is greater than this standard , the current LOS will be used in the study as the adopted LOS standard . To officially adopt the current LOS as the standard , however, the County must amend its Comprehensive Plan . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 7 Impact Fee Study Demand Component Based on the LOS standard presented previously and projected population growth included in Section II of this report, the solid waste generated by the existing and new population was projected . The following table summarizes these projections . Table IV =3 Demand Component Total Solid Solid Waste Class I & Waste Generated Generated Solid Waste Solid Waste ' ' Recyclables C&D — Existing and (Tons per Total Solid Generated Generated by, Cummulative Generated Generated New Capita) - , Waste by Existing New 2004 New New Total (Tons per (Tons per Population(Tons Existing , Generated Population Population Year Population(" Population 12) ` Populationt3) Populationt0) Capita)(5) Capita)(6) per Capita) Population(') (Tons)(") (Tons)") (Tons)"') j 2005 138 ,393 25169 2, 169 140, 562 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2 . 000 309,236 276,7861 32,450 2006 138 ,393 2,756 4,925 143 ,318 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2. 000 315 ,300 2765786 38, 514 2007 1383393 23811 7,736 146, 129 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 3211484 276,786 4408 2008 138 ,393 207 103603 1485996 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 327,791 2763786 5105 2009 138 ,393 2,922 13, 525 151 ,918 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2 . 000 3342220 276,786 57,434 2010 1385393 2,978 16503 1541896 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 3405771 276,786 63 ,985 2011 138 ,393 33349 19,852 158 ,245 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 348, 139 2765786 717353 2012 138,393 3 ,426 23 ,278 161 ,671 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2. 000 355 ,676 276,786 78, 890 2013 138 ;393 35500 26, 778 165 , 171 1 . 800 0. 400 2 . 200 2 . 000 363 ,376 276,786 86, 590 2014 138 ,393 3 , 578 30,356 168, 749 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2 . 000 371 ,248 276, 786 94,462 2015 1387393 33658 343014 172 ,407 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 379,295 2765786 102, 509 2016 138 ,393 3 ,374 37 ,388 175 ,781 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2 . 000 386318 2763786 1097932 2017 138 ,393 3 ,442 40, 830 179,223 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 3941291 276,7861 1173505 2018 138 ,393 32507 445337 1823730 1 . 800 0.400 2 . 200 2 . 000 4023006 276,786 125 ,220 2019 138 ,393 33578 47 ,915 186,308 1 . 800 0 .400 2 . 200 2 . 000 409, 878 276,786 133 ,092 2020 138 ,393 3 ,616 51 , 531 189,924 1 . 800 0. 400 2 . 200 2 . 000 417 , 833 276,786 141 ,047 L Total 51 ,531 51777,262 4,428,576 11348,686 Percent of Total 77% 23 % Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 8 Impact Fee Study ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 (2 ) Total population ( Item 4 ) less the population of the previous year (Item 1 ) . (3 ) Cumulative population shown under Item 2 . (4) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 . Projections for years 2011 - 2014 and 2016 -2019 are not shown in Table II - 1 . These figures are projected based on the annual growth rates from 2010 to 2015 and from 2015 to 2020 . ( 5 ) Source : Table IV-2 ( 6 ) Source : Table IV-2 ( 7 ) The sum of Class I and recyclables generated ( Item 5 ) and C & D generated ( Item 6 ) . ( 8 ) Given that C & D is generated primarily because of new construction, it is assumed that 50 percent of it is generated by the existing population and 50 percent of it by new growth . Therefore, the total per capita waste generation rate for the existing population is the Class I and recyclables generation rate of 2 plus half of C &D generation rate of 0 . 4 , or 0 . 2, which equals to 2 .2 . (9 ) Total population (Item 4 ) multiplied by total solid waste generated by the new and existing population (Item 7) . ( 10 ) 2004 population ( Item 1 ) multiplied by solid waste generated by the existing population (Item 8 ) . ( 11 ) Total solid waste generated (Item 9 ) less solid waste generated by the existing population ( Item 10 ) . Based on the analysis provided in Table IV- 3 , it is projected that new growth will generate 23 percent of the total solid waste produced through 2020 . This percentage is used to determine the impact cost of the new development . Cost Component The cost of solid waste facilities required to accommodate IRC ' s population is based on programmed and planned capital expansion projects . These projects will accommodate the needs of both the existing population and new growth . A distribution of project costs is also provided in this section . Pro2rammed/Planned Capital Proiects Table IV -4 presents the proposed capital projects for the next five years . According to the information provided by the SWDD , the planned capital expansion projects from FY 05 /06 to FY 09/ 10 will amount to $ 18 . 3 million . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV- 9 Impact Fee Study Table IVA Proposed Capital Expenditures Fiscal Years 05/06 - 09 / 101 ' 1 Expansion/ Capital Improvement Projects Re lacement FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Total Storm water detention pondexcavation Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150000 $7501000 North area infrastructure construction Expansion $250,000 $250,000 $ 500,000 C&D landfill cell construction Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Closure of C&D landfill Expansion $5001000 $ 500,000 Closure of Class I (Segment II Expansion $3 ,850,000 $3 ,850,000 $7 ,700,000 Construction of Class I landfill cell Ex ansion $3 , 500,000 !$250,000 $7 ,000,000 Engineering, desi n ermit, bid, and constr. srvs. Expansion $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 1 ,250,000 Roll-off truck re lacement Re lacement $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Citizens Convenience Centerim rovements Re lacement $25 ,000 $25,000 $25,000 $ 100,000 Expansion/ Transfer truck and two transfer trailers Replacement $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $800,000 , Replacement roll-off truck & containers Replacement $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $250,000 Total $9609000 $875,000 $ 1 ,275,000 $89100,00 $799009000 $19, 110,000 322 ,000 Ez ansionExpenditures $7689000 $7689000 $11689000 $7,868,000 $ ,7501000 $ 181 ( 1 ) Source : SWDD (2 ) According to SWDD representatives , this line item will both replace and expand capacity . Capacity will increase from 40 cubic yards to 98 cubic yards (a 145 percent increase or an addition of 58 cubic yards) . Given this , 59 percent ( 58/98 ) of the expenditure is included in capital expansion expenditure figures . Note : All costs are in 2004 dollars . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 10 Impact Fee Study The following table identifies capital expansion projects planned for the FY 2011 to FY 2020 period based on the information provided in the 2001 SWDD Master Plan . The Master Plan projects the total expansion expenditures for this period to be $ 13 . 6 million . Table IV-5 Planned Capital Expansion Expenditures ( ' ) Capital Expansion Projects FY 2011 FY 2012 ' FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Improvements to the Oslo and Gifford CCC Yard Waste / Sludge Co-composting Facility Partial Closure of Segment III ( 15 acres) $2120000 Phase W-25 Acre Segment North of Segment III $3303000 $2,2885000 $ 2,2865000 Partial Closure of Segment III ( 18 acres) $2005000 $2, 9501000 Prepare 20 Acre C&D Landfill Base $ 809000 $25216, 000 Partial Closure of C&D Unit ( 15 acres) $603000 $948,000 Total $29200,000 Sol $0 $809000 $2,2169000 $0 $3309000 $293489000 $3,4349000 $299509000 Total for the 2010-2020 Period $ 13 ,558,000 ( 1 ) Source : 2001 SWDD Master Plan Note : All costs are in 2000 dollars . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 1V - 11 Impact Fee Study As mentioned previously , future capital expansion expenditures will accommodate demand created by both the existing population and new growth . Table IV - 6 first converts future capital expenditures to current dollars , and then distributes this cost between the existing and new population . In the first column , costs for FY 05 /06 through FY 09/ 10 are in 2004 dollars and costs for FY 10/ 11 through FY 19/20 are in 2000 dollars . In the second column, all costs are inflated appropriately to reflect current year dollars . Based on these calculations , the total planned capital expenditures of $31 . 9 million will require an investment of $ 39 . 9 million in current year dollars . Table IV =6 Distribution of Capital Expansion Expenditures Planned Capital Existing Population ' s New Growth ' s Planned Capital Expansion Portion of Captial Portion of Capital Expansion Expenditures in Expenditures in Expenditures in Fiscal Year Expenditures(l ) Current $(2) Current $tat Current $(4) FY 05 /06 $ 768 , 000 $ 786 ,432 $ 6055553 $ 1809879 FY 06/07 $ 7685000 $ 8059306 $ 6209086 $ 1853220 FY 07/08 $ 19168 , 000 $ 152549130 $ 9655680 $2883450 FY 08/09 $ 75868 ,000 $ 8 , 6505957 $ 6 , 661 ,237 $ 1 ,9899720 FY 09/ 10 $ 7 , 7509000 $ 897255724 $ 697189807 $290069917 FY 10/ 11 $252003000 $29767 ,050 $ 291305629 $ 636 ,422 FY 11 / 12 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 FY 12/ 13 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 FY 13 / 14 $ 80 , 000 $ 1089040 $ 839191 $24 , 849 FY 14/ 15 $ 2 ,2169000 $ 3 ,0645530 $ 2 ,3599688 $704 , 842 FY 15 / 16 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 FY 16/ 17 $ 330 , 000 $4781529 $ 3689467 $ 110 ,062 FY 17/ 18 $ 29348 , 000 $ 3 ,486 , 519 $2 ,684 , 620 $ 8019899 FY 18/ 19 $ 394349000 $ 53221 ,488 $4 , 020 , 546 $ 11200 , 942 FY 19/20 $ 219509000 $455939206 $ 31536 ,769 $ 150563437 Total $ 31 , 880 ,000 $ 39 ,941 , 911 $ 3037559273 $ 9 , 186 ,639 Existing Population' s Share of Cost(5 ) 1 77% New Population' s Share of Cost(6) 23 % Annual Inflation Rate(7 ) 2 . 4 % ( 1 ) Source : Table IV-4 and Table IV - 5 (2 ) Figures under Item 1 are brought to current dollars using an annual inflation rate of 2 . 4 percent . Expenditure figures for FY 05 /06 through FY 09/ 10 were in 2004 dollars , and figures for the remaining years were in 2000 dollars and were inflated accordingly . (3 ) Planned capital expansion expenditures in current dollars (Item 2 ) multiplied by the existing population ' s share of cost (Item 5 ) . (4 ) Planned capital expansion expenditures in current dollars (Item 2 ) multiplied by the new population ' s share of cost (Item 6 ) . ( 5 ) Source : Table IV -3 (6) Source : Table IV- 3 (7 ) Inflation rate of 2 . 4 percent is based on historical Consumer Price Index figures . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 12 Impact Fee Study Credit Component Table IV - 7 provides a summary of revenue sources used to fund capital additions and replacements , as well as operations . As presented , the two largest funding sources are the service assessment and the construction and demolition debris disposal charges . In Table IV - 7 , the average revenue figures over the past six years along with their percentage of the total revenues are shown . Total revenues available for SWDD capital and operating expenditures average approximately $ 10 . 8 million per year, while operating expenditures average $ 8 . 8 million per year, leaving an average of $ 2 . 0 million per year for capital expenditures . It should be noted that the operating expenditures of the District have been increasing, which has been reducing the amount of funding available for capital expenditures . While the percentage of revenues available for capital expenditures (total revenues less operating costs) in relation to total revenues averaged approximately 18 . 6 percent over the past six years , no revenues were budgeted for capital expenditures in FY 04/05 , which indicates a policy decision of reducing capital purchases funded with the District ' s revenues . In addition , the County has been reducing the assessment fee rate and , as a policy , is interested in further reductions . This combination of reducing the assessment fee rate along with increasing operating expenses is likely to further reduce the funding available for capital expenditures . This reduction makes it necessary for the County to explore other funding sources, such as solid waste impact fees . New growth, which will pay impact fees , will also benefit from lower assessment fees . Finally, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulations require that the owner or operator of a solid waste management facility establish escrow accounts , or alternative financial mechanisms , during the useful life of the facility to accumulate funds for its eventual closure and long -term care . Annual closure account balances are required , each of which is to equal an annually revised estimated total closure amount times the percentage of the landfill capacity that is consumed at the end of the respective accounting period . According to IRC representatives , the SWDD currently has a fund balance of $30 million to comply with FDEP regulations , and the County needs to retain or increase this balance in the future . It is important to note that this fund balance is not an unreserved fund balance . A portion of it must be set aside or reserved for future cell closures and long term maintenance to comply with FDEP regulations . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV- 13 Impact Fee Study Table IVJ Historical Revenue Sources ( ' ) 2004/05 2003/04 2002/03 2001/02 2000/01 1999/2000 Percent of Revenue Source Average Budget Actuals '_ Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Totals C&D Debris Disposal Charges $ 11425 , 000 $ 27291 , 367 $ 1 , 805 ,340 $ 1 , 823 ,986 $ 1 , 7257328 $ 115805364 $ 11775 ,231 16 .4% Sales of Recyclable $ 575 ,000 $ 683 ,764 $ 4693718 $ 3195940 $ 3397489 $ 4515951 $ 4737310 4 .4% Se tuge/Stud e Disposal $ 200, 000 $ 210, 181 $ 214 ,941 $ 2172099 $ 2185221 $ 1603248 $ 2037448 1 . 9% Lot Clearing Waste Disposal Charges $ 275 , 000 $ 398,220 $ 397 ,670 $ 411 , 555 $ 438,485 $ 2805453 $ 366, 897 3 . 4% Landfill Assessments $ 275 ,000 $ 388 , 521 $ 348 , 879 $ 2699795 $ 3375631 1 $ 241 , 163 $ 310, 165 2 .9% Service Assessments $ 7 ,4453350 $ 63974, 314 $ 6, 804,531 $ 6,6271295 $ 6,447,062 1 $ 6 ,2965909 $ 63765 ,910 62 . 4% Other Sources $ 526, 883 $ 482,332 $ 8455411 $ 8832248 $ 117235486 $ 15253 ,983 $ 9525557 8 . 8% Total Revenues $ 105722, 233 $ 113428, 699 $ 105886,490 $ 102552,918 $ 11 ,229, 702 $ 10,2652071 $ 10, 847, 519 100 .0% Operating Expenditures $ 10, 7225233 $ 83972,492 $ 815895140 $ 8 ,070,243 $ 83220,360 $ 854015741 $ 85829, 368 81 .4% Revenues Net of Operating Expenditures $ $ 2,456 ,207 $ 232979350 $ 2,4823675 $ 350095342 $ 1 , 863 ,330 $ 250185151 18 . 6% Revenues Net of Operating Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Revenues 0. 0% 21 . 5% 21 . 1 % 23 . 5 % 1 26 . 8% 1 18 . 2% 18 . 6% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 14 Impact Fee Study Imposing a solid waste facilities impact fee serves a two-fold purpose . First, it enables the County to retain , or possibly reduce , the current assessment fee , while generating sufficient dollars to accommodate the needs of the existing and new population . Second , it allows the County to accumulate the necessary fund balance to comply with FDEP regulations . To illustrate this point, it is assumed that the assessment fee rate will remain at FY 04/05 levels upon the adoption of the impact fee . As shown in Table IV- 8 , the County reduced assessment fee rates by an average of one percent per year over a seven -year period . Keeping the assessment fee rates at current levels over the next 15 years actually results in a reduction of the fees in terms of real dollars when inflation is taken into consideration . The study objective is that imposing impact fees will result in the County not having to increase its assessment fee rates , while still allowing it to carry the necessary fund balance required to meet FDEP regulations . Table IV =8 Changes in the Assessment Fee Rates ( ' ) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Adopted FY Rates 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 12002/03 2003/04;' 2004105 Average Residential Per Waste Generation Unit (WGU) $48 . 23 $47. 56 $47 . 56 $47. 56 $47. 56 $47.45 $46 . 86 Percent Chane - 1 .4% 0 . 0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% - 1 . 2% -0 . 5 % Per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) $77. 17 $76. 10 $76 . 10 $76. 10 $76. 10 $75 .92 $74.98 Percent Chane - 1 .4% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% -0. 2% - 1 .2% -0. 5 % Commercial Per Waste Generation Unit (WGU) 1 $34 .45 $33 . 70 1 $33 . 70 1 $33 .70 1 $32 .58 1 $32 . 53 $31 .89 Percent Change 1 -2 . 2%1 0. 0%1 0.0% -3 . 3 % -0.20, ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC In addition, it is assumed that 15 percent of all revenues will be dedicated for capital expansion of the Solid Waste Program . As shown in Table IV - 7 , the revenues available to fund capital ranged from 18 . 2 percent of total revenues in FY 99/00 to 26 . 8 percent in FY 00/01 , with an average of 18 . 6 percent from FY 99/00 to FY 04/05 . In addition , the County did not budget any District revenues for capital expenditures in FY 04/05 . To be conservative , however, this analysis assumes that 15 percent of all District revenues will be allocated to the capital expansion projects , and this percentage will be used to calculate the impact fee credit . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV- 15 Impact Fee Study The following table provides a summary of credit per resident based on the analysis and assumptions discussed previously . Table IV -9 Total Credit per Resident Credit Element/Calculation Step Figure FY 2004/2005 Total Budgeted District Revenues( l ) $ 10 , 722 , 233 Percent of District Revenues Allocated to Capital Expenditures(2) 15 % District Revenues Allocated to Capital Expenditures(3 ) $ 19608 , 335 2005 County Population(4) 1409562 District Revenues per Person(5 ) $ 11 . 44 Capitalization Rate(6) 5 % Capitalization Period (years)(') 25 Credit per Resident( 8 ) F $ 161 . 27 ( 1 ) Source : Table IV-7 (2 ) For the purposes of this analysis , it is assumed that approximately 15 percent of the District revenues will be allocated for capital expansion expenditures . ( 3 ) FY 04/05 revenues ( Item 1 ) multiplied by percent of revenues allocated to capital expenditures (Item 2 ) . (4) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 ( 5 ) District revenues allocated to capital expenditures ( Item 3 ) divided by 2005 County population (Item 4) . (6 ) Capitalization rate is estimated at 5 percent. (7 ) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years, which is typically when major renovations or replacement of capital facilities become necessary . ( 8 ) Present value of $ 11 . 44 over a 25 -year period with a capitalization rate of 5 percent. The calculations shown thus far relate to the portion of the expenditures necessary to accommodate new population ' s capital needs , which were estimated at $ 9 . 2 million in current dollars , as shown in Table IV -6 . The District has to spend an additional $ 31 million in current dollars to accommodate the existing population capital facility needs . As mentioned previously, SWDD has a fund balance of $ 30 million , which should remain at this level or increase by 2020 . Thus , impact fee revenues should be sufficient to accommodate the capital expansion costs due to new growth, which include cost of additional capital and contribution to the fund balance . Table IV - 10 presents the necessary impact fee revenues to retain the current fund balance . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 16 Impact Fee Study Table IVA O Changes in the Fund Balance FiscalInterest Annual District Impact Fee Total Capital Fund Balance Year Population(l) Earnings(2) Revenues(3) Revenues(4) Expenditures(5) Casht" Others')" Totaltgt FY 04/05 1409562 $ 1131179770 $ 18 , 8829230 $30 ,0009000 FY 05 /06 143 , 318 $ 5555889 $ 156395870 $ 1975743 $7861432 $ 12,724, 840 $ 18 , 8821230 $31 ,6075070 FY 06/07 146, 129 $6365242 $ 136725034 $20109 $ 8053306 $ 145429,499 $ 18 , 882,230 $ 33 ,3113729 FY 07/08 148 ,996 $ 7215475 $ 137045838 $205 ,707 $ 11254, 130 $ 1598075389 $ 183882 ,230 $341689 ,619 FY 08/09 1519918 $790,369 $ 1 ,738 ,272 $209 ,654 $ 856505957 $9, 894 , 727 $ 185882 ,230 $28 , 776 ,957 FY 09/ 10 154 , 896 $494,736 $ 1 ,772, 347 $213 ,672 $ 8 ,725 ,724 $ 31649 ,758 $ 189882 ,230 $22, 531 ,988 FY 10/ 11 158,245 $ 182,488 $ 13810 , 667 $240,291 $2,767,050 $ 311161154 $ 18 , 882 ,230 $2159989384 FY 11 / 12 161 ,671 $ 155 , 808 $ 128492868 $245 , 816 $0 $55367 ,646 $ 1858829230 $247249, 876 FY 12/ 13 165 , 171 $2685382 $ 1091915 $2515125 $0 $75777 ,068 $ 1898829230 $2656599298 FY 13/ 14 168 , 749 $388 , 853 $ 13930, 856 $256, 722 $ 108,040 $ 10,2457459 $ 1838825230 $29 , 127 , 689 FY 14/ 15 1725407 $512,273 $ 11972 , 711 $262,462 $31064, 530 $959285375 $ 18 , 882 ,230 $2858105605 FY 15/ 16 175 , 781 $4965419 $250113317 $242 , 085 $0 $ 125678 , 196 $ 189882 ,230 $31 , 560,426 FY 16/ 17 179,223 $6333910 $2,050 , 701 $2469964 $4789529 $ 1551315242 $ 18 , 8825230 $34,013 ,472 FY 17/ 18 182 ,730 $756, 562 $2,090, 829 $2519627 $3 ,486, 519 $ 14, 7435741 $ 1858829230 $3356255971 FY 18/ 19 1865308 $7373187 $2, 131 , 769 $256 , 722 $5 ,2219488 $ 12,6475931 $ 1838825230 $31 , 530, 161 FY 19/20 1899924 $6325397 $2, 1735144 $259 ,448 $455935206 $ 11 , 119, 714 $ 18 , 8821230 $30,001 ,944 Total $719625990 $284391138 $3 , 541 , 727 $391941 ,911 Annual interest rate(9) 5 % Average assessment fee rate and other service charges per resident ( 10) $ 11 . 44 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 . Projections for years 2011 -2014 and 2016-2019 are not shown in Table II - 1 . These figures are projected based on the annual growth rate from 2010 to 2015 and from 2015 to 2020 . (2) Cash balance (Item 6) from the previous year multiplied by the annual interest rate ( Item 9) . (3 ) Population (Item 1 ) multiplied by average assessment fee and other service charges per resident (Item 10) . (4) Source : Table IV- 11 (5) Source : Table IV -6 (6) Sum of previous year ' s balance and revenues earned ( Item 2 , Item 3 , and Item 4) less the total capital expenditures (Item 5 ) . (7) Non-cash portion of the fund balance ( 8) Sum of cash and non- cash balances (Items 6 and 7) . (9) Assumed interest rate . ( 10 ) Source : Table IV-9 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 17 Impact Fee Study Existing Deficiencies As presented previously , the current LOS for solid waste collection will be the adopted LOS standard . Hence , there are no existing deficiencies that need to be addressed in this area . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the current LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Solid Waste Facilities Impact Cost Table IV - 11 presents the net impact cost (gross costs less credit) for new development through 2020 . New growth ' s share of the capital expansion needs and contribution to the fund balance during this period is approximately $3 . 5 million . The net impact cost per resident resulting from this capital expansion need as well as new growth ' s contribution to the fund balance to retain a fund balance of $ 30 million by 2020 is $ 71 . 75 . This fee generates the necessary revenues to pay for the $ 1 . 2 million in capital expansion expenditures needed to serve new growth and contribute $ 2 . 3 million necessary to retain a fund balance of $ 30 million. Table IV - 11 Net Impact Cost New Growth's - Portion of New Growth 's New Net Impact Total Impact New Capital Exp in Contribution 3o Growth's Net Impact Costlier Fee Net Fiscal Year Po ulationttl Current $t�1 Fund Balance(3) Creditt4l ' Cosel Resident(6) Revenue(7) RevenueO) FY 05/06 21756 $ 180,879 $ 129,284 $444 ,460 4134,297 $71 . 75 $ 1971743 $332,040 FY 06/07 2,811 $ 185 ,220 $ 131 ,864 $453 ,330 4136,246 $71 . 75 $201 ,689 $337 ,935 FY 07/08 1 21867 $288,450 $ 134,491 $4625361 -$395420 $71 . 75 $205 ,707 $245 , 127 FY 08/09 21922 $ 11989,720 $ 137 ,071 $471 ,231 $ 126555560 $71 . 75 $2091654 -$ 114455906 FY 09/ 10 2,978 $2,006,917 $ 139,698 $480 ,262 $ 11666,353 $71 . 75 $2131672 -$ 11452,681 FY 10/ 11 31349 $636,422 $ 1575102 $ 540 ,093 $253 ,431 $71 . 75 $240,291 -$ 131140 FY 11 / 12 3 ,426 $0 $ 1601714 $552 ,511 -$391 , 797 $71 . 75 $245 ,816 $6379613 FY 12/ 13 31500 $o $ 164, 185 $ 564 ,445 -$400,260 $71 . 75 $251 , 125 $651 ,385 FY 13/ 14 31578 $241849 $ 1671844 $ 5773024 -$3841331 $71 . 75 $256,722 $6413053 FY 14/ 15 37658 $704,842 $ 1711597 $ 589,926 $286 ,513 $71 . 75 $262,462 -$241051 FY 15/ 16 31374 $o $ 158,274 $5441125 -$3851851 $71 . 75 $242 ,085 $6271936 FY 16/ 17 31442 $ 110,062 $ 1611464 $555 ,091 -$283, 565 $71 . 75 $2463964 $530,529 FY 17/ 18 3 ,507 $80109 $ 164,513 $565 ,574 $400 ,838 $71 . 75 $251 ,627 -$ 1491211 FY 18/ 19 31578 $ 1 ,200,942 $ 167,844 $577,024 $791 ,762 $71 . 75 $256,722 4535 ,040 FY 19/20 3 ,616 $ 1 ,056,4371 $ 169,627 $ 583 , 152 $6421912 $71 . 75 $259,448 4383 ,464 Total 1 49,3621 $93186,639 $2 ,315 , 572 $75960,609 $3 ,541 ,602 $3 , 5411727 $ 125 New growth' s contribution to the fund balance perperson(9) $46 . 91 Credit per person ( 2005-2020) 101 $ 161 . 27 ( 1 ) Source : Table IV-3 (2 ) Source : Table IV-6 (3 ) New growth ' s contribution to fund balance per person (Item 9 ) multiplied by new population (Item 1 ) . (4 ) New population (Item 1 ) multiplied by credit per person (Item 10 ) . ( 5 ) New growth ' s portion of capital expenditures in current dollars (Item 2 ) plus new growth ' s contribution to fund balance ( Item 3 ) less new growth ' s credit (Item 4 ) . ( 6) Fees required to generate approximately $ 3 . 5 million . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 18 Impact Fee Study ( 7 ) New population (Item 1 ) multiplied by net impact cost per resident ( Item 6 ) . ( 8 ) Total impact fee revenue (Item 7 ) less net impact cost (Item 5 ) . (9 ) New growth ' s share to retain the $ 30 million fund balance calculated as the difference between total impact fee revenue necessary (Item 7 ) and the new growth ' s portion of capital expenditures in current dollars ( Item 2 ) net of new growth ' s credit (Item 4 ) divided by the total new population { ( $ 3 , 541 ,602 — ( $9 , 186 , 639 — $ 7 , 960 , 609 )) / 49 , 362 = $46 . 911 ( 10) Source : Table IV- 9 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule The proposed impact fee schedule is based on the Schedule of Waste Generation Units (WGU) for the land uses included in the IRC 2020 Comprehensive Plan , Chapter 3C Solid Waste Sub - Element . The Comprehensive Plan states that a WGU is defined as a basic unit of waste generation equivalent to 1 . 0 ton per year . In establishing the impact fee schedule , the fee for a single family residential land use is calculated in Table IV - 12 . This rate and the ratio of a WGU of each land use to that of a single family land use are used to determine the remaining fees . Table IV - 12 Single Family Solid Waste Impact Fee Calculation Step Figure Net Solid Waste Generation Cost per Resident( l ) $ 71 . 75 Percent residential(2 ) 45 % Residential Solid Waste Cost per Resident(3 ) $ 32 . 29 Residents per Housing Unit(4 ) 2 . 336 Net Solid Waste Generation Cost per Household(5 ) $ 75 . 42 ( 1 ) Source : Table IV- 11 (2 ) Source : IRC 2020 Comprehensive Plan , Chapter 3C , Solid Waste Sub-Element ( 3 ) Net solid waste generation cost per resident ( Item 1 ) multiplied by percent residential (Item 2) . (4) Source : Section II , Table II-2 ( 5 ) Residential solid waste cost per resident (Item 3 ) multiplied by residents per housing unit (Item 4 ) . Table IV - 13 provides the proposed impact fee schedule . To determine the fee for each land use , the ratio of WGU of any given land use to single family is used to adjust the $ 75 fee for the single family land use . The resulting WGU -based fee schedule is included in Appendix C . In Table IV - 13 , this fee schedule is converted to match the other impact fee schedules . In the cases where the conversion required a selection of a land use from the original schedule , the land use with the lowest fee was selected . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV - 19 Impact Fee Study Table IV - 13 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Impact WGU Code Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Number (i� Impact Feet2� Fee @ 3 %(3) Fee(') Residential Single Family Lower than 1 , 500 sf (under air) du 01 $75 . 42 $2 . 26 $77 . 68 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf (under air) du 01 $75 .42 $2 . 26 $77 . 68 2, 500 sf or Greater (under air) du 01 $75 .42 $2 . 26 $77 . 68 Accessory Single Family du 08 $ 56 . 57 $ 1 . 70 $58 . 27 Multi Family du 08 1 $ 56 . 57 $ 1 . 70 $58 . 27 Mobile Home du 02 $75 . 42 $2 . 26 $77 . 68 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 39 $21 . 21 $0. 64 $21 . 85 Motel Room 39 $21 .21 $0. 64 $21 . 85 Nursing Home Bed 78 $33 . 18 $ 1 . 00 $34 . 18 ACLF Bed 74 $62 . 04 $ 1 . 86 $ 63 . 90 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 , 000 sf 19 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 . 39 Bank 19000 sf 23 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 . 39 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 23 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 .39 Office 50, 000 GSF or less 15000 sf 18 $94 .28 $2 . 83 $97 . 11 Office greater than 50, 000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 18 $94 .28 $2 . 83 $97 . 11 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 42 $235 . 70 $7. 07 $242 . 77 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 48 . S $47 . 14 $ 1 .41 $48 . 55 Mini-Warehouse 11000 sf 48 . 0 $ 18 . 86 $0 . 57 $ 19 .43 General Industrial 15000 sf 42 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Concrete Plant Acre 47 $213 . 36 $6 .40 $219 . 76 Sand Mining Acre 1 47 1 $213 . 36 $6 .40 $219. 76 Retail , Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 16 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Retail 50, 001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Retail 100, 001 GSF to 200, 000 GSF 11000 sf 16 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Gas Station Fuel pos 26 $ 39 . 13 $ 1 . 17 $40 . 30 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 27 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 . 39 Quality Restaurant 1 , 000sf 21 $329 . 98 $9 . 90 $339 . 88 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 21 $329. 98 $9 . 90 $339 . 88 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 , 000 sf 21 $329 . 98 $9 . 90 $339 . 88 Supermarket 11000 sf 14 $424 . 26 $ 12 . 73 $436 . 99 Car Wash Bay 27 . J $76 . 60 $2 . 30 $ 78 . 90 Convenience Store 1 , 000 sf 14 $424 .26 $ 12 . 73 $436 . 99 Furniture Store 100 sf 11 $235 . 70 $7 . 07 $242 . 77 Recreational Golf Course hole 38 $37 . 53 $ 1 . 13 $38 . 66 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 34 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 . 39 County Park Acre 82 $ 84 . 85 $2 . 55 $87 . 40 Tennis Court Court 38 $ 18 . 32 $ 0 . 55 $ 18 . 87 Marina Berth 20 $45 .21 $ 1 . 36 $46 . 57 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV -20 Impact Fee Study Table IV- 13 ( continued ) Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Impact " Code Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Number t��' Impact Feet ' Fee @ 3 % t31 Fee t4) Governmental Post Office 1 , 000 sf 88 $94 .28 $2 . 83 $97 . 11 Library 11000 sf 86 $94. 28 $2. 83 $97 . 11 Government Office Buildings 1 , 000 sf 86 $94 .28 $2 . 83 $97 . 11 Government Office Complex(5 ) 100 sf 86 $94. 28 $2 . 83 $97. 11 Jail I Bed 86 $ 15 . 56 $0. 47 $ 16 . 03 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 100 sf 25 $235 . 70 $ 7. 07 $242 . 77 Hospital 1 , 000 sf 73 $82. 97 $2. 49 $ 85 . 46 Veterinary Clinic 11000 sf 19 $ 117 . 85 $3 . 54 $ 121 . 39 Church 1 , 000 sf 71 . V $33 . 00 $0 . 99 $33 . 99 Movie Theater Screen 32 $ 188 . 14 $5 . 64 $ 193 . 78 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 72 $ 11 . 61 $0. 35 $ 11 . 96 School (High) Student 72 $ 13 . 12 $0. 39 $ 13 . 51 School (College) Student 72 $ 13 . 12 $0 . 39 $ 13 . 51 Fire Station 1 , 000 sf 86 $94 . 28 $2. 83 $97 . 11 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Source : Appendix C , Table C - 1 ( 2 ) Converted based on the fee schedule included in Appendix C , Table C- 1 and indicated impact unit . (3 ) Administrative fee is calculated at 3 percent of the impact fee ( Item 2 ) . (4 ) Sum of impact fee (Item 2) and administrative fee (Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Government uses not included in the schedule, such as a solid waste facility , will be under land use categories Government Office Building and/or Government Office Complex , as appropriate . These uses will be exempt from impact fees used to develop them . This is because legally, if the development does not create a demand for the facility or, indeed, mitigates the need for the facility , it should not pay the fee . In other words , a new solid waste facility will not pay the solid waste impact fee . Future Demand Analysis To accommodate 2020 demand due to new growth , the County needs to make an investment of $ 9 . 2 million, which was presented in Table IV -6 . In addition, as shown in Table IV- 11 , the County needs to invest $ 2 . 3 million to keep the fund balance at $ 30 million . The total investment necessary to accommodate 2020 demand is $ 11 . 5 million . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV -21 Impact Fee Study Estimated Revenues As presented in Table IV- 11 , the County will collect $ 3 . 5 million of solid waste impact fee revenues thorough 2020 , which will need to be supplemented with other revenue sources to accommodate the 2020 demand from new growth . This is due to the assumption that a part of the District ' s revenue will continue to be allocated to fund capital expansion projects . The impact fee revenue projections are based on the IRC Comprehensive Plan population projections . For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If the growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IV-22 Impact Fee Study V. Public Buildings This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the public buildings impact fee . To develop the proposed public buildings impact fee schedule , ten major elements associated with the development of the public building impact fee must be addressed , including : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Public Building Impact Cost • Proposed Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized throughout this section , with the result being the proposed public buildings impact fee schedule . Inventory According to the information provided by the County , IRC owns and operates 275 , 704 square feet of public building space . These facilities provide a variety of public services to the entire county and are identified in Table V - 1 . The locations of these public facilities are also identified on Map V - 1 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V- 1 Impact Fee Study Table V = 1 Summary of Public Building Inventoryl ' 1 Building Building Facility(Z) S ware Feet Value(3) Acreage Land Value(4) Existing County Administration Building(5) 76,304 $ 14,461 , 134 5 . 47 $559, 756 Purchasing Office and Warehouse N/A N/A 0. 86 $ 88,006 Health Department Building 375250 $6,049,400 3 . 17 $324,392 Judicial Complex 120,000 $ 19,488 ,000 2 . 17 $222, 060 Administration Annex 8,400 $ 1 , 176,000 0. 81 $8209 Fleet Management Facility(6) 15 ,400 $2, 500,960 5 . 09 $520,358 Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities 18 ,350 $2 ,980 , 040 11 . 16 $ 1 , 1421025 Old Humane Society Building N/A N/Al 4 . 77 $4881124 Total 275,704 46,655,5341 33,501 $3,427,610 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, IRC (2 ) Inventory does not include leased public facilities or portions thereof. ( 3 ) Building replacement value is determined by multiplying square footage of building by cost per square foot figures provided by General Services Department, IRC . The cost per square foot figure of $ 189 . 52 for the existing County Administration Building is based on architect estimates for the proposed new County administration building and the 43 `d Avenue Complex , which will replace the existing County Administration Building . The cost per square foot figure for the existing County Administration Building includes sitework, design, furniture, fixtures , and equipment (FF &E) and architecture and engineering (A& E) costs . The cost per square foot figures for the other buildings included in the inventory range from $ 140 to $ 162 , depending on the type and size of the building and include a 12 -percent cost for FF &E , based on architect estimates . Building values and square footages for the Purchasing Office and Warehouse and the Old Humane Society Building are not included in the inventory because these buildings are no longer used by IRC to provide general County services . The value of the land that these two building are located on are included in the inventory since new buildings could potentially be built at these sites . (4 ) Land value is determined by multiplying the acreage for each facility by a cost per acre figure of $ 102 , 332 , which is based on recent purchases for vacant land parcels 4 -6 acres in IRC . This information is included in Appendix B , Table B - 1 . ( 5 ) Total square footage of existing county bldg is 103 , 155 , less the 26 , 851 square feet of facility leased to the School Board. Square footage, building value , and land value exclude the portion of the Administration Building leased by the School Board . (6 ) Building area and land value are for the portion of the Fleet Management Facility occupied by the County . In addition to the facilities included in Table V - 1 , the County also owns 71 , 408 square feet of building space that is not included in Table V - 1 because these facilities , or portions thereof, are leased to various organizations that do not provide County services . These facilities are presented in Table V -2 . Discussions with County staff indicate that the four facilities , other than the portion of the Administration Building that is leased to the School Board , are leased out because the facilities are either not properly structured or not properly located for providing County services . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V -2 Impact Fee Study 1A34301 .04-IRC Impact F" StudyAMapsIPublic_9uiMings.mxa Cmated. May 25, 2004 CL E N ~ � '4 • Ir P • � • $ . 1 ROTN AVE @f< (n 0 m ,.r o s Q = c W _ CL n n Z N I s ' M . . n — —' an dPr 3 d w A ^* �D �� (n N gq � c N I I. 4 C Q a c a � I C. 5 1 I J W U1 A W N am3apmi y' _ ._. c. go 2. d = = I a LO < 3 -0 C _ _ . . . . CR 507 � mmmv � -' M ?. m D X m III= -. = = C T T X CoM. s. j m L+. Q. . . T CL 11!! � � I I j} D AVE aNl35an Iov N 4h;� 74TH AVE 74TH ST ,g m g yy � ate` •, . BETH AVE SCHUMANN OR 66TH AVEy aN's SETH AVE '+ BETH AVE J LvJ . NTH AVE •� ra M ~ 40RaAVE G ,i 27TH AVE F i � i C y MH3+X+aa j) 20TH AVE _ � 1,104 f,•' � ��jV n r ar -11 N • e?, f �_ asuaN11NVICN 2 .. �• S CD N n ^ 4 • < �- Win �� � � `A7 ..,.; K CD r C El i < 1 { Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V -4 Impact Fee Study Table V -2 Leased =Out/ Rented County - Owned Public Facilities Facility i Total Square Feet County Admin . Building - leased to School Board 269851 Homeless Assistance Center 69000 Old Douglass School 28 , 343 Old Winter Beach School 45208 Gifford Youth Progressive Civic League Building 61006 Total 719408 Source : General Services Department, IRC In addition to the square footage associated with the County -owned facilities listed in Tables V - 1 and V -2 , the County must lease 32 , 347 square feet of space to house various departments . These facilities are listed in Table V -3 , along with the associated total square footage of leased space . Table V =3 Leased Public Facilities Facilit Total Square Feet ' Tax Collector 12 , 507 North County Offices 35000 Supervisor of Elections 9 , 840 U . S . 1 Warehouse 71000 Total 325347 Source : General Services Department, IRC Population Because public facilities serve all residents , workers , and visitors of IRC , the "functional , " weekly 11 -hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (Arthur C . Nelson , Estimating Land- Use and Facility Needs for Comprehensive Plans, American Planning Association , 2003 ) . In determining the public building impact fee , a 55 -hour weekly functional population is used , because it is estimated that public facilities are open an average of 55 hours per week, or 11 hours per day , 5 days per week . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 5 Impact Fee Study Services provided by County -owned and operated public facilities support the entire county . Therefore , the proper benefit district for public buildings is countywide . The countywide functional population estimate is provided in Section II , Table II - 14 . Level of Service The current level of service (LOS ) for public buildings is determined by dividing the square footage of County - owned buildings that provide countywide services by the countywide 2004 functional population figure based on a 55 -hour week, provided in Section 11 , Table II - 14 . This information results in a current LOS of 2 . 40 square feet of public building space per functional resident, as calculated in Table V-4 . In addition , in terms of the resident (permanent plus seasonal) population, the current LOS is 1 . 99 building square feet per person . Table V =4 Current Level of Service ( 2004 ) Year 2004 Functional Building Square Feet IRC Countywide Building Square Feet Square Feet( l ) Residents(2) per Functional Resident(3) Population(4) per Resident(5) 275 , 704 114,957 2 .40 138 ,393 1 .99 ( 1 ) Source : Table V= 1 (2 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 14 (3 ) Total square footage (Item 1 ) divided by the countywide 2004 I1 -hour functional population ( Item 2 ) . (4) Source : Chapter II , Table II - 1 ( 5 ) Total square footage (Item 1 ) divided by the countywide 2004 population (Item 4 ) . The County ' s Comprehensive Plan does not include a LOS standard for public buildings . Therefore , the existing LOS will be used as the public building LOS standard . For this LOS to become the standard , the Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include this standard for public buildings . Table V - 5 presents a comparison of IRC ' s LOS standard with the LOS standards of other counties . It is important to note that the LOS figures for other counties reflect building space owned by the county and not necessarily the total square footage that is required to serve the residents . In other words , leased space used to house some of the county departments is not included in the inventory . Further, IRC ' s standard reflects both permanent and seasonal population . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V -6 Impact Fee Study Table V =5 Level of Service Comparison Current > S County Bldg Sq Ft per esident Indian River( i ) 1 . 99 Martin(2 ) 2 . 47 Collier 1 . 74 St . John 's(4) 4 . 37 Citrus(5 ) 3 . 13 ( 1 ) Source : Table V-4 ( 2 ) Source : Development Impact Fee Update Study . Martin County , July 1999 . ( 3 ) Source : General Government Building Impact Fees . Collier County, January 2004 . (4) Source : Technical Memorandum on the Methods of Updating Impact Fees, James C . Nicholas , February 1998 . ( 5 ) Standard based on information provided in the Citrus County Public Building Impact Fee Update, December 2004 . The LOS standard in the previous impact fee study is 2 . 67 square feet per resident . Cost Component Historical/Replacement Capital Costs Table V - 6 summarizes the replacement cost per square foot for public buildings in IRC , including the cost of the building and the land . The building replacement cost per square foot figures are provided by General Services Department, IRC and are based on architect estimates for the proposed new County administration building and the 43rd Avenue Complex, which will replace the existing County Administration Building . The cost per square foot figure for the existing County Administration Building of $ 190 includes sitework, design, furniture , fixtures , and equipment (FF & E) and architecture and engineering (A& E) costs . The replacement cost per square foot for all other buildings in the inventory range from $ 140 to $ 162 , depending on the type and size of the building and include a 12 - percent cost for FF& E, based on architect estimates . The weighted average replacement cost per square foot for buildings and land , based on the existing public building inventory , is shown in Table V - 6 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V -7 Impact Fee Study Table V -6 Public Building Replacement Cost ( ' Building Square Facility(2) Feet Building Value(3) Land Value(4) Existing County Administration Building(5) 763304 $ 141461 , 134 Purchasing Office and Warehouse N/A N/A Health Department Building 379250 $6,049,400 Judicial Complex 1205000 $ 191488, 000 Administration Annex 8,400 $ 1 , 176,000 Fleet Management Facility b) 15 ,400 $2 , 500,960 Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities 18 ,350 $2 ,980,040 Old Humane Society Building N/A N/A Total 2759704 $4696559534 $3,427,610 Weighted Average Cost per Square Foot of Building $ 169.22 $ 12.43 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, IRC (2) Inventory does not include leased public facilities or portions thereof. ( 3 ) Building replacement value is determined by multiplying square footage of building by cost per square foot figures provided by General Services Department, IRC . The cost per square foot figure of $ 189 . 52 for the existing County Administration Building is based on architect estimates for the proposed new County administration building and the 43 `d Avenue Complex, which will replace the existing County Administration Building . The cost per square foot figure for the existing County Administration Building includes sitework, design , furniture, fixtures , and equipment (FF & E) and architecture and engineering (A & E) costs . The cost per square foot figures for the other buildings included in the inventory range from $ 140 to $ 162 , depending on the type and size of the building and include a 12 -percent cost for FF&E, based on architect estimates . Building values and square footages for the Purchasing Office and Warehouse and the Old Humane Society Building are not included in the inventory because these buildings are no longer used by IRC to provide general County services . The value of the land that these two building are located on are included in the inventory since new buildings could potentially be built at these sites . (4 ) Land value is determined by multiplying the acreage for each facility by a cost per acre figure of $ 102 , 332 , which is based on recent purchases for vacant land parcels 4 -6 acres in IRC . This information is included in Appendix B , Table B - 1 . (5 ) Total square footage of existing county bldg is 103 , 155 , less the 26 , 851 square feet of facility leased to the School Board. Square footage, building value , and land value exclude the portion of the Administration Building leased by the School Board . ( 6) Building area and land value are for the portion of the Fleet Management Facility occupied by the County . Total Cost per Functional Resident As previously mentioned, IRC public buildings serve all residents , workers , and visitors of the county . Therefore , the county ' s 11 -hour functional population needs to be considered in the calculation of the fee . To determine the total impact cost of providing public services to all functional residents of the county , the total impact cost per functional resident must be determined . This is achieved by multiplying the existing LOS per functional resident by the total replacement cost per square foot for public buildings . This concept is illustrated in Table V -7 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 8 Impact Fee Study Table V =7 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Cost Component I Figure LOS --Public Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident( i ) 2 . 40 Replacement Cost per Square Foot of Public Building Building Replacement Cost per Square Foot(2 ) $ 169 . 22 Land Replacement Cost per Square Foot(2 ) $ 12 . 43 Total Replacement Cost per Square Foot of Building, 2004( 3 ) $ 181 . 65 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $435 . 96 ( 1 ) Source : Table V-4 (2 ) Source : Table V-6 (3 ) Sum of building replacement cost and land replacement cost. (4 ) Square feet per functional resident ( Item 1 ) multiplied by the total cost per square foot of building (Item 3 ) . Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the public building impact fee , a review of the capital financing program for general county administrative services was completed . The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities , land , and equipment expansion of the general county administrative program . Revenue credits are then applied against the cost per functional resident so that new development is not charged twice for capital revenue contributions . The following sources of revenue will be considered in the public building impact fee credit calculation : • Local revenues used to pay for government building debt service ; • Local revenues anticipated to be used to fund future capital expenditures ; and • Local revenues generated from taxes paid on vacant land . Debt Service Credit According to the County , there is currently no debt service on public facilities . Therefore , debt service credit is zero at this time . Capital Improvement Credit An analysis of the historical and future public building capital expenditures for the eleven year period from FY 1998/99 to FY 2008/09 was completed and reviewed with the IRC General Services Department and Office of Management and Budget . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V -9 Impact Fee Study Table V- 8 summarizes the capital expenditures over the last six fiscal years . Besides identifying whether the expenditure was a replacement or expansion of the existing capital inventory , the table provides the percent of total capital expenditures that were funded through general fund revenue . Table V -8 Programmed Expenditures per Functional Resident Expansion/ 'Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year =Fiscal Year > Fiscal Year Total - Five . Description Replacement 1998/99 1999/00 ' : 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Year History Enterprise Fund New County Al ministration Buildin Ex ansion $ 1 ,098,679 $ 1 ,098,679 Total Expansion - Enter rise Fund 50 50 s0 50 I $0 I 51, 098, 679 General Fund Health Department Roof Replacement $74,867 $9,830 $84,696 Courthouse Washing and Painting Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Tax Collector Air Conditioning Replacement $ 14, 613 $ 14,613 Courthouse Record Storage Shelving Replacement $49, 500 $491500 Health Department Air Conditioning Replacement $30,000 $61 ,269 $91 ,269 Health Department Generator Expansion $ 18,400 $ 18,400 Total Exansion - General Fund $0 SO $18, 400 50 $0 518, 400 Optional Sales Tax Fiber Optic Expansion $ 149,721 $ 10,386 $251 , 562 $ 15,719 $ 180,911 $807,488 $ 1 ,415,786 Winter Beach Cemetery Expansion $ 1 ,200 $ 1031057 $ 104,257 Fleet Management Facilit Replacement $ 17,608 $421 ,644 $330,485 $36, 567 $3 ,274,855 $4,081 , 159 Financial Software Replacement $7,000 $530,099 $ 154,458 $6911557 Health Department Dental Clinic Expansion $20,350 $358,569 $378,919 Humane Society Building Replacement $380,073 $380,073 New County Administration Building Replacement $28,370 $7,422 $ 179,358 $215, 150 New County Administration Building Expansion $7,050,000 $7,050,000 Mise. Land Purchases Expansion $57,416 $57,416 Misc. Building Alterations Replacement $328,988 $60,861 $233 $58,426 $32,201 $480,708 Total Ex ansion - Optional Sales Tax $108, 337 $113, 443 $171, 911 5374, 188 $180, 911 $9, 006, 379 Total - Governmental Buildings 1 $2089337 $113,443 $290,312 $374,288 $180,911 $10, 1239458 Percent of Total Expansion Revenues from General Fund 0. 18% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) The percent of total general fund revenues used for expansion over the total capital expenditures for expansion for FYs 1999 -2003 . The capital expenditure credit per functional resident was calculated using the average capital expansion expenditures during the last six years and planned projects budgeted during the next five years . The average annual capital expenditure amount was divided by the average functional residents during this eleven year period , resulting in an average capital expansion cost per functional resident of $ 14 . This information is presented in Table V - 9 . It is the County ' s intent to use impact fee revenues as the primary funding source for future capital expansion needs of the public building program and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount shown in this report toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County intends to use non- impact fee revenue sources as the primary funding source for capital replacement, operations and maintenance expenses . As such , credit calculations for future expenditures do not include an escalation factor . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 10 Impact Fee Study Table V =9 Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident( ' ) Expansion/ Enterprise Gen Iral Fund Optional Sales Year Replacement Funds Expenditures Tax Expenditures FY 1998/99 Expansion $0 $ 0 $208 , 337 FY 1999/00 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 113 ,443 FY 2000/01 Expansion $0 $ 18 ,400 $271 ,912 FY 2001 /02 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $3749288 FY 2002/03 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 1809911 FY 2003 /04(2) Expansion $ 1 , 0989679 $ 8075488 $ 7 , 050 , 000 FY 2004/05 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $4 , 8559000 FY 2005/06 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 195809000 FY 2006/07 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 809000 FY 2007/08 Expansion $ 0 $0 $ 190 , 000 FY 2008/09 Expansion $ 0 $0 $ 19000 Total Capital Expenditures for Expansion ( 1999-2009) $ 171018 ,458 Annual Capital Expenditure Amount(3 ) $ 19547 , 133 Average Functional Population ( 1999 -2009)(4) 114 , 367 Annual Capital Expenditure Amount per Functional Resident"' $ 13 . 53 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) Total capital expenditure amount apportioned to the expansion of the new administrative complex . This figure is in addition the cost of replacing the existing administrative building . General fund expenditures budgeted for FY 2003 /04 for the new administration building is reserved general fund balance . This is a budgeted amount and not an actual expenditure . ( 3 ) Total capital expenditure amount divided by the number of fiscal years for which the expenditure data is provided. (4) The average 11 -hour functional population for FY 1998/99 through FY 2008 /09 is derived using the annual functional population figures included in Appendix A , Table A- 8 . ( 5 ) The annual capital expenditure amount (Item 3 ) divided by the average annual functional population 1999 -2009 ( Item 4 ) . Vacant Land Credit The last credit component is for revenue generated from past payments of property taxes on vacant land that are used to fund capital expansion projects . This calculation is a two - step process . First, the percentage of the total countywide value of vacant land to the total value of all property is calculated . Revenues generated by past payment of property taxes on vacant land are deposited into IRC ' s general fund . Therefore , the second calculation considers the portion of total capital expansion expenditures funded through general fund revenues over the previous five -year period . As shown in Table V - 8 , this figure is 0 . 18 percent . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 11 Impact Fee Study The vacant land value as a percentage of total property value is multiplied by the percent of historical general fund capital expansion projects . As illustrated in Table V- 10 , the percent of past property tax payments on vacant land is 0 . 02 percent . Table V - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage( ' ) Land Taxable Value County Vacant Land Value $ 190809819, 230 Countywide Total Property Value(2 ) $ 1211811250 , 689 Vacant Land Value Percentage(3 ) 8 . 87 % Percent of Capital Expansion Projects Funded with General Fund(4 ) 0 . 18 % Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5 ) 0. 02 % ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC ( 2 ) Includes structures . ( 3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $ 1 ,080 , 819 , 230/$ 12 , 181 , 250 ,689 (4) Source : Table VII- 8 ( 5 ) Vacant land value percentage ( Item 3 ) multiplied by the percent of capital expansion projects funded with general fund ( Item 4 ) . Existing Deficiencies Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard , there are no existing deficiencies of public buildings . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the existing LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Public Building Impact Cost The first section of Table V - 11 identifies the facility impact cost per functional resident as $436 . The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the public building impact fee . The credit calculation includes the present value of projected annual capital funding per functional resident of $ 191 , as well as a credit of $ 0 . 07 for past property tax payments on vacant land . The addition of these two credits results in a total revenue credit of $ 191 per functional resident . The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total revenue credit . This results in a net impact cost of $245 per functional resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 12 Impact Fee Study Table V - 11 Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident Impact Impact Cost / Credit Element Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident( l ) $435. 96 Impact Credit Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit Amount per Func . Res .(2) $ 13 . 53 Capitalization Rate 5 % Capitalization Period ( in years) 25 Capital improvement credit per Resident(3 ) ($ 190 .69) Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(4) 0 . 02% Credit for Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land(5) ($ 0 .07) Total Revenue Credit per Functional Resident(6) ($ 190 .76) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(' $245.20 ( 1 ) Source : Table V-7 (2 ) Source : Table V-9 (3 ) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of 5 percent for 25 years . (4) Source : Table V- 10 ( 5 ) The total impact cost per functional resident ( Item 1 ) multiplied by the effective vacant land percentage (Item 4 ) . ( 6 ) Sum of capital improvement credit per resident (Item 3 ) and for past property tax payments on vacant land (Item 5 ) . (7 ) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1 ) less total revenue credit per functional resident (Item 6 ) . Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule Using the net impact cost per functional resident identified above , a proposed public building impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non -residential land uses . The proposed impact fee for each land use is determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident of $245 by the functional resident coefficient for each land use, as discussed in Section II, Table II - 16 for residential land uses and in Section II , Table II - 19 for non-residential land uses . The proposed public building impact fee schedule is illustrated in Table V - 12 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 13 Impact Fee Study Table V - 12 Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule 11-Hour Proposed Impact Functional Fee @ $245 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Totallmpact 11 Land Use Unit Coef icieatttt Resident(2) Fee(3) Fee(4) Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 0. 746 $ 182 . 92 $5 .49 $ 188. 41 1 ,500 to 2 ,499 sf (under air) du 0. 839 $205 . 72 $6 . 17 $211 . 89 2,500 sf or Greater (under air) du 0. 909 $222 . 89 $6 . 69 $229. 58 Accessory Single Family du 0. 495 $ 121 . 37 $3 . 64 $ 125 . 01 Multi Family du 0. 495 $ 121 . 37 $3 . 64 $ 125 . 01 Mobile Home du 0 . 606 $ 148 . 59 $4.46 $ 153 . 05 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 0 . 9331 $228 . 771 $6. 861 $235 . 63 Motel Room 0. 9331 $228 . 771 $6. 86 $235 . 63 Nursing Home Bed 1 .2731 $312 . 141 $9. 361 $321 . 50 ACLF Bed 1 .2731 $312 . 141 $9. 361 $321 . 50 Office and Financial Medical Office 11000 sf 5 . 199 $ 1 ,274. 79 $38. 24 $ 1 ,313 . 03 Bank 1 ,000 sf 5 .929 $ 1 ,453 . 79 $43 . 61 $ 1 ,497. 40 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 4. 859 $ 19191 .43 $35 . 74 $ 1 ,227. 17 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 4. 281 $ 11049. 70 $31 . 49 $ 1 ,081 . 19 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2 .262 $554 . 64 $ 16. 64 $571 . 28 Industrial Manufacturing 11000 sf 1 . 530 $375 . 16 $ 11 . 25 $386. 41 Warehouse 11000 sf 1 . 176 $288. 36 $ 8. 65 $297. 01 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0. 165 $40. 46 $ 1 . 21 $41 . 67 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 2 . 090 $ 512. 47 $ 15 . 37 $527. 84 Concrete Plant Acre 4. 608 $ 1 , 129. 88 $33 . 90 $ 1 , 163 . 78 Sand Mining Acre 1 0. 5911 $ 144 , 911 $4. 351 $ 149. 26 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50 ,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 6 .245 $ 1 ,531 . 27 $45 . 94 $ 1 ,577. 21 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100 ,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 6.228 $ 13527 . 11 $45 . 81 $ 1 ,572 . 92 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200 ,000 GSF 17000 sf 6. 372 $ 1 ,562 . 41 $46. 87 $ 1 ,609. 28 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 4. 353 $ 1 ,067 . 36 $32 .02 $ 19099. 38 Gas Station Fuel pos 3 . 758 $921 . 46 $27. 64 $949. 10 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 3 . 723 $912 . 88 $27. 39 $940. 27 Quality Restaurant 17000sf 14 . 758 $3 ,618 . 66 $ 108. 56 $3 ,727 . 22 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 15 . 999 $3 ,922 . 95 $ 117. 69 $41040 . 64 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 11000 sf 17.240 $45227. 25 $ 126. 82 $4 ,354 .07 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 4.432 $ 1 ,086 . 73 $32 . 60 $ 1 , 119. 33 Car Wash Bays 4 . 117 $ 15009 . 49 $30. 28 $ 1 ,039. 77 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 9 . 257 $2 ,269 . 82 $68. 09 $21337. 91 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 1 0 . 6931 $ 169 . 921 $ 5 . 101 $ 175 . 02 Recreational Golf Course 18 holes 5 . 330 $ 1 ,306. 92 $39.21 $ 1 ,346 . 13 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 5 . 181 $ 1 ,270 . 38 $38. 11 $ 1 ,308 . 49 County Park Acre 0. 332 $81 .41 $2.44 $ 83 . 85 Tennis Court Court 5 . 063 $ 15241 . 45 $37. 24 $ 1 ,278. 69 Marina Berths 0 . 334 $ 81 . 90 $2. 46 $ 84. 36 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 14 Impact Fee Study Table V - 12 ( continued ) Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule 11 -Hour Proposed Imlpact Functional Fee @ $245 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact ` Land Use Unit Coefficient(1) Resident'i') Fee(3) Fee(4) Governmental Post Office 17000 S 4. 514 $ 15106. 83 $33 .20 $ 1 , 140 . 03 Library 11000 sf 3 . 749 $919 . 25 $27 . 58 $946. 83 Government Office Building(5) 1 ,000 sf 7. 955 $ 11950. 57 $58 . 52 $25009 . 09 Government Office Complex(5) 1 ,000 sf 4. 143 $ 17015 . 86 $30 . 48 $ 11046. 34 Jail Bed 1 . 900 $465 . 88 $ 13 . 98 $479 . 86 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 13000 sf 3 .081 $755 .46 $22 . 66 $778 . 12 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 3 . 416 $837 . 60 $25 . 13 $862 . 73 Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf 4 . 988 $ 11223 . 06 $36 . 69 $ 1 ,259. 75 Church 1 ,000 sf 1 . 162 $284. 92 $8 . 55 $293 . 47 Movie Theater Screen 18 . 495 $4 ,534. 97 $ 136. 05 $41671 . 02 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 0 . 287 $70 . 371 $2 . 11 $72 . 48 School (High) Student 1 0 . 366 $89. 741 $2 . 691 $92 . 43 School (College) Student 1 0. 318 $77 . 971 $2 . 341 $80 . 31 Fire Station 15000 sf 1 1 . 381 $338 . 621 S10. 161 $ 348 . 78 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 16 for residential land uses and Table II - 19 for non- residential land uses (2 ) Proposed impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table V- 11 ) by the 11 -hour functional resident coefficient (Item 1 ) for each land use . (3 ) An administrative fee of 3 percent of the net impact fee . (4 ) The total impact fee is the sum of the net impact fee ( Item 2 ) and administrative fee (Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Government uses are exempt from paying impact fees used to develop that same use . This is because legally, if the development does not create a demand for the facility or, indeed, mitigates the need for the facility , it should not pay the fee . In other words , a new government building will not pay the public buildings impact fee . Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section II , Table II - 1 . Table V - 13 presents the public building demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 15 Impact Fee Study Table V- 13 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Calculation Component Forecasted Demand 2025 County Population0 ) 2073014 Adopted LOS Standard ( Square Feet per Resident)(2 ) 1 . 99 2025 Required Square Footage(3 ) 411 , 958 Existing Square Footage(4 ) 2753704 Additional Square Footage Needed(5) 1369254 Cost per Square Foot(6) $ 181 . 65 Total Cost(') $243750 , 539 Programmed funds over the next five years( 8 ) $ 618955000 Remaining funds needed to accommodate 2025 demand(9) $ 17 , 8555539 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (2 ) Source : Table V- 5 ( 3 ) Required square footed in 2025 , based on existing LOS . (4 ) Source : Table V- 1 ( 5 ) 2025 required square footage (Item 3 ) less existing square footage (Item 4) . (6) Source : Table V- 7 (7 ) Total cost per square foot multiplied by additional square feet required (Item 5 ) . ( 8 ) Source : Table V- 9 (9 ) Total cost of 2025 demand ( Item 7) less the programmed funds over the next five years for expansion of public buildings (Item 8 ) . As presented in Table V - 13 , the County will need an additional 136 , 254 square feet by 2025 . This would require an investment of $24 . 8 million over the next 20 years , $ 6 . 9 million of which is already funded . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per resident calculated in Table V - 14 , it is estimated that the public building impact fee revenues will generate $ 13 . 9 million through 2025 . These projections are presented in Table V- 14 . Based on the future demand analysis , the County will need to make an investment of $24 . 8 million to accommodate the 2025 demand . These figures indicate that the impact fee revenues will need to be used in conjunction with other revenue sources to accommodate the 2025 demand . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 16 Impact Fee Study Table V - 14 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates 1 Countywide New Estimated Year Population(1) Population(2) Revenues(3) 2004 1389393 2005 1405562 2 , 169 $ 4419775 2006 143 , 318 2 , 756 $ 561 , 333 2007 146 , 129 21811 $ 572 , 535 2008 1485996 207 $ 5835941 2009 1519918 25922 $ 5951143 2010 1545896 21978 $ 606 , 549 2011 158 , 245 35349 $ 6821113 2012 161 , 671 31426 $ 697 , 796 2013 165 , 171 39500 $ 712 , 868 2014 1 % 749 35578 $ 7285755 2015 172 , 407 35658 $ 745 , 049 2016 1755781 39374 $ 6875205 2017 1791223 35442 $ 7019055 2018 182 , 730 31507 $ 714 , 294 2019 1861308 3 , 578 $ 7281755 2020 189 , 924 31616 $ 7365495 2021 1931215 39291 $ 670 , 300 2022 196 , 566 33351 $ 682 , 520 2023 199 , 976 39410 $ 694 , 537 2024 2035448 3 ,472 $ 707 , 165 2025 2079014 35566 $ 7265311 $ 139976 , 494 Fee per functional resident(4) $245 .20 Fee per resident(5) $203 . 68 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections . ) (2) Additional population per year. (3 ) New population (Item 2 ) multiplied by fee per resident (Item 5 ) . (4 ) Source : Table V- 11 (5 ) To convert the fee per functional resident to fee per resident, fee per functional resident (Item 4 ) multiplied by functional population from Table V -4 and divided by the population from Table V-4 . As mentioned above, the impact fee revenue projections are based on population growth estimates . For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 17 Impact Fee Study guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits ) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high, the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later. If the growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 V - 18 Impact Fee Study A Libraries This section provides the results of the library impact fee analysis . There are ten major elements associated with the development of the library facilities impact fee : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Library Facility and Items Impact Cost • Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized in this section . It should be noted that library impact fees are charged to residential land uses only . Inventory The IRC Library Service operates four libraries with a total square footage of 80 , 237 . The following table presents the inventory of library facilities . These four facilities are also shown on Map VI - 1 . Table VIA Summary of IRC Library Building Inventory ( ' ) Square Library Facility ' Address Footage' Main Library 1600 2151 Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 495286 North County Library 1001 CR 512 , Sebastian, FL 32958 25 ,445 Law Library 2000 16th Avenue , Vero Beach, FL 32960 35993 Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 4875 4.1 Avenue , Vero Beach, FL 32967 1 , 513 Total 809237 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 2 Impact Fee Study 1134301 .041RC Impact Fee StucIAMaps\Ubrary.mxd Created: May 25, 2004 3 j 9AV H112 o COs • 9; /6� ag / F� MV6� (1/ j m bV 20TH AVE `O N n z OCo O s 3 M n 2 SVOOO 3 c m m ° m a DOPrm D1 = cp m N 0 o 0 m 1, ut j 3 P Q 0 d a Q n r Qd ° @ CR. 512 @ CR. 507 i ICA {+ ii, ^ DAVE _. .. r -yf . . eNVI?Son rpt Ivor A L )4TH AVE 14TH 9T - o H afro ' 86THCHUMANN DR AVE 68TH AVEPVE bBTM AVE ebTN AVE — y y 56TH AVE y x �' ~t✓� 0 43RD AVE N P y ' 27TH AVE 20TH AVE. ru fA * f 1 ` N '•._ 1 DS H3Ntl NVIDNI - s.�,,. o ..ter D )�- : n c " ycn rs m ?2s 1 Y Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -4 Impact Fee Study The four facilities identified in Table VI - I house a wide variety of materials available to the public . Table VI - 2 presents the inventory of library materials . Table VI -2 Summary of IRC Library Material Inventory ( ' ) Description # of Items Total Books : Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 972 Law Library 1500 Main & North Reference , Genealogy, Non Fiction Books 1389010 Adult Fiction Books 851929 Juvenile/YA Reference Books 15126 Juvenile/YA Non Fiction Books 545577 Juvenile/YA Fiction 38 , 836 Paperbacks 155431 Books On Tape/CD 121152 Electronic Books 283812 Total -- Books 3919445 Online Resource Subscriptions : 68 Other Library Items : Music CDs 7 , 622 DVDs 2 , 557 Videos 19 , 308 Print Subscriptions 15775 Other Print Materials 19 , 661 Total -- Other Library Items 50 ,923 Total -- All Library Materials 4429436 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 5 Impact Fee Study 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 VI -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. Table VI -3 Summary of IRC Library Equipment Inventory ( ' ) Number of Items Equipment Public Staff Total Copiers 7 2 9 Book Scribe Copier 1 - 1 Black & White Laser Printers 4 - 4 Color Laser Printer 4 - 4 Computers 90 56 146 Large Print Readers 3 - 3 30 " TV 1 - 1 45 " TVs 2 - 2 Camcorder 1 - 1 Video Projectors 4 - 4 LCD Projectors 5 - 5 Total - All items 122 581 180 Total - All excluding computers 321 21 34 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services, IRC Population Library services are provided on a countywide basis . The County ' s current population estimates and future population projections are provided in Section II , Table II - 1 . Level of Service Library Facilities levels of service are identified for four different areas : • Library Buildings : Square feet per 1 , 000 residents • Library Materials : Materials per 1 , 000 residents • Computers : Computers ( used by the public ) per 1 , 000 residents • Other Equipment : Other equipment (available to the public) per 1 , 000 residents According to the information provided by the County Library System , IRC ' s current LOS is identified in Table VI -4 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 6 Impact Fee Study iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii NO III III Table VI -4 Current Level of Service ( 2004 ) Square Footage/ LOS (per 1 ,000 Item Count(') Population") Residents) Library Buildings 80 , 237 138 , 393 580 sf Library Materials 442 , 436 1385393 3 , 200 items Computers(3 ) 90 138 , 393 0 . 7 computer Other Library Equipment(3 ) 32 138 , 393 0 . 2 item ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC (2 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (3 ) Only computers and equipment available for public use are included . The IRC 2020 Comprehensive Plan states that " libraries shall be developed at the standard of 527 square feet of library per 1 , 000 population . " Since the current LOS of 580 square feet per 1 , 000 residents is greater than the existing LOS standard , the current LOS will become the adopted standard upon making appropriate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (hereafter referred to as the adopted LOS standard ) . Because there are no adopted LOS standards for library materials , computers , and other library equipment in the County ' s Comprehensive Plan, the standards established by the Florida Library Association (FLA) were reviewed . In addition to providing standards for buildings, the FLA provides standards for materials and computers and defines three levels of service : • Essential : Essential level of service standards define the basics of library service . Every library can and should offer them . The FLA defines five basic services , including : o lending of materials ; o providing information on request ; o providing public programs ; o providing public space ; and o providing public access to the Internet and personal computing applications . • Enhanced : This level starts where Essential leaves off and offers further services . • Exemplary : Achieving this standard provides the highest and best service to the community . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 7 Impact Fee Study NNW Table VI - 5 compares the County ' s current LOS to the LOS standards established by the FLA . Table VI -5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to FLA Standards Library Materials and Computers IRC LOS FLA Public Libraries Standards(2) (per 1 ,000 Item Residents)( ') Essential Enhanced Exemplary Buildings (square feet) 580 600 700 11000 Library Materials(3 ) 3 , 2001 21000 31000 4 , 000 Computers 0 , 71 0 , 31 0 . 51 1 . 0 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI-4 (2 ) Source : FLA , Standards for Florida Public Libraries, 2004 (3 ) Library materials include books , online resource subscriptions , and other library items . IRC ' s current level of service for buildings does not meet the FLA ' s essential standards . However, the County ' s LOS for library materials and computers is between the enhanced and exemplary LOS standards established by the FLA . Given these figures , the County decided to adopt the current LOS for buildings , materials , and computers . The following table provides a comparison of the current IRC LOS to those of surrounding counties . IRC ' s LOS is higher than surrounding counties in all areas , except for library buildings . In terms of building square footage , IRC ranks second after Brevard County . Table VI -6 Comparison of IRC LOS to Surrounding Counties ( Per 1 , 000 Residents ) Per 1 ,000 Residents IRC Existing ' St. LOS Measure LOS (2) ` Brevard (3) Osceola (3) Okeechobee (3) Lucie(3) Library Buildings (square feet) 580 723 451 424 310 Library Materials ( 1 ) 39200 21389 1 , 775 11277 11525 Computers 0 . 71 0 , 31 0 . 5 N/A 1 0 . 3 ( 1 ) Library materials for IRC include books , CDs , DVDs , videos , print and online resource subscriptions . Library materials for other counties include books , serial subscriptions , audio and video volumes . (2 ) Source : Table VI -4 ( 3 ) Source : Department of State — Division of Library & Information Services , 2002 Library Directory with Statistics Note : IRC figures are for 2004 while the figures for other Florida counties are for 2002 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 8 Impact Fee Study Table VI - 7 provides a comparison of the current IRC LOS , the LOS standard , the average LOS of other Florida counties , and the standards established by the FLA . It should be noted that IRC ' s current LOS in terms of library facilities , materials , and computers ranges from 24 percent to 43 percent above the average LOS of other Florida counties . Table VI -7 Comparison of Current LOS and LOS Standards ( Per 1 , 000 Residents ) Per 1 ,000 Residents - % ifference : IRC Avg of Other IRC Existing Existing FL Counties LO 3 & Other FLA LOS LOS Measure LOS ( ) LOS (2) Flori a Counties Standards (3) Library Buildings ( sq . feet) 5801 438 24 % 1 600 to 1 , 000 Library Materials (4) 1 3 , 2001 11982 38 % 1 2 , 000 to 4 , 000 Computers 0 . 71 0 . 4 43 % 1 0 . 3 to 1 . 0 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI -4 ( 2 ) Includes all Florida counties , except for IRC . Source : Department of State — Division of Library & Information Services , 2002 Library Directory with Statistics (3 ) Source : Table VI -5 (4 ) Library materials for IRC include books , CDs , DVDs , videos , print and online resource subscriptions . Library materials for other counties include books , serial subscriptions , audio and video volumes . Note : IRC figures are for 2004 while the figures for other Florida counties are for 2002 . Cost Component Library capital costs consist of four components : buildings , land , materials , and equipment. Facility costs are based on the projected cost to add the next library building ( includes building and land cost) , while the cost of library materials and equipment is based on the average replacement cost per unit, provided by the IRC Division of Library Services . Buildings and Land The following two tables provide unit costs for buildings and land . Since replacement costs for the existing buildings were not readily available , building costs were determined from recent expansions and future planned expansions , as presented in Table VI - 8 . The construction cost ranges from $ 135 to $ 189 per square foot, while the furniture and equipment cost ranges from $48 to $ 114 per square foot . According to IRC Library System representatives , the relatively high cost of the Main Library expansion was due to a more sophisticated building structure , high demolition costs in preparation for expansion, and relatively high furniture and equipment costs . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -9 Impact Fee Study Table VI -8 Building Unit Costs ( i ) Additional Cost per Facility Year(2) square footage ' Cost square foot Building Values : Recent Expansions: Main Library Expansion FY 01 /02 - Construction(3 ) 11 , 865 $ 11600 , 000 $ 134 . 85 - Furniture & Equipment(4) 8 ,265 $ 939 , 707 $ 113 . 70 Total $295395707 $248 . 55 North County Library Expansion FY 01 /02 65975 - Construction $ 193159000 $ 188 . 53 - Furniture & Equipment $ 335 ,600 $48 . 11 Total $ 1 ,650 , 600 $236 . 65 Future Expansions: Branch Library ( West or South County) FY 08/09 323000 - Construction(5) $ 55248 , 000 $ 164 . 00 - Furniture & Equipment(5 ) $295809000 $ 80 . 63 Total $ 7, 8285000 $244 . 63 Weighted Average Construction Cost $ 160.56 Weighted Average Furniture & Equipment Cost $81 . 61 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , and Office of Management and Budget , IRC (2 ) Year completed for recent expansions and year planned for future expansions . ( 3 ) Square footage includes a meeting room and hallway space that had to be demolished and rebuilt during expansion ( 3 , 600 square feet) . (4 ) Square footage is only for expansion . ( 5 ) Estimated costs Initially, the proposed Branch Library was envisioned to be a 25 , 000 - square foot building with a total construction cost of $4 . 1 million, or $ 164 per square foot. Since then, the building size has been increased , but the $4 . 1 million funding level has not been adjusted . For the purposes of this analysis , the unit cost of $ 164 is used to reflect current library construction costs , resulting in a total cost of $ 5 . 2 million . Funding for the entire building is being reviewed by County staff and is not currently budgeted in the County ' s CIP . The following table presents the historical total and unit costs of land . Historical land values per acre range from $ 65 , 871 to $ 191 , 690 . The higher land cost of the Main Library ($ 191 , 690 per acre) can be attributed to its downtown location in Vero Beach . The North County Library is located in Sebastian, which has been growing rapidly and experiencing increasing property values in recent years . According to IRC representatives , the initial land purchase was completed in 1988 for $ 65 , 871 per acre , prior to the increase in land values . The 1997 land purchase cost of $ 183 , 137 per acre Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 10 Impact Fee Study was affected by the increase in property values in Sebastian . Due to the recent volatility in land prices in IRC , the study evaluated the vacant land sales of four to six- acre parcels in West IRC in 2004 . The West County is defined as the area between 58 `h Avenue and County Road 512 . The focus on sales in West County was due to the fact that most new facilities are likely to be built in this area . This analysis resulted in a per acre cost of $ 102 , 332 per acre and is shown in Appendix B , Table B - 1 . The per acre cost of $ 102 , 332 results in a cost of $ 11 . 36 per square foot of building ( $ 102 , 332 x 8 . 295 acres / 74 , 731 square feet) and will be used for the land cost in this section . Table VI -9 Land Cost( ' ) Year " Facility Acquired Square Feet Acres Cost Cost per SF Cost per Acre Land Values : North County Library 1988 18 ,470 3 . 125 $205 , 847 $ 11 . 14 $65 , 871 1997 69975 0 . 990 $ 1817306 $25 . 99 $ 183 , 137 Main Library 1 1989 49,286 4 . 180 1 $801 ,2661 $ 16 . 261 $ 191 ,690 Total 1 1 74 , 731 8 .295 $ 11188 ,419 Weighted Average Cost per Acre I 1 1 $ 143 ,269 Weighted Average Cost per Building Square Footage 1 $ 15 . 90 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC The following table provides a summary of building and land costs . Table VI - 10 Summary of Building and Land Costs per Resident Element Cost Building construction cost per sf $ 160 . 56 Furniture and equipment cost per sf (2 ) $ 81 . 61 Land cost per sf(3 ) $ 11 . 36 Total building and land cost per sf (4 ) $253 . 53 Square feet per resident (5 ) 0 . 58 Impact cost per resident (6) $ 147 . 05 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI- 8 (2 ) Source : Table VI - 8 (3 ) Source : The $ 102 , 332 cost per acre is determined based on vacant land sales of 4 to 6 -acre parcels in West County , in 2004 . This cost is converted to cost per square foot of building space by multiplying it with 8 . 295 acres from Table VI - 9 and dividing it by 74 , 731 square feet from Table VI-9 . (4 ) Sum of building, furniture, equipment and land costs (Items 1 , 2 , and 3 ) . ( 5 ) Source : Table VI-4 ( 6) Total building and land cost per square foot (Item 4 ) multiplied by LOS standard ( Item 5 ) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 11 Impact Fee Study Library Materials and Equipment The following table provides unit costs for library materials . Based on the information provided by the IRC Library System , the weighted average price of library materials is $44 . 14 . Table VI - 11 Library Material Unit Costs ( i ) Weighted Description # of Items Unit Cost Total Cost Average Cost Books : Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 972 $25 $ 24 ,300 Law Library 15 ,600 $ 80 $ 172483000 Main & North Reference , Genealogy, Non Fiction Books 138 , 010 $ 80 $ 115040 , 800 Adult Fiction Books 85 ,929 $25 $ 2 , 1485225 Juvenile/YA Reference Books 11126 $ 80 $90 ,080 Juvenile/YA Non Fiction Books 545577 $ 25 $ 19364 ,425 Juvenile/YA Fiction 38 , 836 $ 20 $ 776 , 720 Paperbacks 155431 $9 $ 1385879 Books On Tape/CD 12 , 152 $ 75 $ 9115400 Electronic Books 28 , 812 $0 $ 0 Books -- Total 391 ,445 $ 1797429829 $45.33 Online Resource Subscriptions : 68 $49094 $2789392 $4 ,094 Other Library Items : Music CDs 79622 $ 15 $ 1145330 DVDs 21557 $20 $ 51 , 140 Videos 19 , 308 $ 15 $ 289 , 620 Print Subscriptions 1 , 775 $ 39 $ 69 ,225 Other Print Materials 19 , 661 $ 50 $ 983 ,050 Other Library Items -- Total 509923 $ 195079365 $29 . 60 All Library Materials -- Total 4429436 $ 19 ,528 ,586 $44. 14 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC The following table provides the unit costs for library equipment . Of these , the unit cost for computers is $900 , while the weighted average unit cost for other equipment is $ 3 , 118 . Table VIA 2 Library Equipment Unit Costs Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 12 Impact Fee Study Number of Total Equipment Items ( Unit CostCost Computers 146 $ 900 $ 131 ,400 Other Equipment: Copiers 9 $ 4 ,939 $44 ,451 Book Scribe Copier 1 $ 10 , 503 $ 10 , 503 Black & White Laser Printers 4 $ 15500 $ 63000 Color Laser Printer 4 $25136 $ 89544 Large Print Readers 3 $ 500 $ 15 , 000 30 " TV 1 $ 800 $ 800 45 " TVs 2 $23000 $4 ,000 Camcorder 1 $ 800 $ 800 Video Projectors 4 $ 850 $ 35400 LCD Projectors 5 $2 , 500 $ 125500 Total -- Other Equipment (excluding computers) 34 $ 105,998 Weighted Average Item Cost, Other Equipment (excludin computers) $3, 118 Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC The following table provides a summary of library materials and equipment costs per resident, which amounts to $ 143 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 13 Impact Fee Study r Table VI - 13 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident Element Cost Library Materials Cost per Item $44 . 14 Materials per Resident(2) 3 . 20 Library Materials Cost per Resident(3 ) $ 141 . 25 Computers - Unit Cost(4 ) $ 900 Computers per Resident( 5 ) 0 . 0007 Computer Costs per Resident(6) $ 0 . 63 Other Library Equipment Cost per Item ( ' ) $ 39118 Other Library Equipment per Resident(8 ) 0 . 0002 Other Library Equipment Costs per Resident(9) $ 0 . 62 Total Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident( 10) $ 142 . 50 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI - 11 (2 ) Source : Table VI -4 ( 3 ) Library materials cost per item (Item 1 ) multiplied by materials per resident ( Item 2 ) . (4 ) Source : Table VI - 12 ( 5 ) Source : Table VI -4 (6 ) Unit cost of computers ( Item 4) multiplied by the number of computers per resident (Item 5 ) . ( 7 ) Source : Table VI - 12 ( 8 ) Source : Table VI -4 ( 9 ) Other library equipment cost (Item 7 ) multiplied by other library equipment per resident (Item 8 ) . ( 10 ) Sum of library materials , computer, and other library equipment costs per resident (Items 3 , 6 , and 9) Credit Component In order to ensure that new residential development is not being overcharged for the capital cost of new libraries , a credit is given for the additional revenues , other than impact fees , that new development generates and that are used for capital library facility expansion . This ensures that each new residential development pays the appropriately calculated impact fee based on the type of land use , less any additional revenues included as part of the impact fee credit . A credit for the library impact fee is not given for revenues generated by new development that are used for capital replacement of existing libraries or for maintenance or operation costs . According to the IRC Annual Budget, revenue sources available for library capital expenditures include : Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 14 Impact Fee Study • optional sales tax ; • bequests ; and • ad valorem taxes . The primary revenue source for library capital projects over the past five years has been the optional sales tax, which also will be the funding source for the programmed improvements during the next five years . Although library bequests contributed toward capital expenditures in the past, County representatives indicated that this revenue source tends to fluctuate significantly and is not reliable . To be conservative , however, it will be included in the credit calculations . Table VI - 14 presents funding sources for capital expansion expenditures over a 10 -year period . The annual average for library bequests was calculated based on a five -year period , since future bequests are not known at this time . Table VI - 14 Library Historical and Programmed Capital Expansion Funding Sources ( ' ) Optional Fiscal Year Sales Tax Bequests Gene al Fund Total FY 98/99 $ 60, 601 $ 0 $ 0 $ 60 , 601 FY 99/00 $ 2019196 $ 0 $ 0 $201 , 196 FY 00/01 $ 784, 120 $ 0 $4 , 145 $ 788 , 265 FY 01 /02 $ 2 ,4369935 $ 702 , 648 $ 65297 $ 3 , 145 , 880 FY 02/03 $ 3 , 518 $ 0 $ 922 $45440 FY 03 /04 $ 321482 N/A $29200 $ 349682 FY 04/05 $ 0 N/A $ 0 $ 0 FY 05 /06 $ 0 N/A $ 0 $ 0 FY 06/07 $ 0 N/A $ 0 $ 0 FY 07/08 $ 353405000 N/A $ 0 $ 39340 , 000 Total $ 69858 , 852 $ 702 , 648 $ 137564 $ 79575 , 065 Annual Average $ 6855885 $ 1405530 $ 1 , 356 Percent of Total 90 . 55 % 1 9 . 28 % 1 0 . 18 % ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Based on historical and planned library capital expenditures from FY 98/99 to FY 07/08 , optional sales tax funds contribute an average annual amount of $ 686 , 000 (or 91 percent) toward library capital expansion purchases . Over the past five years , funding received from bequests averaged $ 141 , 000 per year. Capital expansion expenditures paid from the general fund is $ 1 , 356 per year, less than 1 percent of the total expansion expenditures during the ten -year period included in Table VI - 14 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 15 Impact Fee Study It should be noted that it is the County ' s intent to use impact fee revenues as the primary funding source for future capital expansion needs of libraries and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount from non - impact fee revenue sources shown in this study toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County intends to use non - impact fee revenue sources as the primary funding source for capital replacement, operations , and maintenance expenses . As such , credit calculations for optional sales tax and ad valorem tax do not include an escalation factor . Vacant Land According to the Office of Management and Budget, the use of ad valorem taxes toward library capital expansion is limited and typically is directed to the replacement and possibly the addition of equipment . To be conservative , however, credit for past payments of property taxes for vacant land is given . Here, the ratio of total vacant land (residential , commercial , and industrial) to total taxable value is reviewed to develop the percentage of countywide vacant land taxable value to the total countywide taxable property value . Table VI - 15 Vacant Land Value Percentage ( ' ) Land Taxable Value Vacant Land Value $ 13080 , 8199230 Countywide Total Property Value(2 ) $ 12518152505689 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of the Total Property Value(3 ) 8 . 87% Percent of Capital Expansion Expenditures Funded with General Fund ') 0 . 18 % Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5 ) 1 0 . 02 % ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC (2 ) Includes structures . ( 3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $ 1 ,080 , 819 ,230/$ 12 , 181 , 250 , 689 (4 ) Source : Table VI- 14 ( 5 ) Vacant land value as a percentage of the total property value ( Item 3 ) multiplied by percent of expenditures covered with ad valorem taxes (Item 4 ) . According to the information presented in Table VI - 15 , the countywide vacant land assessment accounts for 8 . 87 percent of total taxable value . Given that ad valorem tax revenues were used to pay for 0 . 18 percent of the capital expansion expenditures between Fiscal Years 98/99 and 07/08 , the total credit amount for ad valorem taxes paid on vacant land is determined by multiplying the percentage of vacant land value ( 8 . 87 percent) by the percentage of capital expansion expenditures paid with ad valorem taxes (0 . 18 percent) and applying the resulting percentage (0 . 02 percent) against the total library facilities impact cost per resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 16 Impact Fee Study Equipment Cost Credit To avoid double -counting the cost of equipment, the portion of equipment that is purchased during expansion of library buildings is subtracted . Based on information provided by the IRC Library System , this figure amounts to 44 percent of the existing equipment, as presented in Table VI - 16 . Table VI - 16 Equipment Value Credit Equipment ' , Cost of Eq. Number Purchased Purchased of During Unit Total During Equipment Items(' ) Expansions( 192) Cos m Cost Expansions Copiers 9 1 $ 4 ,939 $449451 $4 ,939 Book Scribe Copier 1 1 $ 10 , 503 $ 109503 $ 105503 Black & White Laser Printers 4 1 $ 15500 $6 ,000 $ 19500 Color Laser Printer 4 4 $ 23136 $ 8 , 544 $ 89544 Computers 146 81 $ 900 $ 1311400 $ 72 , 900 Large Print Readers 3 - $ 59000 $ 15 , 000 $ 0 30 " TV 1 - $ 800 $ 800 $ 0 45 " TVs 2 - $200 $45000 $ 0 Camcorder 1 - $ 800 $ 800 1 $ 0 Video Projectors 4 1 $ 850 $3 ,400 $ 850 LCD Projectors 5 2 $25500 $ 129500 $ 5 , 000 Total 180 91 $2379398 $ 1049236 Percent of Equipment Purchased During Expansions 44 % ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC ( 2 ) During Fiscal Years 2000- 2001 and 2001 -2002 Table VI - 17 provides a summary of the credits . The. annual non - impact fee revenues are divided by the total population to calculate a credit per resident, which is approximately $ 88 per resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 17 Impact Fee Study Table VI - 17 Total Credit per Resident Credit Element Figure Equipment Credit Percent 44% Library Equipment Cost per Resident(2 ) $ 1 . 25 Library Equipment Credit per Resident(3 ) $ 0 . 55 Optional Sales Tax (4) $ 68505 Estimated Annual Average Population ( 1999 -2008 )(5 ) 135 , 016 Average Annual Capital Funding per Resident(6) $ 5 . 08 Bequests (7) $ 1405530 Estimated Annual Average Population ( 1999 -2003 )" ) 126 , 552 Average Annual Capital Funding per Resident(9) $ 1 . 11 Total Optional Sales and Bequests Credit (10) $ 6 . 19 Capitalization Rate� 11 ) 5 % Capitalization Period (years)( 12 ) 25 Credit per Resident( 13 ) $ 87 . 24 Vacant Land Credit Total Impact Cost per Resident( 14) $ 289 . 55 Effective Vacant Land Percentage( 15 ) 0 . 02 % Vacant Land Credit( 16) $0 . 06 Total Credit per Resident( 17) $87. 85 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI - 16 (2 ) Source : Table VI - 13 ( 3 ) Equipment credit percent (Item 1 ) multiplied by library equipment cost per resident ( Item 2 ) . (4 ) Source : Table VI - 14 ( 5 ) Source : Estimate based on information provided by IRC and BEBR. (6 ) Optional Sales Tax revenues (Item 4) divided by estimated annual population (Item 5 ) . (7 ) Source : Table VI- 14 ( 8 ) Source : Estimate based on information provided by IRC and BEBR (9 ) Bequests (Item 7 ) divided by estimated annual population ( Item 8 ) ( 10 ) The sum of average annual capital funding per resident from optional sales tax and bequests (Items 6 and 9 ) ( 11 ) Capitalization rate is estimated at five percent . ( 12 ) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years , which is typically when major renovations or replacements of capital facilities become necessary . ( 13 ) Present value of $ 6 . 19 of total optional sales tax and bequest credit (Item 10 ) over a 25 -year capitalization period (Item 12 ) with a capitalization rate of 5 percent (Item 11 ) . ( 14 ) Source : Table VI - 18 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 18 Impact Fee Study ( 15 ) Source : Table VI - 15 ( 16 ) Total impact cost per resident (Item 14 ) multiplied by effective vacant land percentage (Item 15 ) ( 17) Sum of library equipment credit (Item 3 ), credit per resident from optional sales tax and bequests ( Item 13 ), and vacant land credit (Item 16 ) . Existing Deficiencies Because the County will adopt the existing LOS as the standard for all library capital items , there are no existing deficiencies . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the existing LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Library Facility , Items , and Equipment Impact Cost To calculate the net impact cost, the total credit per resident is subtracted from the total impact cost per resident . This includes reducing the impact cost to reflect external revenues exclusive of impact fees (primarily from optional sales tax and bequests ) that may be available to help finance library facilities and future purchases of library items and equipment . As presented in Table VI - 18 , net impact cost is $ 202 per resident . Table VI - 18 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost Impact Cost/Credit Element Imp ct Cost Revenue Credit Building and Land Cost per Resident $ 147 . 05 Library Materials Cost per Resident (2) $ 141 . 25 Library Equipment Cost per Resident (3 ) $ 1 . 25 Total Impact Cost (4) $289 . 55 Total Credit per Resident ( 5 ) ( $ 87 . 85 ) Net Impact Cost per Resident (6 ) $ 201 . 70 ( 1 ) Source : Table VI - 10 (2 ) Source : Table VI- 13 (3 ) Source : Table VI- 13 (4 ) The sum of building, land, materials , and equipment costs (Items 1 , 2 , and 3 ) (5 ) Source : Table VI - 17 (6) Total impact cost per resident (Item 4 ) less total credit per resident (Item 5 ) Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use The final calculation of the library impact fee is dependent on household size (residents per housing unit) , which varies by residential land use . Table VI - 19 presents the residents per housing unit for residential land uses to be included in the library impact fee schedule . The calculations for these figures were presented in Section II , Table II - 6 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI - 19 Impact Fee Study Table VIA 9 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use Residential Land Residents Use per Unitti� Single Family - Less than 1 , 500 sf 2 . 132 - 1 , 500 to 2 , 499 sf 2 . 396 - 2 , 500 sf or larger 2 . 598 Accessory Single Family 1 . 414 Multi -Family 1 . 414 Mobile Home 1 . 731 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II-6 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule Table VI - 20 presents the proposed library impact fee schedule , which is based on the current LOS being adopted as the standard . The proposed fees range from $ 294 to $ 540 per unit for the various residential land uses , including a three percent administrative fee . Table Vk20 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule Residential Land Residents Net Cost ' Impact Administrative Total Impact ' Use per Un it(' ) per Resident(2) Fee(3) Fee @ 3 % (4) Feet Single Family Less than 1 , 500 sf 2 . 132 $201 . 70 $430 . 04 $ 12 . 90 $442 . 94 1 , 500 to 2 , 499 sf 2 . 396 $201 . 70 $483 . 26 $ 14 . 50 $497 . 76 2 , 500 sf or larger 2 . 598 $201 . 70 $ 524 . 11 $ 15 . 72 $539 . 83 Accessory Single Fami !L 1 . 414 $201 . 70 $ 285 . 20 $ 8 . 56 $ 293 . 76 Multi-Family 1 1 . 414 $201 . 70 1 $285 . 20 1 $ 8 . 56 $293 . 76 Mobile Home 1 1 . 731 1 201 . 70 1 $349 . 14 1 $ 10 . 47 $359 . 61 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II-6 (2 ) Source : Table VI - 18 (3 ) Residents per unit ( Item 1 ) multiplied by net cost per resident (Item 2 ) (4) Impact fee ( Item 3 ) multiplied by 3 percent to calculate the administrative fee . ( 5 ) Sum of impact fee (Item 3 ) and administrative fee (Item 4 ) . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -20 Impact Fee Study Future Demand Analysis Future demand analysis for libraries includes projections of 2025 demand for buildings , land , library materials , and equipment . The additional investment needed to accommodate 2025 demand is presented in Table VI -21 . Table VI -21 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast I ElementDemand 2025 population( l ) 207 ,014 Building and Land Cost LOS standard (square feet per 1 ,000 residents)(2) 580 Necessary building space to accommodate 2025 demand (square feet)(3 ) 120,068 Existing building space (square feet)(4) 80,237 Additional building space needed ( square feet)(5) 39, 831 Building and land cost per square foot(6) $253 . 53 Total building and land cost(7) $ 10, 098 ,353 Library Materials Cost LOS standard ( items per 1 ,000 residents)(') 31200 Necessary items to accommodate 2025 demand(9) 6625445 Existing library items( 10) 4429436 Additional items needed( " ) 220,009 Library material unit cost( 12) $44 . 14 Total library material cost( 13) $ 9,711 , 188 Equipment Cost Computer LOS standard (computers per 1 ,000 residents)( 14) 0 . 7 Necessary computers to accommodate 2025 demand( ") 145 Existing computers( 16) 90 Additional computers needed( 17) 55 Cost per computer $900 Total computer cost( 19) $495500 Other equipment LOS standard (equipment per 1 , 000 residents)(20) 0 . 2 Necessary equipment to accommodate 2025 demand(21 ) 41 Existing other equipment(22) 32 Additional other equipment needed(23) 9 Cost per other equipment(24) $39118 Total other equipment cost(25) $285062 Total equipment cost(26) $779562 Total buildings, land, materials, and equipment cost(27) $ 19, 8877103 Programmed funds over the next five years(28) $33340, 000 Remaining funds needed to accommodate 2025 demand(29) $ 16, 5477103 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -21 Impact Fee Study ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 ( 2 ) Source : Table VI -4 (3 ) LOS standard (Item 2 ) multiplied by 2025 population ( Item 1 ) divided by 1 , 000 . (4 ) Source : Table VI - 1 ( 5 ) Necessary building space ( Item 3 ) less existing building space ( Item 4 ) (6 ) Source : Table VI- 10 (7 ) Additional building space needed (Item 5 ) multiplied by building and land cost per square foot (Item 6 ) . ( 8 ) Source : Table VI-4 ( 9 ) LOS standard for materials (Item 8 ) multiplied by 2025 population (Item 1 ) divided by 1 , 000 . ( 10 ) Source : Table VI -2 ( 11 ) Necessary library materials (Item 9 ) less existing library materials (Item 10 ) . ( 12 ) Source : Table VI - 11 ( 13 ) Additional library materials needed (Item 11 ) multiplied by library material unit cost (Item 12 ) . ( 14 ) Source : Table VI -4 ( 15 ) LOS standard for computers (Item 14 ) multiplied by 2025 population (Item 1 ) divided by 1 , 000 . ( 16 ) Source : Table VI-3 ( 17 ) Necessary computers (Item 15 ) less existing computers ( Item 16 ) . ( 18 ) Source : Table VI- 12 ( 19 ) Additional computers needed (Item 17 ) multiplied by cost per computer (Item 18 ) . (20 ) Source : Table VI -4 (21 ) LOS standard for other equipment (Item 20 ) multiplied by 2025 population (Item 1 ) divided by 1 , 000 . ( 22 ) Source : Table VI - 3 ( 23 ) Necessary other equipment (Item 21 ) less existing other equipment (Item 22 ) . (24) Source : Table VI- 12 (25 ) Additional other equipment needed (Item 23 ) multiplied by cost per other equipment ( Item 24 ) . (26 ) Sum of total computer cost ( Item 19 ) and total other equipment cost (Item 25 ) . ( 27 ) Sum of total buildings and land cost (Item 7 ), materials cost (Item 13 ), and total equipment cost (Item 26 ) . (28 ) Source : Table VI - 14 (29 ) Total building, land , materials , and equipment cost ( Item 27 ) less programmed funds over the next five years (Item 28 ) . To accommodate 2025 demand for library buildings , the County needs to provide 39 , 831 square feet of additional library building space . The construction of the 32 , 000-square foot Branch Library will not be sufficient to accommodate this demand . Based on building and land costs estimated in this report, additional square feet will require an investment of $ 10 . 1 million . Library materials and equipment will require an additional $9 . 7 million . The County programmed $ 3 . 3 million for library capital expenditures over Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -22 Impact Fee Study the next five years . An additional $ 16 . 5 million of investment will be necessary to accommodate 2025 demand . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per person calculated in Table V1 - 18 , it is estimated that the library impact fee revenues through 2025 will amount to $ 13 . 8 million . Table VI -22 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Countywide New Es' imated Year Population(') Population(2) Re enues(3)' 2004 138 , 393 N/A N/A 2005 140 , 562 2 , 169 $437,487 20061 1431318 2 , 756 $ 555 , 885 2007 146 , 129 25811 $ 5665979 2008 148 , 996 2 , 867 $ 578 ,274 2009 151 , 918 21922 $ 589 , 367 2010 1545896 21978 $ 6007663 2011 158 ,245 3 ,349 $675 ,493 2012 161 , 671 31426 $ 691 , 024 2013 165 , 171 31500 $ 705 , 950 2014 168 ,749 33578 $721 , 683 2015 1723407 31658 $ 737, 819 2016 1755781 3 ,374 $ 680, 536 2017 179 ,223 3 ,442 $6943251 2018 1821730 31507 $707, 362 2019 1865308 33578 $ 72103 2020 189 , 924 35616 $ 729,347 2021 193 ,215 3 ,291 $663 , 795 2022 1963566 31351 $ 675 , 897 2023 199 , 976 39410 $6875797 2024 2035448 31472 $ 7001302 2025 207 , 014 31566 719 262 $ 133840, 856 Fee per Resident(4 ) $201 . 70 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 ( some of the years are not shown in Table II - 1 . Calculations are based on growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections . ) (2 ) Additional population per year. (3 ) New population (Item 2) multiplied by fee per resident ( Item 4 ) . (4 ) Source : Table VI - 18 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -23 Impact Fee Study As presented in Table VI -21 , the projected library capital expansion costs through 2025 will be $ 16 . 5 million if the existing LOS is adopted . Hence , it appears that the impact fee revenues will need to be supplemented with other funding sources to accommodate this cost . For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits ) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VI -24 Impact Fee Study Vll. Emergency Services This section provides the results of the emergency services impact fee analysis . There are ten major elements associated with the development of the emergency services impact fee : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Calculation • Net Emergency Services Impact Cost • Existing Deficiencies • Proposed Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized in the remainder of this section with the result being the proposed Fire/EMS Impact Fee schedule . Inventory IRC currently has a total of eleven Fire/EMS stations . In addition , the County has funded two additional stations that are planned to be constructed in the next five years . Table VII - I summarizes IRC ' s Fire/EMS land and building inventory , which includes the two planned stations . Map VII - 1 illustrates the locations of the existing Fire/EMS stations . The replacement costs for both buildings and land are based on representative replacement costs for new consolidated Fire/EMS stations . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII- 1 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 1 Land & Buildings Inventory ( ' ) Year Land Building Acquired/ Number Square Replacement Replacement Facility Description Location Builtof Acres Feet Casual Cose ' Fire Station 11'1 1500 Old Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1986 5 .00 16,423 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 2 3301 Bride Plaza Dr, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1986 0.92 5 ,244 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 3151 2900 43rd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1986 1 2.72 31168 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 4 1500 9th St SW, Vero Beach, FL 32962 1986 0. 72 3 ,447 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 5 6585 US 1 , Winter Beach, FL 32970 1982 3 . 98 71449 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 6 101 South AIA, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1986 2 .20 3 ,830 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 7 1215 82nd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 32966 1986 0. 50 2,258 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 81b1 1115 Barber St, Sebastian, FL 32958 1999 1 .00 61243 $2221060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 9 1640 US 1 , Sebastian, FL 32958 1999 0 . 38 3 ,600 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 10 62 North Broadway, Fellsmere, FL 32948 1996 0 . 48 51520 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Fire Station 11 2555 93rd St, Vero Beach, FL 32963 2001 1 . 51 71612 $222,060 $ 1 , 300,000 Planned Station 121'1 N/A FY 05/06 8.00 N/A $2227060 $ 1 , 300,000 Planned Station 13171 N/A FY 08/09 N/A N/A $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Average/Total 2. 17 64,794 $2,886,780 $169900,000 ( 1 ) Source : IRC Public Works Department and Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) Cost per acre based on the purchase cost of $ 102 ,332 per acre , which is the average cost per acre for recently purchased vacant land parcels of 4 to 6 acres in West IRC . This information can be found in Appendix B , Table B - 1 . The cost per acre of $ 102 , 332 has been multiplied by the average parcel size of 2 . 17 acres for a Fire/EMS station in IRC . The average parcel size is based on the current IRC inventory listed above for the 12 stations that land has been purchased for, which includes the land for the 1 I existing stations plus an additional 8 -acre parcel of county -owned land located at 43rd Avenue at 5 St SW that has been set aside as a site for a future Fire/EMS station . (3 ) Based on the current average replacement costs of a new consolidated Fire/EMS facility . (4 ) The County does not own , but leases land for Station 1 . The acreage listed is based on an estimate of the portion of the parcel that is occupied by the station . EMS/Medical Station # I has been included as part of Fire Station # 1 , due to plans to combine the two stations into one facility in the future . ( 5 ) EMS/Medical Station # 3 has been included as part of Fire Station # 3 , due to plans to combine the two stations into one facility in the future . (6 ) Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department operates out of Station 8 . ( 7 ) Planned five-year expansion , which is based on an average replacement cost of a new facility . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII -2 Impact Fee Study I:\34301 .04-IRC Impact Fee SWEy\MwMFire_EMS.mztl Created: May 25, 2004 t ry ® c . rr 2M AVE mn CD l m (n n ^O s O O NI L y 3 W , .� m I 2 FMH3,%r0 ono Z C M O G > M r N _ y � o o y y m y(, I I T 1 M i Cf) i Q d Q d T T T T m T T m T MMM � No3 mmmm cnm rn cR 512 rn rn co Tnd = cn 0) = Cn (n Cf) CO > > N cp T m T T 0 � A mmmm Tn N U7 Cn J co U) U) U) 3' 5' 5 O=.to M 14- c ' : 1 I r f I y ,\. � AVE Q n ]ITN AVE )ITN 9T - c QOS e + 1Y A a O NTH AVE 88TH AVF NTH AVE : NTH AVEzi a s ♦ NTH AVE URO AVE I 27TH AVE is ( 28THAVW OnJ ._ � / yQ 09 a3Aro Nv10N1 , r v I y naµ%JryD t9 SII 0 � fD El1. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII -4 Impact Fee Study In addition to land and buildings , the IRC Fire/EMS Department inventory includes the necessary vehicles to perform its Fire/EMS duties . The vehicle inventory replacement cost is summarized in Table VII -2 . Table VIk2 Vehicle Inventory Replacement Cost( ' ) Total Replacement Description Units Unit Cos �1 Cost Ladder Truck 2 $ 800 , 000 $ 19600 , 000 Brush Truck 7 $ 90 , 000 $ 630, 000 Dive Rescue Unit 1 $ 1309000 $ 1309000 CFR Airport Truck 1 $ 800 , 000 $ 800 , 000 3 , 000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 $ 150 , 000 $ 1509000 Airport Rescue Truck 1 $ 909000 $ 9000 Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 $ 150 , 000 $ 150 , 000 Marine Fire Boat 1 $ 100 , 000 $ 100 , 000 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 2 $205000 $4000 Fire Engine 14 $ 3909909 $ 5 , 4729726 Ambulance 14 1 $ 96 , 8601 $ 15356 , 040 TOTAL 1 1 $ 10 ,518 , 766 ( 1 ) Source : Fire/EMS Department, IRC (2 ) Includes vehicle cost only . Equipment costs are included in Table VII - 3 . Table VII -3 summarizes the costs for Fire/EMS capital equipment by the following categories . 0 Uniform Cost (protective gear) • Station Cost ( furniture , radios , appliances , computers , etc . ) • Vehicle Equipment Cost (hoses , ladders , etc . ) • EMS Cost (communication equipment, supplies , etc . ) • Vehicle Cost ( refer to Table VII -2 ) EMS and vehicle costs are summarized based on the total system inventory , as opposed to by each station . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 5 Impact Fee Study Table VII =3 Capital Equipment Replacement Cost( ' ) Vehicle Uniform StationEquipment EMS Vehicle Total Description Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs(2) Cost Station 1 $77 , 544 $ 38 , 210 $ 180 , 525 N/A N/A $2965279 Station 2 $ 775544 $ 32 , 800 $241 ,215 N/A N/A $ 3519559 Station 3 $77 , 5441 $28 , 630 $ 94 ,413 N/A N/A $200 , 587 Station 4 $ 77 , 5441 $28 , 630 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 190 , 587 Station 5 $77 , 544 $287630 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 1909587 Station 6 $77 , 544 $293880 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 191 , 837 Station 7 $ 775544 $28 , 630 $ 841413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Station 8 $779544 $ 58 , 630 $ 945413 N/A N/A $230 , 587 Station 9 $775544 $281630 $ 843413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Station 10 $77 , 544 $28 , 630 $ 843413 N/A N/A $ 1905587 Station 11 $ 77, 544 $28 , 630 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Planned Station 12 $ 77 , 544 $285630 $ 849413 N/A N/A $ 1903587 Planned Station 13 $77, 544 $283630 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 1905587 TOTAL $ 1 ,0089072 $4179190 $ 1 ,370,2811 $62 ,000 $ 10,518,7661 $ 13 ,376,309 ( 1 ) Source : Fire/EMS Department, IRC (2 ) Source : Table VII-2 Population IRC Fire/EMS provides all residents , workers , and visitors the benefit of these services . Because simply using population does not fully address all of the benefactors of Fire/EMS service , the "functional ' weekly 24 -hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (Arthur C . Nelson , Estimating Land- Use and Facility Needs for Comprehensive Plans , American Planning Association , 2003 ) . Fire/EMS services are provided by IRC in the unincorporated areas of the county and most municipalities . The Town of Indian River Shores , however, maintains its own fire department . Therefore , the proper benefit district for Fire/EMS is the population of the entire county excluding the population of the Town of Indian River Shores . Because this analysis considers two stations planned to be built in the next five years , the 2009 population is used to establish the level of service standard . The current 2009 countywide functional population estimate , excluding Indian River Shores , is provided in Appendix A , Table A - 6 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII -6 Impact Fee Study Level of Service Typically , level of service for Fire/EMS is expressed in terms of stations per 1 , 000 residents . Using this method , IRC ' s current level of service (LOS ) is 13 stations per 146 , 621 residents or 0 . 089 stations per 1 , 000 residents . As mentioned in the previous section , LOS must be measured using functional population to capture all residents , workers , and visitors that benefit from Fire/EMS services . Because the 2009 functional population is less than the 2009 baseline population, the functional population LOS is calculated at 0 . 101 stations per 1 , 000 residents . Table VII -4 summarizes the calculation of the LOS standard using the 2009 population and functional population . Table VII -4 Current Level of Service ( 2009 ) Year 2009 Functional Calculation Step Population Population Population( l ) 146 , 621 1295399 Number of Stations(2 ) 13 13 Population/Functional Residents per Station 11 , 2791 91954 LOS (Stations per 1 ,000 Residents) OeO891 0. 100 ( 1 ) Source : Appendix A , Table A-6 . Figures exclude population of Indian River Shores . (2 ) Source : Table VII - 1 Table VII - 5 compares the levels of service for counties adjacent to IRC as well as the state of Florida . The LOS is displayed in terms of regular population for 2004 for all entities . However, because the LOS calculated for IRC includes the two planned stations to be built in the next five years , the 2009 population is considered for IRC only . Depending on the station data available , the individual county ' s number of stations and corresponding population are expressed as either countywide or unincorporated county only . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII- 7 Impact Fee Study Table VII =5 Current Level of Service Comparison Indian , LOS Measure River(' ) BrevardtZt Osceola('.) St. Lucie(4) ` Florida(s) Population(6) 146 , 621 208 ,239 1455568 226,216 17 , 5165732 Number of Stations 13 33 14 15 17760 Residents per Station 115279 6 ,310 107398 15 ,081 99953 LOS (Stations per 1 ,000 Residents) 0.089 0. 158 0,0961 0 ,0661 0. 100 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII -4 (2 ) Source : Brevard County Fire Rescue Department. Note : stations serve unincorporated Brevard County only . ( 3 ) Source : Osceola County Emergency Services Department . Note : stations serve unincorporated Osceola County only . (4 ) Source : St. Lucie County Fire Rescue Department . Note : stations serve the entire county . ( 5 ) Source : East Central Florida Scanner Page, Florida Fire Station Locations , http : //home . cfl . rr . com/scanner/flafdsta. htm, May 2004 . ( 6 ) Source : 2004 population estimates , Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida . Cost Component Historical/Replacement Capital Costs Table VII -6 summarizes the replacement capital costs of building and land for Fire/EMS services . The cost of the two planned stations is based on the current average replacement cost of a new Fire/EMS facility . A summary of the building replacement cost based on adoption of the current LOS of 0 . 089 includes : • All existing/planned building replacement costs • A total of 13 stations with a building replacement cost of $ 16 . 9 million and a land replacement cost of $2 . 9 million • An average replacement cost per station of $ 1 . 52 million (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 8 Impact Fee Study Table VII -6 Building Replacement Cost( ' ) Year Land ` Building Acquired/ Number Square Replacement Replacement Facility Description Builtof Acres Feet Cost(2) Costo) Station 1 "' 1986 5 . 00 16 , 423 $2221060 $ 113005000 Station 2 1986 0 . 92 5 , 244 $ 2225060 $ 153005000 Station 3 �4, 1986 2 . 72 31168 $ 222 , 060 $ 1 , 3001000 Station 4 1986 0 . 72 37447 $ 2225060 $ 1 , 300 , 000 Station 5 1982 3 . 98 71449 $222 , 060 $ 113003000 Station 6 1986 2 . 20 3 , 830 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 30000 Station 7 1986 0 . 50 21258 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 300 , 000 Station 8(" 1999 1 . 00 65243 $2225060 $ 1 , 300 , 000 Station 9 1999 0 . 38 3 , 600 $2225060 $ 1 , 3005000 Station 10 1996 0 . 48 5 , 520 $ 2221060 $ 15300, 000 Station 11 2001 1 . 51 71612 $2229060 $ 17300 , 000 Planned Station 12(6 ) FY 05 /06 8 . 00 N/A $22200 $ 11300 , 000 Planned Station 13 (6) FY 08/09 N/A N/A $ 222 , 060 $ 15300, 000 Total 19. 42 64, 794 $ 2 ,886 , 780 $ 16, 900, 000 Total Cost $ 199786, 780 Number of Stations 13 Average Unit Replacement Cost per Station $ 195229060 ( 1 ) Source : Public Works Department and Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) Source : Table VII - 1 (3 ) Based on the current average replacement cost of a new Fire/EMS facility . (4 ) EMS/Medical Stations # 1 and #3 have been included as part of Fire Stations # 1 and #3 respectively , due to plans to combine the two EMS stations with their respective fire station when they are replaced in the future . ( 5 ) Sebastian Volunteer Department operates out of Station 8 . ( 6) Planned five-year expansion ; based on an average replacement cost of a new facility . The replacement cost for the equipment was provided by the IRC Fire/EMS Department and is summarized in Table VII - 7 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII -9 Impact Fee Study Table VII =7 Station Equipment Costs Description Costal Uniform Costs $ 150085072 Station Costs $417 , 190 Vehicle Equipment Costs $ 193709281 EMS Costs $ 62 , 000 Vehicle Costs $ 1015181766 Total Equipment Costs $ 131376 , 309 Number of Stations(2 ) 13 Cost per Station $ 190289947 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII - 3 (2 ) Source : Table VII -4 Pro$! rammed/Planned Capital Costs As previously discussed , the County is planning to construct two new stations that have been included in the current inventory , as these stations will be available within the next five years . Table VII-8 summarizes these capital expenditures . Table VII =8 Five Year Programmed and Planned Capital Expenditures � ' 1 Expansion/ Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Five-Year Ex enditure Replacement 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 . :2007/08 2008/09 `' Total Fire/EMS Station 12 Expansion $2,036,327 $ 156,411 $2, 192,738 Fire/EMS Station 13 Expansion $2,289,409 $2,289,409 Total Capital Expenditures $29200,000 $2,036,327 $156,411 $0 $292899409 $4,482,147 Total Expansion Capital Expenditures - $0 $2,0369327 $156,411 $0 $29289,409 $4,4829147 Percent Expansion 0% 100% 1 100% 10% 100% 100% Ex ansion Capital Expenditures per Station $2,241 ,074 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Unit Cost per Functional Resident Table VII -9 summarizes the unit cost per functional resident that will be used in the impact fee analysis . This unit cost was calculated as the building replacement cost (Table VII - 6) plus the equipment cost (Table VII - 7 ) . The total cost per functional resident is $255 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 10 Impact Fee Study Table VII -9 Impact Cost per Functional Resident Component ' Cost Number of StationsM 13 Building Replacement Cost per Station(2 ) $ 1 , 5221060 Equipment Cost per Station(3 ) $ 1 , 0281947 Total Cost per Station $29551 ,007 LOST (Stations/ 1 ,000 Functional Residents) 0 . 100 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident $255 . 10 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII -4 (2 ) Source : Table VII-6 (3 ) Source : Table VII-7 Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the Fire/EMS impact fee , a review of the capital financing program for Fire/EMS services was completed . The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities , land , and equipment expansion of the Fire/EMS program . Revenue credits are then applied against the cost per functional resident so that new development is not charged twice for capital expansion projects . Revenue Sources for Capital Expenditures An analysis of the historical and future Fire/EMS capital expenditures for the eleven -year period from FY 1998/99 to FY 2008/09 was completed and reviewed with the IRC Fire/EMS Department . The IRC Fire/EMS Department has three different sources for capital expenditures : • general fund ; • emergency services district ; and • local option sales tax Table VII - 10 summarizes the capital expenditures over the last six fiscal years . This table also specifies whether the capital expenditure was a replacement or expansion of the existing Fire/EMS capital inventory . As presented in Table VII - 10 , 29 percent of the Fire/EMS capital expenditures were for capital expansion projects and 5 percent of the capital expansion projects were funded through general fund revenues . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 11 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 10 Six -Year Historical Capital Expendituresl ' 1 Expansion/ Fiscal Year Total- Six Equipment Replacement 1998/99 1999/00 2001 2001/02 2002/03 '.2003/04R1 Year Histo 00/ General Fund (Emergency Management Vehicle Expansion $21 , 183 $21 , 183 Radio for vehicle Expansion $2 ,435 $2 ,435 Miscellaneous Equipment Expansion $20 ,688 $ 15, 802 $25 ,841 $32, 564 $ 16, 134 $ 111 ,026 Miscellaneous Equipment Re lacement $9,699 $9,699 Total - General Fund $20,686 $ 151802 $252841 $23,618 $42,263 $169134 $1449343 Emergency Services District FIRE Land Payment - Sebastian Fire Station Expansion $7 ,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7, 000 $35,000 Building Projects Replacement $ 17,017 $2 ,094 $9, 445 $31 ,579 $25, 850 $4,000 $89,985 Building Projects Expansion $3,350 $ 12, 393 $ 18, 000 $33 ,743 Station 10 Sewer Improvements Replacement $7 , 504 $7, 504 Furniture and Equi ment Expansion $5,919 $5,471 $11 ,390 Furniture and Equipment Replacement $ 19,031 $600 $7 ,869 $5,288 $2, 500 $35 ,288 Fire VehiGes Replacement $ 1 , 328 ,828 $35 , 548 $ 143,785 $ 1 ,707,869 $ 3,216,030 Fire Vehicles Expansion $21 ,291 $875 $22 , 166 Communication Radios Expansion $15,714 $ 15,714 Communication Radios Replacement $4,418 $6 ,718 $14, 993 $ 13,200 1 $39 ,329 Computer Equipment Expansion $ 1 ,384 $8 ,223 $7 ,928 $3 ,200 $20,735 Computer Equipment Replacement $7 , 187 $3,526 $7 ,068 $27,526 $45,307 Misc. Equipment Expansion $2 , 543 $74,652 $ 14523 $47 ,449 $48,200 $ 187 ,468 Misc. Equipment Replacement $39,293 $28,239 $47 , 834 $25 ,207 $44 , 140 $67 ,025 $251 ,738 ALS Ambulances Replacement $348, 000 $99,000 $447 ,000 EMS Vehicles Replacement $264,327 $37 , 165 $206, 218 $25,000 $532 ,710 EMS Vehicles Expansion $21 ,291 $82 ,513 $ 103, 804 Computer Equipment Replacement $715 $1 ,677 $4,750 $7, 142 Computer Equipment Expansion $8, 154 1 $8 , 154 Building Projects Expansion $ 1 ,880 $1 ,880 Communication Radios Expansion $4 ,210 $4,210 Furniture and Equipment Expansion $1 , 750 $ 1 ,750 Misc. Equipment Expansion $43,884 $775 $3,295 $47 ,934 Misc. Equipment Replacement $6 ,352 $7, 999 $3,000 $ 17,351 Total - Emergency Services District $1 ,676,847 $230,878 $191 ,764 $572,640 $479,780 $2,031 ,424 $5, 183,333 Optional Sales Tax Fire Station 11 Expansion $802 ,595 $802,595 Fire Station 8 Expansion $184, 530 $ 184 ,530 Fire Station 10 Expansion $266,042 $ 18 ,575 $284,617 Fire Station 5 Replacement $ 1 , 149,500 $1 , 149, 500 Fire Station 3 Expansion $312,933 $312,933 Fire Station 9 Replacement $539, 819 $539 ,819 Automotive Expansion $ 159 ,576 $284,918 $444,493 Communications Equipment Replacement $ 15, 101 $15, 101 Misc. Emer enc Services Expenses Replacement $ 15, 992 $ 15 ,992 Total - Optional Sales Tax $4259617 $ 11303,135 $181575 $0 $0 $2,0023252 $3,749,579 Totatures $2, 123, 150 $ 1 ,549,815 $236, 180 $5961257 $5222042 $4,404096,86210 $99077,255 Totl iaEson Expenditures 1 $20657,760 aCaptalEni7 10.92% 10.04 / Pereent Capital Expansion Expenditures 21 .97% 94.30% 69. 66% 17 .06% 29.28% Percent Capital Expansion from General Fu4.43% 1 .08% 15.71 % 23.22% 57. 13% 3.97% 5.07% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2) Expenditures for FY 2003 /04 are budgeted, not actual , expenditures . Credit Calculation The credit per functional resident was calculated using the average capital expansion expenditures during the last six years and the future planned projects budgeted during the next five -years . The average annual capital expenditure amount was divided by the average functional residents during this eleven year time period , resulting in an average capital expansion ,cost per functional resident of $ 5 . 54 . This information is presented in Table VII - 11 . It is the County ' s intent to use impact fee revenues as the primary source of funding for future capital expansion needs of the Fire/EMS program and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount shown in this report toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County intends to use non- impact fee revenue sources as the primary Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 12 Impact Fee Study funding source for capital replacement, operations and maintenance expenses . As such, credit calculations for future expenditures do not include an escalation factor. Table VII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident County Functional Fiscal Year Residents(i) Total Expansion(2) 1998/99 104 , 572 $466 ,499 1999/00 107 , 439 $ 194613414 2000/01 1091225 $ 164 , 516 2001 /02 111 , 528 $ 1019709 2002/03 1149226 $ 575002 2003 /04 118 , 309 $4065621 2004/05 1209213 $ 0 2005 /06 1223461 $ 29036 , 327 2006/07 124 , 742 $ 156 , 411 2007/08 127, 054 $ 0 2008/09 1299399 $ 2 , 2891409 Total Expansion $ 791399907 Annual Average 1179197 $ 649,082 Average Expansion per Functional Resident $ 5 . 54 ( 1 ) Source : Appendix A, Table A-6 (excluding Indian River Shores ) (2 ) Source : Table VII - 10 (FY 1998/99- 2003 /04 ) and Table VII - 8 (FY 2004/05 -2008/09 ) The last credit component is for revenue generated from past payments of property taxes on vacant land that are used to fund capital expansion projects . This calculation is a two - step process . First, the percentage of the total value of vacant land to the total property value is calculated. This considers the countywide value less the values in Indian River Shores . Revenues generated by past payment of property taxes on vacant land are deposited into IRC ' s general fund . Therefore , the second calculation considers the portion of total capital expansion expenditures funded through general fund revenues over the previous six-year period . As shown in Table VII - 10 , this figure is 5 . 07 percent . The vacant land value as a percentage of total property value is multiplied by the percent of historical general fund revenues spent on capital expansion projects . As illustrated in Table VII - 12 , the percent of past property tax payments on vacant land is 0 . 48 percent . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 13 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 12 Percent of Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land ( ' ) Land Taxable Value ' County Vacant Land Value ( less Indian River Shores) $ 9525101 , 560 Countywide Total Property Value (less Indian River Shores)(2) $ 10 , 03955359106 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of Total Property Value(3 ) 9 . 48 % Percent of Capital Expansion Projects Funded with General Fund(4) 5 . 07 % Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5) 0 . 48 % ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC ( 2 ) Includes structures . ( 3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $952 , 101 , 560/$ 10 , 039 , 535 , 106 (4 ) Source : Table VII - 10 . Percent of five-year historical general fund revenue for expansion projects divided by total five-year historical revenue for capital expansion projects . ( 5 ) Vacant land value as a percentage of total property value (Item 3 ) multiplied by the percent of capital expansion projects funded with general fund (Item 4 ) . Existing Deficiencies Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard , there are no existing deficiencies of Fire/EMS facilities . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the existing LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Fire/ EMS Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component . Table VII - 13 summarizes the calculation of the net Fire/EMS impact cost per functional resident . The first section of Table VII - 13 identifies the facility impact cost per functional resident as $ 255 . The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the Fire/EMS impact fee . The credit calculation includes the present value of projected annual capital funding per functional resident of $ 78 , as well as a credit of $ 1 . 23 for past property tax payments on vacant land . The addition of these two credits results in a total revenue credit of $ 79 per functional resident . The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table ) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total revenue credit . This results in a net impact cost of $ 176 per functional resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 14 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 13 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Impact Impact Cost / Credit Element Cost Revenue Credits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident( t ) 1 $255 . 10 Impact Credit Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident(2) $ 5 . 54 Capitalization Rate 5 % Capitalization Period ( in years) 25 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(3) ($ 78 . 08 ) Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(4) 0 .48 % Credit for Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land(5 ) ( $ 1 .23 ) Total Revenue Credit per Functional Resident(6) ($ 79 .31) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident�7) $ 175. 79 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII-9 ( 2 ) Source : Table VII - 11 (3 ) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2 ) over a capitalization rate of 5 percent for 25 years . (4) Source : Table VII = 12 (5 ) Effective vacant land value percentage (Item 4 ) multiplied by total impact cost per functional resident ( Item 1 ) . ( 6) Sum of capital improvement credit per resident ( Item 3 ) and for past property tax payments on vacant land (Item 5 ) . ( 7) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1 ) less the total revenue credit per functional resident ( Item 6 ) . Proposed Fire/ EMS Impact Fee Schedule As presented in Table VII - 14 , a Fire/EMS impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non - residential land uses , based on the net impact cost per functional resident presented in Table VII - 13 . The total impact fee for each land use also includes a 3 percent administrative fee . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 15 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 14 Proposed Fire/ EMS Impact Fee Schedule 24-Hour Net Impact Fee Functional @ $ 176 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Coefficientill ` Resident") Fee(3) Fee(4) Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 1 . 407 $247 . 34 $7. 42 $254 . 76 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf (under air) du 1 . 581 $277. 92 $8 . 34 $286. 26 2, 500 sf or greater (under air) du 1 . 714 $301 . 30 $9. 04 $310. 34 Accessory Single Family du 1 . 002 $ 176 . 14 $5 . 28 $ 181 . 42 Multi Family du 1 . 0021 $ 176 . 14 $5 . 28 $ 181 . 42 Mobile Home I du 1 1 . 0331 $ 181 . 591 $5 .451 $ 187. 04 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 1 0. 9081 $ 159 . 621 $4. 791 $ 164. 41 Motel Room 0 . 9081 $ 159 . 621 $4 . 7911 $ 164 . 41 Nursing Home Bed 0. 9791 $ 172 . 10 $5 . 161 $ 177 . 26 ACLF Bed 0 . 9791 $ 172 . 10 $5 . 161 $ 177 . 26 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 , 000 sf 1 . 702 $299 . 19 $ 8 . 98 $308 . 17 Bank/Savings Walk-in 1 , 000 sf 1 . 941 $341 . 21 $ 10. 24 $351 . 45 Bank/Savings Drive-in 1 , 000 sf 1 . 591 $279 . 68 $ 8 . 39 $288 . 07 Office 50,000 GSF or less 11000 sf 1 . 401 $246. 28 $7 . 39 $253 . 67 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 0 . 741 $ 130 . 26 $3 . 91 $ 134 . 17 Industrial Manufacturing 1 , 000 sf 0 . 501 $ 88 . 07 $2 . 64 $90. 71 Warehouse 17000 sf 0. 385 $67 . 68 $2 . 03 $69 . 71 Mini-Warehouse 1 , 000 sf 0. 076 $ 13 . 36 $0.40 $ 13 . 76 General Industrial 1 , 000 sf 0. 684 $ 120 . 24 $3 . 61 $ 123 . 85 Concrete Plant Acre 1 . 508 $265 . 09 $7 . 95 $273 . 04 Sand Mining Acre 1 0 . 1931 $33 .93 $ 1 . 02 $34 .95 Retail , Gross Square Feet Retail 50, 000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 2 . 862 $503 . 11 $ 15 . 09 $518 . 20 Retail 50, 001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 15000 sf 2. 854 $501 . 70 $ 15 . 05 $516. 75 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF 1 , 000 sf 2 . 920 $513 . 31 $ 15 .40 $528 . 71 Retail over 200 , 000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 . 995 $350. 70 $ 10. 52 $361 . 22 Gas/Service Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $302 . 89 $9 . 09 $311 . 98 New and Used Car Sales 15000 sf 1 . 706 $299 . 90 $9 . 00 $308 .90 Quality Restaurant IAosf 6 . 764 $ 11189 . 04 $35 . 67 $ 15224 . 71 Restaurant 1 , 000sf 7 . 333 $ 1 ,289 . 07 $38 . 67 $ 1 ,327 . 74 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 , 000 sf 7 . 902 $ 1 ,389 . 09 $41 . 67 $ 1 ,430 . 76 Supermarket 1 , 000 sf 2 . 031 $357 . 03 $ 10 . 71 $367 . 74 Self Service Car Wash Bas 1 . 887 $331 . 72 $9 . 95 $341 . 67 Convenience Store 1 , 000 sf 4 . 2431 $745 . 881 $22 . 381 $768 . 26 Furniture Store 1 1 , 000 sf 1 0 . 3181 $55 . 901 $ 1 . 681 $57. 58 Recreational Golf Course hole 2 . 443 $429 . 45 $ 12. 88 $442 . 33 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studic 1 , 000 sf 2 . 374 $417 . 33 $ 12 . 52 $429. 85 County Park Acre 0 . 152 $26 . 72 $0 . 80 $27 . 52 Tennis Court Court 2 . 321 $408 . 01 $ 12.24 $420 . 25 Marina Berths 0. 153 $26 . 90 $0 . 81 $27. 71 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 16 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 14 ( continued ) Proposed Fire/ EMS Impact Fee Schedule 24-Hour Net Impactee Functional @ $ 176 per Impact Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit CoefficienO Resident t ) Fee(3) Fee(4) Governmental Post Office 100 sf 1 . 773 $311 . 68 $9 . 35 $321 . 03 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $302 . 01 $9 . 06 $311 . 07 Government Office Building 1 , 000 sf 2 . 604 $457 . 76 $ 13 . 73 $471 . 49 Government Office Complex 100 sf 1 . 356 $238 . 37 $7 . 15 $245 . 52 Jail Bed 0. 871 $ 153 . 11 $4 . 59 $ 157 . 70 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 15000 sf 1 . 009 $ 177 . 37 $5 . 32 $ 182 . 69 Hospital 1 , 000 sf 1 . 566 $275 . 29 $8 .26 $283 . 55 Veterinary Clinic 1 , 000 sf 1 . 633 $287 . 07 $8 . 61 $295 . 68 Church 100 sf 0 . 533 $93 . 70 $2 . 81 $96 . 51 Movie Theater Screen 8 . 477 $ 1 ,490 . 17 $44 . 71 $ 1 ,534 . 88 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 0. 094 $ 16 . 52 $0. 50 $ 17. 02 School (Hi h) Student 1 0 . 120 $21 . 09 $0 . 63 $21 . 72 School (College) Student 1 0 . 104 $ 18 . 28 $0 . 55 $ 18 . 83 Fire Stations ) 1 , 000 sf 0. 633 $ 11128 $3 . 34 $ 114. 62 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 17 for residential land uses and Table II-20 for non- residential land uses ( 2 ) Proposed impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table VII - 1 ) ) by the 24-hour functional resident coefficient (Item 1 ) for each land use . ( 3 ) An administrative fee of 3 percent of the net impact fee . (4) Total impact fee is the sum of the net impact fee ( Item 2) and administrative fee (Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Government uses are exempt from paying impact fees used to develop that same use . This is because legally , if the development does not create a demand for the facility or, indeed, mitigates the need for the facility , it should not pay the fee . In other words , a new Fire/EMS will not pay the emergency services impact fee . Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section II , Table II - 1 . Table VII- 15 presents the Fire/EMS facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 17 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 15 2025 Demand and Cost . Forecast Calculation Component Forecasted Demand 2025 County Population ( less Indian River Shores)( 1979620 Adopted LOS Standard ( Stations per 1 , 000 Residents)(Z ) 0 . 089 2025 Required Number of Stations(3 ) 18 Existing Number of Stations('- ) 13 Additional Stations Needed (4) 5 Cost per Station Station $ 133005000 Land $ 2229060 Fire Engine $ 390 , 909 Ambulance $ 965860 Total Cost per Station $210095829 Total Cost(5) $ 1094409054 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table 11 - 1 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (2) Source : Table VII-4 ( 3 ) Number of stations needed in 2025 based on existing LOS . (4) 2025 required number of stations (Item 3 ) less existing number of stations ( Item 4 ) . ( 5 ) Total cost per station multiplied by additional number of stations needed (Item 4 ) . Based on one unit per station except for one fire engine per station and plus one backup engine shared by the four additional stations . As presented in Table VII - 15 , the County will need an additional 5 stations by 2025 . This would require an investment of $ 10 . 4 million over the next 20 years . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per person calculated in Table VII - 14 , it is estimated that the Fire/EMS impact fee revenues will generate $9 . 9 million through 2025 . These projections are presented in Table VII - 16 . Based on the future demand analysis , the County will need to make an investment of $ 10 . 4 million to accommodate the 2025 demand . Based on this information , it appears that the impact fee revenues will need to be used in conjunction with other revenue sources to meet the 2025 demand . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 18 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 16 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Countywide New Estimated Year Populationtil Population)�) Revenues(3) 2004 133 , 964 2005 135 , 972 21008 $ 3115521 2006 138 , 560 29588 $4019502 2007 1411198 25638 $409 , 259 2008 1433885 2 , 687 $416 , 861 2009 1469621 2 , 736 $4245463 2010 149 ,406 29785 $4323065 2011 1529554 3 , 148 $488 , 381 2012 1555773 3 , 219 $ 4995396 2013 1599058 31285 $ 5095635 2014 1625413 3 , 355 $ 5205495 2015 165 , 840 3 ,427 $ 53105 2016 1685975 3 , 135 $4869364 2017 1725169 39194 $ 4955517 2018 1755418 3 , 249 $ 504 , 050 2019 1789730 35312 $ 5139824 2020 1821070 3 , 340 $ 518 , 168 2021 1853074 39004 $466 , 041 2022 188 , 129 3 , 055 $473 , 953 2023 1913231 3 , 102 $481 , 244 2024 194 , 384 39153 $4895156 2025 197 , 620 3 ,236 $ 5025033 $ 9 , 875 , 593 Fee per functional resident(4) $ 175 . 79 Fee per resident(5) $ 155 . 14 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are based on growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections . ) (2 ) Additional population per year. ( 3 ) New population ( Item 1 ) multiplied by fee per resident (Item 5 ) . (4 ) Source : Table VII- 13 ( 5 ) To convert the fee per functional resident to fee per resident, fee per functional resident ( Item 4 ) multiplied by functional population from Table VII-4 and divided by population from Table VII-4 . As mentioned above , the impact fee revenue projections are based on population growth estimates . For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII - 19 Impact Fee Study guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later. If the growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VII -20 Impact Fee Study Vlll. Law Enforcement This section provides the results of the law enforcement facilities impact fee analysis . There are ten major elements associated with the development of the law enforcement impact fee : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost • Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized in this section and the proposed law enforcement impact fee schedule is presented . Inventory According to information provided by the IRC Sheriff' s Office (IRCSO ) and the Office of Management and Budget, IRC has the following Law Enforcement facilities : • Sheriff' s Administration Building • Sheriff' s Fleet Compound • Sheriff' s Crime Scene Evidence Addition • Miscellaneous Buildings : Base , Storage Building, and Two Office Spaces . All of the above listed buildings are located at the same site , 4055 41st Avenue . It should be noted that, in addition to these buildings , IRCSO leases space at the Indian River Mall to accommodate a substation and at the airport for the helicopter and other enforcement operations . Although the lease space indicates need for additional space , for the purposes of this impact fee study , the inventory includes only the space owned by the County . Table VIII - 1 shows a summary of the IRCSO building inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 1 Impact Fee Study Table VIII = 1 Land and Building Inventory Year Number Square Facility Description Acquired/Built of Acres Feet Sheriffs Administration Building 1988 N/A 333332 Sheriffs Fleet Compound 1988 N/A 8 , 956 Sheriffs Crime Scene Evidence Additionj 2003 1 N/A I 1 , 000 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site : Base N/A N/A 264 Storage Bldg . N/A N/A 19000 Office Space N/A N/A 1 , 743 Office Space N/A N/A 888 Land for Sheriffs Admin . Bldg . ' ) 1983 9 . 81 N/A Total 9 . 81 47 , 183 ( 1 ) The Correctional Facility Detention Complex and the Sheriffs Administration Building are located at the same site . Based on the review of aerial photos included in the "Needs Assessment and Master Plan for the Correctional Facility , " it was determined that each operation occupies approximately 50% of the site . The Law Enforcement Administration building location is shown in Map VIII - 1 . Population Law enforcement services are provided to all residents, workers , and visitors . Therefore , simply using population does not fully address all of the benefactors of Law Enforcement service . The " functional , " 24 -hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (Arthur C . Nelson, Estimating Land- Use and Facility Needs for Comprehensive Plans, American Planning Association , 2003 ) . Law enforcement services are provided by the IRCSO in the unincorporated areas of the County . Municipalities within IRC have their own law enforcement agencies . Therefore , the proper benefit district for law enforcement is the unincorporated county . The unincorporated county ' s current 2004 functional population estimate is provided in Section II , Table 1I - 13 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 2 Impact Fee Study 1:134301 .04-IRC Impact Fee StudyWapslaw_Erforcement.mzd Created: May 25, 2004 i i J CCD CD. CD ogi fA 0 O O 43RD AVE m > UA 1 _ v erei A '•� J to 0) W N p i - m Y I i D _ a J N O Co J CA 512 f f I CR 507 � l 1 i I } 11 i r f ��f� m a _ 00 JDAVE -Ni :� t wTascII p NS OA SSA ATM AVE ]4TH ST tE f SCHUMANNOR BOTH AVE NTH AVE BOTH AVE ' 66TH AVE u v ` -„ m N 50TH AVE O 43RD Ave o a in 27TH AVEor, [ i "f1 H3CF10o r./ Ii ` 26TH Ave 1 it 1% 1 ]^ I0 N r sa r, 4 ( a AI Z OO a774a. NVICNI9 _ J .moi• 9 M1 dr F PN _ • y -400 • I .� r / r aONCDH CD n S El n u r. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII -4 Impact Fee Study ♦ M Level of Service Typically , the level of service (LOS ) for law enforcement facilities is measured in terms of officers per 1 , 000 population . Based on the information provided by the IRCSO , IRC ' s current LOS is 2 . 09 officers per 1 , 000 residents . Table VIII -2 presents the calculation of the current LOS . The County ' s Comprehensive Plan does not include an adopted LOS for law enforcement facilities . Therefore , the existing LOS will become the adopted LOS standard once the necessary amendments are made to the Comprehensive Plan . Table VIII -2 Current Level of Service ( 2004 ) Component/Calculation. Step Figure Unincorporated County Area Population( l ) 889710 Existing Police Officers(2 ) 185 Residents per Officer 480 LOS ( Officers per 1 ,000 Residents ) 2 . 09 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (2 ) Source : IRCSO Table VIII - 3 presents a comparison of unincorporated county levels of service in other counties and the state of Florida (unincorporated county areas only) to IRC . Since the available information corresponds to the year 2000 , this was the year used for the comparison . In 2000 , IRC had a higher number of officers per 1 , 000 residents than the neighboring counties and the entire state of Florida, with the exception of St . Lucie County . Table VIII - 3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2000 Indian l Florida (All Los Measure River Brevard Osceola St. LucieCounties) Police Officers( 1 ) 174 357 215 153 161702 Population Served(2 ) 78 ,489 188 , 918 1043605 657806 81068 , 197 Officers per 1 , 000 Residents 1 2 . 22 1 . 891 2 . 061 2 . 331 2 . 07 ( 1 ) Source : IRCSO for IRC figure and Florida Department of Law Enforcement for other counties (2 ) Source : Section 1I , Table II- 1 While the 2004 level of service is 2 . 09 officers per 1 , 000 residents , the number of officers per 1 , 000 functional residents must be calculated . Table VIII-4 illustrates the calculation of the current level of service using the number of total functional residents within the Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 5 Impact Fee Study r unincorporated county area . The current number of officers per 1 , 000 functional residents is 2 .30 . Table VIII =4 Functional Residents Level of Service Component/Calculation Step Figure Unincorporated County Area Population( ' 80 , 437 Existing Police Officers(2 ) 185 Residents per Officer 435 LOS (Officers per 1 ,000 Residents) 2 .30 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table 1I- 13 (2 ) Source : Table VIII-2 Cost Component Historical/Replacement Capital Costs The following table summarizes historical and replacement costs of existing building capital based on the information provided by the County . As presented , the cost per police officer is $35 , 011 . The land value shown in the table represents the replacement value and not the historical value . According to information provided by the County representatives , the historical cost of the land was $ 68 , 638 for 9 . 81 acres . The County ' s estimate of replacement value for this land is $ 343 , 175 , which represents an increase of 400 percent over the past 21 years . The resulting replacement cost per acre is $34 , 982 , which is consistent with the recent $35 , 467 per acre purchase price of land for the new correctional facility . Finally, the replacement cost per square foot of building is $ 130 according to estimates provided by the County . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII -6 Impact Fee Study Table VIII =5 Building and Land Replacement Cost( ' ) Year Number Squa a Building Facility Description Acquired/Built of Acres Feetl Land Cost Replacement Cost Sheriffs Administration Building 1988 N/A 33 ,332 N/A $4, 3331160 Sheriffs Fleet Compound 1988 N/A 8 , 956 N/A $ 19164 ,280 Sheriffs Crime Scene Evidence Addition 2003 N/A 1 ,000 N/A $ 130 ,000 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site« : Base N/A N/A 264 N/A $ 34, 320 Storage Bldg. N/A N/A 11000 N/A $ 130,000 Office Space N/A N/A 11743 N/A $2265590 Office Space N/A N/A 888 N/A $ 115 ,440 Land for Sheriffs Admin. Bldg.(3) 1983 9 . 81 1 N/A $343 , 175 N/A Total 9,811 479183 $343, 175 $69133 ,790 Total Cost $6 ,4765965 Number of Officers 185 Avera a Building Replacement Cost per Officer $35 ,011 ( 1 ) Source : Public Works Department and Office of Management and Budget, IRC (2 ) Total cost of miscellaneous buildings was provided by IRC . In order to estimate the replacement cost, a unit cost per square foot was calculated and then multiplied by the square footage for each miscellaneous building . ( 3 ) The Correctional Facility Detention Complex and the Sheriffs Administration Building are located at the same site . Based on the review of aerial photos included in the "Needs Assessment and Master Plan for the Correctional Facility , " it was determined that each occupies approximately 50% of the site . The historical cost for the equipment, as provided by the IRCSO , is $ 8 . 9 million . The replacement value for these items was not available . Using historical (acquisition) values , however, results in a conservative estimate of equipment cost . Table VIII - 6 presents the equipment cost per police officer and includes : • vehicles ; • radio equipment ; • vehicle equipment ; • weapons ; • office equipment ; • specialty vehicles/equipment; • electronic equipment ; • computer equipment ; and • miscellaneous equipment . The total cost was obtained from the IRCSO " Asset Report by Asset # , " and the figures were prorated between correctional facilities and law enforcement facilities based on information provided by the IRCSO staff. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 7 Impact Fee Study Table VIII -6 Equipment Cost Equipment Historical Value"' Vehicles $ 31863 , 987 Radio Equipment $ 152235772 Vehicle Equipment $ 691 , 479 Weapons $ 1685236 Office Equipment $ 1489292 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment $ 130 , 532 Electronic Equipment $ 1961760 Computer Equipment $ 1 , 6045426 Misc . Equipment $ 8905490 Total Equipment Cost $ 8 , 9171975 # of Police Officers(2 ) 185 Cost per Police Officer $48 ,205 ( 1 ) Source : IRCSO . According to representatives from the Sheriff s Office equipment replacement values are not available . (2 ) Source : Table VIII-2 Prollrammed/Planned Capital Costs There are no capital expansion projects programmed during the next five years . Cost per Functional Resident Table VIII - 7 presents the cost per functional resident calculation for the impact fee analysis . This cost was calculated by adding the building and land replacement cost and the equipment cost, totaling $ 83 , 216 per officer . The resulting cost per functional resident is $ 191 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 8 Impact Fee Study Table VIII -7 Unit Cost per Functional Resident Component Cost Building and Land Replacement Cost per Law Enforcement Officer ' $ 35 , 011 Equipment Cost per Law Enforcement Officer(2 ) $485205 Total Cost per Law Enforcement Officer $ 839216 Level of Service(3) (Officers/1 ,000 Func . Residents) 2 . 30 Cost per Functional Resident(4) $ 191 . 40 ( 1 ) Source : Table VIII- 5 (2 ) Source : Table VIII-6 (3 ) Source : Table VIII-4 (4) Total cost per law enforcement officer multiplied by LOS , divided by 1 , 000 residents . Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the capital cost of providing law enforcement services , a review of the capital financing program for law enforcement was completed . The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues , other than impact fees , generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities, land , and equipment expansion of the law enforcement program . Revenue Sources for Capital Expenditures The review of the historical and future law enforcement capital expenditures for the ten - year period from FY 1998/99 to FY 2007/08 was completed and reviewed with the IRCSO . The IRCSO has three different sources for capital expenditures : • General Fund ; • Local Option Sales Tax ; and • Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) . Table VIII - 8 summarizes the capital expenditures over the last six years . This table also specifies whether the capital expenditure was a replacement or expansion of the existing capital inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 9 Impact Fee Study Table VIII -8 Historical Capital Expenditures - Expansion / Replacement( ' ) - - Fiscal Year 2003/04 Total Six Year Equipment Expansion/ Relacement - 1998/99 '- 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 (Budget) History Optional Sales Tux IRC Sheriff I-NAC Re lacement Replacement 5121778 5493 ,222 $506,000 Sheriffs Evidence Addition Expansion $24,438 $132,486 5156,924 Sheriffs Parking Paving Replacement $50,000 $50,000 Sheriffs Training Sidewalk Replacement $4,000 1 $4,000 Sheriff's Admin. Roofing Replacement S4,000 $4,000 Sheriffs Admin. Shutters Expansion $8,700 $8,700 Vehicles Replacement $540, 125 $540, 125 General Fund/MSTU Vehicles Replacement $39,000 $536,000 $757,000 $504,000 $ 1 ,836,000 Carpeting Sheriffs Dept Replacement 51 ,628 $ 1 ,628 Carpet - Sheriffs Dept Auditorium Replacement $4, 800 $4,800 Carpet - 911 Center Replacement $6,300 $6,300 Misc. Law Enforcement Equipment Replacement $ 1 ,949 $ 1 ,949 Replacement $ 18,0001 $39,000 $85,000 $ 119,000 $ 153,000 5414,000 Computers/Servers/Laptops/Printers Expansion 1 $20, 000 $64,000 $64,000 $ 148,000 Radar Units Expansion $25,000 $25,000 Software Replacement $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Gas Boy Expansion $20,000 $20,000 Night Vision Expansion $3 ,000 $ 10,000 $ 13,000 Furniture Expansion $8,000 $8,000 Recall Recorders Expansion $ 16,000 1 $ 16,000 Tire Changer Expansion $4,000 54,000 Record Management System Replacement $400,000 $400,000 Fax Machine Replacement $2,000 $2,000 Duplicating Recorder Expansion $2,000 $2,000 Projectors Expansion $5,000 1 1 55,000 Carpet Replacement $2,000 $2,000 Replacement 531000 $3,000 Body Wire Expansion $5,000 $5,000 Copier/Scanners Replacement $4,000 $4,000 Cameras Expansion $27,000 $94,000 $3,000 $2,000 SI ,000 5127,000 Light Bars Replacement $ 14,000 $ 14,000 Lie Detector Expansion $9,000 $9,000 Security Scanner Replacement $4,000 1 $4,000 Shredder Replacement 1 $4,000 54,000 K-9 & Bite Suit Replacement 55,000 $5,000 Pork Lift/Shop Machinery Expansion $25,000 $25,000 Tactical System Expansion $ 11 ,000 $ 11 ,000 Airboat & Trailer Expansion $26,000 $26,000 Riverboat & Trailer Expansion $21 ,000 $21 ,000 Replacement $27,000 $352,000 $ 178,000 $557000 Radios Expansion $20,000 1 $20,000 Aviation Map Replacement $ 1 ,000 $ 1 ,000 Garage Lift Expansion $ 171000 $ 17,000 Garage Equipment Expansion $ 11 ,000 $ 11 ,000 Total 593,000 $224,628 $547,949 $650,000 $430,000 $ 11 , 100 $ 1 ,956,677 Total Expansion Expenditures $61 ,000 $ 165,000 $54,438 $291 ,486 $98,000 $8,700 $678,624 Expansion Expenditures Funded with OST $0 50 $24,438 $ 132,486 $0 $8,700 5165,624 Expansion Expenditures Funded with General Fund/MSTU 561 ,000 $ 165,000 $30,000 8159,000 $98,000 $0 $513 000 Percent of Total Expansion Expenditures Funded with General Fund/MSTU 100% 100% 55% 55% 100% 0% 76% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget and Sheriff' s Office, IRC Upon review of the County ' s budget, it was determined that there are currently no capital expenditures funded for either replacement or expansion of the law enforcement program over the next five years . It should be noted that it is the County ' s intent to use . impact fee revenues as the primary funding source for future capital expansion needs of the law enforcement program and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount from non - impact fee revenue sources shown in this study toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 10 Impact Fee Study iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillilliillin intends to use non- impact fee revenue sources as the primary funding source for capital replacement, operations , and maintenance expenses . As such, credit calculations for optional sales tax and ad valorem tax do not include an escalation factor . Credit Calculation The revenue per functional resident was calculated based on the average capital expenditure for expansion during the last six years divided by the average functional resident population during those years . This results in $ 1 . 51 of credit per functional resident, as presented in Table VIII- 9 . Table VIII -9 Revenue per Functional Resident Fiscal ear Total Six Equipment 1998/99 1999/00 1 2000/01 - 2001/02 ' 2002/03 1 2003/04 Year History Total Expansion( O $61 ,0001 $ 165 ,0001 $ 54 ,4381 $291 ,4861 $98,0001 $ 8 , 700 $678 ,624 Average Expansion per Year $ 113 , 104 Unincorporated County Area Functional Residents('') 70, 5881 72,5111 73 ,6981 75 ,250 77,008 80 ,437 , AveraRe Unincorporated County Area Funtional Residents 74,915 Avera a Expansion per Functional Resident $ 1 .51 ( 1 ) Source : Table VIII- 8 (2 ) Source : Table A- 7 The last component of the credit accounts for past payments of property taxes for vacant land . Here , the share of total vacant land (residential , commercial , and industrial) to total taxable value is reviewed to develop the percentage of the vacant land value to the total unincorporated county taxable value . Table VIII - 10 indicates that the vacant land taxable value is 11 . 11 percent of total taxable value . This percentage is adjusted to account for the portion of ad valorem taxes used toward capital expansion expenditures . Based on information provided in Table VIII - 8 , 76 percent of law enforcement capital expansion expenditures were funded with ad valorem tax revenues over the past six years . Applying this percentage to the vacant land value percentage results in an effective vacant land value percentage of 8 . 44 percent, which is used to give credit for past property taxes paid by property owners of vacant land . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 11 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentagel ' I Land Taxable Value Unincorporated County Vacant Land Value $ 732 , 6175920 Unincorporated County Total Property Value(2 ) $ 63596 , 3519608 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of the Total Property Value(3 ) 11 . 11 % Percent of Capital Expansion Expenditures Funded with Ad Valorem Tax Revenues(4 ) 76 % Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5) 1 8 . 44 % ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC (2 ) Includes structures . ( 3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $732 , 617 , 920/$ 6 , 596 , 351 ,608 (4 ) Source : Table VIII - 8 ( 5 ) Vacant land value as a percentage of total property value ( Item 3 ) multiplied by percent of capital expansion expenditures funded with ad valorem tax revenues ( Item 4 ) . The credit per functional resident is presented in Table VIII - 11 , and it is equal to the addition of the present value of the revenue per functional resident generated by expansion of the law enforcement program and the vacant land credit . The vacant land credit, or credit for past property taxes , is calculated by multiplying the effective vacant land value percentage by the facility cost per functional resident . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 12 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident Component/Calculation Step Figure Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident( l ) $ 1 . 51 Capitalization Rate(2 ) 5 % Capitalization Period(3 ) ( in years) 25 Credit per Resident(4 ) $21 . 28 Facility Cost per Functional Resident( 5 ) $ 191 . 40 Unincorporated County - - Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(6) 8 . 440/6 Revenue Credit for Past Property Taxes(7 ) $ 16 . 15 Total Revenue Credit(8) $37 . 43 ( 1 ) Source : Table VIII- 9 ( 2 ) Capitalization rate . is estimated at five percent ( 3 ) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years , which is typically when major renovations or replacement of capital facilities become necessary . (4) Present value of $ 1 . 51 ( Item 1 ) over a 25 -year period ( Item 3 ) with a capitalization rate at 5 percent (Item 2 ) (5 ) Source : Table VIII-7 (6) Source : Table VIII- 10 ( 7) Facility cost per functional resident (Item 5 ) multiplied by unincorporated county effective vacant land percent (Item 6) ( 8 ) The sum of the credit per resident ( Item 4 ) and revenue credit for past property taxes (Item 7) Existing Deficiencies Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard , there are no existing deficiencies of law enforcement facilities . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the existing LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost per resident and the total revenue credit per resident . Table VIII - 12 presents the calculation of the net law enforcement impact cost per functional resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 13 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 12 Net Impact Cost Impact Revenue Impact Cost '/ Credit Element Cost Credits Impact Cost Facility Cost per Functional Resident1 $ 191 . 40 Impact Credit Total Revenue Credit(2 ) ($ 37 .43 ) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(3 ) 1 $ 153 . 97 ( 1 ) Source : Table VIII-7 (2 ) Source : Table VIII - 11 (3 ) Facility cost per functional resident (Item 1 ) less total revenue credit ( Item 2 ) . The first section of Table VIII - 12 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $ 191 . The second section shows a revenue credit for the law enforcement impact fee of $37 per functional resident . The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total revenue credit . This results in a net impact cost per functional resident of $ 154 . Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table VIII - 13 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 14 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule 2'-Hour Functional Fee @ $ 154 er Impact Resident Functiona Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Coefficientt1l Residents Fee @3%131 , Fee(4) Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf ( under air) du 1 .414 $217 , 71 $6 . 53 $224. 24 1 ,500 to 2 ,499 sf (under air) du 1 . 589 $244 , 66 $7. 34 $252. 00 2 ,500 sf or Greater ( under air) du 1 . 723 $265 . 29 $7. 96 $273 . 25 Accessory Single Family du 0 . 960 $ 147 . 81 $4 . 43 $ 152 . 24 Multi Family du 0 . 960 $ 147 . 81 $4 , 43 $ 152 . 24 Mobile Home du 1 .0231 $ 157 . 51 $4 . 73 $ 162 . 24 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 0 . 908 $ 139 80 $4 . 19 $ 143 . 99 Motel Room 0 . 908 $ 139 80 $4 . 19 $ 143 . 99 Nursing Home Bed 0. 979 $ 150 . 74 $4 . 52 $ 155 . 26 ACLF Bed 0 . 9791_ $ 15074 $4 . 52 $ 155 . 26 Office and Financial Medical Office 15000 sf 1 . 702 $262 .06 $ 7 . 86 $269. 92 Bank 1 ,000 sf 1 . 941 $298 86 $ 8 . 97 $307. 83 Bank w/Drive- in 1 ,000 sf 1 . 591 $244 . 97 $7 . 35 $252 . 32 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1 . 401 $21571 $6 .47 $222 . 18 Office greater than 50 ,000 GSF 11000 sf 0. 741 $ 114 . 09 $3 .42 $ 117. 51 Industrial Manufacturing 13000 sf 0. 501 $ 77 . 14 $2 . 31 $ 79 . 45 Warehouse 17000 sf 0. 385 $ 59 . 28 $ 1 . 78 $61 . 06 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0 . 076 $ 11 . 70 $0 . 35 $ 12. 05 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 0 . 684 $ 105 , 32 $ 3 . 16 $ 108 . 48 Concrete Plant Acre 1 . 508 $23219 $6 . 97 $239 . 16 Sand Mining Acre 1 0 . 193 $29 . 72 $0 . 89 $ 30. 61 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 2 . 862 $440 . 66 $ 13 . 22 $453 . 88 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2 . 854 $439 . 43 $ 13 . 18 $452 . 61 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200 ,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2 . 920 $449 . 59 $ 13 . 49 $463 . 08 Retail over 200, 000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 . 995 $ 307 . 17 $ 9 . 22 $ 316 . 39 Gas Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $265 . 29 $ 7 . 96 $273 . 25 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 1 . 706 $262 . 67 $ 7 . 88 $270 . 55 Quality Restaurant IXosf 6. 764 $ 1 ,041 .45 $31 . 24 $ 1 ,072 . 69 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 7. 333 $ 11129 . 06 $33 . 87 $ 1 , 162 . 93 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 7. 902 $ 1 ,216 . 67 $ 36 . 50 $ 1 ,253 . 17 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 2 . 031 $ 312 . 71 $ 9 . 38 $ 322 . 09 Car Wash Bays 1 . 887 $290 . 54 $ 8 . 72 $299 . 26 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 1 4 . 243 $653 . 29 $ 19 . 60 $672 . 89 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 0 . 318 $48 . 96 $ 1 .47 $ 50 . 43 Recreational Golf Course hole 2 . 443 $ 376 . 15 $ 11 . 28 $387 . 43 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 .000 sf 2 . 374 $ 365 . 52 $ 10 . 97 $376 .49 County Park Acre 0 . 152 $23 . 401 $0 . 701 $24 . 10 Tennis Court Court 2 . 321 $ 357 . 36 $ 10 . 72 $368 . 08 Marina Berths 0 . 153 $23 . 561 EMME $0 . 711 $24 . 27 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 15 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 13 ( continued ) Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule 24-Hour Functional Fee @ $154 per Impact- Resident Functional Administrative Total Impact Land Use Unit Coefficient (l) Resident (2) Fee @3%t31 Fee(4) Governmental Post Office 100 sf 1 . 773 $272 . 99 $ 8 . 19 $281 . 18 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $264 . 52 $7. 94 $272 . 46 Government Office Building(5) 11000 sf 2 . 604 $400 . 94 $ 12 . 03 $412 . 97 Government Office Complex(5) 17000 sf 1 . 356 $208 . 78 $ 6 . 26 $215 . 04 Jail Bed 1 0 . 871 $ 134 . 11 $4 . 02 $ 138 . 13 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 1 . 009 $ 155 . 36 $4 . 66 $ 160 . 02 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 1 . 566 $241 . 12 $7 . 23 $248 . 35 Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf 1 . 633 $251 . 43 $7 . 54 $258 . 97 Church 17000 sf 0 . 533 $ 82 . 07 $2 . 46 $ 84 . 53 Movie Theater Screen 8 . 477 $ 1 ,305 . 20 $39 . 16 $ 15344 . 36 School (Elementary and Middle ) Student 0 . 094 $ 14 .47 $0 . 43 $ 14 . 90 School (High) Student 0. 120 $ 18 . 48 $0 . 55 $ 19 . 03 School (College) Student 0 . 104 $ 16 . 01 $0 . 48 $ 16 .49 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf 0. 633 $ 97. 46 $2 . 92 $ 100 . 38 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Functional resident coefficients from Section II , Table II- 18 for residential and transient, assisted, and group land uses and Table II-20 for non-residential land uses . (2 ) Proposed impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table VIII- 12 ) by the work residents per unit ( Item 1 ) for each land use . (3 ) Administrative fee is calculated at 3 percent of the impact fee . (4) Sum of fee per functional resident (Item 2 ) and administrative fee ( Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Government uses not included in the schedule , such as a sheriffs office, will be under land use categories Government Office Building and/or Government Office Complex , as appropriate . Government uses are exempt from paying impact fees used to develop that same use . This is because legally , if the development does not create a demand for the facility or, indeed, mitigates the need for the facility , it should not pay the fee . In other words , anew sheriffs office will not pay the law enforcement facilities impact fee . Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section II , Table II - 1 . Table VIII - 14 presents the law enforcement facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . To accommodate 2025 demand , the County will need to make an investment of $ 7 . 7 million . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 16 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Element Figure 2025 Unincorporated County Population( l ) 1325696 Adopted LOS Standard (Law Enforcement Officers per 1 , 000 Residents)(2 ) 2 . 09 2025 Law Enforcement Officers Demand(3 ) 278 Current Number of Law Enforcement Officers(4) 185 Additional Law Enforcement Officers Needed") 93 Cost per Law Enforcement Officer(6) $ 839216 Total Cost(') $797399088 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 ( 2) Source : Table VIII-2 ( 3 ) Adopted LOS standard ( Item 2 ) multiplied by 2025 unincorporated county population ( Item 1 ) divided by 1 ,000 . (4 ) Source : Table VIII -2 ( 5 ) 2025 law enforcement officers demand (Item 3 ) less current number of law enforcement officers ( Item 4) ( 6 ) Source : Table VIII -7 (7 ) Additional law enforcement officers needed (Item 5 ) multiplied by cost per law enforcement officer (Item 6 ) . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per functional resident calculated in Table VIII - 12 , it is estimated that the law enforcement facilities impact fee revenues through 2025 will amount to $ 6 . 1 million . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 17 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Unincorporated New ' Estimated Year County Population(,) Population(�) Revenues(3) 2004 883710 N/A N/A 2005 909100 15390 $ 1943058 2006 919867 15767 $ 246 , 691 2007 93 , 669 19802 $ 2519577 2008 959506 1 , 837 $ 256 , 464 2009 97, 379 19873 $261 ,490 2010 995288 1 , 909 $2665515 2011 1015435 25147 $299, 743 2012 1039631 2 , 196 $ 3061584 2013 1055875 25244 $ 313 , 285 2014 108 , 168 29293 $ 320 , 126 2015 1101513 21345 $ 3279385 2016 1129676 25163 $ 3019976 2017 1149882 21206 $ 3079980 2018 1179130 2 ,248 $ 3139843 2019 1199423 25293 $ 3209126 2020 1219741 29318 $3235616 2021 123 , 851 25110 $ 294 , 577 2022 125 , 999 25148 $ 2999882 2023 1283185 29186 $ 3059187 2024 1305410 25225 $ 3101632 2025 1 1329696 29286 $ 3199148 $ 6 , 140 , 885 Fee per functional resident(4) $ 153 . 97 Fee per resident(s ) $ 139 . 61 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (projections for some years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Projections are based on growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections . (2 ) Additional population per year ( 3 ) Additional population per year (Item 2 ) multiplied by fee per resident ( Item 5 ) . ( 4) Source : Table VIII- 12 ( 5 ) Fee per functional resident (Item 4 ) multiplied by functional population ( from Table VIII -4) divided by resident population ( from Table VIII- 2 ) . As presented in Table VIII - 14 , the projected 2025 law enforcement capital need to meet the adopted LOS due to growth is $ 7 . 7 million . Thus , the projected impact fee revenues need to be supplemented with other funds to accommodate this amount . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 18 Impact Fee Study For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits ) of infrastructure needed to serve each unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If growth rate slows down, less revenue will be generated and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII - 19 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 VIII -20 Impact Fee Study IX. Public Education Facilities This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the school impact fee . In order to develop the proposed school impact fee schedule by residential unit type , 11 major elements associated with the development of a school impact fee must be addressed . These elements include the following . • Inventory • Population • Level of Service • Cost Component • Credit Component • Net Impact Cost per Student • Existing Deficiencies • Student Generation Rate • Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule • Future Demand Analysis • Estimated Revenues These 11 elements are summarized throughout this section , with the result being the proposed school impact fee schedule . Inventory According to the information provided by the School District, the Indian River County School District operates 18 public education facilities serving pre -kindergarten through the 12th grade . These facilities total more than 2 . 3 million square feet and have a capacity of 17 , 617 student stations . The School District ' s current inventory of school facilities includes both permanent and relocatable student stations, i . e . , student stations housed in portable facilities . New construction of units that are separate from main education facilities , but considered by the School District to be permanent buildings are considered to be permanent facilities . The School District ' s current inventory of school facilities can be found in Appendix D , Table D - 1 . It should be noted that the School District also operates four nontraditional schools , including adult and alternative learning facilities , as well as five administrative and support facilities . To ensure that the impact fee initially reflects only classroom space for grades pre -kindergarten through the senior year of high school , adult and alternative learning facilities and administrative and support facilities are not included in the cost calculations . The cost of adult and alternative learning facilities could be added in subsequent updates of the school impact fee . Therefore , for the purposes of this study , only data pertaining to elementary , middle , and high schools will be included . The locations of the education facilities listed in Table D - 1 are also shown on Map IX - 1 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 2 Impact Fee Study 1:134701 .04-IRC Impact Fee StuOyWapsGSchwl.mxd Created May 25. 2004 a 94 I �W 0 m W9 m fn n ' 0 O O C. _ ! m !L .fir nx1O o 0 !'G t = AMN I Z m < N O g n - m Pr m Ch o m 1 1 o o i' 3 0 { m t i CA 512 _ 0 C �' N O m N N 0 I (Dmmamdm , 171 ❑ a m m m `� m 1n CR W7 3 Q 3 M 3 S 3 ern 0 _S G) cn --i [n < m Q o Q N 3 ? N N N m CD �. Mmm � �' 1 z ? dno m i 1, ND AVE ` ti ti � � 360N Da ON~ y 14TH AVE 74tH ST - w SCNUMANN OR 06TH AVE NTH AVE NTH AVE BBTM AVE fd O r = y 56TH AVE 43RD AVE X{ 4Ayp�j a I 37TH AVE TY N O I . N I-. 20TH AVE v ,e.,,*..A.., �" F I I lows1%10 v3 ,- 1 p NO • I . f , •^ N N Dw C t Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX -4 Impact Fee Study Population The County ' s public education facilities provide services to the entire county . While attendance boundaries are set for individual schools , these boundaries can be redrawn in order to balance where students live with where there is available school capacity . Further, school capacity that is added in one part of the county can serve new development in another part of the county . Therefore , the appropriate impact fee district for public education facilities is countywide . Level of Service For IRC , the LOS for public school facilities is measured in terms of square feet per student station . Based on the information provided by the IRC School District, IRC ' s LOS is 144 . 71 square feet per student station for elementary schools , 117 . 26 square feet for middle schools , and 147 . 57 square feet for high schools . The weighted average LOS for all public schools is 139 . 07 square feet per student station . The LOS is based on the School District ' s inventory of school facilities for the 2008/09 school year . Due to the School District ' s plans to replace all portable student stations over the next five years , the School District ' s 2008/09 inventory is more reflective of what the actual LOS will be once the portable classrooms are replaced with permanent classroom facilities . Because the future five -year inventory is used, subsequent calculations include the projected student enrollment for the 2008/09 school year and the assumption that all student stations are permanent student stations . The School District' s 2008/09 public school inventory can be found in Appendix D , Table D -2 . Table IX - 1 presents the calculation of the current LOS . The County ' s Comprehensive Plan does not include an adopted LOS for public school facilities . Therefore , the existing LOS will become the adopted LOS standard once the necessary amendments are made to the Comprehensive Plan . Table IX = 1 Current Level of Service ( 2004 ) ( ' ) LOSStandard Total Square Number f [Square Feet per , School Type Footage Student Stations Student Station Elementary School 1 , 124 ,095 7 , 768 144 . 71 Middle School 5421435 4 , 626 117 .26 High School 993 , 117 6 , 730 147 . 57 Total 2 , 659 , 647 195124 N/A Weighted Average All Schools N/A N/A 139. 07 ( 1 ) Source : Appendix D, Table D -2 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 5 Impact Fee Study Cost Component Cost per Student Station In determining the cost of providing public school facilities in IRC , the first step is to calculate the facility cost per student station . Several cost components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a school facility . These cost components include construction costs , design and engineering costs associated with construction, public utility connection costs , furniture , fixtures , and equipment (FF & E) costs , and the cost of land . The weighted average construction cost per square foot for each of type of school is developed based on these cost components . School Facility Costs In order to determine the cost per square foot to construct elementary , middle , and high schools in IRC , the recommended construction cost per student station for each school type by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) is used . The DOE calculates the typical construction cost per student station figures on a monthly basis , using the Consumer Price Index (CPI ) . For calculation purposes , the DOE construction cost figures for January 2005 are used . Because the DOE costs are inflated on a monthly basis according to the CPI , these costs do not take into account the recent increase in school facility costs that have occurred statewide , due to the 2004 hurricane season and market fluctuations for building materials . In addition to the actual cost of the school facility , design and engineering costs , public utility connection costs , FF &E costs , and the cost of land are also determined for each type of school by taking a percentage of the total construction cost per facility . The various percentages used for each of these cost calculations are based on the costs of recently constructed school facilities in IRC . Land Costs In addition to the cost of constructing the school facility , the cost of that land that the school is constructed on must be considered . The land cost per student station for each school type is determined by using a cost per acre figure of $34 , 136 , which is based on recent sales of vacant parcels in IRC of 40 to 130 acres , as shown in Appendix B , Table B -2 . The cost of land per square foot by school type is determined by multiplying the $34 , 136 per acre by the typical number of acres purchased for each type of school by the School District, which is 20 acres per elementary school , 40 acres per middle school , and 80 acres per high school and dividing by the typical square footage of a elementary , middle , and high school in IRC . The cost of land per square foot is then added to the total facility cost per square foot by school type . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 6 Impact Fee Study Table IX - 2 provides a summary of the cost per square foot by school type , as well as the cost per student station, based on the current LOS for each school type . The result is a weighted average cost per student station of $ 21 , 897 . Table IX =2 Facility Cost per Student Station Elementary Middle High Weighted Cost Component School School School Average Square Feet per Student Station (LOS )( ' ) 144 . 711 117 . 261 147 . 571 139 . 07 School Facility Cost Components : Construction Cost per Square Foot(2 ) $92 . 56 $ 131 . 81 $ 138 . 60 $ 128 .31 Design Cost per Square Foot(3 ) $4 . 63 $6 . 59 $6 .93 $6 .42 Engineering Cost per Square Foot(4) $0.46 $0 . 66 $0. 69 $0 .64 Utilities Connection Cost per Square Foot(4) $0 .46 $0 . 66 $0 . 69 $0 .64 FF&E Cost per Square Foot(5) $ 8 . 33 $ 11 . 86 $ 12 . 47 $ 11 . 55 Land Cost per Square Foot(6) $8 . 58 $ 11 . 09 $9 . 74 $9 . 89 Total Facility Cost per Square Foot $ 115 . 02 $ 162 . 67 $ 169 . 12 $ 157 .45 Facility Cost per Student Station(7) $ 16,644 . 54 $ 19 , 074. 68 $24,957 . 04 $21 , 897 . 13 ( 1 ) Source : Table IX- 1 (2 ) Source : Florida Department of Education maximum construction cost per student station factors for January 2005 , based on Consumer Price Index . Includes construction of facility only - furniture and equipment not included in cost . ( 3 ) Design costs based on 5 percent of the total construction cost per square foot, based on information provided by the IRC School District on recent schools constructed in IRC . (4 ) Engineering and utility connection costs based on 0 . 5 percent of the total construction cost per square foot, based on information provided by the IRC School District on recent schools constructed in IRC . ( 5 ) FF&E costs based on 9 percent of the total construction cost per square foot, based on information provided by the IRC School District on recent schools constructed in IRC . (6) Based on a cost of $ 34 , 136 per acre using recently purchased vacant land parcels of 40 to 130 acres ( Source : Appendix B , Table B -2 ) . The land cost per acre is then multiplied by 20 acres per elementary , 40 acres per middle, or 80 acres per high school . Land cost per square foot is determined by multiplying the prototypical number of acres for each school type by the cost per acre of $34 , 136 and dividing by the average square footage per school type ( 81 , 164 square feet for elementary , 123 , 123 for middle, and 279 ,294 for high schools ) . The average square footage by school type is calculated by multiplying the square feet per student station by the maximum number of student stations for new schools , per IRC School District . ( 7 ) Total facility cost per square foot multiplied by the number of square feet per student station (Item 1 ) for each school type . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 7 Impact Fee Study Total Impact Cost per Student Station The calculation of the total impact cost per student is based on the facility cost per student station figures presented in Table IX -2 and is calculated using the distribution of projected students for the 2008/09 school year, which is derived using data provided by the IRC School District . The estimated number of students projected for the 2008/09 school year is used to properly determine the projected distribution of students by school type over the next five years . As previously mentioned , this figure is used because the current LOS is established based on the 2008/09 public school inventory , as provided in Appendix D , Table D- 2 . The weighted total facility impact cost per student is determined by multiplying the weighted cost per student station by the respective distribution factors for each school type . This step also adjusts the cost per student station to the cost per student . Based on the information presented in Table IX -3 , the weighted total facility impact cost per student is $ 17 , 958 . The cost of debt for school facilities is also added to the impact cost per student and is based on the present value of the interest paid on the five -year average annual amount of debt associated with expansion projects , per student . The present value of interest paid for the cost of debt per student is added to the previously calculated total weighted cost per student figure for facilities calculated in the previous step . The result is a total impact cost per student of $ 18 , 012 . The items discussed in this section , as well as the resulting total impact cost per student, are included in Table IX -3 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 8 Impact Fee Study Table IX =3 Total Impact Cost per Student Elementary Middle High Weighted Avg/ Calculation Step School Schbol School Total Facility Impact Cost per Student Facility Cost per Student StationM $ 161644. 54 $ 19,074 . 68 $245957 . 04 $21 , 897 . 13 Projected Student Capacity for 2008/09 School Year 85252 35584 3 ,621 15 ,457 Total Cost for All Students(3 ) $ 137,3501744 $68 ,363 ,653 $90,3699442 $296,083 ,839 Projected Students for 2008/09 School Year(2) 71548 43074 4,866 161488 Distribution of Projected Students for 2008/09 School Year(') 45 . 8% 24 .7% 29. 5% 100. 0% Weighted Average Total Facility Impact Cost per Student(5) $ 189196.97 $ 16o780.471 $ 18,571 .611 $ 179957.54 Debt impact Cost per Student Five-Year Average Annual Debt for Capital Expansion(2) $ 112521902 Average Annual Students for 2004/05 through 2008/0916) 16,266 Amount Financed per Student $77 . 03 Average Cost of Financing 501( Annual Interest ' $3 . 85 Capitalization Period, Years 25 Present Value Interest of Debt per Student(7) $54.28 Total Impact Cost per Student(8) $ 18,011 .82 ( 1 ) Source : Table IX -2 ( 2) Source : School District, IRC ( 3 ) The total cost per student station ( Item 1 ) multiplied by the projected student capacity for the 2008 /09 (Item 2 ) . (4 ) The distribution of projected students for the 2008/09 school year is calculated by dividing the projected number of students for the 2008/09 school year for each school type by the total projected students for the 2008/09 school year. ( 5 ) The weighted total facility impact cost per student by school type is calculated by dividing the total cost for all students for each school type ( Item 3 ) by the respective projected number of students for each school type . (6 ) The five-year average annual number of students ( for the 2004/05 through 2008 /09 school years ) is used to determine the five-year average debt per student for that same time period . Note that the five-year average annual student figure is different than the total projected students for the 2008/09 school year, which is derived using information from the State of Florida Department of Education Preliminary Capital Outlay FTE Forecast for Facilities Planning for IRC . ( 7 ) The present value of the interest paid on the debt per student at 5 percent interest over a period of 25 years . ( 8 ) The total impact cost per student is the sum of the weighted total facilities impact cost per student ( Item 5 ) and the present value interest of debt per student (Item 7 ) . Credit Component In addition to the school impact fees , other revenues generated by new development that are used towards capital expansion of school facilities must be considered in the credit component of the school impact fee . This ensures that each new residential development pays the appropriately calculated impact fee based on the type of housing unit, less any additional revenues included as part of the impact fee credit . A credit for school impact Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX -9 Impact Fee Study fees is given only for revenue used towards the capital expansion of school facilities , and not for maintenance or operation costs . The following state and local sources of revenues will be considered in developing impact fee credits . • Public Education Capital Outlay ; • State Capital Outlay and Debt Service; • State "Classroom for Kids" ; and • Local revenues generated for taxes paid on vacant land . State Revenue Credit for Expansion of Student Stations The Florida State Constitution authorizes two sources of revenue for school districts : Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO ) and Capital Outlay and Debt Service (CO &DS ) . Revenues from PECO are generated through a 2 . 5 percent tax imposed on the gross receipts of sellers of electricity , natural or manufactured gas , and telecommunication services in the State . Revenues generated from this tax are used to fund capital renovation and expansion projects for public education facilities . CO &DS revenues are generated from the licensing of motor vehicles and motor homes and are also used for capital renovation and expansion projects for public education facilities . CO & DS revenues are distributed annually among school districts and community college districts based on a constitutional formula . 3 In addition to the PECO and CO & DS revenues, the School District also uses " Classroom for Kids " revenues for expansion projects . According to the IRC School District, PECO , CO & DS , and " Classroom for Kids " revenues are used only for capital expansion expenditures , and not for renovation expenditures . Therefore , these revenues are included in the State credit calculation in Table IX -4 . Based on budgeted revenues for these three sources that will be available over the next five years , the total projected state revenues available for the expansion of student stations is nearly $ 10 . 2 million . Thus , the annual PECO , CO &DS , and "Classroom for Kids" funds are divided by the 1 , 804 planned student stations that, according to the IRC School District, are expected to be constructed over the next five years . Table IX -4 indicates a state revenue credit per student of $ 5 , 652 . ' State of Florida, Local Government Information Handbook, September 2000 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 10 Impact Fee Study Table IX =4 State Revenue Credit Calculation Step figure '! Total State Revenues $ 101196 , 596 Planned Student Stations('- ) 1 , 804 State Revenue Per Student(3) $ 59652 . 22 ( 1 ) Source : IRC School District ' s Capital Outlay Five-Year Plan Revenue Forecast, adopted September 7 , 2004 . (2 ) Source : IRC School District staff, based on the Capital Outlay Five-Year Plan Revenue Forecast, adopted September 7 , 2004 . (3 ) State revenue per student is calculated by dividing the total expected state revenue (Item 1 ) by the total number of planned student stations ( Item 2 ) . 2- Mill Revenue Credit for Expansion of Student Stations The School District has the authority to levy up to 2 -mills of ad valorem tax to generate revenue for education . Revenues generated by the 2 -mill tax are used for both capital renovation and capital expansion . According to the School District ' s Capital Outlay Five -Year Plan Revenue Forecast, it is projected that there will be nearly $ 138 million in revenues generated by the 2 - mill tax over the next five years, 27 . 3 percent of which will be used to fund capital expansion projects . Using this information, the 2 -mill credit is determined by taking the percentage of average annual five -year 2 -mill revenues for capital expansion , which is $ 7 . 5 million, and dividing that amount by the five -year average annual number of student stations for the next five years of 16 ,266 . This results in an annual 2 -mill revenue of $ 463 per student . The present value of this annual revenue per student is based on a capitalization rate of 5 percent over a capitalization period of 25 years . This results in a present value credit of $ 6 , 527 per student, as illustrated in Table IX - 5 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 11 Impact Fee Study Table IM 2 - Mill Revenue Credit Calculation Ste Fi ure Total Five -Year Projected 2 -Mill Revenues( i ) $ 137 , 968 , 539 Percent of Five-Year 2 - Mill Revenue used for Capital Expansion(2 ) 27 . 3 % Average Annual Five- Year 2 -Mill Revenue Used for Capital Expansion(3 ) $7 , 5331082 Total Five-Year Average Annual Students(4) 16 ,266 2-Mill Annual Revenue Per Student(5 ) $463 . 12 Capitalization Rate 5 . 00 % Capitalization Period , Years 25 Present Value of Annual 2-Mill Revenue(6) $6,527. 19 ( 1 ) Source : IRC School District ' s Capital Outlay Five - Year Plan Revenue Forecast, adopted September 7 , 2004 . ( 2 ) Ratio of five-year 2-mill revenue used for expansion to total 2 -mill revenues , from the Capital Outlay Five-Year Plan Revenue Forecast, adopted September 7 , 2004 . ( 3 ) Adjusted total five-year projected 2 - mill revenues ( Item 1 ) multiplied by the percentage of total five- year 2- mill revenues used for capital expansion ( Item 2 ) and divided by five years to determine the average annual five-year 2 -mill revenue used for capital expansion . (4 ) Source : Table IX- 3 ( 5 ) The 2 - mill revenue per student figure is calculated by dividing the total expected 2 -mill revenue used for expansion ( Item 3 ) by the average annual number of planned student stations (Item 4) . (6) The present value of the 2 -mill revenue per student (Item 5 ) at capitalization rate of 5 percent over 25 years . Vacant Land Credit The last credit is for past payments of property taxes for vacant land . Here , the value of the 2 - mills of vacant land used for capital expansion is calculated per student . The value of countywide vacant land is $ 1 . 08 billion, of which $2 . 1 million is attributed to the 2 - mills levied by the School District . Of the 2 -mill revenue levied , approximately 27 . 3 percent is used for capital expansion . Therefore , the value of countywide vacant land for the portion of the 2 - mill revenues for expansion of school facilities is $ 590 , 127 . This amount is used to give credit for past property taxes paid by property owners of vacant land on a per- student basis . The total credit amount for vacant land is determined by dividing the value of 2 - mills of vacant land used for expansion by the average annual number of student stations . This results in a vacant land credit of $36 . 28 per student . The present value of the vacant land revenue per student is based on a capitalization rate of 5 percent over a capitalization period of 25 years . This results in a present value credit of $ 511 per student . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 12 Impact Fee Study Table IX -6 Vacant Land Credit Calculation Step Figure Total Value of Vacant Land - Countywide( l ) $ 1508098199230 Value of 2 -Mills of Vacant Land(2 ) $2 , 1619638 Percent of Five- Year 2 -Mill Revenue Used for Capital Expansion(3 ) 27 . 3 % Value of 2- Mills of Vacant Land Used for Capital Expansion(4) $ 590 , 127 Total Five-Year Average Annual Students(5 ) 16 , 266 Value of 2 -Mills of Vacant Land Per Student(6) $36 . 28 Capitalization Rate 5 . 00% Capitalization Period, Years 25 Present Value of Annual Vacant Land Revenue(7) $ 511 .33 ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC ( 2 ) Total countywide value of vacant land (Item 1 ) apportioned to the 2 - mill revenues generated for the IRC School District . ( 3 ) Source : Table IX- 5 ( 4 ) Value of 2 -mills of vacant land (Item 2 ) multiplied by the percent of five-year 2 -mill revenue used for capital ( Item 3 ) . ( 5 ) Source : Table IX- 3 (6 ) The 2 -mill revenue per student figure is calculated by dividing the value of the 2 - mill revenue from vacant land used for expansion (Item 4) by the average annual number of planned student stations (Item 5 ) . ( 7 ) The present value of the 2 -mill revenue per student (Item 6 ) at capitalization rate 5 percent over a period of 25 years . Existing Deficiencies Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard , there are no existing deficiencies of public school facilities . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the current LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Impact Cost per Student The following table provides a summary of the three revenue credits discussed previously , with the result being the net impact cost per student of $ 5 , 321 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 13 Impact Fee Study Table IX -7 Net Impact Cost per Student Calculation Step Figure Total Impact Cost per Student( l ) $ 189011 . 82 State Revenue Credit(2) $ 5 , 652 . 22 2 -Mill Revenue Credit(3 ) $ 6 , 527 . 19 Vacant Land Credit(4) $ 511 . 33 Total Revenue Credit(5) $ 129690 . 73 Net Impact Cost per Student(6) $59321 . 08 ( 1 ) Source : Table IX- 3 (2 ) Source : Table IX-4 (3 ) Source :. Table IX- 5 (4) Source : Table IX -6 ( 5 ) Sum of state revenue credit (Item 2 ) , 2 -mill revenue credit (Item 3 ), and vacant land credit (Item 4 ) . (6 ) Total impact cost per student ( Item 1 ) less total revenue credit per student ( Item 5 ) . Student Generation Rate The number of students living in a housing unit varies depending on the type of residential housing . Therefore , school impact fees are often assessed based on the student generation rates of specific residential use types . For IRC , the student generation rate per residential unit is based on three types of residential uses : single family , multi - family , and mobile homes . The student generation rate , or number of students per unit figure , is developed by dividing the number of students within a particular residential use type by the total number of units of that land use in IRC . The student generation rates by residential use type are provided in Table IX - 8 . Table IX =8 Student Generation Rate Residential Land Use Ty pe Number of Studentst1l Number of Units (2) Students per Unit Single Family 11 , 942 363240 0 .330 Multi-Family 11393 141792 0 . 094 Mobile Home 7971 69786 0 . 117 Weighted Average Residential 147132 57 , 8181 0 .244 ( 1 ) Source : Census 2000 and Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ) 2000 (2 ) Source : Section II , Table II -2 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 14 Impact Fee Study Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule To determine the proposed school impact fee for each residential land use , the net impact cost per student, from Table IX - 7 , is multiplied by the student generation rate for each residential use , from Table IX - 8 . The resulting net impact fees per residential use type are presented in the proposed impact fee schedule in Table IX-9 below . Table IX -9 Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule Impact Net Impact Cost Students Net Cos Administrative Total Impact Residential Land Use Unit per Student") per Unit(2) per Unitt , Fee(4) Fee(5) Single Famildu $5 ,321 . 08 0. 330 $ 1 , 75596 $ 52 . 68 $ 15808. 64 Accessory Single Family du $55321 . 08 0. 094 $ 500 . 18 $ 15 . 01 $ 515. 19 Multi -Family du $5,321 . 08 0. 094 $ 500 . 18 $ 15 . 01 $515. 19 Mobile Home du $5 ,321 . 08 0. 117 $622 . 57 $ 18 . 68 , $641241 ( 1 ) Source : Table IX-7 (2 ) Source : Table IX - 8 ( 3 ) Net impact cost per unit is the product of the net impact cost per student (Item 1 ) and the number of students per unit (Item 2 ) . (4 ) An administrative fee of 3 percent of the net impact fee . ( 5 ) Total impact fee is the sum of the net impact fee (Item 3 ) and administrative fee (Item 4) . Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section 11 , Table II - 1 . Table IX - 10 presents the public school facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 15 Impact Fee Study Table IX - 10 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Elementary Middle High Calculation Component School School School Projected Students By Year 2025( 1 ) 105652 6 , 250 77977 Square Feet per Student Station (LO S)(2) 144 . 71 117 . 26 147 . 57 Necessary 2025 Square Footage(' ) 11541 ,468 7325848 1 , 177 , 166 Current Square Footage (2008/09 School Year)M 151245095 542,435 993 , 117 Square Feet Still Needed in 2025 (5) 4179373 1901413 184 , 049 Facility Cost per Square Foot(6) $ 115 . 02 $ 162 . 67 $ 169 . 12 Total Cost By School Type - Year 2025(' 1 $485006, 272 $30 , 974 , 462 $31 , 126, 348 Total Cost For All Schools - Year 2025 $ 11091079082 ( 1 ) School District, IRC (2 ) Source : Table IX- 1 ( 3 ) Projected students by year 2025 (Item 1 ) multiplied by square feet per student station (Item 2 ) . (4 ) Source : Appendix D , Table D- 2 ( 5 ) Necessary 2025 square footage ( Item 3 ) less the total square footage available in 2008/09 . (6) Source : Table IX-2 (7 ) Square footage still needed in 2025 (Item 5 ) multiplied by the cost per square foot for each school type ( Item 6 ) . As presented in Table IX- 10 , the School District will need additional school facility square footage requiring an investment of $ 110 . 1 million by 2025 . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per resident calculated in Table IX - 11 , it is estimated that the school impact fee revenues through 2025 will generate $43 . 9 million . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 16 Impact Fee Study Table IX - 11 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Countywide NewEstimated Year PopuIationt1l PopulA nt�1 Revenues 2004 1389393 2005 1409562 21169 $ 13387 , 921 2006 143 , 318 25756 $ 1 , 7639537 2007 1465129 29811 $ 117985731 2008 1489996 207 $ 1 , 8341565 2009 151 , 918 25922 $ 1 , 8691759 2010 154 , 896 25978 $ 1 , 9055592 2011 1589245 39349 $ 2 , 142 , 992 2012 161 , 671 3 ,426 $ 2 , 192 , 263 2013 1651171 3 , 500 $ 212395615 2014 168 , 749 3 , 578 $ 2 , 289 , 526 2015 1725407 31658 $ 213403718 2016 1759781 3 , 374 $23158 , 989 2017 1799223 3 , 442 $ 2 , 202 , 501 2018 1829730 3 , 507 $ 2 ,2445094 2019 186 , 308 35578 $ 2 , 2899526 2020 1899924 31616 $ 2 , 313 , 842 2021 193 , 215 35291 $ 211055878 2022 196 , 566 3 , 351 $ 29144 , 271 2023 1995976 3 , 410 $ 211825025 2024 2035448 31472 $ 29221 , 698 20251 207, 014 3 , 566 $ 29281 , 848 $ 435909 , 891 Fee per residential unit(4) $ 19298 .34 Fee per resident(5) $ 639 . 89 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II - 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II - 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections ) . ( 2) Population growth per year, based annual population in Item 1 . ( 3 ) New population ( Item 2 ) multiplied by fee per resident ( Item 5 ) . (4 ) Net impact cost per student ( Source : Table IX- 7 ) multiplied by the average number of students per residential land use ( Source : Table IX- 8 ) . (5 ) To convert the fee per residential unit to fee per resident, the fee per residential unit (Item 4 ) is divided by the weighted average number of residents per unit ( from Table 11 -6) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 17 Impact Fee Study As presented in Table IX - 10 , the projected school facility capital expansion costs through 2025 will be $ 110 . 1 million if the existing LOS is adopted . Hence , the impact fee revenues will need to be supplemented with other revenue sources to accommodate this cost . For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high , the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If growth rate slows down, less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 IX - 18 Impact Fee Study X. Parks and 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 , ten major elements must be addressed , including : • Inventory • Population • Level of Service Standard • Cost Component • Credit Component • Existing Deficiencies • Net Parks and Recreation Impact Cost • Future Demand Analysis • Proposed Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule • Estimated Revenues These ten elements are summarized throughout this section, with the result being the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule . Inventory According to information provided by IRC , the County owns 26 parks , two 18 - hole golf courses , and one shooting range (of which the County operates , staffs , and owns the equipment, but does not own the land) . These include the parks and recreation facilities that are located within the unincorporated county area . In addition , the County maintains four parks that it does not own ; these parks are not included in the analysis to develop the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule . IRC parks and recreational facilities can be classified into three different types , depending on the areas that they serve : • Neighborhood Parks • Community Parks • Regional Parks Table X - 1 provides an inventory of all parks and recreation facilities that are located within unincorporated IRC , along with the facilities that are available at each park location . Additionally , Map X - 1 shows where each park is located . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X- 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -2 Impact Fee Study Table X-1 Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory - Unincorporated County Area(' , Olympic Total Basketball Community Jogging Picnic Play- Swimming Aquatic Softball Tennis Volleyball Soccer Name of the Facility Acreage Ownership Class Restrooms Court Center Trails Pavilion ground Pool Center Field Courts Court ] - Field ` Ambersand Beach Park 0 . 30 Coun R Boat Island 5 .00 FIND"' R I Blue Cypress Lake Park 1000 County R I I C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area 4 56 SIRWMDt4J R 2 1 CR-512 Recreation Area 6 .00 SJRWMD14j R 1 2 Dale Wimbrow Park 2000 County R 1 0 . 50 3 1 Donald MacDonald Park 54 .00 County R 1 0. 5 1 iRC Fairgrounds 150.00 County R 2 03 1 Gifford Park 4000 County R 3 2 I LO 3 1 ( 2 2 l Golden Sands Park 14 . 30 County R I 4 l Grovenor Estates Park 3 .00 County N Helen Hanson Park 2. 00 County N I 1 I Hosie-Schumann Park 2 . 00 County N 1 IRC Shooting Range 80 .00 State R 1 Joe S . Earman Park 4 .00 County R 2 Kiwanis-Hobart Park 77. 00 County R 3 1 1 .0 7 2 2 MLK Park 2 .00 County N I North County Regional Park 115 .00 State R I 0 . 5 1 1 4 Oslo Road Boat Ramp 0. 30 County R Pine Hill (Lone Pine) 0. 50 County N 1 1 Roseland Community Center 7.00 County N I I I Round Island Beach Park 9. 36 County R 1 0.3 6 I Round Island Park West 1 L 13 County R 1 0. 3 1 1 Sebastian Canoe Launch Park 1 .03 County C 1 South County Regional Park 80.00 County R 1 2 1 . 0 4 1 4 2 1 Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Complex) 74 . 00 County R 1 0 3 1 Wabasso Beach Park L00 County R 1 2 West Wabasso Park 10 . 00 County N I 2 2 1 I Wabasso School Park 7.36 County N I 1 Wabasso Causeway Park 5 .00 County R l 7 45 Street Dock 1 .00 County R Sandridge 380. 00 County Golf Course IRC Park and Recreation Maintenance facility N/A County N/A Total Basketball Community Jogging Picnic Play- Swimming Aquatic Softball Tennis Volleyball Soccer Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Acreage Restrooms Court Center Trails Pavilion ground Pool Center Field Courtsl Court Field Neighborhood Parks 33 . 86 4 5 1 0.0 3 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 Communi Parks 1 . 03 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional Parks 551 . 39 23 5 1 5 . 5 45 8 I 1 1 12 4 3 2 TOTAL 586.28 27 10 2 5.50 49 13 1 1 1 14 4 3 2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County May 2005 X-3 Impact Fee Study Table X- 1 (Continued ) Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory — Unincorporated County Area(' ) Sporting Multi- Total u ti-Total Archery Boat Golf Canoe Fair- Dune `. Lifeguard Fishing Clay Archery Rifle Pistol Purpose ` Name of the Facility Acreage Ownership Class Range Ramp Course Launch ground Walkover Tower - Pier Range Course Range Range Building(z) - Miscellaneous Ambersand Beach Park 0. 30 County R 1 Boat Island 5 . 00 FIND(" R 4 Blue Cypress Lake Park 1000 County R 2 1 C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area 4. 56 SJRWMD141 R 4 CR-512 Recreation Area 6.00 SJRWMD141 R 2 1 Dale Wimbrow Park 2000 County R 1 Donald MacDonald Park 54.00 County R 1 I 2,500 sf IRC Fairgrounds 150 .00 County R I I 60,000 sf Ex o Pavilions (3) Gifford Park 4000 County R Golden Sands Park 14 .30 County R I I Grovenor Estates Park 3 .00 County N Helen Hanson Park 2 .00 County N Hosie-Schumann Park 2.00 County N IRC Shooting Range 80.00 State I R I I 1 1 1 , 500 sf Large Storage Building Joe S . Earman Park 4 ,50 County R 1 Kiwanis-Hobart Park 77.00 County R MLK Park 2.00 County N North County Regional Park 115 .00 State R 400 sf Historical Info Center Oslo Road Boat Ramp 0.30 County R 1 Pine Hill (Lone Pine) 0. 50 County N Roseland Community Center 7.00 County N 1 Round Island Beach Park 9.36 County R I I Round Island Park West 11 . 13 County R 4 1 Viewing Tower Sebastian Canoe Launch Park 1 03 County C 1 South County Regional Park 80,00 County R 900 sf Maintenance Facility Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Complex) 74 .00 County R 1 I Wabasso Beach Park I .00 County R 2 1 West Wabasso Park 10.00 County N Wabasso School Park 7.36 County N Wala"oCauseway Park 5 ,00 County R 3 2 2 45 Street Dock 1 .00 County R 1 Sandrid a 380 .00 County Golf Course [RC Park and Recreation Maintenance Facility N/A County N/A 2 Parks Div. Maintenance Facility Total Archery Boat Golf Canoe Fair- Dune Lifeguard Fishing Clay Archery Rine Pistol Purpose Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Acreage Range Ramp Course Launch ground Walkover Tower Pier Range Course Range Range Building(2) Miscellaneous Neighborhood Parks 33 .86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Communi Parks 1 .03 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Re Tonal Parks 551 . 39 1 18 0 3 1 6 4 13 1 1 1 1 42, 500 sf N/A TOTAL 586.28 1 18 0 4 I 6 4 14 I I 1 1 42,500 sf N/A ( 1 ) Source: Office of Management and Budget and Recreation Department, IRC (2) Includes one 20,000 square foot outdoor expo pavilions, one 20,000 square foot outdoor agricultural pavilion, and one 20,000 square foot indoor expo pavilion located at IRC fairgrounds. (3) Florida Inland Navigation District (4) St . John ' s River Water Management District (5 ) Sand Ridge Golf Course is comprised of two 18-hole golf courses. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X-5 Impact Fee Study " County Parks O ! R1 > 2 1 0 2 Miles " 1 Ambersand Beach Park " 2 Boat Island 22 plA v 3 Blue Cypress Lake Park 7 ; 4 C-54 Slick Marsh Recreation Area —_ — —A_— —T _ ' 12 o 5 CR512 Recreation Area 6 Dale VJmbrow Park ` © of 1` , 27 7 Donald MacDonald Park 8 IRC Fairgrounds 9 Gifford Park m 10 10 Golden Sands Park O P EMIHG ST 11 Grovenor Estates Park 14 q o O j 12 Helen Hanson Park f�t�8flttC 13 Hosie-Schumann Park X18 25 e�ps 0 29 ' 28 i7lanti 14 Shooting Range ^ 32 15 Joe S . Earman Park m 475 16 Kiwanis-Hobart Park ca sin 17 MLK ParkI _ 18 North County Regional Park 16 c\ ` 19 Oslo Road Boat Rampo 20 Pine Hill 31 �-°�e�•` � { ,t d 21 Quay Rock Road 99TH ST 21 a 22 Roseland Community Center 65TH ST 99TH ST " 22 23 Round Island Beach Park g 24 Round Island Park West o ' ' 25 Sebastian Canoe Launch Park MRD 9T n 26 South County Regional Park < 48TH ST 30 1 27 Treasure Shores Park 9 17 28 Wabasso Beach Park 29 Wabasso Island River Park 41ST ST 30 45th St Dock Im 31 Sandridge Golf Course a A 32 West Wabasso Park a p 15 c TiST,ST IUNST 18THST. 17 $T x j 12TH ST f 12TH ST 6TH ST a 9TH ST JIN ST 20 z F STH STREET SW STH STREET SW o � „OSLO RD ` „OSLO rr � "= ete X > � i 1ZTH LN SW � t t y E ; S k Hp ,HosoR. ` 23 24 x � L E ' U s Indian River County Municipalities p 9 I indole- Olives y ` Fellsmere 7c ' County Park ri 1 S Impact Fee Study , .a� �� i� tr� . a Indian River Shores \«ni`F" 1 = P14 'n5 ^^a E^9•^re^^9. . E E I OfCrlld U f - • L T. _ Sebastian County Park0 Vero Beach Locations X Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 8 Impact Fee Study 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 . Section II , Table II - 1 , provides the estimated unincorporated area population for 2004 and the projected unincorporated area population through 2025 . Level of Service Standard The current LOS for parks in unincorporated IRC is 6 . 61 acres per 1 , 000 population . This LOS is based on regional , community , and neighborhood parks that are available to persons in unincorporated IRC and is well above the adopted countywide standard reflected in the IRC Comprehensive Plan (4 acres per 1 , 000 residents) . Rather than allow future development to consume the parks acreage capacity currently available above the 4 acre standard , the current LOS of 6 . 61 acres per 1 , 000 population will be the adopted LOS standard for the unincorporated area of IRC . This will be implemented through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan . Table X -2 shows the calculation of the current LOS standard , which will be combined for the unincorporated area of IRC for both regional and community/neighborhood parks . Community and neighborhood parks have been combined because they have similar types of facilities and both typically service smaller communities within unincorporated IRC . Regional parks are larger parks that serve the population of the entire unincorporated county , and are thus considered separate from community and neighborhood parks . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -9 Impact Fee Study Table X-2 Parks & Recreation Facilities Current Level of Service Calculation Step Figure Unincorporated Area Population( ] ) 88, 710 Current Regional Parks Number of Acres(2) 551 . 39 Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1 ,000 Residents)(3) 6.22 Current Neighborhood Parks Number of AcreS(2) 33 . 86 Current Community Parks Number of Acres(2) 1 . 03 Total Number of Acres (Neighborhood and Community)(4) 34 . 89 Current Neighborhood & Community Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1 ,000 Residents)(5) 0.39 Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1 ,000 Residents)(6) 6.61 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table 1I - 1 (2 ) Source : Table X- 1 (3 ) 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 current community parks number of acres . ( 5 ) Current neighborhood/community parks number of acres ( Item 4) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1 ), multiplied by 1 , 000 residents . (6) Sum of current regional parks LOS (Item 3 ) and current neighborhood/community parks LOS ( Item 5 ) . Table X -3 presents a comparison of LOS in other counties to IRC ( unincorporated county area only) . As presented , IRC ' s LOS is higher than Martin and Brevard counties , but lower than St . Lucie and Osceola counties . Table X-3 Level of Service Comparison Los County [Acres per 1 ,000 Residents] Indian River( i ) 6 . 61 Martin 5 . 00 Brevard 3 3 . 00 ceola 4 Os7 . 00 St. Lucie" 10 . 00 ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 2 (2 ) Source : Development Impact Fee Update Study , Martin County , July 1999 . Standard of 5 acres per 1 ,000 residents includes regional and community parks only . Martin County also has a standard of 24 acres per 1 ,000 residents for conservation land that is not included in this comparison . (3 ) Source : Brevard County Planning Department . Includes the entire county . (4 ) Source : Osceola County Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation Facilities Element. Level of service is 2 acres per 1 ,000 residents for community parks and 5 acres per 1 , 000 residents for regional parks . (5 ) Source : St . Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, Policy 9 . 1 . 1 . 1 . Level of service is 5 acres per 1 ,000 residents for community parks for unincorporated county and 5 acres per 1 ,000 residents for community parks (countywide) . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X- 10 Impact Fee Study Cost Component Historical/Replacement Capital Costs The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components : the cost of land for the parks and the cost of equipment in the parks . The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost of the land . Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/paving costs also are considered , along with the cost to purchase the land . To determine the cost per resident for land , three calculations must be performed . The first calculation determines the landscaping and site improvement costs per acre , while the second calculation determines the utilities and paving cost per acre . A third , subsequent calculation then determines the cost of the actual land per resident . The landscaping and site improvement cost per acre figure was calculated using historical expenditures for the North County Regional Park, which was recently constructed in two phases and reflects typical costs for parks in IRC . Phase I includes the construction of the pool complex and related facilities , while Phase II includes construction of the multi - purpose ball fields and related facilities . The calculation of the total landscaping and site improvements cost per acre is illustrated in Table X -4 . Table X -4 Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost per Acre 1 ' 1 Improvement/Calculation'Step Figure/Cost`; North County Regional Park # of Acres(2) 115 Landscaping and Site Improvement Costs - Phase I Fencing $ 50, 000 Landscaping, Mitigation , and Grassing $225 , 000 Irrigation $ 100, 000 Landscaping and Site Improvement Costs - Phase II Fencing $ 125 ,000 Landscaping and Mitigation $ 100 , 000 Irrigation $ 100 , 000 Total Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost(3 ) $700 ,000 Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost per Acre(4) $ 69087 ( 1 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC (2 ) Source : Table X- 1 (3 ) Sum of costs for Phase I and Phase II . (4 ) Total landscaping and site improvements cost per acre ( Item 3 ) divided by the total number of acres for North County Regional Parks (Item 2 ) . The second calculation determines the utilities and paving cost per acre . As in the case of landscaping and site improvements costs , the utilities and paving cost per acre figure also Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 11 Impact Fee Study was calculated using historical expenditures for the North County Regional Parks . This cost per acre is presented in Table X - 5 . Table X =5 Utilities and Paving Cost per Acre lel Improvement/Calculation Step Figure North County Regional Park # of Acres(2 ) 115 Utilities and Paving Costs - Phase I Drainage $ 5505000 Water and Wastewater Improvements $3009000 Parking Lot Drives $750 ,000 ERU Connection Fee $43776 Utilities and Paving Costs - Phase II Drainage $490 ,000 Water and Wastewater Improvements $25 , 000 Total Utilities and Paving Cost(3) $291199776 Utilities and Paving Cost per Acre(4) $ 18 ,433 ( 1 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC (2 ) Source : Table X- 1 (3 ) Sum of costs for Phase I and Phase Il . (4) Total utilities and paving cost per acre ( Item 3 ) divided by total number of acres for North County Regional Parks (Item 2 ) . The calculations from the two previous tables are then used to determine the total land cost per resident for regional and neighborhood/community parks and recreation facilities in unincorporated IRC . These are presented in Table X - 6 . To calculate the total cost per land for parks and recreation facilities in unincorporated IRC , the price per acre figure of $34 , 136 is used . This figure is based on recent sales of vacant parcels in IRC of 40 to 130 acres , which can be found in Appendix B , Table B -2 . Using this replacement cost per acre , the total cost per acre for parks and recreation facilities in unincorporated IRC is calculated . As shown in Table X - 6 , this results in a total land cost per resident of $420 for the regional parks component and $26 per resident for the neighborhood/community parks component . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 12 Impact Fee Study Table X =6 Total Land Cost per Resident ( ' ) Cost per Facility/Calculation Step Acre Land Cost per Acre( i ) $ 349136 Landscaping and Site Improvements (per acre )(2 ) $ 6 , 087 Utilities and Paving (per Acre)(3 ) $ 183433 Architecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 15 %(4) $ 8 , 798 Total Land Cost per Acre(5) $ 67 ,454 Regional Parks LOS ( acres per 1 , 000 Residents )(6) 6 . 22 Land Cost per Resident - Regional Park Component(7) $419 .56 Neighborhood/Community Parks LOS (acres per 1 , 000 Residents )(6) 0 . 39 Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhood/Community Park Component(8) $26 .31 ( 1 ) Cost per acre is based on the purchase cost of $34 , 136 per acre, which is the average cost per acre for recently sold vacant land parcels of 40 to 130 acres in IRC . This information can be found in Appendix B . Table B -2 . (2 ) Source : Table X-4 (3 ) Source : Table X- 5 ( 4 ) Sum of land cost per acre ( Item 1 ), landscaping/site improvement cost per acre (Item 2 ) , and utilities and paving cost per acre (Item 3 ) , multiplied by 15 percent, per IRC Parks Department staff. ( 5 ) Sum of land cost per acre ( Item 1 ), landscaping/site improvement cost per acre (Item 2 ), utilities and paving cost per acre (Item 3 ), and architecture, engineering , and inspection cost per acre (Item 4 ) . (6 ) Source : Table X-2 (7 ) Total land cost per acre (Item 5 ) multiplied by regional parks LOS , divided by 1 ,000 . ( 8 ) Total land cost per acre ( Item 5 ) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS , divided by 1 ,000 . The second component in determining the total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in unincorporated IRC is to calculate the equipment cost per resident for both regional and community/neighborhood parks . Separate equipment costs for both regional parks and for community/neighborhood parks are presented in Tables X - 7 and X - 8 , respectively . The equipment cost for regional parks is $446 per resident and $ 72 , 681 per acre . Similarly , the total equipment cost for neighborhood/community parks is $ 27 per resident and $ 68 , 586 per acre . It should be noted that separate costs are not considered for the pistol and rifle range , as there is minimum equipment associated with these facilities . The actual cost of equipment for the ranges is included in other shooting range facility costs . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 13 Impact Fee Study Table X =7 Regional Parks Equipment/ Buildings Replacement Cost Facility(j) Cost per Description Number Unit Current LOS Unit Cost'21 Total Cost Resident Restrooms 23 restroom I restroom per 31857 residents $80,000 $ 1 ,840,000 $20.74 Basketball Court 5 court I court per 17,742 residents $40,000 $200,000 $2 .25 Community Center I center I center per 88,710 residents $ 146. 50 s $3 ,690,775 $41 .60 Jogging Trails 5 . 5 mile I mile per 16, 129 residents $ 150,000 $825 ,000 $9. 30 Picnic Pavilion 45 pavilion l pavilion per 1 , 971 residents $40,000 $ 1 ,800,000 $20. 29 Playground 8 playground I playground per 11 ,089 residents $55 ,000 $440,000 $4 . 96 Swimming Pool (Community) I pool 1 pool per 88,710 residents $2, 100,000 $2, 100,000 $23 .67 Olympic Aquatic Center I center I center per 88,710 residents $51800,000 $5 ,800,000 $65 . 38 Softball Field (lighted) I I field 1 field per 8,065 residents $515 ,892 $5 ,674, 812 $63 . 97 Softball Field (not lighted) I field 1 field per 88,710 residents $365 ,892 $365 ,892 $4 . 12 Tennis Courts 4 court I court per 22, 178 residents $ 100,000 $400,000 $4 . 51 Volleyball Court 3 court 3 court per 29,570 residents $20,000 $60,000 $0 .68 Soccer Field (lighted) I field I field per 88,710 residents $400,000 $400,000 $4 . 51 Soccer Field not lighted) 1 field I field per 88,710 residents $250,000 $250,000 $2 . 82 Archery Range(') 0 range N/A $0 $0 $0. 00 Boat Ramp 18 ramp I ramp per 4,928 residents $ 100,000 $ 1 ,800,000 $20. 29 Golf Course(4) 1 course I course per 88 ,710 residents $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $56. 36 Canoe Launch 3 launch 1 launch per 29,570 residents $ 188,000 $564,000 $6 .36 Fairground - Indoor Expo Pavillion I indoor expo pavillion I indoor pavillion per 88,710 residents $ 1 , 105,052 $ 1 , 105,052 $ 12.46 Fairground - Outdoor Expo Pavillion 2 outdoor expo pavillion I outdoor pavillion per 44,355 residents $548,501 $ 11097,002 $6. 18 Dune Walkover 6 walkover I walkover per 14,785 residents $437067 $258,402 $2 .91 Lifeguard Tower 4 tower Itower per22, 178residents $251000 $ 1001000 $ 1 . 13 Fishing Pier 13 pier 1 pier per 6, 824 residents $ 12,500 $ 162,500 $ 1 . 83 Large Multi-Purpose Building I 20,000 sf I building per 88,710 residents $2,930,000 $2,930,000 $33 . 03 Small Multi-Purpose BuildinE . 1 2, 500 sf I building per 88,710 residents $366,250 $366,250 $4 . 13 Shooting Range I Range 1 range per88,710 residents $ 1 ,400,000 $ 1 ,400,000 $ 15 . 78 Viewing Tower I Tower 1 tower per 81 ,217 residents $44,300 $44,300 $0 . 50 Historical Information Center 1 400 sf I historical center per 88,710 residents $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1 .69 Storage/Maintenance Facility 1 900 sf I storage b1dg per 88,710 residents $ 131 ,850 $ 131 ,850 $ 1 .49 Parks Division Maintenance Facility I Building I maintenance facility per 88, 710 residents $850,000 $850,000 $9. 58 IRC Shooting Range Storage Building I Building I storage bldv, per 88,710 residents $407000 $401000 $0 .45 IRC Shooting Range Sporting Clay I Course 1 clay course per 88,710 residents $85 ,000 $85,000 $0.96 IRC Shooting Range Archery Course I Course I archery course per 88 ,710 residents $75,000 $75 ,000 $0. 85 IRC Shooting Range Lighting I Lighting Sys em 1 lighting system per 88,710 residents $709000 $70,000 $0. 79 Total Equipment Cost per Resident (Regional Parks $40,075,835 $445.57 Total Regional Park Acreage(3) 551 .39 Total Equipment Cost per Acre (Regional Parks)r61 $72,681 .47 ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 1 (2 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC ( 3 ) The County owns the land but not the equipment . (4) Unit cost is for one 36-hole golf course . ( 5 ) Source : Table X- 1 (6 ) Total cost of all equipment divided by the total number of acres of regional parks ( Item 5 ) . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 14 Impact Fee Study y a Table X = 8 Community/ Neighborhood Parks Equipment/ Buildings Replacement Cost Facility(') Cost per Description Number Unit Current flos Unit Cost(2) Total Cost Resident - Restrooms 4 restroom 1 restroom per 22, 178 residents $80,000 $320NO $3 . 61 Basketball Court 5 court 1 court per 17,742 residents $40,000 $2005000 $2. 25 Community Center I center 1 center per 88,710 residents $ 146. 50 s $2055686 $2. 32 Jogging Trails 0 mile N/A $ 150,000 $0 $0. 00 Picnic Pavilion 4 pavilion 1 pavilion per22, 178residents $40,000 $ 1605000 $ 1 . 80 Playground 5 playground 1 playground per 17,742 residents $55 ,000 $275,000 $3 . 10 Swimming Pool (Community) 0 pool N/A $2, 100,000 $0 $0. 00 Olympic Aquatic Center 0 center N/A $5,800,000 $0 $0. 00 Softball Field (lighted) 2 field 1 field per44,355 residents $515, 892 $ 1 ,031 ,784 $ 11 . 63 Softball Field (not lighted) 0 field N/A $36502 $0 $0. 00 Tennis Courts 0 court N/A $ 10000 $0 $0.00 Volleyball Court 0 court N/A $20,000 $0 $0.00 Soccer Field (lighted) 0 field N/A $4001000 $0 $0. 00 Soccer Field (nodi hied) 0 field N/A $250,000 $0 $0.00 Archery Range(J ) 0 range N/A $0 $0 $0. 00 Boat Ramp 0 ram N/A $ 100,000 $0 $0. 00 Golf Course(4) 0 1 course N/A $550001000 $0 $0. 00 Canoe Launch i launch Ilaunch per88,710 residents $ 1883000 $ 188,000 $2. 12 Fairground - Indoor Expo Pavillion 0 indoor expo pavillion N/A $ 15105,052 $0 $0.00 Fairground - Outdoor Expo Pavillion 0 outdoor expo pavillion N/A $5483501 $0 $0. 00 Dune Walkover 0 walkover N/A $43 ,067 $0 $0. 00 Lifeguard Tower 0 tower N/A $259000 $0 $0. 00 Fishing Pier 1 pier I pier per 881710 residents $ 121500 $ 127500 $0. 14 Large Multi-Purpose Building 0 20,000 sf N/A $21930,000 $0 $0. 00 Small Multi-Purpose Building 0 21500 sf N/A $3661250 $0 $0. 00 Shooting Range 0 Range N/A $ 1 ,400,000 $o $0. 00 Viewing Tower 0 Tower N/A $443300 $0 $0.00 Historical Information Center 0 400 sf N/A $ 150,000 $0 $0.00 Storage/Maintenance Facility 0 900 sf N/A $ 1311850 $0 $0. 00 Parks Division Maintenance Facili 0 Building N/A $8501000 $0 $0. 00 IRC Shooting Range Storage 0 Building N/A $40,000 $0 $0.00 IRC Shooting Range Sporting Clay 0 Course N/A $85,000 $0 $0.00 IRC Shooting Range Archery Course 0 Course N/A $75,000 $0 $0. 00 IRC Shooting Range Lighting 0 Lighting System N/A $70,000 $0 $0. 00 Total Equipment Cost per Resident (Community & Neighborhood Parks) $2,3929970 $26.97 Total Community/Neighborhood Park Acreage(s) 34.89 Total Equipment Cost per Acre (Community and Neighborhood Parks)t6t $68,586. 13 ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 1 (2 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC (3 ) The County owns the land but not the equipment . (4) Unit cost is for one 36- hole golf course . ( 5 ) Source : Table X- 1 (6) Total cost of all equipment divided by the total number of acres of community/neighborhood parks (Item 5 ) . Programmed/Planned Capital Costs According to information provided by the IRC Office of Management and Budget, the County has programmed $ 5 . 8 million of the one -cent local option sales tax revenues for expanding current parks and recreation facilities . Table X -9 presents the details of the programmed facility expansion projects . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 15 Impact Fee Study Table X =9 Programmed Capital Costsl ' 1 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year ' Fiscal Year Five-Year Total Project Description 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 (FY 2004/05 to FY 2008/09) West Regional Park ( 100 Acres) $4501000 $ 1305000 $ 1 ,5001000 South County Park $2 ,3001000 $2 ,3001000 North County Park-Ballfields $21000 ,000 $2007000 Total $4,300,000 $0 $4509000 $ 1 ,050,000 s0 $598009000 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Unit Cost Table X - 10 presents the total cost per resident for both regional and neighborhood/ community parks that will be used in the remainder of the impact fee analysis . These unit costs , $ 865 per resident for regional parks and $ 53 per resident for community and neighborhood parks , were calculated as the sum of the land cost and the equipment cost . Table X - 10 Unit Cost per Resident Cost perResident/Calculation `Step Figure Regional Parks Regional Parks Land Cost per Resident( t ) $419 . 56 Regional Parks Equipment Cost per Resident(2) $445 . 57 Total Regional Parks & Recreational Facilities Cost per Resident $865. 13 NeighborhoodlCommunity Parks Neighborhood & Community Parks Land Cost per Resident( t ) $26 . 31 Neighborhood & Community Parks Equipment Cost per Resident(3 ) $26 . 97 Total Neighborhood/Community Neighborhood/CommunityParks & Recreational Facilities Cost per Resident $53 .28 ( 1 ) Source : Table X-6 ( 2 ) Source : Table X-7 (3 ) Source : Table X- 8 Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the capital cost of providing parks and recreation services , a review of the capital financing program for parks and recreation was completed . The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues , other than impact fees , generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities , land , and equipment expansion of the parks and recreation program . Revenue Sources for Capital Expenditures The IRC Recreation Department has six different sources that are consistently used for capital expenditures in the parks and recreation program . These funding sources are : Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 16 Impact Fee Study • general fund ; • municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) fund ; • optional sales tax ; • tree fine fund ; • parks improvement fund ; and • Florida Boating Improvement Program . Table X - 11 summarizes the capital expenditures and their funding sources over the last six years . This table also specifies whether the capital expenditure was a replacement or an expansion of the existing capital inventory . The total revenue used for capital expansion for each of the previous six years is provided at the bottom of Table X - 11 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 17 Impact Fee Study Table X - 11 Historical Capital Expenditures - Funding Sources cel Project Desed tion YX2_1 oo/ Replacement FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 'FY 2000/01 FY 2001102 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 SlzYear Total General Fund Parks Divuon Storage Buildins - Equipment Es anion $4970 $9,672 114642 Round Island Footbrid e Re laceme t S32,000 532,000 Mainz. Equipment (Ureters, vehicles, etc.) Replacement $45,986 $ 106,607 $86,606 554,359 568,484 I 550,539 1 $412,581 Maint. Equipment tractors, vehicles, etc.) Expansion 1 1 $2,800 1 52,800 Total - General Fund $45,986 S106,607 I S91 ,576 1 $54,359 1 $78,156 1 S85,339 1 S4621023 M.S. T. U. Fund Recreation Gifford Aquatic Center - Lighting Expansion $3950 $3,950 North County Aquatic Center - Equip Expansion $7,945 $7,945 Other Equipment (vehicles, etc.) Expansion $36,547 536,547 Other Equipment vehicles, ete.) Replacement 110,914 521 ,879 124,052 512,579 S69,424 Storage BuildinExpansion $4999 $4,999 Dctibrillarms Expansion $ 19,396 $5,090 524486 Phone System NCAC Expansion $4,985 $4 ,985 Mobile Bleachers Expansion 183 ,060 $83,060 Basketball Goals I Expansion 1 4,000 $4,000 Sports Floor and CoveringEx ansion - $46,600 S46,600 computer Eui ment Ex ansion I I $892 5892 Total - M.S.T.U. Fund 510914 SO 1 $21 ,879 11 S48,447 I 5139,537 52861888 SlumMing Range 0#rstructiem Shooting Range Imrovements Expansion $91 ,655 1 591655 Optional Sales Tux Fairgrounds Electronic Sin Expansion $5 ,500 S5,500 A neultural Pavilion 002 Expansion 534,030 $329,878 $ 167,324 5531 ,232 North County Aquatic Center/ Park Expansion $210,882 $53,8114 $5,073 ,929 S385,406 15,724, 101 G ilTordAquatic Center Expansion - $621 ,006 51 ,750 $622,756 Soccer Field Water Be Sewer - Fairgrounds Expansion S12 ,839 $ 134,946 SI001 513 ,368 1162,052 South County Pork - Phase II Expansion $928 $614,248 5288, 156 - S903 ,332 South County Park Phase III Expansion $ 1 ,700,000 $ 1 ,700,000 Donald McDonald Park Expansion $78,673 5213 ,726 5292,399 Round Island Oceanside Park Expansion $ 1 , 127 5862,806 = 5863,933 A ncultural Expo Building Expansion $34,343 $982, 127 11 ,016,470 Riverview Park - Sebastian Expansion 5200,000 S27,0-00 Wabusso Causeway Park Replacement $311 ,638 5586,774 $ 113 ,280 $ 1011692 Dale Wimbrow Park Expansion $55,451 $200,465 $255,916 Treasure Shores Playground Equipment Re lacement $58,000 $58,000 Mobile Stage Expansion $85,000 585,000 Portable Restrooms Expansion $26,000 S26,000 Fairgrounds electronic sin Expansion 514,445 $ 14,445 Lighting at 16th St. S ons Complex Replacement $ 1 ,572 51 ,572 Painting at County Sports Complex Replacement 54,200 S4,200 West Wabasso Park Improvements Replacement $65,485 $65,485 io North County Park Phase 11 Ex ansn S2, 145,625 $2, 145,625 Gifford Park Security Building Ex ansion $800900 $80,000 Misc. Park58 Park's Improvements Expansion ,203 $89,203 Total - Optional Sales Tax 1 $482,160 57,871 ,028 51 ,090,16) 55,277,655 $72Q6flJ 17,750,222 S15,tl5tl,91J FDRAP Gant South County Park Phase B Expansion - 5100,000 1 $ 100,000 Round Island Ocean ParkEx onion 1100,000 4100,000 North County Park Phase 11 Expansion 1150,000 $ 150,000 Total - FDRAP Grant SO $200,000 50 50 SI50,000 SO 135010110 Park Improvement Fund North County Aquatic Center Expansion 5120,611 S [ 20,611 Flwula Boornone ltriprowmenf Prr yam Sebastian Canoe Launch Expansion $2,283 $82,644 574,39835146.545 $ 159,325 Roval Palm Pointe - City of Vero Beach Expansion $20,000 $20000 Indian River Drive Boat Dock - Sebastian Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Schumann Lake Boat Rum - Sebastian Replacement $7 800 $7,800 Oslo Bout Ram Replacement $750550,750 Kitchin Railhead Station Expansion $ 146,545 Pelican Island U land Restoration Re lacement 1000000 Misc. Boatin Facilities Ex ansion $ 15000 Total - Florida Boatin Im rovement Pro ram $0 522283 5102,644 $82,198 57501 ,419,420 fatal Ca ital Ex enditures 1579,060 $7,199,918 11 ,706,267 SS,J29,fi59 SI ,13fi,312tl,5tl9,510 Total Capital Expansion Expenditures 5170,522 SJ,Jfl6,577 $1 ,08J,J9A SSaJJ,JJA 51 ,054,799 17,716,502 515,856,006 Percent of GF/MSTU Expenditures to Total Capitol Exp Expenditures 1 0.00'7 1 0 ,00%1 0.38% 0.45'0 5 56%1 2.3817. 1 .48% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Credit Calculation The credit per resident was calculated using the average capital expansion expenditures during the last six years and the future planned projects budgeted during the next five - years . The average annual capital expenditure amount was divided by the average residents during this eleven-year time period , resulting in an average capital expansion cost per resident of $ 23 . This information is presented in Table X - 12 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 18 Impact Fee Study It is the County ' s intent to use impact fee revenues as the primary funding source for future capital expansion needs of the parks and recreation program and to maintain or reduce the average annual dollar amount shown in this report toward capital expansion needs . In other words , the County intends to use non - impact fee revenue sources as the primary funding source for capital replacement, operations and maintenance expenses . As such, credit calculations for future expenditures do not include an escalation factor. Table X - 12 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident Capital Unincorporated Expenditures Couin ty Area Fiscal Year (Expansion)(') " Population(2) 1998 /99 $ 1703522 763237 1999/00 $ 3 , 4865537 781489 2000/01 $ 11084 , 498 809486 2001 /02 $ 53343 , 448 825160 2002/03 $ 130543499 849149 2003 /04 $457169502 88 , 710 2004/05 $4 , 3009000 905100 2005 /06 $ 0 911867 2006/07 $4503000 939669 2007/08 $ 110505000 959506 2008/09 $ 0 975379 Total $2196569006 Average $ 19968,728 87, 159 Revenue per Resident $22 . 59 ( 1 ) Source : Tables X-9 and X- 11 (2 ) Source : Table A-7 The last credit component is for revenue generated from past payments of property taxes on vacant land that are used to fund capital expansion projects . This calculation is a two - step process . First, the percentage of the total taxable value of vacant land to the total taxable property value for unincorporated IRC is calculated . Revenues generated by past payment of property taxes on vacant land are deposited into IBC ' s general fund . Therefore , the second calculation considers the portion of total capital expansion expenditures funded through general fund or municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) revenues over the previous five -year period . As shown in Table X - 11 , this figure is 1 . 48 percent . The vacant land value as a percentage of total property value is multiplied by the percent of historical general fund and MSTU revenues spent on capital expansion projects . As illustrated in Table X - 13 , the effective percentage of past property tax payments on vacant land is 0 . 16 percent . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 19 Impact Fee Study Table X - 13 Vacant Land Value Percentage( l ) Land Taxable Value Unincorporated County Vacant Land Value $ 73256175920 Unincorporated County Total Property Value(2 ) $ 655965351 , 608 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of Total Property Value (3 ) 11 . 1 l % Percent of General Fund/MSTU Capital Expansion Projects(4 ) 1 . 48% Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5) 0 . 16 % ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC ( 2 ) Includes structures . ( 3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $ 732 , 617 , 920/$6 , 596 , 351 , 608 (4) Source : Table X - 11 ( 5 ) Vacant land value as a percentage of total property value ( Item 3 ) multiplied by the percent of general fund and MSTU- funded capital expansion projects ( Item 4 ) . The total credit of $ 320 per resident is presented in Table X- 14 , and is equal to the addition of the present value of the revenue credit per resident and the vacant land credit. (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -20 Impact Fee Study Table X - 14 Credit per Resident Calculation Step Figure Revenue Credit per Resident( l ) $22 . 59 Capitalization Rate('` ) 5 % Capitalization Period(3 ) ( in years) 25 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(4) ($ 318 . 38) Regional Parks Cost per Residents ) $ 865 . 13 Community & Neighborhood Cost per Resident(6 ) $ 53 . 28 Total Cost per Resident(7 ) $918 . 41 Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(8) 0 . 16% Revenue Credit for Past Property Taxes(9 ) ($ 1 . 47) Total Credit per Resident( 10) ($319 . 85) ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 12 ( 2 ) Capitalization rate is estimated at 5 percent ( 3 ) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years , which is typically when major renovations or replacement of capital facilities becomes necessary . (4) Present value of the revenue credit per resident (Item 1 ) at a capitalization rate of five percent (Item 2 ) over a 25 -year period (Item 3 ) ( 5 ) Source : Table X- 10 (6 ) Source : Table X- 10 (7 ) The sum of regional parks cost per resident ( Item 5 ) and neighborhood/community parks cost per resident ( Item 6 ) . ( 8 ) Source : Table X- 13 ( 9 ) Total cost per resident ( Item 7 ) multiplied by effective vacant land value percentage ( Item 8 ) . ( 10 ) The sum of capital improvement credit per resident ( Item 4 ) and revenue credit for past property taxes (Item 9 ) . Existing Deficiencies Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard , there are no existing deficiencies of parks and recreation facilities . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the current LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near future to meet the needs of new growth . Net Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Cost The net impact fee cost per resident is the difference between the total cost per resident, calculated in Table X - 10 , and the total credit per resident, calculated in Table X - 14 . Table X - 15 presents the calculation of the net parks and recreational facilities impact cost per resident . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -21 Impact Fee Study Table XA5 Net Impact Cost per Resident Impact Cost / Credit Element Cost Credit Total Impact Cost per Resident Total Parks & Recreational Facilites Impact Cost $ 918 .41 Total Credit per Resident Total Revenue Credit ( $ 319 . 85 ) Net Impact Cost per Resident �3� Net Impact Cost per Resident(3 ) $ 598 . 56 ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 10 ( 2) Source : Table X- 14 (3 ) Sum of the total parks and recreational facilities impact cost ( Item 1 ) and the total revenue credit ( Item 2 ) . As stated previously , the net impact cost per resident is the total impact cost per resident of $ 918 , less the total revenue credit of $ 320 . The result is a net impact cost of $ 599 per resident . Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type Up to this point, the parks and recreation impact fee analysis has been based on the impact cost per resident . The parks and recreation impact fee , however, is charged on a per-dwelling unit basis , not per resident . Since the number of residents per housing unit varies by land use , the weighted average residents per housing unit for three major residential land uses are used . Table X - 16 illustrates the number of residents per housing unit for the three different land uses , as well as the overall weighted average residents per residential land use . The calculation of the number of residents per housing unit is further explained in Section II . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -22 Impact Fee Study Table X - 16 Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type � ' 1 Land Use Residents per Unit ' Single Family Detached Less than 1 , 500 sf 2 . 175 1 , 500 to 2 , 499 sf 2 . 444 2 , 500 sf or greater 2 . 651 Accessory Single Family 1 . 477 Multi Family 1 . 477 Mobile Home 1 . 574 Weighted Average 2 . 050 ( 1 ) Source : Section I1 , Table II - 8 Proposed Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule The information presented in Table X - 15 concerning the net impact cost per resident is used to calculate the corresponding impact fee for the different land uses previously discussed in Table X - 16 . The resulting fee schedule is provided in Table X - 17 . The total fee is equal to the number of residents per unit multiplied by the net cost per person for each land use . Table X - 17 Proposed Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Residents Net Cost per Administrative I Total Impact Land Use eer Unit(l) Residene ) Net Impact Feet ) Fee(4) Fee(5) Single Family Detached Less thari1 , 500sf 2 . 175 $ 598. 56 $ 1 , 301 . 87 $39 . 06 $ 1 ,340. 93 1 ,500 to 2 ,499 sf 2 . 444 $ 598 . 56 $ 1 ,462 . 88 $43 . 89 $ 1 , 506 . 77 2 ,500sfor greater 2 . 651 $ 598. 56 $ 1 ,586 . 78 $47. 60 $ 1 , 634 . 38 JAccessory Single Family 1 . 477 $598 . 56 $884 . 07 $26 . 52 $ 910 . 59 Multi Family/Accessory Family/AccessorySingle Familv 1 .477 $598 . 56 $884. 07 $26 . 52 $91059 Mobile Home 1 1 . 574 $598. 56 $942 . 13 1 $28 . 26 $970.39 ( 1 ) Source : Table X- 16 (2 ) Source : Table X- 15 ( 3 ) Residents per unit ( Item 1 ) for each land use category multiplied by net cost per resident ( Item 2 ) . (4 ) An administrative fee of 3 percent of the net impact fee . (5 ) Total impact fee is the sum of the net impact fee ( Item 3 ) and administrative fee (Item 4 ) . Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section I1 , Table II - 1 . Table X - 18 presents the parks and recreation facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X -23 Impact Fee Study Table X - 18 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Calculation Component Forecasted Demand 2025 Unincoporated County PopulationM 13206 Regional Parks : Adopted LOS Standard (Acres per 1 , 000 Residents)(z) 6 . 22 2025 Required Acreage(3 ) 825 . 37 Existing Acreage(4) 551 . 39 Additional Regional Park Acreage Needed(51 273 . 98 Cost per Acre(6) $ 140 , 135 Total Cost for Regional Parks �'� $389394, 187 Community and Neighborhood Parks : Adopted LOS Standard (Acres per 1 , 000 Residents)(2) 0 . 39 2025 Required Acreage(3 ) 51 . 750 Existing Acreage(4) 34 . 890 Additional Regional Park Acreage Needed ' ) 16 . 86 Cost per Acre(6) $ 1363040 Total Cost for Community and Neighborhood Parks (7) $2,293, 634 Total Cost for Community and Neighborhood Parks(8) $4096879821 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (2 ) Source : Table X-2 ( 3 ) Required 2025 acreage for each parks type , based on existing LOS and 2025 population . (4) Source : Table X- 1 ( 5 ) 2025 required parks acreage ( Item 3 ) less existing parks acreage (Item 4 ) for each park type . (6) Sum of the total cost per acre for land ( Source : Table X-6 ) and equipment ( Source : Table X-7 for regional park equipment and Table X- 8 for neighborhood park neighborhood park equipment) . ( 7 ) Total cost per acre (Item 6) multiplied by additional acreage needed (Item 5 ) for each respective park type . ( 8 ) The sum of the total cost for regional parks and the total cost for community and neighborhood parks . As presented in Table X- 18 , the County will need an additional 274 acres of regional parks and 51 . 8 acres of neighborhood/community parks by 2025 . This would require an investment of $40 . 7 million , of which $ 5 . 8 million has been programmed for the next five years . Estimated Revenues Based on the growth population projections provided by the IRC Comprehensive Plan and impact cost per resident calculated in Table X - 15 , it is estimated that the parks and recreation impact fee revenues through 2025 will generate $26 . 3 million . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X-24 Impact Fee Study • r Table X - 19 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Unincorporated County New Estimated Year Populationhl Population(�) Revenues(3) 2004 889710 2005 909100 1 , 390 $ 8319998 2006 91 , 867 15767 $ 1 , 057 , 656 2007 933669 19802 $ 1 , 0789605 2008 959506 1 , 837 $ 1 , 099 , 555 2009 975379 1 , 873 $ 1 , 121 , 103 2010 999288 13909 $ 1 , 142 , 651 2011 1015435 21147 $ 152853108 2012 1031631 29196 $ 153145438 2013 105 , 875 29244 $ 1 , 3435169 2014 1089168 29293 $ 193725498 2015 1109513 29345 $ 1 ,4037623 2016 112 , 676 2 , 163 $ 1 ,2945685 2017 114 , 882 29206 $ 193203423 2018 117 , 130 29248 $ 153459563 2019 1195423 21293 $ 193729498 2020 1215741 2 , 318 $ 1 , 387 ,462 2021 1239851 2 , 110 $ 112625962 2022 125 , 999 2 , 148 $ 1 , 285 , 707 2023 128 , 185 2 , 186 $ 153081452 2024 1301410 21225 $ 15331 , 796 2025 1329696 25286 $ 15368 , 308 $26 , 3285260 Fee per resident(4) $ 598 .56 ( 1 ) Source : Section Il , Table II - 1 ( some of the years are not shown in Table I1- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate provided in the IRC Comprehensive Plan and seasonal population projections) . (2 ) Additional population per year. (3 ) New population (Item 1 ) multiplied by fee per resident (Item 5 ) . (4 ) Source : Table X - 15 As presented in Table X - 18 , the projected park and recreation facility capital expansion costs through 2025 will be $40 . 7 million if the current LOS is adopted . Hence , it appears that the impact fee revenues will need to be supplemented with other funding sources to accommodate this cost . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X - 25 Impact Fee Study For impact fee purposes , revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth . If the growth rates remain high, the County will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later . If growth rate slows down , less revenue will be generated , and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner. (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 X-26 Impact Fee Study uoiJUcuaojuI iuluauzaiddns uoi ; uindod iuuoil ;) un3 ly alumils :l uoiluindod V xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) Table A - 1 24- Hour Baseline - County 24-Hour Functional Resident Poulation / Em to ent Population / Employment Category Coefficient 1998 1 1999 1 2000 1 2001 12002 2003 2004 2005 1 2006 i' 2007 ` 1 2008 1 2009 Total Residential and Seasonal Population0 ) 0 . 650 117 ) 1811 120,2471 1233799 126 ,7491 129,3861 132, 5801 1387393 140,5621 143,3181 146, 1291 148,996 151 ,918 Employment(2) Natural Resources 0271 51486 5,598 5 ,710 5,700 55777 55853 51930 6,000 6,056 63112 63 1681 6,224 Construction 0. 271 3,620 3555 33490 3 ,360 31477 3 ,593 3 ,710 300 3, 884 33968 41052 43136 Manufacturing 0. 270 31190 3,270 33350 35510 37557 31603 3 ,650 3 ,690 35730 3 ,770 33810 31850 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 0 . 271 11270 1 ,330 1 , 390 15520 1573 11627 11680 11740 11796 11852 19908 11964 Wholesale Trade 0. 271 1 , 196 1 ,253 1 ,310 1 , 1901 ,210 1 ,230 1 ,250 1 ,270 12294 11318 11342 1 ,366 Retail Trade 1 .406 10 992 11 ,241 11 ,490 11 ,260 11 ,433 11 ,607 11 ,780 11 ,950 12, 114 12,278 12 ,442 122606 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0. 292 4,648 4,734 4 , 820 5 ,080 5 ,200 5,320 5 ,440 5 , 550 5 ,640 5 ,730 5 , 820 5 ,910 Services 0. 292 18, 814 19,372 19,930 20, 150 20,837 21 , 523 22 ,210 22,850 23 ,466 24,0821 24,698 25,314 Government 0 . 497 5 )0181 51094 5, 170 53210 5,397 53583 51770 5 ,930 6,0761 6.2221 63681 6, 514 TOTAL :::::J-54,234J 55,4471 56,660 56,980 58,460 59,940 61 ,420 62,780 64,056 65 ,332 66,608 67, 884 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2) Source : Woods & Poole Economics, Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector Table A -2 24 -Hour Baseline - County Excluding Indian River Shores 24-Hour Functional Resident Po ulation / Em to ' ent Population Em to ent Cate o Coefficient 1998 1999 2000 00 200100 1Q4 40 X005_ 29 Population( ( ) 0, 650 113 ,548 116,519 119,961 122 ,947 125, 504 128,669 133 ,964 ] 35 ,972 138, 560 141 , 198 143 , 885 146,621 Employment(2) Natural Resources 0. 2711 5 ,431 5,542 51653 5 ,643 5 ,719 5,794 5 , 871 5 )9401 53995 62051 6 , 106 6, 162 Construction U711 31501 31438 31375 31250 39363 31475 3 , 588 3 ,675 3 ,756 3 8381 37919 4,000 Manufacturing 0. 270 31158 31237 31316 31475 31521 31567 3 ,613 3 )6531 32693 3 ,7321 3 ,772 3 , 811 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 0. 271 11257 19317 19376 1 ,505 1 ,557 1 ,611 11663 17723 13778 11833 1 ,889 1 ,944 Wholesale Trade 0 . 271 11179 11235 19291 1 , 173 1 , 193 11212 1 ,232 1 ,252 1 ,276 1 ,299 17323 11347 Retail Trade 1 . 406 10, 835 115081 115326 11 , 10011 ,270 11 ,442 11 ,612 113780 113941 12, 103 12 ,265 12,426 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0. 292 41495 41578 41662 41913 51029 5 , 145 5 ,261 5,368 57455 5,542 51629 5 ,716 Services 0. 292 18, 196 18,735 191275 19,488 20, 152 20,816 211480 22,099 22,695 23 ,291 23 ,886 24,482 Government 10.4971 41853 45927 5 ,000 5 ,039 5,220 53400 59580 51735 5,876 6,018 6 , 159 6,300 TOTAL 1 1 52,906 54 ,090 55 ,275 55 , 584 57,024 58,461 59,901 61 ,224 62,465 63, 706 64,947 66, 188 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2) Source : Woods & Poole Economics, Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A - 1 Impact Fee Study Table A -3 24 -Hour Baseline - Unincorporated County 24-Hour Functional Resident Po elation / Em to ent Population / Em to ent CategoryCoefficient 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 3004 2005 . 2006 2007 2008 2[109 Population( ') 0 . 650 745293 76,237 78,4891 80,486 82 1601 84, 149 88 ,710 90, ] 00 91 , 867 93 ,669 95 , 506 97,379 Employment(2) Natural Resources 0.271 4,237 4,324 4,410 41403 43462 4,521 41580 42634 43677 4,7211 41764 47807 Construction 0 . 271 21497 21452 2,407 23317 21398 21478 2,559 2 ,621 2,679 2,736 21794 22852 Manufacturing 0. 270 21464 2, 526 2 ,587 2,711 21747 27783 21819 . 2,850 201 23912 21943 25974 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 0. 271 981 1 ,027 1 ,074 1 , 174 1 ,215 1 ,257 1 ,298 1 ,344 1 ,387 1 ,430 1 ,474 1 ,517 Wholesale Trade 0 . 271 862 903 944 858 872 887 901 916 933 950 968 985 Retail Trade 1 .406 7 ,923 8, 103 8,282 8 , 116 8 ,241 8,366 8,491 8,615 8,734 8, 853 8,973 9,092 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0 . 292 3 ,206 39265 3 ,324 3 ,503 3 , 586 3 ,669 3 ,752 31828 33890 37952 41014 41076 Services 0. 292 12,975 133360 137745 13 ,897 14,370 14, 843 15 ,317 15,758 16, 183 16,608 1711,032 17,457 Government 0.497 3 ,461 3,513 32566 33593 3 ,722 31850 31979 41090 4, 190 4,291 4,391 4 ,492 TOTAL 38,605 393472 40,339 40,572 41 ,614 42,654 43 ,696 44,655 45 ,554 46,453 47 ,352 48,252 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2) Source : Woods & Poole Economics, Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector Table A -4 11 - Hour Baseline -Count 11-Hour Functional Resident Population / Employment Population / Employment Category Coefficient 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ' Population( l ) 0 . 350 117, 1811 120,2471 1237799 126,7491 129,386 132 , 580 138,393 140,562 143 ,318 146, 129 148,9961 151 ,918 Employment(2) Natural Resources 0 . 824 5 ,486 5 ,598 5 ,710 5 ,700 5 ,777 5 , 853 5 ,930 6,000 6,056 6, 112 6 , 168 6,224 Construction 0. 824 37620 3 , 555 3 ,490 3 ,360 3 ,477 3 , 593 31710 3 ,800 3 , 884 33968 4 ,052 4, 136 Manufacturing 0. 822 35190 31270 3 ,350 3 ,510 3 , 557 3 ,603 3 ,650 3 ,690 3 ,730 3 ,770 3 ,810 3 ,850 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 0. 824 11270 1 ,330 11390 15520 1 ,573 1 ,627 13680 1 ,740 15796 11852 1 ,908 1 ,964 Wholesale Trade 0 . 826 1 , 196 1 ,253 1 ,310 1 , 190 1 ,210 1 ,230 1 ,250 1 ,270 1 ,294 1 ,318 1 ,342 1 ,366 Retail Trade 1 . 942 10,992 11 ,241 11 ,490 11 ,260 11 ,433 11 ,607 119780 115950 123114 12,278 12 ,442 12,606 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0 . 879 4,648 4,734 4 , 820 5 080 5 ,200 5 ,320 5 ,440 5 ,550 5 ,640 5 ,730 51820 5 ,910 Services 0 . 879 181814 199372 19,930 20, 150 20, 837 21 , 523E22210 22 ,850 23 ,466 24,082 24 ,698 25 ,314 Government 1 .036 5018 5 ,094 5 , 170 5 ,210 5 ,397 5 , 583770 5 ,930 6,076 67222 6,368 6,514 TOTAL 54 ,234 55 ,447 56,660 56,980 58 ,461 59,939 61 ,420 62,780 64 ,056 65,332 66,608 67 , 884 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2 ) Source : Woods & Poole Economics , Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Major Sector Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A -2 Impact Fee Study Table A -5 24 - Hour Functional Population - County 24-Hour Functional Residents Population / Employment Cate o 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1 2008 1 2009 Total Population 1171181 12V471 123 ,7991 126,749 129 ; 3861 132 ,5801 1389393 140,5621 1433318 146, 1291 148 ,9961 151 ,918 Functional Population - Residential 76 1681 78J611 80,469 821387 84JOIJ 86J771 89,9551 91 ,3651 93 , 1571 94 ,9841 96,8471 98 ,747 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 1 ,487 1 , 517 11547 1545 1 ,566 1 ,586 15607 1 ,626 13641 13656 11672 17687 Construction 981 963 946 911 942 974 1 ,005 11030 11053 11075 1 ,098 1 , 121 Manufacturing 861 883 905 948 960 973 986 996 1 O 1 ,018 15029 12040 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 344 360 377 412 426 441 455 472 487 502 517 532 Wholesale Trade 324 340 355 322 328 333 339 344 351 357 364 370 Retail Trade 153455 15 ,805 16, 155 15 ,832 163075 16,319 16, 5631 16,802 172032 171263 17,493 17 ,724 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 17357 13382 1 A071 15483 1 ,5181 1 ,553 11588 1 ,621 11647 1 ,673 17699 13726 Services 5 ,494 59657 5 , 820 5,884 67084 6,285 63485 6,672 6, 852 73032 77212 7,392 Government 21494 2,532 2,569 2,589 2,682 21775 21868 2,947 31020 31092 3 , 165 31237 Total Functional Residents 104,965 107,599 110,550 112,312 114 ,683 117,416 121 ,852 123 ,875 126,246 1282653 131 ,096 1335575 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 89.6 % 89.5 % 89.3 % 88.6 % 88.6 % 88.6 % 88.0 % 88. 1 % 88. 1 % 88.0 % 88.0 % 87.9 % Table A -6 24 -Hour Functional Population - County Excluding Indian River Shores 24-Hour Functional Residents Population / Employment Category 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Population 1133548 116,519 119,961 122 ,947 1253504 1281669 1333964 1353972 138 ,560 141 , 198 143 ,885 146,621 Functional Population - Residential 73 , 806 75 ,737 _77,9751 797916 8 1 ,5781 83 ,6351 Uffl7l 885382 90,0641 91 ,7791 93525 95 , 304 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 13472 11502 1 ,532 1 ,529 15550 1 ,570 11591 1 ,610 1 ,625 1 ,640 1 ,655 1 ,670 Construction 949 932 915 881 9111 942 9721 996 1 ,018 1 ,040 1 ,062 1 ,084 Manufacturing 853 874 895 938 951 963 976 986 997 108 1 ,018 1 ,029 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 341 357 373 408 422 437 451 467 482 497 512 527 Wholesale Trade 319 335 350 318 323 329 334 339 346 352 358 365 Retail Trade 15 ,235 152580 15 ,925 15 ,606 15 ,846 1607 16, 327 167562 165790 17,017 17,244 177471 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ( FIRE) 11313 1 , 337 1 $ 61 13435 1 ,469 1 ,502 13536 12567 1 ,593 1 ,618 19644 1 ,669 Services 57313 51471 5 ,628 52690 504 6,078 6,272 6,453 6 ,6276,801 6,975 7, 149 Government 2 ,412 2,449 2,485 2, 504 2,594 2 ,684 2,773 2 , 850 23921 23991 3 ,061 3 , 131 Total Functional Residents 102,012 104,572 107,439 109,225 1117528 114,226 118,309 1207213 122,461 1249742 1275054 129, 399 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 89.8 % 89.7 % 89.6 % 88.8 % 88.9 % 88.8 % 88.3 % 88. 4 % 88.4 % "i-8-.3-0/6 ,'88.3 % 88.3 % Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A- 3 Impact Fee Study Table A -7 24 -Hour Functional Population - Unincorporated County Area 24-Hour Functional Residents Population / EmploymentCate o 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ' 2005 ' 2006 2007 ` 2008 2009 Total Population 747293 76,2371 78A891 803486 82, 1601 847149 883710 90, 1001 917867 932669 95 , 506 97,379 Functional Population - Residential 48 ,2901 49 ,5541 51 ,0181 52, 3161 53 ,4041 547697 57,6621 58,5651 59,7141 60, 885 621079 63 ,296 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 1 , 148 1 , 172 1 , 195 1 , 193 1 ,209 11225 17241 13256 1 ,268 13279 11291 12303 Construction 677 664 652 628 650 672 693 710 726 742 757 773 Manufacturing 665 682 699 732 742 751 761 770 778 786 795 803 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 266 278 291 318 329 341 352 364 376 388 399 411 Wholesale Trade 234 245 256 232 236 240 244 248 253 258 262 267 Retail Trade 11 , 140 113392 11 ,645 11 ,411 11 ,587 117763 11 ,938 12 , 112 122280 12 ,448 123616 12,783 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 9361 953 971 1 ,023 1 ,047 17071 1 ,096 1 , 118 1 , 136 1 , 154 17172 1 , 190 Services 33789 3 ,901 4,013 47058 4, 196 41334 43473 4,601 47725 43849 4,973 57097 Government 13720 12746 1 ,772 17786 13850 13914 13978 2,033 2,083 2, 133 2, 183 27233 Total Functional Residents 68 ,865 70,588 723511 73 ,698 75 ,250 77,008 80,437 815777 83 ,337 84 ,921 86,527 88 , 156 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 92.7 % 92.6 % 92.4% 91 .6 % 91 .6% 91 .5 % 90.7% 90.8 % 90.7% 90. 7 % 90.6 % 90.5 % Table A -8 11 -Hour Functional Population - County 11-Hour Functional Residents Po ulation / Employment Cateo 1998 1999 2000 1 2001 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Population 117 , 181 1205247 123 ,7991 126,7491 129J861 132 ,5801 1387393 1407562 143 ,3181 146J291 148 ,9961 1513918 Functional Population - Residential 413013 42M861 43 , 3301 447362 45 ,2851 46,4031 48 ,4381 492197 50, 1611 513145 52 1491 53 , 171 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 4 ,520 4 ,613ig E788 4,760 4 , 823 4, 886 4 ,944 4,990 55036 5 ,082 5 , 129 Construction 2,983 2 ,929 2 ,865 2 ,961 3 ,057 3 , 131 3 ,200 3 ,270 3 ,339 3 ,408 Manufacturing2,622 2 ,688 2,924 2 ,962 3 ,000 3 ,033 3 ,066 31099 3 , 132 3 , 165 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing1 ,046 1 ,096 1 ,296 12341 1 ,384 1 ,434 1 ,480 1 ,526 1 ,572 1 ,618 Wholesale Trade 988 1 ,035 999 1 ,016 1 ,033 1 ,049 1 ,069 1 ,089 17108 1 , 128 Retail Trade 21 ,346 21 ,830 1 ,867 22 ,203 22 ,541 22,877 23 ,207 23 , 525 23 , 844 24, 162 24,481 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 41086 47161 4 ,237 43465 42571 4,676 4,782 4 ,878 4 ,958 5 ,037 5 ) 1161 53195 Services 16538 17,028 17,518 173712 187316 18 ,919 19,523 20,085 20,627 212168 21 ,710 227251 Government 51199 57277 5 ,356 5 ,398 5 ,591 5 ,784 5,978 6, 143 67295 6,446 6,597 6,749 Total Functional Residents 100,341 102,744 105 ,317 106,390 108 ,811 111 ,425 114,957 117, 102 119,371 121 ,659 123 ,967 126,295 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 85.6 % 85.4 % 85. 1 % 83.9 % 84. 1 % 84.0 % 83. 1 % 83.3 % 83.3 % 83.3 % 83.2 % 83. 1 % Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A-4 Impact Fee Study v Tables A -9 through A - 11 provide supporting documentation on how the residential coefficients for functional population were calculated . Table A -9 IRC Population and Employment Characteristics Item/Calculation Step Figure Workers who live and work in IRC ( 1 ) 395072 Workers who live elsewhere but work in IRC (2 ) 9 , 049 Total workers in IRC(3 ) 48 , 121 Workers who live in IRC but work elsewhere 55804 Weighted average worker population for workers who move between Counties(5 ) 73156 Total effective workers(6) 46 , 228 Population(7 ) 112 947 Total effective workers as a percent of population( 8 ) 41 % School age population ( 5 - 17 years)(9 ) 165435 Percent of total population( 10) 15 % Population net of workers & school age population 51 , 636 Percent of total population( 12) o 46 /o ( 1 ) Source : US Census Bureau , County-to - County Worker Flow Files , 2000 (2 ) Source : US Census Bureau , County-to- County Worker Flow Files , 2000 ( 3 ) Sum of workers who live and work in IRC (Item 1 ) and workers who live elsewhere but work in IRC (Item 2 ) . (4 ) Source : US Census Bureau , County -to -County Worker Flow Files , 2000 ( 5 ) Weighted average is calculated by using the assumption that workers who do not reside in IRC (Item 2 ) are in IRC for 10 hours per day while workers who are IRC residents but work outside the County ( Item 4 ) are in IRC for 14 hours per day . The resulting equation is [( 9 , 049 x 10/24) + ( 5 , 804 x 14/24 )] . ( 6 ) Sum of workers who live and work in IRC (Item 1 ) and weighted average worker population (Item 5 ) . (7) Source : US Census Bureau, 2000 Census ( 8 ) Total effective workers ( Item 6 ) divided by population (Item 7 ) . ( 9) Source : US Census Bureau, 2000 Census ( 10 ) School age population (Item 9) divided by population (Item 7 ) . ( 11 ) Population ( Item 7 ) less workers who live and work in IRC (Item 1 ), workers who live in IRC and work elsewhere (Item 4 ), and school age population (Item 9 ) . ( 12 ) Population net of workers and school age population ( Item 11 ) divided by total population ( Item 7 ) . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A - 5 Impact Fee Study The resulting percentages from Table A-9 are used in the calculation of residential coefficients for 11 - hour and 24 -hour functional population . These calculations are presented in Tables A - 10 and A- 11 . Table A -10 Residential Coefficient for 24 -Hour Functional Population Population ` Hours at Percent of Effective Group Residencetl� Populationt�1 Hourst3l Workers 13 41 % 5 . 32 Students 14 15 % 2 . 04 Other 18 46 % 8 . 23 Total Hours at Residence(4 ) 15 . 59 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5 ) 65 % ( 1 ) Assumed. (2) Source : Table A-9 (3 ) Hours at residence (Item 1 ) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2 ) (4 ) Sum of effective hours . ( 5 ) Sum of effective hours ( Item 4 ) divided by 24 . Table A - 11 Residential Coefficient for 11 - Hour Functional Population Population Hours at Percent of Effective Group Residence(') Population(2) Hours(3) Workers 0 41 % - Students 1 15 % 0 . 15 Other 8 46 % 3 . 66 Total Hours at Residence(4) 3 . 80 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5T35 % ( 1 ) Assumed . ( 2 ) Source : Table A-9 ( 3 ) Hours at residence (Item 1 ) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2 ) (4 ) Sum of effective hours . ( 5 ) Sum of effective hours (Item 4 ) divided by 24 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A-6 Impact Fee Study Table A- 12 presents the actual and projected permanent countywide population for IRC , based on the IRC MPO ' s population projections included in the County ' s Comprehensive Plan . Table A - 12 IRC Permanent Population Projections 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Permanent Residents 106 , 690 109 , 579 112 , 947 115 , 716 118 , 169 121 , 174 126 , 796 128768 142 , 166 158 , 744 175 , 322 191 , 900 Projected growth rates for interim years 2 . 00% 2 . 23 % 2 . 01 % 1 . 82 % ( 1 ) Source : IRC Comprehensive Plan Table A- 12 presents the projected seasonal residents for IRC , based on the projections included in the County ' s Comprehensive Plan . Table A -13 IRC Seasonal Population Projections Population Source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Hotels/Motels 4 , 958 51041 51125 51209 51294 51381 52470 59560 51994 61426 61867 7 ,320 Recreational Vehicles 1 , 686 11689 1 ,692 11695 11698 11702 11705 11708 11726 19744 11762 11780 Family , Friends , and Relatives 50455 51546 59638 5 , 730 51824 51920 61017 69116 65593 71069 71554 81045 Migrant Labor 11000 11000 12000 1 , 000 11000 11000 11000 19000 19000 19000 17000 11000 Part-Time Residents 10 , 785 11 , 005 11 ,230 11 , 455 111684 11 , 917 12 , 156 129400 13 ,550 14,700 15 , 840 15 , 941 Total 2304 24 , 281 24 ,685 25 , 089 251501 25 , 920 26 , 347 26 ,784 28 ,863 30 ,939 33 , 023 34 ,086 Growth Rates for Seasonal Residents 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Hotels/Motels 1 . 64% 1 . 51 % 1 . 40% 1 . 34% 1 . 29 % Recreational Vehicles 0 . 19 % 0 . 21 % 0 . 21 % 0 . 21 % 0 . 20 % Family , Firneds , and Relatives 1 . 64 % 1 . 51 % 1 . 40% 1 . 34% 1 . 27 % Migrant Labor 0 . 00 % 0 . 00 % 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00 % Part-Time Residents 2 . 00 % 1 . 79 % 1 . 64 % 1 . 51 % 0 . 13 % ( 1 ) Source : IRC Comprehensive Plan . To calculate the 1998 and 1999 seasonal population figures, the same growth rate as between 2000 and 2005 is used . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A-7 Impact Fee Study Table A -14 IRC Weighted Average Seasonal Population Projections Population Category( l ) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Permanent Residents(2) 106 , 690 109 , 579 1122947 115 , 716 118 , 169 121 , 174 126 , 796 128 , 768 142 , 166 158 , 744 1751322 191 , 900 Hotels/Motels(3) 33719 31781 3 , 844 31907 31971 41036 41102 41170 43496 41820 51150 5 ,490 Recreational Vehicles(4) 708 709 711 712 713 715 716 717 725 732 740 748 Family , Friends , and Relatives(5) 11364 1 , 386 11410 11433 11456 11480 11504 11529 11648 19767 16889 21011 Migrant Labors) 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 Part-Time Residents(') 41530 41622 42717 41811 42907 51005 51105 5 , 208 51691 61174 61653 69695 Weighted Average Totals. 1170181 1209247 1239799 126 ,749 1299386 132 , 580 1389393 140, 562 154, 896 1729407 1899924 2079014 ( 1 ) Source : Table A - 12 for permanent residents and Table A- 13 for seasonal residents (2) Number of permanent residents per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 1 . 0, or 12 months per year. (3 ) Peak visitors in hotels/motels per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 0 . 75 , or 9 months per year (based on discussions with IRC staff and professional judgment) . (4) Peak visitors in RV parks per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 0 . 42, or 5 months per year (based on discussions with IRC staff and professional judgment) . (5 ) Peak visitors that stay with family and friends per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 0 .25 , or 3 months per year (per the IRC Chamber of Commerce and professional judgment) . (6) Peak visitors that are considered migrant workers, per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 0 . 17 , or 2 months per year (per the IRC Comprehensive Plan) . (7) Peak visitors that are considered part-time residents, per year, multiplied by a weighting factor of 0 .42 , or 5 months per year (per the definition of a part-time resident included in the IRC Comprehensive Plan) . (8) Sum of the total residents (Item 1 through Item 6) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 A - 8 Impact Fee Study uoilewaojui iujuauiaiddns saniVA Spadoad g xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) Appendix B presents the 2004 vacant land sales in West IRC , used to determine the land replacement value for five program areas . West IRC is defined as the area between 58th Avenue and County Road 512 . Because the County is more likely to build future facilities in this area, sales in West County are utilized to determine land cost per acre . Sales of four- to six- acre lots are used in the calculation of library, public buildings , and emergency services impact fees . Sales of 40 - to 130 -acre parcels are used in the calculation of public education and parks and recreation facilities impact fees . Table B - 1 4- to 6 -Acre Lot Sales in West IRC ( 2004) 1 ' 1 Parcel Id ` Sale Price Sale Date Street Address city Zip Code Total Acres Cost Per Acre 31370000001145100006.0 $54, 800 01 -Feb-04 97th Street FELLSMERE 32948 5 . 70 $91614 30380000001030000010. 0 $50,000 01 -A r-04 Dale Avenue SEBASTIAN 32958 5 .00 $ 10,000 32392900002004000002. 1 $751000 01 -Mar-04 5965 41st Street VERO BEACH 32967 4 . 86 $ 15 ,432 30382100001000000011 . 1 $ 135 ,000 01 -Jun-04 135th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 4. 83 $27,950 32391000000700000030.0 $ 1901000 01 -Jun-04 2855 63rd Street VERO BEACH 32967 4. 75 $40,000 31393200000300000014. 0 $250,000 01 -Oct-04181st Street VERO BEACH 32967 5 . 00 $50,000 32392900002022000001 . 0 $250,000 37th Street VERO BEACH 32966 4. 18 $ 59, 809 32391000000100000024. 0 $2751000 US Highway I VERO BEACH 32967 4. 07 $67,568 31392800004001000001 . 0 $4185000 5560 85th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 4 . 72 $88,559 32390300000500000001 . 1 $535 ,000 01 -Aug-04 7255 US Highway 1 VERO BEACH 32967 5 . 76 $92, 882 32390300000500000002. 0 $555, 000 7155 US Highway I VERO BEACH 32967 5 . 55 $ 100,000 32390900001020000001 . 1 $510,000 01 -Oct-04 5590 65th Street VERO BEACH 32967 4. 63 $ 110, 151 32391000000700000022. 0 $760,000 01 -May-04, 6255 US Highway I VERO BEACH 32967 5 . 12 $ 148,438 33380300001008000003 . 0 $690,000 01 -Jun-04 20th Street VERO BEACH 32966 4. 45 $ 155 ,056 30382100001000000011 . 3 $850,000 01 -May-04 13361 US Highway 1 SEBASTIAN 32958 4. 65 $ 182, 796 33380100001010000003 . 2 $ 1 ,020,000 01 -Oct-04 78th Avenue VERO BEACH 32966 5 . 08 $200, 787 30382500000002000003 . 3 51 ,250,000 01 -Aug-0 1370OUSHighway I SEBASTIAN 32958 5 . 00 $250,000 30382500000005000005 .0 $ 1 ,075,000 01 -Jun-04 13575 Old Dixie Hi hwa SEBASTIAN 32958 4, 04F' . 04 $266,089 Total $8,942, 800 1 1 87. 39 [Weighted Average Cost Per Acre $102,332 ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC Table B -2 40 - to 130 -Acre Lot Sales in West IRC ( 2004) 11 Parcel Id Sale Price Sale Date Street Address Ci Zi Code Total Acres Cost Per Acre 32392000001001000001 .0''1 01 -Se -04 53rd Street VERO BEACH 32967 32392000001001000001 . 11'1 01 -Se -04 53th Street VERO BEACH 32967 128 41 $71 ,334 $9, 160,000 3239200000100200000L01'1 01 -Se -04 53th Street VERO BEACH 32967 32392000001002000002. 0(-') 01 -Se -04 53th Street VERO BEACH 32967 33392300001001000001 .01�'�1 01 -Oct-04 20th Avenue SW VERO BEACH 32962 1, �1 $ 1 ,038, 100 51 . 74 $20,064 33392300001007000002. 0 -' 01 -Oct-0420th Avenue SW VERO BEACH 32962 31382600000300000005 .01�1 01 -Nov-04 CR 510 VERO BEACH 32967 $737,900 62. 84 $ 11 ,743 31382600000300000004.021 01 -Nov-04 CR 510 VERO BEACH 32967 32391600000300000001 . 8 $5 ,940,000 01 -Oct-04 Bent Pine Drive VERO BEACH 32967 79. 2 $75,000 32391400000500000004 . 3 $700,000 01 -Jul-04 53rd Street VERO BEACH 32966 78 . 63 $8,902 31382200000100000002. 2 $880,000 01 -Jun-0495th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 46. 04 $ 19, 114 31393000000300000002.0 $ 1 ,440,000 01 -May-04 70th Avenue SEBASTIAN 32958 80 $ 18,000 33393300002001000001 .0 $ 1 ,225,40001 -Apr-04 43rd Avenue SW VERO BEACH 32968 59. 88 $20,464 32391700001001000001 .0 $285,000 01 -Jan-04 5975 61st Street VERO BEACH 32967 40.36 $7,061 Total $21 ,406,4001 1 627 . 10 Weighted Average Cost Per Acre $34,136 ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC ( 2 ) Multi- parcel sales ( 3 ) Although this parcel is not located within West IRC , County representatives indicated that it is an example of the type of property the County would consider purchasing in the future for its facilities . As such, it is included in the calculations . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 B - 1 Impact Fee Study (This page left blank intentionally) Appendix C Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule ( WGU Based ) (This page left blank intentionally) Table C - 1 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) Proposed Code No Land Use W Ut11 Unit(') Impact Fee(3) 01 Single Family 1 .60 du $ 75 . 42 02 Mobile Homes 1 .60 du $ 75 . 42 08 Multi -Family 2 -9 Units 1 . 20 du $ 56 . 57 03 Multi-Family 10 Units or More 1 . 20 du $ 56 . 57 04 Condominium (residential ) 1 .20 du $ 56 . 57 05 Residential Co -ops 1 . 20 du $ 56 . 57 06 Retirement homes 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 07 Miscellaneous residential 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 07 . G Guard House 0 . 50 N/A $ 23 . 57 07 . 0 Maintenance building 0 .20 100 sf $9 . 43 07 . P Club house/recreational with kitchen 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 07 . S Club house/recreational without kitchen 0 . 20 100 sf $9 . 43 11 Stores - one story - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 I IT Used commodities sales store 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 Mixed Use - Stores with office and/or residential - 12 all other 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 Used commodities sales store with office and/or 12 . H residential 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 .43 13 Department stores - all other 1 .00 100 sf $47 . 14 13 . 0 Department stores - apparel sales only 0 . 75 100 sf $ 35 . 35 14 Supermarkets/grocery stores greater than 10 , 000 sf 0 .90 100 sf $ 42 . 43 14 . H Supermarkets/grocery stores - all other 1 . 30 100 sf $61 . 28 15 Regional shopping center 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 16 Community shopping center 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 17 Office bldg, non- professional services , one story 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 18 Office bldg, non - professional services , multi-story 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 19 Professional services bldg 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 Airport, marina, bus terminal , pier & marine 20 terminals - all other 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 20 . K Aircraft storage hangars 0 . 10 100 sf $ 4 . 71 21 Restaurants or cafeteria 0 . 70 100 sf $ 33 . 00 22 Drive- in restaurants (curb service) 1 . 30 100 sf $ 61 . 28 Bank , savings & loan , credit services or mortgage 23 company 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 24 Insurance company office 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 25 Laundries , services , etc . - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 25 . I Barber shop/beauty shop 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 26 Service station 1 . 00 100 sf $ 47 . 14 27 Auto sales , service, rental , car wash , etc . - all other 0 .25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 27 . G Vehicle repairs and service 0 . 50 100 sf $23 . 57 27 . J Car wash, manned 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 27 . K Car wash, unmanned 0 . 50 100 sf $23 . 57 28 Mobile home parks , parking lots - all other 1 . 20 unit spac $ 56 . 57 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 C - 1 Impact Fee Study Table C - 1 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) ( continued ) Proposed Code No Land Use WGUt11" Unit(Z) ImpactFeet31 28 . 0 Travel trailers 0 . 25 units ac $ 11 . 78 28 . P Mobile home or travel trailer park office 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 Wholesale outlets , produce manufacture outlets - all 29 other 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 29 . D Facilities exceeding 10 ,000 sf 0 . 10 100 sf $4 . 71 30 Florist, greenhouse, nursery - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $23 . 57 30 . S Nurse /greenhouse 0 to 2 , 000 sf 7 . 00 N/A $ 329 . 98 30 . M Nursery/greenhouse 2 ,001 to 4 ,000 sf 13 . 00 N/A $ 612 . 82 301 Nursery/greenhouse 4 ,001 to 6 ,000 sf 18 . 00 N/A $ 848 . 52 30 . X Nursery/greenhouse exceeding 6 , 000 sf 23 . 00 N/A $ 15084 . 21 31 Drive - in theater, open stadiums 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 32 Theaters & auditoriums 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 33 Nightclubs , bars , and lounges 0 . 70 100 sf $33 .00 Bowling alley , skating ring, pool hall , gym , enclosed 34 arena 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 35 Tourist attraction , exhibit , entertainment facility 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 36 Camps - all other 0 . 40 100 sf $ 18 . 86 363 Day camp only without living or camping facilities 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 .43 36 .D Camp ground area 0 . 25 camp site $ 11 . 78 37 Race tracks : Horse , auto , or dog 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 38 Golf course, driving ranges , tennis courts 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 39 Hotels & motels - all other 0 . 45 room $21 .21 39 . 0 Motels with food sales 0 . 50 room $23 . 57 39 . G Hotels with conference & food facilities 0 . 60 room $28 .28 39 . H Hotels without conference but with food facilities 0 . 50 room $23 . 57 Light manufacture, small machine shop , printing 41 plant 0 .40 100 sf $ 18 . 86 Heavy industrial , heavy equipment mfb . , large 42 machine shops - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $ 23 . 57 423 Aircraft manufacturing 0 . 01 100 sf $0 . 47 43 Lumber yard , sawmill , planning mill - all other 0 . 40 100 sf $ 18 . 86 433 Retail lumber yard 0 . 12 100 sf $ 5 . 66 44 Packing plants : fruit, vegetables , & meat 0 . 80 100 sf $37 . 71 45 Canneries , distilleries , wineries 0 . 80 100 sf $37 . 71 Food processing, candy factories, bakeries , chip 46 factories 0 . 80 100 sf $37 . 71 47 Cement plants , clay plants , rock & gravel plants 0 .40 100 sf $ 18 . 86 48 Warehousing - all other 0 .20 100 sf $9 .43 48 . 0 Mini -warehouse, mini self- storage 0 . 04 100 sf $ 1 . 89 48 . S Warehousing over 40 , 000 sf 0 . 10 100 sf $4 . 71 Warehousing with multiple commercial and 48 . T industrial use 0 . 30 100 sf $ 14 . 14 49 10pen storage, parking garage , etc . - all other 0 .20 100 sf $9 . 43 49 . 5 10pen storage area over 40 , 000 sf 0 . 10 100 sf $4 . 71 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 C -2 Impact Fee Study 1 Table CA Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) ( continued ) Proposed Code No Land Use GU(') Unit(�) Imp' "act Fee(3) 70 Religious Fraternal 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 71 Churches - all other 0 . 14 100 sf $ 6 . 60 Church with banquet or kitchen facilities less than 71N 1 , 300 sf 0 . 07 100 sf $ 3 . 30 71 . Y Church without banquet or kitchen facilities 0 . 07 100 sf $ 3 . 30 72 Private schools and colleges 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 73 Privately owned hospitals 2 . 00 bed $ 94 . 28 Homes for the aged/non- convalescents , minimum 74 Imedical treatment 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 75 Orphanages , other non -profit or charitable services 0 . 25 100 sf $ 11 . 78 76 Mortuaries , cemeteries , crematoriums 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 77 Clubs , lodges , union halls 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 78 Sanitariums , convalescent, & rest homes 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 79 Cultural organizations , facilities 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 81 Military 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 82 Forest, parks , recreational areas 1 . 80 acre $ 84 . 85 83 County Board of Public Instruction 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 84 Colleges 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 85 Hospitals (not privately owned) 2 . 00 bed $ 94 . 28 County owned or foreclosed , other than public 86 schools , colleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 87 State owned land , murphy land 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 Federal other than military, forests , parks , 88 recreational areas , colleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 Municipal , other than parks , recreational areas , 89 Icolleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 9 . 43 ( 1 ) Source : IRC 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3C , Solid Waste Sub- element (2 ) Square footage refers to the area of structure and enclosure, area under roof. (3 ) The ratio of WGU (Item 1 ) of each item to the WGU of single family land use ( 1 . 60 ) is multiplied by the fee for single family ( $ 75 . 42 ) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 C - 3 Impact Fee Study (This page left blank intentionally) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 C -4 Impact Fee Study sataoluanuI , 11113le3 Baia ; si (l joou ;) s aan ; nj pug ; uaianD Q xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) Table D -1 IRC School District Inventory of School Facilities ( 2004/05 School Year) Permanent Relocatable Total Square Permanent Relocatable Total Student Square Feet-per , Educational Facility Sy Feet Square Feet Feet Student Stations Student Stations' Stations Student Station High Schools Vero Beach Senior High 1 429, 8231 22 , 840 4523663 259-57F' , 957 375 3 , 332 135 . 85 Sebastian River Senior High 1 277, 1471 105728 287 , 875 1 , 8731 225 2,098 137 . 21 Total / Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - High School 740,538 51430 136.38 Middle Schools Gifford Middle 1357019 7,4641 142,4831 17184 1981 15382 103 . 10 Oslo Middle 151 , 757 5 , 194 1561951 1 , 174 132 13306 120 . 18 Sebastian River Middle 1265840 9, 734 136, 574 15218 231 11449 94 . 25 Total / Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Middle School 436,008 1 4J371 105 .39 Elementary Schools Beachland Elementary 88 , 440 840 89,280 529 18 547 163 . 22 Citrus Elementary 76435 31320 79, 755 520 76 596 133 . 82 Dodgertown Elementary 106, 744 91056 11500 569 174 743 155 . 85 Fellsmere Elementary 77 , 567 33280 809847 540 84 624 129 . 56 Glendale Elementary 693479 35456 723935 564 88 652 111 . 86 Highlands Elementary 643963 800 65 , 763 547 12 559 117 . 64 Pelican Island Elementary 65 ,988 9, 588 75 , 576 558 212 770 98 . 15 Rosewood Elementary 82, 545 840 835385 560 18 578 144 .26 Sebastian Elementary 80, 722 15628 82, 350 605 40 645 127 .67 .Thompson Elementary 805471 0 80,471 550 0 550 146 . 31 Vero Beach Elementary 1 72 , 935 3 ,024 75 , 959 555 66 621 122 . 32 Osceola Magnet School 7313 61 3 ,468 761794 5531 4415971 128 . 63 Liberty Magnet School 95 , 708 0 95 , 708 5681 01 5681 168 . 50 Total / Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Elem . School 19074,623 1 U501 133.49 ( 1 ) Source : Florida DOE FISH Report from March 24 , 2004 to November 05 , 2004 for IRC School District. Administrative, Support/Maintenance, and Alternative Education facilities are not included in the inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County May 2005 D- 1 Impact Fee Study Table D -2 IRC School District Inventory of School Facilities ( 2008/09 School Year) Total (Permanent) Total (Permanent) Square Feet per Educational Facility Square Feet Student Stations Student Station High Schools Vero Beach Senior High 429 , 823 2 , 957 145 . 36 Sebastian River Senior High 277 , 147 1 , 873 147 . 97 New High School " AAA " 286 , 147 13900 150 . 60 Total 993 , 117 6 , 730 N/A Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - High School 147. 57 Middle Schools Gifford Middle 135 , 019 19184 114 . 04 Oslo Middle 1515757 19174 129 . 26 Sebastian River Middle 126, 840 11218 104 . 14 From Freshman Learning Center 128 , 819 17050 122 . 68 Total 542 ,435 4 , 626 N/A Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Middle School 117 .26 Elementary Schools Beachland Elementary 88 ,440 529 167 . 18 Citrus Elementary 76, 435 520 146 . 99 Dodgertown Elementary 106, 744 569 187 . 60 Fellsmere Elementary 77 , 567 540 143 . 64 Glendale Elementary 69 ,479 564 123 . 19 Highlands Elementary 64 , 963 547 118 . 76 Pelican Island Elementary 65, 988 558 118 . 26 Rosewood Elementary 82 , 545 560 147 . 40 Sebastian Elementary 805722 605 133 . 42 Thompson Elementary 80,471 550 146 . 31 Vero Beach Elementary 72 , 935 555 131 . 41 Osceola Magnet School 73 , 326 553 132 . 60 Liberty Magnet School 95 , 708 568 168 . 50 New Elementary School " B " 88 , 7721 550 161 . 40 Total 191249095 79768 N/A Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Elem. School 144. 71 Total - All Schools 1 25659 , 647 199124 Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Elem. School 139. 07 ( 2) Source : Florida DOE FISH Report from March 24 , 2004 to November 05 , 2004 for IRC School District. Administrative , Support/Maintenance , and Alternative Education facilities are not included in the inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County May 2005 D-2 Impact Fee Study saaj javduiI tuisodmI ao3 sluamaainbag Ir tarl :1 xipuaddV r (This page left blank intentionally) Appendix F Review of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area (This page left blank intentionally) Table F -1 Potential Impact Fee Program Areas and Existing IRC Standards Fee # Program Area Current IRC LOS Adopted IRC LOS Standard Source 1 Correctional Facilities 2 . 97 beds per 1 , 000 residents N/A No current IRC LOS standard IRC Comprehensive Plan - Capital 2 Solid Waste 2 . 2 tons/capita/year 1 .2 tons/capita/year Improvement Element - Policy 3 .5 and Solid Waste Department 114 . 71 SF , 117 .26 SF , and 147 . 56 SF per 3 Public Education Elementary , Middle , and High School student No current IRC LOS standard ; station , respectively , combined for a weighted N/A information provided by IRC School average of 139 . 07 SF per student station . District. Buidings - 580 SF per 1 , 000 residents 4 Libraries Materials - 3 , 200 items per 1 ,000 residents 527 SF per 1 ,000 residents IRC Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Computers - 0 .7 computers per 1 , 000 residents Use Element - Policy 2 . 8 . b Other Equipment - 0 .2 items per 1 , 000 residents 5 Fire/Emergency Medical Services 0 . 089 stations per 1 ,000 residents 4-6 minutes response time for service IRC Comprehensive Plan - Future Land area 5-mile radius within urban areas Use Element - Policy 2 . 8 . a No current IRC LOS standard ; 6 Law Enforcement 2 . 09 officers per 1 ,000 residents N/A Information provided by IRC Sheriffs Office No current IRC LOS standard ; 7 Public Buildings 1 . 99 SF per Resident N/A information provided by IRC Department of General Services . 6 . 22 acres of regional parks per 1 , 000 residents ; 8 Parks and Recreation Facilities 0 . 39 acres of community/neighborhood parks per 4 . 00 acres (all parks)/1 , 000 residents IRC Comprehensive Plan - Capital 1 , 000 residents , combined for a total of 6 . 61 acres Improvement Element - Policy 3 . 5 per 1 , 000 residents F- 1 Table F -2 Inventory of Available Impact Fee Studies and Ordinances 1 - Correctional Facilities Impact Fee No . Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 Wakulla County Yes Yes 2 Martin Yes Yes L53 Brevard Yes Yes 4 Collier Waiting Yes Polk Waiting Waiting 2 - Solid Waste Impact Fee No , Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 Brevard County Yes Yes 2 Monroe Yes Yes 3 Flagler Waiting Yes 3 - Public Education Fee No . Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 Lee County Yes Yes 2 Polk County Yes Yes Recently increased fee 3 Osceola County Yes Yes 4 Collier County Yes Yes In the process of being updated 5 St . Johns Yes Yes 6 Martin County Yes Yes 7 Citrus County Yes Yes In the process of being updated by TOA 8 Lake County Yes Yes 9 Orange County Yes Yes 10 Palm Beach County Yes Yes 11 Brevard County Yes N/A Updated by TOA - not yet adopted F-2 Table F -2 Inventory of Available Impact Fee Studies and Ordinances 4 - Library Impact Fee No, Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 Collier County Yes Yes Consolidated Ordinance 2 Wakulla County Yes Yes 3 Martin County Yes Yes 4 Citrus County Yes Yes In the process of being updated by TOA 5 Brevard County Yes Yes 5 - Fire/Emergency Services Impact Fee No , Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 St . Johns County Yes Yes 2 Citrus County Yes Yes Consolidated Ordinance 3 Martin County Yes Yes 4 Brevard County Yes Yes 5 Collier County Yes Yes 6 - Law Enforcement Impact Fee No . Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 St. Johns County Yes No 2 Wakulla County Yes Yes 3 Martin County Yes Yes 4 Citrus County Yes Yes Consolidated Ordinance 5 Orange County Yes Yes F-3 Table F =2 Inventory of Available Impact Fee Studies and Ordinances 7 - Public Buildings Impact Fee No . Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes L51 Citrus County Yes Yes In the process of being updated by TOA 2 St . Johns County Yes Yes 3 Martin County Yes Yes 4 Collier County Yes Yes Updated by TOA Palm Beach County Yes Yes Consolidated Ordinance 8 - Park and Recreation Impact Fee No . Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 St . Johns County Yes Yes 2 Citrus County Yes Yes General Ordinance 3 Martin County Yes Yes 4 Wakulla County Yes Yes 5 Brevard County I Yes Yes Consolidated Ordinance F-4 Table F-3 - 1 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 1 - Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Beds per 1 , 000 Residents Functional County Current LOS LOS Standard Population(' ) Source Indian River 2. 97 N/A N/A No adopted LOS standard (2) Development Impact Fee Martin 2 . 47 4 . 20 Y Update Study Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Citrus(2) N/A N/A Y Impact Fee Update Duncan Associates Jan-01 Wakulla 3 . 67 (0 . 0092 Beds per DU ) N Impact Fee Study Wakulla Community Dec-97 Development Department Brevard 2 . 20 2 . 30 Y Impact Fee Update Study Tindale Oliver & Associates Mar-0 ( 1 ) Functional Population represents the number of "full-time equivalent' people present in a geographic area or site . It can be measured on a 24-hour basis (24 hours each day , seven days each week ) or on a daytime basis ( 16 hours each day, seven days each week) . Functional residents allow one to (a) measure the level of service on an area- wide basis and (b) estimate demands for facilities generated by a particular land use . (2) Law Enforcement and Corrections Facilities . F-5 Table F -34 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 2 - Solid Waste Impact Fee Tons per Capital per Year County Source Current LOS LOS Standard Indian River 2 . 2 1 . 2 Solid Waste Disposal District Brevard 1 . 4 N/A Solid Waste Disposal System Peat Marwick Main & Jun - 87 Impact Fee Study Co . Solid Waste/Recycling Facilities Freilich , Leitner, Monroe 1 . 10 1 . 10 Oct-92 Impact Fee Report Carlisle & Shortlidge F-6 Table F-3 -3 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 3 - Public Education Fee Student Generation Rate Enrollment f Capacity County Source Single Family Detached All Residential Attached Manufactured Home Enrollment Student Stations Indian River 0 .351 0 .156 0 .159 15,362 141806 Information Provided by IRC School District for Current Impact Fee Study Lee 0.352 0 . 109 0.067 57,279 60, 198 School Impact Fee Study Duncan Associates Nov-01 Polk 0.479 0 . 256 0.246 75,262 91 ,646 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Jan-03 Facilities Company Osceola 0.550 0.358 0.269 36, 785 40 ,329 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Nov-03 Facilities Company Collier 0.355 0. 164 0.266 22 ,038 21 ,367 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & May-92 Facilities Company St. Johns 0.436 0.252 0.493 16, 148 N/A Technical Memorandum on the James C . Nicholas Feb-98 Methods of Updating Impact Fees Martin N/A N/A N/A 15,428 N/A Impact Fee Review GMA Oct-98 Citrus 0.244 0.208 0.280 14, 593 16 ,224 Impact Fee Update TOA & Dr. Arthur Jan-05 Nelson Lake 0.410 0.253 0. 145 29.485 32 ,614 impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & -03 Facilities Company Orange 0.472 0. 274 0.281 135,457 102 ,752 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Oct-98 Facilities Company Palm Beach N/A N/A N/A 151 ,000 N/A Public educational Impact Fees N/A Jan-03 Brevard 0.350 0.220 0. 210 68 ,355 82 ,415 School Impact Fee Study TOA & Dr. Arthur Feb-04 Nelson F-7 Table F -34 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 4 - Li rary Impact Fee Current LOS Florida LOS Standard County Volumes per Volumes per Source SF per Capita Rank Ca Capita Rank SF per Capita Capita P P Indian River 0 . 58 3 3 .20 1 Information Provided by IRC Library Services for Current Impact Fee Study Brevard 0 . 72 1 2 . 39 2 2003 Library Directory with Statistics (Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) Martin 0 . 70 2 1 . 83 3 2003 Library Directory with Statistics ( Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) Osceola 0 . 45 4 1 . 77 5 2003 Library Directory with Statistics ( Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) Collier 0 . 36 9 1 .60 6 Collier County Library Impact fee Update Citrus 0 . 43 5 1 . 26 10 0 . 60 2 . 00 2003 Library Directory with Statistics (Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) Okeechobee 0 . 42 6 1 . 28 9 2003 Library Directory with Statistics (Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) Wakulla 0 . 41 7 1 . 51 8 2003 Library Directory with Statistics (Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) St. Johns 0 . 40 8 1 . 91 4 2003 Library Directory with Statistics ( Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) St. Lucie 0 . 31 10 1 . 53 7 2003 Library Directory with Statistics (Corresponding to year 2001 -2002 ) F-8 Table F -3 -5 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 5 - Fire/Emergency Services Impact Fee Stations/1 , 000 Response Time Sq. FeeU Resident Residents minutes County Area Source Current LOS Std LOS Std Current Current Functional LOS LOS LOS LOS Std Population' ) Indian River Fire/EMS 0.089 NIA Y IRC Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Element - Policy 2.8.a Martin Fire/EMS 0 . 680 0. 650 Y Development Impact Fee Arthur C. Nelson Jul-99 Update Study Technical Memorandum on St. Johns Fire/EMS 0 . 180 N/A Y the Methods of Updating James C . Nicholas Feb-98 Impact Fees Citrus Fire 0 . 650 N/A Y Impact Fee Update Study Duncan Associates Jan-01 Citrus EMS 0. 036 NIA Y Impact Fee Update Study Duncan Associates Jan-01 Brevard Fire 0. 120 0. 100 Y Impact Fee Update Study TOA Mar-00 Brevard EMS 0. 046 0. 048 Y Impact Fee Update Study TOA Mar-00 CollierEMS 0. 068 N/A 6 . 000 6 . 300 Y EMS Development Impact TOA May-00 Fee Update Study (1 ) Functional Population represents the number of "full-time equivalent' people present in a geographic area or site. It can be measured on a 24-hour basis (24 hours each day, seven days each week) or on a daytime basis ( 16 hours each day, seven days each week) . Functional residents allow one to (a) measure the level of service on an area-wide basis and (b) estimate demands for F-9 Table F -3 -6 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 6 - Law Enforcement Impact Fee Offiers per 1 ,000 SF per Resident Annual Calls for Service County Residents per Sworn Officer Functional „ ) Current LOS Current LOS Current LOS LOS Population LOS Standard LOS Standard Standard Source Indian River 2 .09 N/A NIA Information Provided by IRC Sheriffs Department for Current Impact Fee Study . Martin 0 . 38 0 . 35 Y Development Impact Fee Update Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Study St . Johns 1 . 18 N/A Y Technical Memorandum on the James C . Nicholas Feb-98 Methods of Updating Impact Fees Citrus(2) Y Impact Fee Update Duncan Associates Jan-01 1 .05(0 . 0015 Officers Wakulla Community Wakulla per DU) N Impact Fee Study Development Dec-97 Der)artment Orange 465 . 8 343 . 34 N Law Enforcement Impact Fee Duncan associates :Jun-98] ( 1 ) Functional Population represents the number of "full-time equivalent' people present in a geographic area or site . It can be measured on a 24-hour basis (24 hours each day , seven days each week) or on a daytime basis ( 16 hours each day , seven days each week) . Functional residents allow one to (a) measure the level of service on an area-wide basis and (b) (2) Law Enforcement and Corrections Facilities. F- 10 Table F -34 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 7 = Public Buildings Impact Fee SF per Resident Functional County LSource Current LOS OS Population (l ) Standard Indian River 1 . 99 N/A N/A Information Provided by IRC Department of General Services for Current Impact Fee Study . Development Impact Fee Update Martin 2 . 47 2 . 47 Y Study Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Citrus 3 . 13 N/A Y Impact Fee Update TOA & GMA Jan-05 Technical Memorandum on the St. Johns 4 . 37 N /A Y Methods of Updating Impact Fees James C . Nicholas Feb- 98 Collier 1 . 74 1 . 74 Y General Government Building Impact TOA & GMA Jan-04 Fees Palm Beach N/A N/A Y Impact Fee Update N/A Apr-01 ( 1 ) Functional Population represents the number of "full-time equivalent' people present in a geographic area or site . It can be measured on an 11 -hour basis ( 11 hours each day , five days each week) . Functional residents allow one to (a) measure the level of service on an area-wide basis and ( b) estimate demands for facilities generated by a particular land use . F- 11 Table FmM Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 8 = Park and Recreation Impact Fee Acres per 1 , 000 Residents County Source Current LOS LOS Standard Indian River 6 . 61 4 .00 IRC Comprehensive Plan - Capital Improvement Element - Policy 3 .5 Development Impact Fee Update Martin(l ) 31 . 40 29 . 00 Study Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Technical Memorandum on the St. Johns 13 . 60 29 . 53 James C . Nicholas Feb-98 Methods of Updating Impact Fees Citrus 7 . 89 6 . 00 Impact Fee Update Duncan Associates Jan-01 Wakulla 2 . 11 (0 . 0053 Acres per DU) Impact Fee Study Wakulla Community Dec-97 Development Department Brevard 6 . 61 3 . 00 Impact Fee Update Study Tindale Oliver & Associates Mar-00 ( 1 ) Includes LOS for resource-based park land , as well as park land for regional and community/neighborhood parks . F- 12 Table F -4 Current and Recommended Standards by Impact Fee Program Area Fee # Program Area Current IRC LOS Adopted IRC LOS Standard 1 Correctional Facilities 2 . 97 beds per 1 , 000 residents N/A 2 Solid Waste 2 . 2 tons/capita/year 1 . 2 tons/capita/year 114 . 71 SF , 117 . 26 SF , and 147 . 56 SF per 3 Public Education Elementary , Middle , and High School student N/A station , respectively , combined for a weighted average of 139 . 07 SF per student station . Buidings - 580 SF per 1 , 000 residents 4 Libraries Materials - 3 , 200 items per 1 , 000 residents 527 SF per 1 , 000 residents Computers - 0 . 7 computers per 1 , 000 residents Other Equipment - 0 . 2 items per 1 , 000 residents 5 Fire/Emergency Medical 0 . 089 stations per 1 , 000 residents 4-6 minutes response time for service area 5- Services mile radius within urban areas 6 Law Enforcement 2 . 09 officers per 1 , 000 residents N/A 7 Public Buildings 1 . 99 SF per Resident N/A 6 . 22 acres of regional parks per 1 , 000 residents ; 8 Parks and Recreation 0 . 39 acres of community/neighborhood parks per 4 . 00 acres ( all parks )/ 1 , 000 residents Facilities 1 , 000 residents , combined for a total of 6 . 61 acres per 1 , 000 residents F- 13 (This page left blank intentionally) Appendix G Comparison of Selected Fees in Florida (This page left blank intentionally) V � Table G -1 Correctional Facilities - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Martin ( ' ) (Z) $ 135 . 76 $ 130 . 61 Citrus( ' ) $ 135 . 00 $ 112 . 00 Wakulla $ 143 . 00 $ 143 . 00 Brevard (3 ) $ 71 . 99 $ 62 . 73 ( 1 ) Law Enforcement and Correction Facilities (2 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf ( 3 ) Low Rise Apartment ( 1 -2 Stories ) G - 1 • v Table G -2 Solid Waste - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Brevard $ 160 . 00 $ 106 . 50 Monroe $ 64 . 00 $ 64 . 00 G -2 Table G -3 Public Education - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Lee $2 , 232 . 00 $691 . 00 Polk $ 1 , 607 . 00 $ 832 . 00 Osceola $2 , 828 . 00 $ 1 , 003 . 00 Collier $ 1 , 778 . 00 $ 827 . 00 St . Johns $ 801 . 00 $463 . 00 Martin $ 973 . 18 $ 938 . 23 citrus (2) $ 2 , 040 . 00 $ 1 , 739 . 00 Osceola $ 9 , 708 . 30 $ 6 , 346 . 06 Lake (2) $ 7 , 055 . 00 $2 , 121 . 00 Orange $2 , 828 . 00 $ 1 , 907 . 00 Palm Beach (3) $ 2 , 215 . 65 $ 980 . 59 ( 1 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (2 ) Proposed ( 3 ) Single Family from 2 , 000 sf to 3 , 599 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 399 sf G -3 Table G -4 Library Facilities - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Brevard $63 . 84 $ 37 . 91 Osceola N/A N /A Collier( ' ) $ 296 . 56 $ 118 . 62 Okeechobee N/A N /A St . Lucie $ 161 . 00 $ 105 . 00 Martin (2) $ 279 . 91 $ 269 . 29 St . Johns N/A N/A Citrus (3) $ 161 . 00 $ 122 . 00 Wakulla $ 119 . 00 $ 119 . 00 ( 1 ) Single Family 2 , 000 sf Multi Family 800 sf (2 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (3 ) Proposed G -4 Table G -5 Fire -EMS - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Martin( ' ) $ 103 . 27 $ 99 . 35 St . Johns(2 ) $ 81 . 46 $ 65 . 36 St . Johns (3) $ 18 . 72 $ 15 . 02 St. Johns(5) $ 100 . 18 $ 80 . 38 Citrus(2) $ 156 . 00 $ 129 . 00 Citrus (3) $ 15 . 00 $ 13 . 00 Citrus (5) $ 171 . 00 $ 142 . 00 Brevard (2) $ 54 . 08 $47 . 13 Brevard (3) $ 38 . 65 $ 33 . 68 Brevard (5) $ 92 . 73 $ 80 . 81 Collier(3) (4) $ 103 . 59 $ 93 . 03 ( 1 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (2 ) Fire Only ( 3 ) EMS Only (4 ) Single Family from 1 , 500 sf to 2 , 499 sf Multi Family less than 1 , 500 sf ( 5 ) Fire + EMS G -5 Table G -6 Law Enforcement - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Martin ( 1 ) (2) $ 135 . 76 $ 130 . 61 St . Johns $46 . 77 $ 37 . 53 Citrus ( ' ) $ 135 . 00 $ 112 . 00 Wakulla $ 93 . 00 $ 93 . 00 Orange $70 . 01 $ 182 . 44 ( 1 ) Law Enforcement and Corrections Facilities . (2 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf G-6 Table G -7 Government Buildings - Residential Impact Fees County Single Family Multi Family Martin( ' ) $273 . 72 $ 176 . 74 Citrus(2) $230 . 07 $ 174 . 15 St . Johns $ 205 . 66 $ 165 . 01 Collier(3) $ 319 . 20 $ 127 . 68 Palm Beach (4) $ 138 . 85 $ 101 . 67 ( 1 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (2 ) Proposed . Unit 1 , 000 sf ( 3 ) Unit 1 , 000 sf Unit: 1 , 000 sf Single Family 2 , 000 sf Multi Family 800 sf (4 ) Single Family from 2 , 000 sf to 3 , 599 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 399 sf G -7 Table G - 8 Park and Recreation Facilities - Residential Impact Fee County Single Family Multi Family Martin( ' ) $ 1 , 296 . 07 $ 1 , 246 . 91 St . Johns $ 513 . 12 $414 . 11 Collier(21 $ 802 . 00 $486 . 00 Citrus $435 . 00 $ 360 . 00 Wakulla $ 53 . 00 $ 53 . 00 Brevard $ 505 . 36 $441 . 42 ( 1 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (2 ) Single Family from 1 , 800 sf to 3 , 000 sf Multi Family less than 1 , 000 sf G-8 Appendix H Policy Presentation to Elected Officials (This page left blank intentionally) , ` _ b Y � 4lemeat$ryschool • ORA om vIc LIT t � f. I y : �` Alk A lw ! 10 , saajnoS Buipunj spiepuejS Sol �w sanssl uoijejuawaidw sjuamajinball leBal F4 >Y n • �, t � • •���, a� F� 1 sz �, �� - • � � ' � V s�� i � • . � � _ y iP;e L iYrs bF f ?N F . LM �. Lm dNwwr , IM cr f *j cn +tip 94..x f Y J X : LM LM • £fi Lm ,k Y ( �k fC ` ` . 4w , Y a 0 au 0 r aanad ueipul --� — aaill J 00sed — -- ePIJOIJ R , p6O� , pLO� , pOp� , p�6� , p,�ON Opp2 pOO� p�O� LOQ 06� 0 O O % 0 % Z % 17 711 PI % 9 % 8 % 0 % Z 40001 Agool % t Nf. % 9 sajeN Lj jmoaE) uoileindod jenuud } o uosped woo Ww - ® x O z, r 40 40 w • � ise . a - F n `i { sonuonoII ooj joodwi opiaol :j lenuuV lejol p84MRs3 SU01111w ul * 000 00'l� 00'0 00'l� �oq°� �°� �°� �°� �°� �o�°� �o�°� 0 $ 09 $ Adl 00 $ 05 $ OOZ $ 0SZ $ or 00 £ $ 05J, 9A 1 SO )x £ $ BADI' dA Eld D S1 666 • • • • eej pedwi • uoilnqljisia ■ 1 • IUOWUOJIAU3 1 le3ISALI ■ % 9 SJOLOO } 1 r 1 1 • - - ■ � . uoile:podsuejjL • 1 1 1 1 . • • • 1 • . . uewnH 1 , % g• - oilqnd t .f 0 Y r . ep ! o � � — - o sed JaAi � ue pub =--t-- Jailloo —4 E { � OOZ OOOZ 666 866 L66 966 966 V66 � % 0 % Z % 9 % 0 % Z % 9 % 8 % OZ % ZZ % 'bZ SJBGA uaann488 GBUBgO IU03JOd enIBA jsnr r ti . a slue aunbaH le6aml ID v a ewti� ... ,.° � . ^ :ro.. rn• aa x. ..A,q . A?.�. ..e _.:� :' _ . ,.1 aS _ i-,� � # � sa 4 .. - #. y3 ,,,�+t .15 � v y� , i � A c a �.� e� � j`�v A°i , I ndI :) pue 31 :) qaLjj sluaLuaidLuj . pue .fAli :) ede :) Alijoel lelide :) mou jo Isoa 941 SJOA03 ,.' ju ,qLudOj9Ai9 i MOU ol 96jeLp le4ide :) aLui4mauo e si dwi uV 019191 Jae a 2 r. W :State P14 statutes case authoritysupports local government requires compliance with state • / federal • • • requirements a r • ate, • • ■ LM 41 Lm • 4w c LMLM • m u • LL Q � i i • lijauaq 9 .insua o4 spje . nBajes ABolopotilow punos sajinbai i :) ueild o :) 4ijouag , , . MLL 6 POON i snxBN leuoile N lena wl IAWA� W ) I lsajL rim uu _r, 2 , c 4:) edmi len4:) e I 96jeLp I 4uaLudolOADP jo 4iun • eel wnwixem s4soD jo oje 4s a4euorpodoid sagiliael je4ideD I o 4soD lelide :) iol peou m, s4uawn :) op 4eLil Apn4S e � ` St + A3 i k{ 1 j 41. f �F f f y f� • // . � 1 A 30 1 f k4 ' • _ br 1 J ZPTIIIIzr Ensure proportionate share of future capital costs Consider future revenue from new development Consider nonmimpact fee revenue sources ( e . g . , sales tax ) e a .> . �. � . � « � : AID,: • • a s „ 16 r , 11 T Cfi .oFr-a hfXe ' --r 11 1/0 L 6 l 151 , IJJ , 14 � . a� caS l r o 40 C £ oll ■ a40 � � D Y � f � D P: , ( %low . OW 5 r CL �y,'-?+.�; /'-kr"' 6�v 'mK „#ef 5^.� W'°" a !uY✓a m.Sr .tWrl :4� i L ian � uo � � � 8 ay ; saoa Rn I ON s3A • uoi ; dope aa� e sy � uow aaay ; � sea � ; e aq a� ep aa aye � ey � spuawwo � aa ; ue ; � nsuo � ayl � uiod uoisi � aa • Lo 400 Lm p • � 40 0 • LM Ii� ti [ GILT log Interlocal developed to . collect fees in cities pay administrative fees • cmities define reporting requirements Develop capital programs „o m , 17 a • CAN ul0 " 0 0 Aw •f■ . • W rw �. �■tt _ ■fit � ,- ■ � 4Wof ric tU ;. Cli CD I MI x r . uN-Z , ,.,e 1 Y ' kkk fi 3- CL �3 mc Lm 4W 4 1 . r Q� 4W 4J is � � Lie z l cr k LM Dal Ah J 4w ow 44' � 9 z 4 � A 4 i � { s' ki W h :. '? t ' • LM LM r M 0 0 • , 1 • LM M= OW - _ 4J LM (V (A 0 > ' , CLLM 4j 41 m , 0 4x 4 x i I 1 {, 3` r. '�"' y .� 'a' f p' �� �' PP I'✓'$mf k bmb.. , r 3 I'll Ile I/ as Zi it 01 , C ,1 11 Lo (U Y i ck wm ■ �. g. 4w t f � 01 , CLI El , f iii � .�.� ■ � ■ ol �- S AW 114 C3 [ Ml' u i ! t • • 4` r . ( jr alqejLaas ) seoje q ( sieaA 9 uitilim ) pouad aluil alqeuosea.i ui juads eq jsnW eaueua4uie pue suoileiodo uo puads jouue :) P9439110a LIDILIAR Jol sal4ijoel uo 4uads eq . 4snW w � 2 2 F N 4D to 14 h 7 l5 O ' 4/£+ £/' WAG, y 11a ' l�W N � 4 T j ' i 1 mc 7 �. Lo m Lo Vii/ �• 41 • ■ UA 4i fA IV w _ Q { D s � 3 i � } c 'o • j: ul/ s • r L V man :) uo :) atil soocl ei5oid lelide3 e ui papnl :) ui aq Isn 1:) afojd 941 ipax) iadOl8A9p e 6uinoadde ol joijd 'fey ; spue o:) aj juelinsuo :) aqjL ,,71, ' IlIzuiod U'Oisiaaa I i r saajnos via o oj see I Aed Isnpq poullop Apeop aq jsnW Suoild 9X9 gAoidde AeW r IF }} t ofNZ ✓ y, .d+o/' r/, '.5 ma L e DZJ %i. . m'. ePy i . s eA z � CL1 , E E , , 4w U , X 0 u smi cn ELCL • w } 4w Q� { V 0 .r , a e , 0 ul ,�.,� ■ LM 11 4 ca • co w 0 All 40 40 ci . ;( t i • • y A { S 0 Sol , piepuels Sol papuawwoDaN � I pi epu els Sol 4uajj n :) :)N I � Sol 4 eaj e w ei 6 Ow' d Z alqejL 99S j IMIZ:: ON s3A ian � uo � � � e aye saod ' Z algel ui pa � uasaad spaepue;s SOl Akpuiu� i � aad ay } spuawuao � aa ; ue � � nsuo � ayl , � uiod uois � S Jaa S3A 17 � eaae wea6oad aa� ; � edwi Aue ao; Aepo ; s ; s � xa ; eynn uey ; paepue;si SOl aay6iy e ysi � ge � sa o � ; uenn � � 8 ay ; saoa ; uiod uoisi � aa rr a _ ( L6Z $ tpg $ ) 9E9 $ ) uoijean :) ilqnd ( 801= 16 $ P3 ( ZgT $ log $ ) a ( EtFT $ zt= $ ) suoli:) Djjo leiluopisawd Alime =4 916uiS tre WAW oilu . . . . . . . � . Ul ® e ■ ® . ■ � ` / \ LM m � � �Z m ■ m � \ 1 � m . D ■ LL • . . . � . w < ■ � � \ �/ ° ■ ■ . : . : . , . . . : @ � : . � \ M,7 � ■ � � �} • s e « � < ■ � � t LO le4ide :) jol anuanaN ia :j 4:) edtul - uON anuana -y aamq 43 e ciw I A rt 'n �D �D ;an uana11 i) 9 :1 s s sI A �J ?, seaie wea6oad as; ;:) eduai atil jo Auejol Buipun; anuanaa aa; 1:) ed imuoujo juno e ' ay ; 95uey � ol ; uenn :) :) g aye sOOCI IUI! Od U011"SE), aQ � I e" 3; 1 i :. r + LM rot ' • - 1 E m 0 J • ~�