Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-094 � � • N R ' N • f f • � ' i • Fe ' ruary 20 5 or y r �.. SEASTIAN it r- School I jw Ito i • 4 a e f a � �! • i'fl r ' • i I a , . f y w r y fit' a � g. ; "A'f•°+ 7�1� ba err.' Final Report Indian River County Impact Fee Study Indian River County 1840 25`h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Ph (772) 567-8000, fax (772) 978- 1806 February 2005 CONSULTING TEAM Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . 1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 Freilich , Leitner, & Carlisle 1150 One Main Plaza 4435 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Ph (816) 561 -4414, fax (816) 561 - 7931 Arthur C . Nelson , Ph .D , ASCE , FACIP Virginia Tech, Alexandria Center 1021 Prince Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ph (703) 706-8110, fax (703) 518-8009 34301. 04 (This page left blank intentionally) Table of Contents FINAL REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IMPACT FEE STUDY I. Introduction and Policy Summary .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . .. .. . . . . I- 1 Introduction . . . , . . , ' , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . feel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . feel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 1 PolicySummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 Overview . , , , . 1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Purpose of the Policy Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , I -3 Legal Requirements for Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 ImpactFee Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Impact Fee vs . Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Legal Framework for Imposing Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Authority to Impose Impact Fees in IRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -3 Compliance with State and Federal Constitutional Requirements fell I -4 Defensible Impact Fee Methodology , . . , " , fee I -4 Level of Service (LOS) Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -4 RevenueCredits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -5 Impact Fee Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -5 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -5 Effective Date of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160 . . . . . . . 1 - 5 Applicability of Impact Fees on Future Development . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . " I ' ll 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 8 Exempting or Paying Impact Fees from Other Revenue Sources . . . . . . I-9 Updating the Impact Fee Program and Indexing the Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 10 AppealsProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 10 LOS Standards and Fee Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I40 Funding Source Review . . , , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 * 0 I - 11 Review of Current Capital Funding Sources by Program Area . . . . . . . . . I- 11 Summary of Legal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15 II. Current & Projected Population . .. . . ... . .. . . . II- 1 Population Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1 Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -3 FunctionalPopulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -6 III. Correctional Facilities . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. III- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -5 Cost Component. . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -7 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 i Impact Fee Study CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -9 . ,fir► Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 12 Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 12 Proposed Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 13 Future Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 15 Estimated Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 15 IV. Solid Waste Facilities . . .. . . . . so* $ 0090 @@ * *fee * *goes ** see *$ 000 *0000 * 0 IV- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 000 . . . 400 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ease . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 7 Demand Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8 Cost Component. , , . , ' , , , " * a # * * . " ease , 1 . . 0 * ease Poo to IV-9 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 13 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 18 Net Solid Waste Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 18 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule , , . . " . . . . , , asset ' s 10 * 0 a a IV- 19 Future Demand Analysis ' . . " , . . . . . IV-21 Estimated Revenues . , . . 110 9 10 , 101 , 019951 09 * 5 0 ease . . . . . . . . . . . . sees , lee 4 0 01 , 1111 , 90 @ * * so sees IV-22 V. Public Buildings . .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . V- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6 CostComponent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12 Net Public Building Impact Costs . . . " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . V- 12 Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 13 Future Demand Analysis . , , . . , . . . , " , , , , ' , , 0 sees . . . . . V- 15 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 16 VI. Libraries. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ..... .. . . ... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . VI- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -6 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -6 Cost Component, " . . . , , , " , peoples , 1 , 00 00 sea 0 . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . VI-9 Credit Component . . . . as , I ease 01 , 01 , 1110 a ' . sea 4 000 " 0 " ' , ease , " I ' ll 010 , VI- 14 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 19 Net Library Facility , Items , and Equipment Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 19 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 19 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule , . . , VI-20 Future Demand Analysis , . . , , . . , . . , , " , as a sees . . . . . VI -21 Estimated Revenues " . . . VI -23 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 ii Impact Fee Study `�..► VII. Emergency Services . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . VII4 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII -7 Cost Component, . . . . . " , * , I " , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 8 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 11 ExistingDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 14 Net Fire/EMS Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII44 Proposed Fire/EMS Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 15 Future Demand Analysis . . . " . . . , " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 VII - 17 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 18 VIII. Law Enforcement .. . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. ... . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . VIII- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 1 Population . . * " , ' , " " , , , 0 $ If , , " 114 , 0090 00 0 at 899 # 11101 * 11 . 11 1 VIII-2 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 5 Cost Component. , . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-6 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . VIII-9 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 13 Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 14 Future Demand Analysis . . , . . . , . . , , , I ' VIII - 1 6 Estimated Revenues . , . " , , , 1 , 90 OVIII - I 7 IX. Public Education Facilities .. . . off IX- 1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 5 Levelof Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-5 Cost Component. . IX-6 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-9 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 13 Net Impact Cost per Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-9 Level of Service Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-9 CostComponent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - 11 CreditComponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X46 Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-21 Net Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-21 Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-22 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 iii Impact Fee Study Proposed Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-23 •,"00 Future Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -23 EstimatedRevenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-24 Tables Table I- 1 Impact Fee Service Area Considerations by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -9 Table I -2 Current and Recommended Standards by Impact Fee ProgramArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 12 Table I-3 Comparison of Fees by Impact Fee Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 13 Table I-4 Historical and Projected Capital Facility Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . I - 14 Table I1 - 1 IRC Population Estimates and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -2 Table II-2 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit . . . 0 * 1 10 , 10 0 00 * 0 0 * * # 90945099 we ' Ile 1100 , 110 1 II-3 Table II-3 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit Excluding Indian River Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -3 Table II-4 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -4 Table I1 - 5 Nationwide Residents per Housing Unit — Single Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II -4 Table II -6 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 5 Table II-7 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores — Residents per Housing Unit . . . . , , as , 0001 , 11 111 . 1 . II -5 Table II- 8 Unincorporated County Area — Residents per Housing Unit' " " " . . . . II -6 Table II-9 24-Hour/7 -Day General Functional Population Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . II -9 Table I1 - 10 11 -Hour/5 -Day General Functional Population Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 10 Table II- 11 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 Nwaoe (24 -Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 11 Table II - 12 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population - Year 2004 (24-Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 12 Table II - 13 Unincorporated County Area Functional Population — Year 2004 (24-Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 13 Table II - 14 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 11 -Hour Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 14 Table II - 15 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — Correctional Facilities (Countywide) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 15 Table II- 16 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — PublicBuildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II46 Table II- 17 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — FIRE/EMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- 16 Table II - 18 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses — Law Enforcement . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 17 Table II- 19 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule - Public Buildings . . , . I , ' , , I " , * , a@ * * @ * 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 " 00000009 II- 18 Table II-20 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule — Correctional Facilities, Fire/EMS , and Law Enforcement , , , . , , 1100 , 1 10000 II - 19 Table III- 1 Land & Buildings Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 iv Impact Fee Study '\rrr Table III-2 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 5 Table III -3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -6 Table III4 Functional Residents Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6 Table III- 5 Land & Buildings Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -7 Table III - 6 Equipment Cost . . . . . . . . 1 1100 1 0 * 000600 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8 Table III-7 Programmed Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8 Table III- 8 Unit Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9 Table III-9 Historical Capital Expenditures — Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 10 Table I11- 10 Revenue per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 11 Table III- 11 Credit per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1I - 11 Table III - 12 Net Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11 - 12 Table III - 13 Impact Fee Schedule (Alternative 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 Table IV-2 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 7 Table IV-3 Demand Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 8 Table IV-4 Proposed Capital Expenditures — FY 05/06 — 09/ 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 10 Table IV- 5 Planned Capital Expansion Expenditures . . , . . , , . " , ' , " " , IV- 11 Table IV-6 Distribution of Capital Expansion Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 12 Table IV-7 Historical Revenue Sources . . 9 1 * 0 4 IV- 14 Table IV- 8 Changes in the Assessment Fee Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 15 Table IV-9 Total Credit per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 16 Table IV- 10 Changes in the Fund Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 17 Table IV- 11 Net Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 18 Table IV- 12 Single Family Solid Waste Impact Fee . . . . . . . IV- 19 Table IV- 13 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule . , ' . . " , ' , , " , " , , , 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 5 Table V-4 Current Level of Service . , . . V -6 Table V- 5 Level of Service Comparison . , . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 10 Table V-9 Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident . V- 11 Table V - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V42 Table V - 11 Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 17 Table VI - 1 Summary of IRC Library Building Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1 Table VI -2 Summary of IRC Library Material Inventory . . , . . , 110 * 00 , 0168 6 * 0 * 900 * * gets . . . . . . VI-5 Table VI -3 Summary of IRC Library Equipment Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -6 Table VI -4 Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 7 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 v Impact Fee Study Table VI -5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to FLA Standards Library V4001 Materials and Computers . , . . . , , , off I ' asset 6 * 0 a VI - 8 Table VI -6 Comparison of IRC LOS to Surrounding Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 8 Table VI -7 Comparison of Current LOS and LOS Standards , , , , , , , . . , , , , . , , . , , , . . . . . . . . . . VI-9 Table VI - 8 Building Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 10 TableVI -9 Land Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vital Table VI- 10 Summary of Building and Land Costs per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vital Table VI- 11 Library Material Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 12 Table VI- 12 Library Equipment Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 13 Table VI- 13 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 14 Table VI- 14 Library Historical and Programmed Capital Expansion Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI45 Table VI- 15 Vacant Land Value Percentage , . . . , . " , Ile " logo ' s a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 16 Table VI- 16 Equipment Value Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 17 Table VI- 17 Total Credit per Resident . 1 10 , 0101 , 10110 1004 00 , 116 , 111 , ago * * @ * to & , too * , , I , ' , , I VI- 18 Table VI - 18 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI49 Table VI - 19 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -20 Table VI-20 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI -20 Table VI-21 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-21 Table VI-22 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-23 Table VII - 1 Land & Buildings Inventory , . " , ' , , , feet 11 11 0 00000 fee VII-2 Table VII -2 Vehicle Inventory Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII -5 Table VII-3 Capital Equipment Replacement Costo , , , . . . , , . , , , VII-6 Table VII -4 Current Level of Service (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . feet , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ease . . . . . . . . . . VII -7 Table VII - 5 Current Level of Service Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII -8 Table VII -6 Building Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-9 Table VII -7 Station Equipment Costs . " , ' , , " 110010 10110 * 11109 * $ 6 * 0000 go , @ a . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . 0 * 00080 * VII- 10 Table VII - 8 Five Year Programmed and Planned Capital Expenditures , " , . . , , . , , . , , , VII- 10 Table VII -9 Impact Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 11 Table VII - 10 Six-Year Historical Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 12 Table VII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 15 Table VII - 14 Proposed Fire/EMS Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 16 Table VII - 15 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 18 Table VII - 16 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 19 Table VIII- I Land and Building Inventory . , . . . . . " " , * # , a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -2 Table VIII-2 Current Level of Service (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 5 Table VIII-3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -5 Table VIII-4 Functional Residents Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII -6 Table VIII- 5 Building and Land Replacement Cost VIII -7 Table VIII -6 Equipment Cost " . 00 , 1 00 * 001 * 100 losses * , feet , 060000 * 0044 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 8 Table VIII- 7 Unit Cost per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-9 Table VIII - 8 Historical Capital Expenditures — Expansion/Replacement . 11 . 1111111111VIII- 10 Table VIII -9 Revenue per Functional Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . off . . . .VIII- 11 Table VIII- 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage . . , . . . " , , 11010 , 9 * 01 , 00000 @so ' s 0 so 11VIII - 12 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 vi Impact Fee Study Table VIII- 11 Credit per Functional Resident VIII - 13 Table VIII - 12 Net Impact Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 6009 . 01 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 . 111 . 1 .VIII - 14 Table VIII- 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII - 15 Table VIII - 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . 1111 . 10 . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 1 . . . . . 0000 . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 7 Table IX-3 Total Impact Cost per Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-9 Table IX-4 State Revenue Credit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 11 Table IX- 5 2 -Mill Revenue Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 12 Table IX-6 Vacant Land Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX - 13 Table IX - 7 Net Impact Cost per Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 14 Table IX- 8 Student Generation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 14 Table IX-9 Proposed School Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 15 Table IX- 10 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 16 Table IX- 11 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX- 17 Table X- 1 Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory — Unincorporated County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-3 Table X-2 Parks & Recreation Facilities Current Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 10 Table X-3 Level of Service Comparison . . " . . " , ' , , ' . , . * 11111111411 * . . . . X- 10 Table X-4 Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 11 Table X- 5 Utilities and Paving Cost per Acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 12 Table X-6 Total Land Cost per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 13 Table X-7 Regional Parks Equipment/Buildings Replacement Cost . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . X - 14 Table X-8 Community/Neighborhood Parks EquipmentBuildings ReplacementCost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 15 Table X-9 Programmed Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X- 16 Table X- 10 Unit Cost per Resident " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 * 0000 , 00 X- 16 Table X- 11 Historical Capital Expenditures — Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X48 Table X- 12 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . 00 . . . . 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 . . . 1111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-23 Table X- 17 Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact FeeSchedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-23 Table X- 18 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-24 Table X- 19 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -25 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 vii Impact Fee Study Maps Map III - 1 Correctional Facility Locations ' , . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3 Map IV- 1 Solid Waste Facility Locations . . " . , , I ' I ' s ago 90600000996 IV- 5 Map V- 1 Public Building Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 Map VI- 1 Library Facility Locations . , . 1 0 * 0 00 * 00 , 11 0 VI -3 Map VII - 1 Fire/EMS Facility Locations . . . , 1000 , " If . * , " , a , @ go " a # 6068 ON , VII-3 Map VIII - 1 Law Enforcement Facility Locations . . . . , ' , , , , ' , , . VIII- 3 Map IX- 1 Public Education Facility Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-3 Map X- 1 County Parks Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7 Appendices 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 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 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 NOW Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I - 1 Impact Fee Study 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 NVAO 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 February 2005 I -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 February 2005 I -3 Impact Fee Study 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 February 2005 I -4 Impact Fee Study Iftw o The County desires to establish a standard of 5 acres per 1000 residents (hypothetical example) o The current population of the County is approximately 124 , 000 . o An increase in the standard of 1 acre per 1000 population would require an additional 124 acres of parks acreage to be added to the inventory of parks acreage . o The County budgets the acquisition of 124 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 . • Most communities make the effective date of impact fees anywhere from one to six months after the adoption of the ordinance . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I -5 Impact Fee Study • Delaying the effective date allows developments already in the pipeline to *mow 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 ; 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 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I -6 Impact Fee Study rr.r • 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 1 - 1 on the following page , which summarizes considerations associated with service areas and benefit districts in IRC) . • 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 ,*Moe Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I -7 Impact Fee Study 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 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I - 8 Impact Fee Study Table 14 Impact Fee Service Area Considerations by Program Area W U+ _ r > att! re CrYle4' � F (>">IIs irta 14)ILSL 's a E 10 f 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 February 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 . o 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 I -31 Table I-2 provides the current LOS in IRC , the adopted LOS standard in IRC (if any) , and the recommended LOS standard for each program area . �•nI" Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I- 10 Impact Fee Study 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 ; *40W 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 . *MW Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I41 Impact Fee Study Table 1 =2 Current and Recommended Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 1 Correctional 3 .24 beds per 1 ,000 N/A Based on beds per 1 ,000 residents; standard is set Facilities residents at 4 beds per 1 ,000 residents. 2 Solid Waste 2 .4 tons/capita/year 1 .2 tons/ Based on tons per capita per year; final standard capita/year is set at 2 .4 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 633 SF per 1 ,000 527 SF per Based on SF per resident; standard for buildings residents 15000 is set at 633 SF per 1 ,000 residents, plus 3 ,490 residents library items per 1 ,000 residents, 0 .7 computer per 1 ,000 residents, and 0 .3 other library equipment per 1 ,000 residents. 5 Fire/ 0 .098 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 . 098 stations per Medical time - service 1 ,000 residents . area: 5 mile Services radius within urban area 6 Law 2 .28 officers per N/A Based on the number of officers per 1 ,000 Enforcement 1 ,000 residents residents; standard is set at 2 .28 officers per 1 ,000 residents . 7 Public 2 . 17 SF per N/A Based on SF per resident; standard is set at 2 . 17 Buildings resident SF of building space per resident. 8 Parks and 6 .79 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 .43 acres of standard is set based on 7 .22 (6 .79 acres for community and regional parks and 0 .43 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 February 2005 I- 12 Impact Fee Study Table 1 =3 Comparison of Fees by Impact Fee Program Area ( Single Family Residential Land Use ) I 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 February 2005 I- 13 Impact Fee Study Table 1 =4 NO Historical and Projected Capital Facility Expenditures °s �r s � + iu 4 � m �, � e ar.-€ y+," '" µ � � i � u ti. w R dda �c 1 Correctional $ 19083 ,500 $ 11 ,316, 800 Major jail facility expansion planned Facilities 2 Solid Waste $73789 , 149 $ 18 ,322 ,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 $452355065 $3 ,340,000 Planned West Branch Library 5 Fire/Emergency $2 ,657 ,760 $4 ,482 , 147 Two new Fire / EMS stations Medical Services 6 Law Enforcement $6789624 $0 Office administration building expansion is proposed but not funded at this time. 7 Public Buildings $ 10, 1237458 $6, 895 ,000 Funding for new administration building 8 Parks and $ 151856,006 $ 5 , 800,000 West Regional Park, South County Recreation Facilities Indoor Facility , and North County Ball 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 4400, February 2005 1- 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 February 2005 I - 15 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 I- 16 Impact Fee Study A 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 and 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 . Table II - 1 presents population trends for IRC , including total county area, unincorporated area, and the municipalities . The bottom of the table reflects the three possible population categories that are needed to support the impact fee program areas under consideration . The three categories include : • countywide population ; • countywide population, less the population of the Town of Indian River Shores ; and • unincorporated 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 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 February 2005 II- 1 Impact Fee Study Table II - 1 IRC Population Estimates and Projections MW MMM 911 s. Z All Unincorporated County 712660 735458 757039 763908 819217 82,480 89,098 975041 104,855 112,349 Incorporated County 41 ,287 421258 43, 130 445266 45 ,579 46,288 50,002 54,459 58,845 635051 Vero Beach 17,705 17,879 17,918 17,945 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sebastian 16, 181 16,796 17,425 18,275 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Fellsmere 35813 3 ,901 49044 4, 173 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indian River Shores 3,448 35521 32527 3 ,574 31614 3,657 3 , 878 4, 113 42362 4,626 Orchid 140 161 216 299 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Countywide Population 1129947 1159716 1189169 1219174 1269796 1289768 1399100 1519500 163,700 1759400 Countywide Population 109,499 1129195 1149642 1179600 123,182 1259112 135,222 1479387 159,338 170,774 . Excluding Indian River Shores Unincorporated Population 71,660 73,458 759039 76,908 819217 829480 899098 97,041 104,855 112,349 SOURCES : ( 1 ) 2000 to 2003 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 later are medium projections, based on 2004 BEBR population estimates. (4) Unincorporated population projections for 2005 and later are based on the proportion of unincorporated to countywide population in 2004 (64 .05%). (5) Incorporated population projections for 2005 and later are based on the proportion of incorporated to countywide population in 2004 (35 .95%). (6) Population projections for Indian River Shores are based on an the annualized growth rate of 1 . 18% from 2000 to 2004. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II -2 Impact Fee Study err►' 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 number of residents per housing units in occupied housing units 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( ' ) Single Family 33 ,2181 82,056 2 .470 Multi-Family 105840 18 ,480 1 . 705 Mobile Home 51001 9, 949 1 . 989 Total 49,059 1109485 2.252 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census , Table H-33 Note : Excludes boats , RVs, vans, etc . Table II -3 Countywide Residents per Housin Unit Excluding Indian River Shores - ... "r'c. Single Family 32 ,025 79,670 2 . 488 Multi-Family 10,261 17, 570 1 . 712 Mobile Home 5 ,001 99949 1 . 989 Total 47,287 1079189 2 .267 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census, Table H-33 Note : Excludes boats , RVs, vans, etc . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II-3 Impact Fee Study Table II -4 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unitl ' l 4 'xvY 3 i F:1211 . 511 l Single Family 20 , 544 51 ,723 2 . 518 Multi-Family 65528 11 ,300 1 .731 Mobile Home 33851 7, 0521 1 . 831 Total 309923 70,075 2.266 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census , Table 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 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 11 =5 Nationwide Residents per Housing Unit(' ) — Single Family rta � Less than 1 , 500 sf 647875 26 ,038 2 .492 91 .41 % From 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf 819587 29 ,317 2 .783 102 . 10% 2 ,500 sf or greater 44,274 14 ,625 3 . 027 111 . 07% Total 1909736 699980 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 II-6 , II -7 , and 11- 8 calculate the final residents per housing unit. Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 114 Impact Fee Study *#AW Table II -6 Countywide Residents per Housing Unit (with Single Family Tiering ) 6 Single Family 2 . 470 100. 00% n/a Less than 1 ,500 sf 91 . 41 % 2 . 258 From 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf 102 . 10% 2 . 522 2, 500 sf or greater 111 .07% 2 . 743 Multi-Family 1 .705 n/a 1 .705 Mobile Home 1 . 989 n/a 1 . 989 Countywide Weighted Average( l) 2 .252 ( 1 ) Source : Table II-2 (2) Source : Table 11-5 Table II -7 Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Residents per Housing Unit *tow (with Single Family Tiering ) Single Family 2 .488 100 . 00% n/a Less than 1 ,500 sf 91 ,41 % 2 . 274 From 1 , 500 to 2,499 sf 102 . 10% 2 . 540 2,500 sf or greater 111 .07% 2 . 763 Multi-Family 1 .712 n/a 1 . 712 Mobile Home 1 . 989 n/a 1 .989 Weighted Average — County excluding Indian River Shores �l� 2 .267 ( 1 ) Source : Table 11-3 (2) Source : Table II- 5 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 11-5 Impact Fee Study Table II -8 Unincorporated County Area Residents per Housing Unit (with Single Family Tiering ) 3 dm 4 Single Family 2 . 518 100 . 00% n/a Less than 1 , 500 sf 91 .41 % 2 . 302 From 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf 102 . 10% 2 . 571 2 ,500 sf or greater 111 . 07% 2 .797 Multi-Family 1 .731 n/a 1 .731 Mobile Home 1 . 831 n/a 1 . 831 Weighted Average -- Unincorporated IRC 2 .266 ( 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 February 2005 11-6 Impact Fee Study *41W activities ? Only if local police and fire departments collect and maintain detailed records on responses by land use can this question be answered . For other facilities such as emergency medical and rescue, it is difficult to allocate demand based on observations . 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 resident 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 , *4W 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 tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers , or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population 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 and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II-7 Impact Fee Study facilities and services in the present and in a future year can be calculated . The following *4440 paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated . Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional resident population is simpler than developing the nonresidential component. 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 11 -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 II-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 ,.Kr'' 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 11 -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 . ' 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 February 2005 II - 8 Impact Fee Study Table II -9 24 -Hour/7 - Day General Functional Population Coefficients Residential - - 0.650 Natural Resources N/A 9.00 3.02 1. 51 1 . 32 1 .38 0.09 1.00 5 0.271 Construction 110 9.00 3.02 1 .51 1 . 32 1 .38 0.09 1 .00 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 .00 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 1 710 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 .95 5.98 1 . 24 1 .73 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 Retail Scale Center Size Trip Rate Share Trips Neighborhood < 50k sq.ft. 25,000 110.32 40.0% 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 10.00/0 3.35 Sum of Weighted Trips/lk sq.ft. 73. 71 One-Way Trips/lk sq.ft. 36. 86 Square Feet/Retail EmployeeW 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:/Inhts. omi.gov/2001 /index/shtml) as follows: 1 .32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1 .24 occupants per Retail Trade, FUZE, 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 W + (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trip x Days per W 4)l (24 Hours per Day z 7 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 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 February 2005 II-9 Impact Fee Study Table II -10 11 - Hour/5 - Day General Functional Population Coefficients Residential ..0.350 Natural Resources N/A 9.00 2.21 1 . 11 1 .32 1 .36 0.07 1 .00 5 0.824 Construction 110 9.00 2.21 LIl 1 .32 1 .38 0.07 1 .00 5 0.824 Manufacturing 140 9.00 1 .57 0.79 1.32 L38 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 I .00 5 0.826 Retail Tradetr. 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 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. ITE Code 140 at 2. 13 weekday trips per employee, page 161 . ME 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 determine the trips taken during the I1 -hour period. Retail - Trips per Employee Determination Assumed Weighted Retail Scaie Center Size Trip Rate Share Trips Neighborhood < 50k sq.ft. 25,000 110.32 40.0% 44. 13 Community 50k - 250k sq.ft 150,000 58.93 30.0% 17.68 Regional 250k - 500k sq.ft. 375,000 42.76 20.00/a 8.55 Super Reg. 500k-1000k sq.P. 750,000 33.55 10.00/0 3.35 Sum of Weighted Trips/lk sq.ft. 7371 One-Way Trips/lk sq.ft 36.86 Square Feet/Retail Employee(" 913 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 1.0953 �_Jy Trips per employee 67.30 Percent over the 11 -hour period 75% Trips per employee over one 1 I-hour period 50.47 Journey-to-Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1 .32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1 .24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip 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: I(Emoloyee Hours x Days Per Week) + (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trio x Days per Week)" (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 . In addition, the functional population coefficients are calculated on a 24-hour/7 -day basis for some fees (Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities , Fire/EMS) , while on an 1I - hour/5 -day basis for others (Public Buildings), based on the hours and days of service that a typical public building is open and operating . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II - 10 Impact Fee Study 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 II40 were used to estimate the functional population in Table II- 14, which is based on 11 hours per day, 5 days per week . These tables indicate that the ratio of functional population to resident population for the year 2004 is : • 90 . 16% countywide (24-hour analysis) ; • 90 . 35 % countywide excluding Indian River Shores (24-hour analysis) ; • 93 . 04% unincorporated County Area (24-hour analysis) ; and • 87 . 46% countywide ( 11 -hour analysis) . Table II -11 Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 -Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) *44W Population' Residents 126, 796 0 . 6501 82,417 Employment Natural Resources 53930 0. 271 1 ,607 Construction 3 ,710 0 . 271 1 ,005 Manufacturing 3 ,650 0.270 986 TCU, Warehousing 19680 0 . 271 455 Wholesale Trade 15250 0. 271 339 Retail Trade 119780 1 . 406 16,563 FIRE 5 ,440 0. 292 13588 Services 229210 0 . 292 61485 Government 51770 0. 497 21868 Total Functional Residents 1149314 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 90. 16 % ( 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 February 2005 II- 11 Impact Fee Study Table IIA 2 " Countywide Excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 - Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) re Population Residents 123 , 182 0 . 650 80,068 Employment Natural Resources 5 , 871 0 .271 1 , 591 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 11 ,612 1 .406 16,327 FIRE 5 ,261 0 .292 15536 Services 219480 0.292 6,272 Government 5 ,580 i 0.497 29773 Total Functional Residents 1119300 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 90.35% ( 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 1I-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 February 2005 II - 12 Impact Fee Study Table II - 13 Unincorporated County Area Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 24 - Hour/7 - Day Analysis ) Population Residents 81 ,2171 0. 6501 52,791 Employment Natural Resources 4,580 EigO.271 1 ,241 Construction 2, 559 693 Manufacturing 25819 761 TCU, Warehousing 1 ,298 352Wholesale Trade 901 244 Retail Trade 85491 1 .406 11 ,938 FIRE 33752 0.292 13096 Services 15,317 0.292 4,473 Government 3 ,979 0.497 17978 Total Functional Residents 75,567 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 93.04 % ( 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 February 2005 II- 13 Impact Fee Study Table II -14 +'' Countywide Functional Population — Year 2004 ( 11 - Hour/5 - Day Analysis ) as � Population Residents 1269796 0. 3501 449379 Employment Natural Resources 55930 0 . 824 49886 Construction 3 , 710 0 . 824 3 ,057 Manufacturing 3 ,650 0. 822 3 ,000 TCU, Warehousing 19680 0 . 824 19384 Wholesale Trade 1 ,250 0. 826 15033 Retail Trade 113780 1 .942 22, 877 FIRE 5,440 0 . 879 45782 Services 22,210 0 . 879 193523 Government 52770 1 . 036 5 ,978 Total Functional Residents 110,898 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 87.46% ( 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 -2008 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 v.rr Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II44 Impact Fee Study "fir►' Generation Manual ( Seventh Edition), indicate population 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 II- 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 ) Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2.25 95% 2. 145 1 .394 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2.52 95% 2.39Z 1 .557 2,500 sf or Greater du 210 2.7 95% 2.60 1 .694 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 .705 95°/ 1 620 1 .053 Multi Family du 220/230 1 .705 95°/ 1 .62 1 .053 Mobile Home I du 1 240 1 .989 950/ 1.8 1 .228 Transient, Assisted, Group - Hotel / Motel I Room 1310 / 3201 1 .6151 50010 0. 8081 12 0.51 91 71 0. 591 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 1620 / 2521 L250 95%1 1 , 1881 161 0. 51 91 71 0.979 Notes: 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Approximate national average occupancy rate for owner-occupied housing Local occupancy rate assumption for transient housing stock 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 per Day x Days Per Week)l (24 Hours per Day X 7 Days per Week) Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II45 Impact Fee Study Table II -16 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses Public Buildings ( Countywide) e Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2.258 95% 2. 145 0. 751 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2. 522 95% 2.396 0.839 21500 sf or Greater du 210 2.744 95% 2.606 0.912 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 .705 95% 1 .620 0. 567 Multi Family du 220/230 1 .705 95°/s 1 .620 0.567 Mobile Home du 240 1 .989 95% 1 .890 0. 661 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel I Room 1310 / 3201 1 .615 50%1 0.8081 41 0. 51 91 51 0.703 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 1620 / 2521 1 .250 95%1 1 . 188 81 0. 51 91 51 1 .273 Notes: 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Approximate national average occupancy rate for owner-occupied housing Local occupancy rate assumption for transient housing stock 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: [(Residents/Occupants per Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Workers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week)] ( 1 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 ) s Residential .- Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf du 210 2.2741 95°/ 2. 16 1 .404 11500 to 2,499 sf du 2to 2.54 950/ 2.413 1 .569 2,500 sf or Greater du 210 2.763 95°/ 2.6251 1 .706 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 .71 95� 1 .62 1 .057 Multi Family du 220Y230 1 . 71 95°/ 1 .62 1 .057 Mobile Home du 240 1 .98 95°/ 1 .8901 1128 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel Room 1310 / 3201 1 .615 500% 0, 8081 121 0.5 9 7 0.591 Nursing Home / ACLF Bed1620 / 2521 1 .250 95% 1 . 1881 16 0.5 9 7 0.979 Notes: 1) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Approximate national average occupancy rate for owner-occupied housing Local occupancy rate assumption for transient housing stock 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: l(Resicents/Occupants per Unit x Hours at Place x Days per Week) + (Workers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week)] ( 24 Horns per Day X 7 Days per Week) Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 11 - 16 Impact Fee Study Table II - 18 Functional Residents for Residential Land Uses Law Enforcement ( Unincorporated County ) Q Residential Single Family Lower than 11500 sf du 210 2.301 950/ 2. 189 1 .421 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 210 2.571 950/ 2.442 1 .587 2,500 sf or Greater du 210 2.796 95°/ 2.657 1 .727 Accessory Single-Family du 230 1 . 731 95°/ 1 .644 1 .069 Multi Family du 220/230 1 . 731 95°/ 1 .644 1 .069 Mobile Home I du 1 240 1 1 .831 95°/ 1 .7391 1 1 . 131 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel / Motel Room 1310 / 3201 1 .615 50%1 0.8081 12 0.51 91 71 0.591 Nursing Home / ACLF I Bed 1620 / 2521 1 .250 95%1 1 . 1881 161 0.51 91 71 0.979 Notes: 1 ) Estimate from 2000 Census and 2003 AHS 2) Approximate national average occupancy rate for owner-occupied housing Local occupancy rate assumption for transient housing stock 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 residentia, this is Adjusted Residents Per Unit times 0.65. For Transient, Assisted, and Group, it is: [(Residents/Occupants oer Unit x Hours at Place x Days ver Week) + (Workers x Work Hours per Day x Days Per Week)l *Appr ( 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 February 2005 11- 17 Impact Fee Study Table II -19 Assumptions for Nonresidential Land Uses and Functional Population Coefficients for Impact Fee Schedule Public Buildings a Win �- "1515 office and FinancialMedical Office 1 ,000 sf 720 / 1190 36. 13 8.91 4.03 18.07 9 1.37 2Bank/Savings Walk-in 1 ,000 sf 911 / 1672 156.48 44.47 3.52 78.24 9 L27 9Bank/Savin s Drive-in 1 ,00(1 £ 912 / 1685 246.49 72.79 3.39 123.25 9 L27 15 Officc 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 710 / 11581 15.651 3.321 4.711 7.821 91 1 .201 4.68 1 .()Ol 51 4.281 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1,000 sf 710/1158 1 9.271 3.321 2.491 4. 131 91 1 .201 2,471 1 .001 51 2.262 Industrial Manufacturing 11000 sf 1 140/170 3.82 2. 131 1 .791 1 .911 91 1 .301 0.691 1.00 S .530 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 1 150/199 1 4.961 3.891 1.281 2.48 91 1 .301 1 .951 0.73 S 1 . 176 Mini-Warehouse 11000 sf 131/227 2.50 56.28 0.04 1.25 9 1 .35 1 .89 0.75 S 0. 165 General Industrial 1,000 sf 110/99 6.97 3.02 2.31 3.49 9 1 .30 2.22 1001 3 2.090 Concrete Plant Acre I N/A 1 15.61 3.021 5, 171 7.801 91 1 .201 4. 191 1.001 5 4.608 Sand Mining Acre I N/A 1 2.001 3,021 0.661 1.001 91 1.201 0.541 0.591 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or lmsl9l 1 ,000 £ 820/1431 86.56 N/A 2.50 43.28 91 1 .70 71 .07 0.65 5 6.245 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSFt10I 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 75. 10 N/A 2.50 37.55 9 1 .70 61 .34 0.75 5 6.228 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF(" 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 58.93 N/A 2.50 29.46 9 1.70 47.59 1.00 3 6.372 Retail over 200,000 GSF" ') 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 32.80 N/A 2.50 16.40 9 1 .70 25.38 1 .00 5 4.353 Gas/Servioe Station Fuel pos 944/1790 168.56 N/A 2.50 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,000sf 931/1704 89.95 N/A 9.92 44.98 9 1 .52 58.44 1 .25 5 14.758 High-Turnover Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 932/1723 127. 13 N/A 9.92 63.58 9 1 .32 86.71 1 .00 5 13.999 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thur 1 ,000 sf 934/1751 496. 12 N/Al 10.90 248.06 9 1.52 366. 15 0.25 5 17.240 Supermarket 11000 sf 850/1324 102.24 87.82 LI6 51 . 12 9 1.52 76.34 0.50 3 4.432 Self Service Car Wash Ways 947/1517 108.00 N/A 0.30 54.00 9 1 .32 81 .38 0.30 3 4. 117 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 851/1334 737.99 N/A 2.001 369.001 91 1 .521 558.87 0. 15 5 9.257 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 890/1649 5.06 12. 19 0.421 2.531 91 1.701 3,891 1 .00 3 0.693 Recreational Golf Course hole 1 430n33 1 35.741 20.521 1 .741 17.871 91 1 .701 2&641 1 .501 51 5.330 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Stud 11000 £ 492/867 32.93 N/A 2.00 16.47 9 1 .70 25.99 1 .30 5 5. 181 County Park Acre 412/634 2.28 N/A 0. 10 1 . 14 9 1.70 184 1.50 5 0.332 Tennis Court court 491/844 38.70 45.71 0.85 19.33 9 1.70 32.05 1.50 5 5.063 Marina Berths 420/703 1 1%j 20.521 0. 141 1 .481 91 1 .701 2.371 1.001 51 0.334 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 sf 732/1231 1 108. 19 28.321 1821 54. 101 91 1 .201 61 ,091 0.251 5 4.514 Library 1 ,000 sf 590/1080 54.00 48.85 1 . 11 27.00 9 1 .20 31 .29 1 .00 3 3.749 Govenrment Office Building1.000 sf 730/1200 68.93 11 .95 5.77 34.47 9 1 .20 35.59 1.00 5 7.935 Government Complex 1,000 if 733/1242 1 27.92 7.751 3.601 13.961 91 1 .201 13 . 151 1 .001 51 4. 143 Jail bed 571 5.30 2.30 2.201 2351 91 1 .201 1 . 101 1 .001 51 1 .900 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1,000 sf 565/1026 79.26 28. 13 2.82 39.63 9 L50 56.90 0. 15 3 3.081 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 610/1101 17.57 5.20 3.38 8.79 9 1 .20 7. 16 1 .00 5 3.416 Veterinary Clinic 11000 sf N/A 32.8 N/A 4.05 16.40 9 1 .37 18.42 1 .00 5 4.988 Church 1 ,000 sf 560/1003 9. 11 N/A 0.63 4.56 9 1 .70 7. 11 1 .00 5 1. 162 Movie Theater with Matinee Screen 444/718 109.97 8.00 13.75 54.99 9 1 .70 79.73 1 .00 5 18.495 Element School Student 520/905 1.29 13.71 0.08 0.65 9 2.00 1 .21 2.00 S 0.287 High School Student 530/921 1.71 1974. 0.09 0.86 9 2.00 1.62 2.00 5 0.366 Junior/Community Coll a Student 540/962 1 .20 15.55 0.08 0.60 9 2.00 1 . 12 2.30 5 0.318 Fire Station r 1,000 £ N/A 5.40 N/A 0.70 2.70 91 1.20 2.54 3.50 3 1.381 Notes: I) 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) [(Oncrway Trips/Unit x Occupanta/Trip) - Employees]. 7) Assumed. 811(00 rk rc Ho rs/Dav Days/Wenk) + N'siwrsxHours/Visitx Days/Weekl ( ll Hours/Day X 5 Days)] 9) Trip mo: is for 23,000 sfgla 10) Trip rate is for 75,000 sfgla. 1 l) Trip ram is for 150,000 sfgla 12) Trip rate is for 800,000 sfgla. T Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 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 a , - Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 1720 / 1190 F 36. 13 8.91 4.05 18.07 9 1 .37 20.69 1 .00 5 1.702 Bank/Savings Walk-in 1 ,000 sf 911 / 1672 156.48 44.47 3.52 78.24 9 1.27 95.85 0.35 5 1 .941 Bank/Swings Drive-in 1,000 sf 912 ' 1 246.49 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 3.32 4.71 7.82 9 1 .20 4.68 1.00 3 1.4W Office greater than 50,000 GSF 11000 sf 1 710/1158 1 8.27 3.32 2.49 4. 13 9 1 .20 2.47 1.00 5 0.741 Industrial Manufacturing 11000 sf 140/170 1 3. 82 2. 131 1 .791 1 .911 91 1 .301 0.69 i WT 5 0.501 Warehouse 1,000 sf 150/199 4.96 3.89 1.28 2.48 9 1 .30 1 .95 0.75 5 0.385 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 151/227 2.50 36.28 0.04 1.23 9 1 .55 1 .89 0.73 7 0.076 General Industrial I ,U00 sf 110/99 6.97 3.02 2.31 3.49 9 1.30 2.22 1 .00 5 0.684 Concrete Plant Acre N/A 15.6 3,021 5. 17 7.801 91 4. 191 1 .00 5 1 .508 Sand Mining Acre N/A 1 2.00 3.021 0.66 1 .001 91 1 .201 0541 1 .00 5 0. 193 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less"' 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 86.56 N/A 2.50 43.28 9 1 .70 71 .07 0.65 7 2.862 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF('O' 1,000 sf 820/1451 75. 10 N/A 2.50 37.55 9 1 .70 61 .34 0.75 7 2.854 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF(' 1 ,000 sf 820/1451 58.93 N/A 2.50 29.46 9 1 .70 47.59 1 .00 7 2.920 Retail over 200,000 GSFOr' 11000 sf 820/1451 32.80 N/A 2.50 16.40 9 1 .70 25.38 1 .00 7 1 .995 Gas/Service Station Fuel pos 944/1790 168.56 N/A 2.50 84.28 9 1 .32 125.61 0. 15 7 1 .723 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 7 1 . 706 Quality Restaurant I1000sf 931/1704 89.95 N/A 9.92 44.98 9 1 .52 58.44 1 .25 7 6.764 High-Turnover Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 932/1723 127. 15 N/A 9.92 63.58 9 1 .52 86.71 1 .00 71 7.333 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 934/1751 496. 12 ; N/A 10.90 248.06 9 1 .52 366. 13 0.25 7 7.902 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 830/1524 102.24 87.82 1 . 16 31 . 12 9 1 .52 76.54 0.30 7 2.031 Self Service Car Wash Bays 947/1817 108.00 N/A 0.50 54.00 9 1 .52 81.58 0.50 7 1 . 887 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 851/1534 737.99 N/A 2.00 369.00 9 1.52 358.87 0. 15 7 4.243 yya,�� Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 890/1649 5.06 12. 19 0.42 2.531 91 .70 3.89 1.00 7 0.318 �sr Recreational Golf Course hole 430/733 35.74 20.52 1 .74 17.87 9 1.70 29.641 1 .50 7 2.443 Racquet Club/Health Club/DanceS 1,000 sf 492/867 1 32.93 N/Al 2.00 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 .84 1 .50 7 0. 152 Tennis Court court 491/844 1 38. 70 45.711 0.85 19.35 9 1 .70 32.051 1 .50 7 2.321 Marina Berths 420/703 1 2.96 20.52 0. 14 1.48 9 1 .70 2.37 1 .00 7 0. 153 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 sf 1 732/1231 1 108. 19F 5.321 3.821 54. 10 9 L201 61091 0.23 61 1.773 Library 11000 sf 1 590/1080 54.00 48.85 1 . 11 27.00 9 1 .20 31 .29 1.00 7 1.718 Government Office Building 1 ,000 sf 730/1200 68.93 11 .93 5.77 34.47 9 1 .20 33.59 1 .00 5 2.604 Government Complex 1,000 sf 1 733/1242 1 27.921 7.751 3.601 13 .961 91 1 .201 13. 151 1 .001 51 1.356 Jail bed 1 571 1 5.501 2.501 2.201 2.751 91 1 .201 1 . 101 1 .001 71 0. 871 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 11000 sf 565/1026 79.26 28. 13 2.82 39.63 9 1 .501 56.90 0. 15 . 5 1.009 Hospital 11000 sf 610/1101 17.57 5.20 3.38 8.79 9 1 .20 7. 16 1 .00 7 1 .566 Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf N/A 32.8 4.05 16.40 9 1 .37 18.42 1 .00 5 1 .633 Church 1 ,000 sf 560/1003 9. 11 N/A 0.63 4.56 9 1 .70 7. 11 1 .00 7 0.533 Movie Theater with Matinee Screen 444/71 g 109.97 8.00 13. 75 54.99 9 1 .70 79.73 1 .00 7 8.477 Elementary School Student 520/905 1 .29 15.71 0.08 0.65 9 2.00 1 .21 2.00 5 0.094 High School Student 530/921 1 .71 19.74 0.09 0. 86 9 2.00 1 .62 2.00 5 0. 120 Junior/Community College Student 540/962 1 .20 15.55 0.08 0.60 9 2.00 1 . 12 2.50 5 0. 104 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf N/A 5 .40 N/Al 0.70 2.70 9 1 .20 2.54 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: 1TE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition 3) Trips per worker from ITE's Trip Gencro ion, 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/Unit x Occupants/Trip) - Employees]. 7) Assumed. 81 ((Workers x Hours/Davx Days/Wcek) + (Visitors x HoursfVisit 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. TindalemOliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II- 19 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 II-20 Impact Fee Study lll. 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 • 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 41s` 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 Il ; • 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 256 beds . Table III- 1 summarizes the IRC Correctional Facilities buildings and land inventory . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III- 1 Impact Fee Study Table III =1 Land & Buildings Inventory Ilrum � 11• III . _0 IRC Correctional Facility Phase I 1987 N/A IRC Correctional Facility Phase 11 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 67,916 ( 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 111- 1 . In addition to the land and buildings inventory , the IRC Correctional Facility has the following equipment for each of the 100 correction officers 2 : NNOO • 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 4"Nor February 2005 I11-2 Impact Fee Study 034301 .04-IRC Impact Fee Study\Maps\Crorrectionel.mxd Created: May 25, 2004 CLt 3 � Y.::t, s • IAF � a.MP • mn w (D 9 5 (D C7 lRi1l N 0 43RD AVE rt �s C C P W CL „> m d t _ z nn cn � LJ1 � 3 WWI _ 03 m m N cn � o y o j! x r r "E T o {; r - _. -CR CD X { � i I i _._ . ._ CR. 507 +. le I i i i r , i i i i , i iDUNN'136oU DAVE y 74TH AVE 74TH SF 66TH AVE 65TH AVE 66TH AVE ', 66TH AVE SCHUMANN_DR, - _ .. 1 o 2 y O I� VwY ,i = y. SETH AVE O -1 0 N i 03Rq AVE n -ml �rJ THr- 37AVE y 2 m N3 \O p3O ,fit L E yn r. • !^ / ,N l AVE- Ij y m . • • I r. . e� N�73 O �j a r'i. JL tD c c N N = � a 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 3 .24 beds per 1 , 000 residents . Table 111 -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 III-2 Current Level of Service ~' IRC Correctional Facilities -- Design Capacity (beds)( ' ) 411 Countywide Population -- 2004(') 126, 796 LOS (Beds per 1 ,000 Residents) -- Design Capacity 3 .24 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, IRC (2) Source : Section 11, Table II- 1 Table I1I -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 February 2005 III- 5 Impact Fee Study Table III -3 Level of Service Comparison — 2004 Kw i�Wn Average Daily Incarcerated Population 520 (2) 531 898 1 ,064 15491 Population Served 126,796 1349491 2109438 2119898 4705770 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 population is for the January 2004 through October 2004 period, provided by IRCSO IRC has budgeted sufficient funds to build 208 additional beds over the next five years . This will provide a total of 619 beds , and the current level of service will become 4 . 52 based on 2009 countywide population . Based on discussions with County administration, the LOS standard of 4 . 00 beds per 1 ,000 will be used in this study . This allows the County the flexibility in choosing a LOS standard that it can financially support in the future and to not have to immediately plan for a second expansion of jail facilities . 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 . 00 beds per 1 , 000 residents requires 4 . 44 beds per 1 , 000 functional residents . Table III =4 Functional Residents Level of Service P ` ' v v IRC Countywide Population -- 2004 " ' 1265796 IRC Countywide Functional Population -- 2004'2' 114, 314 LOS Standard (beds per 1 , 000 residents)(3) 4 . 00 Required Beds to Meet LOS Standard(4) 507 Beds per 1 ,000 Functional Residents(5) 4. 44 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (2) Source : Section II,. Table II- 11 (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 . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III- 6 Impact Fee Study VNIOW Cost Component 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 III =5 Land & Buildings Cost( ' ) Current Buildings IRC Correctional Facility Phase 1 1987 N/A N/A 54,273,234 IRC Correctional Facility Phase 11 1988 N/A N/A 52,275,084 IRC Correctional Facility Phase 111 1991 N/A 67,716 4l I N/A 55,597,251 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site(3) Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 N/A $ 13,000 Guardhouse N/A N/A 100 N/A 513,000 Land for Correctional Facilities t0l 1983 9. 81 N/A $343, 175 N/A Total Current 411 $ 12,514,745 Cost per Bed 5301450 Future Expansion Hammond Parcel for Future Jail Expansion 1 2003 1 25. 896 1 N/A S 918,466.00 N/A BRC 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 $51 ,633 ( 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 111-6 . 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 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III-7 Impact Fee Study "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 . Table III =6 Equipment Cost Vehicles $469, 782 Radio Equipment $ 1485786 Vehicle Equipment $ 84, 070 Weapons $20,454 Office Equipment $ 189029 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment $ 15 , 870 Electronic Equipment $23 , 922 Computer Equipment $ 195 , 065 Miscellaneous Equipment $ 1089265 Total Equipment Cost $ 1 ,0849244 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. Prouammed/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 256 beds . Over the next five years, $ 11 .3 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 III - 8 , this amount will be sufficient to build 208 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 48 beds into the budget to build the 256-bed expansion . Table III =7 Programmed Capital Costs ( ' ) u Sheriffs Projects IRC Jail Expansion 1 $ 10,836, 800 $4801000 $ 11 ,316,800 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III- 8 Impact Fee Study fir► Unit Cost Table III4 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 $241 under the LOS standard of 4 . 44 beds per 1 , 000 functional residents . Table III =8 Unit Cost per Functional Resident �N Building and Land Replacement Cost per Bed ' ) $ 515633 Equipment Cost per Bed(2) JZ1638 Total Capital Cost per Bed(3) $549271 Level of Service(4) (Beds/1 ,000 Functional Residents) 4 .44 Total Capital Cost per Functional Resident(5) $240 .96 ( 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) . **AW (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 I1I-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 February 2005 III-9 Impact Fee Study Table III -9 ' Historical Capital Expenditures - Funding Sourcesl ' 1 �, 1 Wti 11111 General Fund - Jail Air Conditioning Replacement $9,6001 $ 16,545 1 1 1 1 $26, 145 Jail Plumbing Controls Replacement $13,0201 1 S132020 Jail Underground Tank R lacement Re lacement 5281000 $28,000 %sc. Jail Equip. Re lacement $10,845 1 534,689 1 $45,534 Total General Fund SO $50,6201 S27,390 1 S34,6891 SO 1 1 $1121699 Optional Saks Tax IRC Jail Retrofit Phase I Replacement $252,225 536,785 $289,010 BRC Jail Re-roof Phase I Replacement 59,445 5185,401 $194,846 BRC Jail Expansion - land Purchase Expansion $3,500 59141966 5901259 $ 1 ,008,725 BRC Jail Expansion - Study Expansion $74,775 $74,775 BRC Jail Intercom Replacement $134, 145 $134, 145 BRC Jail Showers Replacement $58,966 $58,966 Jail Phase B & ID Roofing Replacement 581500 $8,500 Jail Air Conditioning Replacement 524,000 1 $24,000 Jail HVAC Improvements Replacement $24,0001 $24,000 Jail Fire Sprinklers Replacement $60,000 $60,000 Jail Boiler Replacement $22,000 $22,000 Jail Flooring Replacement $16,000 5161000 Jail Water Conditioner Replacement $21,500 $21,500 Jail Kitchen Boiler Replacement 522,458 $22458 Total O tional Sales Tax $0 $0 $252 25 549 730 51,368,253 52889717 $1,958,924 Total Correctional Facilities SO 550,620 $ 279,615 584,419 51,368,253 $288,717 $2,071,623 Total Expansion SO SO I SO I 539500 1 $989v741 S"9259 51,0839500 ( 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 . 1 million per year or $ 10 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 February 2005 III- 10 Impact Fee Study Table III = 10 Revenue per Functional Resident o .e ctx a o � r FY 1998/99 $0 100,665 FY 1999/00 $0 103 ,496 FY 2000/01 $U 1059141 FY 2001 /02 $39500 107, 392 FY 2002/03 $989 ,741 1109002 FY 2003 /04 $905259 114 ,314 FY 2004/05 $ 10, 836, 800 116 , 210 FY 2005/06 $4809000 118 ,091 FY 2006/07 $0 1199993 FY 2007/08 $0 1219915 FY 2008/09 $ 0 123 , 858 Average Functional Residents per Year ( 1999 - 2009) 1123825 Average Expansion per Year (FY 1998/99 - 2008/09) $ 11127 ,300 Average Expansion per Functional Resident $ 9. 99 ( 1 ) Source : Tables I11-7 and 111-9 (2) Source : Table A-5 "or► 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 $ 141 per functional resident . Table III = 11 Credit per Functional Resident F . rx Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident( ' ) $9 . 99 Capitalization Rate(2) 5 % Capitalization Period (in years)(3 ) 25 Credit per Resident(4) $ 140 . 80 ( 1 ) Source : Table III- 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) . *age Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 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 . 52 beds per 1 , 000 residents, which is higher than the LOS standard of 4 . 00 beds per 1 , 000 residents . Therefore, there is no existing deficiency . It should be noted that adopting a lower LOS standard than the current LOS results in a lower impact fee and allows new development to consume existing capacity without having to pay for it. 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 III42 presents the calculation of the net correctional facilities impact cost per functional resident. Table IIIA 2 Net Impact Cost "Cost nctional Resident $240 .96 Impact Credit / Total Revenue Credit(2) ($ 140 . 80) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident $ 100 . 16 ( 1 ) Source : Table III- 8 (2) Source : Table III- 11 The first section of Table 111- 12 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $241 . The second section shows a revenue credit for the correctional facilities impact fee of $ 141 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 $ 100 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III42 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 III43 . This schedule reflects calculations that were based on the LOS standard of 4 beds per 1 , 000 residents . Table 111 = 13 Impact Fee Schedule ( LOS Standard of 4 Beds per 1 , 000 Residents ) T s Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 1 .394 $ 139. 62 $4 . 19 $ 143 . 81 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du 1 . 557 $ 155 . 95 $4. 68 $ 160. 63 2,500 sf or Greater (under air) du 1 .694 $ 169. 67 $5 . 09 $ 174 . 76 Accessory Single Family du 1 .053 $ 105 . 47 $3 . 16 $ 108 . 63 Multi Family du 1 1 .053 $ 105. 47 $3 . 16 $ 108. 63 Mobile Home I du 1 1 .2281 $ 123 . 00 $3 . 69 $ 126. 69 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel Room 0. 5911 $59 . 19 $ 1 .78 $60.97 +Ayr Motel Room 0 . 5911 $59 . 19 $ 1 . 78 $60.97 Nursing Home Bed 0.9791 $98 .06 $2. 94 $ 101 . 00 ACLF Bed 0.9791 $98 .06 $2.94 $ 101 .00 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 1 .702 $ 170.47 $5 . 11 $ 175. 58 Bank 1 ,000 sf 1 .941 $ 194.41 $5 . 83 $200.24 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 1 . 591 $ 159 .35 $4. 78 $ 164. 13 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1 .401 $ 140 .32 $4.21 $ 144. 53 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 0 . 741 $74.22 $2 .23 $76.45 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 0. 501 $50. 18 $ 1 . 51 $51 .69 Warehouse 15000 sf 0.385 $38 . 56 $ 1 . 16 $39. 72 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0.076 $7 .61 $0.23 $7. 84 General Industrial 17000 sf 0. 684 $68. 51 $2 . 06 $70. 57 Concrete Plant Acre 1 . 508 $ 151 . 04 $4 . 53 $ 155. 57 Sand Mining Acre 0 . 193 $ 19 . 33 $0 . 58 $ 19.91 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 2. 862 $286. 66 $8 . 60 $295 .26 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2. 854 $285 . 86 $8 . 58 $294.44 Retail 100, 001 GSF to 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2. 920 $292.47 $8 . 77 $301 .24 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 . 995 $ 199. 82 $5 .99 $205 . 81 Gas Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $ 172. 58 $5 . 18 $ 177. 76 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 1 . 706 $ 170. 87 $5 . 13 $ 176. 00 Quality Restaurant 1 ,000sf 6. 764 $677 . 48 $20 .32 $697. 80 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 7 . 333 $734. 47 $22. 03 $756. 50 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 7 . 902 $791 . 46 $23 .74 $815.20 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III- 13 Impact Fee Study Table III = 13 (continued ) Impact Fee Schedule ( LOS Standard of 4 Beds per 1 , 000 Residents ) 4 � Retail, Gross Square Feet (continued) Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 2. 0311 $203 .42 $6. 10 $209. 52 Car Wash Bays 1 . 887 $ 189. 00 $5 .67 $ 194.67 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 4.243 $424 .98 $ 12 . 75 $437. 73 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 0.318 $31 . 85 $0.96 $32 . 81 Recreational Golf Course hole 2 .443 $244 .69 $7.34 $252. 03 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 2.374 $237. 78 $7. 13 $244. 91 County Park Acre 0. 152 $ 15 .22 $0.46 $ 15. 68 Tennis Court Court 2. 321 $232.47 $6.97 $239.44 Marina Berths 0. 153 $ 15 .32 $0.46 $ 15 . 78 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 sf 1 . 773 $ 177 . 58 $5 .33 $ 182 .91 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $ 172 . 07 $5 . 16 $ 177.23 Government Office Building 1 ,000 sf 2 . 604 $260. 82 $7 . 82 $268 . 64 Government Office Complex 1 ,000 sf 1 .356 $ 135 . 82 $4.07 $ 139.89 Jails' Bed 0. 871 $87.24 $2 .62 $89. 86 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 1 . 009 $ 101 .06 $3 . 03 $ 104. 09 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 1 . 566 $ 156. 85 $4 . 71 $ 161 . 56 VeterinaryClinic 1 ,000 sf 1 . 633 $ 163 . 56 $4.91 $ 168.47 Church 11000 sf 0. 533 $53 .39 $ 1 . 60 $54.99 Movie Theater Screen 8 .477 $849.06 $25 .47 $874 .53 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 1 0. 0941 $9.42 $0.28 $9. 70 School (High) Student 1 0 . 120 $ 12.02 $0.36 $ 12.38 School (College) Student 1 0 . 1041 $ 10.42 $0.31 $ 10. 73 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf 1 0 . 6331 $63 .40 $ 1 .901 $65 .30 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 February 2005 III- 14 Impact Fee Study Future Demand Analysis Future demand projections are based on population projections included in Section II, Table II- 1 . Table III- 14 presents the law enforcement facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Table III = 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast �' Yyl ' - r ` 33 2025 County Population( l ) 175 ,400 Adopted LOS Standard (Beds per 1 ,000 Residents)(`' ) 4 . 00 2025 Required Number of Beds(3 ) 702 Existing Number of Beds(4) 619 Additional Beds Needed(5) 83 Total Capital Cost per Bed $ 545271 Total Capital Cost(7) $4,504,493 ( 1 ) Source : Section Il, 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 208 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 I1I- 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 83 additional beds . This would require an investment of $4 . 5 million over the next 20 years . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR 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 $4 . 4 million as presented in Table III- 15 . As presented previously, the County will need to make an investment of $4 . 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 February 2005 III- 15 Impact Fee Study Table III - 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates Mc,air a p a�un SIR eI M- 1"og Ia a pn alio Re nuew- �£ 2004 1265796 2005 128 , 768 1 , 972 $ 1789072 2006 130 , 771 2 , 003 $ 1805871 2007 132 , 806 2 , 035 $ 183 , 761 2008 1349871 2 ,065 $ 186 ,470 2009 136 , 969 2 , 098 $ 1899449 2010 139 , 100 2 , 131 $ 1925429 2011 141 ,496 29396 $216 , 359 2012 1435933 2 ,437 $ 2205061 2013 1469413 2 ,480 $2235944 2014 1489935 25522 $227 , 737 2015 151 , 500 25565 $ 231 , 620 2016 1535865 2 , 365 $ 2135560 2017 1569267 2 ,402 $2167901 2018 158 , 706 2 ,439 $ 220 ,242 2019 161 , 184 21478 $ 223 , 763 2020 1637700 25516 $ 2279195 2021 1655976 25276 $205 , 523 2022 168 ,283 2 , 307 $208 , 322 2023 1705623 2 , 340 $ 211 , 302 2024 1725995 21372 $ 214 , 192 2025 175 ,400 25405 $ 217 , 172 $4 , 388 , 945 Fee per functional resident(4) $ 100 . 16 Fee per resident(5) $ 90 . 30 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are based on growth rate used in BEBR medium population projections .) (2) Additional population per year. (3 ) New population (Item 2) multiplied by fee per resident (Item 5 ) . (4) Source : Table III- 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 III -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 mow✓ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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) `rr.r Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 III- 17 Impact Fee Study XpnlS aaj jardtul 81 -III SooZ Xlrnzga j �unoD .iantg uVipul soul ` sojupossv TR 19ntip- 31UPUILL ()Iuulq :33I XIivuoilualui ands sigL) 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 ( 74a' 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. err.► Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV- 1 Impact Fee Study • The SWDD also operates five customer convenience centers throughout the N"601 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 65Th Street; o Roseland Customer Convenience Center — 7860 130Th Street; o Gifford Customer Convenience Center — 49014 1 " Street; o Oslo Customer Convenience Center — 950 1ST 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 . �.rr✓ (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV-2 Impact Fee Study Table IV- 1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities InventoryMEN l ' 1 Lion 11 F 00 , - y IRC Landfill Site - includes admin . Class I (segs . I,II) , C&D, retention 19779 1983 225 . 35 1 185684 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 15560 Vacant Parcel north of C- 5 Canal for future Segment III of Class I landfill 199491996, 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 Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center (transfer station) I N/A 1 . 29 80 ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC `'sir+ Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV-3 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) rrr' Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV -4 Impact Fee Study 4<? 2 1 0 2 Miles n 3 � I AIA I m > I � m U I y FLEMING,ST Cl1 i e�m < Atlantic Fqm U Ocean I C.R. 510 v 77TH ST 69TH ST 2 \ v R I I 85TH ST 65TH �\ ; A. m I � 53RD ST S. O w49TH ST L ._ a . -. m An65TH ST 1 m . JS,4lSTSTT 37TH ST r• S b � SOD _ . ®. . . _ . __ - _ - . .. '_ . .® P�Hj1C 21ST ST _ . .. 16, F= 18TH ST i 17TH ST TH ST + - { m _ 'I. 12TH ST r 12TH ST m - w + 87H 3T _r < 8TH ST >• gam:: _ . . . . . . m 9TH ST m j 157 STREET SYK. ¢ \ `� i. < 5TH STREET SW. r \. m r \. � OSLO RD w .. v I . - 'a AIA \ x x a W.. w < ¢ r 17TH LN. SW. `- E OSOR \ m .a ------------------------- —----------------------_------ ------l- __.-_.__ vl ___—___—_-__ ____ o N 6 Count Municipalities 1 Indian River Landfill Tindale-Oliver a Indian River County y N Impact Fee Study Fe"smere 2 Winter Beach Customer Service Center '° � I !T _. & Solid Waste Facility 3 Roseland Customer Service Center 1 • • Associates, Inc . Indian River Shores 4 Gifford Customer Service Center _ — — Ranningana Englr~ng l'I 5 Oslo Customer Service Center E Orchid -- - 6 Fellsmere Customer Service Center • _! Sebastian Solid Waste Vero BeachFacility Locations m Population Solid Waste facilities are provided on a countywide basis . The County ' s current population estimate and future population projections are provided in Section II, Table ll- 1 . Level of Service According to the information provided by the SWDD , IRC ' s current level of service (LOS) is 2 . 4 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 threemajor components discussed above . Table IV=2 Current Level of Service Class 1 1555228 1 .2 C&D Debris 549295 0 . 4 Recyclables 919000 0 . 7 Total Annual Waste 3009523 2004 County Population(2) 126 , 796 Current LOS (tons/capita/year) 2 , 4 ( 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 February 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 I IM 2005 126,796 15972 15972 128,768 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2.200 309,043 2785951 305092 2006 126,796 203 3,975 130,771 2.000 0.400 2.400 2 .200 313,850 2782951 3409 2007 126,796 2,0341 609 132,805 2.000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 3183732 278,951 39,781 2008 126,796 2,066 8,075 134,871 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 323,690 2782951 44,739 2009 126,796 208 10, 173 1369969 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2.200 328,7261 278,951 49,774 2010 1267796 2, 131 12,304 139, 100 2 . 000 0.400 2 .400 2 .200 333M01 278,951 54,889 2011 1265796 2,396 14, 700 141 ,496 2.000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 339, 590 278,951 60,639 2012 126,796 23437 17, 137 143 ,933 2 .000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 345,439 2785951 663488 2013 126,796 2,480 191617 146,413 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2.200 351 ,391 2785951 72,440 2014 126,796 2,522 22, 139 148 ,935 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2 . 200 357,444 278,951 78,493 2015 126,796 23565 24,704 1519500 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2 .200 363,600 278,951 84,649 2016 126,796 21365 27,069 153 ,865 2 .000 0.400 2.400 2 .200 369,276 278,951 90,325 2017 126,796 25402 29,471 156,267 2.000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 375 ,041 278,951 96,090 2018 126,796 2,439 31 ,910 158,706 2.000 0.400 2.400 2. 200 3809894 2782951 101 ,943 2019 126,796 2,478 34,388 161 , 184 2 .000 0.400 2.400 2.200 386, 842 278,951 107, 890 2020 126,796 2,516 36,904 1639700 2 . 000 0.400 2.400 2.200 39200 278,951 113 ,929 Total 36,904 5,5909279 49463,219 1 , 127,060 Percent of Total 80% 20% Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV- 8 Impact Fee Study %ftvv� ( 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 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 20 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 . Prouammed/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 February 2005 IV-9 Impact Fee Study Table IV=4 INWOOO Proposed Capital Expenditures Fiscal Years 05106 - 09/1 01 ' 1 4 G_ itaiit TOYemeulF itis, ; a ' 05 �8d Storm water detention pond excavation Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1501000 $ 150,000 $7501000 North area infrastructure construction Expansion $250,000 $2507000 $500,000 C&D landfill cell construction Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Closure of C&D landfill Expansion $500,000 $500000 Closure of Class I (Segment II Expansion $3 ,850,000 $3,8502000 $7,7001000 Construction of Class I landfill cell Expansion $3 ,5001000 $315001000 $7,000,000 Engineering, desin permit, bid, and constr. srvs. Expansion $250,000 $2505000 $250,000 $2501000 $250,000 $ 1 ,250,000 Roll-off truck replacement Replacement $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Citizens Convenience Center improvements Replacement $25,000 $25,000 $25 000 $25,000 $ 100,000 Expansion/ Transfer truck and two transfer trailers Replacement(2) $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $8001000 Replacement roll-off truck & containers Replacement 1 $ 125,0001 $ 125,0001 $250,000 Total $960,000 $875,000 $1 ,2751000 $8,1009000 $7,900,000 $19,1109000 Expansion Expenditures I $768,000 $7689000 $19168,000 $79868,000 $797509000 $ 18,322,000 ( 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 February 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 (' ) V , G N . ciM1 Improvements to the Oslo and Gifford CCC Yard Waste / Sludge Co-composting Facility Partial Closure of Segment III ( 15 acres) $2,200, 000 Phase IV-25 Acre Segment North of Segment III 1 $330,000 $2,288,000 $252865000 Partial Closure of Segment III ( 18 acres) $2005000 $2,950,000 Prepare 20 Acre C&D Landfill Base $80,000 $212165000 Partial Closure of C&D Unit ( 15 acres) U$2,348,0001 $3,434,000 $948,000 Total $2,200,000 $0 $0 $809000 $29216,000 $0 $330, $2,950,000 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 February 2005 IV- 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 FY 05/06 $768 ,000 $786 ,432 $629 , 146 $ 1575286 FY 06/07 $768 ,000 $ 805 ,306 $ 644 ,245 $ 161 ,061 FY 07/08 $ 1 , 168 ,000 $ 1 ,2549130 $ 19003 , 304 $2509826 FY 08/09 $ 7 ,8689000 $ 8 ,650 ,957 $ 699205766 $ 1 , 7301191 FY 09/ 10 $ 7 ,750 ,000 $ 8 ,725 ,724 $ 6 ,9801579 $ 1 , 745 , 145 FY 10/ 11 $21200 ,000 $257677050 $2 ,213 ,640 $ 5535410 FY 11 / 12 $ 0 $0 $0 $ 0 FY 12/ 13 $0 $ 0 $0 $ 0 FY 13 / 14 $ 80,000 $ 1083040 $ 86,432 $219608 FY 14/ 15 $292163000 $ 390649530 $2 ,4519624 $612 ,906 FY 15/ 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 16/ 17 $330,000 $478 ,529 $3823823 $959706 FY 17/ 18 $21348 ,000 $354869519 $29789,215 $697 ,304 FY 18/ 19 $ 3 ,4341000 $5 ,221 ,488 $4 , 177 , 190 $ 1 ,044 ,298 FY 19/20 $21950 ,000 $4, 5937206 $ 3 ,674 , 565 $918 ,641 Total $ 31 , 880 ,000 $ 39 ,941 ,911 $ 31 ,9535529 $ 7 ,9889382 Existing Population's Share of Cost(5) 80% New Population's Share of Cost(6) 20% 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 February 2005 IV- 12 Impact Fee Study NOW 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 . ir✓ 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 February 2005 IV43 Impact Fee Study Table IV=7 Historical Revenue Sources ( ' ) , Q 21tl � . w NNE cfi1Wn W7 -15 d00A 01, 1 C&D Debris Disposal Charges $ 11425 ,000 $ 29291 ,367 $ 118055340 $ 1 ,8239986 $ 1 ,725 ,328 $ 155809364 $ 197755231 16 .4% Sales of Recyclable $ 575 ,000 $ 683 ,764 $ 469,718 $ 319,940 $ 3399489 $ 451 ,951 $ 473,310 4 .4% Se to a/Slud a Disposal $ 200,000 $ 2107181 $ 214,941 $ 2173099 $ 218,221 $ 1603248 $ 203 ,448 1 .9% Lot Clearing Waste Disposal Charges $ 275,000 $ 398,220 $ 397,670 $ 411 ,555 $ 438,485 $ 280,453 $ 366,897 3 .4% Landfill Assessments $ 27500 $ 3881521 $ 348,879 $ 269,795 $ 337,631 $ 241 , 163 $ 310, 165 2 .9% Service Assessments $ 71445 ,350 $ 6,9749314 $ 618045531 $ 626272295 $ 61447,062 $ 6,296,909 $ 6,7659910 62 .4% Other Sources $ 5265883 $ 482,332 $ 845 ,411 $ 883,248 $ 1 , 723,486 $ 1 ,253 ,983 $ 952, 557 8 . 8% Total Revenues $ 101722,233 $ 115428,699 $ 101886,490 $ 10,552,918 $ 113229,702 $ 10,265 ,071 $ 105847,519 100 .0% Operating Expenditures $ 10,722,233 $ 89972,492 $ 8, 5895140 $ 85070,243 $ 812209360 $ 85401 ,741 $ 89829,368 81 .4% Revenues Net of Operating Expenditures $ $ 2,456,207 $ 2,2975350 $ 294829675 $ 3 ,009,342 $ 15863 ,330 $ 2,018, 151 18 .6% Revenues Net of Operating Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Revenues 0. 0% 21 . 5% 21 . 1 % 23 . 5% 26 . 8% 18 .2% 18 .6% ( 1 ) Source : Office of Management and Budget, IRC Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV- 14 Impact Fee Study ,%W 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( l ) ` f -_ Residential _ Per Waste Generation Unit (WG 548.23 $37.56 $47. 56 547.56 547.56 x47.45 546. 86 Percent Chane - 1 .4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% - 1 .2% -0. 5% Per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) $77. 17 576. 10 $76. 10 576. 10 $76. 10 $75 .92 574.98 Percent Chane - 1 .4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% - 1 .2% 450 Commercial Per Waste Generation Unit WGU) 534.45 1 $33 .70 1 533 .70 $33 . 70 1 532.58 1 $32.53 1 $31 . 89 Percent Change 1 1 .2.2%1 0.0% 0.0% -3.3 % -0.2% -2.0% -1 .3% ( 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 February 2005 IV45 Impact Fee Study The following table provides a summary of credit per resident based on the analysis and •.iI' assumptions discussed previously . Table IV -9 Total Credit per Resident NZ MM FY 2004/2005 Total Budgeted District Revenues( l ) $ 1097229233 Percent of District Revenues Allocated to Capital Expenditures(2) 15 % District Revenues Allocated to Capital Expenditures(3 ) $ 196089335 2005 County Population(4) 1289768 District Revenues per Person(5 ) $ 12 .49 Capitalization Rate(6) 5 % Capitalization Period (years)(7) 25 Credit per Resident(8) $ 176 . 04 ( 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 $ 12 . 49 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 $ 8 million in current dollars, as shown in Table IV-6 . The District has to spend an additional $32 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 February 2005 IV- 16 Impact Fee Study Table IV - 10 Changes in the Fund Balance 0044rl FY 04/05 128,768 $ 11 , 117,770 $ 18,8825230 $30,000,000 FY 05/06 130,771 $555, 889 $ 1 , 633 ,353 $251 ,076 $786,432 $ 1297715656 $ 18,8829230 $31 ,653 , 886 FY 06/07 132,806 $638,583 $ 13658,761 $254,962 $805 ,306 $ 14,51806 $ 1802,230 $33 ,4003886 FY 07/08 134,871 $725,933 $ 116843563 $258,973 $ 112549130 $ 155933 ,995 $ 181882, 230 $3458163225 FY 08/09 136,969 $7963700 $ 1 , 7107767 $2621984 $ 8,650,957 $ 10,0533489 $ 18,8821230 $28,9351719 FY 09/ 10 139, 100 $502,674 $ 1 , 737,379 $2675121 $8,7259724 $35834,939 $ 18,8825230 $22,7175169 FY 10/ 11 1 141 ,496 $ 1913747 $ 137673305 $300,339 $2, 767,050 $3 ,327,280 $ 181882,230 $22,209, 510 FY 11 / 12 1433933 $ 166, 364 $ 1 ,797,744 $305,478 $0 $5, 5965866 $ 181882,230 $2454795096 FY 12/ 13 146,413 $2791843 $ 1 ,828,714 $31008 $0 $83016,291 $ 185882,230 $26, 8981521 FY 13/ 14 148,935 $400, 815 $ 1 ,860,214 $3162133 $ 108,040 $ 105485 ,413 $ 1858825230 $29,367,643 FY 14/ 15 1513500 $5242271 $ 1 , 892,256 $321 , 523 $3 ,064,530 $ 10, 158,933 $ 1858825230 $29,0415163 FY 15/ 16 153 ,865 $507,947 $ 1 ,9219796 $2969453 $0 $ 1205 , 129 $ 185882,230 $31 , 7673359 FY 16/ 17 156,267 $644,256 $ 15951 ,796 $3011091 $478,529 $ 15 ,3032743 $ 185882,230 $34, 1851973 FY 17/ 18 158,706 $7652187 $ 199825260 $3059729 $35486,519 $ 14,870,400 $ 18,882,230 $33,752,630 FY 18/ 19 161 , 184 $743 ,520 $2,013 ,209 $310, 617 $5,2211488 $ 12,716,258 $ 18,882,230 $31 ,598,488 FY 19/20 163 ,700 $635,813 $2,044,636 $3152381 $4, 593 ,206 $ 113118, 882 $ 18, 882,230 $30,001 , 112 Total $8,079, 542 $275484, 753 $4,3783728 $39,941 ,911 Annual interest rate(9) 5% Average assessment fee rate and other service charges per resident (10) $ 12.49 ( 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 services 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 February 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 $4 . 4 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 $ 125 . 35 . This fee generates the necessary revenues to pay for the $ 1 . 8 million in capital expenditures needed to serve new growth and contribute $2 . 5 million necessary to retain a fund balance of $30 million. Table IV-11 Net Impact Cost *MOO, FY 05/06 203 $ 157,286 $ 1457638 $352,608 $49,684 $ 125 .35 $251 ,076 $300,760 FY 06/07 21034 $ 161 ,061 $ 147,892 $358,065 $49, 112 $ 125 .35 $254,962 $304,074 FY 07/08 206 $250,826 $ 150,219 $363,699 $37,346 $ 125 .35 $258,973 $221 ,627 FY 08/09 21098 $ 1 ,7309191 $ 152,546 $369,332 $ 1 ,513,405 $ 125 .35 $262,984 -$ 17250,421 FY 09/10 21131 $ 1 ,7451145 $ 154,945 $375, 141 $ 1 ,5245949 $ 125 .35 $2677121 7$ 1 ,257,828 FY 10/ 11 2,396 $553 ,410 $ 1741213 $421 ,792 $3059831 $ 125 . 35 $300,339 -$51492 FY 11 / 12 21437 $0 $ 1775194 $42909 -$251 ,815 $ 125.35 $305,478 $ 557,293 FY 12/ 13 2,480 $0 $ 180,321 $436,579 -$256,258 $ 125 . 35 $3102868 $567, 126 FY 13/ 14 2,522 $217608 $ 183,375 $443 ,973 -$238,990 $ 125 .35 $3165133 $555, 123 FY 14/15 23565 $612,906 $ 186501 $4512543 $3471864 $ 125. 35 $3212523 -$261341 FY 15/ 16 25365 $0 $ 171 ,959 $4161335 4244,376 $ 125. 35 $296,453 $540,829 FY 16/ 17 2,402 $953706 $ 174,649 $422,848 -$ 1522493 $ 125.35 $301 ,091 $453 ,584 FY 17/ 18 2,439 $6977304 $ 1771340 $429,362 $445 ,282 $ 125 . 35 $3059729 -$ 1397553 FY 18/19 2,478 $ 11044,298 $ 1801175 $436,227 $788,246 $ 125 .35 $3103617 -$477,629 FY 19/20 2,516 $9189641 $ 182,938 $442,917 $658,662 $ 125 . 35 $3151381 -$3432281 Total 1 34,9321 $7,9881382 $29539,905 $6, 1499430 $4,3781857 $453783728 -$ 129 New go29 s contribution to the fund balance erperson(9) $72.71 Credit per petson ( 2005-2020 "0' $ 176.04 ( 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 $4 .4 million. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 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 { ($4,378 , 857 — ($7, 988 ,382 — $6, 149 ,430)) / 34, 932 = $72 . 711 ( 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 21 X : . Cliatfl Net Solid Waste Generation Cost per Resident( i ) $ 125 . 35 �✓ Percent residential(2) 45 % Residential Solid Waste Cost per Resident(3 ) $ 56 . 41 Residents per Housing Unit(4) 2 .470 Net Solid Waste Generation Cost per Household ') $ 139 . 33 ( 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 $ 139 fee for the single family land use . The resulting WGU-based fee schedule is included in Appendix C . In Table IV43 , 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 . fir►' Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV- 19 Impact Fee Study Table IV-13 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 01 $ 139. 33 $4. 18 $ 143 . 51 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du 01 $ 139. 33 $4. 18 $ 143 . 51 2,500 sf or Greater (under air) du 01 $ 139. 33 $4. 18 $ 143 . 51 Accessory Single Family du 08 $ 104. 49 $3 . 13 $ 107. 62 Multi Family du 1 08 1 $ 104.49 $3 . 13 $ 107. 62 Mobile Home du 1 02 $ 139.33 $4. 18 $ 143 . 51 Transient, Assisted , Group Hotel Room 39 $39. 19 $ 1 . 18 $40.37 Motel Room 39 $39. 19 $ 1 . 18 $40 .37 Nursing Home Bed 78 $61 .30 $ 1 . 84 $63 . 14 ACLF Bed 74 $ 114. 60 $3 .44 $ 118. 04 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 , 000 sf 19 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224 .23 Bank 1 , 000 sf 23 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224 .23 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 23 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224.23 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 18 $ 174. 16 $5. 22 $ 179.38 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 18 $ 174. 16 $5 . 22 $ 179.38 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 42 $435 .40 $ 13. 06 $448 .46 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 48. S $87. 08 $2. 61 $89. 69 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 48. 0 $34. 83 $ 1 . 04 $35 . 87 ."101 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 42 $435 .40 $ 13 . 06 $448.46 Concrete Plant Acre 47 $394. 13 $ 11 . 82 $405 . 95 Sand Mining Acre 47 $394. 13 $ 11 . 82 $405 .95 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 16 $435 .40 $ 13 . 06 $448.46 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16 $435 .40 $ 13 . 06 $448.46 Retail 100,001 GSF to 20000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16 $435 .40 $ 13 . 06 $448.46 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16 $435 .40 $ 13 . 06 $448 .46 Gas Station Fuel pos 26 $72.28 $2. 17 $74.45 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 27 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224 .23 Quality Restaurant 1 ,000sf 21 $609.55 $ 18 .29 $627. 84 Restaurant 1 , 000 sf 21 $609. 55 $ 18.29 $627. 84 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 21 $609.55 $ 18. 29 $627. 84 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 14 $783 . 71 $23 .51 $807 .22 Car Wash Bay 27.J $ 141 . 50 $4.25 $ 145 . 75 Convenience Store 1 , 000 sf 14 $783 . 71 1 $23 . 511 $807.22 Furniture Store 1 1 ,000 sf 11 1 $435 .401 $ 13 .061 $448 .46 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV-20 Impact Fee Study VOW Table IV- 13 ( continued ) Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule d v Recreational Golf Course hole 38 $69. 33 $2. 08 $71 . 41 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studic 1 ,000 sf 34 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224 . 23 County Park Acre 82 $ 156. 74 $4. 70 $ 161 .44 Tennis Court Court 38 $33 . 84 $ 1 . 02 $34. 86 Marina Berth 20 $83 . 51 $2. 51 $86. 02 Governmental Post Office 1 ,000 sf 88 $ 174. 16 $5 . 22 $ 179. 38 Library 1 ,000 sf 86 $ 174. 16 $5 .22 $ 179.38 Government Office Building(5) 1 ,000 sf 86 $ 174. 16 $5. 22 $ 179. 38 Government Office Complex(5) 1 ,000 sf 86 $ 174. 16 $5 . 22 $ 179. 38 Jail Bed 86 $28. 74 $0. 86 $29. 60 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 25 $435 . 40 $ 13 . 06 $448.46 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 73 $ 153 .26 $4. 60 $ 157. 86 Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf 19 $217. 70 $6. 53 $224.23 Church 1 ,000 sf 71 .V $60. 96 $ 1 . 83 $62. 79 Movie Theater Screen 32 $347. 55 $ 10. 43 $357. 98 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 72 $21 . 45 $0. 64 $22 . 09 School (Hi Student 72 $24.24 $0. 73 $24. 97 School (College) Student 72 $24. 24 $0. 731 $24 . 97 r Fire Station 1 ,000 sf 86 $ 174. 16 $5. 22 $ 179. 38 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 $ 8 . 0 million, which was presented in Table IV-6 . In addition, as shown in Table IV- 11 , the County needs to invest $2 . 5 million to keep the fund balance at $30 million . The total investment necessary to accommodate 2020 demand is $ 10 . 5 million . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IV-21 Impact Fee Study Estimated Revenues As presented in Table IV- 11 , the County will collect $4 . 4 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 . As mentioned previously, the impact fee revenue projections are based, in part, on the BEBR medium 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 February 2005 IV-22 Impact Fee Study r 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 . `*ftw 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 February 2005 V - 1 Impact Fee Study Table V- 1 '`` Summary of Public Building Inventory( ' ) U}rf�dlIt . , } I](1tD Ek F8f>11 f t > &_rl'C Existing County Administration Buildin 151 76,304 $ 14,4611134 5 .47 $559,756 Purchasing Office and Warehouse N/A N/A 0. 86 $88,006 Health Department Building 37,250 $6,0497400 3 . 17 $3247392 Judicial Complex 120,000 $ 19,4881000 2. 17 $2225060 Administration Annex 85400 $ 1 , 1761000 0 . 81 $82,889 Fleet Management Facility 61 155400 $25500,960 5 . 09 $520,358 Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities 189350 $2,9801040 11 . 16 $ 121425025 Old Humane Society Building N/A N/A 1 4. 77 $488, 124 Total 2759704 4696551534 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 13 - 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 February 2005 V-2 Impact Fee Study suopeo0ml A111138.4 gaeaS maA ;, , : o Buippe 31 • �ylllJej Buu9eul6u3 a6pug g peoa L uegsegaS • n Appej 6uu99u16u3 ayyeil g PMOJO FARM AIllpe j yuaw96eueyny 1991-4 S EuwwrE6- owe xeuuy anl;eiyslunupy q 59J04S JenR! uelpul a xul soyeloossv w xeldwoojelolpnf E -4 pl 8 Ig d n as oBClul y Y �_ ■ 6ulplln91u9wueda0 431e8H Z �lllloe 6ul In of n aiawspa-4 p � S e 41 nsyy �-alepul,l , 6u1p11n8uolle�yslulwpy6ugslx3 y sal;lledhlunlry Alunoo JaAIU UBlpu � £ 3 = N, 1 I ' ll - 4 l s i. a ML MM1y�i � P . fi �A =o ^* V J i� _ _ ' T '$ �. 111 . lfK lid, �-. =t sn�. °- _ ' . PA ._. ` _' r i .sv III 111 j ljoto � � as �, -Ti mar �l L g es Z 5`i x � It a 13SN1 HOV38 0213/ a' 1 "Y _ : .� «,� 495Y- �dkh6 �. AI � u > .` � � `i� � � I G a P'� iC H1L4 C 1.$ � ', r f e l .j lS } ..�: 01? VJ . t ;j' fi u_� qm° :_ n E f�E2 ( P +� Ir Ill r. a'.... .. § :7T�f14� V : .." ! ,. � �' iy . l`..1 4�In4 wPP % t € � " s }' ' _ ?. n. t d " � tin i ""I , I, � '7,'�3 n',, �€ fi ale +` p t a 1YSAj IIAII lT x .1. ,5W, . ., '` t 3 5 tlN1Y 6p2N ' /'n fi[ti —} das s �#lft? ysas .1 � � r14 gt� �w �/ £ { ^x N SONY Z 0 L Z /, _ 8 Tindale- Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 V-4 Impact Fee Study Table V=2 Leased -Out/ Rented County-Owned Public Facilities tn� ti� K tit County Admin . Building - leased to School Board 263851 Homeless Assistance Center 6 , 000 Old Douglass School 28 , 343 Old Winter Beach School 49208 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 , � F , pct I Tax Collector 12 , 507 North County Offices 3 , 000 Supervisor of Elections 91840 U . S . 1 Warehouse 700 Total 329347 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 February 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 11- 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 II , Table II - 14 . This information results in a current LOS of 2 . 49 square feet of public building space per functional resident, as calculated in Table V-4 . In addition, in terms of the resident population, the current LOS is 2 . 17 building square feet per resident . Table V-4 Current Level of Service ( 2004 ) 43 _ Mi now . quare )+ e � titeicteufs � IPe ars . off# 4 �Pn a on r �P les�W, 275 ,704 110, 898 2 .49 126 , 796 2 . 17 ( 1 ) Source : Table V- 1 (2) Source : Section Il , 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 standards 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 . Tindale - Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 V-6 Impact Fee Study Table V=5 Level of Service Comparison � �1T1' ell kd a �kw w rn ~ m ldf a eSl(1 flqM v Indian River( ' ) 117 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 February 2005 V-7 Impact Fee Study Table V=6 ..r Public Building Replacement Cost( ' aUUd a�li - y Existing County Administration Building(5) 765304 $ 14461 , 134 , Purchasing Office and Warehouse N/A N/A Health Department Building 37,250 $65049,400 u Judicial Complex 1209000 $ 19,488,000 Y _ Administration Annex 81400 $ 13176,000 �� _; Fleet Management Facility(6) 155400 $2,55007960 Road & Bridge/Traffic Facilities 18 ,350 $25980,040 � Old Humane SocietyBuildingN/A N/A � ok , Total 27 97041 $46,655,534 $39427,610 Weighted Average Cost per Square Foot of Building $ 169.221 $ 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 February 2005 V- 8 Impact Fee Study Table V= 7 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Gast Com" ©Hent y r ure LOS --Public Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident( l ) 2 . 49 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) $452 .31 ( 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 February 2005 V- 9 Impact Fee Study •ar►f 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 p��4�, ?penStaW, _ uc_i`El_ Baca{ �eaaR 1Cesuiae Iacemen '- 79' >$�'J9 .a 10 S �ZutAu2 08Y'!d2 ' "`30[F2i 1�Z003104 a 1earllisf " Enter rise Fund A New County Administration Buildin Expansion 1 $1 ,098,6791 1 ,098,679 Total Expansion - Enterprise Fund s0 I s0 I s0 I s0 I s0 1 1 $ 1, 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 $49,500 Health Department Air Conditionin Replacement $30,000 $61 ,269 $91 ,269 Health Department Generator Expansion $ 18,400 $ 18,400 Total Expansion - General Fund s0 I SO 1 $18, 400 $0 1 s0 I 518, 400 Optional Sales Tax Fiber Optic Expansion $ 1491721 $ 109386 $251 ,562 $ 151719 $ 180,911 $8075488 $ 1 ,415 ,786 Winter Beach Cemetery Expansion $ 1 ,200 $ 103,057 $ 104,257 Fleet Management Facility Replacement $17,608 $421 ,644 $3309485 $36,567 $3,274,855 $4,081 , 159 Financial Software Replacement $7,000 $530,099 $ 154,458 $691 ,557 Health Department Dental Clinic Expansion $20,350 $358,569 $378,919 Humane Society Building Replacement $380,073 $380,073 New County Administration Bu Id Re lacement $28,370 $7,422 $ 179,358 $215, 150 New CountyAdministration Buildin Ex ansion $7,0507000 $7,0501000 Misc. Land Purchases Expansion $57,416 $57,416 Misc. Building Alterations Replacement $328,988 $60,861 $233 $58,426 $32,201 Total Ex nsion - O tional Sales Tax $208, 337 $113, 443 $271, 912 $374, 288 5180, 911 i $, 480,708 006, 379 Total - Governmental Buildin s $208,337 $113443 $290,312 $374,288 $180,911 0,123,458 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 . 85 . 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 . `+.fir✓ Tindale - Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 V- 10 Impact Fee Study Table V=9 Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident(" r`i P `' �+ (ux� alesnd 11 O , � nodi � "Ii'a3��g ndz`turesement r 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 $ 374,288 FY 2002/03 Expansion $0 $ 0 $ 180,911 FY 2003 /04121 Expansion $ 1 , 098 ,679 $8079488 $ 7, 050,000 FY 2004/05 Expansion $ 0 $0 $4 , 855 ,000 FY 2005/06 Expansion $ 0 $0 $ 1 , 5809000 FY 2006/07 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 8000 FY 2007/08 Expansion $0 $ 0 $ 19000 FY 2008/09 Expansion $ 0 $ 0 $ 1905000 Total Capital Expenditures for Expansion ( 1999-2009) $ 17, 018 , 458 Annual Capital Expenditure Amount(3 ) $ 195475133 *ftw Average Functional Population ( 1999-2009)(4) 1043154 Annual Capital Expenditure Amount per Functional Resident(5) $ 14. 85 ( 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 I 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 . NOW Tindale - Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 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 Percentagel ' 1 1 ;'L a� aIV 'd �'" CA , • ! rB , , at"_ �' .,: aipV � , ._,. ., ` ✓ "" rk� 'i a� lll ,arc- . s County Vacant Land Value $ 13080 , 8195230 Countywide Total Property Value(2) $ 123181 ,250 , 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 $452 . 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 $209 , 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 $209 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 $243 per functional resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 V- 12 Impact Fee Study Table V- 11 Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident � t llmpa ` ' rite to _ ertteu ,_ o�s ff vevG�r Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident( ') $452.31 _ Impact Credit Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit Amount per Func . Res . (2) $ 14 . 85 Capitalization Rate 5 /o o _ Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital improvement credit per Resident(3) 9 ($209 .30) Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(4) 0 . 02% Credit for Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land(s) VIA ` ($0 . 07) Total Revenue Credit per Functional Resident(6) �- ($209.37) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(') $242.94 ( 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 . •r (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 $243 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 11-d 9 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 February 2005 V- 13 Impact Fee Study Table V- 12 Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule �r Residential Single Family Lower than 1 .500 sf (under air) du 0. 751 $ 182. 45 $5 .47 $ 187. 92 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du 0. 839 $203 . 83 $6. 11 $209. 94 2,500 sf or Greater (under air) du 0. 912 $221 . 56 $6.65 $228 . 21 Accessory Single Family du 0.567 $ 137. 75 $4. 13 $ 141 . 88 Multi Family du 0.567 $ 137. 75 $4. 13 $ 141 . 88 Mobile Home du 1 0.661 $ 160. 58 $4. 82 $ 165 . 40 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel Room 0.703 $ 170. 79 $5 . 12 $ 175 . 91 Motel Room 0. 703 $ 170. 79 $5 . 12 $ 175 . 91 Nursing Home Bed 1 .273 $309. 26 $9.28 $318 . 54 ACLF Bed 1 .273 $309. 26 $9.28 $318. 54 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 5 . 199 $ 1 ,263 . 05 $37. 89 $ 12300. 94 Bank 1 ,000 sf 5.929 $ 1 ,440. 39 $43 .21 $ 1483 . 60 Bankw/Drive-in 100 sf 4. 859 $ 1 , 180.45 $35.41 $ 1 ,215 . 86 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1,000 sf 4. 281 $ 15040.03 $31 . 20 $ 1 ,071 .23 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 17000 sf 2 .262 $549. 53 $ 16.49 $566. 02 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 1 . 530 $371 . 70 $ 11 . 15 $382. 85 Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 1 . 176 $285 . 70 $8 . 57 $294. 27 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0. 165 $40. 09 $ 1 .20 $41 . 29 r General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 2.090 $507. 74 $ 15 .23 $522. 97 Concrete Plant Acre 4.608 $ 17119. 47 $33 . 58 $ 1 , 153 .05 Sand Mining Acre 0. 591 $ 143 . 581 $4. 31 $ 147. 89 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 15000 sf 6.245 $ 15517. 16 $45 . 51 $ 1 ,562.67 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 6.228 $ 17513 . 03 $45 . 39 $ 1 , 558.42 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 6. 372 $ 1 ,548 .01 $46.44 $ 1 ,594.45 Retail over 200,000 GSF 17000 sf 4. 353 $ 1 ,057. 52 $31 .73 $ 1 ,089.25 Gas Station Fuel pos 3 .758 $912.97 $27. 39 $940. 36 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 3.723 $904. 47 $27. 13 $931 . 60 Quality Restaurant I ,000sf 14.758 $3,585 .31 $ 107.56 $3 ,692. 87 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 15 .999 $3, 886. 80 $ 116. 60 $4,003 .40 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 17. 240 $4, 188 .29 $ 125. 65 $4,313 . 94 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 4.432 $ 19076. 71 $32. 30 $ 1 , 109 .01 Car Wash Bays 4. 117 $ 1 ,000. 18 $30.01 $ 1 ,030. 19 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 9. 2571 $2,248. 901 $67.47 $22316. 37 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf 0.6931 $ 168 . 361 $5 .051 $ 173 . 41 Recreational Golf Course hole 5. 330 $ 1 ,294. 87 $38. 85 $ 15333 .72 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 15000 sf 5 . 181 $ 1 ,258 . 67 $37.76 $ 1 ,296 . 43 County Park Acre 0. 332 $80. 66 $2.42 $83 . 08 Tennis Court Court 5 . 063 $ 17230. 01 $36. 90 $ 1 ,266. 91 Marina Berths 0.334 $81 . 14 $2. 43 $83 . 57 Tindale - Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 V- 14 Impact Fee Study Table V- 12 ( continued ) Proposed Public Building Impact Fee Schedule ' ' : r sa " t- : C y, - COU£ XOIOSGi Et�t�j$C1 'a t'., a `" "'y r VE '�a�� liltC1r74IIa� �:SCCQ i? d r��**T1e-. � $ y Fmpac(� �" 12est ent a x I octal t mmistrative ` otal Im acts , �. A Governmental Post Office 1 ,000Sf 4. 514 $ 1 ,096. 63 $32 . 90 $ 15129. 53 Library 1 ,000 sf 3 . 749 $910. 78 $27.32 $938. 10 Government Office Building(5) 1 ,000 sf 7. 955 $ 1 ,932. 59 $57.98 $ 1 ,990. 57 Government Office Complex(5) 1 ,000 sf 4. 143 $ 17006. 50 $30.20 $ 17036. 70 Jail Bed 1 . 900 $461 . 59 $ 13 . 85 $475.44 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 3 .081 $748 . 50 $22.46 $770. 96 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 3 .416 $829. 88 $24. 90 $854. 78 Veterinary Clinic 17000 sf 4. 988 $ 1 ,211 . 78 $36. 35 $ 1 ,248. 13 Church 1 ,000 sf 1 . 162 $282 . 30 $8 .47 $290. 77 Movie Theater Screen 18. 495 $4,493 . 18 $ 134. 80 $4,627. 98 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 0.287 $69. 72 $2. 09 $71 . 81 School (High) Student 0. 366 $ 88 . 92 $2. 67 $91 . 59 School (College) Student 0.318 $77. 25 $2. 32 $79. 57 Fire Station 11000 sf 1 1 .3811 $335. 501 $ 10. 07 $345 . 57 Note : GSF = gross square feet ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table I1- 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 February 2005 V- 15 Impact Fee Study Table VA 3 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast G Tcu ahoh eGam Tient w � t Forecasted Demand w � 2025 County Population( i ) 1755400 Adopted LOS Standard (Square Feet per Resident)(2) 2 . 17 2025 Required Square Footage(3) 3809618 Existing Square Footage(4) 275 , 704 Additional Square Footage Needed(5) 1049914 Cost per Square Foot(6) $ 181 . 65 Total Cost(7) $ 199057, 628 Programmed funds over the next five years(8) $ 6, 89500 Remaining funds needed to accommodate 2025 demand(9) $ 12, 1629628 ( 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 104 , 914 square feet by 2025 . This would require an investment of $ 19 . 1 million over the next 20 years , $6 . 9 million of which is already funded . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR and impact cost per resident calculated in Table V- 14 , it is estimated that the public building impact fee revenues will generate $ 10 . 3 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 $ 19 . 1 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 February 2005 V- 16 Impact Fee Study Table V- 14 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates " earputan , � 1'ou>ati�iu c t tai N P s� e�eztaes , ; 2004 1263796 2005 1285768 1 , 972 $419 , 009 2006 130 , 771 2 , 003 $4253596 2007 1329806 2 , 035 $432 , 396 2008 134 , 871 29065 $438 , 770 2009 136, 969 2 , 098 $4459782 2010 139 , 100 25131 $452 , 794 2011 1413496 2 , 396 $ 509 , 101 2012 1435933 29437 $ 517, 812 2013 146 ,413 29480 $ 526 , 949 2014 148 , 935 2 , 522 $ 5359873 2015 151 , 500 29565 $ 545 , 010 2016 153 , 865 2 , 365 $ 502 , 514 2017 156 ,267 29402 $ 5105376 2018 1585706 29439 $ 5183237 2019 161 , 184 25478 $ 526 , 524 2020 163 , 700 29516 $ 534 , 598 2021 165 , 976 2 ,276 $483 , 603 2022 168 , 283 2 , 307 $490 , 190 2023 1703623 29340 $4979202 2024 172 , 995 29372 $ 5043001 2025 175 ,400 21405 $ 5115013 $ 105327 , 350 Fee per functional resident(4) $242 . 94 Fee per resident(5) $212 . 48 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 February 2005 V- 17 Impact Fee Study guideline in planning future infrastructure needs . In their simplest form , impact fees ""00 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 February 2005 V- 18 Impact Fee Study Vl. 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 `trim 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( ' ) - - 5 Main Library 1600 21st Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 499286 North County Library 1001 CR 512, Sebastian, FL 32958 259445 Law Library 200016 th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 3 ,993 Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 4875 43 `d Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32967 19513 Total 801237 ( 1 ) Source : General Services Department, Division of Library Services , IRC Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) r.r/✓ NOOO Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI-2 Impact Fee Study a i o I N Lo /J, T I 2 1 0 2 Miles O m pNPt1pH 0`VO ' ` \_ A 9 y ATLANTIC BLVD x �P _____. __-___ ___ . _ I' > __ _-_ ____-___ -_-. I < F ) } M , 9t i . 1 R} w v a 1 21ST ST y FLEMING ST . F � � 1 ® By Z PmF Atlantic gQ Ocean m S{ C.R. 510 16TH ST _ _ . 77TH ST it _ 69TH ST VERO BEACH INSET 65TH ST 65TH 5T x 53RD ST 1 v w 4 > . 491110 IL a L(,1g�}ff F ST ..\ > 41STST \ a t 37TH ST m ---------- - . ._. _---___ 9 1 � y elvR 1 �, o j - 16TH ST 16TH ST ""2.J Z 17TH ST 12TH ST r 12TH ST m - _ M > 8TH ST ¢ 8TH ST 4TH ST \ m 'r > IST STREET SW. > 15 5TH STREET SW. r 0 OSLO RD w 1 , a 'a \ x Qa : r /7TH LN. SW. EL___---_—_--- ----------------------------- ------- -------------------- - _ ____. _-__—___. --------------____ _ m I m Indian River County Municipalities �''�'`\ Tindalc - Oh Impact Fee Stud �— Fellsmere © Library 1 Main Library � �2 M Y a 2 North Co. Librar • ! � C Associates , Inc . s = Indian River Shores . `"' 3 Law Library Y _N — — Planning andEnginmMng Orchid 4 Gifford Library • _ _J Sebastian _ Library Facility Vero Beach 7 Locations �.r The four facilities identified in Table VI - 1 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( l ) Books : Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 972 Law Library 15 , 600 Main & North Reference , Genealogy, Non Fiction Books 138 , 010 Adult Fiction Books 859929 Juvenile/YA Reference Books 19126 Juvenile/YA Non Fiction Books 54 , 577 Juvenile/YA Fiction 38 , 836 Paperbacks 15 ,431 Books On Tape/CD 12 , 152 Electronic Books 289812 Total -- Books 391 ,445 Online Resource Subscriptions : 68 Other Library Items : Music CDs 79622 DVDs 2 , 557 Videos 197308 Print Subscriptions 1 , 775 Other Print Materials 19, 661 Total -- Other Library Items 509923 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 February 2005 VI -5 Impact Fee Study In addition to the available material, the IRC Library System owns a variety of , ,,,r► 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( ' ) Copiers 7 2 9 Book Scribe Copier 1 - 1 Black & White Laser Printers 4 - 4 Color Laser Printer 4 - 4 Computers 90 561 146 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 58 180 Total - All excluding computers 32 2 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 February 2005 VI-6 Impact Fee Study Table VIA Current Level of Service ( 2004) ; . 0 Library Buildings 80 , 237 1265796 633 sf Library Materials 4425436 1265796 3 ,490 items Computers(3) 90 126, 7961 0 . 7 computer Other Library Equipment(3) 32 1265796 0 . 3 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 633 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 February 2005 VI -7 Impact Fee Study Table VI - 5 compares the County ' s current LOS to the LOS standards established by the r.w�►' FLA . Table VI -5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to FLA Standards Library Materials and Computers .�s All e � ply Buildings (square feet) 633 600 700 19000 Library Materials(3 ) 3 ,49,01 29000 39000 49000 Computers 0 , 71 0 . 3 Mi 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 is between the FLA ' s essential and enhanced standards . 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 ) Library Buildings (square feet) 6331 7231 451 424 310 Library Materials ( 1 ) 3 ,4901 2, 3891 1 , 775 19277 1 , 525 Computers 0 , 71 0, 31 0 . 5 N/Al 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 February 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 45 percent to 76 percent above the average LOS of other Florida counties . Table VI -7 Comparison of Current LOS and LOS Standards ( Per 1 , 000 Residents ) a� Library Buildings (sq . feet) 633 438 45 % 1 600 to 1 , 000 Library Materials(4) 39490 13982 76% 2,000 to 4,000 Computers 0 . 7 0 .4 75% 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 . Buildintis 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 February 2005 VI -9 Impact Fee Study Table VI -8 Building Unit Costsl ' 1 w1wdr PiN Building Values : Recent Expansions: Main Library Expansion FY 01 /02 - Construction(3 ) 11 , 865 $ 1 ,600,000 $ 134 . 85 - Furniture & Equipment(4) 8 ,265 $939,707 $ 113 .70 Total $29539,707 $248 . 55 North CountyLibraryExpansion FY 01 /02 6;975 - Construction $ 1 ,315 ,000 $ 188 . 53 - Furniture & Equipment $3359600 $48 . 11 Total $ 1 ,6505600 $236 . 65 Future Expansions: Branch Library (West or South County) FY 08/09 32 ,000 - Construction(5) $ 51248,000 $ 164 . 00 - Furniture & Equipment(5) $2 ,580,000 $80 . 63 Total $ 7, 8281000 $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 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 Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 10 Impact Fee Study 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( ' ) Land Values : North County Library 1988 18,470 3 . 125 $2059847 $ 11 . 14 $65 ,871 1997 6,975 0 .990 $ 181 ,306 $25 .99 $ 1839137 Main Library 1989 4%2861 4 . 180 $801 ,2661 $ 16 . 26 $ 191 ,690 Total 1 1 741731 8 .295 $ 1 , 188 .419 Weighted Average Cost er Acre $ 143 ,269 Weighted Average Cost per Building Square Footage I $ 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 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 . 633 Impact cost per resident (6) $ 160 .48 ( 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 February 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 V1 -11 Library Material Unit Costs ( ' ) rF ' , +„ � '.. 6 - - yNEI Books : Gi ord Youth Activities Center Library 972 $25 $249300 Law Library 159600 $ 80 $ 19248 ,000 Main & North Reference, Genealogy, Non Fiction Books 1385010 $ 80 $ 11 ,0403800 Adult Fiction Books 85 ,929 $25 $21148 ,225 Juvenile/YA Reference Books 19126 $ 80 $909080 Juvenile/YA Non Fiction Books 549577 $25 $ 1 ,364,425 Juvenile/YA Fiction 38 , 836 $20 $7769720 Paperbacks 15 ,431 $9 $ 138 , 879 Books On Tape/CD 129152 $75 $ 9119400 Electronic Books 28 . 812 $0 $0 Books -- Total 391 ,445 $ 179742,829 $45.33 Online Resource Subscriptions : 68 $49094 $278,392 $49094 Other Library Items : Music CDs 7,622 $ 15 $ 1149330 DVDs 2, 557 $20 $519140 Videos 19 ,308 $ 15 $289,620 Print Subscriptions 1 ,775 $39 $699225 Other Print Materials 19 .661 $50 JM3 050 Other Library Items -- Total 509923 $ 1 ,5079365 $29.60 All Library Materials -- Total 4429436 $ 19,5289586 $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 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County *000 February 2005 VI- 12 Impact Fee Study *mow Table VI - 12 Library Equipment Unit Costs . m . 012 gul -- z _ . . Computers 146 $900 $ 131 ,400 Other E ui menta Copiers 9 $49939 $44,451 Book Scribe Copier 1 $ 109503 $ 10 , 503 Black & White Laser Printers 4 $ 1 ,500 $ 6,000 Color Laser Printer 4 $2 , 136 $ 8, 544 Large Print Readers 3 $ 53000 $ 159000 30 " TV 1 $ 800 $ 800 45 " TVs 2 $2,000 $45000 Camcorder 1 $ 800 $ 800 Video Projectors 4 $850 $3 ,400 LCD Projectors 5 $29500 $ 129500 Total -- Other Equipment (excludin computers) 34 $ 1059998 Weighted Average Item Cost, Other Equipment (excludin computers) $39118 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 $ 155 . 62 . �r (This space intentionally left blank;► Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI43 Impact Fee Study Table VI -13 `•+� Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident Q a Library Materials Cost per Itemlll $44 . 14 Materials per Resident(2) 3 .49 Library Materials Cost per Resident�3 ) $ 154 . 05 Computers - Unit Cost(4) $900 Computers per Resident(5 ) 0 . 0007 Computer Costs per Resident(6) $0 . 63 Other Library Equipment Cost per Item(7) $33118 Other Library Equipment per Resident(8) 0 . 0003 Other Library Equipment Costs per Resident�9) $ 0 . 94 Total Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident( 10) $ 155 . 62 ( 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 NOW, (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 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 14 Impact Fee Study �r According to the IRC Annual Budget, revenue sources available for library capital expenditures include : • 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( ' ) 11 1 M- il FY 98/99 $ 605601 $ 0 $ 0 $ 60, 601 FY 99/00 $201 , 196 $ 0 $0 $2019196 FY 00/01 $7841120 $ 0 $4, 145 $788 ,265 FY 01 /02 $29436 , 935 $7029648 $6,297 $ 391459880 FY 02/03 $39518 $ 0 $ 922 $41440 FY 03/04 $ 329482 N/A $2, 200 $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 $353409000 N/A $0 $3 , 34000 Total $ 6 , 8589852 $7025648 $ 139564 $79575 , 065 Annual Average $ 6859885 $ 1405530 $ 19356 Percent of Total 1 90 , 55 % 1 9 .28% 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 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 15 Impact Fee Study 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 . 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( ' ) r.r+1 Vacant Land Value $ 1908098199230 Countywide Total Property Value(2) $ 12 , 18192505689 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of the Total Property Value(3) 8 . 87% Percent of Capital Expansion Expenditures 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 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 Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 16 Impact Fee Study 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. 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 VI46 . Table VI -16 Equipment Value Credit w4 ry us Co iers 9 1 $4, 939 $44,451 $4,939 Book Scribe Copier 1 1 $ 10,503 $ 105503 $ 103503 Black & White Laser Printers 4 1 $ 1 , 500 $69000 $ 1 ,500 Color Laser Printer 4 4 $2, 136 $83544 $8 , 544 Computers 146 81 $900 $ 131 ,400 $72,900 "�• Large Print Readers 3 - $5 ,000 $ 15 ,000 $ 0 30 " TV 1 - $ 800 $ 800 $0 45 " TVs 2 - $2,000 $4,000 $0 Camcorder 1 - $800 $ 800 $0 Video Projectors 4 1 $ 850 $37400 $ 850 LCD Projectors 5 2 $2 , 500 $ 12,500 $500 Total 180 91 $237,398 $ 104,236 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 $96 per resident. Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 17 Impact Fee Study Table VI - 17 Total Credit per Resident I sm� Equipment Credit Percent 44% Library Equipment Cost per Resident(2) $ 1 . 57 Library Equipment Credit per Resident(3 ) $ 0 . 69 Optional Sales Tax (4) $6853885 Estimated Annual Average Population ( 1999-2008)5) 123 , 235 Average Annual Capital Funding per Resident(6) $ 5 . 57 Bequests (7) $ 140 , 530 Estimated Annual Average Population ( 1999-2003 )(8) 1155667 Average Annual Capital Funding per Resident(9) $ 1 .21 Total Optional Sales and Bequests Credit (10) $6 . 78 Capitalization Rate� ll ) 5 % Capitalization Period (years)( 12) 25 Credit per Resident( 13 ) $ 95 . 56 Vacant Land Credit Total Impact Cost per Resident� 14) $316 . 09 Effective Vacant Land Percentage0 . 02% Vacant Land Credit� 16) $0 . 06 Total Credit per Resident $96.31 ( 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 . 78 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 ) . Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 18 Impact Fee Study ( 14) Source : Table VI- 18 ( 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 $220 per resident . Table VI -18 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost Building and Land Cost per Resident $ 160 .48 Library Materials Cost per Resident (2) $ 154 . 05 Library Equipment Cost per Resident (3) $ 1 . 57 Total Impact Cost (4) $ 316 . 10 Total Credit per Resident (5) ($96 . 31 ) Net Impact Cost per Resident (6) $219 . 79 ( 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 VI49 presents the N Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI- 19 Impact Fee Study 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 . Table VI -19 Persons per Housing Unit by Land Use Single Family - Less than 1 , 500 sf 2 .258 - 1 , 500 to 2 ,499 sf 2 . 522 - 2 , 500 sf or larger 2 . 743 Multi-Family1 . 705 Mobile Home 1 . 989 ( 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 $ 386 to $621 per unit for the various residential land uses . Table VI -20 Proposed Library Impact Fee Schedule Oaq tl ' h . Single Family - Less than 1 , 500 sf 2 .258 $219 .79 $496.29 $ 14. 89 $511 . 18 - 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf 2. 522 $219. 79 $554. 31 $ 16. 63 $570.94 - 2, 500 sf or larger 2. 743 1 $219. 79 $602. 88 $ 18 .09 $620 . 97 Accessory Single Family 1 . 705 1 $219. 79 $374. 74 $ 11 .24 $385 .98 Multi-Family 1 . 705 1 $219. 79 $374 . 74 $ 11 .24 $385 .98 Mobile Home 1 .989 1 $219 . 79 $437. 16 $ 13 . 11 $450.27 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table Il-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 February 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 V1 -21 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast # d � � - a en l , 4Y, �'. 2025 population(l) 175 ,400 Building and Land Cost LOS standard (square feet per 1 , 000 residents)(�) 633 Necessary building space to accommodate 2025 demand (square feet)(3) 1113028 Existing building space (square feet)(4) 803237 Additional building space needed (square feet)(') 30, 791 Building and land cost per square foot(6) $253 . 53 Total building and land cost 7) $7, 806,442 Library Materials Cost LOS standard (items per 1 ,000 residents)(") 3 , 490 Necessary items to accommodate 2025 demand(9) 6123146 Vlow Existing library itemsl101 442,436 Additional items needed " ) 169,710 Library material unit cost12) $44 . 14 Total library material cost l3) $7 ,490, 999 Equipment Cost Computer LOS standard (computers per 1 , 000 residents)") 0. 7 Necessary computers to accommodate 2025 demand(") 123 Existing computers(16) 90 Additional computers needed 17) 33 Cost per computer( 18) $900 Total computer cost19) $293700 Other equipment LOS standard (equipment per 1 ,000 residents)(20) 0. 3 Necessary equipment to accommodate 2025 demand(21 ) 53 Existing other equipment�2) 32 Additional other equipment needed(23) 21 Cost per other equipment(24) $3, 118 Total other equipment cost251 $65,478 Total equipment cost 26) $955178 Total buildings, land, materials, and equipment cost(27) $ 159392,619 Programmed funds over the next five years(28) $353405000 Remaining funds needed to accommodate 2025 demand(29) $ 12 , 052, 619 '\r ( 1 ) Source : Section Il , Table II- 1 Tindale - Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI -21 Impact Fee Study (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 approximately 31 , 000 square feet of additional library building space . The construction of the 32 , 000 - square foot Branch Library will be sufficient to accommodate this demand . Based on building and land costs estimated in this report, addition of the 31 , 000 square feet will require an investment of $7 . 8 million . Library materials and equipment will require an additional $ 7 . 6 million . The County programmed $ 3 . 3 million for library capital expenditures over the next five years . An additional $ 12 . 1 million of investment will be necessary to accommodate 2025 demand . , Tindale- Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VI -22 Impact Fee Study Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR and impact cost per person calculated in Table VI- 18 , it is estimated that the library impact fee revenues through 2025 will amount to $ 10 . 7 million . Table VI -22 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates .. O 1 " tM Vq Mm 2004 1269796 N/A N/A 2005 128, 768 1 , 972 $433 ,426 2006 1309771 29003 $4405239 2007 132 , 806 29035 $4475273 2008 134, 871 25065 $453 , 866 2009 1369969 29098 $4619119 2010 1395100 25131 $468 , 372 2011 1415496 25396 $ 5269617 2012 1439933 29437 $ 535 , 628 2013 146,413 2,480 $ 5459079 20141 1489935 2 , 522 $ 554, 310 2015 151 , 500 29565 $ 5639761 2016 1539865 29365 $ 5199803 2017 1569267 29402 $ 527, 936 2018 1589706 2 ,439 $ 5369068 2019 161 , 184 2,478 $ 544, 640 2020 1639700 25516 $ 5529992 2021 165 , 976 2 ,276 $ 5009242 2022 168 ,283 25307 $ 5079056 2023 1705623 29340 $ 5149309 2024 172 , 995 2 ,372 $ 5215342 2025 1759400 2 ,405 $ 528 , 595 $ 1096829673 Fee per Resident(4) $219 . 79 ( 1 ) Source : Section Il, Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are based on growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 February 2005 VI-23 Impact Fee Study As presented in Table VI-21 , the projected library capital expansion costs through 2025 will be $ 12 . 1 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 February 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- 1 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 February 2005 VII- 1 Impact Fee Study Table VII = 1 Land & Buildings Inventoryl ' 1 SOrStationl "' -e rt�+� J - .._ 1500 Old Dixie H , Vero Beach, FL32960 1986 5.00 16,423 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 3301 Bride Plaza Dr, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1986 0.92 5 ,244 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 3 2900 43rd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 32960 1986 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 $ 113001000 Fire Station 5 6585 US 1 , Winter Beach, FL 32970 1982 3 .98 7449 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 6 101 South Al A, Vero Beach, FL 32963 1986 2.20 39830 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 7 1215 82nd Ave, Vero Beach, FL 32966 1986 0. 50 27258 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Fire Station 8161 1115 Barber St, Sebastian, FL 32958 1999 1 .00 69243 $222,060 $ 1 ,3001000 Fire Station 9 1640 US 1 , Sebastian, FL 32958 1999 0.38 31600 1 $222,060 $ 1 ,3009000 Fire Station 10 62 North Broadway, Fellsmere, FL 32948 1996 0.48 5,520 $222,060 $ 113001000 Fire Station 11 2555 93rd St, Vero Beach, FL 32963 2001 1 . 51 71612 $222,060 $ 1 ,300,000 Planned Station 121 N/A FY 05/06 8.00 N/A $222,060 $ 1 ,3009000 Planned Station 1317' N/A FY 08/09 N/A N/A $222,060 $ 1 ,3009000 Avera errotal 2.17 64,794 S2,886J!101 $15,822,060 ( 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 11 existing stations plus an additional 8 -acre parcel of county-owned land located at 43 `d Avenue at 5 St SW that has been set aside as a . "01 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 February 2005 VII-2 Impact Fee Study \I icJt /h\ 2 1 0 2 Miles n N � LO L N CT m OqY 21 ST Sr 21 ST ST m � U 60 ----- - -- \' m 17TH ST � Z FLEMNJG ST. `. I 16TH ST = ENGLAR DR I� ` �f 1a 10 vm, Atlantic Ocean 40 - { C.R. 510 i77TH ST 12TH $T _ 69TH ST 85TH ST' 85TH $T �O � \ ;, 1 � � VERO BEACH INSET \ I w 53RD ST n w t K Q , 49TH ST 0 45TH ST N \\ 41STST f . I t 37TH ST 2 m w t e 3a �P Z TtN•'T1C gLVO A t ® 1b 1a A 17TH $T f ------_ — 1. . . _.® _ 16TH Si O � 16TH ST F 12TH ST P m 6TH ST� E STHST 9 - \ �n 4TH ST 76 m • 1 < 1ST STREET SW. _ �� \ t . ? m 5TH STREET SW. - I OSLO. RD j a a AlA 17TH LN. SW. OS MGNLpN _ t _—_—____—_— ----—_—__—._.—_— _ .�_—__ J tri � I �I FrvER�� Tindale - Oliver Municipalities 1a Fire Station 1 8 Fire/EMS Station 8 Indian River County 1b EMS Station 1 9 Fire/EMS Station 9 , s Associates , Inc . Fellsmere Fire/EMS 2 Fire/EMS Station 2 10 Fire/EMS Station 10 d ' — - P'an°'ngand Gn9>n�H.g Impact Fee Study r Indian River Shores 3a Fire Station 3 11 Fire/EMS Station 11 w 3b EMS Station 3 Orchid 4 Fire/EMS Station 4 Fire/ EMS Facility E 5 Fire/EMS Station 5 -- Sebastian 6 Fire/EMS Station 6 • • • Vero Beach 7 Fire/EMS Station 7 b m a m 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 VII -2 Vehicle Inventory Replacement Cost( ' ) ti r Ladder Truck 2 $ 8005000 $ 1 , 6005000 Brush Truck 7 $ 9090100 $ 6309000 Dive Rescue Unit 1 $ 1305000 $ 1309000 CFR Airport Truck 1 $ 8009000 $ 8009000 3 , 000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 $ 150,000 $ 1505000 Airport Rescue Truck 1 $90, 0100 $ 909000 Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 $ 150 , 000 $ 150, 000 Marine Fire Boat 1 $ 100, 000 $ 100, 000 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 2 $205000 $40, 000 Fire Engine 14 $ 3905909 $ 594729726 Ambulance 14 $96, 860 $ 1 , 3565040 TOTAL $ 1095189766 ( 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 . • 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 February 2005 VII- 5 Impact Fee Study Table VII =3 Capital Equipment Replacement Cost( ' ) W^ m F Station 1 $779544 $ 389210 $ 1809525 N/A N/A $2965279 Station 2 $77, 544 $ 329800 $2419215 N/A N/A $351 ,559 Station 3 $775544 $28 ,630 $94 ,413 N/A N/A $2009587 Station 4 $77, 544 $28 ,630 $ 841413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Station 5 $779544 $28 ,630 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 1909587 Station 6 $775544 $29, 880 $ 84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 191 , 837 Station 7 $77, 544 $28 , 630 $ 84,413 N/A N/A $ 190,587 Station 8 $77, 544 $58 , 630 $945413 N/A N/A $230,587 Station 9 $77, 544 $28 , 630 $ 847413 N/A N/A $ 1905587 Station 10 $773544 $289630 $ 845413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Station 11 $77, 544 $28 ,630 $ 845413 N/A N/A $ 190, 587 Planned Station 12 $77, 544 $28 ,630 $84 ,413 N/A N/A $ 1909587 Planned Station 13 $77,544 $28 ,630 $ 842413 N/A N/A $ 190,587 TOTAL 1 $ 1 ,008,0721 $417, 190 $ 1 ,370,281 $62 ,0001 $ 10,5189766 $ 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 February 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 133 , 137 residents or 0 .098 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 . 108 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 ) Population( l ) 133 , 137 120 , 634 Number of Stations(2) 13 13 Population/Functional Residents per Station 105241 99280 LOS Stations per 1 ,000 Residents) 0.098 0. 108 ( 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 February 2005 VII-7 Impact Fee Study Table VII =5 Current Level of Service Comparison 0 - 0 Population(6) 133 , 137 2089239 145 ,568 2265216 171516,732 Number of Stations 13 33 14 15 1 ,760 Residents per Station 105241 6,3101 10,3981 159081 9,953 LOS (Stations per 1 ,000 Residents) 1 0,0981 0, 1581 0,0961 0.066 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 . 098 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 February 2005 VII- 8 Impact Fee Study 'rrr Table VII =6 Building Replacement Cost( ' ) Station 1 �4� 1986 5 . 00 16 ,423 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 3003000 Station 2 1986 0 . 92 5 ,244 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Station 3 (4) 1986 2 . 72 31168 $2221060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Station 4 1986 0 . 72 35447 $222 ,060 $ 193005000 Station 5 1982 3 . 98 79449 $222 , 060 $ 13300, 000 Station 6 1986 2 . 20 3 , 830 $2225060 $ 1 , 300 , 000 Station 7 1986 0 . 50 2 ,258 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Station 8(5) 1999 1 . 00 1 65243 $2229060 $ 11300, 000 Station 9 1999 0 . 38 3 , 600 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Station 10 1996 0. 48 5 , 520 $222,060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Station 11 2001 1 . 51 7 , 612 $222 , 060 $ 1 , 300 , 000 Planned Station 12(6) FY 05/06 8 . 00 N/A $222 ,060 $ 1 , 300, 000 Planned Station 13 (6) FY 08/09 N/A N/A $222 ,060 $ 11300, 000 Total 19.42 649794 $2 ,886,780 $ 169900,000 Total Cost $ 19,7869780 Number of Stations 13 Average Unit Replacement Cost per Station $ 19522 ,060 ( 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 February 2005 VII-9 Impact Fee Study Table VII -7 Station Equipment Costs Uniform Costs $ 1 , 0089072 Station Costs $4179190 Vehicle Equipment Costs $ 193709281 EMS Costs $62 , 000 Vehicle Costs $ 109518 , 766 Total Equipment Costs $ 139376, 309 Number of Stations(2) 13 Cost per Station $ 19028 ,947 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII-3 (2) Source : Table VII-4 Prouammed/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 r•.1 Five Year Programmed and Planned Capital Expenditures ( ' ) Fire/EMSStation 12 Ex ansion 52,036,327 5156,411 $29192,738 Fire EMS Station 13 Ex ansion1 $21289,409 52,289,409 Total Capital Expenditures $2,200,000 52,036,327 $156,411 $0 52,289,409 $494829147 Total Expansion Ca ital Expenditures $o 52,036,327 5156,411 $0 $2,289,409 54,482,147 Percent Ez ansion 0%. 100%. 100%. Q% 100%. 100%. Ez ansion Capital Ez enditures er 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 $275 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII40 Impact Fee Study Table VII =9 Impact Cost per Functional Resident Number of Stations� ll 13 Building Replacement Cost per Station(2) $ 1 , 5229060 Equipment Cost per Station(3) $ 1 , 0289947 Total Cost per Station $295519007 LOST (Stations/1 ,000 Functional Residents) 0 . 108 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident $274 .91 ( 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 February 2005 VII- 11 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 10 N"01 Six -Year Historical Capital Expenditures ( ' ) General Fund (Emergency Management) Vehicle Ex ansion $21 , 183 $21 , 183 Radio for vehicle Expansion $2,435 $2,435 Miscellaneous Equipment Ex ansion $20,888 $25,841 $32,564 $ 16, 134 $111 ,026 Miscellaneous Equipment Re lacement $9,699 $9,699 Total - General Fund $20,686 $25,841 $23,618 $420263 $16,134 $144,343 Emerge cServices 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 $69,985 Building Projects Expansion $3,350 $12,393 $18,000 $33,743 Station 10 Sewer Improvements Replacement $7,504 $7,504 Furniture and Equipment Expansion $5,919 $5,471 $11 ,390 Furniture and Equipment Re lacement $19,031 $600 $7,869 $5,288 $2,500 $35,288 Fire Vehicles Replacement $1 ,328,828 $35,548 $143,785 $1 ,707,869 $3,216 ,030 Fire Vehicles Expansion $21 ,291 1 $875 $22, 188 Communication Radios Expansion $15,714 $15,714 Communication Radios Re lacement - $4,418 $6,718 $14, 993 $ 13,200 $39,329 Computer Eui ment Expansion $ 1 ,384 $8,223 $7,928 $3,200 $20,735 Computer Eui ment Replacement $7, 187 $3, 526 $7,068 $27, 526 $45,307 Misc. Equipment Expansion $2,543 $74,652 $14,623 $47,449 $48 ,200 $187,468 Misc. Equipment Re lacement $39,293 $28,239 $47,834 $25,207 $44, 140 $67,025 $251 ,738 ALS Ambulances Replacement $348,000 $99,000 $4471000 EMS Vehicles Replacement $264,327 $37, 165 1 $206,218 $25,000 $532,710 EMS Vehicles Expansion $21 ,291 $82,513 $ 103,804 Computer Eui ment Replacement $715 $1 ,677 $4,750 $7, 142 Computer Eui ment Expansion $8, 154 $8, 154 Building Projects Expansion $1 ,880 $1 ,880 Communication Radios Expansion $4,210 $4,210 Furniture and Equipment Ex ansion $1 ,750 $1 ,750 Misc. Equipment Ex ansion $43,864 $775 $3,295 $47,934 Misc. Equipment Re lacement 1 $6,352 $7,999 $3,000 $17,351 Total - Emergency Services District $1 ,676,847 $230,878 $191 ,764 $572,640 1 $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 Re lacement $15, 101 $15, 101 Misc. Emergency Services Expenses Replacement $15,992 1 $15,992 Total - Optional Sales Tax $425,617 $1 ,303,136 $18,575 $0 $0 $29002,252 $3,7499579 Total Capital Expenditures $2,123,150 $1 ,6491815 $236,180 $596,257 $5220042 $4,049,810 $%077 255 Total Capital Expansion Expend L'105i $466,459 $1 ,461 64 414 $1 ,516 $101 ,709 $570002 $406,621 1 2,657,760 Percent Capital Expansion Expenditures 21 .97% 94.30% 69.66% 17.06% 10.92% 10.04% 29.28% Percent Capital Expansion from General Fund 4.43% 1 .08% 15.71 % 23.22% 67.13% 3.97% 6.07% ( 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 . 91 . 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 n9$rM�' Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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 1998/99 98 , 248 $466 ,499 1999/00 1009639 $ 154619414 2000/01 1029236 $ 164 , 516 2001 /02 104 ,467 $ 1019709 2002/03 1075031 $ 57, 002 2003 /04 1119300 $406 ,621 2004/05 113 , 154 $ 0 2005/06 1143993 $2 , 0369327 2006/07 116, 853 $ 156,411 2007/08 1189733 $0 2008/09 120, 634 $292893409 Total Expansion $79139,907 Annual Average 1099844 $6499082 Avera a Expansion per Functional Resident $5.91 ( 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 theprevious 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 February 2005 VII- 13 Impact Fee Study Table VII4 2 Percent of Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land ( ' ) County Vacant Land Value (less Indian River Shores) $9523101 ,560 Countywide Total Property Value (less Indian River Shores)(2) $ 109039 , 535 , 106 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of Total Property Value(3) 9 .48% Percent of Capital Expansion Projects Funded with General Fund ') 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. (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII44 Impact Fee Study Table VII -13 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident r Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident( l ) $274. 91 Impact Credit Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident 42) $ 5 . 91 Capitalization Rate 5 % Capitalization Period ( in ears) 25 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(3) ($83 . 30) Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(4) 0 .48% Credit for Past Property Tax Payments on Vacant Land(5) ($ 1 . 32) Total Revenue Credit per Functional Resident(') ($84.62) Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(7) $ 190.29 " C _- 7 ( 1 ) Source : Table VII-9 (2) Source : Table VII- I1 (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) . The first section of Table VII - 13 identifies the facility impact cost per functional resident as $ 275 . 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 $ 83 , as well as a credit of $ 1 . 32 for past property tax payments on vacant land . The addition of these two credits results in a total revenue credit of $ 85 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 $ 190 per functional resident. 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 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII- 15 Impact Fee Study resident presented in Table VII - 13 . The total impact fee for each land use also includes a *40e 3 percent administrative fee . Table VII -14 Proposed Fire/ EMS Impact Fee Schedule Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 1 . 404 $267. 17 $8 . 02 $275 . 19 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du 1 . 569 $298. 57 $8 . 96 $307. 53 2,500 sf or greater (under air) du 1 . 706 $324. 63 $9. 74 $334. 37 Accessory Single Family du 1 . 057 $201 . 14 $6. 03 $207. 17 Multi Family du 1 . 057 $201 . 14 $6. 03 $207. 17 Mobile Home du 1 .2281 $233 . 681 $7. 011 $240. 69 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel Room 0. 591 $ 112.46 $3 .371 $ 115 . 83 Motel Room 0. 591 $ 112.46 $3 .37 $ 115 . 83 Nursing Home Bed 0. 979 $ 186.29 $5 .59 $ 191 . 88 ACLF Bed 0. 979 $ 186.29 $5 .59 $ 191 . 88 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 1 . 702 $323 . 87 $9. 72 $333 . 59 Bank/Savings Walk-in 1 ,000 sf 1 .941 $369 .35 $ 11 . 08 $380.43 Bank/Savings Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 1 . 591 $302 . 75 $9. 08 $311 . 83 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1 . 401 $266.60 $8. 00 $274. 60 "'� Office eater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 0. 741 $ 141 . 00 $4.23 $ 145 .23 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 0 . 501 $95 .34 $2 . 86 $98.20 Warehouse 13000 sf 0. 385 $73 .26 $2 .20 $75 .46 Mini-Warehouse 1 , 000 sf 0. 076 $ 14 .46 $0.43 $ 14. 89 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 0. 684 $ 130 . 16 $3 .90 $ 134. 06 Concrete Plant Acre 1 . 508 $286.96 $8 . 61 $295 . 57 Sand Mining Acre 0. 193 $36. 731 $ 1 . 101 $37 . 83 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 2. 862 $544. 61 $ 16.34 $560.95 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2. 854 $543 . 09 $ 16.29 $559.38 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2 . 920 $555 . 65 $ 16 . 67 $572.32 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 . 995 $379 . 63 $ 11 .39 $391 . 02 Gas/Service Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $327. 87 $9. 84 $337. 71 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 1 . 706 $324. 63 $9 . 74 $334.37 Quality Restaurant 1 , 000sf 6 . 764 $ 1 ,287. 12 $38 .61 $ 13325 . 73 Restaurant 1 , 000 sf 7 . 333 $ 1 ,395 . 40 $41 . 86 $ 1 ,437 .26 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf 7.902 $ 17503 . 67 $45 . 11 $ 1 ,548. 78 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 2.031 $386.48 $ 11 . 59 $398 . 07 Self Service Car Wash Bas 1 . 887 $359. 08 $ 10. 77 $369 . 85 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf 4.243 $807.40 $24.22 $831 . 62 Furniture Store 100 sf 0. 3181 $60. 511 $ 1 . 821 $62. 33 r� Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII46 Impact Fee Study Table VII - 14 ( continued ) Proposed Fire/ EMS Impact Fee Schedule n Recreational Golf Course hole 2. 443 $464. 88 $ 13 . 95 $478 . 83 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studic 1 , 000 sf 2. 374 $451 . 75 $ 13 .55 $465. 30 County Park Acre 0. 152 $2$ . 92 $0. 87 $29. 79 Tennis Court Court 2. 321 $441 . 66 $ 13 .25 $454. 91 Marina Berths 0. 153 $29. 11 $0. 87 $29. 98 Governmental Post Office 1 , 000 sf 1 . 773 $337.38 $ 10. 12 $347. 50 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $326.92 $9 . 81 $336. 73 Government Office Buil�ding 1 , 000 sf 2 . 604 $495 . 52 $ 14 . 87 $510 . 39 Government Office Complex 1 ,000 sf 1 . 356 $253 .03 $7. 74 $265 . 77 Jail Bed 0. 871 $ 165 . 74 $4. 97 $ 170. 71 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 1 . 009 $ 192. 00 $5 . 76 $ 197. 76 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 1 . 566 $297.99 $8 . 94 $306. 93 Veterinary Clinic 17000 sf 1 . 633 $310. 74 $9. 32 $320 . 06 Church 1 ,000 sf 0. 533 $ 101 .42 $3 .04 $ 104. 46 Movie Theater Screen 8 . 477 $ 1 ,613 .09 $48 . 39 $ 1 ,661 .48 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 0. 094 $ 17. 89 $0 . 54 $ 18.43 School (Hi ) Student 0. 120 $22 . 83 $0. 68 $23 . 51 NOW School (College) Student 0. 104 $ 19. 79 $0. 59 $20 . 38 Fire Station(5) 1 ,000 sf 0. 633 $ 120 . 45 $3 . 61 $ 124. 06 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- 13 ) 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 Il, Table II4 . Table VII- 15 presents the Fire/EMS facilities demand forecast and associated cost estimates . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII - 17 Impact Fee Study Table VII -15 wrr+ 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast 2025 County Population (less Indian River Shores)( ' ) 170, 774 Adopted LOS Standard ( Stations per 1 , 000 Residents)(2) 0 . 098 2025 Required Number of Stations(3) 17 Existing Number of Stations(2) 13 Additional Stations Needed(4) 4 Cost per Station Station $ 19300, 000 Land $222 ,060 Fire Engine $ 3903909 Ambulance $ 965860 Total Cost per Station $29009 , 829 Total Cost5) $89430,225 ( 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 4 stations by 2025 . This would require an investment of $ 8 .43 million over the next 20 years . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR and impact cost per person calculated in Table VII- 14, it is estimated that the Fire/EMS impact fee revenues will generate $ 8 .21 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 $ 8 .43 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 February 2005 VII48 Impact Fee Study Table VII -16 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates 2004 1239182 2005 125 , 112 19930 $ 3325771 2006 127 , 071 1 , 959 $ 337, 771 2007 1299062 19991 $343 ,288 2008 131 , 083 29021 $348 ,461 2009 1339137 29054 $3543151 2010 135 ,222 29085 $ 3599496 2011 137 , 551 2 , 329 ' $4019566 2012 139 , 920 25369 $4085463 2013 1429331 23411 $415 , 705 2014 1449782 2 ,451 $4229601 2015 1479387 2 , 605 $4499154 2016 149 , 688 29301 $ 3969738 2017 152 , 025 29337 $4029946 2018 154, 398 2 , 373 $4099153 2019 1565808 2 ,410 $4159532 2020 1599338 25530 $436 ,223 2021 1615553 2 ,215 $ 3819910 2022 1635799 29246 $ 3879255 2023 1669077 25278 $ 3923773 2024 1689385 29308 $3979945 2025 1709774 2 , 389 $4119911 $ 8 ,205 , 813 Fee per functional resident�4) $ 190.29 Fee per residenP $ 172 .42 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 `1rr� Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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. NWO' (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VII-20 Impact Fee Study `''fir►' 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 41 st 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 February 2005 VIII- 1 Impact Fee Study Table VIII = 1 Land and Building Inventory t Sheriffs Administration Building 1988 N/A 339332 Sheriffs Fleet Compound 1988 N/A 89956 Sheriffs Crime Scene Evidence Additionj 2003 1 N/A 19000 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site : Base N/A N/A 264 Storage Bldg. N/A N/A 1 , 000 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 II- 13 . . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII-2 Impact Fee Study a 2 1 0 2 Miles CA] m U < < 41ST ST ^r U 2. PEENING ST p � . 'TP Atlantic sr Ocean 77TH ST 69TH ST 65TH ST 65TH ST .' "� i VERO BEACH INSET x 53RD ST U j 49TH ST I � 37TH ST R m I ® NZ1G 9�NO F _---_—___e__ 21ST ST z . . . 1 ®- 16TH ST y 16TH ST 16TH ST A 17TH ST 1 12TH ST � - 12TH ST _ m 70 j 8TH ST_ . , . STH ST x 4TH ST - X j 1ST STREET SW. ¢ 2 STH STREET SW. c . OSLO RD x I I ¢ ¢ ry 17TH LN. SW. \ E 1i1GNLP140SD� oe _ __ _ —_—___—__ _ . i__—_—___—___—_—___________—____. r _ ` n Municipalities Indian River County Tindale-Oliver Impact Fee Study Fellsmere Sheriff Administration Building . t Associates, Inc . � Indian River Shores — Planning and En UjMrin% E . 4 OfChld U Sebastian Law Enforcement o b Vero Beach _ _ • • 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 .28 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 ) Unincorporated County Area Population( l ) 819217 Existing Police Officers(2) 185 Residents per Officer 439 LOS (Officers per 1 ,000 Residents) 2 .28 ( 1 ) Source : 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. Table VIII =3 Level of Service Comparison — Year 2000 NNIN Police Officers( ') 174 357 215 153 169702 Population Served(2) 71 ,660 188 ,918 1045605 65 , 806 8 ,0689197 Officers per 1 ,000 Residents 2 .431 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 : 2000 Census While the 2004 level of service is 2 .28 officers per 1 , 000 residents, the number of officers per 1 , 000 functional residents must be calculated . Table VIII4 illustrates the calculation of the current level of service using the number of total functional residents within the unincorporated county area. The current number of officers per 1 , 000 functional residents is 2 . 45 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII- 5 Impact Fee Study Table V1114 •.O Functional Residents Level of Service I I - . - M 14M IRC Unincorporated Area Functional Population( ' ) 759567 Existing Police Officers(2) 185 Residents per Officer 408 Officers per 1 , 000 Functional Residents 2 .45 ( 1 ) Source : Table II- 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 February 2005 VIII-6 Impact Fee Study �..• Table VIII -5 Building and Land Replacement Cost( ' ) w� w . CSttti TN//A Sheriffs Administration Buildin 1988 133 ,332 N/A $4,333 , 160 Sheriffs Fleet Com ound 1988 ,956 N/A $ 1 , 164,280 Sheriffs Crime Scene Evidence Additio 2003 ,000 N/A $ 130,000 Miscellaneous Buildings on Site(2): Base N/A N/A 264 N/A $34,320 Storage Bldg. N/A N/A 1 ,000 N/A $ 130,000 Office Space N/A N/A 19743 N/A $2269590 Office Space N/A N/A 888 N/A $ 1159440 Land for Sheriffs Admin. Bldg (3) 1983 9. 81 1 N/A $343 , 175 N/A Total 9.81 47, 183 1 $3439175 $6,1339790 Total Cost $674767965 Number of Officers 185 Average 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 February 2005 VIII-? Impact Fee Study Table VIII =6 Equipment Cost Vehicles $ 3 , 863 , 987 Radio Equipment $ 192239772 Vehicle Equipment $6919479 Weapons $ 1689236 Office Equipment $ 148 ,292 Specialty Vehicles/Equipment $ 130 , 532 Electronic Equipment $ 1969760 Computer Equipment $ 19604 ,426 Misc . Equipment $ 890, 490 Total Equipment Cost $ 8 , 917, 975 # of Police Officers(2) 185 Cost per Police Officer $489205 ( 1 ) Source : IRCSO . According to representatives from the Sheriff' s Office equipment replacement values are not available . (2) Source : Table VIII-2 Programmed/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 $204 . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII4 Impact Fee Study Table VIII =7 Unit Cost per Functional Resident Building and Land Replacement Cost per Law Enforcement Officer(' ) $35 ,011 Equipment Cost per Law Enforcement Officer(2) $48 ,205 Total Cost per Law Enforcement Officer $839216 Level of Service(3) (Officers/1 ,000 Func. Residents) 2 . 45 Cost per Functional Resident(4) $203 . 88 ( 1 ) Source : Table VIII- 5 (2) Source : Table VIII-6 (3 ) Source : Table VIII-4 (4) Total cost per law enforcement officer ($ 83 ,216) multiplied by LOS (2 .45 ) 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 FYI 998/99 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 February 2005 VIII- 9 Impact Fee Study Table VIII =8 r..► Historical Capital Expenditures - Expansion/ Replacement( l ) +o- v a O banal Sales Tax , 000BRC Sheriff HVAC Replacement Replacement $ 12778 93,222 $506, Sheriffs Evidence Addition Expansion $24,438 $132,486 $156,924 Sheriffs Parkin PavingReplacement $50,000 550,000 5Sheriffs TrainingSidewalk Replacement 54,000 ,000 00Sheriffs Admin. Roofing Replacement 54,000 54, Sheriffs Admin. Shutters Expansion $8,700 $8,700 Vehicles Replacement $540, 125 $540,125 General Fund/MSTU Vehicles Replacement $39,000 $536,000 5757,000 $504,000 51 ,836,00 Carpeting Sheriffs Dept. Replacement 51 ,628 51 ,6280Ca et - Sheriffs Det Auditorium Replacement $4 ,800 $ , Carpet - 911 Center Replacement $6,300 $6,300 Misc. Law Enforcement Equipment Replacement 51 ,949 $ 1 ,949 Computers/Servers/Laptops/PrintersReplacement $18,000 $39,000 $85,000 $119,000 5153,000 $414,000 Expansion $20,000 $64,000 564,000 $148,000 Radar Units Expansion $25,000 $25,000 Software Replacement $19,000 $19,000 Oras Boy Expansion 520,000 $20,000 Night Vision Expansion $3,000 S101000 $13,000 Furniture Expansion 581000 $8,000 Recall Recorders Expansion $16,000 $ 16,000 Tire Changer Expansion 54,000 $4,000 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 551000 Carpet Replacement $2,000 $2,000 Replacement $3,000 $3,000 Body Wire Expansion $5,000 $5,000 Copier/Scanners Replacement $4,000 54,000 Cameras Expansion $27,000 $94,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1 ,000 $127,000 Light Bars Replacement $14,000 $ 14,000 Lie Detector - Expansion 59,000 $9,000 Security Scanner Replacement 54,000 541000 Shredder Replacement S4,0001 54,000 K-9 & Bite Suit Replacement $51000 $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 Radios Replacement $27,000 $352,000 $178,000 $557,000 Expansion 00 $20,000 Aviation Ma Replacement $1 ,000 $1 ,000 Garage Lift Expansion $17,000 $17,000 Garage Equipment Expansion $11 ,000 $ 11 ,000 Total $9l3,0:00 $224,6128 $547,949 S650,000 $430,000 $ 11 , 100 51 ,956,677 Total Expansion Expenditures 0 $54,438 $291 ,486 $98,000 58,700 5678,624 Ex ansion Expenditures Funded with OST O 524,438 $132,486 SO $8,700 $165,624 Expansion Expenditures Funded with General Fund/MSTU 0 $30,000 $159,000 $98,000 SO $5131000 Percent of Total Expansion Expenditures Funded with General Fund/MSTU I 1000/o 100% 55% 55% 100% 00/6 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 February 2005 VIII - 10 Impact Fee Study 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 . 61 of credit per functional resident, as presented in Table VIII-9 . Table VIII =9 Revenue per Functional Resident t "q; Total Expansion(]) $61 ,0001 $ 165,0001 $54,4381 $191 ,4861 $98,0001 $8,700 $678,624 Average Expansion per Year $ 113, 104 Unincorporated County Area Functional Residents(2) 66,810 689073 69, 1291 70,6221 72,3011 75,567 Average Unincorporated County Area Funtional Residents 70,417 , Average Expansion per Functional Resident ( 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) Now Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII_ 11 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 10 Vacant Land Value Percentage( ' ) Hbs Unincorporated County Vacant Land Value $732 , 6175920 Unincorporated County Total Property Value(2) $6559693519608 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) 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 February 2005 VIII- 12 Impact Fee Study rr.. Table VIII - 11 Credit per Functional Resident Al a a _ PUMAIM � a Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident( ] $ 1 . 61 Capitalization Rate(2) 5 % Capitalization Period(3 ) (in years) 25 Credit per Resident�4) $22 . 69 Facility Cost per Functional Resident(5) $203 . 88 Unincorporated County -- Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(6) 8 .44% Revenue Credit for Past Property Taxes(7) $ 17 . 21 Total Revenue Credit(8) $39.90 ( 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 .61 (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 ;4, (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 February 2005 VIII- 13 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 12 ' Net Impact Cost a`` a ..�G"nx'. xA^. :..a ..,- :..._, ht - ,Taj=. �•. Impact Cost Facility Cost per Functional Resident( ' ) $203 . 88 Impact Credit Total Revenue Credit(2) ($39 . 90) Net I act Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(3 ) $ 163 . 98 ( 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 $204 . The second section shows a revenue credit for the law enforcement impact fee of $40 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 of $204 and the total revenue credit of $40 . This results in a net impact cost per functional resident of $ 164 . 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 February 2005 VIII- 14 Impact Fee Study VOW Table VIII - 13 Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Residential Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf (under air) du 1 .421 $233 .02 $6 .99 $240.01 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du 1 .587 $260.24 $7. 81 $268 .05 2,500 sf or Greater (under air) du 1 . 727 $283 . 19 $8 .50 $291 .69 Accessory Single Family du 1 .069 $ 175 .29 $5 .26 $ 180 . 55 Multi Family du 1 .069 $ 175 .29 $5 .26 $ 180. 55 Mobile Home I du 1 1 . 131 $ 185 .46 $5 .56 $ 191 .02 Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel Room 0. 5911 $96. 91 $2. 91 $99. 82 Motel Room 0. 591 $96. 91 $2. 91 $99 . 82 Nursing Home Bed 0. 9791 $ 160 . 54 $4. 82 $ 165 .36 ACLF Bed 0 . 9791 $ 160 . 54 $4. 82 $ 165.36 Office and Financial Medical Office 1 ,000 sf 1 . 702 $279 . 09 $8 . 37 $287.46 Bank 1 ,000 sf 1 . 941 $318 .29 $9. 55 $327. 84 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf 1 . 591 $260. 89 $7. 83 $268 .72 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 1 .401 $229. 74 $6. 89 $236.63 Office greater than 50,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 0. 741 $ 121 . 51 $3 .65 $ 125 . 16 Industrial Manufacturing 1 ,000 sf 0. 501 $83. 15 $2 .46 $84 .61 *44r►` Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0. 385 $63 . 13 $ 1 . 89 $65 .02 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf 0. 076 $ 13. 46 $0. 37 $ 12 . 83 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 0. 684 $ 11 . 16 $3 .36 $ 115 . 52 Concrete Plant Acre 1 . 508 $247.28 $7.42 $254 .70 Sand Mining I Acre 1 0. 193 $31 . 65 $0. 95 $32 .60 Retail, Gross Square Feet Retail 50,000 GSF or less 13000 sf 2. 862 $469. 31 $ 14.08 $483 . 39 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2. 854 $468. 00 $ 14.04 $482.04 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 2. 920 $478. 82 $ 14. 36 $493 . 18 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 1 .995 $327. 14 $9. 81 $336 .95 Gas Station Fuel pos 1 . 723 $283. 54 $8 .48 $291 .02 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf 1 . 706 $279. 75 $8 .39 $288 . 14 Quality Restaurant 1 ,000sf 6. 764 $ 19109 . 16 $33 .27 $ 1 , 142.43 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 7. 333 $ 1 ,203 .47 $36 .07 $ 1 ,238 .54 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thiu 1 ,000 sf 7. 902 $ 1 ,29$ .77 $38. 87 $ 034. 64 Supermarket 1 ,000 sf 2.031 $333 .04 $9. 99 $343 .03 Car Wash Bays 1 . 887 $304 .43 $9 .28 $318 . 71 Convenience Store 1 1 ,000 sf 1 4.243 $69$ .77 $20. 87 $716. 64 Furniture Store 1 1 ,000 sf 1 0.3181 $53. 15 $ 1 . 56 $53 . 71 Recreational Golf Course hole 2.443 $400.60 $ 12 . 02 $412 .62 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 2.374 $389.29 $ 11 .68 $400.97 County Park Acre 0 . 152 $24.92 $0 . 75 $25 .67 Tennis Court Court 2.321 $380.60 $ 11 .42 $392 .02 Marina Berths 0 . 153 $25 .09 $0 . 75 $25 . 84 Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII4 5 Impact Fee Study Table VIII -13 (continued ) '" Proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule s r y m Governmental Post Office 100 sf 1 . 773 $290. 74 $ 8 .72 $299.46 Library 1 ,000 sf 1 . 718 $281 . 72 $8 .45 $290. 17 Government Office Buildind 1 ,000 sf 2 . 604 $427.00 $ 12. 81 $439. 81 Government Office Complex(5) 1 ,000 sf 1 . 356 $222 . 36 $6 .67 $229.03 Jail Bed 0 . 8711 $ 142 . 83 $4.28 $ 147. 11 Miscellaneous Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf 1 .009 $ 165 .46 $4.96 $ 170.42 Hospital 1 ,000 sf 1 . 566 $256. 79 $7. 70 $264.49 Veterinary Clinic 15000 sf 1 . 633 $267. 78 $8 .03 $275 . 81 Church 17000 sf 0. 533 $87.40 $2 . 62 $90. 02 Movie Theater Screen 8 .477 $ 1 ,390 .06 $41 . 70 $ 15431 . 76 School (Elementary and Middle) Student 1 0 .0941 $ 15 .411 $0. 461 $ 15 . 87 School (High) Student 0. 1201 $ 19 . 681 $0. 591 $20.27 School (College) Student 0. 1041 $ 17. 051 $0 .511 $ 17. 56 Fire Station 1 ,000 sf 0. 6331 $ 103 . 801 $3 . 111 $ 106 .91 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 sheriff s 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, a new sheriff' s 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- l . 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 nearly $ 6 million . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII- 16 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 14 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast maimz r . 2025 Unincorporated County Population� ll 1129349 Adopted LOS Standard (Law Enforcement Officers per 1 , 000 Residents)(2' 2 . 28 2025 Law Enforcement Officers Demand(3) 257 Current Number of Law Enforcement Officers(4) 185 Additional Law Enforcement Officers Needed(5) 72 Cost per Law Enforcement Officer(6) 1 $ 839216 Total Cost') $5,991 ,552 ( 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 ,W enforcement officer (Item 6) . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth projections provided by BEBR and impact cost per functional resident calculated in Table VIII42, it is estimated that the law enforcement facilities impact fee revenues through 2025 will amount to $4 . 7 million . (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 VIII- 17 Impact Fee Study Table VIII - 15 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates k n 2004 81 ,217 N/A N/A 2005 1 82,480 1 ,263 $ 192, 696 2006 839763 11283 $ 1959747 2007 859066 15303 $ 198, 799 2008 869390 19324 $2025003 2009 879733 15343 $2045902 2010 89, 098 1 , 365 $208 ,258 2011 90, 633 19535 $2349195 2012 929194 19561 $238 , 162 2013 93 , 782 15588 $2425281 2014 959397 15615 $246,401 2015 979041 15644 $250, 825 2016 989556 1 , 515 $2319144 2017 100 , 094 1 , 538 $234, 653 2018 101 , 657 1 , 563 $238 ,467 2019 1039244 1 , 587 $2429129 , 2020 1045855 19611 $245 , 790 2021 1069313 15458 $2223447 2022 107, 791 19478 $225 ,498 2023 109,290 1 ,499 $2289702 2024 1109809 15519 $231 , 754 2025 1129349 17540 $234, 958 $4, 749, 811 Fee per functional resident(4) $ 163 . 98 Fee per resident(5 ) $ 152 . 57 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 1 (projections for some years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Projections are based on growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 $ 5 . 9 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 February 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 February 2005 VIII - 19 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County %480 February 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 . VaW Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX- 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) NOW Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX-2 Impact Fee Study Q , N � Lo c% 2 1 0 2 3 Miles O A U � _____-_-__-____-_-_____-___-_-__ ____ OP gat 13 i. 17TH ST m � Atlantic 1 + 1 O a FLEMING ST ` ' \ C�� ' ! Ocean © 11 sq m dm a P O I � 7 N 18 - 10 - R. 510 7 1 r go . 12TH ST77TH ST i 69TH ST VERO BEACH INSET 65TH 5T 65TH ST x 53RD ST 1 l Us > 49TH ST z \14 a 1 \ m 9 = Tsr w , 5 a I � 17TH ST m 4 I D4 uz 21ST Sr A 1 16TWST % ® 16tH S r Z t 1 + /7TH ST ( - izrH sr 12TH sr 10 14 8TH ST ¢ 6TH ' F m 4TH ST m _ < 15T STREET SW. < i � . STH STREET 5W: o 16 I l o N i > OSLO RD Q ; . j 1Z > > 15 Q w iTYH W SW. NOS DR. m % Ei-___ _-________-__-_-___-___. _--__ _---__-_-_--_____-----_-_-__. _______-_ ___---___x-_--__--_ _ n m Indian River County Municipalities 1 ) Vero Beach Senior High 10) Vero Beach Elementary ,�"` "� Tindale-Oliver 2) Rosewood Elementary 11 ) Sebastian River Middle &: Impact Fee Stud � ' Fellsmere School Locations 0 ' Ali LL p y — - O 3) Osceola Magnet 12) Thompson Elementary Atisot latcs , Inc . Indian River Shores 4) Beachland Elementary 13) Sebastian Elementary _Planning and Englneenng E 5) Gifford Middle 14) Glendale Elementary Orchid E 6) Fellsmere Elementary 15) Highlands Elementary Sebastian 7) Pelican Island Elementary 16) Oslo Middle Public Education • -- 8) Citrus Elementary 17) Sebastian River High - . Vero Beach 9) Dodgertown Elementary 18) Libery Magnet • • NOW 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 r,r 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)111 F . Elementary School 131245095 7, 768 144 . 71 Middle School 5429435 49626 117 .26 High School 993 , 117 6 ,730 147 . 57 Total 29659 ,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 February 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 February 2005 IX-6 Impact Fee Study err► 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 lX =2 Facility Cost per Student Station S ware Feet er Student Station (LOS)« 144. 71 117 .261 147. 57 139 . 07 School Facility Cost Components : Construction Cosi per Square Foot(2) $92. 56 $ 131 . 81 $ 138 . 60 $ 128 . 31 Design Cost per Square Foot(') $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 FacilityCost per Student Station�'� $ 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. Y�r Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County February 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 February 2005 IX- 8 Impact Fee Study Table IX =3 Total Impact Cost per Student � . � A Facility Impact Cost per Student Facility Cost per Student Station" ) $ 16,644. 54 $ 19,074.68 $24,957 .04 $21 ,897. 13 Projected Student Capacity for 2008/09 School Year(Z) 8,252 3,584 31621 15,457 Total Cost for All Students(s) $ 13713501744 $681363,653 $90,3699442 $296,0831839 Projected Students for 2008/09 School Year(') 75548 45074 4,866 16,488 Distribution of Projected Students for 2008/09 School YearI 45 . 8% 24. 7% 29. 5% 100.00/0 Weighted Average Total Facility Impact Cost per Students) $ 18, 196.971 S16,780.471 $189571 .61 $ 17,957.54 Debt Impact Cost per Student Five-Year Average Annual Debt for Capital Expansion(2) - $ 1 ,2521902 Average Annual Students for 2004/05 through 2008/0916) 16,266 Amount Financed per Student $77.03 Average Cost of Financing 5% Annual Interest $3 . 85 Capitalization Period, Years 25 Present Value Interest of Debt per Studenten $54.28 Total Impact Cost per Student(s) ( 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 February 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 . 3State of Florida, Local Government Information Handbook, September 2000 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX- 10 Impact Fee Study *41W Table 1X -4 State Revenue Credit x r Total State RevenuesM $ 10, 1965596 Planned Student Stations(2) 19804 State Revenue Per Student(3) $5,652 .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 February 2005 IX- 11 Impact Fee Study Table iX =5 2 -Mill Revenue Credit . . .. .ern. Total Five-Year Projected 2-Mill Revenues( ' ) $ 1379968 , 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) $795333082 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 February 2005 IX- 12 Impact Fee Study Table IX-6 Vacant Land Credit Total Value of Vacant Land - Countywide( l ) $ 13080 , 819 ,230 Value of 2-Mills of Vacant Land(') $29161 ,638 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) $ 5909127 Total Five-Year Average Annual Students(5 ) 169266 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 . err+' Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX- 13 Impact Fee Study Table IX =7 ..r� Net Impact Cost per Student c � R Total Impact Cost per Student(l) $ 18 ,011 .82 State Revenue Credit(2) $ 59652 . 22 2-Mill Revenue Credit(3) $6 , 527 . 19 Vacant Land Credit(4) $ 511 . 33 Total Revenue Credit�5) $ 12 ,690 .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 Single Family 119655 335218 0 .351 Multi-Family 19680 10, 840 0 . 155 Mobile Home 797 5 ,0011 0 . 159 Weighted Avera a Residential 14, 1321 499059 0 .288 ( 1 ) Source : Census 2000 and Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 2000 (2) Source : Section 11, Table II-2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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 IX4 . 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 y Single Famildu $5,321$5 321 .08 0. 351 $ 1 , 867.70 $ 193 . 73 Multi-Famil !du $532108 0 $849. 51 , 0Accesso Single Familydu 0. 155 $8 4.77 $24. 74 $849. 51 Mobile Home du 1 $5,321 .08 1 0. 1591 $ 846. 05 1 $25. 38 $871 .43 ( 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 II, Table II - l . 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 February 2005 IX4 5 Impact Fee Study Table IX -10 '` 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast Projected Students By Year 2025( ' ) 109652 6,250 71977 Square Feet per Student Station (LOS)(Z) 144. 71 117.26 147. 57 Necessary 2025 Square Footage(3) 155419468 732, 848 1 , 177, 166 Current Square Footage (2008/09 School Year)�4 151249095 5429435 9939117 Square Feet Still Needed in 2025(5) 417,373 1909413 184, 049 Facility Cost per Square Foot(6) $ 115 . 02 $ 162.67 $ 169. 12 Total Cost By School Type - Year 2025(7) $489006,272 $30,974,4621 $31 , 1263348 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 . 11 million by 2025 . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR and impact cost per resident calculated in Table IX- 11 , it is estimated that the school impact fee revenues through 2025 will generate $33 . 07 million. (This space intentionally left blank) %NOW Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX46 Impact Fee Study Table IXA I Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates 020044 126, 796 2005 1289768 1 , 972 $ 153419926 2006 1309771 2 , 003 $ 19363 , 021 2007 1329806 29035 $ 1 , 384 ,797 2008 134, 871 29065 $ 1 ,405 ,212 2009 136 , 969 2 , 098 $ 11427, 668 2010 1395100 29131 $ 1 ,450 , 124 2011 1419496 29396 $ 196305454 2012 1435933 29437 $ 196589354 2013 1465413 29480 $ 196875615 2014 148 , 935 25522 $ 15716, 196 2015 1519500 29565 $ 19745 ,457 2016 1539865 2 , 365 $ 1 ,6095359 2017 156 , 267 25402 $ 196349537 ,* 2018 158 , 706 25439 $ 156599715 2019 1619184 2 ,478 $ 196869254 2020 1639700 2 , 516 $ 1 ,712, 113 2021 1659976 2 , 276 $ 19548 , 795 2022 1 %283 2 , 307 $ 135695890 2023 1709623 2 , 340 $ 155929347 2024 172 ;995 27372 $ 196149122 2025 175 ,400 29405 $ 196367578 $33 , 074 , 534 Fee per residential unit4) $ 19532 . 47 Fee per resident(5) $680 .49 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table I1- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table 11- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 1I-6). Tindale-Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX47 Impact Fee Study As presented in Table IX- 10, the projected school facility capital expansion costs through .,, 2025 will be $ 110 . 11 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. V400 ' (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 IX4 8 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 . I Additionally, Map X- 1 shows where each park is located . Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X- 1 Impact Fee Study (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X-2 Impact Fee Study Table X-1 Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory - Unincorporated County Area(' ) a i e r ar T S IVOOM ® i Ambersand Beach Park 0.30 County R Boat Island 5 .00 FIND"' R 1 Blue Cypress Lake Park 10 .00 County R 1 1 C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area 4 . 56 SJRWMU41 R 2 1 CR-512 Recreation Area 6.00 SJRWMD(" R 1 2 Dale Wimbrow Park 20.00 County R I 0. 50 3 1 Donald MacDonald Park 54.00 County R 1 0. 5 1 IRC Fairgrounds 150.00 County R 2 0.3 1 Gifford Park 40.00 County R 3 2 l 1 .0 3 1 1 2 2 1 Golden Sands Park 14 .30 County R 1 4 1 Grovenor Estates Park 3 .00 County N Helen Hanson Park 2.00 County N 1 1 1 Hosie-Schumann Park 2.00 CountyN 1 1 IRC Shooting Range 80.00 State R 1 Joe S. Earman Park 4 .00 County R 2 Kiwanis-Hobart Park 7200 County R 3 1 1 .0 7 2 2 MLK Park 2.00 County N 1 North County Regional Park 115.00 State R 1 0. 5 1 1 4 Oslo Road Boat Ramp 0. 30 County R Pine Hill Lone Pine 0.501 County N 1 1 Roseland Community Center 7.00 County N 1 1 1 Round Island Beach Park 9.36 County R 1 0.3 6 l Round Island Park West 11 . 13 County R 1 0.3 1 1 Sebastian Canoe Launch Park 1 .03 county C I South County Rewonat Park 80.00 CountK R 1 2 1 .0 4 1 4 2 1 1 Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Complex) 74.00 County R 1 0.3 1 Wabasso Beach Park 1 .00 County R 1 2 West Wabasso Park 10.00 County N 1 2 2 1 oSofttball Wabasso School Park 7.36 Coun NWabasso Causewa Park 5.00 Coun R 1 7 45 Street Dock 1 .00 Coun R Sandrid a 380.00 Coun Golf Course IRC Park and Recreation Maintenance Facili N/A Coun N/A Total Basketball Community Jogging Picnic Play- Swimming Aquatic Tennis Volleyball Soccer Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Acreage Restrooms Court Center Trails Pavilion ground Pool Center I Field Courtsl Court Field Neighborhood Parks 33.86 4 5 l 0.0 3 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 Community Parks 1 .03 0 0 0 1 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional Parks 551 . 39 23 5 1 1 5 . 5 1 45 8 1 1 12 4 3 2 TOTAL 586.28 27 10 2 1 5.50 1 49 13 1 1 14 4 3 2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County February 2005 X-3 Impact Fee Study N JT i County Parks `f 2 1 0 2 Miles T 1 Ambersand Beach Park 2 Boat Island 22 ' AtA u 3 Blue Cypress Lake Park 7 `a \ 0 4 C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area ----------- --------- ---------- ------ --------- ---------------- 4 ---------- ------------- op 12 oG , 5 CR512 Recreation Area © > 27 6 Dale Wimbrow Park 7 Donald MacDonald Park 8 IRC Fairgrounds m ` 9 Gifford Park o z FLEMINGST C'o _ 10 10 Golden Sands Park 14 i 11 Grovenor Estates Park 18 25 0 "paF O 28 Atlantic 12 Helen Hanson Park ❑ ❑ 13 Hosie-Schumann Park 1 Ps g2 29 L Ocean 14 Shooting Range N 15 Joe S . Earman Park 16 Kiwanis-Hobart Park c.R. 510 17 MILK Park 18 North County Regional Park 16 l 19 Oslo Road Boat Ramp 31 20 Pine Hill 69TH ST 21 Quay Rock Road 65TH ST 65TH ST 21 22 Roseland Community Center g 1 ,� 23 Round Island Beach Park 24 Round Island Park West 25 Sebastian Canoe Launch Park 53RD ST = 26 South County Regional Park 49TH ST 30 27 Treasure Shores Park 17 = 28 Wabasso Beach Park ❑5 \ 41STST 29 Wabasso Island River Park 30 45th St Dock R b 31 Sandridge Golf Course \ 15 rzQ 32 West Wabasso ParkcP g1l0am"°21ST ST p � 6l) ® PZ 16TH ST � _ . 16TH ST 17TH STF . ' 12TH ST r 12TH ST 8TH ST < STH STo . i �.tt _ 4TH ST = l 5TH STREET SW. STH STREET SW '\ 19 ,- ' w m > OSLO RD D 11 '•,,.\ � . ¢ a Q. 17TH LN. SW. x 1pGN''NDSDR E \ - - m 1 0 U Tfoil Indian River County Municipalities �{ ' ' ndaleR° liver Fellsmere County Park Associates , Inc . d — aZOR1Ot' • Planning and E 'neeri d Impact Fee Study � s Indian River Shores - E Orchid U County Park Sebastian Locations I` - - Vero Beach m Table X=1 (Continued) Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory - Unincorporated County Area(l ) 101 so r soon Saw I Ambersand Beach Park 0.30 Coun R 1 Boat Island 5.00 FINDtsI R 4 Blue C ress Lake Park 10.00 County R 2 1 C-54 Stick Marsh Recreation Area 4.56 SIRWMD/4I R 4 1 CR-512 Recreation Area 6.00 SIRWMDI"1 R 2 1 Dale Wimbrow Park 20 00 Coun R I 54.00 Coun R 1 1 2 500 sf Donald MacDonald Park 1 60 000 sf Expo Pavilions 3) IRC Fairgrounds 150.00 County R 1 Gifford Park 40.00 CountyR Golden Sands Park 14.30 CountyR 1 1 M r Estates Park 3 ,00 CountyN anson Park 2.00 CountyN humann Park 2.00 CountyN otin Ran a 80.00 State R 1 1 1 I 1 500 sf Lar a Stora a Buildin arman Park 4.00 Coun R 10 -Hobart Park 77.00 Coun R k 2.00 Coun N oun Re ional Park115 .00 State R400 sf Historical Info Center ad Boat Ram 0.30 CountyR 1 Pine Hill ne Pine) 0. 50 County N Roseland Community Center 7 .00 County N 1 Round Island Beach Park 9.36 County R 1 1 11 . 13 County R 4 1 1 ViewingTower Round Island Park West 1 Sebastian Canoe Launch Park 1 .03 CountyC 900 sf Maintenance Facility South County Regional Park 80.00 County R Treasure Shores Park (North Beach Uoroplexi 74.00 County R 1 1 Wabasso Beach Park 1 .00 County R 2 1 West Wabasso Park 10.00 County N Wabasso School Park 7.36 CountyN Wabasso Causewa Park 5 .00 Coun R 3 2 2 45 Street Dock 1 .00 County R 1 Sandrid a 380.00 Coun Golf Course Wq RRC Park and Recreation Maintenance Facili N/A County N/A 2 Total Archery Boat Golf CanoeKground Dune Lifeguard Fishing Clay ArcheryF Pistol Purpose Summary of Parks & Recreation Facilities Acreage Ran a Ram Course Launch Walkover Tower Pier Range Course Ran a Building(2)(2) Neighborhood Parks 33 .86 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Communi Parks 1 03 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Re ' onal Parks 551 .39 1 IB 0 3 6 4 13 1 1I 42 500 sfTOTAL 586.28 1 la 0 4 I 42,500 sf ( 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. Indian River County Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Impact Fee Study February 2005 X-5 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 7 . 22 acres per 1 , 000 residents . This LOS is based on regional, community, and neighborhood parks that are available to citizens 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 7 .22 acres per 1 , 000 residents 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 February 2005 X- 9 Impact Fee Study Table X-2 Parks & Recreation Facilities Current Level of Service _ _ _ 1 u a to `, r Unincorporated Area Population(" 81 ,217 Current Regional Parks Number of Acres(2) 551 . 39 Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)( ) 6.79 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 ReAdents)(5) 0.43 Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1 ,000 Residents)(6) 7.22 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table II- 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 'rrrr area only) . As presented, IRC LOS is above the other counties included in the comparison, with the exception of St. Lucie County . Table X-3 Level of Service Comparison I M-1 . DWI Indian River( ' ) 7 .22 Martin 2 5 .00 Brevard(3) 3 .00 Osceola 4 7.00 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 February 2005 X- 10 Impact Fee Study Cost Component NOW 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 Acre11-1 1 ' 1 µ North County Regional Park # of Acres(2) 115 Landscaping and Site Improvement Costs - Phase I Fencing $509000 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 $ 1009000 Total Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost(' ) $700 , 000 Landscaping and Site Improvements Cost per Acre(4) $6,087 ( 1 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC (2) Source : Table X- 1 (3 ) Sum of costs for Phase I and Phase IL (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 February 2005 - X41 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 1 ' 1 PON " _ . n North County Regional Park # of Acres(2) 115 Utilities and Paving Costs - Phase I Drainage $5503000 Water and Wastewater Improvements $300,000 Parking Lot Drives $750 ,000 ERU Connection Fee $49776 Utilities and Paving Costs - Phase II Drainage $490 ,000 Water and Wastewater Improvements $259000 Total Utilities and Paving Cost(3) $2 , 1199776 Utilities and Paving Cost per Acre(4) $ 189433 ( 1 ) Source : Recreation Department, IRC (2) Source : Table X- 1 (3 ) Sum of costs for Phase I and Phase II . (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 $458 for the regional parks component and $29 per resident for the neighborhood/community parks component. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X- 12 Impact Fee Study Table X =6 Total Land Cost per Resident ( ' ) Mal0 Land Cost per Acre( ') $ 34 , 136 Landscaping and Site Improvements (per acre)(Z) $6,087 Utilities and Paving (per Acre)(3) $ 18 ,433 Architecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 15%(4 $ 8 ,798 Total Land Cost per Acre(5) $679454 Regional Parks LOS (acres per 1 , 000 Residents)(6) 6 . 79 Land Cost per Resident - Regional Park Component(7) $458.01 Neighborhood/Community Parks LOS (acres per 1 ,000 Residents 0 .43 0 .43 Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhood/Community Park Component�8� $29. 01 ( 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), N"01 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 $487 per resident and $69 , 344 per acre . Similarly, the total equipment cost for neighborhood/community parks is $ 35 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 February 2005 X- 13 Impact Fee Study I Table X =7 Regional Parks Equipment/ Buildings Replacement Cost w Restrooms 23 restroom I restroom per 3,531 raid is S&0,0001 $1 ,840,000 522.66 Basketball Court 5 court 1 court Ver 16,243 resid is $40,0001 $200,000 $2.46 CommunityCenter 1 center 1 center per 81 ,217 resid is 5146. 50 s $3,690,775 $45.44 Jogging Trails 5.5 mile 1 mile per 14,767 resid is $ 150,000 $825,000 $10. 16 Picnic Pavilion 45 union i pavilion per 1,805 resid is $40,000 $ 1,800,000 $22. 16 PI owd 8 playground 1 playground $5.42 r 10,152 resid is $55,000 5440,000 Swimmin Pool Community) pool 1 pool per81,217 resid is 521100,000 $2,100,000 $25. 86 Olym is A uazic Center I center I center per 81 ,217 resid is $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $71 .41 Softball Field ighted I1 field I field r 7,383 resid is $515,892 $5,674,812 $69.87 Softball Field not lighted) 1 field 1 field per 81,217 residents $365,892 $365,892 $4. 51 Tennis Courts 4 court 1 court 2er 20,304 residintsi 5100,000 $400,000 $4.93 50.74 Volleyball Court 3 court 3 court er 27,072 resid is $20,000 560,000 Soccer Field (lighted) 1 field 1 field r 81 ,217 resid is $400,000 5400,000 54. 93 Soccer Field i not lighted) 1 field l field r 81 ,217 resid is $250,000 $250,000 $3.08 Archery Range 0 range ts 50 SO 50.00 Boaz Ram 18 ram - l ram per 4,512 resid is V0000 $ 1 ,800,000 $22. 16 Golf Coarsen/ I course 1 course r 81 ,217 residents 55,000,000 55,000,000 $61 .56 Canoe Launch 3 launch I launch per 27,072 resid is 5188,000 S564,000 $6.94 un Fairground - Indoor Ex Pavillion 1 indoor ex o avillion l indoor avillion r 81 ,217 resid is 51 , 105,052 $ 1 , 105,052 513.61 Fairground - Outdoor Expo Pavillion 2 outdoor ex o avillion 1 outdoor avillion per 40,609 residents 5548,501 $1,097,002 $6. 75 Dune W alkover 6 walkover 1 walkover r 13,536 resid is 143,067 5258,402 53. 18 Lifeguard Tower 4 tower I tower per 20,304 resid is 525,000 $ 100,000 51 .23 Fishin Pier 13 pier 1 pier per 6,247 resid is 512,500 $ 162,500 $2.00 Lar a Multi-P se Buildin 1 20,000 sf 1 buildingr 81,217 resid is $2,930,000 $2,930,000 $36.08 Small Multi-Purpose Building 1 21500 sf 1 building r 81,217 resid is $366,250 $3661250 $4. 51 Shooting Range I Range 1 range per 81 ,217 resid is $1 ,400,000 $ 1 ,400,000 $ 17.24 Viewing Tower 1 Tower 1 tower per 81,217 resid is $44,300 5441300 $0.55 Historical Information Center I 400 sf I historical center per 81 ,217 resid is $150,000 $ 150,000 $1 . 65 Storage/Maintenance Facility 1 900 sf 1 storage Wit per 81 .217 residentsl s l31 ,850 $ 131 850 $ 1 .62 Parks Division Maintenance Facility 1 Building 1 maintenance fwility per 81 ,217 resid is $850,000 5850,000 $ 10.47 IRC Shooting Range Storage Buildinj 1 storaRe bldg per 81 ,217 resid is $40,000 $40,0001 50.49 IRC Shooting Range Sporting Clay 1 Course l.clay course per 81 ,217 resi rs $85,000 585,000 $ 1 .05 IRC Shooting Range Archery Course 1 Course 1 archery course per 81,217 m -is $75,000 575,000 $0.92 IRC Shooting Range Li hting 1 Li tin S stem I li tin g system per 81 ,211 resid is $70,000 $70,0001 $0.86 Total Equipment Cost per Resident (Regional Parks SMS-.235,9351 S486.70 Total Re Tonal Park Acreazet 551 .39 Total Equipment Cost per Acre Regional Parks)(6) 569,344.45 ( 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 February 2005 X- 14 Impact Fee Study Table X=8 , 400, Community/Neighborhood Parks Equipment/Buildings Replacement Cost - r . x Restrooms 4 restroom 1 restroom per 20,304 residents $8Q,000 $320p $3 .94 Basketball Court 5 court I court per 16,243 residents 540,000 $200,000 $2.46 Community Center I center 1 center per 81 ,217 residents $ 146. 50 sf $205,686 52.53 Jogging Trails 0 mile N/A $ 150,00050 $0.00 Pimic Pavilion 4 pavilion 1 pavilion per 20,304 residents 540,000 $ 1605000 $ 1 .97 Playground 5 playground 1 playground per 16,243 residents $559000 $275,000 $3 . 39 Swimming Pool (Community) 0 pool N/A $2, 1001000 $0 $0.00 Olympic Aquatic Center 0 center N/A $57800,000 $0 $0.00 Softball Field (lighted) 2field 1 field per 40, 109 residents $515,892 $19031 ,784 $ 12. 70 Softball Field not lighted) 0 field N/A $365,892 $O $0.00 Tennis Courts 0 court N/A $ 1005000 $0 $0.00 Volleyball Court 0 court N/A $20,000 $0 $0.00 Soccer Field (lighted) 0 field N/A $4002000 $0 $0.00 Soccer Field (not li ted) 0 field N/A S250,0001 $0 $0.00 Arch Ran e 0 range N/A $01 50 $0.00 Boat Ramp 0 ram N/A S100,00-OF SO $0.00 Golf Course(4) 0 courseN/A $5,OK000 SO $0.00 Canoe Launch 1 launch I launch per 81 ,217 residents $ 188,000 S1887000 $2.31 Fairground - Indoor Expo Pavillion 0 indoor expo pavillion N/A $ 1 , 105,052 $0 $0.00 Fairground - Outdoor Expo Pavillion 0 outdoor expo pavillion N/A $548,501 $0 50.00 Dune Walkover 0 walkover N/A $43067 $0 $0.00 Lifeguard Tower 0 tower N/A $25,000 50 50.00 Fishing Pier 1 pier 1 pier per 81 ,217 residents $ 12,500 $12P500 50. 15 Large Multi-Purpose Building 0 20,000 sf N/A $2,9301000 $0 50.00 Small Multi-Purpose Building 0 29500 sf N/A $366,250 SO $0.00 Shooting Range 0 Range N/A $ 1 ,400,000 $0 $0.00 Viewing Tower 0 Tower N/A 544300 $0 50.00 Historical htformation Center 0 400 sf N/A $ 150,000 $0 $0.00 Storage/Maintenance Facility 0 900 sf N/A 5131 ,850 SO $0.00 Parks Division Maintenance Facility 0 Building N/A $850,000 $0 $0.00 IRC Shooting Range St orage 0 Building N/A S407000 SO $0.00 IRC Shooting Range Sporting Clay 0 Course MEN SO $0.00 IRC ShootingRan a Arch Course 0 Course $0 $0.00 IRC ShootingRange Li tin 0 Li tin S stem $0 $0.00 Total Equipment Cost per Resident (Community & Nei hborhood Parks) $2,392 970 $29.45 Total Comm unity/Neighborhood Park Acreage(5) 34.89 Total Equipment Cost per Acre (Community and Neighborhood Parks)() 568,586. 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 ) . Prouammed/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 . rr,r/ Indian River County February 2005 X- 15 Impact Fee Study **Now Table M Programmed Capital Costs� ' 1 West Regional Park ( 100 Acres) $450,000 $ 1 ,0505000 $ 1 ,5005000 South County Park $2 ,3007000 $2,3001000 North County Park-Ballfields $200,000 xe $2,000,000 Total 549300,000 5o 5450,000 $19050,000 $0 $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, $945 per resident for regional parks and $ 58 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 I Fr WWI Regional Parks Regional Parks Land Cost per ResidentlO $458 .01 Regional Parks Equipment Cost per Resident(2) $486 . 70 Total Regional Parks & Recreational Facilities Cost per Resident $944.71 Neighborhood/Community Parks Neighborhood & Community Parks Land Cost per Resident $29 . 01 Neighborhood & Community Parks Equipment Cost per Resident(3) $29.45 Total Neighborhood/Community Parks & Recreational Facilities Cost per Resident $58.46 ( 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 : *Orr Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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) rrr►'' Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X47 Impact Fee Study *"" Table X- 11 Historical Capital Expenditures - Funding Sources General Fund Parkr D2vison Storage Buildins • Equipment Expansion S4,970 $9,672 0 J $14,642 Round Island Footbridge I Replacement - agapammaM4 $32000 132,000 Mainz E ui ens tractors, vehicles, etc. Re Iacement $45,986 5106,607 1 $96,6061 $54,359 1 $68,484 1 S50,5391 $412,581 Main E ui ant tractors, vehicles etc. Expansion - > - _ $2,800 1 52,800 Total - General Fund 1 1 $459996 1 5106p607 I S91 ,5761 $54t3591 S7811561 S8513391 $4629023 M.S. TU. Fund ecreatlon Gifford Aquatic Center - Li h0 Expansion ' - - . . .;,. 53,950 $3,950 North County Aquatic Center - Equip. Ex ion _ _ $7,945 _ $7,945 Other Equipment vehicles, emJ Extwitsion Other Equipment vehicles, etc.) R lecement 510,914 ' $21 ,879 524,052 $12,579 - 569,424 Storage Building Expansion $4,999 S4,999 Defibrillators Ex ansion _ . $19396 55,090 ,�� $24,486 Phone System NCAC Ez ion $4995 S4,985 Mobile Bleachers Ex ion _ $83,060 583,060 Basketball Goals Expansion 54,000 $4,000 Sports Floor and Covering Expansion _ S46,600 546,600 Computer Eui ment Expansion $892 $892 Total • M.S.T.U. Fund $10 14 SO 521 9 548 7 S669111 S139 37 5286 88 Shoody Ran a Canshruczion Shooting Range Inalinivernents Expansion W U - , S91 ,655 591 655 opsiond Saks Tax Fairgrounds Electronic Sign Ex anion _ = SS 500 S5,500 Agricultural Pavilion 42 Ex anion $34,030 5329,878 5167,324 (531 ,232 North County Aquatic Center/ Park Expansion $210 882 553 884 5 073 929 5385,406 $5,724 101 Gifford Aquatic Center Ex ion 5621 ,006 51750 - - $622,756 Soccer Field Water & Sewer - Fairrounds Ex anion ` 513,838 5134,946 5100 513,368 $ 162,052 South County Park - Phase 11 Ex ion $928 5614,248 $288,156 ._ . " - .. S903332 South County Park Phase BI Ex ion 51 ,700,000 Donald McDonald Park Ex pion 378 673 5213 726 5292 399 Round Island Oceanside Park Expansion 11 , 127 5862,806 - - _. _: $863,933 Agricultural Ex Buildi Expansion $34,343 1982127 _ 51016470 Riverview Park - Sebastian Ex ion 5200,000 t " _ $200,000 Wabasso Causeway Park Reglaceirient 1 $311 .638 1 S586,774 1113 280 - S1 ,011 ,692 Dale WimbrowPark Expansion (55,451 1 $200,465 . . . . _. 5255,916 Treasure Shores Playground Equipment R lacernent ,_ $58,000 $58000 Mobile Stage Expansion 585,000 585,000 Portable Resttooms Ex ion 526,000 526,000 Fairgrounds electronic sin Ex ion _ _ $14,445 $14,445 Lighting at 16th St. Sports Complex Replaccanent - - $1 ,572 $1 ,572 VOW Painting at County Sports Com lex Rciplaceirient 54,200 $4,200 West Wabasso Park lm rovemene Replacement _ _ $65,485 $65,485 North Countv Park Phase II Expansion _ - f2 145 625 $2,145,625 Gifford Park Security Buildina Expansion '. . " . ,,. . . 580 OOD $80000 Mise. Panics Improvements Ex Staten "" ;, 1101,203 589,203 Total - O tiond Sales Tax 5482160 S3 1028 51 164 44 SS 5720 54,45 22 $15,896 13 FDRAP Grans South County Park Phase B Ex ion _. SIOQ000 ^ SI00,000 Round Island Ocean Park Ez rasion a " .. . " SI00,000 x ". . - _ $100,000 North County Park Phase B Expansion $150000 P222EMM I .50000 Total - FDRAP Gnat SO S2009000 I SO SO S150,000 SO S350000 PiSsirk Imprarvensent Fund _ North County Aquatic Center Ez ion _ . "« $120,611 Wwwwom 5120611 Florida Boating InwovemeW Pfograin Sebastian Canoe Launch Expansion $2,283 582,644 574,398 $159,325 Royal Palm Pointe - Cim of Vero Beach Ex ion _ '_ . 44r 520,000 _ $20 000 Indian River Drive Boat Dock - Sebastian R lacement , ' , 520,000 tw,: n S20,000 Schumann Lake Boat Ram - Sebastian Re laeemenl ., ',-s . "' 57.800 $7,800 Oslo Boat Rem R lawment ._. . =" _. _ 1750 $50,000 $50,750 Kitching Railhead Station Ex ion 5146,545 $146,545 Pelican Island Upland Restoration Replacement :_ . $1000000 $1000000 Mise. Boating Facilities Ex ion - -- $15000 $15,000 Ton] - Florida Boating Improvement Program SO 522 287 SI02 4 582198 5750 Sl 11 45 SI 19 420 Total Capital Expenditures 5579,060 54199,918 Sl 6 63 A29,659 Sl 136 312 SS 8 8 518 9 10 Total Capital Expansion Expenditures 5170 22 53486 7 $I 84498 3,448 $1 54,499 54,716 2 515 56 06 Percent ofGF/MSTU Expenditures to Total Capital Exp. Expenditures 0,00%1 0.00%1 0.38%1 0.45%1 5.56% 2.38% 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 $25 . This information is presented in Table X- 12 . Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 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 e o 1998/99 $ 1705522 705425 1999/00 $ 3 ,4865537 719660 2000/01 $ 19084,498 735458 2001 /02 $ 593439448 755039 2002/03 $ 190549499 769908 2003 /04 $45716 , 502 815217 2004/05 $45300, 000 825480 2005/06 $ 0 83 , 763 2006/07 $450, 000 859066 2007/08 $ 190509000 869390 2008/09 $ 0 87, 733 Total $2196569006 Avera a 1 $ 199689728 1 799467 Revenue per Resident $24.77 ( 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 IRC ' 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 February 2005 X- 19 Impact Fee Study Table X- 13 Vacant Land Value Percentage( ' ) Unincorporated County Vacant Land Value $ 732 ,617 , 920 Unincorporated County Total Property Value(2) $ 6 , 59653511608 Vacant Land Value as a Percentage of Total Property Value (3) 11 . 11 % 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 $351 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 February 2005 1 X-20 Impact Fee Study Table X- 14 Nov '` Credit per Resident Revenue Credit per Resident( ' ) $24 . 77 Capitalization Rate(2) 5 % Capitalization Period(3) (in years) 25 Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(4) ($349 . 11 ) Regional Parks Cost per Resident(5) $944 .71 Community & Neighborhood Cost per Resident(6) $58 . 46 Total Cost per Resident(7) $ 1 ,003 . 17 Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(8) 0. 16% Revenue Credit for Past Property Taxes(9) ($ 1 . 61 ) Total Credit per Resident( 10) ($350.72) ( 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 ter''' (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 February 2005 X-21 Impact Fee Study *#AW Table X-15 Net Impact Cost per Resident G _ t aw -k tsr'E Total Impact Cost per Resident Total Parks & Recreational Facilites Impact Cost" ' $ 1 ,003 . 17 Total Credit per Resident Total Revenue Credit(2) $350 . 72) Net Impact Cost per Resident(3) r �_ Net Impact Cost per Resident(3 ) $652 .45 A � ;. . ( 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 $ 1 , 003 , less the total revenue credit of $ 351 . The result is a net impact cost of $ 652 per resident, plus a 3 percent administrative fee . 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 February 2005 X-22 Impact Fee Study Table X- 16 ` Residents per Housing Unit by Housing Type( l ) e Single Famil"1 , 500sf Less th2 . 302 1 , 500 to 2,499 sf 2 . 571 2, 500 sf or greater 2 . 797 Accessory Single Family 1 . 731 Multi Family 1 . 731 Mobile Home 1 . 831 Weighted Average 2 .266 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, 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 Sin le P!Mry Detached Less than 1 ,500 sf 2.302 $652.45 $ 12501 . 94 $45.06 511547.00 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf 2. 571 $652.45 $ 13677.45 $50.32 $ 1 ,727.77 2,500sfor greater 2.797 $652.45 $ 1 ,824 .90 $54.75 $ 1 ,879.65 Accessry Single Family 1 .731 $652.45 $ 1 , 129. 39 $33 .88 $ 1 , 163 .27 Multi Family/Accessory Family/AccessorySingle Family 1 . 731 $652.45 $ 1 , 129. 39 $33 .88 $ 1 , 163 .27 Mobile Home 1 . 831 $652.45 $ 1 , 194.64 $35 .84 $ 19230.48 ( 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 II, 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 February 2005 X-23 Impact Fee Study Table X- 18 2025 Demand and Cost Forecast r 2025 Unincoporated County Population( ) 112 ,349 Regional Parks : Adopted LOS Standard (Acres per 1 , 000 Residents)(2) 6 . 79 2025 Required Acreage(3 ) 762 . 9 Existing Acreage(4) 551 .4 Additional Regional Park Acreage Needed(5) 211 . 5 Cost per Acre(6) $ 136 , 798 Total Cost for Regional Parks (7) $281934,240 Community and Neighborhood Parks : Adopted LOS Standard (Acres per 1 , 000 Residents)(2) 0 . 43 2025 Required Acreage(3 ) 48 . 3 Existing Acreage(4) 34 . 9 Additional Regional Park Acreage Needed(5) 13 .4 Cost per Acre(6) $ 136, 040 Total Cost for Community and Neighborhood Parks (') $19824,298 Total Cost for Community and Neighborhood Parks(8) $3097589538 ( 1 ) Source : Section II, Table 11- 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 211 . 5 acres of regional parks and 13 .4 acres of neighborhood/community parks by 2025 . This would require an investment of $ 30 . 76 million, of which $ 5 . 8 million has been programmed for the next five years . Estimated Revenues Based on the medium growth population projections provided by BEBR 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 $20 . 31 million (see Table X- 19) . vftle Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X-24 Impact Fee Study r.rM+'i Table X- 19 Annual Impact Fee Revenue Estimates �x 2004 819217 2005 825480 15263 $ 8249044 2006 839763 1 ,283 $ 837, 093 2007 859066 1 ,303 $ 850, 142 2008 869390 19323 $ 8639191 2009 87, 733 1 , 344 $ 8769893 2010 899098 19365 $ 8909594 2011 909633 19535 $ 1 , 0019511 2012 925194 11561 $ 1 , 018 ,474 2013 93 , 782 1 , 588 $ 1 , 036 , 091 2014 95 , 397 19615 $ 13053 , 707 2015 97, 041 19643 $ 1 ,071 , 975 2016 98 , 556 13515 $ 988 ,462 2017 1009094 15539 $ 190049121 2018 1019657 19563 $ 190199779 2019 1039244 19587 $ 190359438 2020 1049855 19612 $ 190519749 2021 1069313 11458 $9519272 2022 1079791 19478 $9649321 2023 109 ,290 1 ,499 $9789023 2024 1109809 1 , 519 $991 ,072 2025 1 1129349 19541 $ 1 , 0059425 $20 , 3135377 Fee per residen4) $652 .45 ( 1 ) Source : Section II , Table II- 1 (some of the years are not shown in Table II- 1 . Calculations are on based growth rate used in BEBR medium 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 $30 . 76 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 February 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. �.r (This space intentionally left blank) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 X-26 Impact Fee Study uo ►;uuiaojuI iujuawaiddns uoi; eindod � ,� I � uoi� un V xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) *4w Table A -1 24-Hour Baseline - County IN ►+� e42 1 T WWI ,-1do Population(') 0. 650 10600 109,5791 11 2,9471 115 ,7161 118, 1691 121 1741 126,796 128,768 130,7711 13206 134,871 136,969 Employment(2) Natural Resources 0.2711 5,486 5,598 5,710 5,700 5,777 5,853 5 ,930 6,000 6,056 62112 62168 6,224 Construction 0 .271 31620 3 ,555 3,490 3 ,360 3 ,477 3,593 32710 3 ,800 31884 31968 41052 4, 136 Manufacturing 0. 270 35190 3,270 3,350 3 ,510 31557 3,603 3 ,650 3 ,690 3 ,730 31770 31810 3 ,850 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing0 , 271 19270 1 ,330 1 ,390 1 ,520 1 ,573 1 ,627 1 ,680 1 ,740 1 ,796 1 ,852 1 ,908 1 ,964 Wholesale Trade 0.271 17196 1 ,253 1 ,310 12190 1 ,210 17230 1 ,250 17270 12294 1 ,318 1 ,342 1 ,366 Retail Trade 1 .406 10,992 11 ,241 11 ,490 11 ,260 112433 11 ,607 11 ,780 115950 12, 114 12,278 125442 12,606 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0.292 41648 4,734 4,820 5 ,080 5 ,200 57320 5 ,440 5,550 5,640 5,730 5,820 5,910 Services 0.292 18,814 199372 195930 20, 150 20,837 21 ,523 225210 22,850 23,466 24,082 247698 25,314 Government 0.497 5,018 5,094 5, 170 52210 5,397 5,583 5,770 51930 6,076 6,222 67368 6,514 TOTAL 54,234 55,447 56,660 56,980 585461 59,939 61 ,420 625780 64,056 65,332 665608 67,884 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2) Source : Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. Indian River County 2004 Employment by Mayor Sector Table A-2 24-Hour Baseline - County Excluding Indian River Shores � r Population( [ ) 0 .650 1035951 106 7891 109,4991 112VI951 114,6421 11700 123 , 1821 125 , 1121 127,0711 129,0621 131 ,0831 133 , 137 Employmene2) Natural Resources :0 .271 5 ,431 5 ,542 5 ,653K429131 5 ,719 5 ,794 5 ,871 5,940 5 ,995 6,051 6, 106 6, 162 Construction 3 ,501 3 ,438 3 ,375 3 ,363 3 ,475 3 , 588 3 ,675 3 ,756 3 ,838 3 ,919 4 ,000 Manufacturin 3 , 158 3 ,237 3,316 3 ,521 3 ,567 3 ,613 3,653 3 ,693 3 ,732 3 ,772 3 ,811 Trans ortation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousin 1 ,257 1 ,317 1 ,376 1 ,557 1 ,611 1 ,663 1 ,723 1 ,778 1 ,833 1 ,889 1 ,944 Wholesale Trade 1 , 179 1 ,235 1 ,291 1 , 193 1 ,212 1 ,232 1 ,252 1 ,276 1 ,299 1 ,323 1 ,347 Retail Trade 10,835 11 ,081 11 ,326 11 ,270 112442 115612 11 ,780 11 ,941 12 , 103 127265 12,426 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 0 .292 4,495 4 ,578 4366255029 5 , 145 5 ,2611 5 ,368 5 ,455 5 ,542 5 ,629 5 ,716 Services 0 .292 18, 196 18,735 19,275 19,4881 20, 1521 20,8161 21 ,4801 227099 22 ,695 23 ,291 235886 24 ,482 Government 0 .497 45853 4,9271 5,0001 51039 5 ,220 5 ,4001 5 ,5801 5 ,7351 51876 61018 62159 6,300 TOTAL 52N61 542090 55 ,2751 55 ,5841 575024 582461 59,9011 61 ,2241 62,4651 63 ,7061 64 ,947 66 , 188 ( 1 ) Source : 2000 Census and 2004 BEBR estimates (2) Source : Woods & Poole Economics, Inc . Indian River County 2004 Employment by Mayor Sector Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 A- I Impact Fee Study a ��"� ' ' + o . i i ° a ui � a . - � � " : ' aa fll 11 ii li il • II - � iI , i � 16 : II ' orAw:no oz.mol on Me m 059 VMS now*mal MEW • 111IS • 11 • C C ' x `2' . �� ° s ^ x-u�-;...��rr+,'scr-=;c.�sc•�ron rain^.-mow �� nr .-�,xi^rw.w .» ...-_nix -�. .. € ssw� -w. ,r: a . i n r r "i a ,�. , aoµ ,p. . _ . . af:j` i`Ytt'� f7 � 1�%�5� �3:I �`{��' � �i ' � � � E � �`"Y� Lam; ' • � m • 1 1 1 . . • 1 1 • • �� • ' � ' ' • � : 1 . � ' ' • ' . . �Mwml Oman, own$ 11 or • 1 Irwin �Mwomf Omni EW*mil wwo an MEMO W-11915W so : �Mri am m mime mw= • 111 • 11 • C C ' • • • . ' • • • • it oil•ilrooll • 11 • • • • • • • • 11 Table A-5 24-Hour Functional Population - County Rawl Total Population 106fi901 109,5791 112,9471 1157716 118, 169 121 , 174 126,796 128,768 130,771 132,806 134,871 136,969 Functional Population - Residential 69,349 71 ,226 73,416 75,215 76,810 78,763 82,417 83 ,699 85,001 86,324 87,666 89,030 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 1 ,487 1 ,517 1 ,547 1 ,545 1 ,566 1 ,586 107 1 ,626 17641 1 ,656 1 ,672 1 ,687 Construction 981 963 946 911 942 974 1 ,005 1 ,030 1 ,053 1 ,075 1 ,098 1 , 121 Manufacturing861 883 905 948 960 973 986 996 11007 1 ,018 1 ,029 1 ,040 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 15,455 15,805 16, 155 15,832 167075 16,319 16,563 16,802 17,032 17,263 17,493 17,724 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 1 ,357 17382 12407 1 ,483 1 ,518 17553 1 ,588 1 ,621 12647 12673 12699 1 ,726 Services 57494 5 ,657 5 ,8205,884 6,084 6,285 6,485 6,672 6,852 7,032 7,212 7,392 Government 2,494 2,532 2,569 25589 2,682 22775 2,868 21947 3,020 3,092 3, 165 35237 Total Functional Residents 98, 145 100,665 103 ,496 105, 141 1072392 110,002 114,314 1162210 118,091 119,993 121 ,915 123 ,858 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 92.0 % 91 .9% 91 .6% 90.9 % 90.9% 90.8 % 90.2% 90.2 % 90.3% 90.4% 90.40(d 90.40/ Table A -6 24 -Hour Functional Population - County Excluding Indian River Shores r , Total Population 103 ,951 106,789 109,499 112, 195 114,642 117,600 123 , 182 1257112 127,071 129,062 131 ,083 133 , 137 Functional Population - Residential 67,568 69,413 71 , 174 72,927 74,517 76,440 80,068 81 ,323 82,596 83 ,890 85,204 86539 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 13472 1502 1 ,532 1529 1 ,550 15570 1 ,591 13610 1 ,625V177,017 1 ,655 1 ,670 Construction 949 932 915 881 911 942 972 996 1 ,018 1 ,062 1 ,084 Manufacturing853 874 895 938 951 963 976 986 997 1 ,018 1 ,029 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing341 357 373 408 422 437 451 467 482 512 527 Wholesale Trade 319 335 350 318 323 329 334 339 346 358 365 Retail Trade 152235 157580 15,925 157606 15,846 16,087 16,327 16,562 16,790 17,244 17,471 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 1 ,313 1 ,337 L3611 1 ,435 1 ,4691 1502 1536 1567 1 ,593 1 ,618 1 ,644 109 Services 5,313 5,471 5 ,628 59690 5,884 6,078 6,272 6,453 6,627 601 6,975 7, 149 Government 2,412 2,449 2,485 2,504 2,594 2,684 23773 21850 2,921 2,991 3,061 3 , 131 Total Functional Residents 95,774 98,248 100,639 102,236 104,467 107,031 111 ,300 113 , 154 114,993 116,853 118,733 120,634 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents '921 % "i2.'0% ' 21 % 92.0% 91.9 % 91 . 1 % 91. 1 % 91.0% 90.4 % 90.4% 90.5 % 90.5% 90.6% 90.6% Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 A- 3 Impact Fee Study Table A -7 24-Hour Functional Population - Unincorporated County Area 1100041 000� 1-97 fowl, 711 Total Population 68,482 70,425 7100 73A581 75,0391 76,9081 81 ,2171 82>4801 83 ,7631 85 ,0661 863390 87,733 Functional Population - Residential 44-5131 45,776 46,5791 47,7481 48,7751 49,9901 52,791 53 ,612 54,446 55,293 56, 153 57,027 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 1 , 148 1 , 172 1 , 195 1 , 193 1 ,209 1 ,225 1 ,241 1 ,256 1 ,268 1 ,279 1 ,291 1 ,303 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 11 ,392 11 ,645 11 ,411 11 ,587 11 ,763 11 ,938 12, 112 12,280 12,448 12,616 127783 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 936 953 971 12023 1 ,047 1 ,071 1 ,0961 1 , 118 1 , 136 12154 1 , 172 11190 Services 3389 31901 4,0131 4,058 4, 196 4,334 4A731 4,601 4,725 42849 4,973 5,097 Government 15720 1 ,746 15772 1386 1 ,850 1 ,914 1 ,978 2,033 203 2, 133 2, 183 2,233 Total Functional Residents 65 ,087 66, 810 68,073 69, 129 70,622 72,301 752567 76,824 78 ,070 79,329 80,601 81 ,887 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 95.0 % 94.9% 95.0 % 94. 1 % 94. 1 % 94.06% 93.06% 93. 1 % 93.2% 93.3% 93.36/. 93.3% Table A -8 11 -Hour Functional Population - County tipWAMMO ImmPow Total Population 10600 109579 112,947 115,716 118J691 121J741 126,7961 128368 130371 132 8061 134,8711 136,969 Functional Pa utation - Residential 37,342 38,3531 39,531 40,501 41 ,3591 42,4111 44,3791 45,069 45 ,770 46,4821 47,2051 47,939 Functional Population - Employment Natural Resources 4,520 4,613 4,705 4,697 43760 4,823 47886 4,944 4,990 5 ,036 502 5 , 129 Construction 2,983 2,929 2,876 2,769 2,865 2,961 3X71 3 , 131 3,200 3 ,270 3 ,339 3 ,408 Manufacturing 22622 2,688 2,754 27885 22924 2,962 300 3,033 3 ,066 3,099 3, 132 32165 Transportation, Communications, Utilities (TCU) and Warehousing 1 ,046 1 ,096 1 , 145 1 ,252 1 ,296 1 ,341 1 ,384 1 ,434 1 ,480 1 ,5261 ,572 13618 Wholesale Trade 988 1 ,035 17082 983 999 1 ,016 1 ,033 1 ,049 1 ,069 1 ,089 1 , 108 1 , 128 Retail Trade 213346 21 ,830 22,314 21 ,867 22,203 22,541 22,877 237208 237525 23,844 247162 247481 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) 45086 4, 161 45237 4,465 4571 4,676 4,782 4,878 47958 51037 5 , 116 51195 Services 16538 175028 17,518 17,712 18,316 185919 195523 205085 20,627 21 , 168 212710 22,251 Government 5 , 199 5,277 5 ,356 5,398 5591 5,784 5,978 6, 143 6,295 6,446 6,597 6349 Total Functional Residents 91 ,471 93 ,733 96, 162 97, 131 99,293 101 ,648 104,920 106,832 108,685 110,550 112,426 114,314 Ratio of Functional Residents to Residents 85.7% 85.5% 85. 1 % 83.9 % 84.0 % 83.9 % 82.7 % 83.0% 83. 1 % 83.2 % 83.4 % 83.5 % Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 A -4 Impact Fee Study 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 Workers who live and work in IRO ) 39, 072 Workers who live elsewhere but work in IRC(2) 95049 Total workers in IRC(3) 48 , 121 Workers who live in IRC but work elsewhere") 59804 Weighted average worker population for workers who move between Counties(5) 79156 Total effective workers(6) 46,228 Population(') 1123947 Total effective workers as a percent of population(8) 41 OVo School age population ( 5 - 17 years)(9) 169435 Percent of total population( 10) 15 % Population net of workers & school age populational 519636 Percent of total population( 12) 46% %Now ( 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 February 2005 A-5 Impact Fee Study I 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 A40 and A- 11 . Table A -10 Residential Coefficient for 24-Hour Functional Population d 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 . "err' Table A -11 Residential Coefficient for 11 -Hour Functional Population fl Workers 0 41 % - Students 1 15 % 0 . 15 Other 8 46 % 3 . 66 Total Hours at Residence(4) 3 . 80 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5 ) 35 % ( 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 February 2005 A-6 Impact Fee Study uoilicwaojuI iuluauiaiddns san110A Spadoad it xipuaddV "hMr� (This page left blank intentionally) "fir 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 __`.E� 8sar� 3 13 7000000114 5100006.0 $54,800 01 -Feb-04 97th Street FELLSMERE 32948 5 .7 S9 614 30380000001030000010. 0 $50,000 01 -A r-04 Dale Avenue SEBASTIAN 32958 5.00 S105000 32392900002004000002. 1 575,000 01 -Mar-04 5965 41st Street VERO BEACH 32967 4. 8 515,432 30382100001000000011 . 1 $ 135,000 01 -Jun-04 135th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 4. 83 5271950 32391000000700000030,0 5190,000 OI -Jun-04 2855 63rd Street VERO BEACH 32967 4. 75 $40,000 31393200000300000014.0 $250,000 01 -Oct-04 81st Street VERO BEACH 32967 5 .00 $50P0 32392900002022000001 .0 $250,000 01 -Oct-04 37th Street VERO BEACH 32966 4. 18 $59,809 32391000000100000024. 0 52751000 01 -Jun-04 US Highway 1 VERO BEACH 32967 4.07 $67,568 31392800004001000001 . 0 54181000 01 -Jun-04 5560 85th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 4.72 $88,559 32390300000500000001 . 1 $535,000 01 -Aug-0 7255 US Hi hwa 1 VERO BEACH 32967 5.76 $925882 32390300000500000002. 0 $555,000 01 -Apr-04 7155 US Highway 1 VERO BEACH 32967 5.55 $ 100,000 32390900001020000001 . 1 $510,000 01 -Oct-04 5590 65th Street VERO BEACH 32967 1 4.63 $ 110, 151 32391000000700000022.0 $760,000 01 -May-0416255 US Highway 1 VERO BEACH 32967 5. 12 $ 148,438 33380300001008000003 . 0 $690,000 01 -Jun-04 20th Street VERO BEACH 32966 4.45 $ 155056 30382100001000000011 .3 58501000 01 -Ma -04 13361 US Hi hwa l SEBASTIAN 32958 4.65 $ 182,796 33380100001010000003 .2 5110201000 01 -Oct-04 78th Avenue VERO BEACH 32966 5.08 $200,787 30382500000002000003. 3 $ 1 ,250,000 01 -Aug- 13700 US Highway I SEBASTIAN 32958 5.0 $250,000 30382500000005000005.0 $1 ,075,000 01 -Jun-04 13575 Old Dixie Highway SEBASTIAN 32958 4.04 $2667089 Total $8,942, 800 87. 39 Weighted Average Cost Pu Acre 1 $102,332 ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC Table B -2 40 - to 130 -Acre Lot Sales in West IRC (2004)ISO 11 - „ 32392000001001000001 .0121 01 -Sep-04 53rd Street VERO BEACH 32967 32392000001001000001 . 1121 01 -S -04 53th Street VERO BEACH 32967 32392000001002000001 .0121 $9, 160,00 01 -Sep-0453th Street VERO BEACH 32967 128.41 $71 ,334 32392000001002000002.0121 01 -S -04 53th Street VERO BEACH 32967 33392300001001000001 .01x71 01 -Oct-04 20th Avenue SW VERO BEACH 32962 33392300001007000002.01x1 $ 1 ,038, 1 01 -Oct-04 20th Avenue SW VERO BEACH 32962 51 .74 $20,064 31382600000300000005 .0121 01 -Nov-04 CR 510 VERO BEACH 32967 62. 84 $ 11 ,743 $737,90 31382600000300000004.0121 01 -Nov-04 CR 510 VERO BEACH 32967 32391600000300000001 . 8 $5,9401000 01 -Oct-04 Bent Pine Drive VERO BEACH 32967 79.2 5751000 32391400000500000004.3 $700,000 01 -Jul-04 53rd Street VERO BEACH 32966 78.63 $8,902 31382200000100000092.2 $880,000 01 -Jun-04 95th Street SEBASTIAN 32958 46.04 $19, 114 31393000000300000002.0 $1 ,440,000 01 -May-04170th Avenue SEBASTIAN 32958 8 $ 18 000 33393300002001000001 .0 $ 10225,400 01-Apr-04143rd Avenue SW VERO BEACH 1 32968 59. 88 $20,464 32391700001001000001 .0 $285,000 01 -Jan-0415975 61st Street VERO BEACH 32967 40.36 $701 Total $21 ,406,400 1 627. 10 Weighted Average Cost Per Acre $349136 ( 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 February 2005 B - 1 Impact Fee Study (This page left blank intentionally) **A , mow Now Appendix C Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based) `r✓ (This page left blank intentionally) Table C4 '' ow Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) r N r 01 Single Family - 1 . 60 du $ 139 . 33 02 Mobile Homes 1 .60 du $ 139 . 33 08 Multi-Family 2 -9 Units 1 .20 du $ 104 .49 03 Multi-Family 10 Units or More 1 .20 du $ 104 .49 04 Condominium (residential) 1 .20 du $ 104 .49 05 Residential Co-ops 1 .20 du $ 104 .49 06 Retirement homes 0 .25 100 sf $21 .77 07 Miscellaneous residential 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 07 .G Guard House 0 . 50 N/A $43 . 54 07 .0 Maintenance building 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 .42 07 .P Club house/recreational with kitchen 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 07 . S Club house/recreational without kitchen 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 11 Stores - one story - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 I LF Used commodities sales store 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 Mixed Use - Stores with office and/or residential - 12 all other 0 .50 100 sf $43 . 54 Used commodities sales store with office and/or 12 . H residential 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 13 Department stores - all other 1 .00 100 sf $ 87 .08 13 . 0 Department stores - apparel sales only 0 .75 100 sf $65 .31 14 Supermarkets/grocery stores greater than 10 ,000 sf 0 .90 100 sf $78 .37 14 .H Supermarkets/grocery stores - all other 1 .30 100 sf $ 113 .20 15 Regional shopping center 0 . 50 100 sf $43 .54 16 Community shopping center 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 17 Office bldg, non-professional services, one story 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 18 Office bidg, non-professional services , multi-story 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 19 Professional services bldg 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 Airport, marina, bus terminal , pier & marine 20 terminals - all other 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 20 .K Aircraft storage hangars 0 . 10 100 sf $ 8 .71 21 Restaurants or cafeteria 0 . 70 100 sf $60 .96 22 Drive-in restaurants (curb service) 1 .30 100 sf $ 113 .20 Bank, savings & loan, credit services or mortgage 23 company 0 .25 100 sf $21 .77 24 Insurance company office 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 25 Laundries, services, etc . - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 25 .I Barber shop/beauty shop 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 .42 26 Service station 1 .00 100 sf $ 87 .08 27 Auto sales, service, rental, car wash, etc . - all other 0 . 25 100 sf $21 . 77 27 .G Vehicle repairs and service 0 . 50 100 sf $43 .54 27 .J Car wash, manned 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 27 .K Car wash, unmanned 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 28 Mobile home parks, parking lots - all other 1 .20 unit space , $ 104 .49 •M/ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 C- 1 Impact Fee Study I ` 40W Table CA Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) ( continued ) a 2 Travel trailers 0 .25 units ace $21 . 77 28 .P Mobile home or travel trailer ark office 0 .25 100 sf $21 .77 Wholesale outlets , produce manufacture outlets - all 29 other 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 29 .13 Facilities exceeding 10 ,000 sf g7 .00 100 sf $ 8 . 71 30 Florist, greenhouse, nursery - all other 100 sf $43 . 54 30 . S Nursery/greenhouse 0 to 2 ,000 sf N/A $609 . 55 30 .M Nursery/greenhouse 2,001 to 4,000 sf N/A $ 19132 . 03 301 Nursery/greenhouse 4 ,001 to 6 ,000 sf 18 .00 N/A $ 1 ,567 .42 30 .X Nursery/greenhouse exceeding 6 ,000 sf 23 .00 N/A $2 ,002 . 82 31 Drive-in theater, open stadiums 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 32 Theaters & auditoriums 0 .25 100 sf $21 .77 33 Nightclubs, bars , and lounges 0 .70 100 sf $60 .96 Bowling alley, skating ring, pool hall, gym , enclosed 34 arena 0 .25 100 sf $ 21 . 77 35 Tourist attraction, exhibit, entertainment facility 0 .25 100 sf $21 .77 36 Camps - all other 0 .40 100 sf $34 . 83 363 Day camp only without living or camping facilities 0 .20 rcamp sf $ 17 .42 36 .D Cam round area 0 .25 site $21 . 77 37 Racetracks : Horse, auto, or do 0 . 25 sf $21 .77 38 Golf course, driving ran es, tennis courts 0 .25 sf $21 .77 39 Hotels & motels - all other 0 .45 m $ 39 . 19 39 . 0 Motels with food sales 0 . 50 room $43 . 54 39 .G Hotels with conference & food facilities 0 .60 room $ 52 .25 39 .H Hotels without conference but with food facilities 0 .50 room $43 . 54 Light manufacture, small machine shop , printing 41plant 0 .40 100 sf $ 34 . 83 Heavy industrial , heavy equipment mfb . , large 42 machine shops - all other 0 . 50 100 sf $43 . 54 42 .B Aircraft manufacturing 0 .01 100 sf $0 . 87 43 Lumber yard, sawmill, planning mill - all other 0 .40 100 sf $34 . 83 43 . B Retail lumber yard 0 . 12 100 sf $ 10 .45 44 Packing plants : fruit, vegetables , & meat 0 . 80 100 sf $69 .66 45 Canneries , distilleries , wineries 0 . 80 100 sf $ 69 .66 Food processing, candy factories , bakeries, chip 46 factories 0 . 80 100 sf $69 . 66 47 Cement plants, clay plants, rock & gravel plants 0 .40 100 sf $ 34 . 83 48 Warehousing - all other 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 .42 48 . 0 Mini-warehouse, mini self- storage 0 .04 100 sf $3 .48 48 . S Warehousing over 40 ,000 sf 0 . 10 100 sf $ 8 .71 Warehousing with multiple commercial and 485 industrial use 0 .30 100 sf $26 . 12 49 Open storage, parking garage, etc. - all other 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 49 . 5 Open storage area over 40 ,000 sf 0 . 10 100 sf $ 8 . 71 VftP►" Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 C -2 Impact Fee Study Table C =1 Proposed Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule (WGU Based ) ( continued ) O 70 Religious Fraternal 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 71 Churches - all other 0 . 14 100 sf $ 12 . 19 Church with banquet or kitchen facilities less than 71N 1 , 300 sf 0 . 07 100 sf $ 6 . 10 71 . Y Church without banquet or kitchen facilities 0 .07 100 sf $ 6 . 10 72 Private schools and colleges 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 73 Privately owned hospitals 2 . 00 bed $ 174 . 16 Homes for the aged/non-convalescents, minimum 74 medical treatment 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 75 Orphanages, other non-profit or charitable services 0 .25 100 sf $21 . 77 76 Mortuaries , cemeteries, crematoriums 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 77 Clubs , lodges , union halls 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 78 Sanitariums , convalescent, & rest homes 0 .20 100 sf $ 17. 42 79 Cultural organizations , facilities 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 81 Military 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 82 Forest, parks, recreational areas1 . 80 acre $ 156 . 74 83 County Board of Public Instruction 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 84 Colleges 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 " 401, 85 Hospitals (not privately owned) 2 . 00 bed $ 174 . 16 County owned or foreclosed, other than public 86 schools, colleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 87 State owned land, murphy land 0 .20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 Federal other than military, forests, parks, 88 recreational areas, colleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 Municipal , other than parks , recreational areas , 89 colleges and hospitals 0 . 20 100 sf $ 17 . 42 ( 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 ($ 139 .33 ) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 C -3 Impact Fee Study NNW (This page left blank intentionally) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Indian River County February 2005 C-4 Impact Fee Study saico� uanuI S1111391 jataisiQ Ioogas aan; n3 pae ; uaainD Q xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) Table DA IRC School District Inventory of School Facilities (2004/05 School Year) Uffm! �� a, '� bHi h SchoolsPat, t► � ual . ' et t� fl stat oils lu e i be l Vero Beach Senior Hi h 42% 8231 222840 452, 663 2) 9571 375 3 , 332 135 . 85 Sebastian River Senior Hig 1 2775147 10,728 287, 875 11873 225 2,098 137 .21 Total / Weighted Average Sa Ft ger Student Station - High School 7409538 59430 136.38 �a O= m.:: .i.%y, 'i N . .a" „ , r a (� :: . ` dt^ wa. '" .'. rf4 Middle Schools Gifford Middle 135 , 019 7,464 1423483 11184 198 15382 103 . 10 Oslo Middle 151 , 757 5, 194 156,951 11174 132 11306 120 . 18 Sebastian River Middle 126, 840 9,734 136,574 1 ,218 231 11449 94.25 Total / Weighted Averaie Sq Ft eer Student Station - Middle School 4369008 4, 137 105.39 7nEe Schools MUIR Elementary 88,440 840 89,280 529 18 547 163 .22 mentary 76,435 3 ,320 799755 520 76 596 133 . 82 lmen 106, 744 9,056 115, 800 569 174 743 155 . 85 Fellsmere Elemen 77, 567 3 ,280 80, 847 540 84 624 129 . 56 Glendale Elementary 69,479 3 ,456 72, 935 564 88 652 111 . 86 Highlands Elementary 64,963 800 655763 547 12 559 117 . 64 Pelican Island Elementary 65 ,988 9,588 75 ,576 558 212 770 98 . 15 Rosewood Elementary 82, 545 840 83 ,385 560 18 578 144 .26 Sebastian Elementary 805722 1 ,628 82,350 605 40 645 127. 67 . Thompson Elementary 803471 0 80,471 550 0 550 146.31 Vero Beach Elementary 72,935 3 ,024 75 ,959 5551 661 621 122 . 32 Osceola Magnet School 73 ,3261 3 ,468 76, 794 5531 44 5971 128 .63 Liberty Magnet School 95 ,708 0 959708 5681 0 568 168 . 50 Total / Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Elem. School 1 ,074,623 8,050 133.49 ( 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 February 2005 D- 1 Impact Fee Study Table D -2 IRC School District Inventory of School Facilities ( 2008/09 School Year) High Schools Vero Beach Senior High 429, 823 2 ,957 145 . 36 Sebastian River Senior High 277 , 147 11873 147 . 97 New High School "AAA" 2869147 19900 150 . 60 Total 993 , 117 61730 N/A Weighted Average S9 Ft ger Student Station - Hi h School 147. 57 Middle Schools Gifford Middle 1359019 1 , 184 114. 04 Oslo Middle 151 ,757 11174 129 . 26 Sebastian River Middle 1263840 19218 104 . 14 From Freshman Leaming Center 1289819 19050 Total 542,435 49626 N/A Weighted Average SS Ft ger Student Station - Middle Scho 1 117.26 Elementary Schools Beachland Elementary 883440 529 167 . 18 NOW Citrus Elementary 76,435 520 146 . 99 Dod ertown Elementary 1069744 569 187 . 60 Fellsmere Elementary 779567 540 143 . 64 Glendale Elements 69 ,479 564 123 . 19 Highlands Elementary 649963 547 118 .76 Pelican Island Elementary 655988 558 118 . 26 Rosewood Elementary 821545 560 147 . 40 Sebastian Elementary 809722 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 ,7081 568 168 . 50 New Elementary School " B " 88 ,7721 550 161 . 40 Total 191249095 7,768 N/A Weighted Average Sq Ft per Student Station - Elem. School 144.71 Total - All Schools 21659,647 19 , 124 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 February 2005 D-2 Impact Fee Study f- saa ,� tuisodmI .io; sluawaainbag Iulta7 q xipuaddV (This page left blank intentionally) APPENDIX E POLICY ANALYSIS To : Mayor and Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Robert Keating, Director, Department of Community Development From : Robert Wallace, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc . Tyson Smith, Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle Date : May 4, 2004 Subj : Policy Analysis for Indian River County Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . Impact Fees, defined , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . go . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * a . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 3 2 . Fee vs. Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B . Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 . Dual Rational Nexus Test . , , , , 1 * 90 0 4 * 6 . 90 " 40 * 0 0 7 C . Impact Fee Development and Methodology011 , " , ' a a , . . . . 111119 1 . Level of Service Standards and Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . Revenue Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 D . Impact Fee Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 . Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14 2 . Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . goo . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 a. New Development Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 b. Impact Fees to be Applied Countywide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 c. Intergovernmental Coordination and Countywide Administration 000011 16 3 . Imposition , Calculation , and Collection , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 a. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 b. Independent Fee Calculations , , . , ' , , , , ' , , . , , , goo * & * , 101 , . . . . " I ' ll . . . 1111111111 17 4. Accounting and Earmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 . 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 . Use of Impact Fee Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 a. Type of Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 19 . , i. Charter Schools , , , * , , , , " , am . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 b. Time limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 c. Geographic limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 . Developer Credits or Offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Impact Fee Exemptions . , . . . . , , 23 8 . Updates and Indexing , , , , , 25 9 . Appeals , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 *r+' doc.#61610;v.6/90879.006 E- 1 I. Introduction This Memorandum has been prepared by Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle , in conjunction with Tindale Oliver & Associates and Growth Management Analysts, Inc . (the "TOA Team" or the "Team") in completion of Task 2 , "Policy Analysis ," for the Indian River County Impact Fee Study (the " Study") . Indian River County (the "County") currently enforces a "Fair Share Roadway Improvements" ordinance , which imposes a fee at the time of building permit application, to offset the impacts of "new land development activity . . , on the county ' s major road network system . " See § 953 . 04, Indian River County Land Development Regulations (the "County LDRs") . The purpose of the current Study is "to create a legally defensible and economically supportable set of impact fees to offset the growth related capital costs of new development for corrections , solid waste , public education, libraries , fire/EMS , law enforcement, public buildings , and parks facilities and services . " See Request for Proposals : Indian River Counly Impact Fee Study (RFP # 6054) . This memorandum is intended to familiarize County staff and the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") with the concept of impact fees, including the applicable legal restrictions on their use , and to introduce several preliminary issues that a study of this magnitude necessarily raises . It is important that staff and the Board be familiar with the steps that will precede the determination of the proper amount of the proposed fees and the ultimate implementation and administration of a comprehensive impact fee program . vftovr doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-2 II. Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees err'' A. Background 1 . Impact Fees, defined . Impact fees are a one-time, proportionate -share charge levied as a condition of final development approval in order to mitigate the capacity demands new development imposes on the community ' s capital facilities . ' Impact fees are fundamentally regulatory in nature . See Home Builders and Contractors Ass ' n of Palm Beach Co Inc . v . Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, 446 So . 2d 140 (Fla. 4' DCA 1983 ) . The principal purpose of the County ' s impact fee program is not to raise revenue, though this is an incidental effect, but rather to implement the "capital improvements element" of the Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") and the County ' s Capital Improvement Program (the "CIP") . See Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6 , "Capital Improvements Element, p . 25 ; see also .rrt Cherokee Co . v . Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Ass ' n . 566 S .E . 2d 470 , 472 (Ga . Ct. App . 2002) ("The varying amounts of the fees . . . hinged on the Capital Improvements Element (the "CIE") portion of the Cherokee County Comprehensive Plan . ") . As is discussed in greater detail below, impact fees collected by the County may not be deposited into the general fund and may not be spent for purposes other than the provision of new capacity for identified capital facilities . See Contractors & Builders Ass ' n of Pinellas County v . City of Dunedin, 329 So . 2d 314 (Fla. 1976) . Impact fee The County Comprehensive Plan defines a "capital improvement" as "a substantial facility (land, building, or major equipment) that costs at least $25 ,000 and which is required to maintain adopted level- of-service standards or to meet objectives identified in the county ' s comprehensive plan ." See Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chap . 6, "Capital Improvements Element, p. 1 . However, for purposes of this report, the term "capital facilities" is used more generally, and refers to any public improvement capacity required to serve new development. The appropriateness of charging impact fees to fund a particular capital facility must be determined on a case by case basis and is not the intent of this memorandum . doc.#61610;v.6/90879.006 E-3 revenue must be spent for the specific planning purpose of ensuring that capital facilities are adequate and available to serve new development as projected in the County ' s Comprehensive Plan . See Comprehensive Plan, Chap . 1 , "Introductory Element, " p . I & 45 . The implementation of a comprehensive impact fee program will have the effect of "freeing up " general fund revenue currently dedicated to capital facility expansion . However, continued capital expansion, expedited in part by impact fee revenue expenditures, will create operation, maintenance , and personnel costs yet to be borne , which cannot be financed with impact fee revenue . The County will have to decide the extent to which monies currently earmarked for capital expansion will be diverted to other programs or retained for the operation, maintenance, and personnel costs that *MW inevitably will accrue as capital facility expansion continues . As is discussed below, this policy decision will affect the calculation of revenue credits and ultimately the amount of the fee itself. Finally, prior to or simultaneous with the adoption of the proposed impact fee system, the County should amend its CIP to set forth those capital facilities that will be provided through the expenditure of impact fee revenue . The CIE and other related elements of the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to reflect the incorporation of the fees into the County ' s overall planning and budgetary system and the level of service standards that support the proposed fees . Consistency between the fee ordinances , the `Aww✓ doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-4 CIP , and the Comprehensive Plan will support the defensibility of the County ' s program ' should it be challenged . 2 2 . Fee vs. Tax Since Florida counties are prohibited from imposing "taxes" not specifically authorized by law, impact fee ordinances often are challenged in court as having been developed or implemented in a manner that amounts to unauthorized taxation, and thereby exceeding the regulatory authority of local government. An impact fee will be upheld as a valid regulatory fee and not a tax, however, where it can be shown that its primary purpose is regulatory, not revenue raising ; it bestows upon the fee payor a benefit not shared by other members of society ; and it is levied as a condition precedent to the voluntary act of improving property . See Collier Co . v . State of Florida, 733 So . 2d 1012 (Fla . 1999) ; see also Hillis Homes v . Snohomish County, 650 P . 2d at 193 , 195 ,,m„ (Wash . 1982) ; Emerson College v . City of Boston ; 462 N . E .2d 1098 , 1105 (Mass . 1984) . Under Florida law, a purported impact fee may be deemed a tax if it lacks proportionality between the fee and either the degree of need created by new development or the degree of benefit that accrues from the expenditure of fee revenues to those paying the fee . Hollywood, Inc . v . Broward County, 431 So . 2d 606, 611 - 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983 ) . This concept of "proportionality, " which derives from the case law, is central to the legal validity of impact fees . Therefore , familiarity with the legal history that precedes the County ' s current consideration of a comprehensive impact fee program is useful . 2 Similarly , the School Board' s facilities plan and work program should be updated to reflect the use of impact fees to fund new school facilities. doc.#61610;v.6/90879.006 E -5 Be Legal Requirements for Imposing Impact Fees Twenty-four states have express impact fee enabling legislation; in other states, cities and counties have enacted impact fees pursuant to home rule authority ; and in still other states, impact fees have been imposed pursuant to general police power authority and favorable case law . 3 Applicable legal standards and criteria have evolved, mostly through state case law decisions, over the past 25 years . Since Florida local governments have been frontrunners in impact fee practice , the Florida courts have given significant direction on many issues that are implicated in the adoption of regulatory impact fees . Most court cases revolve around two central themes, though numerous other issues are raised : first, does the local government have the authority to impose impact fees ; and, second, does the impact fee comply with state and federal constitutional limitations? 1 . Authority The authority of Florida counties to adopt and collect regulatory impact fees in order to offset the impacts of growth on capital facilities is well-established . St. Johns County v Northeast Florida Builders Association. 583 So . 2d 635 , 638 (Fla . 1991 ) ("The use of impact fees has become an accepted method of paying for public improvements that must be constructed to serve new growth . ") (citing Home Builders & Contractors Ass ' n . . 446 So .2d 140 ; Holly)yood. Inc . , 431 So . 2d 606 . The case of Contractors & Builders Ass ' n of Pinellas Couply v . City of Dunedin is recognized as the judiciary ' s first mark of approval of impact fees in Florida . 329 So . 2d 314 (Fla . 1976) . 3 See Leitner & Schoettle, "A Survey of State Impact Fee Enabling Legislation," Vol . 25 Urb . Lawyer No . 3 440ve ( Summer 1993 ), pp. 493 -494 and fn . nos. 11 - 15 . doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-6 As a non-charter county, Indian River County ' s authority to adopt reasonable development impact fees derives from a number of state constitutional and statutory sources . See e. g. , Art . VIII , § 1 (f), Fla . Const. ; § 125 . 01 , et seq . As provided in the statutes, non -charter counties may adopt any ordinance, not inconsistent with general law . Further, so long as they do not conflict with municipal ordinances, county ordinances are enforceable against properties within incorporated areas of the county . Art. VIII, § 1 (f) 9 Fla. Const. ; see also Tallahassee Mem . Reg . Med . Center, Inc v . Tallahassee Med Center, Inc . , 681 So . 2d 826, 831 (Fla . 1st DCA 1996) (citing St. Johns County, 583 So . 2d 635 ) . Accordingly, with some limited exceptions, County impact fees will apply within both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County ( i. e. , "countywide") . Fillingim v . State, 446 So . 2d 1099, 1102-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) . This approach, used widely across the state of Florida, derives from the rationale that, since the County is responsible for providing certain governmental facilities on a countywide basis, the fiscal burden of providing those facilities should not be borne solely by property owners in the unincorporated areas . St . Johns County, 583 So . 2d at 639 . (finding that where services are provided countywide, "no impact fee may be collected . . . until such time as substantially all of the population of St. Johns County is subject to the ordinance . ") The particulars of imposing and implementing a countywide system are addressed further below . 2 . Dual Rational Nexus Test The answer to the second question — whether impact fees comply with state and federal constitutional limitations — depends on ( 1 ) how the impact fee itself is developed doc.#6161 O;v.6/90879. 006 E-7 and its underlying methodology and (2) how the impact fee is implemented and administered . As is mentioned above , the proper development and implementation of a legally defensible impact fee system are rooted in the concept of "proportionality . " See St . Johns Counly 583 So . 2d at 637 ; see also Dolan v . Cijy of Tigard, 512 U . S . 3749 114 S . Ct, 2309, 2319 ( 1994) ; Homebuilders Assn . of Dayton and the Miami Valley v . City of Beavercreek, 89 Ohio St. 3d 121 , 128 , 729 N . E . 2d 349 (Ohio 2000) . A fee that is proportionate in amount to ( 1 ) the need for capital facilities created by new development and (2) the benefit that new development receives as a result of fees paid , ensures that the impact fee is "reasonable, " not arbitrary or capricious ; is a valid regulation, not a tax; and complies with applicable constitutional safeguards . See id. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted this rule of "proportionality , " as follows : That the local government must demonstrate a "reasonable connection, or "rational nexus, " between : 1 . the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by the subdivision; and 2 , the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision . See St. Johns County, 583 So . 2d at 637 (quoting Hollywood , Inc . , 431 So . 2d at 611 - 12) . This standard, termed the "dual rational nexus test, " is now the most widely accepted measure of validity for impact fees in Florida and nationwide . As a New Jersey appellate court found, " [t]he ` nexus ' requirement ` is grounded on considerations of fundamental fairness and constitutional doctrine , ' mandating ` equality of treatment ' . " F&W Associates v . County of Somerset, 648 A . 2d 482 , 487 (N . J . Super. Ct. Div . 1994) ( internal quotations omitted) . Further, the dual rational nexus test is consistent with U . S . ,* wr doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-8 Supreme Court precedent . See Nollan v . California Coastal Comm . , 483 U . S . 825 , 107 S . Ct, 3141 , 97 L . Ed . 2d 677 ( 1987) ; Dolan, 114 S . Ct. at 2319 . Compliance with the dual rational nexus test is achieved by the proper development of the impact fee schedule itself and the equitable implementation of the impact fee ordinances that impose the fees . The TOA Team, in association with County staff and the School District of Indian River County (the " School Board"), is developing the fee schedule in accordance with generally accepted methodologies and will assist in the development of an implementation program consistent with legal precedent. The Team will develop and present to the Board a methodological report that will establish the proportionate "need" for additional capital facility capacity that results from new development. The ordinance that implements the County ' s impact fee program will contain specific safeguards and restrictions that will guarantee reasonable "benefits" to those paying the fees . See Broward County v . Janis Development, 311 So . 2d 371 , 375 (Fla . 4th DCA 1975 ) (fee held to be a tax were there "were no specifics provided in the ordinance as to where or when" fee revenue would be expended) . There are certain steps that must be taken in the development and implementation of the County ' s impact fee program to ensure preliminary and ongoing compliance with both prongs of the dual rational nexus test. These are discussed below . C . Impact Fee Development and Methodology The TOA Team is developing a fee methodology report (the "Needs Study") that will address each facility for which impact fees may be imposed . The purpose of the Needs Study is to ensure that impact fees are "proportionate " in amount to the actual need created by new development that will be charged the fee . See Dunedin, 329 So . 2d doc. #6161 O;v. 6/90879.006 E-9 at 321 ; St. Johns County , 583 So . 2d at 637 (upholding the "needs" prong of the dual rational nexus test based on the county ' s performance of a needs study) ; see also Banberry Dev . Corp . v . South Jordan City, 631 P .2d 899 , 904 (Utah 1981 ) ("a municipality should determine the relative burdens previously borne and yet to be borne . ") . Simply stated , impact fee amounts will be calculated by ( 1 ) identifying the need for additional capital facility capacity created by new development; (2) determining the cost of providing needed facilities ; and (3 ) identifying new development ' s proportionate share of those costs . Total costs are converted to a unit of measure equal to a demand unit of new development. For example, cost may be measured per single-family unit of residential development and per 1 , 000 square feet of commercial development . Impact fee amounts established in the Needs Study will reflect the actual cost to the County, per unit of development, to provide required capital facilities for projected growth . These fees will reflect the maximum justifiable amount the County may charge against new development in the form of an impact fee . To collect more would disturb the critical "proportionality" that the law requires . However, the County may collect less . So long as the amount charged does not exceed new development ' s pro rata share of future costs , the proportionality principle remains intact. 1 . Level of Service Standards and Existing Deficiencies A critical step in projecting future costs is establishing and adopting a desired level of service (LOS) standard for each facility for which impact fees will be collected . The Comprehensive Plan describes " level of service" as an " indicator" of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by , a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility . Level-of-service standards doc.#61610;v. 6/90879. 006 E- 10 indicate the capacity per unit of demand of each public facility . " See Comprehensive Plan, Chap . 6 , "Capital Improvements Element, " p . 24 . For example, the County has adopted a LOS of 4 acres of parkland/ 1 ,000 persons, or, at 2 . 33 persons per dwelling unit,4 about one -tenth ( 1 / 10) of an acre per dwelling unit. Since the impact fee derives from the cost of providing that 1 / 10 of an acre of parkland for each unit built, it should be clear that the LOS adopted by the County will directly affect the amount of the fee ultimately charged . The County must decide whether to apply existing levels of service to future development or to apply some other LOS , either higher or lower, than what exists today . Levels of service must be established and adopted for those facilities for which there is no currently adopted LOS (corrections , public education, libraries , fire/emergency services, law enforcement, and public buildings) . 5 Regardless of the LOS adopted, the County must apply the same standard to both new and existing development. An example is illustrative . If the County wishes to adopt a higher LOS in conjunction with the implementation of its park impact fee, for example, five (5 ) acres per 1 , 000 persons, it will thereby create a gap between what it has provided to existing development (4 acres/ 1 , 000 persons) and the burden it is asking new development to bear. This gap is known as an "existing deficiency . " Specifically, if the park impact fee is of an amount that will ensure future development is provided with five (5 ) acres of parkland per 1 , 000 persons, then the County must budget and plan for the acquisition of enough parkland to raise the LOS for existing development from four (4) acres to five (5) acres per 1 , 000 4 See Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1 , "Introductory Element," p . 15 . 5 The LOS for solid waste and parks is adopted and set forth in the Comprehensive Plan . See Comprehensive Plan, Chap . 6, "Capital Improvements Element," pp . 24-5 . `rw1✓ doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E - 1 1 `tow persons . In order to ensure new development pays no more than its proportionate share of parklands, existing deficiencies must be eliminated through funds other than impact fees . Dunedin, 329 So . 2d at 321 ("The cost of new facilities should be borne by new users to the extent new use requires new facilities, but only to that extent. ") . 2 . Revenue Credits Once the projected costs of new capital facilities are established, the net present value of those costs that historically have been (and are expected to continue to be) funded with revenues other than impact fees, is backed out of total costs to ensure further that new development does not pay more than its proportionate share of future capital costs . See Banberry, 631 P . 2d at 903 . (" . . , the fee in question should not exceed the amount sufficient to equalize the relative burden of newly developed properties and other properties . ") . This cost reduction is known as a "revenue credit," and also includes *ftw outside funding sources , like state and federal grants . See Hollywood, Inc . , 431 So . 2d at 612 (noting that "proportionality" is furthered by providing a credit for "future ad valorem taxes [new development] would pay towards retiring the outstanding park bonds . ") ; see also Banbeny, 631 P . 2d at 904 . It is important to understand the effect of revenue credits on the fee that is eventually recommended . The greater the contribution from other sources , the lower the total costs that should be assigned to new development through impact fees . Simply put, the ,greater the credit, the lower the impact fee per unit of development. For example , should the County decide to reallocate non-impact fee monies currently designated for capital expansion, the amount of the revenue credit will decrease , resulting in an increase in the amount of the impact fee to be imposed . A case pending in the Florida courts Vftw illustrates this principle . doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E- 12 In calculating the revenue credits for its school impact fee, Lee County did not N0001 account for projected increases in land value, resulting, the challenger alleges, in an understatement of future contributions and an understatement of the resulting revenue credit. The result of the lower revenue credit, of course, was a higher fee , which the challenger asserts is not "proportionate" to the actual impact of new development. The case has been tried in the circuit court, but no ruling has been made . So , at this point, it is not known whether Lee County ' s methodology resulted in a fee that lacked a "reasonable connection, or rational nexus" to the impact of development .6 See Hollywood, Inc . , 431 So . 2d 611 - 12 . However, in order to avoid a similar attack, the TOA Team will account for reasonable increases in property values when it calculates the County ' s revenue credits . Nonetheless, the same principles are at issue . The more "non- impact fee" revenue that is directed away from capital costs, the lower the revenue credit and the higher the impact fee . The decision essentially boils down to one of policy and determining what proportion of future costs of capital expansion should be borne by new development versus the community at large . D . Impact Fee Implementation Once the amount of capital facility "need" is established and the amount of the fee determined, the County must implement the fee and administer its program such that developers who pay the fee receive a "benefit" that is proportionate to the amount of the 6 The courts do not require mathematical exactitude in development exactions, including the calculation of impact fees, but rather have found that "reasonableness" or "rough proportionality " is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. Beavercreek, 729 N .E.2d at 356 ("Municipalities must be given the ability to reasonably address problems that are not subject to precise measurement without being subject to unduly strict review. ") (citing Banberry, 631 P . 2d 899. ) . doc.#61610;v. 6/90879. 006 E - 13 fee paid . See id. The County will accomplish this through the development of properly- drafted impact fee ordinances and interlocal agreements with participating municipalities and the School Board . Pursuant to Task 4 of the Study, the TOA Team will review the procedures used to administer the County ' s existing "Fair Share Roadway Improvements " ordinance (the "traffic impact fee") ; recommend needed changes , as necessary ; and develop an administrative manual, forms , and administrative brochure for the additional fees being considered here . Finally, it is recommended that, if impact fees are adopted for all eight ( 8 ) additional facilities being considered , a full-time staff position be dedicated to administering the County ' s impact fee program . The remainder of this subsection will discuss the critical policy and implementation elements that will be included in the County ' s impact fee program and ordinances . 1 . Effective Date Section 125 . 66 (2)(b) , Fla. Stat. provides that county ordinances " shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State . However, any ordinance may prescribe a later effective date . " The decision of when to impose fees should reflect two countervailing concerns . On one hand, delaying the effective date will allow the development community to account for the increased costs associated with the new fees . On the other hand, delaying imposition will result in foregone revenues for the County to cover future capital expansion . doc. #61610;v.6/90879. 006 E- 14 2 . Applicability a. New Development Only The impact fee ordinance will apply only to new development which creates a measurable demand for new capital facility capacity . Development that does not, by its nature, create an impact on capital facilities will be excluded . For example, residential developments that are deed restricted to limit occupancy to adults only, will not be required to pay an educational facilities impact fee, because this type of development does not generate additional students or otherwise create a measurable impact on the need for additional school capacity . See Volusia County v . Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L .P . , 760 So . 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) . Development undertaken or permitted prior to the effective date of the ordinance will not be required to pay new impact fees and capital facilities necessary to serve that development will be funded under the existing budgetary structure . As is discussed further below, however, the point in the development process at which impact fees will be imposed — from rezoning to certificate of occupancy issuance — also must be determined . b. Impact Fees to be Applied Countywide Impact fees for capital facilities that are provided countywide will be charged within both the unincorporated and the incorporated areas of the County, because the need for` these facilities is reasonably attributable to development that occurs in both areas . Conversely, the County will be required to spend impact fee revenue in a manner that reasonably benefits those in the incorporated as well as the unincorporated areas . See St. Johns County, 583 So . 2d at 639. As the Florida Supreme Court has held, those doc.#61610;v. 6/90879. 006 E45 N%W who benefit from the provision of county facilities must share the burden of providing those facilities so that the burdens are not borne disproportionately by one group or another. See id. Table I - 1 in this report (page 1- 10) illustrates those facilities for which fees will be collected and spent countywide versus those collected and spent only in the unincorporated County . c. Intergovernmental Coordination and Countywide Administration Adoption of the countywide impact fee program represents an exercise of the County ' s governmental authority, exercised by the adoption of an ordinance of countywide effect. In order to facilitate the collection of impact fees from developers within the incorporated areas , the County will seek the participation of the municipalities in the collection and transmittal of the fees . This process will be set forth in and undertaken pursuant to interlocal agreements between the County and each municipality involved . The interlocal agreements will provide for the municipalities ' retention of a percentage of the total fee to offset costs incurred by them to administer the countywide program . Similarly , pursuant to an interlocal agreement between the County and the School Board , educational facilities impact fees (i. e . , school impact Mees) will be collected by the County and municipalities and transmitted for expenditure by the School Board . See § § 1013 . 335 1013 . 36, Fla . Stat. These agreements should be adopted and enforceable prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinances . doc.#61610;v.6/90879.006 E- 16 3 . Imposition , Calculation , and Collection a. Timing Impact fees may be imposed and collected at various points in the development process . From a practical perspective, it may be desirable to collect certain fees very early in the process , for example, upon subdivision approval . This may be particularly useful for capital facilities which either take longer to engineer, plan, and construct or which must be in place at the time of construction for health and safety purposes — sewer, water, or major roadways , for example . From a legal perspective, however, it is important that impact fees be collected late enough in the development process to ensure a nexus between the actual impact of development and the County ' s provision of the capital facilities to be funded with impact fee revenues . The fees should be collected at a point where it is reasonably likely that the impact of the development actually will occur and will not be derailed by lack of financing or other private - side impediment to development. Although the Florida courts have upheld imposition as late as certificate of occupancy, even where units were constructed pursuant to building permits issued prior to the adoption of the ordinance , City of Key West v . R.L . J . S . Corp . , 537 So . 2d 641 (Fla . 3rd DCA 1989) , most local governments impose impact fees upon building permit application and require payment prior to building permit issuance . This is the recommended approach . b . Independent Fee Calculations An applicant may assert that the County ' s cost to accommodate the impacts of a specific development are substantially different than those reflected in the adopted impact doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 & 17 fee schedule . In these instances, the County should provide a procedure whereby the applicant may submit an independent fee calculation to support its assertion . The independent fee calculation must be supported by a study , financed by the applicant, that is consistent with the County ' s adopted impact fee methodology . The County will reserve the discretion to decide whether the proffered study supports an alternate fee amount. The current traffic impact fee provides for this type of independent fee calculation, which is considered and acted upon by the County Administrator or the County Administrator ' s designee . Appeals from the decision of the Administrator are brought before the Board of County Commissioners . See §953 . 07 , County LDRs . The ordinances implementing new impact fees pursuant to this Study should include a similar *MW procedure . 4. Accounting and Earmarking Once collected, impact fee revenue must be deposited into segregated accounts, separate from all other County funds . See Dunedin, 329 So . 2d at 321 -22 (requiring collected fees to be segregated and use-restricted) . This ensures compliance with the "benefits" prong of the dual rational nexus test, such that developers paying the fees are assured that fee revenues will be expended for the provision of capital facilities for which the fees where collected and for no other purpose . See St. Johns County, 583 So . 2d at 635 ("In order to satisfy this [benefits] requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents . ") . *41W doc.#61610;v. 6/90879. 006 E- 18 5 . Use of Impact Fee Revenue ' a. Type of Facility Once deposited into earmarked accounts , the use to which impact fees may be put is limited by law and the governing principle that impact fees are regulatory mechanisms that implement the Comprehensive Plan and ensure the availability and adequacy of capital facilities as new development occurs . See Dunedin, 329 So . 2d at 321 (finding a fee ordinance "defective for failure to spell out necessary restrictions on the use of fees it authorizes to be collected") . Collected revenues may be spent only on the public facilities for which they were collected and must be spent in a manner that guarantees a reasonable benefit to those who paid the fee . Fee revenue may not be spent on operations, maintenance , or personnel costs, but rather for the expanded capacity of capital facilities and the costs incidental to its provision . For example, costs incidental to the provision of library facilities may include library books and collections, as well as the furniture , fixtures, and equipment necessary to put library facilities to use . 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 and updating the impact fee ordinance and fee schedule . The costs should be fairly apportioned and documented . i. Charter Schools Currently, there are five (5 ) charter schools located in Indian River County , 7 Additional charter schools may be created, either through conversion or new construction, which are sponsored by the School Board . The question has been raised 7Indian River Academy, Indian River Charter High School , North County Charter School , Sebastian Junior High Charter, and St. Peter' s Academy . doc.#6161 O;v. 6/90879.006 E- 19 *% . whether impact fee revenue may be spent on the provision of educational facility expansion associated with charter schools . Charter schools are "public schools , " which, with some minor qualifications, are "open to any student . . . residing in the school district in which the charter school is located . " See § 1002 . 33 ( 1 )& ( 10) , Fla. Stat. ("Charter schools shall be part of the state ' s program of public education . All charter schools in Florida are public schools . ") ; see also Arty . Gen . Op . 2000 -24 (recognizing the public nature of charter schools and opining accordingly that charter schools are exempt from the payment of impact fees) . Therefore, as a preliminary matter, expenditure of impact fees for the expansion or creation of a charter school may be proper. However, certain precautions are in order and should be applied on a case-by-case VOW basis . For example, prior to designating impact fee revenues for charter schools , the County should establish, through coordination with the School Board, that the proposed facilities are available to the students generated by the new development that paid the impact fees . Specifically, the County and School Board should review the terms of the charter and any other agreement, restriction, or condition affecting the operation of the charter school, to confirm the existence of a "reasonable nexus" — both temporally and geographically, as discussed below — between the proposed educational facilities and those who paid the fees . Also, provision should be made in the event that a privately- owned charter school , that has received public funds, reverts to private, non-educational uses . Privately-owned schools should return or otherwise reimburse the School Board for impact fee revenue received if the school board ' s sponsorship of that school terminates . "'fir doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-20 While the possibility exists that impact fees properly may be spent for charter VOOO school facilities, the County and School Board should proceed with care and evaluate each request on a case -by-case basis . b. Time limitations In order to further strengthen the nexus between the fee payor and the benefits provided by future facilities , impact fee revenues must be spent within a reasonable period of time of their collection . See Home Builders and Contractors Ass ' n, 446 So . 2d at 142 . Nationwide, the time period typically allowed ranges from five (5 ) to fifteen ( 15 ) years . The purpose of this limitation is to ensure a "temporal" nexus between the payment of the impact fee by the developer and the proportionate benefit that thereafter accrues to the developer as a result of that payment . Most Florida communities require that fees be spent within six (6) years of their 4.nr' collection or be returned to the property owner with interest . See id. ; St . Johns County, 583 So . 2d at 637 . Consistent with the existing traffic impact fee, a six (6) year restriction is recommended as the appropriate time limitation for other capital facilities for which the County may adopt impact fees . c. Geographic limitations Similarly, impact fee revenue must be spent in an area that is reasonably proximate to the development for which the fee was imposed . See generally, Home Builders and Contractors Ass ' n, 446 So . 2d 140 . Geographic proximity ensures that those paying impact fees receive a reasonable benefit from the expenditure of those fees as required by the "benefits prong" of the dual rational nexus test. See Hollywood Inc . , 431 So . 2d at 612 (noting that " [t] he reasonableness of this distance is shown by the doc. #61610;v. 6/90879. 006 &21 NI county ' s evidence that residents travel widely in order to take advantage of the features that can be provided at County-level parks . ") . The reasonableness of the geographic proximity between the facility and the development depends on the nature of the facility provided and the patterns of use inherent to that facility . An impact fee benefits area may be countywide . The determination of a proper benefit area depends on the background data and nature of the underlying facility and its users . Table I- 1 in this report (page I - 10) describes the recommended benefit districts for each facility . 6. Developer Credits or Offsets In order to further ensure that developers pay no more than their proportionate share of capital costs , impact fee reimbursements or offsets should be made for monetary *4W contributions , land dedications , or actual construction made by developers towards the provision of a capital facility for which impact fees are collected . The adopting ordinance should indicate specifically the improvements that are eligible for impact fee offsets , a policy which should be aligned with the County ' s CIP as discussed above . The development industry recently has challenged local government denials of claimed offsets based on facilities provided by the developer. See e. g. , American Freeholds v . City of Tampa, 2000 WL 34235151 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2000) ; see also Valley Children ' s Hosp . v . Madera Co . , 2002 WL 31484784 (Cal . App . 5 Dist. ) . Although local governments typically prevail in these challenges, most would not have been brought had the provisions of the ordinance been drafted with better specificity as to the type of developer improvements that were "offset eligible . " doc. #61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-22 7. Impact Fee Exemptions Local governments increasingly are pressed to exempt certain uses from the impact fee requirement . 8 Typically , exemptions are granted for qualified affordable housing developments, economic development projects, and other uses that promote a legitimate governmental interest but which create a need for additional capital facilities .9 However, caution should be exercised with respect to exemptions , particularly where the local government has adopted the maximum fee amounts justifiable under its methodology . Most commonly, exemptions are challenged by those not entitled to the same exemption, usually on either equal protection grounds or an "unfair share claim . " The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires that persons similarly situated be treated alike , U . S . Const . amend . XIV, § 1 . However, unless the challenging party is a member of a protected class (e. g. , race or gender) or asserts violation of a fundamental right (e. g. , speech or voting), the equal protection clause does not provide a meaningful limitation on the government ' s ability to classify land or people in the reasonable exercise of its land use authority . See e. g. , Orange Co . v . Costco Wholesale Corp. , 823 So . 2d 732 , 738 -39 (Fla . 2002) ; see also Home Builders and Contractors Ass ' n, 446 So . 2d 140 . The classification of development proposals according to affordability, for example, will generally withstand an equal protection challenge under the applicable rational relationship standard . See id; see also South Shell Inv . v . Town of Wrightsville $ Note that § 1013 .371 ( 1 )(a), Fla. Stat. provides that public schools be exempt from the payment of impact fees . 9 Where it can be shown that a particular land use does not impact capital facilities or has an impact that is significantly less than that of non-exempt uses, the preferred use can and should pay a reduced fee and reimbursement from non-impact fee funds is not required. However, the reduced impact should be documented and the Comprehensive Plan should reflect the documented findings . NOO, doc.#61610;v. 6/90879. 006 E-23 vftpw� Beach, 703 F . Supp . 1192 , 1200 -04 (E . D .N . C . 1988 ) (finding that while " [o] ur system of government frequently imposes certain burdens on some groups while exempting others . . . the Court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of scrutiny lest all local fiscal schemes become subjects of criticism under the Equal Protection Clause . ") . It is critical, however, in order to avoid a successful equal protection claim, that any exempted use be defined with particularity and that the exemption be consistent with the adopted policies of the County . More troubling, however, is a potential "fair share" claim, which would assert that the result of exempting one class of property owners has the effect of shifting to the non- exempt class a disproportionate share of the burden of providing new capital facilities . In order to avoid this type of claim, local governments that give exemptions should reimburse impact fee accounts, with non-impact fee revenues, in an amount equal to the exempted fees . The overall result, of course, is that the local government has elected to pay the impact fee for the particular applicant in order to encourage or advance a specifically defined and documented governmental policy . Exemption provisions may provide a means for the County to address important governmental objectives while simultaneously ensuring that adequate facilities are provided and funded as new growth occurs . Staff and the Board should be careful , however, to document (a) that distinctions drawn between exempt uses and non-exempt uses are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose ; (b) that any shortfall in funding that results from an exemption is made up with nonimpact fee funds (presumes impact of exempt use is the same as non-exempt uses) ; and (c) the basis for granting or denying an exemption and the exemptions implication, if any, on the County ' s CIP . *.r doc .#61610;v.6/90879. 006 E-24 Most important, the County should take care to administer exemptions in a way . , that preserves the usefulness of the ordinance as a mechanism for funding capital improvements necessitated by new development. The most likely pitfall of impact fee exemptions may be a fiscal , not legal, one . If exemption provisions are invoked too liberally and if proper reimbursements do not occur, the ordinance may be ineffective as a mechanism for funding capital improvements needed to serve new development. As shortfalls mount, the County will be under increased pressure to shore up impact fee funds to cover the costs set forth in the CIP, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the ordinance . 8 . Updates and Indexing The impact fee ordinance and fee schedule should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that new development continues to pay a fee that is proportionate to its impact and to receive a benefit proportionate to the fee paid . See Country Joe. Inc . v . City of Eagan, 560 N . W . 2d 681 , 686 (Minn . 1997 ) . This update should occur at least every three (3 ) years . Additionally, the fee schedule may be adjusted each intervening year based on indices that measure the change in the costs of capital facilities funded with impact fees . This practice has become known as "indexing . " Although indexing is a common practice among impact fee practitioners , Florida courts have not addressed the validity of this approach directly . The practice , however, is consistent with the underlying rationale for impact fees and has the effect of further refining the nexus between the impact fee and the actual impact new development has on capital facilities . The index used to make the annual adjustment should be one that is well -established, accessible , and generally accepted by professionals in the industry . The doc.#61610;v.6/90879.006 E-25 index must accurately reflect the real cost increases the County can anticipate and should not be inconsistent with the underlying methodology . Common indices include the consumer price index, local property appraisal records, and the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. 9. Appeals Once County staff imposes an impact fee as a condition of development approval, an applicant may appeal the amount or applicability of the fee . An applicant also may appeal staff' s determination with respect to an independent fee calculation, a developer credit or offset, or a claimed refund . Under the existing traffic impact fee, final appeals from the decisions of the County Administrator, or the Administrator ' s designee, are made to the Board of County Commissioners . This approach is consistent with that used by most jurisdictions and is recommended here . doc.#61610;v. 6/90879.006 E-26 Appendix F Review of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area (This page left blank intentionally) NOW 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 3 .24 beds per 1 ,000 residents N/A FNocurrent IRC LOS standard IRC Comprehensive Plan - Capital 2 Solid Waste 2 .4 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 No current IRC LOS standard ; 3 Public Education Elementary, Middle, and High School student N/A information provided by IRC School _ station, respectively, combined for a weighted average of 139.07 SF per student station . District. Buidings - 633 SF per 1 ,000 residents 4 Libraries Materials - 3 ,490 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 .3 items per 1 , 000 residents 5 Fire/Emergency Medical Services 0 .098 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 .28 officers per 1 ,000 residents N/A Information provided by IRC Sheriffs Office No current IRC LOS standard ; 7 Public Buildings 2 . 17 SF per Resident N/A information provided by IRC Department of General Services . 6.79 acres of regional parks per 1 , 000 residents; $ Parks and Recreation Facilities 0 .43 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 7 .22 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 3 Brevard Yes Yes 4 Collier Waiting Yes 5 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 *4m3 = Public Education Fee No. Jurisdiction Study Ordinance Notes 1 Lee County Yes Yes 2 Polk County Yes Yes Recently increased fee F83 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 Lake County Yes Yes 9 10range 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 1 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 5 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 Martin County Yes Yes L64 Wakulla County Yes Yes *4uw Brevard County 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 Source Current LOS LOS Standard Population(l ) Indian River 3.24 N/A N/A No adopted LOS standard Martin(2) 2 .47 4 .20 Y Development Impact Fee Arthur C . Nelson Jul-9 Update Study Citrus(2) N/A N/A Y Impact Fee Update Duncan Associates Jan-01 Wakulla 3 .67 0 . 0092 Beds per DU Wakulla Community ( p ) N Impact Fee Study Development Department Dec-97 Brevard 1 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 -3 -2 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 2.4 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 / Capacity County Source Single Family Detached All Residential Attached Manufactured Home Enrollment Student Stations Indian River 0.361 0.166 0.169 16,362 14,806 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 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Polk 0.479 0.258 0.246 75,262 91 ,646 Facilities Company Jan-03 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Osceola 0.550 0.358 0.269 36,785 40,329 Facilities Company Nov-03 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 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Lake 0.410 0.253 0. 145 29,485 32,614 Facilities Company Dec: 03 Impact Fees for Educational Henderson Young & Orange 0.472 0.274 0.281 135,457 102, 752 Facilities Company Oct-98 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 F Nelson F-7 Or Table F -34 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 4 - Li rary Impact Fee Current LOS Florida LOS Standard County SF per Capita Rank Volumes per Volumes per Source p p Capita Rank SF per Capita Capita Indian River 0.63 3 3.49 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 9 200 Library Direc" 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 ) L&Aucie 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 ,000Response Time Sq. Feet/ Resident minutes County Area Residents Functional Source Current Current Current LOS I LOS Std LOS LOS Std LOS LOS Std Population(l) Y IRC Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Element - Policy Indian River Fire/EMS 0.098 N/A 2.8.a Y Development Impact Fee Arthur C. Nelson Jul-99 Martin Fire/EMS 0.680 0.650 Update Study T-e-chnical Memorandum on St. Johns Fire/EMS 0. 180 N/A Y the Methods of Updating James C. Nicholas Feb-98 IMDact F Citrus Fire 0.650 N/A Y Impact Fee Update Study Duncan Associates Jan-01 Citrus EMS 0. 036 N/A 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 EMS Development Impact TOA May-00 Collier EMS 0. 068 N/A 6 . 000 6.300 Y 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 If 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 LOS Population" ) LOS Standard LOS Standard Current LOS Standard Source Indian River 2.28 N/A N/A Information Provided by IRC Sheriff's 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 Methods of Updating Impact Fees James C. Nicholas Feb-98 Citrus(2) Y Impact Fee Update Duncan Associates Jan-01 Wakulla 1 . 05(0 .0015 Officersakul a ommunity per DU) N Impact Fee Study Development Dec-97 Deoartment 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 levet of service on an area-wide basis and (b) (2) Law Enforcement and Corrections Facilities. F- 10 Table F -3 =7 Comparison of Standards by Impact Fee Program Area 7 - Public Buildings Impact Fee SF per Resident Functional . Source CountyCurrent LOS LOS Population(i ) Standard Information Provided by IRC Department of General Services for Indian River 2. 22 N/A N/A Current Impact Fee Study. Development Impact Fee Update Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Martin 2 .47 2 .47 Y Study Citrus 3 . 13 N/A Y Impact Fee Update TOA & GMA Jan-05 Technical Memorandum on the James C . Nicholas Feb-98 St. Johns 4 . 37 N/A Y Methods of Updating Impact Fees 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 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 . F- 11 Table F -3 -8 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 7 . 22 4.00 IRC Comprehensive Plan - Capital Improvement Element = Policy 3 .5 Martin (» 31 .40 29 . 00 Development Impact Fee Update Arthur C . Nelson Jul-99 Study St. Johns 13 . 60 29 . 53 Technical Memorandum on the 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 Levard 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 Correctional Facilities 3 . 24 beds per 1 , 000 residents N/A 2 Solid Waste 2 .4 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 - 633 SF per 1 , 000 residents 4 Libraries Materials - 3 ,490 items per 1 , 000 residents 527 SF per 1 , 000 residents Computers - 0 . 7 computers per 1 , 000 residents Other Equipment - 0 . 3 items per 1 ,000 residents 5 Fire/Emergency Medical0. 098 stations per 1000 residents 4-6 minutes response time for service area 5- Services , mile radius within urban areas 6 Law Enforcement 2 . 28 officers per 1 , 000 residents N/A 7 Public Buildings 2 . 17 SF per Resident N/A 6.79 acres of regional parks per 1 , 000 residents; 8 Parks and Recreation 0.43 acres of community/neighborhood parks per 4. 00 acres (all parks)/ 1 , 000 residents Facilities 1 , 000 residents, combined for a total of 7 . 22 acres per 1 , 000 residents F- 13 wr' (This page left blank intentionally) Appendix G Comparison of Selected Fees in Florida r.rr (This page left blank intentionally) 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 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 $ 17778 . 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) $ 71055 . 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 CollieP $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 *4%W 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 vq"o 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 Collie r(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 vow G-6 Table G -7 "woe 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 CollieP $ 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 Nftpw 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(2) $ 802 . 00 $486 . 00 Citrus $435 . 00 $360 . 00 Wakulla $ 53 . 00 $ 53 . 00 Brevard $505 . 36 $441 . 42 ( 1 ) Single Family from 1 , 101 sf to 2 , 300 sf Multi Family from 801 sf to 1 , 100 sf (2) Single Family from 1 , 800 sf to 3 , 000 sf Multi Family less than 1 , 000 sf ''err' `* ✓ G-8 Appendix H Policy Presentation to Elected Officials i (This page left blank intentionally) 7. �r Polmicy Indian River County Im act FeeStudyp Arthur C . Nelson Ph . D ., ASCE, FAICP Indian River CountyM s April 202004 h }t � sda4S lx9N 0 sa :)anos Buipunj Q sp.tepue4S Sol Q sanssI uoi4e4uawalduaI Q sJuaWaainbab le6aml Q asodand 19 punoiBipeg O 'a c � O � c a � a = u a m ca LM 4w cn 0 CL = U f0 U cn � O W L • � L � v a w = U Gl 0 � E O IV cn CD • � � y v► c +L+ 40 • r=• , d D O 0 'a 0 O � � UJ � i I - a ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ' • ♦ • • • ♦ • e'n �€^ °.�^2F�",a: :;'i #« ` � 1Y .c�Xk'�.�`—au�4� ? a. °`'mgt r i.� - � N� ra �� w r.� "s>xk+r� aim$"-•„ w'r.�. �Y e'�kR`R' r � v a F ��h5. '-�� " ` � �, � �'c�^,` £s `�.• `�'r�'� S kut�i� €�= �*'da� �"' x '. `,a' i �a� '' t a'�� 3°.-� dr '". P � "'�'�3 �;�"' � � -'� s`= .a, e r� r WN F tt£7 i azw, 0 � ^m r : -s= �m�Z'"-z' :�s r,,, r rte, . y �, �.� . � v � �` . ' -�,�.; I • � x yy �� jae d AtIM , y a ar r,,C-c f ' Vie ° rt ein o .1 99 , mi :) ise • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • N� M n + r Q .w?'S= +fit �; rv^t' ;,z , is �o- i .. � a'F�x e. r �yv'�°s� �'� {x '` � 1&� t �CVY�' $��g4���? '�tir t��' �Y}C ,F` ,.. '�r��-�tt 'y,, '� s . .� '� • _ s �.^� ��' # � . / �` %} "wid Jt .£ � � � Z'u b.-_. -x�u'-• � " t � .2S��`'�' t`t:�3_S ¢. S.°I�Y+ i �b�$M+„� � 2�` � � �� ... +sy's `� �'yyy R . :_ `. � ' q: � � 4 a' "aF°?-� ' �Y•;�,&w`3�yi��?X"xS '�a. .rr- . �� �kZ`i�r+ a sem^ ���s vsq 1 _ Trg Igo aa ABIJ , a AJC 666 - £ 66 ap ! aolj ui sanuana ?1 r. k aaj pedwi jo uoi4n is siuaaaa % g 4uauauoainu3 leoisALId % 8 SJGLPO % 0 4 u0i4eaaOaN uoi4epodsueal / lean n 4I °( IB404 /oZ � ) 1, > 4uauauoainu3 3 ' wOu003 ` % g seoweS uewnH ` % 9 AjejeS oiignd 11 111 . . � : . . . . • . . . � ► . . 1 1 s � .= �- wx4s �, �`. ,�`-:�' -� � -s�:� �#` �``�S .w":�"+�+-' �`� `cam 1 • .ss;` '` ..�`'s, ,� `itis ': :' :��, ki .r" t � a '' 3• , r .�u. +. ,« Ars.v w. x "� -"s �, �,�iv ^%='rx4 �" �a'�a'U �' va - .•� "e ..' ` t�.. . '�� H .., 1 �� � ` . '^*s is ^ rn t na �' area r .a � a=^^ .r" xa ",��`-`.exi���x C •r'� < <s . .. N ":x_a � ' ' . �' � v ` .�I�� x ✓ i 1 .3:� �"+6 ?F � t<e.. ' f � i" 7 b"M h v.3`°.. P'.y ��`°� s.',+'K� xFs, i:. g„Y+ ;k�«I �—1 _ .�prr -+r�� �; . _ °f 4' ,a ° ,� e, ' �^a�s,� §"'� '*�°"� d .� w- i9 s'" �� � �' �; �, 1 ► > u fi �"{ %: 5✓ G W b h ��"#�•' , ;gym i<� y7 � �. LL � s "55� §'� '"�k �" � 9 '�� ��'�� � .T ' .°��,'; � �; y a,..� t slsoD puel 10 MOIA911 e 1 1 'e � 1 iii ji tt� y' siva aj le6aml C ' dI :) pue31D 4 � s uawa dw - pue : /UI :) BCI@ :) Ajijoej ieiide :) nnau ; o ;soy ay ; SJBAO :) fluawdolaAep nnau oi 96aeyp ieiide :) awi ; - auo e si - : aa; j:) edllH uy . Y � 4uawdOlOAOP t nnau jo 4ijauaq jeque4sqns 944 aoj „ p93aewae9 �� saa :j 4uawdolgAOP nnau o4 alge4nqia :pAe � � uai :) i� ns „ PaaN .. - paa i n baa „ AJVeuoiJmlodoad, , . aanleu ui Aiolein6w si - xe4 e fou si 991 4:) ed i uv • `h « xwm wwuyc'Su_pnra .sm'xwMlaarclp 4 • — 40 M V > O 0?s cnra � �. O E V 4w � Lo V1 O Oi- C. s 4.. . _ 4� CL 4 c O. 4w O = m40 r apim4uno :) u9pinq le :) siq . SME1 leviouaEl pue UOIjIljpSU0 :) 3lL;S - A4uno :) iape 4 :) - UON . LM cr o a� L L o a m o i • i Defendable Methodology Study that documents : - need for capital - cost of capital facilities - proportionate share of costs - maximum fee per unit of development • May charge less than actual impact oE mc m 0 (D 40 M c cn C J ;A ,C f0 m CL a a cm a �a m m c CL ' v n y n f ° c c m f f Xi v c iMz Jczlz ( xej sales Jm6ma ) sa :)jnos anUcIA9.1 aa; 1:) edwi = UOU aapisuo :) . 4uawdOlOAOP nnau wojj anUBAOJ aan4n ; aapisuo :) . sjso :) lelide :) 9.jnjnj jo aie4s ojeuoiliodoid 9.in SU3 . � I sonssi uoijejua old I � I p auffisse }} els 9Ae4 IsnLq . puels .iopun ol ( sea aq jsnW . 7t LM it it LM it 0 Lm nPt • • i ! i • • i +! LM i E u i • ca i ca0 Lo _ i • i i i • f iON AOL Lu- >01 it it ON it ! • • • i • • iMINJ i ON Mb i - i r CD c W tic mini LM Lo 40 � U 0 CL IVA W y (1) >4 � _ � ay+ M CL 40 0 LM x i-W tr� P n s k tv It oil E o • ON 0 I co 41 od mot to • 40 40 w a a c c E E a � a � � a � o u = L 40 L p U w Z v U v � I swea6oad lelidea dolOADC] - s ; uawaainbaa 6uipodai ouilop - sai ; 0 o ; S991 9Aijejjsiuiwpe Aed saill :) ui saa; 1:) Clllo :) m. ol padOlBAOP aq Isnua slua aami6e je :) opcijuj . q I vt' x 1 w � �G • • Lim SEEM C i • 0 C4 IA r 4dNOMEi • • iIMEN 40 • • imow AdowL4w MINE MEME EMEN V) NONE Lm NONE >0 • NONE • i cn SEEM ROME • • i' • YNI ii y 4� rv' kT 5 ON s3A so X) aj ed i puadxa ojL ueld lenuue ue • 0 L 0 = i CD U C . y M) y - • � s o y - c (A(A (A 0 m (A > (10 4w LM Lo (D C Ao 4w m 4W CL 4W 4) (A 4) (A yes � � w • LM • 1 it 4J 4J ' 0 I -- 11 c L f0 w v► d C y � O LE � '++ = Wm 0 d Lo (1) O = y O p p = a=, t�ii CL2 LM o ul � LM m 41 0 0 CL 4w m Summary of Table 3 . . ,, t + • Ie ksl. $e ,. es a `. i 1 Correctional Facilities Countywide 2 Solid Waste Countywide 3 Public Education Countywide 4 Library Countywide 5 Fire / Emergency Medical Services Countywide ( excluding ( EMS ) Indian River Shores ) 6 Law Enforcement Unincorporated County 7 Public Buildings Countywide 8 Park and Recreation Unincorporated County i f , 5 „ Fl Lm son • • • i � i • i � i polloods aq 4snw SS930mid . pailoods aq Isnw fSuililiL . POPlAoid suoijana ; suo ) - suo � ; e �ipap puel - suoilnqijluo :) /uelauom MOJ POPlAoid slipax) jadolgAg (] . = Y £t I� • i • i • Lm • Am E C ! i • • • • 0 cn w • i • • U Co • • i • • _ ! • 40 ! • • • Lm Lof LM CL = w £ • � ani w o x � w • i v, i U � a0 0 m s u =p i i. Lm 'C • m ui Lm E mw E m i • • E U s cn 0 • • • i • • i • LMi i, Al (NN3 " Id :) ) 9 :)jnos pajdax) e - algeuoseaa - salepdn uaamlaq sje9A jol isnIpe ol x9pul . sje9A 99JLjj JUBAD saal alepd n . �„ , ddb; iihi a t 7�', fr , .;,: i ol leadde leuil . " els 139 [ai ao ; da33e - a3ueuipap 99 ,q 1 :) ed I :) ijjejjL :)bI • 9 :) ueuip.io ay ; ui pouijap aq Isn ssa :) oid sleaddV . 77 spiepuejS Sol C r Q � 2 t�� 4 F Ilk . aM� �:flii Y v L m L = m m ■ W M4W O • O O M J mi 0 W 4W 4W N L L L E O V V V L ice w a 1■■1 Hice v . . . �. �a��. \ I 1 r � ■ • ON . @ � Lo r u ■ s : . C. Ei \ ? ? • \ : ■ ■ mAm m ow m � \1 : • � — « « « ■ � < \ \ ^ \ � \ ■ \ ■ � . . \�\ � � # � i a, d Fw r� eai ei Baid ! ( f= 6Z $ - b9 $ ) saueqimlia - ( 801= A' 6 $ - 9 £ 9 $ ) uoi ; e � np3 :) ilqnd - ( Z9i $ - jog $ ) alSpM piloS - ( EtPT $ m zf= $ ) suoII:) qrIjo :) leiluopisall Ali e :1 alBuiS . ( 96Z " T $ - £ S $ ) gab pue ilaed - ( 6T £ $ - 6 £ T $ ) s6uip � me :) ilqnd - ( 9 £ T $ - LV $ ) lu9w93JOJu3 mel - ( TZT $ E6 $ ) SW3 / 9-ild leiluepisall Alime � 91BUIS . ( � alqejL 99s ) sa :) .inoS 6uipun .q V;. x m - t - d r � .ti�? P'kb Kv sem, n. rn, � •• � ., a� . `. � n i « C : @ s @ @ m � ■ e � � m @ v � ■ � � • @ � � ■ Lo 41 � 1 w < e a \ � / � ■ \�\ VAN \1\ � i ■ ■ � \ �< CD . . \ \ � \ • � � ■ . \ / ^ • \�\ • \ » . . ■ . ■ 4 � � ? X . x CL � . . 4) 4W � � m Lm d R cn � O D a �40 Lo a a OAC o�C N a o ii U D iL I , , um ROOM wo- r . . CL Ms; • Wr - MW cn 00 CL , a'' o C m � LT U � N � 4 _ ■ ■ p _y W U < U v U ■ O L L41 t U a •fid m L a v� v a W u Lm a• o 0 v, CL LL c Lm 0 °' EN ° CD en V d c R N U p c co � CL .o 0 CL o, c E L Q� 0 1� L LL a O. ' , • ccM 0 L L • OL ma .fid > im 0mc 0C Mid La CL 0) i @ � O V '� � L > x V CG m f v a o�G Z ' � ° � LO � o � o O cp m " ti ago LTayi U � 4 N Eel- w� cl� Z3 (_D n -011 Uc � � U z. ' C N r a 0 ' O WLM M _ CL � i 0 c i E m • � V a c E . � m mm V m ® _ �_ o • - a • - V • �n 4W C p' m O Mu I� ca LL o co � LO � o � N 1 z cz co a i a'� o w L U � 4 � k „, tt ` ` • t a � i 3� �I «, a1 O a� 0 O o a, al o _ 4J 4W Elmo E L = . � m • L L oG a a O - C, , > is O Q LO L 0 � N � U � L 1 Vit., 44w e � y • fA fe^.� � 1 * r ' cc 4 " ybMa - h_ f Sn 1 �Y jzy Dx . L10%I ZAO �. um ? x%%C'5 ^ 4 f M It r v I SF • � gt _ X RRR .--flu . ca • x • It 1 ., • • 1 � • 1 aY qy f r rw - f r +X q Y Ul 10 4W 0 •um � A All , C. 1 v "v `yy • fie • • 1 1 R. 1 1 1 Y . . • • k`. ceLo• LM 0 yd • • 4 .. 4 • 1 • • 1 LU Lm LU 1 nn E • Sd 1 + • • • om rLL. C ' • 1 � 1 IF o 2 � a� L U CO � 4 m i (Q O m rl U M 6 m 4�, c Ali � i C i° 41 �`o c c s _ L O p m _ O a a rl a, o 4@J ,F, G R m C a a w LM ® = N a c i a L 9 C 7 7 y y U R y �° cr- o cn a . Q • N 4NJ O 4„J v .. s Im 4,Je Q « L.7 r 0 £ LL a1 ° m m y m 20 y d S cul ul 0 in CO � 3 ° sv `• W 0 '- 3 L LL uJ a co •f o its u, � o z N zz0 a i � w Cw m � N U � M Q UNION ff CO U) 0 MINNOW C . . . _ SOMOR MINIM a U _ OffLam M 3 tC L 5 MINIM_ Mimi minii = v) G=7 m C7 Illmin fC to II"II iJ� 47 �= V 0° HEMENO ON AMEMEEm MINIM CL LM m m V C O. = > L m mw O O \/ Ail N A . L . _ ._ W C:mimmus (v V w ui E. E . m w v � ® • _ L O G7 O m E. O fC mAD flOMEN. O . V A M O ?� . —• O. y �+ • — W 4 ybj�- /per 1 • mi Lu Cr m C6 uj co O _> N N � z co a � c m � LT ayi U � Eel4 O .V U c 4.1 U m Vm E > c M i+ ' 0 =D1 0 c d m V < CL 71. ; i . LN 41 C 41 M ,�%= (A o L 4� 'Q (Aw on V .. C 0 LA V M i 0) V • CL V 4a CL Lm MKWE L'- ma. - .- e w Z s y fix, r co Q i O Lzz N OC: CT3 co a i F� � a . o m m L m U � Q � 4 a� z cm CX U .� c c LL L o v p = 0 Ln CL > p �. E � V 0 L `T> OO i O O 0 c I N� a � \ a3 Revenue Source Eligible Pr2gLi m Area Optional Sales Tax All program areas, except for Solid Waste Ad-Valorem/ General Fund All program areas, except for Solid Waste Municipal Service Taxing Unit Correctional Facilities, Law Enforcement, Parks Emergency Services District Fire/ EMS Assessment Fees/Charges Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Public Buildings, Parks, Solid Waste Grants All program areas Bequests Libraries Tree Fine Fund Parks Florida Boating Improvement Program Parks Parks Improvement Fund Parks Ilk 8 s ,r urrent funding sources for capital expansion expenditures include , Public Education Capital Outlay ( PECO ) • Capital Outlay and Debt Service ( CO &DS) • " Classroom for Kids " revenues Pill Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study March 16, 2005 Q- 11 Technical Report Presentation e � 4 a Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Fee/ Land Use SF ( 1 ) Office Retail hianufactu - Fast: Food ( ) ( ) ring Unit du 1,000 Sf 1,000 Sf 11000 Sf 1,000 Sf Correctional $ 161 $ 145 $ 294 $52 $815 Solid Waste $ 144 $ 179 $448 $448 $628 Public Bldgs $210 $ 1,071 $ 1, 558 $383 $4,314 Libraries $571 N /A N /A N /A N /A Fire/ EMS $308 $275 $559 $98 $ 1,549 Law Enforcement $268 $237 $482 $85 $ 1,335 Schools $ 1,924 N / A N/A N /A N /A Parks $ 1, 728 N /A N /A N /A N /A Transportation $5, 358 $7, 568 $8,047 $ 1,579 $43,230 Total $ 10,670 $% 475 $ 11, 390 $ 2, 645 $51, 871 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study March 16, 2005 D- 12 Technical Report Presentation 4Slr • Fee/ County IRC Brevard St. Lucie Martin Collier Osceola Correctional $161 $72 N /A $ 149 $118 N /A Solid Waste $ 144 $160 N / A N /A N / A $97 Public Bldgs $210 N / A $347 $342 $239 N /A Libraries $571 $64 $ 182 $313 $296 N /A Fire/ EMS $308 $93 $294 $113 $418 $93 Law $268 N / A $ 172 $47 N /A N /A Enforcement Schools $ 1,924 $4,445 $3, 122 N /A $ 1, 778 $9,708 Parks $ 1,728 N / A $456 $1,639 $ 1,453 N /A Transporta - $5,358 $ 1,371 $ 1,909 $2,400 $5, 592 $4, 286 tion Total $ 10,670 $6, 205 $6, 482 $50003 9,894 $ 1.4, 184 `UJ to v Projected Revenues Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study March 16, 2005 D- 13 Technical Report Presentation a • _ _ _ — — _ — 4 �k .' SOMME MINOR > M LM • ' fi _. 3� . IMMIR eSF" •Low Immmm e. x INNER LM IM 1 • • I 1 " • �j - 1600 • ' S �, k � F (G • • INNER BEMIS MOMME • , momml MENEM n WOMEN • 1 •_ Si. 1 I 1 I a � ' 1 1 a'' o U � 4 C13 y' U j N ,V-� co to dO' 00LLn 0 M 01 LA N 00 O O rl N N E iA ift. iff- iov- iPr ` Z � ri N N N N N � U h ti h Q LO i O N a � Schedule Workshops and Public Hearings — April & May Adoption Hearing — May Finalization of Brochures and Formulas — May Date Public Body Time Location April 21, Professional Services 12 : 15 County 2005 Advisory Committee p. m . Administration Building April 28, Planning and Zoning 7 : 00 p. m . County 2005 Commission Administration Building May 3, 2005 Board of County 9 : 00 a . m . County Commissioners Administration Building May 17, Board of County 9 : 00 a . m . County 2005 Commissioners Administration Building Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study March 16, 2005 D- 16 Technical Report Presentation a'' o w � co c ayi U <0 � 4 N 41IJMINE A Q7 C m u O U a 4J C1 Q i _O o LM Op to u _ .0 i- 41 p LU c c . _ o > ; ` O O O +� i— U O � 7 •tA p �.+ Q C C = . _ � > fl. E N E C C C Q U c Q LO i O N N a i Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA RELATING TO IMPACT FEES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 20059 between Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County") and the City of Sebastian, a body corporate existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City"), provides for the City to collect Impact Fees for Countywide Capital Facilities from all new development in the City pursuant to County Ordinance No . 2005 - adopted by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (the "County Commission") on the day of , 2005 , and as subsequently amended, and to transfer said Impact Fees to the County for deposit into appropriate, segregated, interest-bearing County Impact Fee trust funds for appropriation and expenditure only in accordance with the Ordinance . WITNESSETH : WHEREAS , the County has adopted the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance (the "Ordinance") which imposes Countywide Impact Fees ("Impact Fees") on new development in order to accommodate the fiscal impacts of new development on Capital Facilities ; and WHEREAS, the County has developed a Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, which includes capital projects for the Capital Facilities to be funded, in full or in part, with Impact Fee funds collected pursuant to the Ordinance, and which identifies the specific system improvements needed to meet the projected demand for Capital Facilities from anticipated new growth and development Countywide ; and WHEREAS , the School Board of Indian River County (the " School Board") has developed a five-year facility plan, which includes capital projects for public education facilities to be funded in part with Impact Fee Funds collected pursuant to the Ordinance, and which identifies the specific education facilities improvements needed to meet the projected demand for public education facilities generated by new growth and development Countywide ; and WHEREAS, the County is authorized, pursuant to the powers conferred upon it through, inter alia, Article VIII of the Florida Constitution and Chapters 125 and 163 , Florida Statutes , to adopt proportionate Countywide Impact Fees in order to offset the cost of providing Countywide Capital Facilities , the need for which is generated by new development and the benefits of which will accrue to new development within incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County; and WHEREAS, the County has prepared an Impact Fee calculation methodology, which is set forth in methodology reports for each Capital Facility (the "Methodology Reports") for which Impact Fees will be collected, which ensures that the Impact Fees comply with all legal standards , including, but not limited to , proportionate share/rational nexus principles as required by impact fee case law ; and 90879 .006 Page 1 of 10 DRAFT March 1 S, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS , corrections, solid waste, County public buildings, libraries , fire and emergency services and County roadway facilities are provided solely by the County, within both the City and the unincorporated areas of the County, and, therefore, Impact Fees imposed on new development pursuant to the Ordinance and this Agreement comply with the proportionate share/rational nexus requirement ; and WHEREAS , public education services and facilities are provided solely by the School Board, within both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, and, therefore, Impact Fees for public education facilities imposed on new development pursuant to Ordinance No . 2005 - and this Agreement comply with the proportionate share/rational nexus requirement ; and WHEREAS, the County has entered into an interlocal agreement with the School Board to facilitate the transfer of Public Education Impact Fee funds to the School Board for expenditure in accordance with Ordinance No . 2005 - , which requires that Impact Fee funds be spent to the reasonable benefit of those paying the fees , including new development within the incorporated municipalities of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the City provides necessary Capital Facilities for law enforcement and parks and recreation services within the corporate boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, in order to meet the proportionate share/rational nexus requirement, Impact Fees for Countywide Capital Facilities must be imposed, calculated, and collected uniformly throughout the County, including as may be applicable, within the City; and WHEREAS , new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of the new Capital Facilities needed to serve such growth and development, as specified in the adopted Capital Improvement Element (CIE) , at adopted level of service (LOS ) standards ; and WHEREAS , the parties agree that the purpose of this Interlocal Agreement is to permit the City to cooperate with and assist the County in collecting Impact Fees for Countywide Capital Facilities and to ensure that such facilities are available and adequate to maintain adopted LOS standards ; and WHEREAS , the City concurs with the County' s methodology for the calculation of the Impact Fees imposed by the Ordinance and as set forth and adopted in the Methodology Reports, and that the Impact Fees imposed by the Ordinance are reasonable and proportionate to the impact of new development on Capital Facilities ; and WHEREAS , in addition to the Impact Fees required by the Ordinance , the City will assess against each building permit application an administrative charge equal to three percent (3 %) of the fees due in order to offset the costs to the City and County of administering the impact fee program ; and 90879.006 Page 2 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS , the City will retain an amount equal to two percent (2 %) of the fees and will transmit an amount equal to one percent ( 1 %) to the County to offset administrative costs ; and WHEREAS, the City and the County agree that all Impact Fees collected by the City, plus the County ' s portion of the administrative charge, will be transferred to the County and that Impact Fee revenues will be spent for the purpose of funding Countywide Capital Facilities to meet the demands resulting from projected new development Countywide; and WHEREAS , this Agreement is not intended to and does not alter or change the responsibilities of each of the parties hereto, nor does it relieve any party of any function, duty, or obligation otherwise imposed by law, including, but not limited to , decisions relating to zoning, subdivision, land use, development approval, densities, and design of proposed development projects or any other aspects of development other than the need for Countywide Capital Facilities provided by the County and School Board to serve the demand for such facilities generated by new development ; and WHEREAS, Chapter 125 , Florida Statutes, County Government, subsection 125 . 01 ( 1 ) (p), authorizes counties to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies ; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163 , Florida Statutes, Intergovernmental Programs , Part I, Miscellaneous Programs, Section 163 . 01 , the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 , " subsection 163 . 01 (4) , provides that public agencies of the State of Florida may exercise jointly with any other public agency of the State of Florida any power, privilege, or authority which such agencies share in common, and which each might exercise separately; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163 , Florida Statutes, Intergovernmental Programs , Part I, Miscellaneous Programs, Section 163 . 01 , the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 ," subsection 163 . 01 (5), provides that a joint exercise of power by such public agencies may be made by contract in the form of an interlocal agreement ; and WHEREAS , the County and the City are "public agencies" within the meaning of Chapter 163 , Florida Statutes, Intergovernmental Programs , Part I, Section 163 . 01 , the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 . " NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements herein contained and assumed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties, the County and City agree as follows : SECTION 1 . RECITALS INCORPORATED . The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2 . TITLE . This Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County is referred to herein as the "Agreement. " 90879.006 Page 3 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 3 . PURPOSE . The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that Impact Fees necessary for the adequate provision of Countywide Capital Facilities (a) are imposed upon, and collected from, new development in the City, including public development projects, in an equitable and fair manner; (b) are transferred, upon collection by the City, to the County for placement in a segregated, interest-bearing trust fund account; and (c) are appropriated and expended in accordance with the Ordinance and applicable laws . SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS . For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as indicated below : Building Permit means a permit issued by the City that authorizes the commencement of a development activity that results in the creation of new floor area or one or more new dwelling units, including an expansion to a single-family residence that results in an increase in square footage from a lower size category to a higher size category, as provided in the County ' s impact fee schedule, and thereby generates a demand for Countywide Capital Facilities . Capital Facilities means capacity-producing land, buildings , improvements, and equipment necessary for the provision of public services to new development. Countywide means related to or applicable to areas within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Indian River County. Countywide Capital Facilities means those Capital Facilities that are provided throughout the City and the unincorporated areas of the County, which are not otherwise provided by the City, and for which the County imposes Impact Fees Countywide . "Countywide Capital Facilities" include, but are not limited to , Capital Facilities related to corrections , solid waste, County public buildings, libraries, fire and emergency services, public education and County roadway improvements . Impact Fee means a fee assessed pursuant to the Ordinance and collected and transmitted pursuant to this Agreement to offset the costs of providing Countywide Capital Facilities necessary to serve new development within the County. Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance means Ordinance 2005 - , approved by the County Commission on the day of , 2005 , including all amendments thereto adopted in the manner prescribed in this Agreement . Methodology Reports means the reports , and all amendments thereto, adopted by the County Commission, prepared in support of the proportionate Impact Fees established and imposed by the Ordinance . SECTION 5 . RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY. (a) The City will establish a segregated, interest-bearing account, into which all Impact Fee funds collected by the City, pursuant to this Agreement, will be maintained until such time as they are transferred to the County consistent with the Ordinance and the terms of this Agreement . 90879.006 Page 4 of 10 DRAFT March 1 S, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (b) The City will notify each Building Permit applicant that, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the City will collect a County Impact Fee for Countywide Capital Facilities pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance and this Agreement. (c) The City will calculate and collect Impact Fees for Countywide Capital Facilities based on the fees established by the countywide impact fee ordinance . (d) In addition to the Impact Fees, the City will assess an administrative charge equal to three percent (3 %) of the total Impact Fees due for each application to offset the costs to the City and County of collecting Impact Fees and administering the impact fee program. The City will retain an amount equal to two percent (2 %) of the total Impact Fees due and, on a monthly basis , will transmit an amount equal to one percent ( 1 %) of the Impact Fees to the County for administrative costs . ( 1 ) The City will earmark its portion of the administrative charge and limit its use to the costs of administering the Impact Fee program including, but not limited to , salaries and other costs associated with administering, calculating, collecting, and accounting for Impact Fee revenues and other coordination with the County as provided herein; and (2) The County and City will monitor administrative costs on an annual basis and adjust the percentage being charged for administrative costs as necessary based on actual annual costs . (e) The City will not issue any Building Permit for which an Impact Fee is due pursuant to the Ordinance and this Agreement until the Building Permit applicant has paid the Impact Fee in full, unless the Building Permit applicant provides written documentation from the County evidencing that : ( 1 ) an appeal has been filed with the County, pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance, and that the Building Permit applicant has paid the portion of the Impact Fees not in dispute and submitted cash or an irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to the portion of the Impact Fee in dispute, which cash deposit or letter of credit has been approved by the County; (2) the applicant is due a credit against the Impact Fee imposed by the Ordinance, in full or in part, which results in an Impact Fee amount different from that set forth in the Ordinance ; (3 ) the applicant is otherwise exempt from or not subject to the terms of the Ordinance ; or (4) an independent fee calculation study has been performed and approved by the County, which results in an Impact Fee amount different than that set forth in the Ordinance . (f) For land uses not listed in the Ordinance or the County' s impact fee administrative manuals, the City will refer the Building Permit applicant to the County for calculation of the applicable Impact Fee . Once advised in writing by the 90879.006 Page 5 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA County of the appropriate Impact Fee, the City will collect the Impact Fee according to the provisions of this Agreement. (g) Any dispute by a Building Permit applicant as to the amount or applicability of the Impact Fee will be resolved between the applicant and the County. The City will direct Building Permit applicants to the County in the event the applicant : ( 1 ) claims an Impact Fee credit in lieu of payment of the Impact Fee required by the Ordinance; (2) wishes to appeal the assessment, collection, or expenditure of Impact Fees ; (3 ) seeks the refund of an Impact Fee paid for failure to expend Impact Fee funds within the timeframes set forth in the Ordinance; or (4) claims that the land use proposed does not generate the impacts assumed by the County as reflected in the Impact Fees explicitly imposed by the Ordinance . (h) The City will accept and review all applications for refund of Impact Fees for Building Permits revoked, expired, or withdrawn and, where a refund is appropriate, will send a letter to the County requesting the County to refund Impact Fees to the Building Permit applicant. Administrative charges provided for in subsection 5 (d) above will not refunded. (i) By the tenth working day of each month, the City will transfer to the County all Impact Fee funds , including the County' s portion of the administrative charges, collected in the preceding calendar month . 0 ) At the time of each monthly transfer, the City will provide a report to the County indicating for each Countywide Capital Facility: ( 1 ) the number of building permits issued by land use category, including, as appropriate, the number of residential units by type and the amount of nonresidential floor area by land use ; (2) the date of Building Permit issuance and Impact Fee payment; (3 ) the name and address of the Building Permit applicant and property owner; (4) the address of the property and the Building Permit number for each Building Permit application ; (5 ) the amount of Impact Fees collected by Capital Facility type and by type of land use ; (6) the number and amount of any refund requests made by the City for revoked, expired, or withdrawn Building Permits ; and (7) any other information agreed to by the parties to be necessary for the proper accounting and expenditure of Impact Fee funds . 90879.006 Page 6 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY. (a) The County will receive Impact Fee funds from the City and will place such funds in segregated Impact Fee accounts, by Countywide Capital Facility, as provided for in the Ordinance . The County will appropriate and expend Impact Fee funds only in accordance with the Ordinance and applicable law. (b) The County will review all applications for credits, refunds for failure to expend funds within the timeframes set forth in the Ordinance, independent fee calculation studies, exemptions , and appeals . (c) Based on the refund requests submitted by the City described in subsection 5 (h) of this Agreement, the County will refund Impact Fees to the Building Permit Applicant for revoked, expired, or withdrawn building permits , pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance . Administrative charges provided for in subsection 5 (d) above will not refunded . (d) The County will provide thirty (30) days notice to the City prior to any amendment_ to the Ordinance, including any change to the amount of an Impact Fee imposed on a particular Countywide Capital Facility. During this period, the City may provide comments and input regarding the proposed amendment. The County ' s notice to the City will describe the nature of the proposed amendment and will include any staff reports or Methodology Reports prepared in support of the amendment. Amendments to the Ordinance that are made subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, including changes to the amount of the Impact Fees assessed for Countywide Capital Facilities, shall be binding and shall not affect the obligations or duties imposed by this Agreement upon the parties . (e) County staff will cooperate with and provide guidance to the City in the assessment and collection of Impact Fees, implementation of the Ordinance, and compliance with the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 7. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent allowed by law, the County will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers , agents, and employees from and against all liability, claims, suits, costs, and attorney fees in any manner resulting from or arising out of fees collected by the City and transmitted to the County under the terms of this Agreement and the Ordinance, unless caused by the negligence or the reckless , willful , or illegal misconduct of the City or the City ' s officers, agents, or employees . SECTION 8. DURATION, TERMINATION, AND MODIFICATION. 74 (a) This Agreement will remain in full force and effect unless terminated by the parties pursuant to the procedure set forth in subsection 8 (b) . (b) This Agreement may be terminated by the City or County upon ninety (90) days notice to the other party; however, termination of this Agreement does not relieve the obligation of any person undertaking development within the City or County that creates a demand for Countywide Capital Facilities from payment of Impact Fees imposed under the Ordinance . 90879. 006 Page 7 of 10 DRAFT March 1 S, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (c) This Agreement may be modified at any time by the mutual consent of the parties and in the same manner as its original adoption. SECTION 9 . NOTICE . (a) Unless specified by a party in writing otherwise, all notices, demands, or other papers required to be given or made by this Agreement, or which may be given or made, by either party to the other, will be given or made in writing and addressed as follows : If to the City: City Clerk, City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 -4165 If to the County: County Administrator, Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (b) The parties will consider notice to be properly given if ( 1 ) personally delivered; (2) sent by certified U. S . Mail, return receipt requested ; or (3 ) sent by an overnight letter delivery company. (c) The parties will consider the effective date of notice to be the date personally delivered; or, if sent by U . S . Mail, the date of postmark; or, if sent by an overnight letter delivery company, the date the notice was picked up by the overnight letter delivery company from the party giving notice . SECTION 10. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement, and its interpretation and performance, shall be governed and construed by the applicable laws of the State of Florida. SECTION 11 . FURTHER ASSURANCES . The County and the City will perform the provisions of this Agreement in good faith and will take no actions in conflict with the terms or intent of this Agreement. The County and City in good faith will take all actions necessary to implement the terms and purpose of this Agreement. SECTION 12 , CONFLICT. To the extent of any conflict between this Agreement and any existing County or City agreement, this Agreement will be deemed to be controlling . This Agreement is not intended to amend or repeal any existing County or City ordinance . 90879.006 Page 8 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 13 , SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Agreement is , for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement . SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE . This Agreement will become effective upon its filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, as required by Section 163 . 01 ( 11 ) , Florida Statutes . APPROVED this day of 12005 , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Thomas S . Lowther, Chairperson ATTEST . Jeffrey K. Barton Date Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM . William G. Collins, County Attorney Date APPROVED this day of , 2005 . CITY OF SEBASTIAN By: Nathan McCollum, Mayor 90879.006 Page 9 of 10 DRAFT March l5, 2005 Draft Interlocal Agreement Between the County and City of Sebastian Related to Impact Fees INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST : Sally Maio , City Clerk Date REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM : Richard Stringer, City Attorney Date 90879.006 Page 10 of 10 DRAFT March 15, 2005 Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee Schedule - Unincorporated Indian River County ?'«*', 1w�tP _�,+ `` -# +�,,- wig �v .c V. .. :: y @, .. �.�� aw'i4x @i° .,'_ � ' , fir. .= s `-€ „x,4 i CIS a �:. z' i'1m:u+ir'"w�k'.1 I (�z4� �r i •' 'w�z.'�+...M.,o 9:� ,. -- IVA ' brAty001 . 0 , fatee a tj '7 ,Nov _ C 9Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sf(under air) du $3,452 $ 139.62 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du $ 139.33 $ 182.45 $267. 17 $233.02 $496.29 $5,202 $ 155.95 $ 139.33 $203.83 $298.57 $ 1 ,867.70 $ 1 ,501 .94 $89279.52 $248.39 $89527.91 2,500 sCor Greater (under air) du $5,838 1260.24 $554 .31 $ 1 ,867.70 11 ,677.45 $ 10,359.38 Accessory Single Family $ 169.67 $ 139.33 $221 .56 $324.63 $283. 19 1310.75 $ 10,670. 16 du $2,842 $ 105.47 $602.88 $ 1 ,867.70 $ 11 ,271 .86 Multi Family du $ 104.49 $ 137.75 $201. 14 1175.29 $ 1 ,824.90 1338. 16 $ 11 ,610.02 Mobile Home $2,842 1105.47 $ 104.49 $ 137.75 $374.74 $824.77 $ 1 , 129.39 $5,895.04 $201 . 14 $ 175.29 $374.74 $ 176.85 $69071 .89 du $ 1 ,957 1123.00 $ 139.33 $ 160.58 $233.68 $824.77 $ 1 , 129.39 $5,895.04 $ 176.85 $6,071 .89 Transient, Assisted, Group 1185.46 $437. 16 $846.05 11 , 194.64 15,276.90 Hotel 5158.31 15,435.21 Motel Room 13,271 159. 19 $ 170.79 1112.46 $96.91vl t $39. 19 Nursing Home Room $ 1 ,764 159. 19 $ 170.79 $ 112.46 n " 539. 19 x � i rz ; . 13,749.54 ACLF Bed 1560 $98.06 161 .30 $309.26 196 91 ry x w 1112.49 $3,862.03 $449 198.06 $ 186.29 $ 160 54 011 i � � 12,242.54 167.28 12;309.82 Omce and Financial _ 1114.60 $309.26 1186.29 116054 , = 1`i, aw .'< ` 0 11 ,375.45 141 .26 $ 19416.71 Medical Office 11 ,357.28 Bank 1 ,000 sf _ 115,553 1170.47 $217.70 .. $1 i3Ooo sf - _ 1323.& $2790$ 16,289 = , 1194.41 1217.70 11 ,440.39 $369.35 $31829 ue , n a "' - r 4 117,807. 18 $534.22 $ 18,341 .40 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf $27,607 $ 159.35 $217.70 1564.87 Office 50,000 GSF or less $ 1 , 180.45 1302.75 $260.89 " lour a $ 18'829' 14 $ 19,394.01 I ,000S $7,348 $ 14032 $ 174. 16 " d 129,728. 14 1891 .84 OtCice greater than 50,000 GSF $ 1 ,040.03 $266.60 1229 74 Iw �" . 130,619.98 1 ,000 sf $5,326 $74.22 $ 174. 16 Industrial $549.53 $ 141 .00 19, 198.85 $275.97 Manufacturing $ 121 51 �- a N _ 16,386.42 19,474.82 8 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,533 $50. 18 1191 .59 16,578A1 Warehouse $435.40 $371 .70 _ 1 ,000 sf 195.34 152 i S n 'x Mini-Warehouse 11 ,958 $38.56 187.08 $285.70 " 12,567.77 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,003 173 .26 $63. 13 1 177.03 12,644.80 General Industrial 17.61 $34.83 $40.09 $ 14.46 w ,_ . 12,505.73 1 ,000 sf 12,797 168.51 1435.40 11246 b� q� $75. 17 129580.90 Concrete Plant Acre $507.74 $ 130. 16 - $ 1 , 112.45 Sand Mining 16,261 $ 151 .04 1394. 13 $ 1 , 119.47 $286.96 $ 112 16 ,' x 1121 .53 51 ,145.82 14,050.97 Acre $803 119.33 124728 , „u Ir . 18,459.58 14, 172.50 Retail, Gross Square Feet $394. 13 $ 143.58 $36.73 $31 .65 0 ' ` '� $253.80 $89713.68 $ 1 ,428.42 142.85 Retail 50,000 GSF or less $ 1 ,471 .27 1 ,000 sf . $9,837 $286.66 $435.40 $ 1 ,517. 16 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf $7,813 $285.86 1544'61 1469 31 "' }"' 'p- �;Oo - - w°1 $ 13,090. 14 Retail 100,001 GSF to 2009000 GSF $435.40 $ 1 ,513.03 1543.09 $468 00 t 1 9 1392.70 113,482.84 1 ,000 sC 16,860 1292.47 $435.40 111 ,058.38 Retail over 2009000 GSF 1 ,000 sf 16,977 $ 1 ,548.01 1555.65 $478.82 �� � � r _ 133L75 111 ,390. 13 Gas Station $ 199.82 $435.40 $ 1 ,057.52 $379.63 132714 x , - $ 10, 170.35 1305. 11 $ 10t475.46 Fuel pos 16,694 1172.58 $72.28 $912.97 1327.67 ;. � 19,376.51 $281 59,657.81 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf $ 13,212 1282 54 7 $8 462 24 Quality Restaurant 1170'87 1217.70 1904.47 `` Q ty I 'DD0sf $20,072 $677.48 1324.63 $279.75 _ - $ 15, 109.42 $253 .87 18,716. 11 Restaurant $609.55 $3,585.31 $ 1 ,287. 12 51 , 109. 16 ' 1453 .28 115,562.70 1 ,000 sf $26,646 $734.47 $609.55 $3,886.80 11 ,395.40 127,340.62 1820.22 128, 160.84 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 19000 sf 141 ,971 5791 .46 11 ,202.47 $34,474.69 Su ermarket 1609.55 SI 07629 11 ,503.67 135,508.93 p 1 ,000 sf 11 ,295.77 1 � 11 ,034.24 1203 .42 150,359.74 Car Wash Ba s $ 13,288 1783.71 11 ,076.71 1386-48 1333.04 ` xww ' .t rye, 11 ,510.79 151 ,870.53 Convenience Store $ 17,232 1189.00 $ 141 .50 $ 1 ,000. 18 1359.08 116,071 .36 1482. 14 1 ,000s 126,459 $309.43 �. ' 116,553.50 Furniture Store 142498 1783.71 $2,248.90 119,231 . 19 1 ,000 sf 11 ,592 131 .85 1435.40 1168.36 160.51 152. 15 � � 5� z � 131 ,419.76 1942.59 $32,362.35 " 12,340.27 170.21 12,410.48 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1 of 6 Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee schedule - Unincorporated Indian River County Recreatlonal $ 15,564.37 $466.93 $ 16,031 .30 Go1CCourse hole $ 13,090 $244.69 $6933 51 ,294.87 $464.88 540060 9i`iig,t $9, 111 . 19 $273 .34 $9,384 .53 Rac uet Club/Flealth Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf $6,556 $237.78 $217.70 $ 1 ,256.67 $451 .75 $38929 d rii � Ys .. $ lt075.46 $32.26 $ 1 , 107.72 Acre $769 $ 15.22 $156.74 $80.66 $28.92 $2492 f` - `i Court Park *�,' a $ 13,686.58 $410.60 $ 14.097. 18 Tennis Court Court $ 11 ,368 $232.47 $33.84 $ 1 ,230.01 $441 .66 $380.60 by $ 1 ,366. 17 $40.99 $ 1 ,407. 16 Marina Berths $ 1 , 132 515.32 $83.51 $81 . 14 $29. 111 $25 09 Governmental - $ 18,594.49 $557.83 $ 19, 152.32 Post Office 1 ,000 sf $ 16,518 $ 177.58 $ 174. 16 $ 1 ,096.63 $337.38 529074 a k $219888.65 $656.66 $22,545.31 Library 1 ,000 sf $20,023 $ 172.07 $ 174. 16 $910.78 $326.92 $28172 ! $29,020.50 $870.62 $299891 . 12 of $27,66 3 $260.82 $ 174. 16 ' , $495.52 $42700 .. Government Office Buildingtil 1 1000 - Mi $ 11 ,995.37 $359.86 $ 12,355.23 1 ,000 sf $ 11,205 $ 135.82 $ 174. 16dt. ,� $258.03 $222 36 Government Office Complex(') `� ` '+, -- � _� $ 1 ,247.90 $37.44 $ 1 ,285.34 111 Bed $449 . , ,. a $28.74 $461 .59 $ 165.74 $ 14283 X>X� irtr n - -^a � ` ° Jail :`�"' 7 Miscellaneous 1,OOOsf $ 70,555 $ 101 .06 $435.40 $748.50 $ 192.00 $ 165.46 $$127,,919671 ..4727 $$326358..9825 $$128,,526030..364 Day Cam Center $ 153.26 $829.88 $297.99 Hospital 1 ,000 sf $6,267 $ 156.85 2 $256.79 °- G it'+ ' e $6,360.56 $ 190.82 $6,55 1.38 Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf $49189 $ 163 .56 $217.70 $ 1 ,211 .78 $310.74 $267.78 ` • 6 $3,601 .47 $ 108.04 53,709.51 Church 1 ,000 sf $3,016 553.39 $60.96 $282.30 $ 101 .42 $87.40 $35,632.94 $ 1 ,068.99 $36,701 .93 Screen $26,940 $849.06 $347.55 $4,493. 18 $ 1 ,613.09 $ 1 ,390.06 Movie Theater $274.89 $8.25 $283. 14 School (Elementary and Middle) Student $ 141 $9.42 $21 .45 $69.72 $ 17.89 $ 15.41 $680.69 $20.42 $701 . 11 Student $513 $ 12.02 $24.24 $88.92 $22.83 $ 19.68 $ 1 , 156.75 534.70 $ 1 , 191 .45 School (Hi h) $24.24 $77.25 $19.79 $ 17 05 School (Colle e) Student $ 1 ,008 S 10 42 - € $ 1 ,834 Fire Station ° .86 $55.05 $ 1 ,889.91 of 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,158 $63.40 $ 174. 16 $335.50 cility, or igates the d for the , it should not pay the fee. In ail will not y the correctional ities ally, if not create a d for e fa ( 1 ) Government uses arc exempt from paying impact fees used to develop fee and a new use. Thisioffice selegbuilding or office development d not pay the tubae bait d ngs hmpact fee, tc. Spec fie government uses that are not inc in the schedule, such as other sheriffs office, will be classified under governmentoffice impact fee, a new ftre/EMS station will not pay the fim1EMS imp government building or complex as appropriate. These uses will not pay the impact fee used to develop them (e.g., a sheriffs office will not pay the law enforcement impact fee, etc.). 2 of 6 Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee Schedule Incorporated Indian River County excluding The Town of Indian River Shores . ;! fi s� :- si ,�a � M_1 - '1� ,�. � '"st ' dp ' r ,a �druA `fi $ " +=, ', 4 H Mi adA- 7' li'� ,w k: ; � s . '�`' i „ i a �„ w""dg�Ln "� s bS' r� s � 1 iii ,,�r'�,� � ?-x x � 9 a+'�u � . . * v itkC°'i 1 c r� �r� � '�., ' '� ' � F z g, 4 r- o� .� pN6n , �,�,'Ib i k �� m : � 'i � F , .' A� iN�',. . . � , „ �I ,,��� 1 .5� � ," '! t:� ,- _ 4 , - .,.�-���4a, �l�a Aa a . .�, v � � �Residential , . , ,. ,. � 1'u 1k . .g ,pr: r 4�i11 . r "�+Single FamilyLower than 1 ,500 sf (under adu $3 ,452 $ 139.62 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du $ 139.33 $ 182.45 . $ 1 ,867.70$5,202 $ 155.95 $ 139.33 $203.83 56,544.5 $ 196.34 $6,740.90 2,500 sf or Greater (under airdu $5,838 $298 .57 $554.31 $ 1 ,867.70 58,421 .69 $252.6Accessory Single Family $ 169.67 $ 139.33 $221 .56 $324.63 5602.88 58,674.3Multi Famildu $2,842 $ 105.47 $ 104.49 $ 1 ,867.70 5274.915137.75 $9, ( 63 .77 $9,438.68 ydu $2,842 $ 105.47 $201 . 14 $374.74 $824.77 $4,590.36 $4,728.07 $ 104.49 $ 137.75 $201 . 14 $ 137.71Mobile Homedu 51 ,957 $ 123.00 $374.74 $824.77 $4,590.36 $ 137.71 $4,728.07 Transient, Assisted, Group 5139.33 $ 160.58 $233 .68 5437. 16 $846.05 $3,896.80 $4,013.70 Hotel Room $ f 16.90 53,271 559. 19 5170.79 Motel Room 539. 19 5112 46 � ,` a - r 51 ,764 $39 19 53,652.63 Nursing Home 559. 19 5170.79 $ 11246 " �� '^'� � r $ 109.58 $3,762.21 Bed $560 $98.06 $6L30 " 52, 145.63 564.37 $2,210.00 ACLF 5309.26 5186 29 , 'ir, . " , Bed 5449 $98.06 $ 114.60 $309.26 $ 1 ,214.91 $36.45 Office and Financial - 5186.29 `'£` pa �9 rip -, r ,i $ 1 ,251 .36 dal' u- i " $ 1 , 157.21 534.72 Medical Office 1 ,000 I ,000 ar u . . Hank $2t7. 31 ,263:0 $323.8 n , . : ,1 ,000 sf $ 16,289 $ 194.41 $ 17,528.09 $525.84 $18,053.93 Bank w/Drive-in 5217.70 $ 1 ,440.39 $36935 qNr 1 ,000 sf $27,607 $ 159.35 $ 1 , 180.45 $302.7 $ 18,510.85 519,066. 18 Office 50,000 GSF or less 5217.70 � ' � b a - $555.33 1 ,000 sf 57,348 $ 140.32 $ 174. 16 '�` - -'� $29,467.25 $884.02 $30,35 L27 $1 ,040.03 $26660 ni +'' ' •: Office greater than 50,000 QSF 1 ,000 sf 55,326 �'i $8,969. 11 $269.07 Industr(al $74.22 5174. 16 $549.53 $ 14100 , � R $9,238. 18 Manufacturing - - 56,264.91 $ 187.95 $6,452.86 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,533 $50. 18 Warehouse $435.40 5371 .70 1 ,000 sf 51 ,958 $38.56 595 34 $2,485.62 Mini-Warehouse $87.08 $285.70 $74.57 1,000 sf $ 1 ,003 $7.6I 573 26 $2,442.60 $2,560. 19 General Industrial 1 ,000 sf 534.83 $40.09 $ 1446 57328 $2,515.88 Concrete Plant $2,797 $68.51 5435.40 $507.74 i. $ 19099.99 $33.00 $ 1 , 132.99 Acre $6,261 $ 151 .04 513016 $3,938.81 $394. 13 $ 1 , 119.47 $286.96 5118. 16 $4,056.97 Sand Mining Acre $803 $ 19.33 $89212.60 $246.38 $8,458.98 Retail, Gross Square Feet 5394. 13 $ 143.58 536 73 _ „ $1 ,396.77 $41 .90 51 ,438.67 Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf 599837 5286.66 Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 5435.40 51 ,517. 16 $544161 ?� ' � - I ,000sf $7,813 5285.86 5435.40 51 ,513.03 $54309 $ 129620.83 $378.62 $ 129999.45 Retail 100,001 GSF to 6200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf $69860 $292.47 510,590.38 $317.71 $ 10,908.09 Retail over 200,000 GSF - 5435.40 51 ,548.01 $555.65 r 1 ,000 sf $6,977 $ 199.82 $435.40 - $9,691 .53 $ 1 ,057.52 $379.63 $290.75 $9,982.28 Gas Station Fuel pos 56,694 S 172.58 59,049.37 $271 .48 $9,320.85 New and Used Car Sales $7228 $912.97 $327,87 1 ,000 sf 513,212 $ 170.87 $217.70 $8, 179.70 Quality Restaurant I ,000sf $20,072 $904.47 $324.63 " $245.39 $8,425.09 5677.48 5609.55 $3,585. 31 $ 14,829.67 $444.89 $ 15,274 . 56 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf 51 ,287. 12 .. 526,231 .46 5786.94 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive $26,646 $734.47 $609.55 $3,886.80 $ 1 ,395.40 527,0( 8.40 1 ,000 sf 541 ,971 $791 .46 $609.55 $33,272.22 Supermarket $4, 188.29 51 ,503 67 $99817 534,270.39 1 ,000 sf 5131,288 $203.42 . $ 1 ,076.7111 " : �' 549,063.97 51 ,471 .92 Car Wash Bas $ 17,232 $38648 a $50,535.89 5189.00 $ 141 .50 $ 15,738.32 $472. 15 $16,210.47 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,000. 18 5359.08 ,� $$ 1 ,459 5424.98 5783.71 518,921 .76 $567.65 Furniture Store $2,248.90 $807 40 519,489.41 1 ,000 sf 51 ,592 $31 .85 5168.36 $60 SI `�7 " r 1. , .. - 531 ,645.71 3 52,288. (2 - ' 568.64 52,356.76 Tindale-Oliver 8 Associates, Inc. 3 of Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee Schedule - Incorporated Indian River County excluding The Town of Indian River Shores glj97 HIM m Recreational 515163.77 $454.91 $ 151618.68 GoICComae hole 513,090 $244.69 $69.33 $ 1 ,294.87 $464 88 983.56 $237.78 $217.70 51 ,258.67 $451 .75 " �yi 18,721 .90 5261 .66 $8, Ra uet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf 56,556 $ 1 ,050.54 $31 . 52 51 ,082.06 Acre $769 $ 15.22 $ 156.74 $80.66 $28.92 "' (' Coun Park i�� $ 13,305.98 5399. 18 513,705. 16 Tennis Court Court 511 ,368 $232.47 $33.84 51 ,230.01 5441 .66 $ 1 ,341 .081 $40.23 $ 1 ,381 .31 Marina Berths 51 , 132 $ 15.32 $83.51 $81 . 14 $29. 11ti`` Governmental OTMOMM518,303.75 5549. 11 $ 18,852.86 Post Office 1 ,000 sf S16,518 5177.58 5174. 16 51 ,096.63 $337.38 $21 ,606.93 $648.21 $22,255. 14 Library 1 ,000 sf $20,023 5172.07 $ 174. 16 $910.78 $326.92 $28,593.50 $857.81 $29,451 .31 1 ,000 sf $27,663 $260.82 5174. 16 ;' 5495.52 Government Office Building(tl $ I 1 ,773.01 $353. 19 $ 12, 126.20 Government Office Complex 1 ,000 1 ,000 sf $ 11 ,205 $ 135.82 $ 174. 16 ,� - �a. $258.03 $ 1 , 105.07 $33. 15 $ 1 , 138.22 Jail( D WMA Bed 5449 �� "0 $28.74 $461 .59 $ 165 .74NOR ° Miscellaneous $ 192.00 IBMI12,39292 96 5360.96 $ 12,392.92 Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf $ 10,555 5101 .06 5435.40 $748.50 98 5231 . 15 57,936. 13Hos ital 1 ,000 sf $6,267 $ 156.85 5153.26 $829.88 $297.99 , 78 5182.78 $6,275.56Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf $4, 189 $ 163.56 $217.70 51 ,211.78 5310.7407 $ 105.42 53,619.49Church 1 ,000 sf $3,016 $53.39 $60.96 $282.30 5101 .4288 $ 1 ,027.29 535,270. 17Screen 526,940 $849.06 5347.55 54,493. 18 51 ,613.09Movie Theater .48 57.78 $267.26School (Element and Middle) Student 5141 59.42 521 .45 56972 517.89 .01 $ 19.83 $680.84School (Hi h) Student $513 $ 12.02 524.24 $88.92 522.83 .70 534. 19 $ 1 , 173.89School (Colic e) Student $ 1 ,008 510.42 524.24 $77.25 519.79 ' .06 $51 .93 $ 1 ,782.99 Fire Station") 1 ,000 sf 51 , 158 $63.40 $ 174. 16 $335.50 IN ( 1 ) Government uses arc 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 newjail will not pay the correctional facilities impact fee, a new fire/EMS station will not pay the fire/EMS impact fee, and a new government office building or office complex will not pay the public buildings impact fees. 4 of 6 Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee Schedule - The Town of Indian River Shores ma�ixiryl` - �i � z�) Single Family Lower than 1 ,500 sC (under 'du $3,452 $ 139.62 $ 139.33 1 ,500 to 2,499 sf (under air) du $ 18245 $496.29 $ 1 ,867-70 $6,277.39 $ 188.32 55,202 $ 155.95 $ 139.33 $203.83 $554.31 $6,465.71 2,500 sfor (under air) du $5,838 $ 169.67 $ 1 ,867.70 $80123. 12 $243.69 $87366.81 Accessory Single Family $ 139.33 $221 .56 $602.88 $ 1 ,867.70 $8,839. 14 du $2,842 $ 105.47 $ 104.49 $265. 17 Multi Family $ 137.75 $9, 104.31 du $2,842 $ 105.47 $374.74 $824.77 $4,389.22 $ 104.49 $ 137.75 $ 131 .68 54,520.90 Mobile Home du $ 1 ,957 $374.74 $824.77 $4,389.22 $ 131 .68 $4,520.90 $ 123.00 $ 139.33 $ 160.58 $437. 16 $846.05 Transient, Assisted, Group 53,663. 12 $ 109.89 $3,773.01 Hotel Room $3,271 $59. 19 $39. 19 Motel $ 170 79 Nursing Home H� $ 1 ,764 $59. 19 $ 17079 r. - ' ' i $3,540. 17 $3,646.38 $39. 19 �i. =* + : $ 106.21 ACLF $560 $98.06 $6L3U $309.26 � .:. $29033. 17 $61 .00 $2,094. 17 Bed $449 $98.06 $ 114.60 ^,a 1=1 � . 1 $ 1 ,028.62 $30.86 $ 1 ,059.48 Office and Financial $309.26 ` ,.,, N., ? ,.,� 5970.92 $29. 13 $ 1 ,000.05 Medical Office 19000 sf $1.70.4 #217. 76 119263.U5 , Bank - - - 1 ,000 sf $ 16,289 $ 194.41 $217.70 �� � ( _ "� $ 179204.22 $516. 13 $ 17,720.35 Bank w/Drive-in 1 ,000 sf $27,607 $ 159.35 $ 1 ,440.390 lir, $ 18, 141 .50 $217.70 $ 1 , 180.45 =�, r ,oa $544.25 $ 18,685.75 Office 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf $7,348 $ 140.32 $ 174. 16 ° �_ „N;i $29, 164.50 $874.94 $30,039.44 Office rcater than SQ000 GSF 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,040.03 ' a j $261 .08 $5,326 $74.22 $ 174. 16 _ o $8,702.51 $8,963.59 Industrial $549.53 ' - °' o $6,123.91 Manufacturing _ $183.72 $6,307.63 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,533 $50. 18 Warehouse $435.40 $371 .70 Mini-Warehouse 1 ,000 sf $ 1 ,958 $38.56 $285.70 = - _ $2,390.28 1 ,000 sf $87.08 $71 .71 $2,461 .99 $ 1 ,003 $7.61 $2,369.34 $2,440.42 General Industrial $34.83 $40.09 a a $71 .08 1 ,000 sf $2,797 $68.51 $435.40 $ 1 ,085.53 $32.57 Concrete Plant Acre $507.74 $ 1 , 118. 10 $6,261 $ 151 .04 $3,808.65 $ 114.26 $394. 13 $ 19119.47 $3,922.91 Sand Mining Acre $803 $ 19.33 $394. 13 �� $7,925.64 $237.77 $8, 163.41 Retail, Gross Square Eeet $ 143.58 - + ` $ 1 ,360.04 $40.80 $ 1 ,400.84 Retail 50,000 GSF or less 1 ,000 sf $9,837 $286.66 $435.40 Sl 517 16 �" ' �-_ Retail 50,001 GSF to 100,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf $7,813 $285.86 512,076.22 $362.29 $ 12,438.51 Retail 100,001 GSF to 200,000 GSF $435.40 $ 1 513 03 $ 10,047.29 1 ,000 sf $6,860 $292.47 $435.40 #. $301 .42 E10,348.71 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1 ,000 sf $6,977 5199.82 $ 1 ,548 01 ' $9, 135.88 $274.08 Gas Station p $6,694 5$72.40 $ 1 ,057.52 $9,409.96 Fuel os $ 172.58 $72.28 h r $8,669.74 $260.09 New and Used Car Sales 1 ,000 sf $912 97 - $8,929.83 Quality Restaurant $ 13,212 $ 170.87 $217.70 $904.47 ' ' $7,851 .83 $235.55 I ,000sC $20,072 $8,087.38 5677.48 $609.55 $ 14,505.04 $435. 15 53,585 31 " 514,940. 19 Restaurant 1 ,000 sf $26,646 $734.47 $609.55 $24,944.34 $748.33 $25,692.67 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1 ,000 sf Sg1 ,971 53,886.80 $31 Supermarket $791 .46 $609.55 $4188.29p876.82 $956.30 $32,833. 12 1 ,000 sf $ 13,288 $203.42 5783.71 - -r �° $47,560.30 $ 1 ,426.81 $489987. 11 Car Wash $ 1 ,076 71 = Bays $ 17,232 $ 189.00 ' $ 15,351 .84 Convenience Store 1 ,000 sf $ 141 '50 $ 1 ,00018 ' $460.56 $ 15,812.40 526,459 $424.98 1 /63.71 $2p249.90 $ 18,562.68 $556.88 519, 119.56 Furniture Store 1 ,000 sf SI9592 531 .85 $435.40 $ 168.36 k r '' ,a $29,916.59 $897.50 $30,814.09 "' $2,227.61 566.83 $2,294.44 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 5 of Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule Indian River County Impact Fee Study Master Impact Fee Schedule - The Town of Indian River Shores „ gc 0 c Recreational Golf Course hole $ 13,090 5244.69 $69.33 51 ,294 .87 _ - , 1. $ 14,698.89 $440.97 $ 15 , 139.86 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1 ,000 sf $6,556 $237.78 $217.70 51 ,258.67 ! _ $8,270. 15 $$30. 10 $8,S 18.25 County Park Acre $769 $ 15.22 $ 156.74 580.66 a 51 ,021 .62 $30.65 $ 1 ,052.27 Tennis Court Court SI i ,368 5232.47 533.84 $ 1230.01 $ 12,864.32 $385.93 $ ( 3,250.25 Marina Berths 51 , 132 $ 15.32 $83.51 $81 . 14 , _ ` , 51 ,31 1.97 539.36 51 ,351 .33 Governments) Post Office 1 ,000 sf 516,518 5177.58 $ 174. 16 $ 1 ,096.63 w" - Vii.„ . $ 17,966.37 5538.99 $ 18,505.36 Lib 1 ,000 sf $20,023 $ 172.07 $ 174. 16 5910.78 " 521 ,280.01 5638.40 521 ,918.41 Government Office Buildingt`1 1 ,000 sf $27,663 $260.82 $ 174. 16 r ,� $28,097.98 5842.94 528,940.92 Government Office Complex 1 ,000 sf $ 11 ,205 5135.82 517416 511 ,514.98 $345.45 511 ,860.43 Jailt`1 Bed $449 „ $28.74 $461 .59 „ $939.33 $28. 18 $967.51 Miscellaneous I ,000sf $ 10,555 $ 101 .06 $435.40 $748.50. ` $ 11 ,839.96 $355.20 $ 12, 195. 16 Day Care Center 1 ,000 sf $6,267 $ 156.85 $153.26 $829.88 $7,406.99 5222.21 $7,629.20 Ho ital Veterinary Clinic 1 ,000 sf 54,189 $ 163.56 $217.70 51 ,211 .78 $5,782.04 $ 173.46 $5,955.50 Church 1 ,000 sf $3 ,016 $53.39 $60.96 $282.30 $3,412.65 $ 102.38 " $39515.03 Movie Theater Screen $26,940 $849.06 $347.55 $4,493. 18 5329629.79 $978.89 $331608.68 School (Elementary and Middle) Student $ 141 $9.42 $21 .45 $69.72 " $241 .59 $7.25 $248 .84 School (Hi h) Student $513 $ 12.02 $24.24 $88.92 $638. 18 519. 15 $657.33 Student $ 1 ,008 $ 10.42 $24.24 $77.25 ". $ 1 ,119.91 $33.60 $ 1 , 153.51 School (College) „ Fire Station 1 ,000 sf $ 1 , 158 $63.40 $ 174. 16 5335.50 :; - m, 51 ,731 .06 551 .93 51 ,782.99 ( 1 ) 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 and a new government office building or office complex will not pay the public buildings impact fees. Tindale-Oliver 8 Associates, Inc. 6 of 6 Indian River County Impact Fee Study - Master Impact Fee Schedule