indian river county impact fee update study final...

Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Indian River County Community Development Dept. – Planning Division

1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960

ph (772) 226-1237

September 26, 2014

Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400

Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106

Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study

Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 i Impact Fee Update Study

Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2

Legal Standard Overview ........................................................................................... 3

Measurement of Level-of-Service for Impact Fee Calculation Purposes .................. 6

Implementation Issues ............................................................................................... 7

II. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES .................................................................................... 12

Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 12

Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 15

Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 16

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 18

Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 19

Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost ...................................................................... 22

Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................ 22

Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 24

Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 25

Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .......................................... 25

III. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ....................................................................................... 27



Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 29


Net Solid Waste Impact Cost ..................................................................................... 31

Calculated Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................. 31



Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .......................................... 33


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 ii Impact Fee Update Study

IV. PUBLIC BUILDINGS ............................................................................................... 35



Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 38

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 40


Net Public Buildings Impact Cost ............................................................................... 43

Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule ...................................................... 43



Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ................................................... 49

V. LIBRARIES ............................................................................................................. 51



Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 54

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 57


Net Library Facilities Impact Cost .............................................................................. 59

Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ..................................................... 60



Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .................................................. 63

VI. EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 65



Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 68

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 70


Net Emergency Services Impact Cost ........................................................................ 74

Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule ............................................... 75


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 iii Impact Fee Update Study



Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ............................................ 79

VII. LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................. 81



Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 83

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 85


Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost ............................................................................ 86

Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule ................................................... 86



Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ................................................ 88

VIII. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES ......................................................................... 90

Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities .............................................................. 90


Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 92

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 95


Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost ........................................................... 101

Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ................................. 102



Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ............................... 104

IX. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 106

Demand Component .................................................................................................. 108

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 110


Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ....................................................... 119



Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 iv Impact Fee Update Study


Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .................................................... 126

X. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ..................................................................................... 128


Service Area and Enrollment ..................................................................................... 129

Facility Service Delivery ............................................................................................. 130

Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 131


Net Impact Cost per Student ..................................................................................... 140

Student Generation Rate ........................................................................................... 141

Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................. 142



Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ........................................... 144

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Population

Appendix B: Transportation Impact Fee -- Demand Component Calculations

Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee -- Cost Component Calculations

Appendix D: Transportation Impact Fee -- Credit Component Calculations

Appendix E: Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule

Appendix F: Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for Correctional, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Government Buildings, Library, Parks and Recreation Impact Fees

Appendix G: Educational Facilities Impact Fee -- Supplemental Information

Appendix H: Administrative Fee

Appendix I: Master Fee Schedules (Full Calculated Fee Rates)

Appendix J: Master Fee Schedules (Affordable Growth Fee Rates)

Appendix K: Master Fee Schedules (Staff Recommended Fee Rates)


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 1 Impact Fee Update Study

I. Introduction In response to high growth levels and the need to provide infrastructure to support this growth, Indian River County (IRC) implemented a Transportation Impact Fee in 1986. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees in eight more program areas, including:

Correctional Facilities Solid Waste Facilities Public Buildings Library Facilities Emergency Services Law Enforcement Educational Facilities Parks & Recreation Facilities

The technical studies for all program areas were updated in 2007; however, these technical studies were not adopted. Of the nine program areas, only the transportation impact fee was later updated substantially in 2009 by an internally generated County update using data from the 2005 and 2007 studies, resulting in a fee reduction for almost all the land uses. The eight non-transportation program fees were slightly modified in the 2009 update. Since then, the County suspended the collection of five impact fee types to promote construction during the economic downturn, and more recently extended suspension of correctional facilities, solid waste, and public buildings impact fees. Indian River County has retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to prepare an update study to reflect changes to the cost, credit, and demand components since the last study. In addition, the study includes “affordable growth” calculations, which take into account the existing development’s ability to absorb new growth and calculates the level of possible policy discounts without reducing the level of service. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of updated impact fees. Given that the updated fees under the Affordable Growth method indicated a decrease for almost all of the non-residential fee categories, which is consistent with the County’s economic development goals, the BOCC adopted the updated fees for non-residential land uses on April 22, 2014. At that time, calculations for residential land uses were not yet finalized due to considerations for expanding the residential land use categories and to allow for some time to obtain the input of the School Board for the educational facilities impact fee. This



technical report includes the final calculations for residential land uses in addition to non-residential land uses. It should be noted that figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. In fact, in addition to using the affordable growth fees, the “Staff Recommended Fees” shown in Appendix K include policy discounts proposed by the Indian River County staff for certain program areas, primarily based on a consideration of future capital needs. More specifically, these discounts include the following:

Use of full calculated fees for emergency services program area; Application of a 50-percent reduction to affordable growth scenario for public

buildings impact fees for all land uses; Application of a 25-percent reduction to affordable growth scenario for parks and

recreation facilities impact fees for all land uses; and Suspension of the library impact fees.

Methodology The methodology used to update the County’s impact fee program is a consumption-based impact fee methodology, which is used throughout Florida. This methodology was also used in preparing the 2004 and 2005 technical reports for Indian River County and is the basis for the current adopted fees. A consumption-based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit of land use in the case of all impact fee program areas with the exception of educational facilities and transportation. In the case of educational facilities, student generation rate is used and in the case of transportation, vehicle-miles of travel is used. A consumption-based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. Cost estimates reflect the current value of capital assets for each program area (i.e., the cost to buy or build the same asset today). In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for contributions of the new development toward any capacity expansion projects through other revenue sources. Contributions used to calculate the credit component include estimates of future non-impact fee revenues generated by the new development that will be used toward



capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same service. Legal Standard Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980’s. Generally speaking, impact fees must comply with the “dual rational nexus” test, which requires that they:

Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and

Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through a list of capacity-adding projects included in the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan.

In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the “Florida Impact Fee Act,” which recognized impact fees as “an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction.” § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute – concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations – did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify procedural and methodological prerequisites, most of which were common to the practice already. More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the following:

HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard.

SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida



Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on “mobility fees,” which were completed in 2010.

HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar-for-dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. The payment must be reduced by the percentage share the project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the selected improvement (up to a maximum of 20% or to an amount specified by ordinance, whichever results in a higher credit). The courts have not yet taken up the issue of whether a local government may still charge an impact/mobility fee in lieu of proportionate share if the impact/mobility fee is higher that the calculated proportionate share contribution.

HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes, including:

1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density.

2. Adoption of an area-wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function.

3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system.

4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit.

5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non-vehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility.

6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or districts, or for affordable or workforce housing.

Also, under HB 319, a mobility fee funding system expressly must comply with the dual rational nexus test applicable to traditional impact fees. Furthermore, any mobility fee revenues collected must be used to implement the local government’s plan, which served



as the basis for the fee. Finally, under HB 319, an alternative mobility system, that is not mobility fee-based, must not impose upon new development any responsibility for funding an existing transportation deficiency. At this time, Indian River County is not interested in implementing a mobility fee primarily due to the suburban nature of the county. Instead, the County is using the affordable growth approach to reduce fees for non-residential land uses to accomplish its economic development goals. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards applicable here. 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 generally regarded as a regulatory function established as a condition for improving property and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue, as are taxes.

Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity

created by new development. Authority to Impose Impact Fees in Indian River County

IRC is a non-charter county. o A non-charter county derives its authority from the state constitution and

statutory sources; o A non-charter county may adopt ordinances that are not inconsistent with

general law; and o A non-charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that do not conflict

with municipal ordinances.



The fiscal burden of providing countywide services must be borne by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county.

Measurement of Level-of-Service for Impact Fee Calculation Purposes Florida law requires that there be a “reasonable connection” or “rational nexus” between the demand for new facilities created by development and the amount of the impact fees charged; and, that there be a “reasonable connection” or “rational nexus” between the amount of the fees charged and provision of new facilities to those paying the fees. This test, roughly speaking, assures that new growth is paying for its facilities, not existing needs, and that existing development is not shouldering the burdens created by new growth. In part to meet these criteria, the practice in Florida, when calculating impact fees, is to base impact fee amounts for new growth on either the level of service (LOS) being provided to existing development, which measures the investment made by the existing development or the adopted LOS standard that shows the future commitment levels of a community, whichever is lower. Although the LOS measure (or “units,” so to speak) in the impact fee calculation tends to be based on a single variable, such as acres of land for parks, number of student stations per student for educational facilities, etc., the true measure of level of service delivered and the demand created by new development includes the value of all related capital assets that must be in place to deliver the infrastructure. For example, in the case of educational facilities, the School District’s current adopted LOS standard is one permanent student station for each student. For impact fee calculation purposes, the value of the station used in the calculations includes all capital assets needed countywide to provide educational services, such as buildings, land, furniture/fixture/equipment, transportation and ancillary facilities, etc. In other words, to provide the student station, the school district must also provide land, furniture, buses, and other infrastructure. Or, for example, a park includes not only park land, but also recreational facilities, such as baseball/softball fields, tennis courts, picnic tables, etc. Impact fee calculations for County parks, therefore, have included the value of both the land and recreational facilities that are owned and provided by the County to calculate a cost per acre figure to reflect both land and improvement costs for each acre of parks to be built with impact fee revenues. In the 2014 fee update, the existing achieved LOS was maintained to reach the figure of asset value per resident. This LOS will be achieved through the purchase of park land, first, and the subsequent improvement of those lands once they are acquired and sufficient impact



fee revenues collected. Over time, the park land and park improvement demanded by new development are provided, based on the County’s ongoing capital improvements planning process. During this process, the dollar amount of investment per person will remain constant as land is converted to a park through the construction of recreational facilities. In summary, a consumption based impact fee is calculated as the value of all related capital assets per population rather than a single component of these assets (such as park land, fire station, law enforcement officers, etc. per population). The following provides the LOS used in the calculations of impact fee levels for each program. Dollar amounts indicated are for additional capital assets.

Correctional Facilities: $186 per functional resident. Educational Facilities: 1 permanent station per student, which includes an average

of 148 permanent net square footage per student station and $24,114 of capital investment per student.

Emergency Services: $201 per functional resident. Law Enforcement: $274 per functional resident. Libraries: $310 per weighted resident. Parks and Recreational Facilities: $836 per weighted resident. Public Buildings: $480 per functional resident. Solid Waste: $64 per weighted resident. Transportation: The average level of service for impact fee calculations for Indian

River County is “D” during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions for all roadways in the county. This suggests that some roads will operate above LOS D while others will operate below LOS D.

Implementation Issues This section addresses several considerations as part of the implementation of the impact fee program.

Fee Calculations

Calculated impact fees represent a land use’s proportionate impact on infrastructure over the life of that land use. For example, a home is likely to go through cycles where at times it houses one or two people, such as a young couple without children



or a retired couple, etc. and at other times, a family with several children. The fees are calculated based on the average impact (occupancy) of a home or another land use over its lifetime.

In the case of tiered fees, such as single family residential, office and retail, a different fee for each tier is calculated to reflect the incremental increase in impact on facilities among land uses. This tiered approach increases the fairness and equity among land uses by differentiating the impact of different size buildings on a per unit basis. Any given increase in building size should be charged additional impact fees in order to reflect additional impact on facilities, if applicable, in order to maintain level of service standards and to ensure that existing residents and businesses are not unfairly bearing the burden of new growth.

Timing of Fee Payments

Impact fees are typically collected at the building permit stage, which is also the practice used by Indian River County. This allows the County to plan for and build infrastructure needed to timely serve new growth and to effectively coordinate impact fee collections between the County and the municipalities.

Fee Schedule Updates Impact fee calculations should be updated every three to five years to ensure the

fees are based on current data. This approach is useful in recognizing more permanent changes and trends as opposed to varying the fee based on short-term fluctuations.

Alternative Studies/Individual Assessments

The County’s impact fee ordinance currently outlines a process for alternative studies (individual assessments) for determining traffic impact fees when a proposed land use is not expressly included in the fee schedule. The primary considerations for alternative studies (individual assessments) include the following:

o The focus of the alternative studies (individual assessments) is the demand component of the land use, which is the subject of the alternative study. Cost and credit components are calculated based on countywide facilities and investment levels and are not the subject of an alternative study.

o The study should clearly identify the differences in the demand component of the actual use and the closest land use category in the fee schedule in order to verify the actual impacts of the proposed land use over the life of



the use. For example, if not included in the fee schedule, a retirement community may have different demand characteristics than the average single family subdivision. However, this community must be restricted (with the County as a party to or having confirmed that restriction) for a different fee to be calculated for a retirement community. Without such restriction, the retirement community, in this example, could change to other residential uses over time, creating a different impact on the community.

o Land uses included in the fee schedule table have impacts on public facilities that have been widely documented for impact fee purposes. For example, in the case of traffic impact fees, there is a large sample of trip characteristics data on single family subdivisions located in Florida. Therefore, an alternative study (individual assessment) for a specific single family subdivision is not needed or appropriate to establish the level of impact single family homes have on roads. Trip characteristics data already include a range of travel characteristics and eliminate outliers prior to using an average travel demand representative of the land use category. This approach verifies that there is a “reasonable connection” or “nexus” between the impacts of each listed land use and the calculated fees.

o For all program areas, the demand components (measured in terms of persons per unit or students per unit for categories other than transportation) should be studied when either the proposed land use is not listed or the applicant demonstrates that the impacts of the proposed use are significantly different than those captured in the study. The current data that support the non-transportation impact fees are based on Census data for Indian River County or student addresses matched with the land use type from the Indian River County Property Appraiser database for residential land uses. These data are representative of average local development and are the most current data available. As mentioned previously, a study would be appropriate only when the development type is completely different than the land uses included in the fee schedule and this difference can be maintained over the life of the development due to its nature or through legal restrictions.

o Individual assessments should be generally consistent with the methodology used in this study.



Portability

Impact fees are attached to the project property and are calculated to mitigate the land use’s proportionate impact on County facilities. Once that land use is permitted, the County will provide needed facilities as required by its own ordinances. If a land use is later proposed that has a greater impact on County facilities than did the previously approved land use, then, of course, impact fees for the new land use would be limited to an amount that simply reflects the increased impact. However, the question frequently arises of whether impact fees should be returned (in cash or as “portable” credits, for example) if the intensity of a land use is reduced or terminated in the future. “Portability,” some argue, would allow the credit associated with tearing down a building to be used for another parcel. However, none of the jurisdictions we work with allow for the portability of impact fees that we are aware of, due to a number of reasons. First, local governments plan for capital project funding and provide infrastructure based on development in an area. As part of that process, impact fee revenues are programmed and spent for the construction of necessary infrastructure in the same district as the proposed use. Once the applicant has moved forward with its development, so too does the County with the development’s needed infrastructure for that property in that area of the County. Once these fees are committed for use to serve a proposed development, they cannot be “uncommitted,” and, of course, previously-built and contracted infrastructure improvements cannot be “ported” to new locations or benefit districts. Second, if the County “refunded” fees to properties that reduce or eliminate their impacts, those “refunds” (having now been committed to meet the needs of the initial land use) would necessarily redirect impact fees paid by others or general fund sources, creating a misallocation of burden between existing development and new growth. Third, during the typical construction timeframe, running from building permit issuance to certificate of occupancy, impact fees paid by a developer will not have been committed and spent by the County. Therefore, if a proposed land use pays



impact fees (at building permit) but never comes to fruition (i.e., fails to receive a certificate of occupancy) then impact fees paid by the applicant can be safely returned without disrupting the County’s CIP and budgeting process or unfairly shifting costs to existing development or other fee payers. This policy, of course, should be used only during this limited time and should be tied to the termination of issued building permits to reflect the fact that the development (and therefore the need for new infrastructure capacity) will not occur. Finally, it should be noted that the payment of impact fees on a given parcel relieves future owners or developers of that parcel from the need to pay fees for those impacts in the future, which, presumably, is reflected in the value of the parcel, even if there is a subsequent change of use. In this sense, the individual’s investment in impact fees can be “recouped,” so to speak in the value added to the parcel.

This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements. Although the Florida courts have yet to expressly address the methodology underpinning the Affordable Growth Strategy, this aspect of the report is based on the long-standing legal standards described in this section. The technical report also documents the methodology components for each of the impact fee areas in the following sections, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area, level-of-service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated.



II. Correctional Facilities Correctional facility impact fees are used to fund capital construction and expansion of services related to land, facilities, and capital equipment required to support the additional correctional facility demand created by new growth. This section presents the results of the correctional facility impact fee update study for the County and will serve as the technical support document for the updated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated with the development of the correctional facilities impact fee. These include:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this section, with the result being the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory The correctional facilities inventory includes the County’s jails and other related facilities that are primarily for the provision of corrections and does not include any of the buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by the County, Indian River County has a total of 258,000 square feet of correctional facility-related space. This includes the square footage of all four phases of the Correctional Facility as well as other related buildings, such as the guardhouses, warehouse visitation building, and maintenance shop. Table 1 presents a



summary of the correctional facilities land and building inventory, including a total land value of $1.8 million and a total building value of $63 million. As previously mentioned, these values do not include building space or land associated with other County departments. The building value per square foot is estimated based on research on recently built correctional facilities, discussions and information from architectural and construction companies, and the insurance values of the existing correctional facilities in Indian River County. This value is estimated at $250 per square foot for correctional facilities and $125 per square foot for the other ancillary facilities included in the inventory. Appendix F provides further detail on the building cost estimates. The land value for correctional facilities is estimated at $50,000 per acre based on an analysis of vacant land values and parcels sold in the County over the last three years as well as the value of land where the current facilities are located (see Appendix F).

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

14

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e II-

1 Co

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

s Lan

d an

d Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Num

ber o

f acr

es m

ultip

lied

by th

e la

nd v

alue

per

acr

e (It

em 9

) (3

) Sq

uare

feet

mul

tiplie

d by

$25

0 in

the

case

of c

orre

ctio

nal f

acili

ties a

nd $

125

in th

e ca

se o

f misc

ella

neou

s bui

ldin

gs

(4)

Sum

of l

and

and

build

ing

valu

e (5

) Si

nce

the

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ty a

nd D

eten

tion

Com

plex

and

the

Sher

iff’s

Adm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g ar

e lo

cate

d at

the

sam

e sit

e, it

was

ass

umed

that

eac

h oc

cupi

es 5

0 pe

rcen

t of t

he si

te

(6)

Thes

e bu

ildin

gs a

re o

n th

e sa

me

parc

els a

s the

cor

rect

iona

l fac

ilitie

s (7

) O

pera

tiona

l cap

acity

bed

s is l

ower

due

to re

quire

men

ts to

kee

p in

mat

es se

para

te b

ased

on

thei

r cus

tody

leve

ls an

d cl

assif

icat

ions

(8

) To

tal b

uild

ing

valu

e (It

em 3

) div

ided

by

tota

l squ

are

foot

age

(9)

Estim

ated

bas

ed o

n va

cant

land

sale

s and

val

ues f

or p

arce

ls w

ith si

mila

r acr

eage

as w

ell a

s the

val

ue o

f the

cur

rent

inve

ntor

y

Faci

lity

Desc

riptio

nYe

ar

Acqu

ired/

Built

(1)

Num

ber o

f Ac

res(1

)

Squa

re

Feet

(1)

Num

ber

of B

eds(1

)

Land

Va

lue(2

)

Build

ing

Valu

e(3)

Tota

l Bu

ildin

g an

d La

nd V

alue

(4)

IRC

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ty P

hase

I(5)

1987

149

IRC

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ty P

hase

II(5

)19

8812

0

IRC

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ty P

hase

III

1991

10.0

014

2$5

00,0

00

IRC

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ty P

hase

IV20

0816

.70

181,

000

301

$835

,000

$45,

250,

000

$46,

085,

000

Mis

cella

neou

s Bui

ldin

gs o

n Si

te(6

) : G

uard

hous

en/

an/

a10

0n/

an/

a$1

2,50

0$1

2,50

0

Gua

rdho

use

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

$12,

500

$12,

500

Mai

nten

ance

Sho

p20

08n/

a10

0n/

an/

a$1

2,50

0$1

2,50

0

War

ehou

se V

isita

tion

2008

n/a

8,88

4n/

an/

a$1

,110

,500

$1,1

10,5

00

36.5

125

7,90

071

2$1

,825

,500

$63,

327,

000

$65,

152,

500

612

$246

$50,

000

$17,

919,

500

$16,

929,

000

67,7

169.

81$4

90,5

00

Tota

lO

pera

tiona

l Cap

acity

Bed

s(7)

Build

ing

Valu

e pe

r Squ

are

Foot

(8)

Land

Val

ue p

er A

cre(9

)



In addition to land and building costs, the correctional facility services also require the use of necessary equipment and vehicles. As presented in Table II-2, the total vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $2.8 million based on information provided by the County.

Table II-2

Correctional Facilities Equipment and Vehicle Inventory

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Total value (Item 3) divided by units (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County

Service Area and Population The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current level of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County’s comprehensive planning process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. Weighted seasonal population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, correctional facilities is one of the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A.

Facility Description Units(1) Unit Value(2) Total Value(3)

Vehicles 19 $31,437 $597,295Vehicle/Radio Equipment 377 $1,172 $441,953Weapons 212 $464 $98,375Office Equipment 1 $31,784 $31,784Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 3 $19,966 $59,899Electronic Equipment 1 $1,077,078 $1,077,078Computer Equipment 20 $4,099 $81,977Miscellaneous Equipment 40 $9,806 $392,240Total Vehicle/Equipment Cost $2,780,601



Level-of-Service As presented in Table II-3, there is a relation between population growth and the need for correctional facilities. Table II-3 presents the average daily jail population over the last ten years, along with the corresponding population. The relation between the population and jail population is used to establish a general trend in the need for correctional facility beds, and to account for random fluctuations, the three-year average number of bookings and population also is shown.

Table II-3 Service Area Population and Jail Bookings

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (2) Source: Indian River County

For planning purposes, the level-of-service (LOS) for correctional facility services is expressed in terms of jail facility beds per 1,000 residents. Using this method, Indian River County’s current achieved LOS is 4.14 beds per 1,000 residents. The County’s current adopted LOS standard for correctional facilities is 4.5 beds per 1,000 residents. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted standard, impact fee calculations for correctional facilities are based on the achieved LOS. As mentioned previously, for impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to capture workers, visitors, and residents to calculate the correctional facilities impact fee. In terms of functional population, the current LOS is 4.37 beds per 1,000 functional residents. Table II-4 summarizes the calculation of the county’s current LOS using both weighted seasonal population and functional population.

Population Bookings Population Bookings2003 126,869 473 n/a n/a n/a n/a2004 131,175 529 n/a n/a n/a n/a2005 134,573 543 130,872 515 n/a n/a2006 139,121 562 134,956 545 3.1% 5.8%2007 143,177 544 138,957 550 3.0% 0.9%2008 145,212 537 142,503 548 2.6% -0.4%2009 145,356 513 144,582 531 1.5% -3.1%2010 145,854 518 145,474 523 0.6% -1.5%2011 146,325 490 145,845 507 0.3% -3.1%2012 147,118 446 146,432 485 0.4% -4.3%

Year Population(1) Average Daily Jail Population(2)

3-Year Average Change in 3-Year Average



Table II-4 Current Level-of-Service

(1) Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population and Table A-8 for functional population (2) Source: Table II-1 (3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County; LOS standard for functional resident is calculated based on the ratio

of actual LOS in terms of weighted population versus functional population

Table II-5 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian River County and counties with correctional facility impact fees throughout the State of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for all entities because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these entities, as it was for Indian River County. In addition, the number of beds for all jurisdictions presented in the following table is based on gross beds. As presented, Indian River County’s LOS is within the range of these counties. Although the LOS is measured in terms of beds per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for each program area of infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for correctional facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes. It is important to note that the construction of correctional facilities tend to be “lumpy” and requires significant investments for large scales of construction. Indian River County completed its most recent expansion in 2008, which was funded primarily with sales tax revenues, and currently does not have any plans to build additional jails. In addition, the average daily occupancy of approximately 450 inmates represents 75 percent of the available functional capacity. As mentioned previously, correctional impact fees are not being collected in Indian River County at this time, and there appears to be sufficient

Weighted Population

Functional Population

Population(1) 148,001 140,186Number of Beds(2) 612 612LOS (beds per 1,000 residents)(3) 4.14 4.37Adopted LOS Standard (beds per 1,000 residents) (4) 4.50 4.75

ComponentYear 2013



capacity available to accommodate additional inmates due to growth in the near future. This will be addressed further in the Affordable Growth section of the report.

Table II-5 Level-of-Service Comparison

(1) Source: Each jurisdiction’s respective Sheriff’s Office or Correctional Facilities

Department (2) Source: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (3) Gross beds (Item 1) divided by the 2012 permanent population (Item 2) divided

by 1,000 for each jurisdiction Cost Component Table II-6 provides the total asset value per resident. As shown, total asset value owned by the County amounts to $67.9 million or $111,000 per bed. The total impact cost per functional resident for correctional facilities in Indian River County is calculated by multiplying the total cost per bed by the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000, which is approximately $485 per functional resident.

JurisdictionGross Beds(1)

2012 Permanent

Population(2)

LOS (Beds per 1,000

Residents)(3)

Osceola County 873 280,866 3.11Brevard County 1,709 545,625 3.13St. Johns County 664 196,071 3.39Collier County 1,304 329,849 3.95Hernando County 818 173,104 4.73St. Lucie County 1,370 280,355 4.89Indian River County (Existing) 712 139,446 5.11Highlands County 504 98,955 5.09Citrus County 760 140,761 5.40Okeechobee County 232 39,805 5.83Charlotte County 960 163,357 5.88



Table II-6 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table II-1 (2) Source: Table II-2 (3) Source: Table II-4 (4) Total asset value divided by the number of beds (Item 3) (5) Source: Table II-4 (6) Net asset value per bed (Item 4) multiplied by the current correctional facilities LOS (Item 5)

divided by 1,000 (7) Percent of building value, land value, and equipment value of the total asset value

Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the correctional facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for correctional services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on the capital expansion projects that were completed over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years. The average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. The County completed Phase IV expansion of the correctional facilities in 2008, which was funded with sales tax revenues. Since then, there have not been any capacity expansion

Description FigurePercent of

Total Value(7)

Building Value(1) $63,327,000 93.22% Land Value(1) $1,825,500 2.69% Equipment Value(2) $2,780,601 4.09%Total Asset Value $67,933,101 100.00% Number of Beds(3) 612Net Asset Value per Bed(4) $111,002 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) (5) 4.37Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(6) $485.08



projects and there are none programmed for the next five years. This spending associated with a portion of the Phase IV expansion results in an average capital expansion expenditure of $2.3 million per year. Since the review of these expenditures spanned Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average functional population for this same period. As shown in Table II-7, the result is an average expansion cost of $16 per functional resident. It should be noted that although the optional sales tax will expire in 2019, this analysis assumes that, if the sales tax is not re-adopted, another revenue source will be used in the future.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

21

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e II-

7 Hi

stor

ical

Cap

ital E

xpan

sion

Expe

nditu

res(1

)

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Aver

age

capi

tal e

xpen

ditu

res o

ver t

he te

n-ye

ar p

erio

d (3

) So

urce

: App

endi

x A,

Tab

le A

-11

(4)

Aver

age

annu

al c

apita

l exp

ansio

n ex

pend

iture

s (Ite

m 2

) div

ided

by

aver

age

func

tiona

l pop

ulat

ion

(Item

3)

Desc

riptio

nFY

200

8FY

200

9FY

201

0FY

201

1FY

201

2FY

201

3FY

201

4FY

201

5FY

201

6FY

201

7To

tal

Opt

iona

l Sal

es T

ax R

even

ues

Hous

ing

Unit

E Co

nstr

uctio

n$2

2,75

6,00

6-

--

--

--

--

$22,

756,

006

Tota

l$2

2,75

6,00

6-

--

--

--

--

$22,

756,

006

$2,2

75,6

0114

0,30

1$1

6.22

Aver

age

Annu

al C

apita

l Exp

endi

ture

s(2)

Aver

age

Annu

al F

unct

iona

l Pop

ulat

ion(3

)

Expe

nditu

re p

er F

unct

iona

l Res

iden

t(4)



Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost The net correctional impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table II-8 summarizes the calculation of the net correctional facility cost per resident. The first section of Table II-8 identifies the total impact cost as $485 per functional resident for correctional facilities. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the impact fee. The credit calculation includes a total of approximately $299 per functional resident. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $186 per functional resident, which also represents the LOS for impact fee purposes.

Table II-8 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table II-6 (2) Source: Table II-7 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a

discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate was provided by Indian River County.

(4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table II-9 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table II-8.

Calculation Step Impact CostRevenue Credits

Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) $485.08 -

Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(2) $16.22 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(3) $298.84

Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $186.24 -

Revenue Credit

Impact Cost

Net Impact Cost

Note: gsf = gross square feet

- 2,500 sf or greater du 1.72 $320 $184 73220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.87 $162 $100 62240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $183 $123 48

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0.65 $121 $99 22320 Motel room 0.60 $112 $99 13

252/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $171 $107 59OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $212 $186 14Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $309 $186 66

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $415 $212 95912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $425 $174 144710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $186 $153 21760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $158 $81 95

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $93 $55 69150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $52 $42 23151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $11 $8 37152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.14 $26 $42 -38110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $129 $75 72n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $289 $165 75n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $37 $21 76

RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 gsf 2.37 $441 $312 41

944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 1.91 $356 $188 89841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $274 $186 47932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,263 $800 57934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $1,658 $863 92850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $382 $222 72942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $279 $70 298947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $162 $206 -21853 Convenience Market w/Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,086 $463 134890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $43 $35 22

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $201 $267 -24492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $575 $259 122412 County Park acre 0.20 $37 $17 117491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $589 $253 132420 Marina berth 0.19 $35 $17 105

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $302 $194 55590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $328 $188 74733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $259 $148 75

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $166 $110 50610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $255 $171 49640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $473 $178 165560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $95 $58 63444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,114 $925 20520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $11 $10 10522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $13 $10 30530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $15 $13 15

540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $19 $11 72n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 0.63 $117 $69 69

720



Affordable Growth Strategy

In the case of correctional facilities, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between Fiscal Years 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $2.3 million per year of non-impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure II-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated in this report. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of correctional facilities impact fee calculated, if the historical levels of non-impact fee funding were to be continued, the County would not need any impact fee revenue to continue to maintain the current LOS.

It should be noted that the historical average non-impact fee contribution is based on spending made for the last jail expansion, which was completed in 2008. Since then, the County did not have any non-impact fee spending and does not have any capacity expansion projects programmed in the CIP. This is reflective of “lumpy” nature of jail construction in that correctional facilities tend to require large scale investments that provide sufficient capacity for a longer term than most other infrastructure types. As mentioned previously, the current jail population is approximately 75 percent of the jail functional capacity.

Figure II-1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach



Staff Recommended Fee Rate For correctional facilities impact fee, the County staff recommends suspending the impact fee based on the affordable growth calculations included in the previous section. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s correctional facilities impact fee program, a comparison of correctional facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table II-10 presents this comparison. As presented, Indian River County’s calculated fee is within the range of fees adopted by other Counties.

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ties I

mpa

ct F

ee S

ched

ule

Com

paris

on

(1)

du =

dw

ellin

g un

it (2

) So

urce

: Tab

le II

-9

(3)

Calc

ulat

ed b

ased

on

an a

nnua

l gro

wth

rate

of 1

.4%

and

non

-impa

ct fe

e sp

endi

ng o

f $2.

3 m

illio

n pe

r yea

r (4

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

the

affo

rdab

le g

row

th fe

e ra

tes.

(5

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty;

fees

are

cur

rent

ly su

spen

ded

(6)

Sour

ce: B

reva

rd C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent;

Indu

stria

l lan

d us

es a

re e

xem

pt fr

om im

pact

fees

. (7

) So

urce

: Oke

echo

bee

Coun

ty B

oard

of C

ount

y Co

mm

issio

ners

Adm

inist

rativ

e De

part

men

t (8

) So

urce

: Col

lier C

ount

y Im

pact

Fee

Adm

inist

ratio

n De

part

men

t. F

ees h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s th

roug

h an

nual

inde

xing

. (9

) So

urce

: Her

nand

o Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

(10)

Sour

ce: H

ighl

ands

Cou

nty

Code

of O

rdin

ance

s, S

ectio

n 13

-28;

Impa

ct fe

e m

orat

oriu

m in

effe

ct th

roug

h Ju

ne 3

0, 2

017.

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff (4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Ra

te(5

)

Date

of L

ast U

pdat

e20

1420

1420

1420

0520

0020

1220

1020

0520

06Ad

optio

n Pe

rcen

tage

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

25%

Resi

dent

ial:

Sing

le F

amily

(2,0

00 sf

)du

$287

$0$0

$170

$72

$533

$488

$7$1

7N

on-R

esid

entia

l:Li

ght I

ndus

tria

l1,

000

sf$1

29$0

$0$7

5n/

a$1

10$1

76$3

n/O

ffic

e (5

0,00

0 sq

ft)

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0$0

$153

$34

$258

$362

$5n/

Reta

il (1

00,0

00 sq

ft)

1,00

0 sf

$441

$0$0

$312

$160

$551

$670

$10

n/Ba

nk w

/Driv

e-Th

ru1,

000

sf$4

25$0

$0$1

74$8

1$5

51$6

04$1

0n/

Fast

Foo

d w

/Driv

e-Th

ru1,

000

sf$1

,658

$0$0

$863

$428

$551

$2,2

97$1

6n/

Land

Use

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Brev

ard

Coun

ty(6

)

Oke

echo

bee

Coun

ty(7

)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(8

)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(9)

High

land

s Co

unty

(10)



III. Solid Waste Facilities This section provides the results of the solid waste facilities impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the solid waste facilities impact fee:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Cost Component Credit Component Net Solid Waste Impact Cost Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

These various elements are summarized in this section. It should be noted that solid waste impact fees are not very common and there is limited literature. Solid waste operations are typically an Enterprise Fund and tend to be self-sufficient in terms of funding. In the case of Indian River County, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), a dependent district, provides the solid waste services. At this time, the solid waste impact fee is suspended in Indian River County. Prior to the suspension, the County charged a solid waste impact fee to both residential and non-residential land uses. These fees were calculated taking into account both the landfill and garbage trucks used for waste collection. Since the last study, the County started outsourcing the waste collection service. The landfill is used by both existing and new growth on a continuous basis, and as such, it is difficult to establish a need directly tied to new growth. In this study, the impact fee calculations are based on the customer convenience centers, which are used only by residential land uses. Given this, the revised fee schedule includes only residential land uses.



Facility Inventory As mentioned previously, the SWDD has the landfill site and also operates five customer convenience centers throughout the District for the collection of Class I waste, yard trash, cardboard, newsprint, and mixed recyclables. The landfill and operations of the customer convenience centers are funded through an annual non-ad-valorem assessment and tipping fees charged at the landfill. In addition, an outside contractor provides waste collection services. As explained previously, the inventory related to the new growth consists of the customer convenience centers, which are summarized in Table III-1. The value of customer convenience center buildings and land are based on the most recently built center and the value of existing properties. A more detailed explanation is provided in Appendix F.

Table III-1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities Inventory

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Based on the cost of on-going expansion of the Oslo Customer Convenience Center (3) Acres (Item 1) multiplied by the land value per acre (Item 6) (4) Sum of the building (item 3) and land value (Item 4) (5) Based on a review of values of land where existing facilities are located and vacant land sales and values Service Area and Population Solid waste facilities are provided on a countywide basis. Because customer convenience centers serve only the residential customers, weighted population is used in this analysis. The County’s current weighted seasonal population estimate and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1 (countywide).

Facility Description Acres(1) Facility Value(2)

Land Value(3)

Total Facility & Land Value(4)

Transfer Stations:Winter Beach Customer Convenience Center 19.55 $2,600,000 $391,000 $2,991,000Roseland Customer Convenience Center 1.38 $2,600,000 $27,600 $2,627,600Gifford Customer Convenience Center 10.81 $2,600,000 $216,200 $2,816,200Oslo Customer Convenience Center 11.61 $2,600,000 $232,200 $2,832,200Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center 4.75 $2,600,000 $95,000 $2,695,000Total 48.10 $13,000,000 $962,000 $13,962,000

$20,000 -Land Value per Acre(5)



Cost Component Table III-2 presents a summary of asset value related to the solid waste impact fee and resulting value per resident ($94 per person). It should be noted that this amount also reflects an average annual residential solid waste generation rate of 0.7 tons per capita per year.

Table III-2 Net Impact Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Table III-1 (2) Source: Table III-1 (3) Sum of the total building value (Item 1) and the total land value (Item 2) (4) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1; Countywide (5) Total asset value (Item 3) divided by population (Item 4) (6) Each component divided by total asset value

Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the solid waste facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for customer care facilities was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities and land included in the inventory. As presented in Table III-3, the County uses an average annual amount of approximately $252,000 of the SWDD’s revenues toward the construction/expansion of customer convenience center expansion. This amount results in an annual expenditure of approximately $1.62 per resident, which is used the calculated the impact fee credit.

Capital Asset Component FigurePercent of

Total Value(6)

Total Building Value(1) $13,000,000 93%Total Land Value(2) $962,000 7%Total Asset Value(3) $13,962,000 100%2013 Population(4) 148,001Total Solid Waste Asset Value per Resident(5) $94.34

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

30

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e III

-3

Hist

oric

al a

nd P

lann

ed C

apita

l Exp

ansi

on E

xpen

ditu

res

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty,

incl

udes

onl

y th

e ex

pend

iture

s ass

ocia

ted

with

cap

acity

exp

ansio

n (e

stim

ated

at 5

0% o

f tot

al a

mou

nt fo

r Ros

elan

d, O

slo a

nd

Giffo

rd C

ente

rs)

(2)

Tota

l exp

endi

ture

s div

ided

by

20 y

ears

due

to h

igh

inve

stm

ent l

evel

s dur

ing

the

2008

-201

7 pe

riod,

whi

ch a

re li

kely

to re

peat

eve

ry 2

0 ye

ars

base

d on

in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed b

y In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y.

(3)

Sour

ce: A

ppen

dix

A, T

able

A-1

; Cou

ntyw

ide

(4)

Aver

age

annu

al c

apita

l exp

endi

ture

s (Ite

m 2

) div

ided

by

the

aver

age

annu

al w

eigh

ted

popu

latio

n (It

em 3

)

Desc

riptio

n(1)

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

FY 2

015

FY 2

016

- FY

202

7To

tal

SWDD

Fells

mer

e Cu

stom

er C

onve

nien

ce C

ente

r-

-$2

,106

,493

--

--

--

$2,1

06,4

93Ro

sela

nd C

usto

mer

Con

veni

ence

Cen

ter

--

--

--

-$9

60,0

00-

$960

,000

Osl

o Cu

stom

er C

onve

nien

ce C

ente

r-

--

--

$1,2

50,0

00-

--

$1,2

50,0

00Gi

ffor

d Cu

stom

er C

onve

nien

ce C

ente

r-

--

--

-$7

15,0

00-

-$7

15,0

00To

tal

--

$2,1

06,4

93-

-$1

,250

,000

$715

,000

$960

,000

$0$5

,031

,493

$251

,575

155,

514

$1.6

2

Aver

age

Annu

al C

apita

l Exp

endi

ture

s(2)

Aver

age

Annu

al W

eigh

ted

Popu

latio

n(3)

Expe

nditu

re p

er R

esid

ent(4

)



Net Solid Waste Impact Cost The net impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table III-4 summarizes the calculation of the net solid waste impact cost per resident, which is also the relevant LOS for impact fee purposes and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of serviced used for impact fee calculation purposes.

Table III-4 Net Impact Cost per Weighted Resident

(1) Source: Table III-2 (2) Source: Table III-3 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a discount

rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years (4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the capital expansion credit per resident (Item 3)

Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule The calculated solid waste impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table III-5. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons per unit by land use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $83 for the multi-family residential land use to $163 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet or more space.

Calculation Step Impact CostRevenue Credits

Total Impact Cost per Weighted Resident(1) $94.34

Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Weighted Resident(2) $1.62 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Weighted Resident(3) $29.85

Net Impact Cost per Weighted Resident(4) $64.49

Impact Cost

Revenue Credit

Net Impact Cost

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 2.26 $64.49 $146 $75 94 - 2,500 sf or greater du 2.52 $64.49 $163 $75 117

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.28 $64.49 $83 $57 45240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 1.44 $64.49 $93 $75 24

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room n/a n/a $0 $21 -100320 Motel room n/a n/a $0 $21 -100260 Nursing Home bed n/a n/a $0 $33 -100252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed n/a n/a $0 $62 -100

OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100710 General Office 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100150 Warehousing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $47 -100151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $19 -100152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $47 -100110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100n/a Concrete Plant acre n/a n/a $0 $213 -100n/a Sand Mining acre n/a n/a $0 $213 -100

RETAIL :820 Retail Center 1,000 sfgla n/a n/a $0 $236 -1004/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. n/a n/a $0 $39 -100841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100932 Restaurant 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $330 -100934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $330 -100850 Supermarket 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $424 -100942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $20 -100947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay n/a n/a $0 $77 -100853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $424 -100890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole n/a n/a $0 $38 -100492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100412 County Park site n/a n/a $0 $85 -100491 Tennis Court court n/a n/a $0 $18 -100420 Marina berth n/a n/a $0 $45 -100

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100590 Library 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100571 Jail bed n/a n/a $0 $16 -100

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100610 Hospital 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $83 -100640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100560 Church 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $33 -100444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen n/a n/a $0 $188 -100520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student n/a n/a $0 $12 -100522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student n/a n/a $0 $12 -100530 High School (Private, 9-12) student n/a n/a $0 $13 -1000/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student n/a n/a $0 $13 -100

720



Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Figure III-1, due to the availability of a large amount of non-impact fee revenue and relatively low growth rate, the County does not need any impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. If the County decides not to use the recurring revenues toward future customer convenience centers, the calculated impact fee for a mid-size single family home would be approximately $213 ($94.34 multiplied by 2.26 persons per housing unit) and the full impact fee would be needed for this service.

Figure III-1 Solid Waste Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach

Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of solid waste impact fees, the County staff recommends suspending the fee schedule based on affordable growth calculations. Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As mentioned previously, solid waste impact fees are relatively rare. Table III-6 presents the comparison of Indian River County’s existing and calculated fees to those jurisdictions that do collect a solid waste impact fee.

IRC Average Annual

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

34

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e III

-6

Solid

Was

te Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e Co

mpa

rison

(1

) du

= d

wel

ling

unit

(2)

Sour

ce: T

able

III-5

(3

) Ca

lcul

ated

bas

ed o

n av

erag

e an

nual

gro

wth

rate

of 1

.4%

and

non

-impa

ct fe

e sp

endi

ng o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$252

,000

per

yea

r (4

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

that

affo

rdab

le g

row

th fe

e ra

tes

(5)

Sour

ce: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y; fe

es a

re c

urre

ntly

susp

ende

d (6

) So

urce

: Bre

vard

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t (7

) So

urce

: City

of N

orth

Por

t Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t (8

) So

urce

: City

of F

ort P

ierc

e

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Ra

te(5

)

Date

of L

ast U

pdat

e20

1420

1420

1420

0520

0020

1120

07Ad

optio

n Pe

rcen

tage

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

100%

50%

60%

Resi

dent

ial:

Sing

le F

amily

(2,0

00 sf

)du

$146

$0$0

$75

$160

$150

$136

Non

-Res

iden

tial:

Ligh

t Ind

ustr

ial

1,00

0 sf

$0$0

$0$2

36n/

a$9

0$1

59O

ffic

e (5

0,00

0 sq

ft)

1,00

0 sf

$0$0

$0$9

4n/

a$4

9$8

7Re

tail

(100

,000

sq ft

)1,

000

sf$0

$0$0

$236

n/a

$104

$185

Bank

w/D

rive-

Thru

1,00

0 sf

$0$0

$0$1

18n/

a$6

4$1

14Fa

st F

ood

w/D

rive-

Thru

1,00

0 sf

$0$0

$0$3

30n/

a$7

80$1

,387

Land

Use

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Brev

ard

Coun

ty(6

)

City

of N

orth

Po

rt(7

)

City

of F

ort

Pier

ce(8

)



IV. Public Buildings Public buildings impact fees are used to fund the land purchases and capital construction and expansion of facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional government service demand created by growth. There are several major elements associated with the development of the administrative facilities impact fee. These include:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Public Buildings Impact Cost Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

Facility Inventory The public facilities inventory includes facilities that are primarily for the provision of essential county services and do not include any of the buildings included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by Indian River County, the County has approximately 565,000 square feet of general public facility space. This includes the square footage of both primary and support buildings. Support facilities are defined as trailers, facilities without air-conditioning, or facilities that are unlikely to be occupied by personnel. Table IV-1 shows a summary of the public buildings inventory and the current value of buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 414,000 square feet of primary bulding space and 151,000 square feet of support space.



Building value of the facilities included in the inventory was estimated based on insurance values, estimates for future buildings, and cost information obtained from other jurisdictions. This analysis resulted in an estimate cost of $210 per square foot for primary buildings and $50 per square foot for support buildings. In addition to building value, land values were estimated for future land purchases. Land value was determined primarily through a review of the value of parcels where the current public buildings are located, as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser, and an analysis of vacant land sales and values of 1- to 15-acre lots in Indian River County. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $90,000 per acre. Additional information is included in Appendix F.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

37

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e IV

-1

Sum

mar

y of

Pub

lic B

uild

ings

Fac

ilitie

s Inv

ento

ry(1

)

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Base

d on

$21

0 pe

r squ

are

foot

for p

rimar

y bu

ildin

gs a

nd $

50 p

er sq

uare

foot

for s

uppo

rt fa

cilit

ies

(3)

Base

d on

$90

,000

per

acr

e (4

) Su

m o

f bui

ldin

g va

lue

(Item

2) a

nd la

nd v

alue

(Ite

m 3

) (5

) Ex

clud

es sq

uare

foot

age

asso

ciat

ed w

ith L

aw L

ibra

ry, w

hich

is in

clud

ed a

s par

t of t

he in

vent

ory

used

in th

e lib

rary

impa

ct fe

e (6

) To

tal b

uild

ing

and

land

val

ue d

ivid

ed b

y to

tal b

uild

ing

squa

re fo

otag

e an

d ac

reag

e, re

spec

tivel

y. S

ee A

ppen

dix

F fo

r fur

ther

det

ail.

Faci

lity

Year

Bu

ilt(1

)

Build

ing

Squa

re F

eet(1

)Ac

reag

e(1)

Build

ing

Valu

e(2)

Land

Valu

e(3)

Tota

l Va

lue(4

)

Prim

ary

Build

ings

New

Cou

nty

Adm

in. B

uild

ing

Com

plex

2007

177,

092

5.71

$37,

189,

320

$513

,900

$37,

703,

220

Heal

th D

epar

tmen

t Bui

ldin

g19

9039

,130

1.90

$8,2

17,3

00$1

71,0

00$8

,388

,300

Cour

thou

se -

Judi

cial

Com

plex

(5)

1994

116,

007

2.17

$24,

361,

470

$195

,300

$24,

556,

770

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Anne

x19

628,

400

0.81

$1,7

64,0

00$7

2,90

0$1

,836

,900

Road

& B

ridge

/Tra

ffic

Fac

ilitie

sVa

ries

18,3

5011

.16

$3,8

53,5

00$1

,004

,400

$4,8

57,9

00Tr

ansi

t Adm

in. B

uild

ing

2012

8,17

12.

86$1

,715

,910

$257

,400

$1,9

73,3

10Su

perv

isor

of E

lect

ions

Sub

-Ann

ex (4

3rd

Ave)

2006

31,2

385.

82$6

,559

,980

$523

,800

$7,0

83,7

80Em

erge

ncy

Ope

ratio

ns C

ente

r20

0716

,000

13.3

8$3

,360

,000

$1,2

04,2

00$4

,564

,200

Old

Hum

ane

Soci

ety

Build

ing

1986

n/a

4.77

n/a

$429

,300

$429

,300

Subt

otal

-- P

rimar

y Bu

ildin

gs41

4,38

848

.58

$87,

021,

480

$4,3

72,2

00$9

1,39

3,68

0Su

ppor

t Bui

ldin

gsCo

urth

ouse

- Ju

dici

al C

ompl

ex P

arki

ng G

arag

e19

9413

5,78

01.

49$6

,789

,000

$134

,100

$6,9

23,1

00Fl

eet M

anag

emen

t Fac

ility

2004

15,6

733.

62$7

83,6

50$3

25,8

00$1

,109

,450

Subt

otal

-- S

uppo

rt B

uild

ings

151,

453

5.11

$7,5

72,6

50$4

59,9

00$8

,032

,550

565,

841

53.6

9$9

4,59

4,13

0$4

,832

,100

$99,

426,

230

$167

.17

$90,

000

Unit

Cost

(6)

Tota

l -- A

ll Bu

ildin

gs



Service Area and Population Indian River County provides all residents, workers, and visitors the benefit of government services. As such the service area was determined to be the entire county.

To be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections. As mentioned previously, weighted seasonal population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, public buildings is one of the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A.

Level-of-Service

Based on the information provided by the County, Indian River County’s 2013 achieved level-of-service (LOS) is 2.80 square feet of primary facilities per weighted resident. Table IV-2 presents the calculation of the existing LOS. In addition, the adopted LOS standard is 1.99 square feet per resident. The County’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the addition of approximately 10,000 square feet of public buildings space. With this additional investment, the LOS is estimated at 2.78 square feet per resident by 2017. Given that both the current and 2017 estimated LOS are higher than the adopted LOS standard, the impact fee calculations were based on the adopted LOS standard, resulting in more conservative impact fee levels. The adopted LOS standard is converted to square feet per functional resident, which resulted in 2.10 square feet per resident, as shown in Table IV-2.

Although the LOS is measured in terms of building square feet per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for public buildings infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for public buildings, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.



Table IV-2 Current Level-of-Service

(1) Source: Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-11 (2) Source: Table IV-1 (3) Total square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide population (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County (5) The CIP includes the addition of 10,000 square feet of public buildings space over the next five years (6) Future public buildings square footage (Item 5) divided by the 2017 population

Table IV-3 presents a comparison of IRC’s LOS standard with the LOS standards of other counties. It is important to note that the public building square footage for different jurisdictions is not readily available in a format to provide an “apples-to-apples” comparison. As such, information obtained from a recent study on the LOS analysis for government buildings was used as the basis for the comparison included in Table IV-3.

Weighted Population


Population(1) 148,001 140,186Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings) (2) 414,388 414,388Achieved LOS (Sq. Ft. per Resident)(3) 2.80 2.96Adopted LOS Standard (Sq. Ft. per Residents) (4) 1.99 2.10

Population -- 2017(1) 152,612 144,582Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings) (5) 424,388 424,388Achieved LOS (Sq. Ft. per Resident)(6) 2.78 2.94

ComponentYear 2013

Future LOS:



Table IV-3 Level-of-Service Comparison

(1) Source: Table IV-1 for IRC; “Collier County Government Buildings & Law

Enforcement Facilities Level-of-Service Analysis, 2010” for other jurisdictions (2) Source: BEBR, 2012 final population estimates (3) Primary square footage divided by permanent population (Item 2)

Cost Component The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings and land. Table IV-4 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to $240 per square foot of public buildings, and $504 per functional resident.

CountyTotal Square

Footage(1)

Primary Square

Footage(1)

Permanent Population(2)

Sq. Ft. per Resident(3)

Seminole 770,029 710,096 428,104 1.66Hernando 319,946 313,305 173,104 1.81Palm Beach 3,431,780 2,588,451 1,335,415 1.94Pasco 1,027,749 922,219 468,562 1.97Manatee 829,913 763,290 330,302 2.31Polk 1,692,402 1,416,373 606,888 2.33Brevard 1,418,931 1,370,073 545,625 2.51Collier 1,436,493 891,384 329,849 2.70Osceola 969,392 807,020 280,866 2.87Escambia 1,263,692 872,880 299,511 2.91Indian River 565,841 414,388 139,446 2.97Marion 1,357,640 1,045,175 332,989 3.14Charlotte 664,786 641,994 163,357 3.93St. Johns 773,347 771,047 196,071 3.93



Table IV-4 Public Building Total Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table IV-1 (2) Source: Table IV-1 (3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (Item 2) (4) Source: Table IV-1 (5) Total building and land value (Item 3) divided by primary building square footage (Item 4) (6) Source: Table IV-2 (7) Building and land value per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by building square footage per functional

resident (Item 6) (8) Percentage distribution of building value and land value in relation to the combined building and land

value Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the public buildings impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for public buildings was conducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits that should be considered for revenues generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities and land expansion for public buildings. To estimate an average annual non-impact fee expenditure, capital projects funded during the past five years and programmed for the next five years were reviewed. Based on this analysis, a credit for these expenditures is provided in Table IV-5, which results in an average annual credit of $5 per functional resident. It should be noted that a large part of this funding is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. The credit calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the credit calculations should be evaluated to determine if a revision is necessary.

Cost Component FigurePercent of

Total Value(8)

Total Building Value(1) $94,594,130 95.14%

Total Land Value(2) $4,832,100 4.86%

Total Building and Land Value(3) $99,426,230 100.00%

Primary Building Square Footage(4) 414,388

Total Building and Land Value per Square Foot(5) $239.94

Adopted LOS Standard - Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident(6) 2.10

Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(7) $503.87

Capi

tal E

xpan

sion

Pro

ject

Fun

ding

per

Fun

ctio

nal R

esid

ent(1

)

y

res

fund

ed b

y th

e op

tiona

l sal

es ta

x di

vide

d by

10

year

s ex

pend

iture

s fun

ded

with

sale

s tax

reve

nues

(Ite

m 2

) div

ided

by

the

aver

age

annu

al fu

nctio

nal p

opul

atio

n (It

em 7

) re

s fun

ded

with

cou

rt fa

cilit

y su

rcha

rge

reve

nues

div

ided

by

10 y

ears

ex

pend

iture

s fun

ded

with

cou

rt fa

cilit

y su

rcha

rge

reve

nues

(Ite

m 4

) div

ided

by

the

aver

age

annu

al fu

nctio

nal p

opul

atio

n (It

em 7

) di

ture

s fun

ded

with

sale

s tax

reve

nues

and

the

subt

otal

exp

endi

ture

s fun

ded

with

cou

rt fa

cilit

y su

rcha

rge

reve

nues

A-

11

nsio

n ex

pend

iture

s per

yea

r (Ite

m 6

) div

ided

by

aver

age

annu

al fu

nctio

nal p

opul

atio

n (It

em 7

)

Desc

riptio

nFY

200

7/08

FY 2

008/

09FY

200

9/10

FY 2

010/

11FY

201

1/12

FY 2

012/

13FY

201

3/14

FY 2

014/

15FY

201

5/16

etw

ork

--

--

-$3

59,6

80$1

18,5

08-

tiona

l Off

ices

)-

--

--

-$2

,000

,000

-en

ter

$4,1

52,6

40$3

06,5

86-

--

--

-un

ded

with

Sal

es T

ax R

even

ues

$4,1

52,6

40$3

06,5

86-

--

$359

,680

$2,1

18,5

08-

--

--

--

$250

,000

-un

ded

with

Cou

rt F

acili

ty S

urch

arge

Rev

enue

s$0

$0-

--

-$2

50,0

00-

urt F

acili

ty S

urch

arge

:$4

,152

,640

$306

,586

--

-$3

59,6

80$2

,368

,508

-ns

ion

Expe

nditu

res p

er Y

ear(6

)

Pop

ulat

ion(7

)

pans

ion

Expe

nditu

res p

er R

esid

ent(8

)

Exp

endi

ture

s Fun

ded

with

Sal

es T

ax R

even

ues(2

)

res p

er R

esid

ent (

Sale

s Tax

)(3)

Exp

endi

ture

s Fun

ded

with

Cou

rt F

acili

ty S

urch

arge

Rev

enue

s(4)

res p

er R

esid

ent (

Cour

t Fac

ility

Sur

char

ge)(5

)



Net Public Buildings Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the Cost Component and the Credit Component. Table IV-6 presents the calculation of the net public buildings facilities impact cost per functional resident. The first section of Table IV-6 identifies the total impact cost as $504 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the capital expandion expenditure credits for the public buildings facilities impact fee. The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident of $504 and the total revenue credit of $24 per functional resident. The result is a net impact cost of $480 per functional resident, which also represents the relevant LOS measure for impact fee purposes.

Table IV-6

Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table IV-4 (2) Source: Table IV-5 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of

2.5% for 5 years for sales tax and the court facility surcharge. The estimated discount rate is provided by Indian River County.

(4) Total cost per resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident (Item 3)

Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule

Based on the analysis conducted in this section, a public buildings impact fee schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table IV-7.

Sales TaxCourt

Facility Surcharge

Total


Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit Amount per Functional Resident(2) $4.94 $0.18

Capitalization Rate 2.5% 2.5%

Capitalization Period (in years) 5 5

Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(3) $22.95 $0.84 $23.79

Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $480.08

Net Impact Cost

Revenue CreditsImpact

CostCalculation Step

Impact Cost

Revenue Credit

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-12 for residential and lodging land uses and Table A-15 for non-residential land uses (2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table IV-6) by the functional resident coefficient (Item

- 2,500 sf or greater du 1.72 $826 $223 270220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.87 $418 $121 245240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $470 $149 215

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0.65 $312 $229 36320 Motel room 0.60 $288 $229 25

252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $442 $312 41OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $547 $1,275 -57Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $797 $1,275 -37

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $1,071 $1,454 -26912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $1,095 $1,191 -8710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $480 $1,050 -54760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $408 $555 -26

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $240 $375 -36150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $134 $288 -53151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $29 $40 -27152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.14 $67 $288 -76110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $331 $512 -35n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $744 $1,130 -34n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $96 $145 -33

RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 2.37 $1,138 $1,531 -25

944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 1.91 $917 $921 -0841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $706 $912 -22932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $3,255 $3,923 -17934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $4,273 $4,227 1850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $984 $1,087 -9942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $720 $134 437947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $418 $1,009 -58853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $2,799 $2,270 23890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $110 $170 -35

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $518 $1,307 -60492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $1,483 $1,270 16412 County Park acre 0.20 $96 $81 18491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $1,517 $1,241 22420 Marina berth 0.19 $91 $82 11

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $778 $1,107 -29590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $845 $919 -8571 Jail bed 1.39 $667 $466 43

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $427 $755 -43610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $658 $838 -21640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $1,219 $1,223 -0560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $245 $285 -14444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $2,871 $4,535 -36520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $29 $70 -58522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $34 $70 -51530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $38 $90 -57

540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $48 $78 -38n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 0.63 $302 $339 -10

720



Affordable Growth Strategy

Based on the data shown in Table IV-5, the County will use $694,000 per year of sales tax revenues for the next five years. In addition, the County uses approximately $25,000 per year of recurring non-impact fee funding for capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure IV-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of public buildings impact fee calculated, if the historical levels of non-impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in the calculations. If the County decides to charge the residential land uses the full calculated fee (at 100 percent), the fee adoption rate for non-residential land could be reduced to 52 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, these calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or another revenue source becomes available for public buildings capital projects, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard.

Figure IV-1 Public Buildings Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach

90%

- Less than 1,500 sf du 100% $687 $183 275 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% $739 $206 258 - 2,500 sf or greater du 100% $826 $223 270

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 100% $418 $121 245240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 100% $470 $149 215

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 52% $162 $229 -29320 Motel room 52% $150 $229 -34

52/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 52% $230 $312 -26OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 52% $284 $1,275 -77Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 52% $414 $1,275 -67

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 52% $557 $1,454 -61912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 52% $569 $1,191 -52710 General Office 1,000 sf 52% $250 $1,050 -76760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 52% $212 $555 -61

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 52% $125 $375 -66150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 52% $70 $288 -75151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 52% $15 $40 -62152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 52% $35 $288 -87110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 52% $172 $512 -66n/a Concrete Plant acre 52% $387 $1,130 -65n/a Sand Mining acre 52% $50 $145 -65

RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 52% $592 $1,531 -61

44/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 52% $477 $921 -48841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 52% $367 $912 -59932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 52% $1,693 $3,923 -56934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 52% $2,222 $4,227 -47850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 52% $512 $1,087 -52942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 52% $374 $134 179947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 52% $217 $1,009 -78853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 52% $1,455 $2,270 -35890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 52% $57 $170 -66

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 52% $269 $1,307 -79492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 52% $771 $1,270 -39412 County Park acre 52% $50 $81 -38491 Tennis Court court 52% $789 $1,241 -36420 Marina berth 52% $47 $82 -42

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 52% $405 $1,107 -63590 Library 1,000 sf 52% $439 $919 -52571 Jail bed 52% $347 $466 -25

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 52% $222 $755 -70610 Hospital 1,000 sf 52% $342 $838 -59640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 52% $634 $1,223 -48560 Church 1,000 sf 52% $127 $285 -55444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 52% $1,493 $4,535 -67520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 52% $15 $70 -78522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 52% $18 $70 -74530 High School (Private 9-12) student 52% $20 $90 -77

210

720



Staff Recommendation Fee Rate

Based on a review of upcoming capital needs, the County staff recommends adopting the affordable growth fee schedule with a 50 percent discount. This is a policy discount based on a review capital needs over the next several year and will be reviewed over the next three to four years, when an impact fee update study is prepared.

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 50% $370 $206 79 - 2,500 sf or greater du 50% $413 $223 85

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 50% $209 $121 72240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 50% $235 $149 57

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 50% $81 $229 -64320 Motel room 50% $75 $229 -67

52/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 50% $115 $312 -63OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 50% $142 $1,275 -88Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 50% $207 $1,275 -83

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 50% $279 $1,454 -80912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 50% $285 $1,191 -76710 General Office 1,000 sf 50% $125 $1,050 -88760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 50% $106 $555 -80

INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 50% $63 $375 -83150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 50% $35 $288 -87151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 50% $8 $40 -80152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 50% $18 $288 -93110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 50% $86 $512 -83n/a Concrete Plant acre 50% $194 $1,130 -82n/a Sand Mining acre 50% $25 $145 -82

RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 50% $296 $1,531 -80

44/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 50% $239 $921 -74841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 50% $184 $912 -79932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 50% $847 $3,923 -78934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 50% $1,111 $4,227 -73850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 50% $256 $1,087 -76942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 50% $187 $134 39947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 50% $109 $1,009 -89853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 50% $728 $2,270 -67890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 50% $29 $170 -82

RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 50% $135 $1,307 -89492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 50% $386 $1,270 -69412 County Park acre 50% $25 $81 -69491 Tennis Court court 50% $395 $1,241 -68420 Marina berth 50% $24 $82 -70

GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 50% $203 $1,107 -81590 Library 1,000 sf 50% $220 $919 -76571 Jail bed 50% $174 $466 -62

MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 50% $111 $755 -85610 Hospital 1,000 sf 50% $171 $838 -79640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 50% $317 $1,223 -74560 Church 1,000 sf 50% $64 $285 -77444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 50% $747 $4,535 -83520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 50% $8 $70 -88522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 50% $9 $70 -87530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 50% $10 $90 -88

40/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 50% $13 $78 -83n/a Fire Station 1 000 sf 50% $79 $339 76

210

720



Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s public buildings impact fee schedule, the County’s calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedule and those in similar or nearby jurisdictions. Table IV-10 presents this comparison.

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Impa

ct F

ee S

ched

ule

Com

paris

on

ling

unit

able

IV-7

ab

le IV

-8

able

IV-9

; Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

cha

rgin

g 50

per

cent

of t

he a

fford

able

gro

wth

fee

rate

s.

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y; fe

es a

re c

urre

ntly

susp

ende

d.

. Luc

ie C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Dep

artm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en in

crea

sed

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

ha

rlott

e Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Lan

d De

velo

pmen

t Dep

artm

ent.

In C

harlo

tte,

ban

k w

/driv

e-th

ru is

cha

rged

“pe

r lan

e”.

Fees

hav

e be

en re

duce

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g. F

ees a

re c

urre

d.

trus

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t ol

lier C

ount

y Im

pact

Fee

Adm

inist

ratio

n De

part

men

t. F

ees h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

er

nand

o Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

artin

Cou

nty

Grow

th M

anag

emen

t Dep

artm

ent

. Joh

ns C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Zon

ing

Depa

rtm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en in

crea

sed

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Ra

te(5

)

Last

Upd

ate

2014

2014

2014

2005

2009

2009

2010

2010

2005

2012

Perc

enta

ge10

0%n/

an/

a10

0%10

0%62

%50

%10

0%10

0%10

0%

y (2

,000

sf)

du$7

39$7

39$3

70$2

06$3

36$3

78$2

64$7

66$4

66$6

4nt

ial:

ial

1,00

0 sf

$331

$172

$86

$512

$68

$131

$60

$271

$168

$18

00 sq

ft)

1,00

0 sf

$480

$250

$125

$1,0

50$2

97$2

38$1

51$5

58$3

35$3

100

sq ft

)1,

000

sf$1

,138

$592

$296

$1,5

31$5

04$3

66$3

05$9

66$6

51$5

5e-

Thru

1,00

0 sf

$1,0

95$5

69$2

85$1

,191

$438

$515

$305

$895

$651

$55

/Driv

e-Th

ru1,

000

sf$4

,273

$2,2

22$1

,111

$4,2

27$4

38$1

,473

$305

$3,5

39$1

,012

$2,4

8

Mar

tin

Coun

ty(1

1)

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(7)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(8

)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(9

)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(10)

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(6)

d U

seU

nit(1

)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty



V. Libraries Library impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of library services related buildings, land, and materials/equipment required to support the additional library facilities demand created by new growth. This section provides the results of the library impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the library facilities impact fee:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Library Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

These various elements are summarized in this section. It should be noted that library impact fees are charged to residential land uses only. Facility Inventory The IRC Library Service operates five libraries with a total square footage of 110,000. The following table presents the inventory of library facilities. The building value is estimated at $240 per square foot based on recent library construction and insurance values of existing libraries. Land value for library buildings is estimated at $50,000 per acre based on value of current parcels and an analysis of recent vacant land sales and values. Appendix F provides additional information on building and land value estimates.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

52

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e V-

1 Li

brar

y La

nd &

Bui

ldin

g In

vent

ory

(1)

Sour

ce: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y

(2)

Sour

ce: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y; L

and

asso

ciat

ed w

ith L

aw, G

iffor

d Yo

uth

Activ

ities

Cen

ter a

nd B

rack

ett L

ibra

ries

is no

t inc

lude

d be

caus

e it

is ei

ther

not

ow

ned

by th

e Co

unty

or a

ccou

nted

for i

n an

othe

r im

pact

fee

prog

ram

are

a (3

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(4)

Acre

s (Ite

m 2

) mul

tiplie

d by

the

land

val

ue p

er a

cre

(Item

7)

(5)

Squa

re fo

otag

e (It

em 3

) mul

tiplie

d by

bui

ldin

g va

lue

per s

quar

e fo

ot (I

tem

8)

(6)

Sum

of l

and

valu

e (It

em 4

) and

bui

ldin

g va

lue

(Item

5)

(7)

Base

d on

a re

view

of v

acan

t lan

d sa

les a

nd v

alue

s. S

ee A

ppen

dix

F fo

r add

ition

al d

etai

l. (8

) Ba

sed

on re

cent

con

stru

ctio

n, in

sura

nce

valu

es, a

nd o

ther

ava

ilabl

e m

ater

ials.

See

App

endi

x F

for a

dditi

onal

det

ail.

Faci

lity

Desc

riptio

nAd

dres

sYe

ar

Built

(1)

Acre

s(2)

Squa

re

Foot

age(3

)

Land

Va

lue(4

)

Build

ing

Valu

e(5)

Tota

l Bui

ldin

g an

d La

nd

Valu

e(6)

Mai

n Li

brar

y16

00 2

1st S

tree

t, Ve

ro B

each

, FL 3

2960

1991

4.18

049

,286

$209

,000

$11,

828,

640

$12,

037,

640

Nor

th C

ount

y Li

brar

y10

01 C

R 51

2, S

ebas

tian,

FL 3

2958

1993

4.11

525

,445

$205

,750

$6,1

06,8

00$6

,312

,550

Law

Libr

ary

2000

16t

h Av

enue

, Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2960

1994

n/a

3,99

3n/

a$9

58,3

20$9

58,3

20Gi

ffor

d Yo

uth

Activ

ities

Cen

ter L

ibra

ry48

75 4

3rd

Aven

ue, V

ero

Beac

h, F

L 329

67n/

an/

a1,

513

n/a

$363

,120

$363

,120

Brac

kett

Libr

ary

6155

Col

lege

Lane

, Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2966

2009

n/a

30,0

00n/

a$7

,200

,000

$7,2

00,0

008.

295

110,

237

$414

,750

$26,

456,

880

$26,

871,

630

$50,

000

$240

Land

Val

ue p

er A

cre(7

)

Tota

l

Build

ing

Valu

e pe

r Squ

are

Foot

(8)



The five facilities identified in Table V-1 house a wide variety of materials available to the public. Table V-2 presents the inventory of library materials.

Table V-2

Library Material Inventory

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Number of units multiplied by the cost (3) Total value for all library materials divided by the total units for all library materials

In addition to the available material, the IRC Library System owns a variety of equipment, both for public use and for its own operations. Table V-3 presents the inventory of equipment for public versus operational use. It should be noted that impact fee standards are based on the equipment for public use, excluding the equipment used by the library staff.

Description Units(1) Unit Cost(1) Total Value(2)

Books:Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 9,724 $25 $243,100Law Library 225 $80 $18,000Main, North, Brackett Libraries: - All Books 443,181 $53 $23,488,593 - Electronic Resources 28,812 $100 $2,881,200 - Electronic Books 1,525 $100 $152,500 - Serials 14,027 $75 $1,052,025 - Books on Tape/CD 15,023 $75 $1,126,725Total - Books 512,517 $28,962,143Online Resources:Online Resource Subscriptions 68 $4,094 $278,392Other Library Items:Music CDs 16,200 $15 $243,000DVDs 24,798 $20 $495,960Videos 4,386 $15 $65,790Print Subscriptions 1,775 $39 $69,225Other Print Materials 24,775 $50 $1,238,750Total - Other Library Items 71,934 $2,112,725Total - All Library Materials 584,519 $31,353,260Total Value per Item(3) $54



Table V-3 Library Equipment Inventory

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Number of items multiplied by the unit cost

Service Area and Population Library services are provided on a countywide basis and the impact fee is charged only to residential land uses. As such, consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, countywide weighted seasonal population is used in the calculation. The County’s current population estimates and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. Level-of-Service The following table provides a summary of the current LOS as well as the adopted LOS standard for library buildings, books, other library materials, and computers in Indian River County.

Public Staff TotalCopiers 6 4 10 $7,000 $70,000Book Scribe Copier 1 0 1 $16,500 $16,500Laser Printers 10 6 16 $2,136 $34,176Computers 121 74 195 $900 $175,500Large Print Readers 1 0 1 $5,000 $5,00030" TV 1 0 1 $800 $80045" TVs 1 0 1 $2,000 $2,00052" TVs 1 0 1 $2,356 $2,35642" TVs 1 0 1 $1,527 $1,52746" TVs 1 0 1 $2,205 $2,20532" TVs 3 0 3 $2,428 $7,284Dollar Changer 1 0 1 $2,955 $2,955Laminator 1 1 $1,265 $1,265Camcorder 1 0 1 $800 $800LCD Projectors 5 0 5 $2,500 $12,500Total - All Items 154 85 239 $334,868Total - All (excluding computers) 33 11 44 $159,368

Number of Items(1) Unit Cost(1)Equipment

Total Equipment

Value(2)



Although the LOS is measured in terms of buildings, materials and equipment per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for library infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for libraries, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.

Table V-4 Level-of-Service (2013)

(1) Source: Table V-1 for buildings, Table V-2 for materials, and Table V-3 for computers and equipment (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (3) Square footage/count (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2) multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County (5) Source: Table V-3; only computers and equipment available for public use are included

As presented in the table, the County’s current LOS is above the adopted LOS standard for all elements, except for other library equipment. For impact fee calculations, the adopted LOS standard is used in order to ensure new development is not overcharged. In addition, a review of the CIP indicated that there are no capital expansion projects programmed for the next five years. As such, the existing LOS is likely to decrease somewhat, which suggests that it is preferable to use the adopted LOS standard to provide a more conservative approach. A comparison of the current Indian River County LOS, the adopted LOS standard, LOS of the other Florida counties, and the suggested State standards is presented in Table V-5. The comparison includes counties with a population of 100,000 to 750,000, and is based on the information obtained from the Library Directory with Statistics, published by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services.

ItemSq.

Footage/ Count(1)

Population(2)

LOS (per 1,000

Residents)(3)

Adopted LOS Standard (per

1,000 Residents)(4)

Library Buildings (sf) 110,237 148,001 745 580Library Materials (items) 584,519 148,001 3,949 3,200Computers(5) 121 148,001 0.8 0.7Other Library Equipment (items)(5) 33 148,001 0.2 0.2



Table V-5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to Florida Standards

(1) Source: Table V-4 (2) Source: Standards for Florida Public Libraries, 2004; Updated April 2013 (3) Library materials include books, online resources, subscriptions, and other library items

IRC’s adopted LOS standard for buildings does not meet the Florida Library Association’s (FLA) essential standards. However, the County’s adopted standard for library materials and computers and achieved LOS for all other areas are between the enhanced and exemplary LOS standards established by the State. The following table provides a comparison of the current IRC LOS to those of surrounding counties as well as other Florida counties. IRC’s LOS is higher than surrounding counties in all areas, except for computers. In terms of computers, IRC ranks second after Brevard County.

Table V-6

Comparison of IRC Current LOS to Surrounding Counties (per 1,000 residents)

(1) Library materials for IRC include books, CDs, DVDs, videos, print, and online resource subscriptions.

Library materials for other counties include books, serial subscriptions, and Audio/video volumes (2) Source: Department of State – Division of Library & Information Services, 2009/10 Library Directory with

Statistics; Includes public computers only (3) Source: Table V-4 (4) Peer group includes jurisdictions with 100,000 to 750,000 service area population (excluding IRC) (5) Includes all jurisdictions in Florida (excluding IRC)

Essential Enhanced Exemplary

Library Buildings (sq. ft.) 745 580 600 700 1,000Library Materials(3) 3,949 3,200 2,000 3,000 4,000Computers 0.8 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.00

FL Public Library Standards(2)

Item

IRC LOS Standard (per

1,000 Residents)(1)

IRC Achieved LOS (per 1,000

Residents)(1)

Indian River (Existing)(3) Brevard Osceola Okeechobee St. Lucie

Avg. of Peer Group(4)

Avg. of Other FL Counties(5)

Library Buildings (sq. ft.) 745 700 337 388 317 422 500Library Materials(1) 3,949 2,662 1,011 2,256 1,146 1,898 2,074Computers(2) 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8

ItemPer 1,000 Residents



Cost Component Costs are calculated separately for facilities and items/equipment. Facility costs are based on the estimated cost to add the next library building, and the cost of library items and equipment is based on the estimated current value per unit. Buildings and Land Table V-7 summarizes the calculation of library facility and land values. The total impact cost or total value per resident for library buildings and land in Indian River County is $141.

Table V-7 Building and Land Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Table V-1 (2) Source: Table V-1 (3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (item 2) (4) Source: Table V-1 (5) Building and land value (Item 3) divided by building square footage (Item 4) (6) Source: Table V-4 (7) Total building and land value per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by the

adopted LOSS (Item 6) divided by 1,000 Library Materials and Equipment The following table provides a summary of library materials and equipment costs per resident, which amounts to $175.

Element FigureTotal Building Value (1) $26,456,880Total Land Value(2) $414,750Total Building and Land Value(3) $26,871,630Building Square Footage(4) 110,237Total Building and Land Cost per Square Foot(5) $243.76Adopted LOS Standard (sf per 1,000 residents)(6) 580Total Building and Land Cost per Resident(7) $141.38



Table V-8 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Table V-2 (2) Source: Table V-4 (3) Library materials value per item (Item 1) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for

materials per resident (Item 2) (4) Source: Table V-3; Total value divided by the number of items available for public use (5) Source: Table V-4 (6) Unit value of computers (Item 4) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for

computers per resident (Item 5) (7) Source: Table V-3; Total value divided by the number of items available for public use (8) Source: Table V-4 (9) Other library equipment cost (Item 7) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for 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 To avoid overcharging new development, a review of funding for library capital expansion projects over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, that are being used or will be used to fund the expansion of capital facilities, land, and materials for the County’s libraries program. This review suggests that historically the County used primarily State grants to fund a portion of capacity expansion over the past five years and has no capacity projects included in the CIP.

Element Figure

Library Materials Value per Item(1) $54

Adopted LOS Standard for Materials per Resident(2) 3.20

Library Materials Value per Resident(3) $172.80

Computers - Unit Value(4) $1,450

Adopted LOS Standard for Computers per Resident(5) 0.0007

Computer Value per Resident(6) $1.02

Other Library Equipment Value per Item(7) $4,829

Adopted LOS Standard for Other Library Equipment per Resident(8) 0.0002

Other Library Equipment Value per Resident(9) $0.97

Total Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident(10) $174.79



Capital Improvement Credit Table V-9 summarizes the library related capital expansion projects that are funded by state grants. The table includes recent expenditures for the years 2008 through 2017. The average annual capital expansion expenditure during this five-year period is $0.34 per resident. This figure is calculated by dividing the average annual total capital expenditure amount for the ten-year period by the County’s average population during the same time period.

Table V-9 Historical Library Capital Expansion Funding Sources

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Average expenditure per year (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (4) Average annual capacity expansion expenditures (Item 2) divided by the

average annual population (Item 3) Net Library Facilities Impact Cost The net impact fee per residence is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table V-10 summarizes the calculation of the net library impact cost per resident, which reflects the relevant LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.

Fiscal YearState Library

Grant(1)

Construction of Brackett Library:FY 2008 $0FY 2009 $300,000FY 2010 $200,000

FY 2011 - FY 2017 $0Total $500,000

Average Annual Capacity Expansion Expenditures(2) $50,000Average Annual Population(3) 148,070Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(4) $0.34



Table V-10 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost

(1) Source: Table V-7 (2) Source: Table V-8 (3) Source: Table V-8 (4) The sum of building, land, materials, and equipment costs (Items 1, 2, and 3) (5) Source: Table V-9 (6) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident

(Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate was provided by Indian River County.

(7) Total impact cost per resident (Item 4) less total credit per resident (Item 6) Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule The calculated library impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table V-11. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons per unit by land use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $397 for the multi-family residential land use to $781 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet or more space.

Calculation StepImpact

CostRevenue Credits

Building and Land Value per Resident (1) $141.38 Library Materials Value per Resident (2) $172.80 Library Computer & Equipment Value per Resident (3) $1.99 Total Impact Cost (4) $316.17

Average Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(5) $0.34 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(6) $6.26

Net Impact Cost per Resident (7) $309.91

Impact Cost

Revenue Credit

Net Impact Cost

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

61

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e V-

11

Calc

ulat

ed L

ibra

ry F

acili

ties I

mpa

ct F

ee S

ched

ule

(1

) So

urce

: Ap

pend

ix A

, Tab

le A

-2

(2)

Sour

ce: T

able

V-1

0 (3

) Re

siden

ts p

er u

nit (

Item

1) m

ultip

lied

by n

et c

ost p

er re

siden

t (Ite

m 2

) (4

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty.

Fee

s sho

wn

do n

ot in

clud

e th

e ad

min

istra

tive

fee.

(5

) Pe

rcen

t cha

nge

from

the

curr

ent a

dopt

ed ra

tes (

Item

4) t

o th

e to

tal i

mpa

ct fe

e (It

em 3

)

Resi

dent

ial L

and

Use

Resi

dent

s pe

r Uni

t (1)

Net

Cos

t per

Re

side

nt(2

)

Impa

ct

Fee(3

)

2009

Adop

ted

Fee(4

)

Perc

ent

Chan

ge(5

)

Resi

dent

ial

Sin

gle

Fam

ily (l

ess t

han

1,50

0 sf

)2.

09$3

09.9

1$6

48$4

3050

.7%

Sin

gle

Fam

ily (1

,500

to 2

,499

sf)

2.26

$309

.91

$700

$483

44.9

% S

ingl

e Fa

mily

(2,5

00 sf

or g

reat

er)

2.52

$309

.91

$781

$524

49.0

% M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

t1.

28$3

09.9

1$3

97$2

8539

.3%

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV P

ark

(tie

d do

wn)

1.44

$309

.91

$446

$349

27.8

%



Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Table V-9, the County uses approximately $50,000 per year of non-impact fee funding for library capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure V-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated above. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Given that the available non-impact fee funding for library capital facilities is very limited, the County needs most of the impact fee (approximately 95 percent) to maintain the adopted LOS standards used to calculate the impact fee. In addition, library impact fees are charged only to residential land uses and the County’s primary focus at this time is to provide some impact fee relief to non-residential land uses.

Figure V-1 Library Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach

95%



Table V-12 Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth

(1) Calculated based on the average annual growth rate of 1.4% and non-impact fee funding of $50,000

per year. (2) Source: Calculated impact fee from Table V-11 multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate

(Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown do not include the administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1)

Staff Recommended Fee Rate Based on a review of capital needs in the near future, the County staff recommends suspension of library impact fees until the next technical update study. At that time, the capital expansion needs for libraries will be reviewed and the suspension may need to be lifted. Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s library impact fee program, a comparison of library facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table V-13 presents this comparison. As presented, Indian River County’s calculated fee is higher than fees adopted by other Counties, which reflects the high investment levels to the County’s library facilities.

Residential Land Use

Affordable Growth

Adoption Rate(1)

Total Impact Fee(2)

2009 Adopted

Fee(3)

Percent Change(4)

Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) 96% $622 $430 44.7% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) 96% $672 $483 39.1% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) 96% $750 $524 43.1% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit 96% $381 $285 33.7% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) 96% $428 $349 22.6%

Libr

ary

Faci

litie

s Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e Co

mpa

rison

uni

t e

V-11

e

V-12

Co

unty

Sta

ff re

com

men

ds su

spen

sion

of th

e lib

rary

faci

litie

s im

pact

fee

base

d on

a re

view

of u

pcom

ing

capi

tal n

eeds

. n

Rive

r Cou

nty.

Fee

s sho

wn

do n

ot in

clud

e th

e ad

min

istra

tive

fee.

ar

d Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

ucie

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent S

ervi

ces D

epar

tmen

t; Fe

es h

ave

been

incr

ease

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

otte

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

& L

and

Deve

lopm

ent D

epar

tmen

t. F

ees h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Fee

s are

cur

rent

ly su

spen

ded.

s C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

er C

ount

y Im

pact

Fee

Adm

inist

ratio

n De

part

men

t; Fe

es h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

an

do C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

ands

Cou

nty

Code

of O

rdin

ance

s, S

ectio

n 13

-28;

Impa

ct fe

e m

orat

oriu

m in

effe

ct th

roug

h Ju

ne 3

0, 2

017.

in

Cou

nty

Grow

th M

anag

emen

t Dep

artm

ent

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Ra

te(5

)

f Las

t Upd

ate

2014

2014

2014

2005

2000

2009

2009

2010

2010

2005

2on

Per

cent

age

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

29%

100%

78%

100%

100%

100%

10

2,00

0 sf

)du

$700

$672

$0$4

83$6

4$2

17$1

33$2

38$3

15$1

07$

cces

sory

Uni

t1,

000

sf$3

97$3

81$0

$285

$38

$140

$90

$179

$160

$81

$RV

Par

k (t

ied

dow

n)1,

000

sf$4

46$4

28$0

$349

$46

$170

$94

$228

$237

$107

$

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(8)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(9

)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(1

0)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(11)

High

Cou

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(7)

and

Use

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Brev

ard

Coun

ty(6

)



VI. Emergency Services This section provides the results of the emergency services impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the emergency services impact fee:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Emergency Services Impact Cost Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this section with the result being the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory Table VI-1 presents the building and land inventory for Indian River County. Indian River County currently has a total of 12 fire/EMS stations. In addition, the County has a training tower and owns the land where Station 13 will be built. Table VI-1 summarizes the County’s emergency services land and building inventory. The value of buildings and land are based on recent construction, insurance and land values of the existing facilities, vacant land sales and values of parcels with similar characteristics, and information obtained from other jurisdictions. A more detailed explanation of building and land value estimates is included in Appendix F.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

66

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e VI

-1

Land

& B

uild

ings

Inve

ntor

y

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Build

ing

squa

re fo

otag

e m

ultip

lied

by $

260

for p

rimar

y bu

ildin

gs a

nd $

150

for T

rain

ing

Tow

er b

ased

on

rece

nt c

onst

ruct

ion,

insu

ranc

e va

lues

, inf

orm

atio

n fr

om o

ther

juris

dict

ions

, and

disc

ussio

ns w

ith a

rchi

tect

s/co

ntra

ctor

s. A

ppen

dix

F pr

ovid

es fu

rthe

r det

ail.

(3)

Num

ber o

f acr

es m

ultip

lied

by la

nd v

alue

per

acr

e (It

em 8

) (4

) Su

m o

f bui

ldin

g va

lue

(Item

2) a

nd la

nd v

alue

(Ite

m 3

) (5

) Th

e Co

unty

doe

s not

ow

n, b

ut le

ases

the

land

for S

tatio

n 1.

As s

uch,

it is

not

incl

uded

in th

e in

vent

ory

(6)

Land

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

build

ing

is in

clud

ed in

the

inve

ntor

y of

pub

lic b

uild

ings

, as

part

of t

he E

mer

genc

y O

pera

tions

Cen

ter.

(7)

Tota

l bui

ldin

g va

lue

(Item

2) d

ivid

ed b

y sq

uare

foot

age

(8)

Land

val

ue is

est

imat

ed a

t $60

,000

per

acr

e ba

sed

on re

cent

sale

s, va

cant

land

val

ues o

f par

cels

with

sim

ilar s

ize

and/

or lo

catio

n. S

ee A

ppen

dix

F fo

r ad

ditio

nal d

etai

l.

Faci

lity

Desc

riptio

nLo

catio

n(1)

Year

Ac

quire

d/

Built

(1)

Num

ber o

f Ac

res(1

)

Squa

re

Feet

(1)

Build

ing

Valu

e(2)

Land

Valu

e(3)

Tota

l Bui

ldin

g an

d La

nd

Valu

e(4)

Fire

Sta

tion

1(5)

1500

Old

Dix

ie H

wy,

Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2960

1986

n/a

10,4

18$2

,708

,680

n/a

$2,7

08,6

80Fi

re S

tatio

n 2

3301

Brid

ge P

laza

Dr,

Vero

Bea

ch, F

L 329

6320

070.

928,

436

$2,1

93,3

60$5

5,20

0$2

,248

,560

Fire

Sta

tion

329

00 4

3rd

Ave,

Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2960

2007

2.72

9,27

5$2

,411

,500

$163

,200

$2,5

74,7

00Fi

re S

tatio

n 4

1500

9th

St S

W, V

ero

Beac

h, F

L 329

6220

072.

187,

440

$1,9

34,4

00$1

30,8

00$2

,065

,200

Fire

Sta

tion

565

80 O

ld D

ixie

Hw

y, V

ero

Beac

h, F

L 329

6720

072.

447,

533

$1,9

58,5

80$1

46,4

00$2

,104

,980

Fire

Sta

tion

610

1 So

uth

A1A,

Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2963

1986

2.20

3,08

0$8

00,8

00$1

32,0

00$9

32,8

00Fi

re S

tatio

n 7

1215

82n

d Av

e, V

ero

Beac

h, F

L 329

6619

860.

503,

136

$815

,360

$30,

000

$845

,360

Fire

Sta

tion

811

15 B

arbe

r St,

Seba

stia

n, F

L 329

5819

991.

006,

243

$1,6

23,1

80$6

0,00

0$1

,683

,180

Fire

Sta

tion

916

40 U

S 1,

Seb

astia

n, F

L 329

5820

097.

057,

386

$1,9

20,3

60$4

23,0

00$2

,343

,360

Fire

Sta

tion

1062

Nor

th B

road

way

, Fel

lsm

ere,

FL 3

2948

1996

0.48

5,52

0$1

,435

,200

$28,

800

$1,4

64,0

00Fi

re S

tatio

n 11

2555

93r

d St

, Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2963

2001

1.51

6,97

6$1

,813

,760

$90,

600

$1,9

04,3

60Fi

re S

tatio

n 12

3620

49t

h St

, Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2967

2009

4.00

7,38

6$1

,920

,360

$240

,000

$2,1

60,3

60Tr

aini

ng T

ower

(6)

4225

43r

d Av

enue

, Ver

o Be

ach,

FL 3

2967

2008

n/a

2,60

4$3

90,6

00n/

a$3

90,6

00Pl

anne

d St

atio

n 13

4440

4th

St,

Vero

Bea

ch, F

L 329

68FY

08/

093.

21n/

an/

a$1

92,6

00$1

92,6

0028

.21

85,4

33$2

1,92

6,14

0$1

,692

,600

$23,

618,

740

$257

$60,

000

Tota

lBu

ildin

g Va

lue

per S

quar

e Fo

ot(7

)

Land

Val

ue p

er A

cre(8

)



In addition to land and buildings, the IRC emergency services inventory includes the necessary vehicles and equipment required to perform its services. As presented in Table VI-2, the total vehicle cost is approximately $15 million.

Table VI-2

Vehicle Inventory and Values

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Units multiplied by unit cost

Table VI-3 presents the equipment inventory and related costs for Indian River County.

Table VI-3

Equipment Inventory and Values

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Units per station multiplied by 12 (number of stations in Indian River County) (3) Unit cost multiplied by total units

Description Units(1) Unit Cost(1) Total Value(2)

Ladder Truck 2 $800,000 $1,600,000Brush Truck 8 $193,000 $1,544,000Dive Rescue Unit 1 $130,000 $130,0003,000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 $150,000 $150,000Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 $150,000 $150,000Marine Fire Boat 1 $100,000 $100,000Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 1 $20,000 $20,000Fire Engine 16 $465,000 $7,440,000Ambulance 17 $225,000 $3,825,000

$14,959,000Total

DescriptionUnits per Station(1)

Total Units(12 Stations)(2)

UnitCost(1)

TotalValue(3)

Turnout Gear 15 180 $2,150 $387,000Lifepack 2 24 $32,000 $768,000Radio (portable) 5 60 $4,000 $240,000Radio (vehicle) 4 48 $4,000 $192,000Stretcher 1 12 $13,000 $156,000Thermal Imager 1 12 $9,800 $117,600MSA, Airbag 5 60 $10,885 $653,100Spreader, Ocutter, K12 1 12 $24,339 $292,068Suction Unit 1 12 $1,000 $12,000

$2,817,768Total



Service Area and Population Emergency services are provided by the County in the unincorporated areas and most municipalities. The Town of Indian River Shores, however, maintains its own fire department. Therefore, the proper benefit district for emergency services is the entire county excluding the Town of Indian River Shores. For impact fee calculations, the current 2013 countywide functional population estimate, excluding Indian River Shores, is used, which is provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. Because simply using weighted population does not fully address all of the benefactors of emergency service, the “functional” weekly 24-hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (See Appendix A for further information). Level-of-Service Typically, level of service for emergency services is expressed in terms of stations per 1,000 residents for capital facility planning purposes. Using this method, IRC’s current level of service (LOS) is 1 station per 11,963 residents or 0.084 stations per 1,000 residents. The County’s adopted LOS standard is 0.089 stations per 1,000 residents. Since the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard, the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. As mentioned in the previous sections, LOS needs to be measured using functional population to capture all residents, workers, and visitors that benefit from emergency services. In terms of functional population, LOS is calculated at 0.088 stations per 1,000 functional residents. Table VI-4 summarizes the calculation of the LOS standard using the 2013 population and functional population. The County has plans to add two stations over the next five years. This would result in a LOS of 0.095 stations per 1,000 residents. However, since this LOS is not yet achieved, the existing LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. Although the LOS is measured in terms of stations per population for planning purposes and in terms of response time for operational purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for emergency services infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost



per resident for emergency services, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.

Table VI-4 Level-of-Service (2013)

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-11. Figures exclude population of Indian River Shores. (2) Source: Table VI-1 (3) Population (Item 1) divided by the number of stations (Item 2) (4) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1) divided by 1,000 (5) Source: Indian River County (6) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (7) 2017 population divided by the future number of stations (Item 6) (8) Future number of stations (Item 7) divided by the 2017 population multiplied by 1,000

Table VI-5 compares the levels of service for other Florida counties as well as the state of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for the service area of all entities.

Weighted Population

FunctionalPopulation

Population(1) 143,561 136,323Number of Stations(2) 12 12Population per Station(3) 11,963 11,360LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(4) 0.084 0.088Adopted LOSS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(5) 0.089 0.093

Population -- 2017(1) 148,034 140,598Future Number of Stations(6) 14 14Future Population per Station(7) 10,574 10,043Future LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(8) 0.095 0.100

Year 2013Calculation Step

Future LOS:



Table VI-5 Level-of-Service Comparison

(1) Source: BEBR, 2012 final population estimates (2) Source: County websites and the U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Department Census (3) Service area population (Item 1) divided by number of stations (Item 2) (4) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by the service area population (Item 1) divided by 1,000

Cost Component Table VI-6 summarizes the total current value of land, buildings, and equipment for emergency services, including:

Twelve stations with a total asset value of $23.6 million for buildings and land and $17.8 million for vehicles and equipment, for a total asset value of $41.4 million; and

An average value of $3.5 million per station. In addition, Table VI-6 presents the total impact cost per functional resident for emergency services in Indian River County, which is calculated by multiplying the net asset value per station by the LOS (stations per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000. The total impact cost for emergency services provided by the County is $304 per functional resident.

JurisdictionService Area Population

(2012)(1)

Number of Stations(2)

Residents per Station(3)

LOS (Stations) per 1,000

Residents)(4)

Okeechobee County 39,805 2 19,903 0.050St. Lucie County 280,355 17 16,491 0.061Hernando County 173,104 14 12,365 0.081Osceola County 180,821 16 11,301 0.088Indian River County 135,510 12 11,293 0.089Collier County 293,343 28 10,477 0.095Citrus County 132,285 13 10,176 0.098St. Johns County 176,128 18 9,785 0.102Charlotte County 146,373 17 8,610 0.116Martin County 128,332 15 8,555 0.117Brevard County 205,690 31 6,635 0.151Highlands County 98,955 21 4,712 0.212



Table VI-6 Total Impact Cost

(1) Source: Table VI-1 (2) Source: Table VI-1 (3) Source: Table VI-2 (4) Source: Table VI-3 (5) Source: Table VI-1 (6) Total asset value divided by the number of stations (Item 5) (7) Source: Table VI-4 (8) Cost per station (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) divided by 1,000 (9) Distribution of building, land, vehicle, and equipment values

Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the emergency services impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for emergency services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, vehicles, and equipment included in the inventory. It should be noted that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, or operations expenses, as these types of expenditures cannot be funded with impact fee revenue. Capital Expansion Expenditure Credit To calculate the capital expansion expenditure credit per functional resident, the historical capital expansion projects and those programmed in the CIP are reviewed. During the time period from 2008 through 2017, the County allocated an average annual non-impact fee funding of $757,000 toward emergency services capital facilities. The annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same

Description FigurePercent of

Total Value(9)

Building Value(1) $21,926,140 52.97%Land Value(2) $1,692,600 4.09%Vehicle Value(3) $14,959,000 36.14%Equipment Value(4) $2,817,768 6.81%Total Asset Value $41,395,508 100.01%Number of Stations(5) 12Cost per Station(6) $3,449,626LOS(7) 0.088Total Impact Cost per Resident(8) $303.57



period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. Although the County used some sales tax revenues toward emergency services capacity projects, because this amount was insignificant (less than 1 percent of non-impact fee spending), a separate credit for sales tax revenues was not calculated. As presented in Table VI-7, the result is an average annual expansion cost of $5.55 per functional resident.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

73

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e VI

-7

Capa

city

Exp

ansio

n Pr

ojec

ts

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Tota

l cap

ital e

xpan

sion

expe

nditu

res d

ivid

ed b

y 10

(3

) So

urce

: Ap

pend

ix A

, Tab

le A

-11

(4)

Aver

age

annu

al c

apita

l exp

ansio

n ex

pend

iture

s (Ite

m 2

) div

ided

by

aver

age

func

tiona

l pop

ulat

ion

(Item

3)

Expe

nditu

re(1

)FY

200

7/08

FY 2

008/

09FY

200

9/10

FY 2

010/

11FY

201

1/12

FY 2

012/

13FY

201

3/14

FY 2

014/

15FY

201

5/16

FY 2

016/

17To

tal

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es D

istr

ict F

und

Fibe

r Opt

ics

$13,

097

--

--

--

--

-$1

3,09

7EO

C Tr

aini

ng C

ente

r$6

10,8

01-

--

--

--

--

$610

,801

Fire

Sta

tion

12$4

0,23

1$1

,980

,929

$59,

514

--

--

--

-$2

,080

,674

Fire

Sta

tion

13-

--

--

$426

,304

$426

,304

--

-$8

52,6

08Fi

re S

tatio

n 14

--

--

--

-$2

00,0

00$1

,600

,000

-$1

,800

,000

Med

Uni

t-

--

--

$225

,000

-$2

25,0

00-

-$4

50,0

00Fi

re P

umpe

r-

--

--

-$4

57,0

00-

$457

,000

-$9

14,0

00O

ne Q

uint

(Fire

App

arat

us)

--

--

--

--

$800

,000

-$8

00,0

00O

ptio

nal S

ales

Tax

Rev

enue

sFi

re S

tatio

n 12

$47,

209

--

--

--

--

-$4

7,20

9Em

erge

ncy

Ser

vice

s Dis

tric

t Fun

d an

d O

ptio

nal S

ales

Tax

Rev

enue

s$7

11,3

38$1

,980

,929

$59,

514

--

$651

,304

$883

,304

$425

,000

$2,8

57,0

00-

$7,5

68,3

89$7

56,8

3913

6,43

5$5

.55

Capi

tal E

xpan

sion

Exp

endi

ture

s per

Fun

ctio

nal R

esid

ent(4

)

Tota

l Cap

ital E

xpan

sion

Exp

endi

ture

s

Aver

age

Func

tiona

l Pop

ulat

ion(3

)

Aver

age

Annu

al C

apita

l Exp

ansi

on E

xpen

ditu

res(2

)



Net Emergency Services Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VI-8 summarizes the calculation of the net emergency services impact cost per functional resident. The first section of this table identifies the total impact cost as $304 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the emergency services impact fee totaling approximately $102 per functional resident which is equal to the net present value of the capital expansion credit per functional resident. The net impact cost per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit. This results in a net impact cost of $201 per functional resident, which reflects the relevant LOS for emergency services.

Table VI-8

Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table VI-6 (2) Source: Table VI-7 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of

2.5% for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per functional resident

(Item 3)

Impact Cost / Credit Element Impact CostRevenue Credits


Avg Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident(2) $5.55Capitalization Rate 2.5%Capitalization Period (in years) 25Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(3) $102.26

Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $201.31Net Impact Cost

Impact Cost

Revenue Credit



Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Table VI-9 presents the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule developed for Indian River County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously presented in Table VI-8. The table also includes a comparison to the 2009 adopted fees.

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.56 $314 $278 12.9 - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.73 $348 $301 15.6

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.90 $181 $176 2.8240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $197 $182 8.2

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 0.65 $131 $160 -18.1320 Motel room 0.60 $121 $160 -24.4

252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $185 $172 7.6OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $229 $299 -23.4Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $334 $299 11.7

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $449 $341 31.7912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $459 $280 63.9710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $201 $246 -18.3760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $171 $130 31.5

INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $101 $88 14.8150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $56 $68 -17.6151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $12 $13 -7.7152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 0.14 $28 $68 -58.8110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $139 $120 15.8n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $312 $265 17.7n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $40 $34 17.6

RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 2.37 $477 $503 -5.2

944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 1.91 $385 $303 27.1841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $296 $300 -1.3932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,365 $1,289 5.9934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $1,792 $1,389 29.0850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $413 $357 15.7942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $302 $107 182.2947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $175 $332 -47.3853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,174 $746 57.4890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $46 $56 -17.9

RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $217 $429 -49.4492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $622 $417 49.2412 County Park acre 0.20 $40 $27 48.1491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $636 $408 55.9420 Marina berth 0.19 $38 $27 40.7

GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $326 $312 4.5590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $354 $302 17.2733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $280 $238 17.6571 Jail bed 0.87 $175 $153 14.4

MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $179 $177 1.1610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $276 $275 0.4640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $511 $287 78.0560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $103 $94 9.6444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,204 $1,490 -19.2520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $12 $17 -29.4522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $14 $17 -17.6

720



Affordable Growth Strategy In the case of emergency services, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $757,000 per year of non-impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, the County is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure VI-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum calculated impact fee. This level is compared to the level of investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of emergency services impact fee calculated, only approximately 8 percent of this amount is needed to maintain the current/achieved LOS due to non-impact fee contributions from the existing development and low rate of population growth. If the impact fee is adopted at a level higher than 8 percent, the LOS is likely to improve as long as the County continues to spend approximately $757,000 of non-impact fee revenues per year toward capacity projects. In addition, if the County would like to charge no fee to non-residential land uses, it can do so and still maintain the existing LOS as long as the fee for residential land uses is adopted at 11 percent.

Figure VI-1 Emergency Services Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach

8%

- Less than 1,500 sf du 11% $32 $247 -87.0 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 11% $35 $278 -87.4 - 2,500 sf or greater du 11% $38 $301 -87.4

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 11% $20 $176 -88.6240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 11% $22 $182 -87.9

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0% $0 $160 -100.0320 Motel room 0% $0 $160 -100.0

252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0% $0 $172 -100.0OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 0% $0 $299 -100.0Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 0% $0 $299 -100.0

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 0% $0 $341 -100.0912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 0% $0 $280 -100.0710 General Office 1,000 sf 0% $0 $246 -100.0760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0% $0 $130 -100.0

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0% $0 $88 -100.0150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0% $0 $68 -100.0151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0% $0 $13 -100.0152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0% $0 $68 -100.0110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0% $0 $120 -100.0n/a Concrete Plant acre 0% $0 $265 -100.0n/a Sand Mining acre 0% $0 $34 -100.0

RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 0% $0 $503 -100.0

944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 0% $0 $303 -100.0841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 0% $0 $300 -100.0932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 0% $0 $1,289 -100.0934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 0% $0 $1,389 -100.0850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 0% $0 $357 -100.0942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 0% $0 $107 -100.0947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0% $0 $332 -100.0853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 0% $0 $746 -100.0890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0% $0 $56 -100.0

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 0% $0 $429 -100.0492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 0% $0 $417 -100.0412 County Park acre 0% $0 $27 -100.0491 Tennis Court court 0% $0 $408 -100.0420 Marina berth 0% $0 $27 -100.0

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 0% $0 $312 -100.0590 Library 1,000 sf 0% $0 $302 -100.0733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 0% $0 $238 -100.0571 Jail bed 0% $0 $153 -100.0

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0% $0 $177 -100.0610 Hospital 1,000 sf 0% $0 $275 -100.0640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 0% $0 $287 -100.0560 Church 1,000 sf 0% $0 $94 -100.0444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 0% $0 $1,490 -100.0520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 0% $0 $17 -100 0

210

720

g y ( )



Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of emergency services, the County staff recommends adopting the full calculated fee to fund the needed capital projects in this area and be able to allocate a larger portion of the ad valorem dollars for operational expenses. Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s emergency services impact fee program, a comparison of impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table VI-11 presents this comparison.

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e Co

mpa

rison

Rive

r Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

the

full

calc

ulat

ed fe

e ra

tes.

y.

Fee

s sho

wn

do n

ot in

clud

e th

e ad

min

istra

tive

fee.

an

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t; Fi

re/R

escu

e an

d EM

S ra

tes a

re c

ombi

ned;

Indu

stria

l lan

d us

es a

re e

xem

pt fr

om im

pact

fees

. ty

Boa

rd o

f Cou

nty

Com

miss

ione

rs A

dmin

istra

tion

Depa

rtm

ent.

Fire

and

EM

S ra

tes a

re c

ombi

ned.

an

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent S

ervi

ces D

epar

tmen

t; Fe

es h

ave

been

incr

ease

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

Plan

ning

& L

and

Deve

lopm

ent D

epar

tmen

t. In

Cha

rlott

e, b

ank

w/d

rive-

thru

is c

harg

ed “

per l

ane”

. Fe

es h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Fee

s are

cur

rent

ly su

spen

ded.

ni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

act F

ee A

dmin

istra

tion

Depa

rtm

ent;

EMS

rate

s onl

y; F

ees h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent;

Fire

and

EM

S ra

tes a

re c

ombi

ned.

Co

de o

f Ord

inan

ces,

Sec

tion

13-2

8; F

ire/R

escu

e an

d EM

S ra

tes a

re c

ombi

ned;

Impa

ct fe

e m

orat

oriu

m in

effe

ct th

roug

h Ju

ne 3

0, 2

017.

ow

th M

anag

emen

t Dep

artm

ent

lann

ing

& Z

onin

g De

part

men

t; Fe

es h

ave

been

incr

ease

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Fe

e(5)

2014

2014

2014

2005

2000

2012

2009

2006

2009

2010

2010

2005

200

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

25%

du$3

14$3

5$3

14$2

78$9

3$5

74$5

57$1

65$1

71$3

93$9

4$2

35

1,00

0 sf

$139

$0$1

39$1

20n/

a$1

19$7

4$5

0$5

9$9

0$4

6$8

61,

000

sf$2

01$0

$201

$246

$44

$278

$329

$90

$108

$226

$95

$171

1,00

0 sf

$477

$0$4

77$5

03$2

07$5

95$5

17$3

00$1

65$4

55$1

65$3

341,

000

sf$4

59$0

$459

$280

$105

$595

$517

$300

$234

$455

$153

$328

1,00

0 sf

$1,7

92$0

$1,7

92$1

,389

$552

$595

$517

$1,3

90$6

69$4

55$6

03$5

10$

Osc

eola

Co

unty

(9)

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(10)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(1

1)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(1

2)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(13)

High

laCo

unt

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(8)

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Brev

ard

Coun

ty(6

)

Oke

echo

bee

Coun

ty(7

)



VII. Law Enforcement

Law enforcement impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of police service related land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional law enforcement service demand created by new growth. This section of the report presents the results of the law enforcement impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated law enforcement impact fee schedule.

There are several major elements associated with the development of the law enforcement impact fee. These include:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

Facility Inventory

According to information provided by the IRC Sheriff’s Office (IRCSO) and the County, Indian River County has 68,000 square feet of building space and almost 13 acres of land associated with law enforcement services. Table VII-1 presents this information.

Building value is estimated based on recent construction, insurance values of existing buildings, and information from other Florida jurisdictions. Land value is based on the value of parcels where existing buildings are located and an analysis of vacant land sales and values. Additional information is provided in Appendix F.

It should be noted that, in addition to these buildings, IRCSO leases several buildings to accommodate substations and storage facilities. For the purposes of this impact fee study, the inventory includes only the space owned by the County.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

82

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e VI

I-1

Land

and

Bui

ldin

g In

vent

ory

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Repr

esen

ts sq

uare

foot

age

of a

ll bu

ildin

gs o

n th

e as

soci

ated

acr

eage

(whe

ther

law

enf

orce

men

t-re

late

d or

not

) (3

) N

umbe

r of a

cres

div

ided

by

the

tota

l squ

are

foot

age

on-s

ite, m

ultip

lied

by sq

uare

foot

age

(4)

Calc

ulat

ed b

ased

on

$200

per

squa

re fo

ot fo

r prim

ary

build

ings

and

$50

per

squa

re fo

ot fo

r sup

port

bui

ldin

gs

(5)

Allo

cate

d ac

reag

e (It

em 3

) mul

tiplie

d by

land

val

ue p

er a

cre

(Item

9)

(6)

Sum

of b

uild

ing

and

land

val

ues (

Item

s 4 a

nd 5

) (7

) Ac

reag

e in

clud

ed in

the

publ

ic b

uild

ings

impa

ct fe

e ca

lcul

atio

ns

(8)

Tota

l bui

ldin

g va

lue

divi

ded

by to

tal s

quar

e fo

otag

e (9

) Es

timat

ed b

ased

on

valu

e of

cur

rent

par

cels,

a re

view

of r

ecen

t sal

es a

nd v

acan

t lan

d va

lues

of p

arce

ls w

ith si

mila

r siz

e an

d lo

catio

n

Faci

lity

Desc

riptio

nYe

ar

Acqu

ired/

Bu

ilt(1

)

Num

ber o

f Ac

res(1

)

Squa

re

Feet

(1)

Tota

l Squ

are

Foot

age

on

Site

(2)

Allo

cate

d Ac

reag

e(3)

Build

ing

Valu

e(4)

Land

Valu

e(5)

Tota

l Bui

ldin

g an

d La

nd

Valu

e(6)

Sher

iff's

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Build

ing

1988

33,3

326.

88$6

,666

,400

$344

,000

$7,0

10,4

00Sh

eriff

's Fl

eet C

ompo

und

1988

9,85

62.

03$1

,971

,200

$101

,500

$2,0

72,7

00Ge

nera

l Ser

vice

s Bui

ldin

gN

/A2,

100

0.43

$420

,000

$21,

500

$441

,500

Sher

iffs C

rime

Scen

e Ev

iden

ce A

dditi

on20

031,

000

0.21

$200

,000

$10,

500

$210

,500

Cour

thou

se S

ecur

ityN

/A58

7N

/A$1

17,4

00N

/A$1

17,4

00Co

urth

ouse

Civ

il Pr

oces

sN

/A1,

914

N/A

$382

,800

N/A

$382

,800

SunS

ky O

ffic

e Sp

ace

2011

4,92

00.

75$9

84,0

00$3

7,50

0$1

,021

,500

Crim

e Sc

ene

Build

ing

2013

13,2

262.

00$2

,645

,200

$100

,000

$2,7

45,2

00

Bas

eN

/A26

40.

05$1

3,20

0$2

,500

$15,

700

Sto

rage

Bld

g/M

aint

enan

ce S

hed

N/A

1,00

00.

21$5

0,00

0$1

0,50

0$6

0,50

0To

tal

68,1

9912

.56

$13,

450,

200

$628

,000

$14,

078,

200

$197

$50,

000

Build

ing

Valu

e pe

r Squ

are

Foot

(8)

N/A

(7)

122,

501

Land

Val

ue p

er A

cre(9

)

Prim

ary

Build

ings

:

2.75

9.81

9.81

18,1

46

47,5

52

47,5

52

Mis

cella

neou

s Sup

port

Bui

ldin

gs O

n-Si

te:



In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the IRCSO also has the vehicles and equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table IV-2 summarizes the equipment and vehicle inventory.

Table VII-2

Equipment and Vehicle Inventory

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Calculated by dividing the total value by number of units

Service Area and Population Law enforcement services are provided by the IRCSO in the unincorporated areas of the County. Municipalities within IRC have their own police departments. Therefore, the proper benefit district for law enforcement is the unincorporated county and weighted seasonal population for unincorporated county is used in the impact fee calculations. In addition, because law enforcement services are provided to all land uses and all residents, visitors, and workers, the “functional” population for unincorporated county is calculated and used as well. Appendix A provides further information on population estimates. Level-of-Service Based on the information provided by the County, the Indian River County’s 2013 level-of-service is 1.89 law enforcement officers per 1,000 weighted residents. The County’s adopted LOS standard is 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Table VII-3 presents this information. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard and new

Equipment Units(1) Unit Value(2) Total Value(1)

Vehicles 281 $13,347 $3,750,435Vehicle/Radio Equipment 1,577 $1,523 $2,401,999Weapons 450 $535 $240,733Office Equipment 1 $148,292 $148,292Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 2 $65,266 $130,532Electronic Equipment 1 $196,760 $196,760Computer Equipment 1 $1,604,426 $1,604,426Misc. Equipment 1 $890,490 $890,490911 Center Equipment 76 $7,723 $586,930

$9,950,597Total Equipment Value



development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided, the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. The County does not have any new law enforcement capital facilities programmed in the Five-Year CIP; however, the Sheriff’s Master Plan identifies needs for additional administrative space and a crime scene investigation unit. The estimated cost for this project is $25 million to $30 million. Due to lack of funding, this project is not yet programmed. Since the timing of this project is not known yet, a future LOS estimate is not calculated. While the 2013 LOS is 1.89 officers per 1,000 weighted residents, in order to calculate the law enforcement facilities impact fee, the LOS needs to be calculated in terms of officers per 1,000 functional residents. Table VII-3 also illustrates the calculation of the current LOS using the total functional residents within the service area. The current LOS of law enforcement facilities is 2.11 officers per 1,000 functional residents.

Table VII-3 Level-of-Service (2013)

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted population and Table A-11 for functional population;

Unincorporated population (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office (3) Number of officer (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County

Table VII-4 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian River County and other Florida counties. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for all jurisdictions because a functional population analysis has not been completed for these entities. The LOS comparison is based on the permanent population for 2012, as this is the most recent population data available for all jurisdictions. As presented in this table, the Indian River County’s LOS is on the high end of these other communities.

Weighted Population


Population(1) 97,681 87,590Number of Officers(2) 185 185LOS (officers per 1,000 residents)(3) 1.89 2.11Adopted LOS Standard (officers per 1,000 residents)(4) 2.09 2.33

ComponentYear 2013



Table VII-4 Level-of-Service Comparison

(1) Source: Indian River County and Florida Department of Law Enforcement Criminal

Justice Agency Profile Report, 2012 (2) Permanent population (Item 1) divided by the number of officers (Item 2) divided by

1,000 Finally, although the LOS is measured in terms of officers per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for law enforcement infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for law enforcement capital facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes. Cost Component

The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment. Table VII-5 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to approximately $130,000 per sworn law enforcement officer. Table VII-5 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost was calculated as the total capital cost of approximately $130,000 per officer multiplied by the LOS of 2.11 officers per 1,000 functional residents divided by 1,000. As shown in the

JurisdictionService Area Population

(2012)(1)

Number of Officers(1)

LOS (Officers per 1,000

Residents)(2)

Collier County 293,744 270 0.92St. Johns County 176,721 219 1.24Highlands County 77,041 99 1.29Charlotte County 146,373 189 1.29Citrus County 140,761 181 1.29Hernando County 165,402 216 1.31Okeechobee County 34,227 47 1.37Martin County 128,656 183 1.42St. Lucie County 71,457 137 1.92Osceola County 180,821 358 1.98Indian River County (Existing) 92,795 185 1.99Brevard County 223,781 474 2.12



following table, the total impact cost per resident is approximately $274 for law enforcement facilities.

Table VII-5 Unit Cost per Functional Resident

(1) Source: Table VII-1 (2) Source: Table VII-1 (3) Source: Table VII-2 (4) Sum of building value (Item 1), land value (Item 2), and vehicle/equipment value (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VII-3 (6) Total asset value (Item 4) divided by number of officers (Item 5) (7) Source: Table VII-3 (8) Total asset value per officer (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) divided by 1,000 (9) Distribution of building, land, vehicle and equipment values

Credit Component

A review of historical expenditures as well as projects programmed in the Five-Year CIP suggested that there were no non-impact fee funding used toward capacity projects between 2008 and 2017. As such, a credit for non-impact fee funding is not needed.

Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost

Given that there is no credit, net law enforcement impact cost is $274 per resident, as shown previously in Table VII-5, which is also the relevant LOS measure for impact fee calculation purposes.

Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule

A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land uses and is illustrated in Table VII-6.

Component CostPercent of

Total Value(9)

Building Value(1) $13,450,200 55.98%Land Value(2) $628,000 2.61%Vehicle and Equipment Value(3) $9,950,597 41.41%Total Asset Value(4) $24,028,797 100.00%Number of Officers(5) 185Total Asset Value per Officer(6) $129,885Level-of-Service (Officers/1,000 Functional Residents) (7) 2.11Cost per Functional Resident(8) $274.06

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.59 $436 $245 78 - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.77 $485 $265 83

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.91 $249 $148 68240 Mobile Home / RV (Tied Down) du 0.89 $244 $158 54

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 0.65 $178 $140 27320 Motel room 0.60 $164 $140 17

52/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $252 $151 66OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $312 $262 19Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $455 $262 73

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $611 $299 104912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $625 $245 155710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $274 $216 26760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $233 $114 104

INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $137 $77 77150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $77 $59 30151 Mini-Warehouse/Storage 1,000 sf 0.06 $16 $12 33152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 0.14 $38 $59 -35110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $189 $105 80n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $425 $232 83n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $55 $30 83

RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 gsf 2.37 $650 $441 47

44/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 1.91 $523 $265 97841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $403 $263 53932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,858 $1,129 64934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $2,439 $1,217 100850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $562 $313 79942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $411 $114 260947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $238 $291 -18853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,598 $653 144890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $63 $49 28

RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $296 $376 -21492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $847 $366 131412 County Park acre 0.20 $55 $23 139491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $866 $357 142420 Marina berth 0.19 $52 $24 116

GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $444 $273 62590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $482 $265 81733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $381 $209 82571 Jail bed 0.87 $238 $134 77

MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $244 $155 57610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $375 $241 55640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $696 $251 177560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $140 $82 70444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,639 $1,305 25520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $16 $14 14522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $19 $14 35530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $22 $18 22

720



Affordable Growth Strategy Currently, it appears that the only funding source available for law enforcement capital facilities is the impact fee. As such, unless another revenue source is identified, any reduction in the impact fee will result in a decline in the LOS. In addition, the current achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, the Sheriff’s Master Plan identifies two projects that are estimated to cost approximately $25 million to $35 million. These projects are not yet programmed due to lack of funding. Given these, the policy decision should focus on the LOS and whether the adopted and/or existing LOS should be reduced or impact fees and/or other revenue sources should be used to maintain/improve the LOS. Staff Recommended Fee Rate The County staff recommends adopting the full calculated impact fee for law enforcement services. Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s law enforcement impact fee schedule, the County’s calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedule and those in similar or nearby jurisdictions. Table VII-7 presents this comparison.

Calc

ulat

ed L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent I

mpa

ct F

ee S

ched

ule

dwel

ling

unit

rce:

Tab

le V

II-6

rce:

Tab

le V

II-6;

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

the

full

calc

ulat

ed fe

e ra

tes.

rc

e: In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y. F

ees s

how

n do

not

incl

ude

the

adm

inist

rativ

e fe

e.

rce:

St.

Luci

e Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Dep

artm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en in

crea

sed

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

rc

e: C

harlo

tte

Coun

ty P

lann

ing

& L

and

Deve

lopm

ent D

epar

tmen

t. In

Cha

rlott

e, b

ank

w/d

rive-

thru

is c

harg

ed “

per l

ane”

. Fe

es h

ave

been

redu

ced

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Fee

s are

en

ded.

us

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t er

Cou

nty

Impa

ct F

ee A

dmin

istra

tion

Depa

rtm

ent;

Fees

hav

e be

en re

duce

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

rce:

Her

nand

o Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

rce:

Hig

hlan

ds C

ount

y Co

de o

f Ord

inan

ces,

Sec

tion

13-2

8; Im

pact

fee

mor

ator

ium

in e

ffect

thro

ugh

June

30,

201

7.

rce:

Mar

tin C

ount

y Gr

owth

Man

agem

ent D

epar

tmen

t rc

e: S

t. Jo

hns C

ount

y Pl

anni

ng &

Zon

ing

Depa

rtm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en in

crea

sed

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)St

aff(3

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Ra

te(4

)

e of

Last

Upd

ate

2014

2014

2005

2009

2009

2010

2010

2005

2006

2012

ptio

n Pe

rcen

tage

100%

n/a

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

ntia

l:Fa

mily

(2,0

00 sf

)du

$436

$436

$245

$206

$78

$290

$449

$86

$230

$760

side

ntia

l:du

stria

l1,

000

sf$1

89$1

89$1

05$4

8$2

7$6

6$1

49$3

1n/

a$1

5850

,000

sq ft

)1,

000

sf$2

74$2

74$2

16$3

17$4

9$1

66$3

07$6

2n/

a$2

7410

0,00

0 sq

ft)

1,00

0 sf

$650

$650

$441

$351

$76

$335

$531

$121

n/a

$742

/Driv

e-Th

ru1,

000

sf$6

25$6

25$2

45$3

05$1

06$3

35$4

92$1

21n/

a$4

81od

w/D

rive-

Thru

1,00

0 sf

$2,4

39$2

,439

$1,2

17$3

05$3

03$3

35$1

,946

$187

n/a

$2,7

57

Mar

tin

Coun

ty(1

1)

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(6)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(7

)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(8

)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(9)

High

land

s Co

unty

(10)

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(5)

Land

Use

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty



VIII. Parks & Recreation Facilities This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the parks and recreation impact fee. To develop the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule, multiple elements must be addressed, including:

Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

These various elements are summarized throughout this section, with the result being the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule. Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities According to information provided by IRC, the County owns 29 parks located in the unincorporated county. In addition, there are five parks where the land is not owned by the County, but the facilities are. As such, only the facilities in these parks are included in the inventory. Parks that are owned by the County, but located in cities are excluded since the impact fee is collected only in the unincorporated county. Finally, recreation facilities that generate revenue (such as golf courses and the shooting range) are also excluded from the inventory. IRC parks and recreational facilities can be classified into three different types, depending on the population and areas they serve and types of amenities offered. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes definitions of each park type. Table VIII-1 provides the parks and recreation inventory used as the basis for the impact fee. It is important to note that IRC conducted a detailed GIS analysis to ensure that only the useable park upland acreage is included in the inventory, excluding wetlands, habitat land, etc. This approach results in conservative impact fee levels.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Park

s & R

ecre

atio

n Fa

cilit

ies I

nven

tory

y Dist

rict

nage

men

t Dist

rict

eage

was

not

incl

uded

in th

e to

tal a

crea

ge su

mm

ary

since

it is

not

ow

ned

by th

e Co

unty

Tota

l Ac

reag

eO

wne

rshi

pCl

ass

Bask

etba

ll Co

urt

Boat

Ra

mp

Cano

e La

unch

Com

mun

ity

Cent

erDu

ne

Wal

kove

rFi

shin

g Pi

er

Jogg

ing

Trai

ls

(mile

s)

Life

guar

d To

wer

Mai

nten

ance

Fa

cilit

yM

ulti-

Purp

ose

Build

ing

(sf)

Oly

mpi

c Aq

uatic

Ce

nter

Picn

ic

Pavi

lion

Play

-

grou

ndRe

stro

oms

Socc

er

Fiel

dSo

1.00

Coun

tyR

10.

30Co

unty

R1

10.0

0Co

unty

R2

11

15.

00FI

ND(2

)R

41

4.56

SJRW

MD(3

)R

41

12

6.00

SJRW

MD(3

)R

21

21

27.2

5Co

unty

R1

0.50

31

127

.25

Coun

tyR

11

0.50

2,50

01

138

.96

Coun

tyR

26,

006

1.00

1,40

03

13

114

.30

Coun

tyR

11

41

14.

65Co

unty

N2.

00Co

unty

N1

12.

00Co

unty

N1

113

7.92

Coun

tyR

0.25

70,0

003

1N

/ACo

unty

R8,

850

80.0

0St

ate

R1,

500

11.

00Co

unty

R1

271

.43

Coun

tyR

11.

007

35.

84Co

unty

N1

155.

00St

ate

R0.

5040

01

11

0.30

Coun

tyR

10.

50Co

unty

N1

12.

00Co

unty

N1,

401

11

19.

36Co

unty

R1

0.25

16

11

17.0

0Co

unty

R2

11

0.25

11

11.

03Co

unty

C1

172

.70

Coun

tyR

21.

0080

010

13

45.

50Co

unty

R1

11

ompl

ex)

17.0

0Co

unty

R1

0.25

11

11.

00Co

unty

R2

12

15.

00Co

unty

R3

22

71

54.0

0Co

unty

R2

11

31

7.36

Coun

tyN

11

10.0

0Co

unty

N2

1.00

31

110

185

7407

715

6.50

58,

850

76,6

001

5913

326

cilit

ies

Tota

l Ac

reag

eBa

sket

ball

Cour

tBo

at

Ram

pCa

noe

Laun

chCo

mm

unity

Ce

nter

Dune

W

alko

ver

Fish

ing

Pier

Jogg

ing

Trai

ls

(mile

s)

Life

guar

d To

wer

Mai

nten

ance

Fa

cilit

yM

ulti-

Purp

ose

Build

ing

(sf)

Oly

mpi

c Aq

uatic

Ce

nter

Picn

ic

Pavi

lion

Play

-

grou

ndRe

stro

oms

Socc

er

Fiel

dSo

34.3

55

00

1,40

10

11.

00

00

04

54

01.

030

01

00

00.

00

00

01

00

051

1.27

518

46,

006

714

5.5

58,

850

76,6

001

548

286

546.

6510

185

7,40

77

156.

505

8,85

076

,600

159

1332

6



Service Area and Population IRC provides parks and recreation facilities and services in the unincorporated areas of the county. The municipalities provide these facilities and services within their respective jurisdictions. As a result, the parks and recreation impact fee analysis will consider only unincorporated county area population and parks and recreational facilities located within the unincorporated county area. Appendix A, Table A-1, provides the estimated unincorporated area population for 2013 and the projected unincorporated area population through 2040. Parks impact fees are charged only to residential land uses. As such, the weighted seasonal population per housing unit is used to measure demand from each residential land use, which is presented in Appendix A, Table A-3. Level-of-Service The current LOS for all county-owned and maintained neighborhood, community and regional parks in unincorporated county is 5.59 acres per 1,000 residents. Table VIII-2 presents the calculation of the current LOS for each park type included in the inventory, as well as Indian River County’s adopted LOS standard of 6.61 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee cannot charge new growth at a rate to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, there needs to be a commitment to continue providing the LOS used in the impact fee calculation, which is typically achieved through the adopted LOS standard. For impact fee calculation purposes, this study used the lower of the two figures to provide a conservative approach. With this approach, the current achieved LOS is used in the calculation of the parks and recreation impact fee.



Table VIII-2 Current Level-of-Service (2013)

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1; Unincorporated County (2) Source: Table VIII-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). (7) Source: Indian River County Table VIII-3 presents a comparison of the parks and recreation adopted LOS standards of other Florida counties to Indian River County’s adopted LOS standards. Based on this comparison, Indian River County’s adopted LOS standards are in the range of the required acreage per 1,000 residents in other communities.

Calculation Step Figure2013 Unincorporated Population(1) 97,681Current Regional Parks Number of Acres(2) 511.27Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(3) 5.23Current Neighborhood Parks Number of Acres(2) 34.35Current Community Parks Number of Acres(2) 1.03Total Number of Acres (Neighborhood and Community)(4) 35.38Current Neighborhood & Community Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(5) 0.36Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(6) 5.59Adopted Total Parks LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(7) 6.61



Table VIII-3 Level-of-Service Comparison

(1) Adopted LOS standards provided only include community, regional, and

other similar types of parks and exclude local parks (2) Source: Brevard County Comprehensive Plan (3) Source: Martin County FY 2013 Capital Improvement Program (4) Source: Collier County 2013 AUIR (5) Source: Hernando County Comprehensive Plan (6) Source: Citrus County Comprehensive Plan (7) Source: Okeechobee County Parks & Recreation Master Plan (8) Source: Table VIII-2 (9) Source: Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (10) Source: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (11) Source: Smart Charlotte 2050 Comprehensive Plan (12) Source: Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (13) Source: Osceola County Comprehensive Plan (14) Source: St. Johns County 2025 Comprehensive Plan

Although the LOS is measured in terms of acres per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for park land and facilities. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.

JurisdictionLOS Standard

(Acres per 1,000 Residents)(1)

Brevard County(2) 3.00Martin County(3) 3.00Collier County(4) 3.90Hernando County(5) 4.00Citrus County(6) 4.50Okeechobee County(7) 5.50Indian River County (Existing)(8) 5.59Indian River County (Adopted)(9) 6.61St. Lucie County(10) 7.50Charlotte County(11) 10.00Highlands County(12) 10.00Osceola County(13) 10.00St. Johns County(14) 28.00

Average (excluding IRC) 8.13



Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Land Cost Because of recent fluctuations in land values statewide, a detailed analysis of land values for each type of park (and the geographic subareas within the county) was conducted. This analysis takes into consideration current land value of the existing parks as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser as well as an analysis of recent sales of vacant land similar in size and location to Indian River County’s parks. Based on this analysis, an average land value of $50,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations. Appendix F provides the data used for this analysis. The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost of the land. Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/paving costs are also considered. These costs can vary greatly, depending on the type of services offered at each park. Based on information provided by the County, as well as information from similarly sized jurisdictions and park types, basic landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs were estimated and are presented in Table VIII-4.



Table VIII-4 Land Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-10 (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Indian River County (4) Sum of land purchase cost (Item 1), landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs (Item 2), and

utilities and paving per acre cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VIII-2 (6) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by regional parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (7) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (8) Sum of land cost per resident for regional parks (Item 6) and neighborhood/community parks (Item 7)

Facility and Equipment Cost The second step in calculating the total cost for parks and recreation services in Indian River County involves estimating the current value of recreational facilities. When available, the value for the parks facilities and equipment is estimated based on recent bids or purchases made by the County for its park facilities. When recent bid/purchase information was not available, unit costs from the County’s insurance reports and recent costs for similar facilities from other jurisdictions were used. As presented in Table VIII-5, the total park facility value is $3.3 million for neighborhood and community parks and $40.7 million for regional parks, for a combined total of $44 million, including facilities, equipment, and architecture and engineering (A&E) costs.

Facility/Calculation Step Cost per AcreLand Purchase Cost per Acre(1) $50,000Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Costs (per acre) (2) $5,000Utilities and Paving (per acre)(3) $20,000Total Land Cost per Acre(4) $75,000Regional Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents) (5) 5.23Land Cost per Resident - Regional Park Component(6) $392.25Neighborhood/Community Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents) (5) 0.36Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhood/Community Park Component(7) $27.00Land Cost per Resident - All Parks(8) $419.25



Table VIII-5 Recreational Facility Asset Value

(1) Source: Table VIII-1 (2) Based on insurance values of existing facilities, information from previous studies for IRC as well as

information from other Florida jurisdictions (3) Source: Table VIII-1 (4) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VIII-1 (6) Unit replacement value (Item2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 5) (7) Sum of the total value for community parks (Item 4) and the total value of regional parks (Item 6) (8) Facility and equipment value multiplied by 12.5% based on discussions with Indian River County (9) Sum of the facilities and equipment replacement value and the architecture, engineering, and inspection

cost (Item 8) for each park (10) Source: Table VIII-1 (11) Total facilities and equipment cost (Item 9) divided by the total number of acres (Item 10) for each park

type (12) Source: Table VIII-2 (13) Facilities and equipment value per acre (Item 11) multiplied by the level-of-service (Item 12) divided by

1,000

Description Unit Count(3) Total Value(4) Count(5) Total Value(6)

Basketball Court court $55,000 5 $275,000 5 $275,000 $550,000Boat Ramp ramp lane $100,000 0 $0 18 $1,800,000 $1,800,000Canoe Launch launch $188,000 1 $188,000 4 $752,000 $940,000Community Center sq ft $180 1,401 $252,180 6,006 $1,081,080 $1,333,260Dune Walkover walkover $43,000 0 $0 7 $301,000 $301,000Fishing Pier pier $12,500 1 $12,500 14 $175,000 $187,500Jogging Trails mile $150,000 1.0 $150,000 5.5 $825,000 $975,000Lifeguard Tower tower $25,000 0 $0 5 $125,000 $125,000Maintenance Facility sq ft $100 0 $0 8,850 $885,000 $885,000Multi-Purpose Bldg sq ft $150 0 $0 76,600 $11,490,000 $11,490,000Olympic Aquatic Center center $3,000,000 0 $0 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000Picnic Pavilion pavilion $40,000 5 $200,000 54 $2,160,000 $2,360,000Playground playground $90,000 5 $450,000 8 $720,000 $1,170,000Restroom restroom $85,000 4 $340,000 28 $2,380,000 $2,720,000Soccer Field field $325,000 0 $0 6 $1,950,000 $1,950,000Softball Field field $500,000 2 $1,000,000 12 $6,000,000 $7,000,000Swimming Pool pool $2,000,000 0 $0 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000Tennis Courts court $50,000 1 $50,000 4 $200,000 $250,000Volleyball Court court $20,000 1 $20,000 3 $60,000 $80,000

$2,937,680 $36,179,080 $39,116,760$367,210 $4,522,385 $4,889,595

$3,304,890 $40,701,465 $44,006,35535.38 511.27 546.65

$93,411 $79,609 $80,5020.36 5.23 5.59

$33.63 $416.36 $449.99Facilities and Equipment Value per Resident(13)

Neighborhood/Community Parks Total Cost

Facilities and Equipment ValueArchitecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 12.5%(8)

Total Facilities and Equipment Value(9)

Total Number of Acres(10)

Facility(1)

Unit Value(2) Regional Parks

Facilities and Equipment Value per Acre(11)

Level-of-Service(12)



Total Impact Cost per Resident Table VIII-6 presents the total impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in Indian River County. Using the current achieved LOS, as previously presented in Table VIII-2, the total cost for neighborhood/community parks in Indian River County is $61 per resident and the total cost for regional parks is $809 per resident, for a total of $869 per resident.

Table VIII-6 Total Impact Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Table VIII-4 (2) Source: Table VIII-5 (3) Sum of the land value per resident (Item 1) and the facility value per acre (Item 2)

Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the capital cost of providing parks and recreation services, a review of the capital financing program for the parks and recreation program was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, which have been used within the last five years or planned to be used over the next five years to fund the expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment related to Indian River County’s parks and recreation program. Based on this review, Indian River County’s parks capital expansion improvements are being funded primarily with sales tax revenues (96 percent of total non-impact fee spending), and, at a lesser degree, with general fund and grant revenues. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit Between 2008 and 2017, Indian River County spent or planned to spend a total of $6.4 million for capital expansion of parks, resulting in an average annual capital expansion expenditure of $639,000. Since the review of these expenditures spanned 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average population for

Neighborhood/Community

Regional

Total Land Value per Resident(1) $27.00 $392.25 $419.25Total Facility Value per Resident(2) $33.63 $416.36 $449.99Total Impact Cost per Resident(3) $60.63 $808.61 $869.24

ComponentPark Type

Total



this same period. As presented in Table VIII-7, the average annual capital expansion expenditure is approximately $7 per resident. As mentioned previously, a large part of this funding (96 percent) is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. This analysis assumes that the sales tax will not be re-adopted. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the credit calculations should be reviewed to determine if a revision is needed.

Tabl

e VI

II-7

Hist

oric

al a

nd P

rogr

amm

ed C

apita

l Cos

ts

Rive

r Cou

nty

nditu

res f

unde

d w

ith sa

les t

ax re

venu

es d

ivid

ed b

y 10

yea

rs

age

annu

al e

xpen

ditu

res f

unde

d w

ith s

ales

tax

reve

nues

(Ite

m 2

) div

ided

by

the

aver

age

annu

al p

opul

atio

n (It

em 7

) nd

iture

s fun

ded

with

gen

eral

fund

s & g

rant

s div

ided

by

10 y

ears

ag

e an

nual

exp

endi

ture

s fun

ded

with

gen

eral

fund

& g

rant

s (Ite

m 4

) div

ided

by

the

aver

age

annu

al p

opul

atio

n (It

em 7

) ec

reat

iona

l fac

ilitie

s exp

endi

ture

s div

ided

by

10 y

ears

di

x A,

Tab

le A

-1; U

ninc

orpo

rate

d Co

unty

e

xpen

ditu

res (

Item

6) d

ivid

ed b

y th

e av

erag

e an

nual

pop

ulat

ion

(Item

7)

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n(1)

FY 2

007/

08FY

200

8/09

FY 2

009/

10FY

201

0/11

FY 2

011/

12FY

201

2/13

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

16FY

2

ce C

ompl

ex-

-$1

,512

,092

--

--

--

rity

Hous

e$1

46,0

84-

--

--

--

-io

nal P

ark

--

--

--

--

-$1

,ce

r Lig

hts

--

--

--

--

-gi

onal

Par

k Fe

nce

Proj

ect P

h. II

--

--

--

$100

,000

--

erge

nera

tiona

l Mul

ti-Pu

rpos

e Fa

cilit

y-

--

--

$1,8

43,5

45$1

,500

,000

--

ditu

res F

unde

d w

ith S

ales

Tax

Rev

enue

s$1

46,0

84-

$1,5

12,0

92-

-$1

,843

,545

$1,6

00,0

00-

-$1

,

venu

es &

Gra

nts:

ball

Fiel

ds-

$15,

210

--

--

--

-ba

ll Fi

elds

(Giff

ord

Park

)$2

3,31

0-

--

--

--

-&

Par

king

--

--

-$2

00,0

00-

--

ditu

res F

unde

d w

ith G

ener

al F

und

& G

rant

s$2

3,31

0$1

5,21

0-

--

$200

,000

--

-

nera

l Fun

d Re

venu

es a

nd G

rant

s:$1

69,3

94$1

5,21

0$1

,512

,092

$0$0

$2,0

43,5

45$1

,600

,000

$0$0

$1,

Expe

nditu

res(6

)

Popu

latio

n - U

ninc

orpo

rate

d Co

unty

(7)

Expe

nditu

res p

er R

esid

ent(8

)

Expe

nditu

res p

er R

esid

ent (

Sale

s Tax

)(3)

ge A

nnua

l Exp

endi

ture

s Fun

ded

with

Sal

es T

ax R

even

ues(2

)

ge A

nnua

l Exp

endi

ture

s Fun

ded

with

Gen

eral

Fun

d &

Gra

nts(4

)

Expe

nditu

res p

er R

esid

ent (

Gen

eral

Fun

d &

Gra

nts)

(5)



Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost The net parks and recreation impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VIII-8 summarizes the calculation of the net parks and recreation cost per resident for both neighborhood/community and regional parks. The first section of Table VIII-8 identifies the total impact cost as $869 per resident for all parks. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the parks and recreation impact fee, totaling approximately $34 for all parks. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $836 per resident for all parks, which also reflects the relevant measure of LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.

Table VIII-8 Net Impact Cost per Resident

(1) Source: Table VIII-6 (2) Source: Table VIII-7 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of

2.5% with a capitalization period of 5 years for sales tax expenditures and 25 years for general fund & grant expenditures.

(4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3)

Sales TaxGeneral Fund

& GrantsTotal

Total Impact Cost per Resident(1) $869.24

Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(2) $6.31 $0.24 Capitalization Rate 2.5% 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 5 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(3) $29.32 $4.42 $33.74

Net Impact Cost per Resident(4) $835.50

Revenue CreditsImpact

CostCalculation Step

Net Impact Cost

Revenue Credit

Impact Cost



Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table VIII-9 presents the calculated parks and recreation impact fee schedule developed for residential land uses. As previously mentioned, only residential development within unincorporated Indian River County is assessed a parks and recreation impact fee.

Table VIII-9 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-3 (2) Source: Table VIII-8 (3) Residents per unit (Item 1) for each land use category multiplied by net cost per resident (Item 2) (4) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee (5) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 4) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 3)

Affordable Growth Strategy Based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County will use approximately $639,000 per year of non-impact fee funding over the next five years and $24,000 per year afterwards. As mentioned previously, during the next 25 years, the County is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure VIII-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. The maximum calculated fee is compared investment needed to maintain the current adopted LOS standard. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of parks and recreation impact fee calculated, the County needs approximately 92 percent of the maximum impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. As mentioned previously, the available non-impact fee consists primarily of sales tax revenues. These calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the Affordable Growth calculations should be reviewed to see if a revision is necessary. In addition, the County is targeting non-residential land uses for potential discounts and the parks and recreation fees are charged only to residential land uses.

Land UseImpact

UnitResidents per Unit(1)

Net Cost per Resident(2)

Total Impact Fee(3)

Current Adopted

Fee(4)

Percent Change(5)

Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 2.14 $835.50 $1,788 $1,302 37.3% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 2.33 $835.50 $1,947 $1,463 33.1% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 2.59 $835.50 $2,164 $1,587 36.4% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.33 $835.50 $1,111 $884 25.7% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 1.30 $835.50 $1,086 $942 15.3%



Figure VIII-1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Strategy

Table VIII-10 presents discounted impact fee schedule.

Table VIII-10 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth

(1) Calculated based on an average annual spending of $639,000 for the next 5 years and $24,000 per year

afterwards, and an average annual growth rate of 1.4% over the next 25 years (2) Total impact fee from Table VIII-9 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2)

Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of parks and recreation facilities impact fee, the County staff recommends adopting the affordable growth fees with a 25-percent discount. This approach takes into

Land UseImpact

Unit

Affordable Growth

Adoption Rate(1)

Total Impact Fee(2)

Current Adopted

Fee(3)

Percent Change(4)

Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 92% $1,645 $1,302 26.3% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 92% $1,791 $1,463 22.4% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 92% $1,991 $1,587 25.5% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 92% $1,022 $884 15.6% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 92% $999 $942 6.1%

92%



consideration the expected capital needs over the next several years and will be reviewed during the next technical study update.

Table VIII-11 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule – Staff Recommended Fee Rates

(1) Indian River County Staff recommends charging 75 percent of the affordable growth fee rates. (2) Total impact fee from Table VIII-10 multiplied by the staff recommended adjustment (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2)

Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s parks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison impact fee schedules was completed for surrounding counties and other jurisdictions throughout Florida. Table VIII-12 presents this comparison.

Land UseImpact

Unit

Staff Recommended Adjustment(1)

Total Impact Fee(2)

Current Adopted

Fee(3)

Percent Change(4)

Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 75% $1,234 $1,302 -5.2% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 75% $1,343 $1,463 -8.2% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 75% $1,493 $1,587 -5.9% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 75% $767 $884 -13.2% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 75% $749 $942 -20.5%

Park

s & R

ecre

atio

n Im

pact

Fee

Com

paris

on

t -9

-10

-11;

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

reco

mm

ends

cha

rgin

g 75

per

cent

of t

he a

fford

able

gro

wth

fee

rate

s.

ver C

ount

y; F

ees d

o no

t inc

lude

the

adm

inist

rativ

e fe

e.

Coun

ty P

lann

ing

& D

evel

opm

ent S

ervi

ces D

epar

tmen

t. F

ees h

ave

been

incr

ease

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

Coun

ty C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

Coun

ty C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en re

duce

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g. F

ees a

re c

urre

ntly

susp

ende

d.

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

unty

Impa

ct F

ee A

dmin

istra

tion

Depa

rtm

ent.

Ave

rage

of c

omm

unity

and

regi

onal

par

ks.

Fees

hav

e be

en re

duce

d to

abo

ve ra

tes t

hrou

gh a

nnua

l ind

exin

g.

o Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent

s Cou

nty

Code

of O

rdin

ance

s, S

ectio

n 13

-28.

Im

pact

fees

mor

ator

ium

in e

ffect

thro

ugh

June

30,

201

7.

ount

y Gr

owth

Man

agem

ent D

epar

tmen

t Co

unty

Pla

nnin

g &

Zon

ing

Depa

rtm

ent.

Fee

s hav

e be

en in

crea

sed

to a

bove

rate

s thr

ough

ann

ual i

ndex

ing.

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Fe

e(5)

st U

pdat

e20

1420

1420

1420

0520

0920

0620

0920

1020

1020

0520

06er

cent

age

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

100%

100%

36%

100%

100%

100%

25%

0 sf

)du

$1,9

47$1

,791

$1,3

43$1

,463

$1,5

33$9

24$6

72$5

66$3

,133

$411

$189

ssor

y Un

it1,

000

sf$1

,111

$1,0

22$7

67$8

84$1

,368

$679

$449

$425

$1,6

85$3

11$1

31Pa

rk (t

ied

dow

n)1,

000

sf$1

,086

$999

$749

$942

$1,0

04$6

77$4

75$5

43$2

,393

$411

$108

CO

sceo

la

Coun

ty(7

)

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(8)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(9

)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(1

0)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(11)

High

land

s Co

unty

(12)

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(6)

Use

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty



IX. Transportation Indian River County’s Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was most recently updated in 2009 to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. This section of the impact fee report provides the results of the transportation impact fee analysis and consists of the following sections:

Demand Component Cost Component Credit Component Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

As in the case of other impact fee program areas, the methodology used for the transportation impact fee study follows a consumption-based impact fee approach, in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is:

[Demand x Cost] – Credit = Fee

The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is expressed in units of VMT (daily vehicle-trip generation rate times the trip length times the percent new trips [of total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. The trip generation is expressed in average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The cost of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle mile or lane mile of roadway capacity. The credit is an estimate of the future non-impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to transportation capacity expansion construction projects. Thus, the impact fee is an “up front” payment for a



portion of the cost of building a lane mile of capacity directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by new development. It should be noted that the information used to develop the impact fee schedule was based on the most recent, reliable, and localized data available. The following input variables used in the fee equation: Demand Variables:

Trip generation rate Trip length Percent new trips Interstate and toll facility discount factor

Cost Variables:

Cost per lane mile Capacity added per lane mile

Credit Variables:

Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) Present worth Fuel efficiency Effective days per year

A review of impact fee variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following subsections.



Demand Component Travel Demand The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is measured in terms of the vehicle miles of new travel a unit of development consumes on the existing road system.

Number of daily trips generated; Average length of those trips; and Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on

the road system and is captured by new development. As part of this update, the trip characteristics variables were obtained primarily from two sources: (1) trip characteristics studies previously conducted throughout Florida by TOA (Florida Studies Database), and (2) the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation report (9th edition). The Florida Studies Database is included in Appendix B. This database was used to determine VMT, which is developed from trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses in the fee schedule. The data in the trip characteristics database is based on actual land use studies and was collected throughout Florida using machine traffic counts and site specific land use origin-destination surveys. In addition, trip generation data from the ITE 9th Edition Trip Generation report was used. In instances where trip generation was available from the ITE Trip Generation report and the Florida Studies Database, a blended average calculation was used to increase the sample size. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor This variable is used to recognize that improvements to Interstate highways are funded by the State using earmarked and Federal funds, while toll facility improvements are funded with toll revenues. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements, and the portion of new development’s travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system usually is eliminated from the total travel for each land use. To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility discount factor, the loaded highway network file was generated for the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v3.4 (GTCRPM). A select link analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within Indian



River County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin or destination within the county. Currently, the only interstate/toll facilities in Indian River County are I-95 and the Florida Turnpike (SR 19). The limited access vehicle miles of travel (Limited Access VMT) for trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian River County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total Indian River County VMT was calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian River County for all roads, including limited access roads, located within Indian River County. The I/T discount factor of 17.3 percent was determined by dividing the total Limited Access VMT by the total Indian River County VMT. By applying this factor to the total Indian River County VMT for each land use in the fee schedule, the reduced VMT is then representative of only the roadways which are funded by impact fees. Appendix B, Table B-1 provides further detail on this calculation.



Cost Component The cost of providing roadway system capacity has decreased in recent years. Construction costs increased significantly in Florida between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, the housing market growth, and other factors. Appreciation in land values also resulted in higher right-of-way (ROW) costs during the same period. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and in recent years, communities have experienced a decrease in construction costs, returning to levels seen before 2005. Cost information from Indian River County, other Florida Counties, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was reviewed to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane-mile of roadway capacity. The following subsections summarize the methodology and findings of the total unit cost analysis for county and state roads. Appendix C provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. County Roadway Costs This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Indian River County. For this purpose, recent bid data for ongoing projects provided by the County and recent construction bid data from county roadway projects throughout Florida were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for county improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four phases: design, construction/engineering inspection (CEI), ROW and construction. Design and CEI Design costs for county roads were estimated at 10 percent construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for county roads were estimated at 9 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-16. Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, to build a new road. A review of recent ROW cost data for Indian River



County identified 12 recent improvements with acquisition data. Using the construction costs for these improvements, a ROW factor of construction was calculated for each improvement, ranging from six (6) to 150 percent, with a weighted average of approximately 41 percent. This calculated local factor was consistent with county road ROW factors observed in recent impact fee studies throughout Florida and was used as the basis for ROW costs in Indian River County. As seen in Table IX-1, this amount is equal to approximately $0.66 million per lane mile for county roads. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables C-4, C-11, and C-12. Construction The construction cost for county roads was based on a review of local and statewide projects. A review of recent construction cost data for Indian River County identified 12 recent capacity expansion improvements throughout the County. Based on these improvements, a weighted average cost of $1.80 million per lane mile was calculated for use in the impact fee calculation (as seen in Table IX-1). This figure was compared to the average construction cost per lane mile observed in other jurisdictions throughout the state. These statewide projects averaged approximately $2.18 million per lane mile for construction. Therefore, compared to the statewide data, Indian River County’s local costs are approximately 83 percent of the statewide average. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables, C-6, C-13, and C-14.

Table IX-1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads

(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-4 (3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-6 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-8

UrbanDesign

RuralDesign

Weighted Average

Design(1) $180,000 $149,000 $159,000Right-of-Way(2) $738,000 $613,000 $656,000Construction(3) $1,800,000 $1,494,000 $1,598,000CEI(4) $162,000 $134,000 $143,000Total Cost $2,880,000 $2,390,000 $2,556,000

Cost PhaseCost per Lane Mile



State Roadway Costs This section examines the ROW, construction, and other cost components associated with state roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Indian River County. For this purpose, recent bid data from state roadway projects throughout Florida and the FDOT’s Long Range Estimates (LRE) were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for state improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four phases: design, CEI, ROW and construction. Design and CEI Design costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-16. Right-of-Way Due to a lack of local right-of-way acquisition cost data for state roads in Indian River County, a review of ROW costs from recent transportation fee studies throughout Florida was conducted. Based on this review, ROW for state roadways was estimated at 44 percent of the construction cost for state roads. As shown in Table IX-2, this amount is equal to approximately $0.78 million per lane mile. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-12. Construction A review of recent state road capacity improvements in Indian River County identified three projects from 2008 and 2009 (SR 60 and SR 5 widening). These three projects averaged approximately $2.95 million per lane mile for construction. However, due to the small sample size, these projects were blended with 49 additional capacity expansion projects throughout Florida, which resulted in a weighted average cost of $2.44 million per lane mile. An analysis of county roadway improvements, where a larger sample of local projects was available, in relation to statewide county road improvements, indicated that construction costs average approximately 83 percent of construction costs statewide. Based on this conclusion, the construction costs for state roadways in Indian River County



were estimated at 83 percent of the state average of $2.44 million. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-15.

Table IX-2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads

(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-5 (3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-7 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-9

Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for county and state roads is presented in Table X-3. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $2.59 million per lane mile was utilized as the roadway cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee schedule. The weighted average cost per lane mile includes county and state roads and is based on weighting the lane miles of roadway improvements in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Compared to the previous transportation impact fee update, the estimated cost of $2.59 million represents a slight increase in the unit cost per lane mile for roadway. The previous cost, established in a 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study, was estimated at $2.46 million. This represents a five percent increase in the roadway unit cost per lane mile since the 2004 study. Compared to recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida in the past few years, the unit cost per lane mile estimated in this update study for Indian River County is considerably lower. Recent unit costs have ranged from approximately $2.91 million to $4.44 million, with an average cost of $3.61 million. The lower costs in Indian River County can be attributed to the lower construction costs observed in recent local bids

UrbanDesign

RuralDesign

Weighted Average

Design(1) $220,000 $183,000 $196,000Right-of-Way(2) $880,000 $730,000 $781,000Construction(3) $2,000,000 $1,660,000 $1,776,000CEI(4) $220,000 $183,000 $196,000Total Cost $3,320,000 $2,756,000 $2,949,000

Cost PhaseCost per Lane Mile



as well as the mix of planned urban and rural designed roadways. Compared to other jurisdictions, Indian River County plans to construct a greater proportion of rural designed roadways, which are less expensive than roadways with urban design characteristics.

Table IX-3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile

for County and State Roadway Projects in Indian River County

(1) Source: Table IX-1 (2) Source: Table IX-2 (3) Lane mile distribution (Item 4) multiplied by the design, ROW, construction, and

CEI phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17, Items (a) and (b)

Capacity Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the transportation impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also known as the maximum service volume added per mile) of roadway constructed. To calculate the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of constructed future roadway, an analysis of the 2035 projects (see Appendix C, Table C-17) was conducted to reflect the mix of county and state road improvement that will be built in the future. As shown in Table IX-4, the resulting average capacity per lane mile calculated based on these projects is 8,255. The updated capacity added per lane mile estimate of 8,255 is approximately three percent less than the figure used in the 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study. It should be noted that this figure (8,499) was not changed as part of the 2009 update.

Cost PhaseCountyRoads(1)

StateRoads(2)

County and State Roads(3)

Design $159,000 $196,000 $162,000Right-of-Way $656,000 $781,000 $667,000Construction $1,598,000 $1,776,000 $1,614,000CEI $143,000 $196,000 $148,000Total Cost $2,556,000 $2,949,000 $2,591,000

Lane Mile Distribution(4) 91% 9% 100%



Table IX-4 Weighted Average Vehicle-Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile

(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county and state roads (Item 2) divided by the

total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle-mile of capacity. As shown in Tables IX-3 and IX-4, the cost and capacity for county roads have been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. As shown in Table IX-5, the cost per VMC for travel within IRC is approximately $314. This average cost per VMC figure is used in the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle-miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle-mile of travel that is added to the road system, approximately $314 of roadway capacity is consumed.

Table IX-5 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added

(1) Source: Table IX-3 (2) Source: Table IX-4 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 2)

It is important to note that capacity projects eligible for impact fee funding include not only new construction and lane additions, but also associated intersection improvements, traffic signalization, and other amenities and technology improvements that allow for additional vehicle capacity.

SourceLane Mile Added(1)

Vehicle Miles of Capacity Added(2)

VMC Added per Lane Mile(3)

County Roads 201.90 1,632,287 8,085State Roads 19.00 191,352 10,071Total 220.90 1,823,639Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(4) 8,255

SourceCost per Lane

Mile(1)

Average VMC Added per Lane

Mile(2)Cost per VMC(3)

County Roads $2,556,000 8,085 $316.14State Roads $2,949,000 10,071 $292.82Weighted Average $2,591,000 8,255 $313.87



Credit Component Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of non-impact fee revenues (converted to equivalent gasoline taxes) generated by a new development over a 25-year period that is projected to be expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. County A review of the County’s historical roadway financing program (FY 2008-2013) and the FY 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shows that all roadway projects are being funded by a combination of fuel taxes, sales tax, grants, developer funds, and transportation impact fees. Currently, capacity-adding projects in the county are primarily funded with fuel tax and sales tax revenues. Based on the FY 2014-2017 CIP and discussions with County staff, it was assumed that sales tax revenues will only be available to fund transportation capacity over the next five years, and will not be a recurring revenue source. Therefore, only five years of sales tax revenues are included in the credit calculations. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or a different revenue source is allocated to the transportation capacity to replace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures may need to be revised. As shown in Table IX-6, the sales tax portion of the county credit was separated from the total county credit and all non-impact fee funding allocated to transportation capacity was converted to equivalent gas tax revenues. A total gas tax equivalent revenue credit of 11.1 pennies was given for sales tax revenues and 5.6 pennies was given for all other revenue sources. State State expenditures on state roads were reviewed, and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was estimated. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects was determined from projects spanning a 10-year period (2009-2018). This period represents past expenditures (from 2009 to 2013) from the FDOT Work Program and the projected expenditures (from 2014 to 2018) from the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A list of capacity-adding roadway projects was developed, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, interchanges, traffic signal projects, and other capacity-addition projects. This review (summarized in Appendix D, Table D-3) indicates that FDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 15.5 pennies of gas tax revenue annually, which is within the range of what is observed in most other Florida jurisdictions.



In summary, Indian River County contributes approximately 16.7 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while the State spends an average of 15.5 pennies for state roadway projects in Indian County. Therefore, a total of 32.2 pennies of credit are included in the impact fee calculation to recognize the future capital revenue that is expected to be generated by new development from all non-impact fee revenues, as shown in Table IX-6.

Table IX-6 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue

(1) Source: Appendix D, Table D-2 (2) Source: Appendix D, Table D-3 (only accounts for 5 years of sales

tax revenues) (3) Source: Appendix D, Table D-4

Present Worth Variables Facility Life The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway. Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 2.5 percent was used in the transportation impact fee calculation based on the estimate obtained from Indian River County. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use.

CreditEquivalent

Pennies per Gallon

County Revenues (excluding sales tax)(1) $0.056County Revenues (sales tax ONLY)(2) $0.111State Revenues(3) $0.155Total $0.322



Appendix D, Table D-8 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following equation, where “VMT” is vehicle miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon.

TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle

TypeVehicleTypeRoadway MPG

VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel

The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a “weighted” fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2011. Based on the calculation completed in Appendix D, Table D-8, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 18.19 miles per gallon. Effective Days per Year

An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee.



Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix E, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix E illustrates the following:

Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips); Total impact fee cost; Annual gas tax credit; Present value of the gas tax credit; Net transportation impact fee; Current Indian River County impact fee; and Percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the 2009 adopted impact

fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix E is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the technically defensible impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Indian River County. For clarification purposes, the calculation of an impact fee for one land use category is presented. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the impact fee schedule included in Appendix E, Table E-1. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee:

Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Gas Tax Credit Where:

Total Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate × Assessable Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (1 – Interstate/Toll Facility Disc. Factor) × (Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 2.5% interest rate & 25-year facility life



Annual Gas/Sales Tax = ([Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency

Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category:

Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.81). Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles

(6.62). Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile,

which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (6.62 + 0.50 = 7.12).

% New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%).

Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate*length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination.

Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor = discount factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (17.3%).

Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane-mile ($2,591,000).

Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,255).

Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development. Cost per lane mile divided by average capacity added per lane mile ($2,591,000 / 8,255 = $313.87).

Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 2.5% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 18.4244. For sales tax, which is available only for the next five years, the present worth factor is 4.6458.

Effective Days per Year = 365 days.



$/Gallon to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.211 for gas tax; $0.111 for sales tax).

Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.19). Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category as follows:

Total Impact Cost = ([7.81 * 6.62 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.173) * ($313.87) = $6,710 Annual Sales Tax Credit = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.111 /18.19) = $62 Sales Tax Credit = $62 * 4.6458 = $288 Annual Credit for Gas Tax and Other Sources = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.211

/18.19) = $118 Gas Tax Credit = $118 * 18.4244 = $2174 Total Credit =$288 + $2,174 = $2,462 Net Impact Fee = $6,710 – $2,462 = $4,248

A comparison of calculated fee schedule to the current adopted fee by land use is presented in Table IX-7. The detailed fee schedule that includes the calculations shown above is presented in Appendix E, Table E-1.

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $6,710 $2,462 $4,248 $4,483 - - 2,500 sf or larger du $7,904 $2,900 $5,004 $5,031 -

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du $4,369 $1,627 $2,742 $2,428 1240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du $2,490 $940 $1,550 $1,745 -1

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room $3,410 $1,254 $2,156 $2,804 -2320 Motel room $2,442 $918 $1,524 $1,516620 Nursing Home bed $826 $332 $494 $432 1252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed $910 $355 $555 $620 -1

OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $15,277 $5,675 $9,602 $13,411 -2Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf $22,258 $8,262 $13,996 $13,411

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf $17,815 $7,304 $10,511 $10,634 -912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf $23,401 $9,581 $13,820 $13,020710 General Office 1,000 sf $6,783 $2,526 $4,257 $3,798 1760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf $5,040 $1,876 $3,164 $2,798 1

INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $2,349 $876 $1,473 $1,318 1150 Warehousing 1,000 sf $2,189 $817 $1,372 $1,228 1151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $796 $313 $483 $862 -4152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,033 $378 $655 $1,228110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $4,286 $1,605 $2,681 $2,404 1n/a Concrete Plant acre $9,593 $3,587 $6,006 $5,382 1n/a Sand Mining acre $1,230 $461 $769 $690 1

RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 gsf $10,680 $4,320 $6,360 $3,163 10

44/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. $8,923 $3,841 $5,082 $5,587 -841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $13,324 $5,030 $8,294 $10,108 -1932 Restaurant 1,000 sf $34,060 $13,417 $20,643 $22,152 -934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $78,855 $33,391 $45,464 $34,781 3850 Supermarket 1,000 sf $15,628 $6,593 $9,035 $11,179 -1942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf $10,632 $4,113 $6,519 $7,830 -1947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay $8,454 $3,545 $4,909 $14,589 -6853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf $42,534 $19,282 $23,252 $25,430 -890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $2,160 $793 $1,367 $1,373

RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole $27,636 $10,121 $17,515 $11,248 5492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf $20,690 $7,723 $12,967 $10,824 2412 County Park acre $1,361 $502 $859 $718 2491 Tennis Court court $24,315 $9,079 $15,236 $12,180 2420 Marina boat berth $2,289 $835 $1,454 $973 4

GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf $25,310 $9,452 $15,858 $14,199 1590 Library 1,000 sf $41,072 $15,045 $26,027 $17,925 4733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf $17,169 $6,409 $10,760 $9,632 1571 Jail bed $3,382 $1,273 $2,109 $389 44

MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf $13,825 $5,865 $7,960 $8,847 -1610 Hospital 1,000 sf $8,746 $3,195 $5,551 $5,309640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf $24,697 $9,226 $15,471 $3,511 34560 Church 1,000 sf $4,150 $1,586 $2,564 $2,588 -444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen $27,036 $11,268 $15,768 $22,743 -3520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student $576 $212 $364 $149 14522 Middle School (Private, 6-9) student $814 $313 $501 $149 23530 High School (Private 9-12) student $859 $332 $527 $538 -

720



Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Table IX-6 and Appendix D, in addition to impact fees, the County will uses a combination of gas tax, sales tax, and grant revenues to fund the transportation system. In terms of affordable growth calculations, it is important to note the following:

Consistent with the methodology used by many Florida jurisdictions, impact fee calculations are based on the adopted LOS standard, which is lower than the current achieved LOS. In other words, under the current methodology, even with the full impact fee, unless the County uses other revenue sources, the current achieved LOS for the system will deteriorate and more congestion will be experienced. It is Indian River County’s policy to conduct a link-by-link capacity analysis and ensure that no link drops below LOS standard D. When the fee is calculated using the current achieved LOS, it amounts to $12,700 for a mid-size single family home, compared to $4,248 per home calculated using the adopted LOS standard. As such, the standard methodology used for transportation impact fees results in fee levels that slows down the degradation of the system, but does not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the existing conditions when they are better than the adopted LOS standard.

As mentioned previously, the credit calculations assume that the local option sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. In addition, the County had to defer maintenance expenses since 2006 through the CIP period due to lack of funding for capacity projects. Therefore, the available revenues for transportation capacity are likely to decrease in the future. The Affordable Growth calculations are based on this reduced funding and do not take into account funding from the State since the County does not control the State budget. If the sales tax is re-adopted or other revenue sources become available, these calculations will need to be revised.

Although the medium population projections from the University of Florida, Bureau

of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) suggest an average growth rate of approximately 1.4 percent through 2040, the high projections indicate almost a 2-percent annual growth rate. To mitigate the uncertainty of growth rates and given that even if adopted at 100 percent level, impact fees will not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current LOS and that the transportation system will



continue to degrade, the high growth projection is used in the affordable growth calculations for the transportation impact fee.

Based on this scenario, the County would need approximately 90 percent of the fee for all land uses, as long as an additional funding of $10 million per year is available for the next five years and $2.7 million per year afterwards, with an average annual population growth rate of 2 percent. As presented in Figure IX-1, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of transportation impact fee calculated, if the estimated levels of non-impact fee funding continue to be available, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard. Alternatively, if the County adopts the residential land uses at 100 percent, the fees for non-residential land uses could be reduced by up to 55 percent (or adopted at 45 percent) to maintain the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, the level of discount is more of a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent.

Figure IX-1

Transportation Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Strategy Adopted LOS Standard

Table IX-8 presents discounted impact fee schedule.

90%

- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% $4,248 $4,483 -5 - 2,500 sf or larger du 100% $5,004 $5,031 -1

220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 100% $2,742 $2,428 13240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du 100% $1,550 $1,745 -11

TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 45% $970 $2,804 -65320 Motel room 45% $686 $1,516 -55620 Nursing Home bed 45% $222 $432 -49252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 45% $250 $620 -60

OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 45% $4,321 $13,411 -68Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 45% $6,298 $13,411 -53

911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 45% $4,730 $10,634 -56912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 45% $6,219 $13,020 -52710 General Office 1,000 sf 45% $1,916 $3,798 -50760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 45% $1,424 $2,798 -49

INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 45% $663 $1,318 -50150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 45% $617 $1,228 -50151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 45% $217 $862 -75152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 45% $295 $1,228 -76110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 45% $1,206 $2,404 -50n/a Concrete Plant acre 45% $2,703 $5,382 -50n/a Sand Mining acre 45% $346 $690 -50

RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 gsf 45% $2,862 $3,163 -10

944/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 45% $2,287 $5,587 -59841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 45% $3,732 $10,108 -63932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 45% $9,289 $22,152 -58934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 45% $20,459 $34,781 -41850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 45% $4,066 $11,179 -64942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 45% $2,934 $7,830 -63947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 45% $2,209 $14,589 -85853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 45% $10,463 $25,430 -59890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 45% $615 $1,373 -55

RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 45% $7,882 $11,248 -30492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 45% $5,835 $10,824 -46412 County Park acre 45% $387 $718 -46491 Tennis Court court 45% $6,856 $12,180 -44420 Marina boat berth 45% $654 $973 -33

GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 45% $7,136 $14,199 -50590 Library 1,000 sf 45% $11,712 $17,925 -35733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 45% $4,842 $9,632 -50571 Jail bed 45% $949 $389 144

MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 45% $3,582 $8,847 -60610 Hospital 1,000 sf 45% $2,498 $5,309 -53640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 45% $6,962 $3,511 98560 Church 1,000 sf 45% $1,154 $2,588 -55444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 45% $7,096 $22,743 -69520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 45% $164 $149 10

( ) $ $

720



Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of transportation impact fees, the County staff recommends implementing the affordable growth fees.

Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Indian River County transportation impact fee program, a comparison of calculated fees to transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was completed. Table IX-9 presents Indian River County’s calculated impact fee and a comparison to transportation impact fees in the surrounding and other jurisdictions in Florida. It should be noted that the differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variations in costs, credits and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc.

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

pact

Fee

Com

paris

on

Rive

r Cou

nty

Staf

f rec

omm

ends

cha

rgin

g th

e af

ford

able

gro

wth

fee

rate

s.

y. F

ees d

o no

t inc

lude

the

adm

inist

rativ

e fe

e.

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent.

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

impa

ct fe

e m

orat

oriu

m in

effe

ct th

roug

h De

cem

ber 2

014.

ty

Boa

rd o

f Cou

nty

Com

miss

ione

rs A

dmin

istra

tion

Depa

rtm

ent

rdin

ance

Pla

nnin

g &

Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Dep

artm

ent;

Aver

age

of fo

ur im

pact

fee

dist

ricts

Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent;

Aver

age

of th

ree

impa

ct fe

e di

stric

ts

ning

& D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t ac

t Fee

Adm

inist

ratio

n De

part

men

t Pl

anni

ng &

Dev

elop

men

t Dep

artm

ent;

Tran

spor

tatio

n im

pact

fee

mor

ator

ium

in e

ffect

thro

ugh

June

201

5 Co

de o

f Ord

inan

ces,

Sec

tion

13-2

8; T

rans

port

atio

n im

pact

fee

mor

ator

ium

in e

ffect

thro

ugh

June

201

7 ow

th M

anag

emen

t Dep

artm

ent

lann

ing

& Z

onin

g De

part

men

t

Calc

ulat

ed(2

)Af

ford

able

G

row

th(3

)St

aff(4

)

2009

Ad

opte

d Fe

e(5)

2014

2014

2014

2009

2000

2012

2009

2009

2010

2010

2013

2006

100%

n/a

n/a

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

100%

44%

25%

du$4

,248

$4,2

48$4

,248

$4,4

83$4

,353

$963

$4,2

35$6

,278

$1,9

85$5

,753

$2,5

37$1

,6

1,00

0 sf

$2,6

81$1

,206

$1,2

06$2

,404

n/a

$473

$390

$4,5

87$6

28$4

,333

$1,6

11$1

,11,

000

sf$4

,257

$1,9

16$1

,916

$3,7

98$5

,058

$1,0

91$1

,287

$2,4

33$1

,803

$9,2

91$3

,031

$3,0

1,00

0 sf

$6,3

60$2

,862

$2,8

62$3

,163

$5,2

70$1

,194

$2,5

03$9

,090

$1,4

87$1

0,98

0$3

,769

$2,4

1,00

0 sf

$13,

820

$6,2

19$6

,219

$13,

020

$23,

331

$1,1

94$2

,503

$11,

814

$1,4

87$2

1,95

4$8

,514

$11,

21,

000

sf$4

5,46

4$2

0,45

9$2

0,45

9$3

4,78

1$3

5,79

1$2

,829

$2,5

03$1

4,93

8$1

,487

$74,

793

$34,

795

$25,

2

Char

lott

e Co

unty

(9)

Citr

us

Coun

ty(1

0)

Colli

er

Coun

ty(1

1)

Hern

ando

Co

unty

(12)

High

land

Coun

ty(1

3

St. L

ucie

Co

unty

(8)

Uni

t(1)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Brev

ard

Coun

ty(6

)

Oke

echo

bee

Coun

ty(7

)



X. Educational Facilities Educational facilities impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional school facilities demand created by new growth. This section presents the results of the educational facilities impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated school impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated with the development of the educational facilities impact fee. These include:

Facility Inventory Service Area and Enrollment Facility Service Delivery Cost Component Credit Component Net Impact Cost per Student Student Generation Rate Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison

Facility Inventory The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all school-age residents of Indian River County. As such, this analysis will consider all public elementary, middle, and high school level facilities and the students attending these facilities located throughout and living within Indian River County. The District currently operates 19 traditional public schools that serve the students of Indian River County and its municipalities, including 13 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The District’s current traditional school inventory (excluding charter, alternative or adult education) is provided in Appendix G, Table G-1.



Service Area and Enrollment

The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all Pre-Kindergarten thru 12th grade (PK-12) students throughout the entire county. Attendance boundaries can be redrawn to balance school enrollment with available school capacity and therefore can serve different geographic areas over time. As such, the appropriate impact fee district for public schools is countywide.

Table X-1 presents the historical student enrollment since 2000-01 school year and projected enrollment through 2023-24. The annual percent change for the enrollment is presented, as well as a three-year average to account for any random fluctuations. Table X-1 reflects that student enrollment is expected to decline slightly over the next two years, and then stabilize and start increasing as of 2016-17 school year.

Table X-1 Indian River County Enrollment

(1) Source: Indian River County School District and Florida

Department of Education (2) Percent change from one year to the next (3) Average change over the last three years

SchoolYear Enrollment(1) Annual %

Change(2)

Three-Year Average(3)

2000-01 15,477 - -2001-02 14,467 -6.5% -2002-03 14,917 3.1% -2003-04 15,412 3.3% -2004-05 15,604 1.2% 2.6%2005-06 15,901 1.9% 2.2%2006-07 16,273 2.3% 1.8%2007-08 16,365 0.6% 1.6%2008-09 15,794 -3.5% -0.2%2009-10 15,710 -0.5% -1.2%2010-11 15,549 -1.0% -1.7%2011-12 15,597 0.3% -0.4%2012-13 15,541 -0.4% -0.4%2013-14 15,424 -0.8% -0.3%2014-15 15,303 -0.8% -0.6%2015-16 15,245 -0.4% -0.6%2016-17 15,294 0.3% -0.3%2017-18 15,307 0.1% 0.0%2018-19 15,425 0.8% 0.4%2019-20 15,607 1.2% 0.7%2020-21 15,859 1.6% 1.2%2021-22 16,168 1.9% 1.6%2022-23 16,547 2.3% 1.9%2023-24 16,990 2.7% 2.3%



Facility Service Delivery The Indian River County School District inventory was reviewed and trends in the net square feet per student stations were evaluated. This review along with discussions with the District representatives suggested that the design characteristics of future facilities are likely to be consistent with the existing schools. Table X-2 illustrates the facility service delivery in Indian River County, which is 144.7 net square feet per permanent student station for elementary schools, 140.5 net square feet per permanent student station for middle schools, and 157.9 net square feet per permanent student station for high schools. The weighted average facility service delivery based on all three school types is 147.7 net square feet per permanent student station. Reference to net square feet pertains to the most recent figures published per the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Report for the District.

Table X-2 Facility Service Delivery

(1) Source: Indian River County School District (2) Source: Indian River County School District. Indicates permanent capacity after FISH adjustment. (3) Permanent net square footage (Item 1) divided by permanent student stations (Item 2) The service delivery is based on the permanent student stations because it is the School District’s policy to remove portable stations and use them only as a temporary solution. This approach is also consistent with the methodology used in the 2005 technical study, which is the basis of the current adopted impact fee schedule. Portable stations will always be used at some level since they provide valuable flexibility to address temporary increases in enrollment. The School District’s policy is to provide the necessary permanent student stations in the long term.

Elementary Middle HighPermanent Net Square Footage(1) 1,122,710 602,578 826,729 2,552,017Permanent Student Stations(2) 7,761 4,288 5,235 17,284Net Square Feet per Student Station(3) 144.7 140.5 157.9 147.7

Description School Type Total / Weighted Avg



Cost Component The capital costs of providing educational facilities includes three components, including the school facility cost, transportation cost, and ancillary facility costs. This section addresses each of these components. Facility Cost per Student Station The first step in determining the cost of providing public schools to Indian River County residents is to calculate the facility cost per student station. Several cost components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a school, including architectural/civil design/site improvement costs; construction costs; furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) costs; and the cost to purchase the land. Each component of the school facility cost is described in more detail in the following subsections. Architectural/Civil Design/Site Improvement, Construction and FF&E Costs To determine the administration, architect/civil design/site improvement, construction, and FF&E costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, cost information was obtained for new schools built or proposed in Indian River County. The most recent construction included Storm Grove Middle School (opened in 2009), and renovation and expansion of the Vero Beach Elementary School (opened in 2012). In addition to these schools, insurance values of the existing schools and estimates included in the Educational Plant Survey for upcoming school expansions were reviewed and supplemented with discussions with the District’s representatives. Given the recent fluctuations in construction costs and the limited number of schools built in the County over the past few years, a review of schools that were built over the past five years throughout the State was conducted. This database included approximately 135 schools. Of these, approximately 20 were built in 2011. Based on this information, a construction cost of $145 per net square foot was used in the study for elementary schools, $175 per net square foot for middle schools, and $185 per net square foot for high schools, with a weighted average construction cost of $165 per net square foot for all school levels. Appendix G provides additional information on cost estimates. The architectural, civil design, site preparation (including on-site improvement and traffic control costs), and FF&E costs (including technology) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Indian River County and other jurisdictions. These figures were also discussed with the District representatives and are



estimated at 10 percent of construction for architectural/civil design costs, 10 percent for site preparation costs, and 7 percent for FF&E costs. Table X-3 presents the cost per square foot figures for the architectural/civil design/site improvement, construction, and FF&E cost components for each school type. Table X-3 also presents the weighted average figure for each cost component, based on all three school types. Land Cost For each school type, the land cost per square foot is based on a value of $50,000 per acre. This cost per acre is based on the current value of land owned by the District as well as additional analysis. This additional analysis included a countywide review of vacant land sales over the last three years and market values of all vacant land of parcels similar in size to the District’s school sites. The results of the vacant land analysis confirm that the cost per acre used in the impact fee analysis is reasonable. Appendix G documents the results of the land value analysis. The land cost per square foot by school type was developed based on the acres per 1,000 permanent net square feet needed for the future schools. The resulting land cost figures for each type of school also are presented in Table X-3. Net Interest Cost When a School District issues Certificates of Participation (COP) or other types of bonds to fund additional capacity, interest costs incurred during the construction period need to be added to the school facility construction costs. The Indian River County School District has been using COPs to fund a portion of its expansion projects; however, to provide a conservative estimate, this cost is not included in the calculation.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

133

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e X-

3 Fa

cilit

y Co

st p

er S

tude

nt S

tatio

n

(1

) So

urce

: Tab

le X

-2

(2)

Estim

ated

at

20%

of t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

cost

bas

ed o

n es

timat

es o

btai

ned

from

the

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Scho

ol D

istric

t and

rec

ent

cost

obt

aine

d fr

om o

ther

Flo

rida

Scho

ol D

istric

ts.

Deta

iled

info

rmat

ion

on c

ost e

stim

ates

is in

clud

ed in

App

endi

x G.

(3

) Co

nstr

uctio

n co

st is

est

imat

ed to

rang

e fr

om $

145

per n

et sq

uare

foot

to $

185

per n

et s

quar

e fo

ot, b

ased

on

info

rmat

ion

obta

ined

fr

om th

e In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Sc

hool

Dist

rict a

nd re

cent

ly c

onst

ruct

ed s

choo

ls in

oth

er F

lorid

a ju

risdi

ctio

ns.

Deta

iled

info

rmat

ion

on c

ost e

stim

ates

is in

clud

ed in

App

endi

x G.

(4

) Es

timat

ed a

t 7%

of t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

cost

bas

ed o

n es

timat

es o

btai

ned

from

the

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Scho

ol D

istric

t and

rece

nt c

ost

obta

ined

from

oth

er F

lorid

a Sc

hool

Dist

ricts

. De

taile

d in

form

atio

n on

cos

t est

imat

es is

incl

uded

in A

ppen

dix

G.

(5)

The

land

cos

t pe

r sq

uare

foot

for

each

sch

ool t

ype

is ba

sed

on t

he a

crea

ge p

er 1

,000

per

man

ent

squa

re fe

et fo

r fu

ture

sch

ools

at

a c

ost o

f $50

,000

per

acr

e. T

his c

ost p

er a

cre

figur

e is

base

d on

the

land

val

ue o

f cur

rent

scho

ols

with

in th

e co

unty

and

ave

rage

la

nd v

alue

s for

vac

ant l

and

thro

ugho

ut th

e co

unty

. Fu

rthe

r inf

orm

atio

n is

incl

uded

in A

ppen

dix

G.

(6)

Sum

of t

he sc

hool

faci

lity

cost

per

net

squa

re fo

ot (I

tem

s 2

thru

5)

(7)

The

net s

quar

e fe

et p

er p

erm

anen

t stu

dent

sta

tion

(Item

1) m

ultip

lied

by th

e to

tal s

choo

l fac

ility

cos

t per

net

squ

are

foot

(Ite

m 6

) fo

r eac

h re

spec

tive

scho

ol ty

pe.

Cost

Com

pone

ntEl

emen

tary

Sc

hool

Mid

dle

Scho

olHi

ghSc

hool

Wei

ghte

d Av

erag

eN

et S

quar

e Fe

et p

er S

tude

nt S

tatio

n(1)

144.

714

0.5

157.

914

7.7

Arc

hite

ctur

al/C

ivil

Desi

gn/S

ite Im

prov

emen

t Co

st p

er N

et S

q Ft

(2)

$29.

00$3

5.00

$37.

00$3

3.01

Con

stru

ctio

n Co

st p

er N

et S

q Ft

(3)

$145

.00

$175

.00

$185

.00

$165

.04

FF&

E Co

st p

er N

et S

q Ft

(4)

$10.

15$1

2.25

$12.

95$1

1.55

Lan

d Co

st p

er N

et S

q Ft

(5)

$11.

60$1

3.30

$14.

50$1

2.40

Tota

l Fac

ility

Cos

t per

Net

Sq

Ft(6

)$1

95.7

5$2

35.5

5$2

49.4

5$2

22.0

0To

tal F

acili

ty C

ost p

er S

tude

nt S

tatio

n(7)

$28,

325

$33,

095

$39,

388

$32,

789

Scho

ol F

acili

ty C

ost C

ompo

nent

s:



Total Facility Cost per Student The total facility impact cost per student for each school type is based on the facility cost per student station figures derived in Table X-3, and is typically calculated by dividing the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity. The adjustment of multiplying the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity converts the cost per student station to a cost per student. In addition, this calculation accounts for the current available permanent capacity and adjusts the costs accordingly. If there is available capacity (e.g., currently more permanent student stations than students), then the total facility cost per student increases because the cost of building this additional capacity is being recouped. Similarly, if there are currently more students enrolled than available capacity, the cost per student is adjusted downward. In the case of Indian River County, although there is available capacity countywide, because the District’s adopted LOS standard is 100 percent, the cost per student station calculated in Table X-3 also represents the facility cost per student. This is also appropriate because part of the available capacity is used for the Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) students and allows for the space needed for special needs students and their aides, and therefore, is not available for additional students.

Table X-4 Facility Cost per Student

(1) Source: Table X-3 (2) Source: Indian River County School District (3) Facility cost per student stations (Item 1) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard (Item 2) Although the School District’s adopted LOS standard is measured in terms of stations to enrollment ratio for planning purposes, for impact fee purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per student, which reflects the capacity investment made by the School District for schools and other related

Calculation StepElementary

SchoolMiddleSchool

HighSchool

Weighted Average /

TotalFacility Impact Cost per Student Facility Cost per Student Station(1) $28,325 $33,095 $39,388 $32,789 Adopted LOS Standard (2) 100% 100% 100% 100%Total Facility Impact Cost per Student(3) $28,325 $33,095 $39,388 $32,789



capital assets. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net cost per student, which should be included in the Comprehensive Plan for impact fee purposes. Total Cost per Student In addition to the facility cost per student calculated in Table X-4, the total facility cost per student includes two additional cost components: the capital costs associated with providing transportation services and ancillary facilities. Both of these cost components are calculated on a per-student basis and are not dependent on school type. Each of these additional cost components is discussed in the following paragraphs. Transportation Costs The first additional capital cost component is the cost of providing transportation services to students. The District currently owns 111 buses used for student transportation. Of these, approximately 10 percent are equipped for handicapped students at a cost of approximately $111,000 per bus. The cost for the remaining buses is estimated at $98,000 per bus, which is consistent with bus costs observed in other school districts. The result is a total transportation capital value of $11 million. The total value of the transportation fleet is divided by the District’s enrollment for schools included in Appendix G, Table G-1, as well as the District’s alternative school students, as this is the total existing student population benefiting from services provided by the District’s transportation fleet. The result is a cost of $709 per student for transportation services, as presented in Table X-5. Ancillary Facilities Costs The other additional capital cost component is for the ancillary facilities that are necessary for the District to provide support services for students, schools, transportation services, and administrative personnel. The District currently has approximately 85,000 net square feet of permanent ancillary facilities for transportation, maintenance, warehouse, and administrative functions. Leased facilities are not included in this square footage. Current value of each existing ancillary facility depends on the type of facility and was provided by District staff, with the weighted average value of approximately $185 per square foot. This figure is consistent with costs of similar buildings observed in other jurisdictions throughout Florida. In terms of land, the only ancillary facility that is not located on a school property is the Transportation Building, which is located on a 6-acre parcel, valued at $155,000 according to the Property Appraiser’s database. This figure is used for the additional land value for



ancillary facilities since the acreage associated with facilities that are located on school parcels is already accounted for as part of the school acreage. The ancillary facility cost per student is based on the existing inventory, which is valued at $15.8 million, including $15.7 million for buildings and $0.2 million for land. Based on the current enrollment, the result is a cost of $1,020 per student for ancillary facilities, as presented in Table X-5. Similar to transportation cost, the ancillary facility value is divided by the enrollment to the traditional and alternative schools to account for any administrative support provided to alternative school students at these facilities.

Table X-5

Transportation Services and Ancillary Facility Cost per Student

(1) Source: Indian River County School District (2) Source: District enrollment from Table X-1 (which includes students from

the schools listed in Appendix G, Table G-1) plus alternative school students. The total value of the District’s transportation fleet is divided by this larger enrollment figure to account for the total student population that benefits from services provided by the District’s transportation fleet.

(3) Total value of transportation services (Item 1) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2)

(4) Source: Indian River County School District (5) Land value for the Transportation Building. All other facilities are

located on school sites. (6) Sum of the building value (Item 4) and land value (Item 5) of the

District’s current inventory of ancillary facilities. (7) Total value for ancillary facilities (Item 6) divided by the current

enrollment (Item 2)

Description FigureTransportation Services Cost per Student Total Current Value of Transportation Services(1) $11,021,000 Current Enrollment(2) 15,541 Total Transportation Services Cost per Student(3) $709Ancillary Facility Cost per Student Building Value for Ancillary Facilities(4) $15,691,885 Land Value for Ancillary Facilities(5) $155,000 Total Current Value for Ancillary Facilities(6) $15,846,885Total Ancillary Facility Cost per Student(7) $1,020



Credit Component To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for construction of future student stations, any non-impact fee revenue that will be generated by new development and that will be used towards the capital expansion of school facilities must be included as a credit to reduce the total cost per student. It is important to note that a credit for educational facilities impact fees is not given for revenue generated by new development that is used for capital renovation of existing schools that does not add capacity or for maintenance or operational costs. Based on a review of the District’s capacity addition expenditures over the past five years and planned expenditures over the next five years, it has been determined that revenue credits will be calculated for cash expenditures as well as debt service funding. Capital Improvement Credit The Florida Statutes authorizes several sources of revenue for school districts, such as Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) and Capital Outlay & Debt Service (CO & DS) that can be used for the construction of capital facilities. With regard to state revenue, the District has used both PECO and CO & DS revenue sources as well as Classroom for Kids revenue over the past five years for the construction of additional permanent capacity. In addition, a portion of the local capital ad valorem tax was also used toward the construction and is programmed to be used for the upcoming expansion of Citrus Elementary School. The capital improvement revenue credit per student is calculated by dividing the total amount of capital revenue by the average enrollment during this ten-year period. As presented in Table X-6, the resulting capital improvement revenue available for the capital expansion of public schools in Indian River County $186 per student per year or $3,427 per student over the next 25 years, for non-impact fee funding.

Reve

nue

Cred

it

Coun

ty S

choo

l Dist

rict

vide

d by

10

year

s to

calc

ulat

e th

e av

erag

e an

nual

exp

endi

ture

s

nditu

res (

Item

2) d

ivid

ed b

y th

e av

erag

e en

rollm

ent (

Item

3)

rict i

s lik

ely

to p

ay fo

r fut

ure

bond

s, e

stim

ated

bas

ed o

n di

scus

sions

with

the

Dist

rict a

nd C

ount

y re

pres

enta

tives

ic

h m

ajor

repa

irs a

re n

eede

d nu

e cr

edit

per s

tude

nt (I

tem

4) a

t 2.5

% in

tere

st ra

te (I

tem

5) o

ver a

25-

year

cap

italiz

atio

n pe

riod

(Item

6)

Proj

ect

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

tary

-- A

dditi

on o

f Caf

eter

ia-

--

$1,1

67,6

49-

--

--

nues

--

$0$1

,167

,649

--

--

-Ta

x(1) :

Scho

ol --

Add

ition

of R

OTC

Fac

ility

$1,0

79,1

56-

--

--

--

-Sc

hool

-- N

ew S

choo

l-

$453

,668

--

--

--

-ta

ry --

Add

ition

of C

afet

eria

--

-$1

91,0

23-

--

--

mpl

ex --

New

Bui

ldin

g-

--

-$3

,160

,329

--

--

enta

ry E

xpan

sion

$3,1

57,0

55pa

nsio

n-

--

--

--

-$3

,000

,000

Scho

ol --

Fre

shm

an Le

arni

ng C

tr C

lass

room

Bld

g-

--

-$3

,321

,009

--

--

l$1

,079

,156

$453

,668

$0$1

91,0

23$6

,481

,338

$0$3

,157

,055

-$3

,000

,000

ther

(1) :

Scho

ol --

New

Sch

ool

-$8

,315

,310

--

--

--

-ta

ry --

Add

ition

of C

afet

eria

--

-$1

,974

,793

--

--

-m

plex

-- N

ew B

uild

ing

--

--

$198

,821

--

--

Scho

ol --

Fre

shm

an Le

arni

ng C

tr C

lass

room

Bld

g-

--

-$6

62,8

50-

--

-or

Kid

s/O

ther

-$8

,315

,310

-$1

,974

,793

$861

,671

--

--

$1,0

79,1

56$8

,768

,978

$0$3

,333

,465

$7,3

43,0

09-

--

$3,0

00,0

00nd

iture

s(2)

uden

t(4)

Year

s(6)

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent R

even

ue C

redi

t per

Stu

dent

(7)



Debt Service Credit per Student The District has been using COPs and other types of bonds to pay for a portion of the capacity expansion projects. Given that there is still an outstanding debt service on these, a credit is calculated for future debt service payments related to capacity expansion projects. In cases where the distribution of bond funding for capacity expansion versus replacement/renovation projects was not available, it was assumed that the entire amount was used for capacity expansion projects, which results in a generous credit and a conservative impact fee. The District uses local capital outlay millage and federal subsidies to pay the debt service. A revenue credit is calculated for the remaining portion of each outstanding COP/bond issue used to fund capacity expansion projects. The remaining payments were brought back to present value, based on the remaining number of years and annual interest rate of each respective issue. As presented in Table X-7, the debt service credit is $6,977 per student.

Table X-7 Debt Service Credit per Student

(1), (2) Source: Indian River County School District (3) Present value of the total remaining payments due, based on the interest rate of each payment and the

number of years of remaining payments. (4) Source: Table X-1. Enrollment for 2017 through 2025 is based on projections obtained from the Florida

Department of Education, and afterwards based on a 1% annual growth. (5) Present value of total remaining payments (Item 3) divided by the average annual enrollment over the life

of the remaining payments (Item 4)

Description

Number of Years of

Remaining Payments(1)

Remaining Payments Due for Expansion(2)

Present Value of Total

Remaining Payments(3)

Average Annual

Enrollment(4)

Debt Service Credit per Student(5)

Certificates of Participation 2005 COPS Issue 12 $75,408,441 $57,465,002 15,861 $3,623 2007 COPS Issue 14 $55,753,771 $38,059,999 16,083 $2,366 2005 COBI 14 $1,373,338 $970,000 16,083 $60 2008 COBI 11 $5,450,594 $4,305,000 15,900 $271 2010 COBI 16 $194,350 $139,999 16,457 $9 2010 QSCB Issue 15 $16,259,236 $10,589,769 16,352 $648

$6,977Total COPs Debt Service Credit per Student



Net Impact Cost per Student

The net impact fee per student is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table X-8 summarizes the three-step process used to calculate the net impact cost per student for public schools in Indian River County.

First, the total impact cost per student is determined. This is the sum of the weighted average facility impact cost per student from Table X-4 and the transportation and ancillary facility cost components per student from Table X-5.

Second, the total revenue credit is determined. This is the sum of the capital improvement revenue credit per student from Table X-6 and the debt service revenue credit per student from Table X-7. Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit per student. The resulting figure of $24,114 per student is also the relevant measure of LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.

Table X-8 Net Impact Cost per Student

(1) Source: Table X-4 (2) Source: Table X-5 (3) Source: Table X-5 (4) Sum of the facility impact cost (Item 1), the transportation

impact cost (Item 2), and the ancillary facility cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table X-6 (6) Source: Table X-7 (7) Sum of the capital improvement credit (Item 5) and the

debt service credit (Item 6) (8) Total impact cost per student (Item 4) less total revenue

credit per student (Item 7)

Total Impact Cost Per Student Facility Impact Cost(1) $32,789 Transportation Impact Cost(2) $709 Ancillary Facility Cost(3) $1,020Total Impact Cost per Student(4) $34,518

Revenue Credit Per Student Capital Improvement Credit(5) $3,427 Debt Service Credit(6) $6,977Total Revenue Credit per Student(7) $10,404

Net Impact Cost Per StudentNet Impact Cost per Student(8) $24,114



Student Generation Rate The number of students living in a household typically varies depending on the type of residential housing. Therefore, school impact fees are typically assessed based on the specific student generation rates for different types of residential land uses. Indian River County’s current school impact fee developed the student generation rates using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and Census 2000 data. This impact fee study employs a new methodology using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to develop the student generation rate for Indian River County. Specifically, GIS was used to link student addresses to parcels in the Indian River County Property Appraiser’s database in order to generate the number of students per unit by school type and land use based on the latest tax roll. Indian River County School District and Indian River County worked together to provide a geocoded student addresses. This file was then linked to the addresses of students who attend those schools listed in Appendix G, Table G-1. Results of this analysis are provided in Table X-9.

Table X-9 Student Generation Rates

(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser for single family/multi-

family homes and the American Census Survey, 2012 Estimates, for mobile homes

(2) Source: Indian River County School District and Indian River County (3) Number of students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for

each residential land use type.

As presented, student generation rates are calculated at 0.252 students per home for single family homes, 0.099 students for multi-family units, and 0.152 students for mobile homes, for a weighted average of 0.210 students per home.

Residential Land UseTotal

Housing Units(1)

Number of Students(2)

Students per Unit(3)

Traditional Schools Single Family 51,423 12,979 0.252 Multi-Family 17,277 1,712 0.099 Mobile Home 4,836 733 0.152Total/Weighted Average 73,536 15,424 0.210



Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule To determine the calculated school impact fee for each residential land use under each fee schedule scenario, the net impact cost per student is multiplied by the student generation rate. The resulting impact fee levels are presented in Table X-10.

Table X-10 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule

(1) Source: Table X-9 (2) Source: Table X-8 (3) Students per unit (Item 1) multiplied by the net impact cost per student (Item 2) (4) Source: Indian River County Planning Division (5) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 6) to the total impact fee (Item 5)

Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Tables X-6 and X-7, the School District uses approximately $3 million per year of non-impact fee funding for school capacity projects and $12 million per year to pay off the debt service, for a total of $15 million per year. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure X-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum legally acceptable fee. This level is compared investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Given that the available non-impact fee funding, the District could adopt the impact fee at approximately 28 percent and still maintain the current LOS as long as the non-impact fee contributions indicated above continue and the annual growth rate remains at or below 1.4 percent. However, the County has the legal right to adopt the fees at any level less than the full calculated amount shown in Table X-10. It is important to note this is a countywide-calculation and does not take into consideration capacity needs in sub-areas of the county, such as Fellsmere and North County, where schools are overcrowded.

Land Use UnitStudents

per Unit(1)

Net Impact Cost per

Student(2)

Total Impact Fee(3)

Current Adopted

Fee(4)

Percent Change(5)

Residential: Single Family du 0.252 $24,114 $6,077 $1,756 246% Multi-Family du 0.099 $24,114 $2,387 $500 377% Mobile Home du 0.152 $24,114 $3,665 $623 488%



Figure X-1 Educational Facilities Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach

Table X-11 presents the calculated impact fee using the 28-percent adoption ratio. Under this scenario, the fees would range from $668 for a multi-family home to $1,702 for a single family home.

Table X-11 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth

(1) Source: Figure X-1 (2) Total impact fee from Table X-10 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County Planning Division (4) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1)

Land Use UnitAffordable

Growth Adoption Rate(1)

Total Impact Fee(2)

Current Adopted

Fee(3)

Percent Change(4)

Residential: Single Family du 28% $1,702 $1,756 -3.1% Multi-Family du 28% $668 $500 33.7% Mobile Home du 28% $1,026 $623 64.7%

28%



Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of educational facilities impact fees, the County staff recommends implementing the affordable growth fees.

Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s school impact fee program, a comparison of the calculated single family school impact fee for IRC to the single family school impact fees adopted by other counties throughout Florida has been prepared. Table X-12 presents this comparison.



Table X-12 Comparison of School Impact Fee Schedules

(1) County’s tagged with an asterisk (*) have fees that are currently suspended (2) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with representatives from

each County and Tables X-10 and X-11 for Indian River County figures (3) Represents the full calculated fee for each jurisdiction. Note: The fees for Manatee County and Volusia County include a 3.0% administrative fee.

County(1)Date of

Last Update

Adoption Percentage

Adopted Single Family Impact Fee(2)

Indian River County (Aff. Growth) 2014 28% $1,702Indian River County (2009 Adopted) 2005 100% $1,756Palm Beach County 2012 26% $1,866Citrus County 2010 50% $1,936Sarasota County* 2004 100% $2,032Lake County 2011 25% $2,573Volusia County 2013 67% $3,000Flagler County 2004 76% $3,600Marion County* 2006 100% $3,967Hillsborough County 2007 100% $4,000Polk County 2010 44% $4,160Hernando County* 2005 100% $4,266Brevard County 2004 100% $4,445Pasco County 2005 n/a $4,828Seminole County 2007 99% $5,000Collier County 2011 50% $5,378Martin County 2007 100% $5,567Highlands County* 2006 100% $5,801St. Johns County 2011 100% $6,072Indian River County (Calculated) 2014 100% $6,077St. Lucie County 2009 100% $6,091Broward County 2008 100% $6,267Orange County 2007 50% $6,525Manatee County* 2005 100% $6,572Clay County 2005 n/a $7,034Osceola County 2010 90% $8,742

Appendix A Population


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-1 Impact Fee Update Study

Population All impact fee program areas (except for educational facilities and transportation) require the use of population data in calculating current levels-of-service, performance standards, and future demand for capital facilities. With this in mind, a consistent approach to developing population estimates and projections is an important component of the data compilation process. To accurately determine demand for services, as well as to be consistent with Indian River County’s Comprehensive Plan, not only the residents, or permanent population of the County, but also the seasonal residents and visitors were considered. Seasonal residents include visitors to hotel and motel facilities, visitors to RV parks, visitors that stay with relatives and friends, and part-time residents, which are defined as living in Indian River County for less than six months each year. Therefore, for purposes of calculating future demand for capital facilities for each impact fee program area, the weighted average seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. References to population contained in this report pertain to the weighted average seasonal population, unless otherwise noted. Indian River County provides all of the services areas included in the impact fee program countywide, with the exception of the following three program areas:

Law enforcement, which is provided in unincorporated county; Parks and recreation services, also provided only in unincorporated county; and Emergency services, which are provided countywide with the exception of the Town

of Indian River Shores. Given the differences in services areas, population estimates are provided separately for these three areas. Table A-1 presents the population trend for Indian River County. The projections indicate that the population of Indian River County is estimated to increase by 40 percent between 2013 and 2040 countywide.



Table A-1 Weighted Population Trends and Projections

(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-18 (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-21 (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-24

Indian RiverCounty(1)

Unincorporated Indian River County(2)

IRC, Excluding Indian River Shores(3)

2000 119,351 75,723 115,7072001 121,732 77,277 118,0282002 124,110 78,824 120,4262003 126,869 80,523 123,1282004 131,175 84,000 127,4032005 134,573 86,741 130,7922006 139,121 89,255 135,2922007 143,177 92,824 139,4132008 145,212 93,905 141,2872009 145,356 94,014 141,4522010 145,854 96,546 141,7322011 146,325 96,955 142,2022012 147,118 97,461 142,9662013 148,001 97,681 143,5612014 148,964 98,316 144,4952015 150,081 99,053 145,5782016 151,175 99,776 146,6402017 152,612 100,724 148,0342018 154,214 101,781 149,5882019 155,911 102,901 151,2342020 157,705 104,085 152,9742021 159,470 105,250 154,6862022 161,463 106,566 156,6192023 163,563 107,951 158,6562024 165,771 109,409 160,7972025 168,091 110,940 163,0492026 170,444 112,493 165,3302027 172,950 114,147 167,7612028 175,526 115,848 170,2612029 178,124 117,562 172,7802030 180,743 119,290 175,3202031 183,381 121,032 177,8802032 186,031 122,781 180,4502033 188,710 124,549 183,0492034 191,428 126,342 185,6852035 194,165 128,149 188,3402036 196,923 129,969 191,0152037 199,699 131,801 193,7082038 202,495 133,647 196,4202039 205,289 135,491 199,1312040 208,079 137,332 201,837

YearWeighted Seasonal Population Figure



Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size

The residential land uses to be used for the impact fee calculations are the following: Single Family Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV (tied down)

Table A-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Indian River County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant.

To address fairness and equity issues between land uses and to be consistent with the County’s current fee schedules, the single family land use is tiered based on three categories of square footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and 2,500 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit. This analysis utilized national data from the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) and date from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Reports to examine this relationship. Because the 2010 Census data do not provide population by land use, a comparison of weighted average population per housing units between the two Census data sets was conducted and the resulting ratio was applied to the residents per housing unit figure for each land use.

Table A-2

Residents per Housing Unit (Countywide)

(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the

decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010

Housing Type Population(1) Housing Units(2) Ratio(3)

Residents / Housing Units(4)

Residents / Housing Units

with 2010 Adj(5)

Single Family (detached) 83,498 34,383 2.43 2.26 - Less than 1,500 sf 92% 2.24 2.09 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.43 2.26 - 2,500 sf or greater 111% 2.70 2.52Multi-Family/Accessory 22,768 16,649 1.37 1.28Mobile Home 10,516 6,786 1.55 1.44

Weighted Average 116,782 57,818 2.02 1.88



Table A-3 Residents per Housing Unit (Unincorporated IRC)



Table A-4 Residents per Housing Unit (IRC excluding Indian River Shores)



Functional Population Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the




with 2010 Adj(5)






with 2010 Adj(5)





number of employees, since the service-demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps 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 need to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population 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 facilities and services in the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of the Indian River County functional population, an analysis of the County’s population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4 hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables A-5 and A-6.



Table A-5 Indian River County Population & Employment Characteristics

(1) Source: Estimated based on data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning Package (CTOO) Pt. 3 (2) Sum of workers who live/work in IRC and workers who live elsewhere but work in IRC (3) Source: 2010 U.S. Census (4) Total workers living in IRC (Item 2) divided by the census population (Item 3) (5) Source: 2010 U.S. Census (6) School age population (Item 5) divided by the census population (Item 3) (7) Census population (Item 3) less total workers living in Indian River County (Item 2) and

school age population (Item 5) (8) Population net of worker and school age population (Item 7) divided by census population

(Item 3)

Table A-6 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population

(1) Source: Assumed (2) Source: Table A-5 (3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) (4) Sum of effective hours (Item 3) (5) Total hours at residence (Item 4) divided by 24

Item/Calculation Step Figure

Workers who live and work in Indian River County (2010) (1) 47,755Workers who live in Indian River County but work elsewhere (2010) (1) 8,560Total workers living in Indian River County(2) 56,315Indian River County Census Population (2010) (3) 138,028Total workers as a percent of population(4) 40.8%School age population (5-17 years) (2010)(5) 19,444School age population as a percent of population(6) 14.1%Population net of workers and school age population(7) 62,269Other population as a percent of total population(8) 45.1%

Pop. GroupHours at

Residence(1)

Percent of Population(2)

Effective Hours(3)

Workers 13 40.8% 5.3 Students 15 14.1% 2.1

Other 20 45.1% 9.0 Total Hours at Residence(4) 16.4 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5) 68.3%



The resulting percentage from Table A-6 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table A-8. Non-Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing estimated functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used internationally1. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and TOA’s Trip Characteristics Database, information of 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 multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips).

Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees).

Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker-hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week).

Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping).

Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use.

Table A-7 also shows the functional population coefficients for non-residential uses in Indian River County. The functional population coefficients in Table A-7 were used to estimate the County’s functional population in Table A-8.

1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, “Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

A-8

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e A-

7 Ge

nera

l Fun

ctio

nal P

opul

atio

n Co

effic

ient

s Po

pula

tion/

Em

ploy

men

t Cat

egor

yIT

E LU

CEm

ploy

ee

Hour

s In-

Plac

e(1)

Trip

s per

Em

ploy

ee(2

)

One

-Way

Tr

ips p

er

Empl

oyee

(3)

Jour

ney-

to-

Wor

k O

ccup

ants

pe

r Trip

(4)

Daily

O

ccup

ants

per

Tr

ip(5

)

Visi

tors

per

Em

ploy

ee(6

)

Visi

tor H

ours

pe

r Trip

(1)

Days

per

W

eek(7

)

Func

tiona

l Po

pula

tion

Coef

ficie

nt(8

)

Popu

latio

n7.

000.

683

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esn/

a9.

003.

021.

511.

321.

380.

091.

007.

000.

379

Cons

truc

tion

110

9.00

3.02

1.51

1.32

1.38

0.09

1.00

5.00

0.27

1M

anuf

actu

ring

140

9.00

2.13

1.07

1.32

1.38

0.06

1.00

5.00

0.27

0Tr

ansp

orta

tion,

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Util

ities

110

9.00

3.02

1.51

1.32

1.38

0.09

1.00

5.00

0.27

1W

hole

sale

Tra

de15

09.

003.

891.

951.

321.

380.

121.

005.

000.

271

Reta

il Tr

ade

820

9.00

52.1

026

.05

1.24

1.73

12.7

61.

507.

001.

173

Fina

nce,

Insu

ranc

e, R

eal E

stat

e71

09.

003.

321.

661.

241.

730.

811.

005.

000.

292

Serv

ices

(9)

n/a

9.00

28.6

214

.31

1.24

1.73

7.01

1.00

6.00

0.57

2Go

vern

men

t(10)

730

9.00

11.9

55.

981.

241.

732.

931.

007.

000.

497

(1) A

ssum

ed(2

) Tri

ps p

er e

mpl

oyee

repr

esen

ts a

ll tr

ips

divi

ded

by th

e nu

mbe

r of e

mpl

oyee

s an

d is

bas

ed o

n Tr

ip G

ener

atio

n 9t

h Ed

ition

(Ins

titut

e of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Engi

neer

s 20

12) a

s fo

llow

s:

ITE

Cod

e 11

0 at

3.0

2 w

eekd

ay tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

, pag

e 93

.

ITE

Cod

e 14

0 at

2.1

3 w

eekd

ay tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

, pag

e 16

4.

ITE

Cod

e 15

0 at

3.8

9 w

eekd

ay tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

, pag

e 19

3.

ITE

Cod

e 71

0 at

3.3

2 w

eekd

ay tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

, pag

e 12

52.

I

TE C

ode

730

at 1

1.95

wee

kday

trip

s pe

r em

ploy

ee, p

age

1304

.

ITE

Cod

e 82

0 ba

sed

on b

lend

ed a

vera

ge o

f tri

ps b

y re

tail

cent

er s

ize

calc

ulat

ed b

elow

, ada

pted

from

pag

e 15

61.

T

rips

per

reta

il em

ploy

ee fr

om th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e:As

sum

edSq

Ft p

erTr

ips p

erW

eigh

ted

R

etai

l Sca

leCe

nter

Size

Trip

Rat

eEm

ploy

ee(1

1)Em

ploy

eeSh

are

Trip

sNe

ighb

orho

od <

50k

sq.ft

.50

86.5

680

269

40.0

%27

.60

Com

mun

ity 5

0k-2

50k

sq.ft

.25

049

.28

975

4830

.0%

14.4

0Re

gion

al 2

50k-

500k

sq.

ft.50

038

.66

1,04

340

20.0

%8.

00Su

per R

eg. 5

00k-

1000

k sq

.ft.

1,00

030

.33

676

2110

.0%

2.10

Su

m o

f Wei

ghte

d Tr

ips/

1k s

q.ft.

52.1

0(3

) Tri

p pe

r em

ploy

ee (I

tem

2) m

ultip

lied

by 0

.5.

(4) J

ourn

ey-to

-Wor

k O

ccup

ants

per

Tri

p fr

om 2

001

Natio

nwid

e Ho

useh

old

Trav

el S

urve

y (F

HWA

2001

) as

follo

ws:

1

.32

occu

pant

s pe

r Con

stru

ctio

n, M

anuf

actu

ring

, TCU

, and

Who

lesa

le tr

ip

1.2

4 oc

cupa

nts

per R

etai

l Tra

de, F

IRE,

and

Ser

vice

s tr

ip(5

) Dai

ly O

ccup

ants

per

Tri

p fr

om 2

001

Natio

nwid

e Ho

useh

old

Trav

el S

urve

y (F

HWA

2001

) as

follo

ws:

1

.38

occu

pant

s pe

r Con

stru

ctio

n, M

anuf

actu

ring

, TCU

, and

Who

lesa

le tr

ip

1.7

3 oc

cupa

nts

per R

etai

l Tra

de, F

IRE,

and

Ser

vice

s tr

ip(6

) [Da

ily o

ccup

ants

per

trip

(Ite

m 5

) mul

tiplie

d by

one

-way

trip

s pe

r em

ploy

ee (I

tem

3)]

- [(Jo

urne

y-to

-Wor

k oc

cupa

nts

per t

rip

(Item

4) m

ultip

lied

by o

ne-w

ay tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

(Ite

m 3

)](7

) Typ

ical

num

ber o

f day

s pe

r wee

k th

at in

dica

ted

indu

stri

es p

rovi

de s

ervi

ces

and

rele

vant

gov

ernm

ent s

ervi

ces

are

avai

labl

e.(8

) Tab

le A

-6 fo

r res

iden

tial a

nd th

e eq

uatio

n be

low

to d

eter

min

e th

e Fu

nctio

nal P

opul

atio

n Co

effic

ient

per

Em

ploy

ee fo

r all

land

-use

cat

egor

ies

exce

pt re

side

ntia

l inc

lude

s th

e fo

llow

ing:

(10)

Incl

udes

Fed

eral

Civ

ilian

Gov

ernm

ent,

Fede

ral M

ilita

ry G

over

nmen

t, an

d St

ate

and

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent c

ateg

orie

s.(1

1) S

quar

e fe

et p

er re

tail

empl

oyee

from

the

Ener

gy In

form

atio

n Ad

min

istr

atio

n fr

om T

able

B-1

of t

he C

omm

erci

al E

nerg

y Bu

ildin

g Su

rvey

, 200

3

((Day

s pe

r Wee

k x

Empl

oyee

Hou

rs in

Pla

ce) +

(Vis

itors

per

Em

ploy

ee x

Vis

itor H

ours

per

Tri

p x

Days

per

Wee

k)

(24

Hour

s pe

r Day

x 7

Day

s pe

r Wee

k)

(9) T

rips

per

em

ploy

ee fo

r the

ser

vice

s ca

tego

ry is

the

aver

age

trip

s pe

r em

ploy

ee fo

r the

follo

win

g se

rvic

e re

late

d la

nd u

se c

ateg

orie

s: q

ualit

y re

stau

rant

, hig

h-tu

rnov

er re

stau

rant

, sup

erm

arke

t, ho

tel,

mot

el, e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l, m

iddl

e sc

hool

, hig

h sc

hool

, hos

pita

l, m

edic

al o

ffice

, and

chu

rch.

Sou

rce

for t

he tr

ips

per e

mpl

oyee

figu

re fr

om IT

E, 9

th e

d., w

hen

avai

labl

e, o

r els

e de

rive

d fr

om th

e sq

uare

feet

per

em

ploy

ee fo

r the

app

ropr

iate

land

use

ca

tego

ry fr

om th

e En

ergy

Info

rmat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

from

Tab

le B

-1 o

f the

Com

mer

cial

Ene

rgy

Build

ing

Surv

ey (2

003)

.



Table A-8 Countywide Functional Population – Year 2013

(1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2013 Woods & Poole for employment data (2) Source: Table A-7 (3) The functional population is Indian River County baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional

resident coefficient (Item 2) (4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine

employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) (5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (101,085) and

employment functional population (39,101)

Population CategoryIndian River County

Baseline Data(1)

Functional Resident Coefficient(2)

Functional Population(3)

2013 Weighted Population 148,001 0.683 101,085

Employment Category Natural Resources 4,228 0.379 1,602 Construction 3,560 0.271 965 Manufacturing 2,480 0.270 670 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,876 0.271 508 Wholesale Trade 926 0.271 251 Retail Trade 9,526 1.173 11,174 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 8,066 0.292 2,355 Services 32,704 0.572 18,707 Government Services 5,772 0.497 2,869Total Employment by Category Population(4) 39,101

2013 Total Functional Population(5) 140,186



Table A-9 Unincorporated County Functional Population – Year 2013




employment functional population (20,874)


Baseline Data(1)








Table A-10 IRC excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population – Year 2013




employment functional population (38,271) Table A-11 presents the County’s annual functional population figures from 2000 through 2040, based on the 2013 functional population figures from Tables A-8 through A-10 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table A-1.


Baseline Data(1)








Table A-11 Indian River County Functional Population (2000-2040)

(1) Source: Table A-8 for 2013 total functional population (2) Source: Table A-9 for 2013 total functional population (3) Source: Table A-10 for 2013 total functional population

Indian RiverCounty(1)

Unincorporated Indian River County(2)

IRC Excluding Indian River Shores(3)

2000 113,139 70,691 110,0232001 115,402 72,105 112,2232002 117,710 73,547 114,4672003 120,300 75,165 116,9852004 124,390 77,721 120,9622005 127,624 79,742 124,1072006 131,963 82,453 128,3272007 135,790 84,844 132,0482008 137,691 86,032 133,8972009 137,829 86,118 134,0312010 138,242 86,376 134,4332011 138,657 86,635 134,8362012 139,350 87,068 135,5102013 140,186 87,590 136,3232014 141,167 88,203 137,2772015 142,155 88,820 138,2382016 143,150 89,442 139,2062017 144,582 90,336 140,5982018 146,172 91,330 142,1452019 147,780 92,335 143,7092020 149,553 93,443 145,4342021 151,198 94,471 147,0342022 153,164 95,699 148,9452023 155,155 96,943 150,8812024 157,172 98,203 152,8422025 159,372 99,578 154,9822026 161,603 100,972 157,1522027 164,027 102,487 159,5092028 166,487 104,024 161,9022029 168,984 105,584 164,3312030 171,519 107,168 166,7962031 174,092 108,776 169,2982032 176,529 110,299 171,6682033 179,000 111,843 174,0712034 181,506 113,409 176,5082035 184,047 114,997 178,9792036 186,624 116,607 181,4852037 189,237 118,239 184,0262038 191,886 119,894 186,6022039 194,572 121,573 189,2142040 197,296 123,275 191,863

Functional PopulationYear



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 and Transient Land Uses As previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Indian River County was calculated for the single family, multi-family, and mobile home/RV land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census. Besides the residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses, such as hotels, motels, nursing homes, and assisted care living facilities (ACLF). Secondary sources, such as the IRC Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes/ACLF land uses. As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee service areas to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Tables A-12 through A-14. Non-Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table A-15 reports 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, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non-residential 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 certain impact fee programs and will be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the select impact fee schedules.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

A-14

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e A-

12

Func

tiona

l Res

iden

ts fo

r Res

iden

tial a

nd T

rans

ient

Lan

d U

ses -

Cou

ntyw

ide

Resi

dent

ial L

and

Use

Impa

ct

Uni

tIT

E

LU

C(1)

Resi

dent

s/

Visi

tors

Per

U

nit(2

)

Occ

upan

cy

Rate

(3)

Adju

sted

Re

side

nts

Per U

nit(4

)

Pea

k Vi

sito

r Ho

urs a

t Pl

ace(5

)

Wor

kers

Pe

r Uni

t(6)

Wor

k Da

y Ho

urs(7

)Da

ys P

er

Wee

k(8)

Wor

k W

eek

Resi

dent

s Per

U

nit(9

)

Resi

dent

ial

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sfdu

210

2.09

1.43

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sfdu

210

2.26

1.54

- 2,

500

sf o

r gre

ater

du21

02.

521.

72 M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

tdu

220

1.28

0.87

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (T

ied

Dow

n)du

240

1.44

0.98

Tran

sien

t, As

sist

ed, G

roup

H

otel

room

310

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

579

70.

65 M

otel

room

320

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

449

70.

60 N

ursi

ng H

ome/

ACLF

bed

252/

620

1.00

91%

0.91

160.

849

70.

92(1

) Lan

d us

e co

de fr

om th

e In

stitu

te o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Engi

neer

s (IT

E) T

rip

Gene

ratio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n

(4) R

esid

ents

per

uni

t tim

es o

ccup

ancy

rate

(5),

(7),

(8) E

stim

ated

(6) A

dapt

ed fr

om IT

E Tr

ip G

ener

atio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n(9

) For

resi

dent

ial t

his

is R

esid

ents

Per

Uni

t tim

es 0

.683

. Fo

r Tra

nsie

nt, A

ssis

ted,

and

Gro

up it

is:

[

(Adj

uste

d Re

side

nts

per U

nit X

Hou

rs a

t Pla

ce X

Day

s pe

r Wee

k) +

(Wor

kers

Per

Uni

t X W

ork

Hour

s Pe

r Day

X D

ays

per W

eek)

]

(2) E

stim

ates

for t

he s

ingl

e fa

mily

, mul

ti-fa

mily

, and

mob

ile h

ome

land

use

from

Tab

le A

-2; e

stim

ates

for t

he h

otel

/mot

el la

nd u

se is

bas

ed o

n da

ta o

btai

ned

from

oth

er F

lori

da ju

risd

ictio

ns.

One

per

son

per b

ed is

ass

umed

for n

ursi

ng h

omes

.

( 24

Hour

s pe

r Day

X 7

Day

s pe

r Wee

k)

(3) S

ourc

e fo

r hot

el/m

otel

occ

upan

cy: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y Ch

ambe

r of C

omm

erce

. Av

erag

e ho

tel/

mot

el o

ccup

ancy

rate

for 2

007

thro

ugh

2012

. So

urce

for n

ursi

ng h

ome/

ACLF

occ

upan

cy ra

te is

th

e Fl

orid

a De

part

men

t of E

lder

ly A

ffair

s, In

dian

Cou

nty

Prof

ile.

Aver

age

occu

panc

y ra

te fo

r 201

1 an

d 20

12.

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

A-15

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e A-

13

Func

tiona

l Res

iden

ts fo

r Res

iden

tial a

nd T

rans

ient

Lan

d U

ses

– U

ninc

orpo

rate

d Co

unty

Resi

dent

ial L

and

Use

Impa

ct

Uni

tIT

E

LU

C(1)

Resi

dent

s/

Visi

tors

Per

U

nit(2

)

Occ

upan

cy

Rate

(3)

Adju

sted

Re

side

nts

Per U

nit(4

)

Pea

k Vi

sito

r Ho

urs a

t Pl

ace(5

)

Wor

kers

Pe

r Uni

t(6)

Wor

k Da

y Ho

urs(7

)Da

ys P

er

Wee

k(8)

Wor

k W

eek

Resi

dent

s Per

U

nit(9

)

Resi

dent

ial

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sfdu

210

2.14

1.46

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sfdu

210

2.33

1.59

- 2,

500

sf o

r gre

ater

du21

02.

591.

77 M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

tdu

220

1.33

0.91

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (T

ied

Dow

n)du

240

1.30

0.89

Tran

sien

t, As

sist

ed, G

roup

H

otel

room

310

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

579

70.

65 M

otel

room

320

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

449

70.

60 N

ursi

ng H

ome/

ACLF

bed

620

1.00

91%

0.91

160.

849

70.

92(1

) Lan

d us

e co

de fr

om th

e In

stitu

te o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Engi

neer

s (IT

E) T

rip

Gene

ratio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n

(4) R

esid

ents

per

uni

t tim

es o

ccup

ancy

rate

(5),

(7),

(8) E

stim

ated

(6) A

dapt

ed fr

om IT

E Tr

ip G

ener

atio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n(9

) For

resi

dent

ial t

his

is R

esid

ents

Per

Uni

t tim

es 0

.683

. Fo

r Tra

nsie

nt, A

ssis

ted,

and

Gro

up it

is:

[

(Adj

uste

d Re

side

nts

per U

nit X

Hou

rs a

t Pla

ce X

Day

s pe

r Wee

k) +

(Wor

kers

Per

Uni

t X W

ork

Hour

s Pe

r Day

X D

ays

per W

eek)

]

( 24

Hour

s pe

r Day

X 7

Day

s pe

r Wee

k)

(2) E

stim

ates

for t

he s

ingl

e fa

mily

, mul

ti-fa

mily

, and

mob

ile h

ome

land

use

from

Tab

le A

-3; e

stim

ates

for t

he h

otel

/mot

el la

nd u

se is

bas

ed o

n da

ta o

btai

ned

from

oth

er F

lori

da ju

risd

ictio

ns.

One

per

son

per b

ed is

ass

umed

for n

ursi

ng h

omes

.

(3) S

ourc

e fo

r hot

el/m

otel

occ

upan

cy: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y Ch

ambe

r of C

omm

erce

. Av

erag

e ho

tel/

mot

el o

ccup

ancy

rate

for 2

007

thro

ugh

2012

. So

urce

for n

ursi

ng h

ome/

ACLF

occ

upan

cy ra

te is

th

e Fl

orid

a De

part

men

t of E

lder

ly A

ffair

s, In

dian

Cou

nty

Prof

ile.

Aver

age

occu

panc

y ra

te fo

r 201

1 an

d 20

12.

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

A-16

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e A-

14

Func

tiona

l Res

iden

ts fo

r Res

iden

tial a

nd T

rans

ient

Lan

d U

ses

– IR

C ex

clud

ing

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

Resi

dent

ial L

and

Use

Impa

ct

Uni

tIT

E

LU

C(1)

Resi

dent

s/

Visi

tors

Per

U

nit(2

)

Occ

upan

cy

Rate

(3)

Adju

sted

Re

side

nts

Per U

nit(4

)

Pea

k Vi

sito

r Ho

urs a

t Pl

ace(5

)

Wor

kers

Pe

r Uni

t(6)

Wor

k Da

y Ho

urs(7

)

Days

Per

W

eek(8

)

Wor

k W

eek

Resi

dent

s Per

U

nit(9

)

Resi

dent

ial

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sfdu

210

2.11

1.44

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sfdu

210

2.29

1.56

- 2,

500

sf o

r gre

ater

du21

02.

541.

73 M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

tdu

220

1.32

0.90

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (T

ied

Dow

n)du

240

1.44

0.98

Tran

sien

t, As

sist

ed, G

roup

H

otel

room

310

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

579

70.

65 M

otel

room

320

1.70

51%

0.87

120.

449

70.

60 N

ursi

ng H

ome/

ACLF

bed

620

1.00

91%

0.91

160.

849

70.

92(1

) Lan

d us

e co

de fr

om th

e In

stitu

te o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Engi

neer

s (IT

E) T

rip

Gene

ratio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n

(4) R

esid

ents

per

uni

t tim

es o

ccup

ancy

rate

(5),

(7),

(8) E

stim

ated

(6) A

dapt

ed fr

om IT

E Tr

ip G

ener

atio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

n(9

) For

resi

dent

ial t

his

is R

esid

ents

Per

Uni

t tim

es 0

.683

. Fo

r Tra

nsie

nt, A

ssis

ted,

and

Gro

up it

is:

[

(Adj

uste

d Re

side

nts

per U

nit X

Hou

rs a

t Pla

ce X

Day

s pe

r Wee

k) +

(Wor

kers

Per

Uni

t X W

ork

Hour

s Pe

r Day

X D

ays

per W

eek)

]

(3) S

ourc

e fo

r hot

el/m

otel

occ

upan

cy: I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y Ch

ambe

r of C

omm

erce

. Av

erag

e ho

tel/

mot

el o

ccup

ancy

rate

for 2

007

thro

ugh

2012

. So

urce

for n

ursi

ng h

ome/

ACLF

occ

upan

cy ra

te is

th

e Fl

orid

a De

part

men

t of E

lder

ly A

ffair

s, In

dian

Cou

nty

Prof

ile.

Aver

age

occu

panc

y ra

te fo

r 201

1 an

d 20

12.

( 24

Hour

s pe

r Day

X 7

Day

s pe

r Wee

k)

(2) E

stim

ates

for t

he s

ingl

e fa

mily

, mul

ti-fa

mily

, and

mob

ile h

ome

land

use

from

Tab

le A

-4; e

stim

ates

for t

he h

otel

/mot

el la

nd u

se is

bas

ed o

n da

ta o

btai

ned

from

oth

er F

lori

da ju

risd

ictio

ns.

One

per

son

per b

ed is

ass

umed

for n

ursi

ng h

omes

.

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Func

tiona

l Res

iden

ts fo

r Non

-Res

iden

tial L

and

Use

s

Land

Use

Impa

ct U

nit

Trip

s Per

U

nit(2

)

Trip

s Pe

r Em

ploy

ee(3

)

Empl

oyee

s Pe

r Uni

t(4)

One

-Way

Fa

ctor

@

50%

(5)

Wor

ker

Hour

s(6)

Occ

upan

ts

Per T

rip(7

)Vi

sito

rs(8

)

Visi

tor

Hour

s Per

Tr

ip(9

)

Da W

& F

inan

cial

Off

ice/

Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

23.8

38.

912.

6711

.92

91.

4214

.26

1.00

Off

ice/

Clin

ic g

reat

er th

an 1

0,00

0 sf

1,00

0 sf

34.7

28.

913.

9017

.36

91.

4220

.75

1.00

avin

gs W

alk-

In1,

000

sf12

1.30

34.6

93.

5060

.65

91.

5288

.69

0.35

avin

gs D

rive-

In1,

000

sf15

9.34

30.9

45.

1579

.67

91.

5211

5.95

0.15

Off

ice

1,00

0 sf

11.0

33.

323.

325.

529

1.28

3.75

1.00

h &

Dev

elop

men

t Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

8.11

2.77

2.93

4.06

91.

282.

271.

00al ct

urin

g1,

000

sf3.

822.

131.

791.

919

1.38

0.85

1.00

ousi

ng1,

000

sf3.

563.

890.

921.

789

1.38

1.54

0.75

areh

ouse

/Sto

rage

1,00

0 sf

2.15

61.9

00.

031.

089

1.38

1.46

0.75

be (A

utom

ated

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sf1.

683.

770.

450.

849

1.38

0.71

0.75

Ligh

t Ind

ustr

ial

1,00

0 sf

6.97

3.02

2.31

3.49

91.

382.

511.

00e

Plan

tac

re15

.60

3.02

5.17

7.80

91.

385.

591.

00ni

ngac

re2.

003.

020.

661.

009

1.38

0.72

1.00

1,00

0 sf

gla

42.7

0n/

a2.

5021

.35

91.

7334

.44

1.00

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

nfu

el p

os.

157.

33n/

a2.

5078

.67

91.

5211

7.08

0.20

sed

Auto

Sal

es1,

000

sf28

.25

21.1

41.

3414

.13

91.

7323

.10

1.00

ant

1,00

0 sf

116.

60n/

a9.

9258

.30

91.

8597

.94

0.75

od R

est w

/ Driv

e-Th

ru

1,00

0 sf

511.

00n/

a10

.90

255.

509

1.85

461.

780.

25ar

ket

1,00

0 sf

103.

3887

.82

1.18

51.6

99

1.52

77.3

90.

50ob

ile R

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

1,00

0 sf

31.4

3n/

a1.

5015

.72

91.

5222

.39

1.00

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

y43

.94

n/a

0.50

21.9

79

1.52

32.8

90.

50ie

nce

Mar

ket w

ith G

as P

umps

1,00

0 sf

775.

14n/

a2.

5038

7.57

91.

5258

6.61

0.20

re S

tore

1,00

0 sf

5.06

12.1

90.

422.

539

1.52

3.43

0.50

iona

lur

seho

le35

.74

20.5

21.

7417

.87

92.

3940

.97

0.25

Club

/Hea

lth C

lub/

Danc

e St

udio

1,00

0 sf

32.9

3n/

a2.

0016

.47

92.

3937

.36

1.50

Park

acre

2.28

n/a

0.10

1.14

92.

392.

621.

50Co

urt

cour

t38

.70

45.7

10.

8519

.35

92.

3945

.40

1.50

bert

h2.

9620

.52

0.14

1.48

92.

393.

401.

00m

enta

lfic

e1,

000

sf10

8.19

25.3

74.

2654

.10

91.

2864

.99

0.25

1,00

0 sf

56.2

452

.52

1.07

28.1

29

1.20

32.6

71.

00m

ent O

ffic

e Co

mpl

ex1,

000

sf27

.92

7.75

3.60

13.9

69

1.28

14.2

71.

00be

d5

502

502

202

759

120

110

100

Func

tiona

l Res

iden

ts fo

r Non

-Res

iden

tial L

and

Use

s

Land

Use

Impa

ct U

nit

Trip

s Per

U

nit(2

)

Trip

s Pe

r Em

ploy

ee(3

)

Empl

oyee

s Pe

r Uni

t(4)

One

-Way

Fa

ctor

@

50%

(5)

Wor

ker

Hour

s(6)

Occ

upan

ts

Per T

rip(7

)Vi

sito

rs(8

)

Visi

tor

Hour

s Per

Tr

ip(9

)

Da W

aneo

use

Cent

er1,

000

sf71

.88

26.7

32.

6935

.94

91.

1137

.20

0.15

l1,

000

sf13

.22

4.50

2.94

6.61

91.

426.

451.

00ar

y Cl

inic

1,00

0 sf

40.1

2n/

a4.

0520

.06

91.

4224

.44

1.00

1,00

0 sf

9.11

20.6

40.

444.

569

1.90

8.22

1.00

Thea

ter w

/Mat

inee

scre

en10

6.63

53.1

22.

0153

.32

92.

3912

5.42

1.00

tary

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

K-5

)st

uden

t1.

2915

.71

0.08

0.65

91.

110.

642.

00Sc

hool

(Priv

ate,

6-8

)st

uden

t1.

6216

.39

0.10

0.81

91.

110.

802.

00ho

ol (P

rivat

e, 9

-12)

stud

ent

1.71

19.7

40.

090.

869

1.11

0.86

2.00

ity/J

unio

r Col

lege

with

7,5

00 o

r few

er st

uden

tsst

uden

t2.

0012

.26

0.16

1.00

91.

110.

952.

00tio

n1,

000

sf5.

40n/

a0.

702.

709

1.20

2.54

3.50

in th

e In

stitu

te o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Engi

neer

s (IT

E) T

rip

Gene

ratio

n Ha

ndbo

ok, 9

th E

ditio

nen

erat

ion

rate

s co

nsis

tent

with

thos

e in

clud

ed in

the

2013

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

rom

ITE

Trip

Gen

erat

ion

Hand

book

, 9th

Edi

tion,

whe

n av

aila

ble

t div

ided

by

trip

s pe

r per

son

(usu

ally

em

ploy

ee).

Whe

n tr

ips

per p

erso

n ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e, th

e em

ploy

ees

per u

nit i

s es

timat

ed.

2) m

ultip

lied

by 5

0 pe

rcen

t

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Surv

eyt X

Occ

upan

ts/T

rip)

- Em

ploy

ees]

./D

ay X

Day

s/W

eek)

+ (V

isito

rs X

Hou

rs/V

isit

X Da

ys/W

eek)

]/(2

4 Ho

urs

x 7

Days

)

es: e A-16: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates e A-17: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-18: Seasonal population from Table A-17 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).

2001 115,200 2001 15,552 2001 115,200 6,532 121,7322002 117,450 2002 15,856 2002 117,450 6,660 124,1102003 120,062 2003 16,208 2003 120,062 6,807 126,8692004 124,137 2004 16,758 2004 124,137 7,038 131,1752005 127,352 2005 17,193 2005 127,352 7,221 134,5732006 131,656 2006 17,774 2006 131,656 7,465 139,1212007 135,494 2007 18,292 2007 135,494 7,683 143,1772008 137,420 2008 18,552 2008 137,420 7,792 145,2122009 137,557 2009 18,570 2009 137,557 7,799 145,3562010 138,028 2010 18,634 2010 138,028 7,826 145,8542011 138,694 2011 18,169 2011 138,694 7,631 146,3252012 139,446 2012 18,267 2012 139,446 7,672 147,1182013 140,283 2013 18,377 2013 140,283 7,718 148,0012014 141,195 2014 18,497 2014 141,195 7,769 148,9642015 142,254 2015 18,635 2015 142,254 7,827 150,0812016 143,463 2016 18,363 2016 143,463 7,712 151,1752017 144,826 2017 18,538 2017 144,826 7,786 152,6122018 146,347 2018 18,732 2018 146,347 7,867 154,2142019 147,957 2019 18,938 2019 147,957 7,954 155,9112020 149,659 2020 19,156 2020 149,659 8,046 157,7052021 151,455 2021 19,083 2021 151,455 8,015 159,4702022 153,348 2022 19,322 2022 153,348 8,115 161,4632023 155,342 2023 19,573 2023 155,342 8,221 163,5632024 157,439 2024 19,837 2024 157,439 8,332 165,7712025 159,643 2025 20,115 2025 159,643 8,448 168,0912026 161,942 2026 20,243 2026 161,942 8,502 170,4442027 164,323 2027 20,540 2027 164,323 8,627 172,9502028 166,771 2028 20,846 2028 166,771 8,755 175,5262029 169,239 2029 21,155 2029 169,239 8,885 178,1242030 171,727 2030 21,466 2030 171,727 9,016 180,7432031 174,234 2031 21,779 2031 174,234 9,147 183,3812032 176,752 2032 22,094 2032 176,752 9,279 186,0312033 179,297 2033 22,412 2033 179,297 9,413 188,7102034 181,879 2034 22,735 2034 181,879 9,549 191,4282035 184,480 2035 23,060 2035 184,480 9,685 194,1652036 187,100 2036 23,388 2036 187,100 9,823 196,9232037 189,738 2037 23,717 2037 189,738 9,961 199,6992038 192,394 2038 24,049 2038 192,394 10,101 202,4952039 195,049 2039 24,381 2039 195,049 10,240 205,2892040 197,700 2040 24,713 2040 197,700 10,379 208,079

es: e A-19: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Unincorporated populatiomed to be 66 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of unincorporated population to total population from the previous five years.e A-20: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-21: Seasonal population from Table A-19 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).

2001 73,130 2001 9,873 2001 73,130 4,147 77,2772002 74,595 2002 10,070 2002 74,595 4,229 78,8242003 76,202 2003 10,287 2003 76,202 4,321 80,5232004 79,493 2004 10,732 2004 79,493 4,507 84,0002005 82,087 2005 11,082 2005 82,087 4,654 86,7412006 84,466 2006 11,403 2006 84,466 4,789 89,2552007 87,843 2007 11,859 2007 87,843 4,981 92,8242008 88,866 2008 11,997 2008 88,866 5,039 93,9052009 88,969 2009 12,011 2009 88,969 5,045 94,0142010 91,366 2010 12,334 2010 91,366 5,180 96,5462011 91,899 2011 12,039 2011 91,899 5,056 96,9552012 92,378 2012 12,102 2012 92,378 5,083 97,4612013 92,587 2013 12,129 2013 92,587 5,094 97,6812014 93,189 2014 12,208 2014 93,189 5,127 98,3162015 93,888 2015 12,299 2015 93,888 5,166 99,0532016 94,686 2016 12,120 2016 94,686 5,090 99,7762017 95,585 2017 12,235 2017 95,585 5,139 100,7242018 96,589 2018 12,363 2018 96,589 5,192 101,7812019 97,652 2019 12,499 2019 97,652 5,250 102,9012020 98,775 2020 12,643 2020 98,775 5,310 104,0852021 99,960 2021 12,595 2021 99,960 5,290 105,2502022 101,210 2022 12,752 2022 101,210 5,356 106,5662023 102,526 2023 12,918 2023 102,526 5,426 107,9512024 103,910 2024 13,093 2024 103,910 5,499 109,4092025 105,364 2025 13,276 2025 105,364 5,576 110,9402026 106,882 2026 13,360 2026 106,882 5,611 112,4932027 108,453 2027 13,557 2027 108,453 5,694 114,1472028 110,069 2028 13,759 2028 110,069 5,779 115,8482029 111,698 2029 13,962 2029 111,698 5,864 117,5622030 113,340 2030 14,167 2030 113,340 5,950 119,2902031 114,994 2031 14,374 2031 114,994 6,037 121,0322032 116,656 2032 14,582 2032 116,656 6,124 122,7812033 118,336 2033 14,792 2033 118,336 6,213 124,5492034 120,040 2034 15,005 2034 120,040 6,302 126,3422035 121,757 2035 15,220 2035 121,757 6,392 128,1492036 123,486 2036 15,436 2036 123,486 6,483 129,9692037 125,227 2037 15,653 2037 125,227 6,574 131,8012038 126,980 2038 15,873 2038 126,980 6,667 133,6472039 128,732 2039 16,092 2039 128,732 6,759 135,4912040 130,482 2040 16,310 2040 130,482 6,850 137,332

es: e A-22: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Population excluding Indian Rres is assumed to be 97 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of the population excluding Indian River Shores to the total popula

m the previous five years. e A-23: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-24: Seasonal population from Table A-22 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).

2001 111,695 2001 15,079 2001 111,695 6,333 118,0282002 113,964 2002 15,385 2002 113,964 6,462 120,4262003 116,521 2003 15,730 2003 116,521 6,607 123,1282004 120,567 2004 16,277 2004 120,567 6,836 127,4032005 123,774 2005 16,709 2005 123,774 7,018 130,7922006 128,033 2006 17,284 2006 128,033 7,259 135,2922007 131,932 2007 17,811 2007 131,932 7,481 139,4132008 133,706 2008 18,050 2008 133,706 7,581 141,2872009 133,862 2009 18,071 2009 133,862 7,590 141,4522010 134,127 2010 18,107 2010 134,127 7,605 141,7322011 134,786 2011 17,657 2011 134,786 7,416 142,2022012 135,510 2012 17,752 2012 135,510 7,456 142,9662013 136,075 2013 17,826 2013 136,075 7,487 143,5612014 136,959 2014 17,942 2014 136,959 7,536 144,4952015 137,986 2015 18,076 2015 137,986 7,592 145,5782016 139,159 2016 17,812 2016 139,159 7,481 146,6402017 140,481 2017 17,982 2017 140,481 7,552 148,0342018 141,957 2018 18,170 2018 141,957 7,631 149,5882019 143,518 2019 18,370 2019 143,518 7,715 151,2342020 145,169 2020 18,582 2020 145,169 7,804 152,9742021 146,911 2021 18,511 2021 146,911 7,775 154,6862022 148,748 2022 18,742 2022 148,748 7,872 156,6192023 150,682 2023 18,986 2023 150,682 7,974 158,6562024 152,716 2024 19,242 2024 152,716 8,082 160,7972025 154,854 2025 19,512 2025 154,854 8,195 163,0492026 157,084 2026 19,635 2026 157,084 8,247 165,3302027 159,393 2027 19,924 2027 159,393 8,368 167,7612028 161,768 2028 20,221 2028 161,768 8,493 170,2612029 164,162 2029 20,520 2029 164,162 8,618 172,7802030 166,575 2030 20,822 2030 166,575 8,745 175,3202031 169,007 2031 21,126 2031 169,007 8,873 177,8802032 171,449 2032 21,431 2032 171,449 9,001 180,4502033 173,918 2033 21,740 2033 173,918 9,131 183,0492034 176,423 2034 22,053 2034 176,423 9,262 185,6852035 178,946 2035 22,368 2035 178,946 9,395 188,3402036 181,487 2036 22,686 2036 181,487 9,528 191,0152037 184,046 2037 23,006 2037 184,046 9,663 193,7082038 186,622 2038 23,328 2038 186,622 9,798 196,4202039 189,198 2039 23,650 2039 189,198 9,933 199,1312040 191,769 2040 23,971 2040 191,769 10,068 201,837

Appendix B Transportation Impact Fee

Demand Component Calculations


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-1 Impact Fee Update Study

Demand Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor Table B-1 presents the interstate and toll facility discount factor used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. This variable is based on data from the Greater Treasure Coast regional travel demand model, specifically the 2035 projected vehicle miles of travel, accounting for roadway improvements included in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. It should be noted that discount factor excludes external-to-external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Indian River County, but does not necessarily stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not come from development within the county. The I/T discount factor is used to reduce the VMT that the impact fee charges for each land use.

Table B-1 Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor

Source: Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v3.4

Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering As part of this study, an update to the tiering of the assessed impact fee for the single family residential (detached) land use, to ensure equity by size of home, is included. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip-making characteristics of households in the United States. Table B-2 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the current adopted impact fee schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual

RoadwayVMT

(2035)% VMT

I-95 & Turnpike (SR 19) 838,313 17.3%Other Roads 4,005,935 82.7%Total (All Roads) 4,844,247 100.0%Total (Interstate/Toll Roads) 838,313 17.3%



household income levels. In addition, the 2011 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS.

Table B-2 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics

Source: FL Studies for LUC 210, shown later in this appendix

The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables B-3 and B-4. First, the data shown in Table B-3 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units between 1,500 and 2,499 square feet in size ($62,563) is slightly lower than the overall average income for the U.S. ($62,831). Then, in Table B-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS income data in Table B-3.

Table B-3 Annual Income by Housing Size

Source: 2011 American Household Survey

Table B-4

NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category

Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration

Calculated Values Excluding Tiering

Trip RateAssessable Trip Length

Daily VMTRatio to Mean

Single Family (Detached) 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.00

2011 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size

Annual Income(1)

Less than 1,500 sf $42,1561,500 to 2,499 sf $62,5632,500 sf or more $79,443Average of All Houses $62,831

2009 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income

Annual VMT/HH

Days Daily VMTRatio to Mean

Normalized to 0.995

Average of $42,156 19,241 365 52.72 0.796 0.800Total (All Homes) 24,181 365 66.25 1.000Average of $62,563 24,069 365 65.94 0.995 1.000Average of $79,443 28,349 365 77.67 1.172 1.178



To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $42,156 annual income category. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 19,241 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $62,563 (24,069 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.800. Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing unit size (Less than 1,500 sf) to generate a daily VMT of 41.36 for the new tier, as shown in Table B-5. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 6.25 trips per day.

Table B-5 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier

(1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tiered single

family land use category (2) Source: Table B-2 (3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) divided by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sf tier

for each tiered sf single family land use category (4) Source: Table B-4

Table B-6 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached) land use have on the County’s calculated impact fee schedule.

Table B-6 Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier

(1) Source: Table B-5, Item 1 (2) Source: Appendix E, Table E-1

Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Trip Rate(1) Assessable

Trip Length(2)

Daily VMT(3)

Ratio to Mean(4)

Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf 6.25 6.62 41.36 0.8001,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.0002,500 sf or larger 9.20 6.62 60.90 1.178

Impact of Tiering on Fee Schedule Trip Rate(1) Assessable

Trip LengthDaily VMT Net Fee(2)

Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf 6.25 6.62 41.36 $3,4061,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 $4,2482,500 sf or larger 9.20 6.62 60.90 $5,004



Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 20 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. TOA estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a transportation impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (9th edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (9th edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin-destination surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin-destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. TOA has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies.



Mini-Warehouse (ITE LUC 151)

Orange Co, FL 107.0 - - - 1.45 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 89.6 - - - 1.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 84.7 - - - 1.39 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 93.0 - - - 1.51 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 77.0 - - - 2.18 - - - - Orange County

Total Size 451.3 5 Average Trip Length: n/aITE 784.0 14 Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a

Blended total 1,235.3 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: -Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.53

ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.50Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.15

Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New

TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date

Total # Interviews

# Trip Length Interviews

Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210)

Gwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.80 - 5.40 N/A 31.32 Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.40 - 6.10 N/A 32.94 Street SmartsSarasota Co, FL 76 Jun-93 70 70 10.03 - 6.00 N/A 60.18 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 - 4.40 N/A 42.99 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 135 Jun-93 75 75 8.05 - 5.90 N/A 47.50 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 N/A 62.42 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.85 - 4.60 N/A 31.51 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 13.20 - 3.00 N/A 39.60 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 282 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 - 8.40 N/A 55.52 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 393 Jun-93 207 207 7.76 - 5.40 N/A 41.90 Sarasota County

Hernando Co, FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a-6p 4.85 N/A 48.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 128 May-96 205 205 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 N/A 49.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 232 May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 N/A 36.49 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 9a-6p 3.28 N/A 29.29 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 - 5.30 9a-5p 7.90 N/A 41.87 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 142 Oct-97 245 - 5.20 9a-5p 4.10 N/A 21.32 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 150 Oct-97 160 - 5.00 9a-5p 10.80 N/A 54.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 215 Oct-97 158 - 7.60 9a-5p 4.60 N/A 34.96 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 257 Oct-97 225 - 7.60 9a-5p 7.40 N/A 56.24 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 345 Oct-97 161 - 7.00 9a-5p 6.60 N/A 46.20 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 368 Oct-97 152 - 6.60 9a-5p 5.70 N/A 37.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 383 Oct-97 516 - 8.40 9a-5p 5.00 N/A 42.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 441 Oct-97 195 - 8.20 9a-5p 4.70 N/A 38.54 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct-97 348 - 6.10 9a-5p 8.00 N/A 48.80 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 - 12.80 8a-6p 11.40 N/A 145.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.40 N/A 49.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 49 Apr-02 170 - 6.70 7a-6p 10.20 N/A 68.34 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 52 Apr-02 212 - 10.00 7a-6p 7.60 N/A 76.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 126 Apr-02 217 - 8.50 7a-6p 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 55 Apr-02 133 - 6.80 8a-6p 8.12 N/A 55.22 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 60 Apr-02 106 - 7.73 8a-6p 8.75 N/A 67.64 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 70 Apr-02 188 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.03 N/A 47.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 74 Apr-02 188 - 8.18 8a-6p 5.95 N/A 48.67 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 189 Apr-02 261 - 7.46 8a-6p 8.99 N/A 67.07 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Marion Co, FL 102 Apr-02 167 - 8.02 7a-6p 5.10 N/A 40.90 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 105 Apr-02 169 - 7.23 7a-6p 7.22 N/A 52.20 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 124 Apr-02 170 - 6.04 7a-6p 7.29 N/A 44.03 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 132 Apr-02 171 - 7.87 7a-6p 7.00 N/A 55.09 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 133 Apr-02 209 - 8.04 7a-6p 4.92 N/A 39.56 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 111 Oct-03 273 - 8.66 7a-6p 7.70 N/A 66.68 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 231 Oct-03 155 - 5.71 7a-6p 4.82 N/A 27.52 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 306 Oct-03 146 - 8.40 7a-6p 3.94 N/A 33.10 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 364 Oct-03 345 - 7.20 7a-6p 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 374 Oct-03 248 - 12.30 7a-6p 6.88 N/A 84.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 42 Dec-06 122 - 11.26 - 5.56 N/A 62.61 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 51 Dec-06 346 - 18.22 - 9.46 N/A 172.36 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 59 Dec-06 144 - 12.07 - 10.79 N/A 130.24 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 90 Dec-06 194 - 9.12 - 5.78 N/A 52.71 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 239 Dec-06 385 - 7.58 - 8.93 N/A 67.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr-07 516 - 8.02 7a-6p 8.16 N/A 65.44 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 95 Apr-07 256 - 8.08 7a-6p 5.88 N/A 47.51 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 90 Apr-07 338 - 7.13 7a-6p 5.86 N/A 41.78 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 58 Apr-07 153 - 6.16 7a-6p 8.39 N/A 51.68 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Collier Co, FL 74 Mar-08 503 - 12.81 7a-6p 3.05 N/A 39.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 97 Mar-08 512 - 8.78 7a-6p 11.29 N/A 99.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 315 Mar-08 1,347 - 6.97 7a-6p 6.55 N/A 45.65 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 42 Mar-08 314 - 9.55 7a-6p 10.98 N/A 104.86 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Average Trip Length: 6.79Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.62

Note: Georgia studies are not included in summary statistics. Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.81

Percent New Trips

DateTotal #

Interviews# Trip Length

InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size / Units VMT Source



Multi-Family/Apartment and Residential Condo/Townhouse (ITE LUC 220/230)

Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5.78 - 5.20 N/A 30.06 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.84 - - N/A - Sarasota CountyMarion Co, FL 214 Apr-02 175 175 6.84 - 4.61 N/A 31.53 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 240 Apr-02 174 174 6.96 - 3.43 N/A 23.87 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 288 Apr-02 175 175 5.66 - 5.55 N/A 31.41 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 480 Apr-02 175 175 5.73 - 6.88 N/A 39.42 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 500 Apr-02 170 170 5.46 - 5.94 N/A 32.43 Kimley-Horn & Associates

Lake Co, FL 250 Dec-06 135 135 6.71 - 5.33 N/A 35.76 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 157 Dec-06 265 265 13.97 - 2.62 N/A 36.60 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 169 Dec-06 212 - 8.09 - 6.00 N/A 48.54 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 226 Dec-06 301 - 6.74 - 2.17 N/A 14.63 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr-07 456 - 4.09 - 5.95 N/A 24.34 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 176 Apr-07 332 - 5.38 - 5.24 N/A 28.19 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 31 May-96 31 31 6.12 9a-6p 4.98 N/A 30.48 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 128 May-96 128 128 6.47 9a-6p 5.18 N/A 33.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr-02 198 198 4.77 9a-6p - N/A - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 248 Apr-02 353 353 4.24 9a-6p 3.53 N/A 14.97 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 4,103 Average Trip Length: 4.84Total Size (TL) 3,631 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10

LUC 220: Multi-FamilyTotal Size 3,467 13 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.31

ITE 18,480 88 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.65Blended total 21,947 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.60

LUC 230: Condo/TownhouseTotal Size 636 4 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.97

ITE 10,024 56 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.81Blended total 10,660 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.76

VMT Source

LUC 230 Studies are highlighted

Location Size / Units DateTotal #


InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length

Percent New Trips

Mobile Home Park (ITE LUC 240)

Marion Co, FL 67 Jul-91 22 22 5.40 48hrs. 2.29 N/A 12.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 N/A 40.18 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 137 Jul-91 22 22 3.10 24hr. 4.88 N/A 15.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 188 Apr-02 147 - 3.51 24hr. 5.48 N/A 19.23 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 227 Apr-02 173 - 2.76 24hr. 8.80 N/A 24.29 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 - 5.10 N/A 17.90 Sarasota CountyMarion Co, FL 297 Apr-02 175 - 4.78 24hr. 4.76 N/A 22.75 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 996 Jun-93 181 181 4.19 - 4.40 N/A 18.44 Sarasota County

Hernando Co, FL 1,892 May-96 425 425 4.13 9a-6p 4.13 N/A 17.06 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 4,121 9 1,303 Average Trip Length: 4.84

Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17


TripsVMT SourceLocation Size / Units Date

Total # Interviews


Senior Adult Housing - Attached (ITE LUC 252)

Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct-91 726 726 2.46 24hr. 3.28 - 8.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 208 1 Average Trip Length: 3.28

ITE 230 5 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.28Blended total 438 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.46


Location Size / Units DateTotal #



Percent New Trips

VMT Source

Congregate Care Facility ( ITE LUC 253)

Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug-89 25 19 3.50 9am-5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPalm Harbor, FL 200 Oct-89 58 40 - 9am-5pm 3.40 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 272 2 83 Average Trip Length: 2.80ITE 388 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.08

Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6460 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.50


Percent New Trips

DateTotal #


InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size / Units VMT Source



Hotel (ITE LUC 310)

Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesOrange Co, FL 70 - - - 1.85 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 211 - - - 2.23 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 112 - - - 2.78 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,495 - - - 3.50 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 123 - - - 3.70 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 130 - - - 4.29 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,499 - - - 4.69 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 190 - - - 4.71 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 123 - - - 4.81 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 105 - - - 5.25 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 120 - - - 5.27 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,584 - - - 5.88 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 128 - - - 6.10 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 174 - - - 7.03 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 144 - - - 7.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 98 - - - 7.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 106 - - - 7.34 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 100 - - - 7.37 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 144 - - - 7.66 - - - - Orange County

Total Size 6,944 21 164 Average Trip Length: 6.25ITE 4,760 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26

Blended total 11,704 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.12


Percent New Trips

DateTotal #


InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (Rooms) VMT Source

Motel (ITE LUC 320)

Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 - 10a-2p 2.80 65.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 222 3 104 Average Trip Length: 3.93ITE 2,160 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34

Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.63


TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Rooms) Date

Total # Interviews


Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 444)

Pinellas Co, FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.10 2p-8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 12 Sep-89 122 116 63.40 2p-8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 20 273 Average Trip Length: 2.30ITE 10 estimated Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22

30 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.28

ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (6th): 153.33Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.63


TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Screens) Date

Total # Interviews


Health Club (ITE LUC 492)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 31 - - 7.90 94.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTotal Size 33 Average Trip Length: n/a

ITE 15 1 Percent New Trip Average: 94.0ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.93

Percent New Trips

Date Total # Interviews


Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (1,000 sf) VMT Source

Day Care Center (ITE LUC 565)

Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 66.99 7a-6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep-89 179 134 66.99 7a-6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 28 25 - - 2.60 89.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTotal Size 15.6 2 301 Average Trip Length: 2.20

ITE 35.0 7 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03Blended total 50.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2

Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 74.06

Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 71.88



Total # Interviews




Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620)

Lakeland, FL 120 Mar-90 74 66 2.86 11a-4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 120 1 74 Average Trip Length: 2.59

ITE 714 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.59Blended total 834 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0




TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Beds) Date

Total # Interviews


Clinic (ITE LUC 630)

Largo, FL 103.9 Aug-89 614 572 37.03 7a-430p 5.10 93.0 175.63 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL - Oct-89 280 252 - 9a-5p 4.10 90.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 103.9 1 894 Average Trip Length: 4.60ITE 224.0 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10

327.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 93.0Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 37.03


Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Time PeriodTotal #


InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Trip Length

Percent New Trips

VMT Source

General Office Building (ITE LUC 710)

Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 - 11.30 - 529.41 Sarasota CountyGwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec-92 - - 4.30 - 5.40 - - Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec-92 - - 3.60 - 5.90 - - Street Smarts

Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct-89 431 388 18.49 7a-5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 - 7a-5p 3.40 94.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 742.1 5 736 Average Trip Length: 6.46ITE 15,522.0 78 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15

Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3

Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips

VMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews


IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL

Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 22.22Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34Site 4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64

Average 17.59 17.71 35.30Average (excluding Site 4) 11.84 11.99 23.83

AVERAGE AVERAGE (per 1,000 sf)Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720): 10,000 sf or Less

Site Size (1,000 sf)Tues., Jan 11 Wedn., Jan 12 Thur., Jan 13 TOTAL

Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 26 - - 6.00 79.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesPalm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9a-5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

St. Petersburg, FL - Nov-89 34 30 57.20 9a-4p 1.20 88.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 58.4 May-96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 28.0 May-96 202 189 49.75 9a-6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct-97 - 186 49.50 9a-5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct-97 - 186 31.00 9a-5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct-97 - 324 39.80 9a-5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct-03 - 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov-03 - 340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec-03 - 20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Orange Co, FL 50.6 - - - 26.72 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 23.5 - - - 16.58 - - - - Orange County


Blended total 748.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.59


Total # Interviews


Trip Gen Rate Time Period VMT SourceTrip LengthPercent New

TripsLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date



Business Park (ITE LUC 770)

Collier Co, FL 14.1 May-99 - 55 33.48 8a-6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 66.0 May-99 - 43 11.53 8a-6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 211.1 May-99 - 284 17.91 8a-6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 291.2 3 Average Trip Length: 4.90ITE 6,288.0 16 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38

Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 17.22


VMT SourceTotal #



Percent New Trips

Location Size (1,000 sf) Date

Shopping Center (ITE LUC 820)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 527 348 - - - 66.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 170 - - - 1.70 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 354 269 - - - 76.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 144 - - - 2.50 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates

St. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug-89 384 298 - 11a-7p 3.60 78.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep-89 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Largo, FL 425.0 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesDunedin, FL 80.5 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep-89 485 388 - 9a-6p 3.20 80.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSeminole, FL 425.0 Oct-89 674 586 - - - 87.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 74.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep-92 300 185 - 12a-6p - 61.6 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep-92 300 192 - 12a-6p - 64.0 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.

Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec-92 - - 46.00 - 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec-92 - - 27.00 - 8.50 84.0 192.78 Street SmartsSarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun-93 58 58 122.14 - 3.20 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun-93 65 65 51.53 - 2.80 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 79.79 - 3.40 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun-93 62 62 66.79 - 5.90 - - Sarasota County

Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May-96 608 331 77.60 9a-6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct-97 - - 73.50 9a-5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct-97 - - 72.00 9a-5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct-97 - - 43.00 9a-5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 376 65.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr-02 222 - 145.64 9a-5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr-02 134 - 38.23 9a-5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct-03 - 784 55.84 8a-6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov-03 - 390 54.50 8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 - 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesBozeman, MT 159.9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesBozeman, MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 5,757.5 7,536 Average Trip Length: n/aWeighted Average Trip Length: n/a


VMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews




Figure B-1 Shopping Center (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Trip Length Regression

Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820

Figure B-2

Shopping Center (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression

Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Trip

Len

gth

(Mile

s)

Square Footage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Perc

ent N

ew T

rips

Square Footage



New Car Sales (ITE LUC 841)

St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct-89 152 120 - 9a-5p 4.70 79.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesClearwater, FL 43.0 Oct-89 136 106 29.40 9a-5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesOrange Co, FL 116.7 - - - 22.18 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 99.8 - - - 13.45 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 39.1 - - - 10.48 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 66.3 - - - 28.50 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 46.7 - - - 40.34 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 34.4 - - - 23.45 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 13.8 - - - 35.75 - - - - Orange County


Blended total 1,029.7 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 23.22


Total # Interviews



TripsLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date VMT Source

Supermarket (ITE LUC 850)

Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug-89 163 62 106.26 9a-4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 62.0 1 163 Average Trip Length: 2.08




Percent New Trips

DateTotal #


InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (1,000 sf) VMT Source

Service Station w/Convenience Market (ITE LUC 853)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 72 - - - 2.00 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 1.1 Jun-91 77 20 544.80 24hr. 0.89 26.0 126.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.1 Jun-91 66 24 997.60 24hr. 1.67 36.4 606.42 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 4.4 Jun-91 85 25 486.70 48hrs. 1.06 29.4 151.68 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 96 38 - - 1.19 39.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 78 16 - - 1.06 20.5 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Tampa, FL 2.3 10/13-15/92 239 74 - 24hr. 1.06 31.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesEllenton, FL 3.3 10/20-22/92 124 44 - 24hr. 0.96 35.3 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL 3.8 11/10-12/92 142 23 - 24hr. 3.13 16.4 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Marion Co, FL 2.5 Apr-02 87 - 719.79 24hr. 1.62 32.8 322.19 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.5 Apr-02 23 - 610.46 24hr. 1.77 11.7 126.61 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 3.0 Apr-02 59 - 606.02 24hr. 0.83 32.6 195.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates

Total Size 25.1 9 1,148 Average Trip Length: 1.44ITE 30.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.51

Blended Total 55.1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 27.745.6 15.6 Average Trip Generation Rate: 639.68


Location Size (1,000 sf) DateTotal #


InterviewsPercent New

TripsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length VMT Source

Furniture Store (ITE LUC 890)

Largo, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 64 34 - - 4.63 52.5 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 - - 7.38 55.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates


Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2Average Trip Generation Rate: -

ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.06

Trip LengthPercent New

TripsVMT Source

Total # Interviews

Time Period# Trip Length

InterviewsTrip Gen RateLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date



Drive-In Bank (ITE LUC 912)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 77 - - - 2.40 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 211 - - - - 54.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates

Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug-89 113 52 - 9a-6p 5.20 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLargo, FL 2.0 Sep-89 129 94 - - 1.60 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Seminole, FL 4.5 Oct-89 - - - - - - - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.3 Jun-91 69 29 - 24hr. 1.33 42.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 3.1 Jun-91 47 32 - 24hr. 1.75 68.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 - 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 162 96 - 24hr. 0.88 59.3 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 116 54 - - 1.58 46.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 142 68 - - 2.08 47.9 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Hernando Co, FL 5.4 May-96 164 41 - 9a-6p 2.77 24.7 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.4 Apr-02 70 - - 24hr. 3.55 54.6 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.7 May-02 50 - 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley-Horn & Associates


Blended total 46.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.223.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.66




Total # Interviews


Restaurant (ITE LUC 932)

Hernando Co, FL 6.2 May-96 242 175 187.51 9a-6p 2.76 72.5 375.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 8.2 May-96 154 93 102.71 9a-6p 4.15 60.2 256.43 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

St. Petersburg, FL 5.0 Oct-89 74 68 132.60 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 243.98 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesKenneth City, FL 5.2 Oct-89 236 176 127.88 4p-730p 2.30 75.0 220.59 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Pasco Co, FL 5.2 Apr-02 114 88 82.47 9a-6p 3.72 77.2 236.81 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 5.8 Apr-02 182 102 116.97 9a-6p 3.49 56.0 228.77 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Orange Co, FL 8.9 - - - 52.69 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.3 - - - 62.12 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 6.7 - - - 82.58 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.4 - - - 91.67 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.3 - - - 95.33 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.2 - - - 98.06 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.5 - - - 100.18 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 9.7 - - - 105.84 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 4.6 - - - 129.23 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.0 - - - 126.40 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 9.7 - - - 132.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.0 - - - 135.68 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.6 - - - 145.59 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.4 - - - 147.44 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.9 - - - 147.74 - - - - Orange County


Blended total 250.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 109.84


Location Size (1,000 sf) VMT SourceDateTotal #



Percent New Trips

Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru (ITE LUC 934)

Tampa, FL - Mar-86 61 - - - 2.70 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 306 - - - - 65.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates

Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 11a-2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 4.30 Oct-89 456 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Tarpon Springs, FL - Oct-89 233 114 - 7a-7p 3.60 49.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 1.60 Jun-91 60 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 4.00 Jun-91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 66 44 - - 1.91 66.7 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 118 40 - - 1.17 33.9 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May-96 136 82 311.83 9a-6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 3.13 May-96 168 82 547.34 9a-6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Lake Co, FL 2.20 Apr-01 376 252 934.30 - 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 3.20 Apr-01 171 182 654.90 - 4.10 47.8 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 3.80 Apr-01 188 137 353.70 - 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 2.66 Apr-02 100 46 283.12 9a-6p 5.10 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 2.96 Apr-02 486 164 515.32 9a-6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr-02 168 120 759.24 9a-6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Orange Co, FL 8.93 - - - 377.00 - - - - Orange CountyTotal Size 48.8 13 4,463 Average Trip Length: 2.42


34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 530.19ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 496.12


Total # Interviews






Automobile Care Center (ITE LUC 942)

Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 124 94 - 9a-5p 3.07 76.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesJacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 110 74 - 9a-5p 2.96 67.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesJacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3-4/90 132 87 - 9a-5p 2.32 66.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Lakeland, FL 5.2 Mar-90 24 14 - 9a-4p 1.36 59.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLargo, FL 5.5 Sep-89 34 30 37.64 9a-5p 2.40 88.0 79.50 Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov-92 41 39 - 2-6p 4.60 - - LCE, Inc. Lakeland, FL - Mar-90 54 42 - 9a-4p 2.44 78.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates


Blended total 144.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2107.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 37.64


Time Period Trip LengthPercent New

TripsVMT Source

Total # Interviews


Trip Gen RateLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date

Service Station with and w/o Car Wash (ITE LUC 944 & 946)

Largo, FL 0.6 Nov-89 70 14 - 8am-5pm 1.90 23.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier County, FL - Aug-91 168 40 - - 1.01 23.8 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 0.6 1 238 Average Trip Length: 1.46ITE LUC 944 (vfp) 48.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.90ITE LUC 946 (vfp) 120.0 10 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0

ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 944): 168.56ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 946): 152.84Blended ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position: 157.33

Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews



VMT Source

Self-Service Car Wash (ITE LUC 947)

Largo, FL 10 Nov-89 111 84 - 8am-5pm 2.00 76.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesClearwater, FL - Nov-89 177 108 - 10am-5pm 1.30 61.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Collier, FL 11 Dec-09 304 - 30.24 - 2.50 57.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier, FL 8 Jan-09 186 - 22.75 - 1.96 72.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates

Total Size 29 3 778 Average Trip Length: 1.94Total Size (TGR) 19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.18

ITE 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 67.7Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 27.09


Location Size (Bays) VMT SourcePercent New Trips

Date Total # Interviews


Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length

Appendix C Transportation Impact Fee

Cost Component Calculations


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-1 Impact Fee Update Study

Cost Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the transportation impact fee update. Backup data and assumptions are provided for all cost variables (for county and state roads), including:

Design Right-of-Way Construction Construction Engineering/Inspection Roadway Capacity

Urban Design vs. Rural Design Due to a lack of roadway construction data for rural-design roadways, the cost per lane mile for these types of roads was calculated using an adjustment factor. This factor was based on the rural-to-urban design cost ratio from the most recent District 7 Long Range Estimates (LRE) provided by FDOT. Based on the LRE, the cost for rural-design roadway capacity expansion (new road construction or lane addition) is approximately 83 percent of the cost of urban-design roadway improvements. For all subsequent tables (for county and state roadways), costs are presented for urban-design roadways, with the rural-design roadway costs being calculated using the cost ratio from Table C-1.

Table C-1 Urban / Rural Design Cost Factor

Source: FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates, 2013

Rural Design Urban Design Ratio0-2 Lanes $2,392,343 $3,383,918 71%0-4 Lanes $1,918,228 $2,382,206 81%0-6 Lanes $1,626,803 $1,944,969 84%2-4 Lanes $2,897,987 $3,439,476 84%4-6 Lanes $3,229,018 $3,833,955 84%4-8 Lanes $2,145,375 $2,532,536 85%6-8 Lanes $4,061,468 $4,569,033 89%Average $2,610,175 $3,155,156 83%

ImprovementCost per Lane Mile



Design County Roadways The design cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the design-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the design factors ranged from 6 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 10 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for county roads was calculated at 10 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-10 for additional information).

Table C-2 Design Cost Adjustment – County Roads

(1) Design cost is estimated at 10% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in

Table C-10 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design

weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The design cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the design-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the design factors ranged from 10 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for state roads was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. See Table C-10 for additional information.

Road TypeDesign Cost per

Lane Mile(1)

Section Design Distribution(2)

Weighted Design Cost per

Lane Mile(3)

Urban Design $180,000 34% $61,000Rural Design $149,000 66% $98,000Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $159,000



Table C-3 Design Cost Adjustment – State Roads

(1) Design cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in

Table C-10 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design

weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. County Roadways To determine a ROW acquisition cost per lane mile for county roads, TOA conducted a review of recently completed ROW acquisitions and current ROW estimates along capacity expansion projects in Indian River County and also reviewed ROW estimates from recent transportation impact fee studies from other counties in Florida. For impact fee purposes, the ROW cost for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs from recent local projects and in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways in Indian River County, the ROW factors ranged from 6 percent to 150 percent, with a weighted average of 41 percent, as shown in Table C-11. This factor is consistent with the ratio of ROW to construction cost observed in other Florida jurisdictions, as shown in Table C-12. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for county roads was calculated at 41 percent of the construction cost per lane mile.

Road TypeDesign Cost per

Lane Mile(1)


Weighted Design Cost per

Lane Mile(3)

Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $196,000



Table C-4 Right-of-Way Cost Adjustment – County Roads

(1) ROW cost is estimated at 41% of construction cost based on recent IRC

improvements in Table C-11 (Item 2). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight

(Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways Due to a lack of local acquisition data, the ROW cost for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the ROW factors ranged from 20 percent to 71 percent, with a weighted average of 44 percent. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for state roads was calculated at 44 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-12 for additional information).

Table C-5 Right-of-Way Cost Adjustment – State Roads

(1) ROW cost is estimated at 44% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in

Table C-12 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight

(Item 2) for each design type and added together.

Road TypeROW Cost per

Lane Mile(1)


Weighted ROW Cost per Lane

Mile(3)

Urban Design $738,000 34% $251,000Rural Design $613,000 66% $405,000Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $656,000

Road TypeROW Cost per

Lane Mile(1)


Weighted ROW Cost per Lane

Mile(3)

Urban Design $880,000 34% $299,000Rural Design $730,000 66% $482,000Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $781,000



Construction County Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent local county roadway capacity expansion projects identified 12 improvements over the past five years. These 12 improvements (detailed in Table C-13) had a weighted average construction cost of approximately $1.80 million per lane mile. In addition to local data, a review of recently bid projects throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C-14, a total of 49 projects from 13 different counties provided a weighted average cost per lane mile of $2.18 million per lane mile. Based on this review, it was concluded that construction costs in Indian River County are lower than the costs observed elsewhere in the state. More specifically, roadways costs in Indian River County are approximately 83 percent of costs observed statewide. Due to the large amount of local data, the county roadway construction cost used to calculate the transportation impact fee was estimated at $1.80 million per lane mile for urban-design county roadways.

Table C-6 Construction Cost Adjustment – County Roads

(1) Source: Table C-13. Rural design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs (see

Table C-1) (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Construction cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section

design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent local state roadway capacity expansion projects identified three improvements with an average construction cost of approximately $2.95 million per lane mile.

SR 5 (US 1) from S. of Oslo Rd to S. of Indian River Bend SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of 82nd Ave to 66th Ave/CR 505 SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of I-95 to W. of 82nd Ave/CR 609

Road TypeConstruction Cost per Lane

Mile(1)


Weighted Constr. Cost per

Lane Mile(3)

Urban Design $1,800,000 34% $612,000Rural Design $1,494,000 66% $986,000Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile $1,598,000



In addition to looking at local data, a review of recently bid projects located throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C-15, a total of 52 projects (including the three projects in Indian River County) from 26 different counties estimated a weighted average cost per lane mile of $2.44 million per lane mile. Due to the lower construction costs observed between local county roads and statewide county improvements, and the small sample size of local state road improvements, the estimated state road construction cost was adjusted downward to provide a conservative estimate for use in the impact fee calculation. This adjustment was based on the ratio of local county roadway improvements to statewide county roadway improvements, which, as previously mentioned, is 83 percent. Therefore, the weighted average construction cost per lane mile for all state road improvements (including local and statewide data) was adjusted by 83 percent. Based on this analysis, a construction cost of $2.00 million per lane mile for urban-design state roadways was used to calculate the transportation impact fee for Indian River County.

Table C-7

Construction Cost Adjustment – State Roads

(1) Source: Table C-15. Rural design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Construction cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section

design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Construction Engineering/Inspection County Roadways The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 4 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 9 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information).

Road TypeConstruction Cost per Lane

Mile(1)


Weighted Constr. Cost per

Lane Mile(3)

Urban Design $2,000,000 34% $680,000Rural Design $1,660,000 66% $1,096,000Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile $1,776,000



Table C-8

CEI Cost Adjustment – County Roads

(1) CEI cost is estimated at 9% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in

Table C-16 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight

(Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The CEI cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 8 percent to 17 percent, with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for state roads was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information).

Table C-9 CEI Cost Adjustment – State Roads

(1) CEI cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in

Table C-16 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight

(Item 2) for each design type and added together.

Road TypeCEI Cost per Lane

Mile(1)


Weighted CEI Cost per Lane

Mile(3)

Urban Design $162,000 34% $55,000Rural Design $134,000 66% $88,000Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $143,000

Road TypeCEI Cost per Lane

Mile(1)


Weighted CEI Cost per Lane

Mile(3)

Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $196,000

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

C-8

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e C-

10

Desi

gn C

ost F

acto

r – C

ount

y &

Sta

te R

oads

So

urce

: Rec

ent i

mpa

ct fe

e st

udie

s con

stru

cted

thro

ugho

ut F

lorid

a

Desi

gnCo

nstr

.De

sign

Rat

ioDe

sign

Cons

tr.

Desi

gn R

atio

2006

Colli

er$3

23,6

39$2

,558

,546

13%

$349

,643

$3,3

85,9

7810

%20

06Ci

trus

$361

,774

$2,5

84,0

9914

%$4

00,4

32$2

,860

,227

14%

2006

High

land

s$2

35,0

30$1

,678

,785

14%

$347

,326

$2,4

80,9

0014

%20

06M

ario

n$1

85,3

33$1

,941

,244

10%

$154

,643

$1,4

30,9

1911

%20

07Pa

sco

$246

,324

$3,0

79,0

518%

$427

,112

$3,0

50,7

9914

%20

07La

ke$2

32,8

82$2

,911

,021

8%$3

18,4

12$3

,184

,125

10%

2007

Flag

ler

$174

,000

$1,7

40,0

0010

%-

-n/

a20

07Vo

lusi

a$2

91,6

96$2

,651

,778

11%

$309

,526

$3,0

95,2

5810

%20

08Le

on$2

12,8

00$2

,660

,000

8%$3

72,1

30$3

,383

,000

11%

2008

Sum

ter

$178

,960

$2,2

37,0

008%

$238

,000

$2,3

80,0

0010

%20

09Co

llier

$217

,000

$3,1

00,0

007%

$320

,000

$3,2

00,0

0010

%20

09Po

lk$9

5,40

0$1

,590

,000

6%$2

17,0

00$2

,170

,000

10%

2009

Hills

boro

ugh/

Tam

pa$3

08,0

00$2

,800

,000

11%

$420

,000

$3,5

00,0

0012

%20

10Co

llier

$119

,560

$1,7

08,0

007%

$241

,800

$2,4

18,0

0010

%20

11Sa

raso

ta/N

orth

Por

t$2

40,0

00$2

,400

,000

10%

$200

,000

$2,0

00,0

0010

%20

12O

sceo

la$3

71,1

96$2

,651

,400

14%

$313

,258

$2,8

47,8

0011

%20

12O

rang

e$2

64,0

00$2

,400

,000

11%

--

n/a

2012

City

of O

rland

o$2

88,0

00$2

,400

,000

12%

$319

,000

$2,9

00,0

0011

%$2

41,4

22$2

,393

,940

10%

$309

,268

$2,7

67,9

3811

%(a

)(b

)

Year

Coun

tyCo

unty

Roa

dway

sSt

ate

Road

way

s

Aver

age

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

C-9

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e C-

11

Righ

t-of

-Way

Fac

tor –

Rec

ent C

ount

y Ro

ad Im

prov

emen

ts in

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Righ

t-of

-way

cos

ts d

ivid

ed b

y co

nstr

uctio

n co

sts

Proj

ect #

Desc

riptio

nFr

omTo

Bid

Year

Stat

usFe

atur

eSe

ctio

n De

sign

Leng

th(M

iles)

Lane

s Ad

ded

Lane

M

iles

Adde

d

Righ

t-of

-W

ay C

ost

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

sRO

W/

Cons

tr.(2

)

0501

317

th La

ne S

W27

th A

ve20

th A

ve20

08Co

mpl

eted

2 to

3 La

nes

Urba

n0.

521

0.52

-$5

25,0

00-

0602

620

th A

ve S

W21

st S

t SW

17th

Lane

SW

20

08Co

mpl

eted

1U to

2D

Lane

sUr

ban

0.27

20.

5406

026

20th

Ave

SW

25th

St S

W21

st S

t SW

2009

Com

plet

ed0

to 2

Lane

sUr

ban

0.25

20.

5006

047

Colle

ge La

ne R

dEx

tens

ion

IRSC

66th

Ave

2009

Com

plet

ed0

to 2

Lane

sUr

ban

0.50

21.

00-

$1,7

00,0

00-

0101

416

th S

t66

th A

ve

74th

Ave

2009

Com

plet

ed0

to 2

Lane

sUr

ban

1.27

22.

53$6

64,2

58$3

,109

,321

21%

0602

166

th A

ve16

th S

tSR

60

2009

Com

plet

ed0

to 3

Lane

sUr

ban

0.51

31.

53$3

,758

,300

$2,5

04,4

2315

0%02

025

53rd

St

King

s Hw

yLa

tera

l H C

anal

2010

Com

plet

ed0

to 4

Lane

sUr

ban

2.04

48.

14$3

,221

,638

$7,0

00,0

0046

%02

025

53rd

St

Late

ral H

Can

alIn

dian

Riv

er B

lvd

2010

Com

plet

ed0

to 4

Lane

sUr

ban

0.50

42.

00$1

,500

,000

$7,6

05,9

9320

%06

018

Osl

o Rd

, Ph.

II43

rd A

ve27

th A

ve20

11Co

mpl

eted

2U to

4D

Lane

sUr

ban

1.20

33.

60$4

,032

,257

$4,5

31,8

2289

%05

004

Osl

o Rd

, Ph.

III

43rd

Ave

58th

Ave

2012

Ong

oing

2U to

4D

Lane

sUr

ban

1.15

22.

30$2

45,4

45$3

,812

,202

6%02

031

66th

Ave

4th

St16

th S

t20

12O

ngoi

ng0

to 2

U/2D

Rura

l1.

502/

35.

50$7

65,9

46$6

,628

,935

12%

0604

066

th A

veSR

60

49th

St

2012

Ong

oing

2 to

4 La

nes

Urba

n3.

052

6.10

$10,

567,

637

$20,

773,

389

51%

Tota

l12

.75

34.2

6$2

4,75

5,48

1$6

0,07

7,80

041

%

--

$1,8

86,7

15

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

C-10

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e C-

12

Righ

t-of

-Way

Fac

tor –

Cou

nty

& S

tate

Roa

ds

So

urce

: Rec

ent i

mpa

ct fe

e st

udie

s con

stru

cted

thro

ugho

ut F

lorid

a

ROW

Cons

tr.

Desi

gn R

atio

ROW

Cons

tr.

Desi

gn R

atio

2006

Colli

er$1

,751

,790

$2,5

58,5

4668

%$1

,751

,790

$3,3

85,9

7852

%20

06Ci

trus

$784

,599

$2,5

84,0

9930

%$9

49,9

79$2

,860

,227

33%

2006

High

land

s$4

68,8

53$1

,678

,785

28%

$507

,500

$2,4

80,9

0020

%20

06M

ario

n$1

,005

,123

$1,9

41,2

4452

%$8

68,9

08$1

,430

,919

61%

2007

Pasc

o$8

14,5

17$3

,079

,051

26%

$1,5

60,7

14$3

,050

,799

51%

2007

Lake

$599

,185

$2,9

11,0

2121

%$1

,462

,133

$3,1

84,1

2546

%20

07Fl

agle

r$4

60,0

00$1

,740

,000

26%

--

n/a

2007

Volu

sia

$858

,109

$2,6

51,7

7832

%$9

54,5

43$3

,095

,258

31%

2008

Leon

$1,1

20,0

00$2

,660

,000

42%

$1,3

63,0

00$3

,383

,000

40%

2008

Sum

ter

$802

,000

$2,2

37,0

0036

%$1

,400

,000

$2,3

80,0

0059

%20

09Co

llier

$1,3

00,0

00$3

,100

,000

42%

$1,3

00,0

00$3

,200

,000

41%

2009

Polk

$1,4

91,0

00$1

,590

,000

94%

$550

,000

$2,1

70,0

0025

%20

09Hi

llsbo

roug

h/Ta

mpa

$1,5

00,0

00$2

,800

,000

54%

$2,5

00,0

00$3

,500

,000

71%

2010

Colli

er$9

01,0

00$1

,708

,000

53%

$901

,000

$2,4

18,0

0037

%20

11Sa

raso

ta/N

orth

Por

t$6

20,0

00$2

,400

,000

26%

$800

,000

$2,0

00,0

0040

%20

12O

sceo

la$1

,087

,074

$2,6

51,4

0041

%$1

,167

,598

$2,8

47,8

0041

%20

12O

rang

e$1

,080

,000

$2,4

00,0

0045

%-

-n/

a20

12Ci

ty o

f Orla

ndo

$1,0

80,0

00$2

,400

,000

45%

$1,3

05,0

00$2

,900

,000

45%

$984

,625

$2,3

93,9

4041

%$1

,208

,885

$2,7

67,9

3844

%(a

)(b

)

Year

Coun

tyCo

unty

Roa

dway

sSt

ate

Road

way

s

Aver

age

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

C-11

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e C-

13

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

– R

ecen

t Cou

nty

Road

Impr

ovem

ents

in In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y

(1

) So

urce

: Ind

ian

Rive

r Cou

nty

(2)

Righ

t-of

-way

cos

ts d

ivid

ed b

y co

nstr

uctio

n co

sts

(3)

The

wei

ghte

d av

erag

e co

nstr

uctio

n co

st p

er la

ne m

ile w

as ro

unde

d fo

r use

in th

e im

pact

fee

calc

ulat

ion

Proj

ect #

Desc

riptio

nFr

omTo

Bid

Year

Stat

usFe

atur

eSe

ctio

n De

sign

Leng

th(M

iles)

Lane

s Ad

ded

Lane

M

iles

Adde

d

Righ

t-of

-W

ay C

ost

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

s

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

per

Lane

M

ile05

013

17th

Lane

SW

27th

Ave

20th

Ave

2008

Com

plet

ed2

to 3

Lane

sUr

ban

0.52

10.

52-

$525

,000

$1,0

09,6

1506

026

20th

Ave

SW

21st

St S

W17

th La

ne S

W

2008

Com

plet

ed1U

to 2

D La

nes

Urba

n0.

272

0.54

0602

620

th A

ve S

W25

th S

t SW

21st

St S

W20

09Co

mpl

eted

0 to

2 La

nes

Urba

n0.

252

0.50

0604

7Co

llege

Lane

Rd

Exte

nsio

n IR

SC66

th A

ve20

09Co

mpl

eted

0 to

2 La

nes

Urba

n0.

502

1.00

-$1

,700

,000

$1,7

00,0

0001

014

16th

St

66th

Ave

74

th A

ve20

09Co

mpl

eted

0 to

2 La

nes

Urba

n1.

272

2.53

$664

,258

$3,1

09,3

21$1

,228

,981

0602

166

th A

ve16

th S

tSR

60

2009

Com

plet

ed0

to 3

Lane

sUr

ban

0.51

31.

53$3

,758

,300

$2,5

04,4

23$1

,636

,878

0202

553

rd S

tKi

ngs H

wy

Late

ral H

Can

al20

10Co

mpl

eted

0 to

4 La

nes

Urba

n2.

044

8.14

$3,2

21,6

38$7

,000

,000

$859

,951

0202

553

rd S

tLa

tera

l H C

anal

Indi

an R

iver

Blv

d20

10Co

mpl

eted

0 to

4 La

nes

Urba

n0.

504

2.00

$1,5

00,0

00$7

,605

,993

$3,8

02,9

9706

018

Osl

o Rd

, Ph.

II43

rd A

ve27

th A

ve20

11Co

mpl

eted

2U to

4D

Lane

sUr

ban

1.20

33.

60$4

,032

,257

$4,5

31,8

22$1

,258

,839

0500

4O

slo

Rd, P

h. II

I43

rd A

ve58

th A

ve20

12O

ngoi

ng2U

to 4

D La

nes

Urba

n1.

152

2.30

$245

,445

$3,8

12,2

02$1

,657

,479

0203

166

th A

ve4t

h St

16th

St

2012

Ong

oing

0 to

2U/

2DRu

ral

1.50

2/3

5.50

$765

,946

$6,6

28,9

35$1

,205

,261

0604

066

th A

veSR

60

49th

St

2012

Ong

oing

2 to

4 La

nes

Urba

n3.

052

6.10

$10,

567,

637

$20,

773,

389

$3,4

05,4

74To

tal

12.7

534

.26

$24,

755,

481

$60,

077,

800

$1,7

53,5

84U

sed

in Im

pact

Fee

Stu

dy:(3

)$1

,800

,000

-$1

,886

,715

$3,7

73,4

30

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

– C

ount

y Ro

ad Im

prov

emen

ts fr

om O

ther

Juris

dict

ions

thro

ugho

ut F

lorid

a nt

yDi

stric

tDe

scrip

tion

From

ToYe

arSt

atus

Feat

ure

Desi

gnLe

ngth

Lane

s Ad

ded

Lane

Mile

s Ad

ded

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

Con pe

er1

Sant

a Ba

rbar

a Bl

vd E

xt.

Ratt

lesn

ake

Ham

moc

k Rd

Davi

s Blv

d20

08Bi

d0

to 6

Urba

n2.

006

12.0

0$1

2,03

5,89

4k

1Si

lver

Con

nect

or R

dE.

F. G

riffin

Rd

US 9

820

08Bi

d0

to 2

Urba

n0.

332

0.66

$1,5

60,4

83k

1Co

unty

Line

Rd

Ewel

l Ave

Pipk

in R

d20

08Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

202

2.40

$3,9

93,8

92si

a5

Deba

ry A

veDe

ltona

Blv

dPr

ovid

ence

Blv

d20

08Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

842

3.68

$7,4

05,9

14si

a5

S. W

illia

mso

n Bl

vd (P

h. II

)S.

of S

abal

Cre

ek B

lvd

N. o

f Moo

dy B

ridge

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.91

23.

82$1

1,10

9,22

5e

5CR

466

(Seg

men

t A)

US 3

01CR

319

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.00

22.

00$4

,062

,660

roug

h7

40th

St

Rive

r Pin

es A

pts

Hum

phre

y St

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.95

21.

90$5

,154

,862

roug

h7

Race

Tra

ck R

d (P

h. I)

Doug

las R

dLi

neba

ugh

Ave

2008

Bid

2 to

6Ur

ban

1.01

44.

04$1

0,09

9,91

1ol

a5

John

You

ng P

kwy

Carr

oll

Ora

nge

Co. L

ine

2008

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

0.85

21.

70$3

,230

,000

ge5

CR 5

35 (S

egm

ents

C a

nd E

)Fi

cque

tte

RdBu

tler R

idge

Dr

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.10

22.

20$3

,693

,616

ge5

Clar

cona

-Oco

ee R

dO

coee

Apo

pka

RdSR

417

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.40

20.

80$2

,803

,484

ge5

Dest

inat

ion

Pkw

yIn

tern

atio

nal D

rTr

ades

how

Blv

d20

08Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n0.

712

1.42

$3,0

17,4

43e

1Gl

adio

lus D

r (Ph

. I)

A&W

Bul

b Rd

Win

kler

Rd

2008

Bid

2 to

4/6

Urba

n1.

942/

45.

44$1

3,97

1,50

9e

1Gl

adio

lus D

r (Ph

. II)

Pine

Rid

ge R

dA&

W B

ulb

Rd20

08Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

022

2.04

$6,7

48,6

42ot

te1

Tole

do B

lade

Cor

ridor

Nor

th P

ort

US 4

120

08Bi

d2

to 4

Subu

rban

1.20

22.

40$3

,174

,852

ge5

Clar

cona

-Oco

ee R

dHi

awas

see

RdCl

ark

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.50

25.

00$1

0,18

2,73

8ge

5W

oodb

ury

RdS.

of S

R 50

Chal

leng

er P

kwy

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.65

21.

30$4

,088

,942

ge5

Sand

Lake

Rd

Pres

iden

t's D

rFL

Mal

l20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

002

2.00

$6,0

20,7

55ge

5Ta

ft-V

inel

and

Road

Ext

ensi

onCe

ntra

l Flo

rida

Pkw

yJo

hn Y

oung

Pkw

y20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n0.

702

1.40

$4,4

62,5

35ol

a5

Nar

coos

see

RdUS

192

Ora

nge

Co. L

ine

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

7.40

214

.80

$47,

360,

000

ola

5O

sceo

la P

kwy

(Ph.

I)FL

Tur

npik

eBu

enav

entu

ra B

lvd

2009

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.57

23.

14$5

,966

,000

ola

5Po

inci

ana

Blvd

(Ph.

II)

Cres

cent

Lake

sUS

17/

9220

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

502

5.00

$16,

000,

000

ola

5O

ld La

ke W

ilson

Rd

(Ph.

I)Li

ving

ston

Rd

Sinc

lair

Rd20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

302

4.60

$14,

720,

000

roug

h7

Bruc

e B.

Dow

nsPa

lm S

prin

gs B

lvd

Pebb

le B

each

Blv

d20

09Bi

d4

to 8

Urba

n7.

204

28.8

0$4

0,57

5,30

5ro

ugh

7Ra

ce T

rack

Rd

(Ph.

IV)

Doug

las R

dHi

llsbo

roug

h Av

e20

09Bi

d2

to 6

Urba

n0.

564

2.24

$4,3

97,4

12ot

a1

Frui

tvill

e Rd

(Ph.

I)Ta

tum

Rd

Debr

ecen

Rd

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.72

21.

44$4

,355

,796

ota

1Fr

uitv

ille

Rd (P

h. II

)Co

burn

Rd

Tatu

m R

d20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

262

2.52

$8,5

57,9

04e

1Co

loni

al B

lvd

(CR

884)

I-75

SR 8

220

09Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n2.

702

5.40

$14,

576,

393

er1

Oil

Wel

l Rd

(Seg

men

t 2)

Imm

okal

ee R

dEv

ergl

ades

Blv

d20

09Bi

d2

to 4

/6Ur

ban

5.05

2/4

10.9

2$1

6,75

9,58

6er

1O

il W

ell R

d (S

egm

ent 4

)O

il W

ell G

rade

Rd

W. o

f Cam

p Ke

ais R

d20

09Bi

d2

to 6

Urba

n4.

724

18.8

8$1

7,91

9,24

4ge

5Al

afay

a Tr

Aval

on P

ark

Blvd

Mar

k Tw

ain

Blvd

2010

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

3.83

27.

66$1

8,91

8,59

9ro

ugh

7Bo

yett

e Rd

(Ph.

III)

McM

ulle

n Rd

Bell

Shoa

ls R

d20

10Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

602

5.20

$23,

184,

354

ard

4Ba

iley

RdN

W 6

4th

Ave

/ SW

81s

t Ave

SR 7

(US

441)

2010

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.00

24.

00$6

,330

,297

e1

Six

Mile

Cyp

ress

Pkw

yDa

niel

s Pkw

yS.

of W

inkl

er R

d Ex

t.20

10Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n3.

092

6.18

$6,7

11,2

42ot

te1

Pipe

r Rd

Henr

y St

Jone

s Loo

p Rd

2010

Bid

2 to

4Su

burb

an2.

102

4.20

$8,6

27,8

03ot

a1

Nor

th C

attle

men

Rd

Rich

ards

on R

dDe

soto

Rd

2011

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.55

25.

10$1

2,15

3,58

4e

1Da

niel

s Pkw

yCh

ambe

rlin

Pkw

yGa

tew

ay B

lvd

2011

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

2.05

24.

10$2

,906

,553

ge5

Rous

e Rd

SR 5

0Co

rpor

ate

Blvd

2011

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.60

25.

20$2

9,38

0,24

9ge

5CR

535

Seg

. AM

agno

lia P

ark

CtSR

429

2011

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.37

22.

74$8

,390

,570

ola

5Go

odm

an R

dTr

i-Cou

nty

Sand

Min

e Rd

2011

Bid

0 to

2Ur

ban

3.53

27.

06$7

,060

,000

las

1Br

yan

Dairy

Rd

Star

key

Rd (C

R 1)

72nd

St

2011

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.47

22.

94$1

0,32

7,38

3ea

ch4

SR 8

06 (A

tlant

ic A

ve)

W. o

f Lyo

ns R

dSt

arke

y Rd

2011

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.80

21.

60$5

,307

,643

each

4Se

min

ole

Prat

t Whi

tney

Rd

SR 8

0N

. of S

ycam

ore

Dr20

11Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n4.

302

8.60

$9,7

33,6

69ot

te1

Burn

t Sto

re R

d (P

h. I)

US 4

1N

otre

Dam

e Bl

vd20

11Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

402

4.80

$13,

512,

394

each

4Se

min

ole

Prat

t Whi

tney

Rd

M C

anal

S. o

f Ora

nge

Blvd

2012

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.30

22.

60$3

,646

,523

k1

Kath

leen

Rd

(CR3

5A) (

Ph. I

I)Ga

llow

ay R

dDu

ff R

d20

12Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n3.

002

6.00

$16,

784,

760

k1

Bart

ow N

orth

ern

Conn

ecto

r (Ph

. I)

US 9

8 US

17/

9220

12Bi

d0

to 4

Urba

n2.

002

4.00

$11,

110,

205

sia

5Ty

mbe

r Cre

ek R

dSR

40

Peru

vian

Ln20

12Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n0.

752

1.50

$5,2

76,0

57er

1Co

llier

Blv

d (C

R 95

1)Go

lden

Gat

e Bl

vdGr

een

Blvd

2013

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

2.74

25.

48$2

1,39

2,03

9al

242.

90$5

28,7

58,9

21

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

–St

ate

Road

s Co

unty

Dist

rict

Desc

riptio

nFr

omTo

Year

Stat

usFe

atur

eDe

sign

Leng

thLa

nes

Adde

dLa

ne M

iles

Adde

dCo

nstr

uctio

n Co

stCo

nstr

uctio

n pe

r Lan

e M

Wal

ton

3SR

83

(US

331)

SR 3

0 (U

S 98

)S.

end

of C

hoct

aw B

ridge

2008

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.08

24.

16$1

1,64

9,36

3$2

,80

Hills

boro

ugh

7US

301

(SR

43)

S. o

f Bal

m R

dN

. of G

ibso

nton

Rd

2008

Bid

2 to

6Ur

ban

6.03

424

.12

$55,

702,

777

$2,3

0In

dian

Riv

er4

SR 5

(US

1)S.

of O

slo

RdS.

of I

ndia

n Ri

ver B

end

2008

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.70

23.

40$1

4,95

3,56

2$4

,39

Indi

an R

iver

4SR

60

(Osc

eola

Blv

d)W

. of 8

2nd

Ave

66th

Ave

/CR

505

2008

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

2.15

24.

30$1

8,49

6,79

3$4

,30

Ora

nge

5SR

50

Good

Hom

es R

dPi

ne H

ills R

d20

08Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n3.

632

7.26

$35,

929,

914

$4,9

4Le

on3

SR 1

0 (M

ahan

Driv

e)De

mps

ey M

ayo

RdW

alde

n Rd

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

3.10

26.

20$1

8,08

3,51

0$2

,91

Indi

an R

iver

4SR

60

(Osc

eola

Blv

d)W

. of I

-95

W. o

f 82n

d Av

e/CR

609

2009

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

3.07

26.

14$7

,366

,557

$1,1

9Sa

raso

ta1

US 3

01W

ood

StM

yrtle

Ave

2009

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

2.60

25.

20$1

8,37

2,05

0$3

,53

Sara

sota

1US

301

Myr

tle A

veDe

soto

Rd

2009

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.00

22.

00$8

,293

,271

$4,1

4Pa

sco

7US

41

(SR

45)

Tow

er R

dRi

dge

Rd20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

842

5.68

$12,

685,

027

$2,2

3Le

e1

SR 7

39US

41

(S. o

f Alic

o)Si

x M

ile C

ypre

ss P

kwy

2009

Bid

0 to

6Ur

ban

2.77

616

.62

$20,

663,

929

$1,2

4M

anat

ee1

US 3

01Er

ie R

dCR

675

2009

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

4.10

28.

20$2

1,04

0,00

0$2

,56

Mar

ion

5SR

35

(US

301)

Sum

ter C

o. Li

ne52

9' S

. of C

R 42

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.40

22.

80$3

,596

,000

$1,2

8M

iam

i-Dad

e6

Perim

eter

Rd

NW

72

Aven

ueN

W 5

7 Av

enue

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.50

23.

00$6

,383

,286

$2,1

2Po

lk1

US 2

7N

. of C

R 54

6S.

of S

R 54

420

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

562

3.12

$4,1

00,0

69$1

,31

Sant

a Ro

sa3

SR 2

81 (A

valo

n Bl

vd)

N. o

f CSX

R/R

Brid

geS.

of C

omm

erce

Rd

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.98

21.

96$5

,621

,006

$2,8

6Sa

nta

Rosa

3SR

281

(Ava

lon

Blvd

)Gu

lf Rd

SR 1

0 (U

S 90

)20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

782

3.56

$9,1

50,5

83$2

,57

St. L

ucie

4SR

70

MP

5.86

0M

P 10

.216

2009

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

4.36

28.

72$1

2,42

6,02

0$1

,42

Sum

ter

5SR

35

(US

301)

N. o

f CR

204

Mar

ion

Coun

ty Li

ne20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

512

3.02

$3,8

56,6

88$1

,27

Was

hing

ton

3SR

79

N. E

nviro

nmen

tal R

dSt

rickl

and

Rd20

09Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

722

3.44

$8,8

77,3

23$2

,58

Lake

5SR

50

E. o

f Gra

nd H

wy

W. o

f Han

cock

Rd

2010

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.30

22.

60$4

,689

,633

$1,8

0Po

lk1

SR 5

59 E

xten

sion

SR 6

55 (R

ecke

r Hw

y)De

rby

Ave

2010

Bid

0 to

2Ur

ban

0.69

21.

38$2

,751

,592

$1,9

9Sa

nta

Rosa

3SR

281

(Ava

lon

Blvd

)SR

8 (I

-10)

S. o

f Moo

r's Lo

dge

2010

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.85

21.

70$5

,378

,226

$3,1

6Sa

nta

Rosa

3SR

281

(Ava

lon

Blvd

)S.

of M

oor's

Lodg

eN

. of C

SX R

/R B

ridge

2010

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

1.48

22.

96$7

,145

,212

$2,4

1Le

e1

US 4

1Co

rksc

rew

Rd

San

Carlo

s Blv

d20

10Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n4.

482

8.96

$12,

822,

677

$1,4

3Po

lk1

US 9

8S.

of M

anor

Dr

N. o

f CR

540A

2010

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

3.32

26.

64$1

1,09

2,90

9$1

,67

St. L

ucie

4SR

70

Oke

echo

bee

Coun

ty Li

neM

P 5.

871

2010

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

5.87

211

.74

$18,

782,

630

$1,5

9Po

lk1

US 9

8 (B

arto

w H

wy)

Broo

ks S

tEd

gew

ood

Dr20

11Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n0.

722

1.44

$4,3

41,9

17$3

,01

Hills

boro

ugh

7CR

39/

Alex

ande

r St

N. o

f I-4

N. o

f Kni

ghts

Grif

fin20

11Bi

d0

to 4

Urba

n3.

194

12.7

6$1

4,78

2,86

2$1

,15

Pine

llas

7SR

688

(Ulm

erto

n Rd

)E.

of 1

19th

St

W. o

f Sem

inol

e By

pass

2011

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.50

23.

00$1

6,90

8,92

9$5

,63

Polk

1

SR 6

0 (V

an F

leet

)W

. of U

S 98

/Bro

adw

ayW

. of U

S 17

(SR

555)

2011

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.86

21.

72$9

,540

,473

$5,5

4La

ke5

SR 5

00 (U

S 44

1)M

artin

Luth

er K

ing

Jr. B

lvd

Lake

Ella

Rd

2011

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

3.25

26.

50$1

6,27

8,88

9$2

,50

Hills

boro

ugh

7SR

574

(MLK

Blv

d)W

. of H

ighv

iew

Rd

E. o

f Par

sons

Ave

2011

Bid

3 to

5Ur

ban

0.91

21.

82$7

,147

,510

$3,9

2Co

llier

1SR

84

(Dav

is B

lvd)

E. o

f San

ta B

arba

ra B

lvd

W. o

f Rad

io R

d20

12Bi

d2

to 6

Urba

n1.

774

7.08

$10,

956,

198

$1,5

4Vo

lusi

a5

SR 4

15Se

min

ole

Co. L

ine

Reed

Elli

s Rd

2012

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

2.26

24.

53$1

8,71

8,63

7$4

,13

Volu

sia

5SR

415

Reed

Elli

s Rd

0.3

mile

s N. o

f Aco

rn La

ke20

12Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n5.

072

10.1

3$1

8,38

8,84

5$1

,81

Pine

llas

7US

19

(SR

55)

N. o

f CR

576/

Suns

et P

ntS.

of C

ount

rysi

de B

lvd

2012

Bid

6 to

10

Urba

n1.

764

7.04

$17,

196,

050

$2,4

4M

iam

i-Dad

e6

SR 8

23/N

W 5

7th

Ave

W. 2

3rd

StW

. 46t

h St

2012

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

1.48

22.

96$1

4,08

1,16

1$4

,75

Hern

ando

7SR

50

(Cor

tez B

lvd)

US 1

9 (S

R 55

)W

. of C

R 58

7/M

arin

er B

lvd

2012

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

6.02

212

.04

$39,

444,

222

$3,2

7O

rang

e5

SR 5

0E.

of W

est O

aks M

all

W. o

f Goo

d Ho

mes

Rd

2012

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

0.45

20.

90$8

,694

,472

$9,6

6Cl

ay

2SR

23

Oak

leaf

Pla

ntat

ion

Pkw

yO

ld Je

nnin

gs20

12Bi

d0

to 2

Urba

n3.

142

6.28

$13,

231,

111

$2,1

0He

ndry

1SR

80

Birc

hwoo

d Pk

wy

Dalto

n La

ne20

12Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n5.

002

10.0

0$1

2,85

5,09

2$1

,28

Hend

ry1

SR 8

0CR

833

US 2

720

12Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n2.

902

5.80

$8,1

17,0

39$1

,39

Lee

1SR

739

Win

kler

Ave

Hans

on S

t20

12Bi

d0

to 6

Urba

n1.

346

8.04

$14,

025,

932

$1,7

4Se

min

ole

5SR

434

I-4Ra

ngel

ine

Rd20

12Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n1.

802

3.60

$10,

111,

333

$2,8

0Pa

lm B

each

4SR

710

/Bee

line

Hwy

W. o

f Con

gres

s Ave

W. o

f Aus

tral

ian

Ave

2012

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.84

21.

68$1

2,18

9,53

3$7

,25

Polk

1US

27

N. o

f Ritc

hie

RdS.

of B

arry

Rd

2012

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

3.20

26.

40$1

4,24

2,91

8$2

,22

Polk

1US

98

(SR

35/S

R 70

0)N

. of C

R 54

0ASR

540

2012

Bid

4 to

6Ur

ban

3.45

26.

90$1

8,00

4,05

1$2

,60

Brev

ard

5SR

5 (U

S 1)

N. o

f Pin

e St

N. o

f Cid

co R

d20

12Bi

d4

to 6

Urba

n3.

842

7.68

$29,

360,

536

$3,8

2Br

evar

d5

SR 5

07 (B

abco

ck S

t)M

elbo

urne

Ave

Fee

Ave

2013

Bid

2 to

4Ur

ban

0.40

20.

80$5

,167

,891

$6,4

5Hi

llsbo

roug

h7

SR 4

1 (U

S 30

1)S.

of T

ampa

Byp

ass C

anal

N. o

f Fow

ler A

ve20

13Bi

d2

to 4

Subu

rban

1.81

23.

61$1

5,75

8,96

5$4

,36

Lee

1US

41

Busi

ness

Litt

leto

n Rd

SR 7

3920

13Bi

d2

to 4

Urba

n1.

232

2.46

$8,4

88,3

93$3

,45

Tota

l29

4.05

$717

,943

,565

$2,4

4

T

otal

(Adj

uste

d In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Co

st p

er La

ne M

ile)

83%

$2,0

0

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

C-14

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e C-

16

Cons

truc

tion

Engi

neer

ing/

Insp

ectio

n Fa

ctor

– C

ount

y &

Sta

te R

oads

So

urce

: Rec

ent i

mpa

ct fe

e st

udie

s con

stru

cted

thro

ugho

ut F

lorid

a

CEI

Cons

tr.

CEI R

atio

CEI

Cons

tr.

CEI R

atio

200

Colli

er$2

94,0

54$2

,558

,546

11%

$354

,442

$3,3

85,9

7810

%20

06Ci

trus

$180

,887

$2,5

84,0

997%

$474

,464

$2,8

60,2

2717

%20

07Pa

sco

$215

,534

$3,0

79,0

517%

$442

,849

$3,0

50,7

9915

%20

07La

ke$1

16,4

41$2

,911

,021

4%$3

18,4

12$3

,184

,125

10%

2007

Flag

ler

$174

,000

$1,7

40,0

0010

%-

-n/

a20

07Vo

lusi

a$2

38,6

60$2

,651

,778

9%$3

09,5

26$3

,095

,258

10%

2008

Leon

$372

,400

$2,6

60,0

0014

%$2

70,6

40$3

,383

,000

8%20

08Su

mte

r$2

23,7

00$2

,237

,000

10%

$238

,000

$2,3

80,0

0010

%20

09Co

llier

$186

,000

$3,1

00,0

006%

$320

,000

$3,2

00,0

0010

%20

09Po

lk$1

11,3

00$1

,590

,000

7%$2

17,0

00$2

,170

,000

10%

2009

Hills

boro

ugh/

Tam

pa$3

08,0

00$2

,800

,000

11%

$315

,000

$3,5

00,0

009%

2010

Colli

er$1

19,5

60$1

,708

,000

7%$2

41,8

00$2

,418

,000

10%

2011

Sara

sota

/Nor

th P

ort

$216

,000

$2,4

00,0

009%

$180

,000

$2,0

00,0

009%

2012

Osc

eola

$265

,140

$2,6

51,4

0010

%$3

13,2

58$2

,847

,800

11%

2012

City

of O

rland

o-

$2,4

00,0

00n/

a-

$2,9

00,0

00n/

a$2

15,8

34$2

,466

,931

9%$3

07,3

38$2

,882

,707

11%

(a)

(b)

Aver

age

Year

Coun

tyCo

unty

Roa

dway

sSt

ate

Road

way

s



Roadway Capacity As shown in Table C-17, the average capacity per lane mile was based on the projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Indian River County.

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

2035

Lon

g Ra

nge

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

dict

ion

y/St

ate)

Desc

riptio

nFr

omTo

Impr

ovem

ent

Leng

thLa

nes

Adde

d

Lane

M

iles

Adde

d

Initi

al

Capa

city

Futu

re

Capa

city

Adde

d Ca

paci

ty

Ve o

asib

le P

lan

ate

US 1

High

land

Dr

St. L

ucie

Co.

Line

4 to

60.

622

1.20

39,8

0059

,900

20,1

00at

eUS

153

rd S

tCR

510

4 to

64.

302

8.60

39,8

0059

,900

20,1

00un

tyCR

510

CR 5

1266

th A

ve2

to 4

4.20

28.

4014

,580

31,9

5017

,370

unty

CR 5

1066

th A

veUS

12

to 4

1.60

23.

2014

,580

31,9

5017

,370

unty

CR 5

10US

1In

terc

oast

al W

ater

way

2 to

40.

502

1.00

14,5

8031

,950

17,3

70un

tyCR

512

I-95

Will

ow S

t2

to 4

3.10

26.

2012

,780

27,3

6014

,580

unty

Osl

o Rd

I-95

58th

Ave

2 to

43.

602

7.20

14,5

8031

,950

17,3

70un

ty43

rd A

veSt

. Luc

ie C

o. Li

neO

slo

Rd2

to 4

2.00

24.

0015

,930

35,8

2019

,890

unty

43rd

Ave

Osl

o Rd

16th

St

2 to

43.

002

6.00

20,1

4935

,820

15,6

71un

ty66

th A

ve41

st S

t69

th S

t2

to 4

3.50

27.

0014

,580

31,9

5017

,370

unty

66th

Ave

69th

St

CR 5

102

to 4

2.00

24.

0014

,580

31,9

5017

,370

unty

66th

Ave

CR 5

10Ba

rber

St

2 to

40.

852

1.70

14,5

8031

,950

17,3

70un

ty82

nd A

ve26

th S

t69

th S

t0

to 2

5.00

210

.00

014

,580

14,5

80un

ty82

nd A

ve69

th S

tCR

510

0 to

22.

002

4.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty82

nd A

veCR

510

Laco

nia

St0

to 2

0.60

21.

200

15,9

3015

,930

unty

Rose

land

Rd

CR 5

12US

12

to 4

4.70

29.

4015

,930

35,8

2019

,890

unty

Indi

an R

iver

Blv

d20

th S

tM

erril

Bar

ber B

ridge

4 to

61.

002

2.00

35,8

2053

,910

18,0

90un

tyIn

dian

Riv

er B

lvd

Mer

ril B

arbe

r Brid

ge45

th S

t4

to 6

2.00

24.

0035

,820

53,9

1018

,090

unty

25th

St S

W27

th A

ve58

th A

ve2

to 4

1.80

23.

6015

,930

35,8

2019

,890

unty

26th

St

43rd

Ave

58th

Ave

2 to

41.

002

2.00

15,9

3035

,820

19,8

90un

ty27

th A

veO

slo

RdSt

. Luc

ie C

o. Li

ne2

to 4

2.00

24.

0015

,930

35,8

2019

,890

unty

4th

St66

th A

ve98

th A

ve0

to 2

4.10

28.

200

14,5

8014

,580

unty

12th

St

58th

Ave

66th

Ave

0 to

21.

002

2.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty53

rd S

t58

th A

ve66

th A

ve0

to 2

1.00

22.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

53rd

St

66th

Ave

82nd

Ave

0 to

22.

002

4.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty69

th S

t66

th A

veFe

llsm

ere

N-S

Rd

10

to 2

7.00

214

.00

014

,580

14,5

80un

ty58

th A

veO

slo

RdSt

. Luc

ie C

o. Li

ne0

to 4

2.10

48.

400

35,8

2035

,820

unty

74th

Ave

8th

StO

slo

Rd0

to 2

2.00

24.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

98th

Ave

8th

St4t

h St

0 to

20.

502

1.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty5t

h St

SW

Old

Dix

ie H

wy

20th

Ave

0 to

21.

402

2.80

015

,930

15,9

30ed

Nee

dsat

eUS

1CR

510

Shum

an D

r4

to 6

3.00

26.

0039

,800

59,9

0020

,100

ate

US 1

Shum

an D

rCR

512

4 to

61.

602

3.20

39,8

0059

,900

20,1

00un

tyCR

510

SR A

1AIn

terc

oast

al W

ater

way

2 to

40.

802

1.60

14,5

8031

,950

17,3

70un

tyCR

512

I-95

CR 5

104

to 6

2.60

25.

2031

,950

48,1

5016

,200

unty

26th

St

58th

Ave

66th

Ave

2 to

41.

002

2.00

15,9

3035

,820

19,8

90

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

2035

Lon

g Ra

nge

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y 20

35 L

ong

Rang

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Plan

er

refe

renc

es (i

.e.,

“a”)

are

use

d to

ass

ist w

ith fo

otno

tes a

nd so

urci

ng

dict

ion

y/St

ate)

Desc

riptio

nFr

omTo

Impr

ovem

ent

Leng

thLa

nes

Adde

d

Lane

M

iles

Adde

d

Initi

al

Capa

city

Futu

re

Capa

city

Adde

d Ca

paci

ty

Ve o

ed N

eeds

unty

Fells

mer

e N

-S R

d 1

CR 5

1269

th S

t0

to 2

3.50

27.

000

12,7

8012

,780

unty

Fells

mer

e N

-S R

d 2

CR 5

1269

th S

t0

to 2

3.50

27.

000

12,7

8012

,780

unty

Flem

ing

StAi

rpor

t Per

imet

er R

dCR

512

0 to

21.

302

2.60

014

,580

14,5

80un

tyAi

rpor

t Per

imet

er R

dUS

1Ro

sela

nd R

d0

to 2

2.40

24.

800

14,5

8014

,580

unty

Fells

mer

e E-

W R

dCR

512

Fells

mer

e N

-S R

d 2

0 to

23.

702

7.40

012

,780

12,7

80un

ty33

rd S

t66

th A

ve74

th A

ve0

to 2

1.00

22.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

33rd

St

74th

Ave

82nd

Ave

0 to

21.

002

2.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty74

th A

ve26

th S

t33

rd S

t0

to 2

0.50

21.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

12th

St

66th

Ave

74th

Ave

0 to

21.

002

2.00

015

,930

15,9

30un

ty1s

t St S

W58

th A

ve82

nd A

ve0

to 2

3.00

26.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

5th

St S

W58

th A

ve82

nd A

ve0

to 2

3.00

26.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

13th

St S

W20

th A

ve58

th A

ve0

to 2

2.50

25.

000

15,9

3015

,930

unty

17th

St S

W20

th A

ve58

th A

ve0

to 2

2.50

25.

000

15,9

3015

,930

ll Ro

ads)

:22

0.90

Road

s:20

1.90

91%

(a)

oads

:19

.00

9%(b

)ec

tion

Desi

gn:

74.2

034

%(c

)ec

tion

Desi

gn:

146.

7066

%(d

)

Appendix D Transportation Impact Fee

Credit Component Calculations


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-1 Impact Fee Update Study

Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Currently, in addition to the capital support that ultimately results from State fuel tax revenues, Indian River County also receives financial benefit from several other funding sources. Of these, County fuel taxes that are collected in Indian River County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2¢/gallon)

Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution.

The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes.

The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county.

Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.

2. County Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon) Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County’s reliance on ad valorem

taxes. Proceeds are to be used for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction

of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights-of-way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.

Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.

3. 1st Local Option Tax (up to 6¢/gallon) Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on

diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate.



Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.

Each year, the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2013-14 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Indian River County for the upcoming fiscal year. In the table, the fuel tax revenue data are used to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel) that should be used to estimate the “equivalent pennies” of other revenue sources. Table D-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of gas tax revenues. The weighted average figure of approximately $0.74 million estimates the annual revenue that one penny of gas tax generates in Indian County.

Table D-1

Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Indian River County & Municipalities, FY 2013-14(1)

(1) Source: Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research,

http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-government/reports/ (2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total

distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100).

Gas Tax Credit A revenue credit for the annual gas tax equivalent expenditures on roadway capacity expansion projects in Indian River County is presented below. The two components of the credit are as follows:

TaxAmount of Levy

per GallonTotal

DistributionDistribution Per

PennyConstitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $1,592,578 $796,289County Fuel Tax $0.01 $701,978 $701,9781st Local Option (1-6 cents) $0.06 $4,364,623 $727,437Total $0.09 $6,659,179

$739,909Weighted Average(2)



County gas tax equivalent pennies State gas tax expenditures

County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies A review of the County’s historical roadway financing program (FY 2008-2013) and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2014-2017 indicates that a combination of sales tax revenues, fuel tax revenues, impact fees, developer contributions, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. With the County’s local option sales tax set to expire in 2019 and the re-adoption and dedication to transportation unknown, a sales tax credit was given only for programmed expenditures in the CIP. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or a different revenue source is allocated to transportation capacity to replace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures may need to be revised. As shown in Table D-2, Indian River County receives a credit of 5.6 pennies for the portion of non-impact fee revenues (excluding sales tax) dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements.

Table D-2 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (Excluding Sales Tax)

(1) Source: Table D-5 (2) Source: Table D-5 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 As shown in Table D-3, Indian River County receives a credit of 11.1 pennies for the portion of non-impact fee revenues (sales tax ONLY) dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements. In the impact fee calculation, this credit will only be applied for five years, as the sales tax will not be considered a recurring revenue source for transportation capacity improvements.

SourceCost of

ProjectsNumber of

Years

Revenue from 1

Penny(3)

Equivalent Pennies(4)

Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2014-2017)(1) $18,612,373 4 $739,909 $0.063Historical County Expenditures (FY 2008-2013)(2) $22,996,416 6 $739,909 $0.052Total $41,608,789 10 $739,909 $0.056



Table D-3 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (Sales Tax ONLY)

(1) Source: Table D-6 (2) Source: Table D-6 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 10-year period (from FY 2009 to FY 2018) were reviewed. For calculation purposes, the 10-year period was broken into two increments; historical (FY 2009-2013) and future (FY 2014-2018). Information on historical projects’ funding and the future year estimates was obtained from the FDOT Work Programs and the County’s FY 2014-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The use of a 10-year period, for purposes of developing a State credit for roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable credit, as it accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. The total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the five-year “historical” period and projected in the five-year Transportation Improvement Program are as follows:

FY 2009-2013 work plan equates to 20.5 pennies FY 2014-2018 work plan equates to 10.5 pennies

The combined weighted average over the 10-year period of state expenditure for capacity-adding roadway projects results in a total of 15.5 equivalent pennies, which is a slightly higher state credit than what is observed in most other counties. Table D-4 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table D-7.

SourceCost of

ProjectsNumber of

Years

Revenue from 1

Penny(3)


Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2014-2017)(1) $59,458,414 4 $739,909 $0.201Historical County Expenditures (FY 2008-2013)(2) $22,319,296 6 $739,909 $0.050Total $81,777,710 10 $739,909 $0.111



Table D-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion

(1) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (2) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 4) divided by 100

SourceCost of

ProjectsNumber of

Years

Revenue from 1

Penny(3)


Projected TIP (FY 2014-2018)(1) $38,959,997 5 $739,909 $0.105Historical Work Program (FY 2009-2013)(2) $75,954,895 5 $739,909 $0.205Total $114,914,892 10 $739,909 $0.155

Hist

oric

al a

nd F

utur

e Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n Ex

pend

iture

s for

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty,

FY

2007

/08

to 2

016/

17 (e

xclu

ding

sale

s tax

exp

endi

ture

s)

nnin

g De

part

men

t

On/

From

/To

FY 2

007/

08FY

200

8/09

FY 2

009/

10FT

201

0/11

FY 2

011/

12FY

201

2/13

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

1Po

wer

line

Rd fr

om B

arbe

r St t

o CR

510

$134

,482

$478

,904

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

37th

St f

rom

58t

h Av

e to

66t

h Av

e$5

58,2

18-$

4,34

1$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0O

slo

Rd fr

om 2

7th

Ave

to T

imbe

r Rid

ge$1

,202

,748

$35,

586

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

Colle

ge La

ne E

xten

sion

- IR

SC$0

$400

,000

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

CR 5

12 fr

om S

ebas

tian

Rive

r Mid

dle

to I-

95$2

,745

,686

$107

,391

$20,

067

$0$0

$0$0

$016

th S

t fro

m 6

6th

Ave

to 8

2nd

Ave

$512

,500

$266

,380

$878

,005

$110

,351

$0$0

$0$0

20th

Ave

SW

from

17t

h St

to 2

5th

St$1

9,66

2$1

35$8

37$5

42,7

13$1

53,0

32$0

$0$0

66th

Ave

from

12t

h St

to S

R 60

$845

,251

$927

,608

$45,

119

$0$8

,289

$0$0

$053

rd S

t fro

m K

ings

Hw

y to

US

1$0

$0$0

$270

,231

$0$0

$0$0

Osl

o Rd

from

27t

h St

to 4

3rd

Ave

$0$0

$25,

748

$3,4

00$2

,731

$0$0

$066

th A

ve fr

om 4

th A

ve to

12t

h St

$100

,000

$0$0

$2,0

52$0

$500

,000

$0$0

43rd

Ave

from

12t

h St

to 1

8th

St$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$319

,745

$500

,43

rd A

ve fr

om 1

8th

St to

26t

h St

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$2,8

05,3

30$3

,102

,938

$653

,66

th A

ve fr

om S

R 60

to 4

9th

St$0

$0$1

,810

,361

$0$0

$6,2

70,3

79$0

$0CR

510

from

61s

t Dr t

o In

dian

Riv

er$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

30,7

80$0

CR 5

10 fr

om 7

0th

Ave

to 6

1st D

r$0

$0$0

$0$0

$403

,691

$700

,000

$600

,000

CR 5

10 fr

om C

R 51

2 to

70t

h Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$4

00,0

00$5

00,0

00$1

,900

,M

isce

llane

ous

$0$0

$0$0

$0$5

00,0

00$5

00,0

00$5

00,0

00$5

00,

Osl

o Rd

from

43r

d Av

e to

58t

h Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$2,8

69,2

00$0

$0Co

unty

wid

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$100

,000

$100

,000

$100

,000

$100

,Co

unty

wid

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,$6

,118

,547

$2,2

11,6

63$2

,780

,137

$928

,747

$164

,052

$10,

793,

270

$4,7

86,1

10$5

,272

,683

$3,8

03,

riod

Tota

ls-

--

-20

08-2

013:

$22,

996,

416

--

Hist

oric

al a

nd F

utur

e Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n Ex

pend

iture

s for

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty,

FY

2007

/08

to 2

016/

17 (s

ales

tax

expe

nditu

res O

NLY

)

anni

ng D

epar

tmen

t

On/

From

/To

FY 2

007/

08FY

200

8/09

FY 2

009/

10FT

201

0/11

FY 2

011/

12FY

201

2/13

FY 2

013/

14FY

201

4/15

FY 2

015/

1At

lant

ic B

lvd,

W o

f 58t

h Av

e$0

$140

,889

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

Osl

o Rd

from

27t

h Av

e to

Tim

ber R

idge

$21,

303

$630

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

16th

St f

rom

66t

h Av

e to

82n

d Av

e$1

45,4

47$7

7,20

9$3

27,1

97$3

09,9

44$0

$0$0

$017

th Ln

from

SW

20t

h Av

e to

27t

h Av

e$2

,295

$49,

462

$1,9

86$0

$0$0

$0$0

53rd

St f

rom

Kin

gs H

wy

to U

S 1

$0$3

6,38

7$0

$1,5

23,6

28$0

$0$0

$0na

l1s

t St S

W @

27t

h Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$1,3

25,0

00$0

$0na

l1s

t St S

W @

43r

d Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$1,3

25,0

00$0

$020

th A

ve @

16t

h St

$0$0

$0$0

$0$7

5,00

0$1

,000

,000

$037

th S

t @ In

dian

Riv

er B

lvd

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

05,0

00$0

$043

rd A

ve fr

om 1

8th

St to

26t

h St

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$2

,179

,834

$4,4

53,

45 S

t/58

th A

ve$0

$0$0

$0$0

$100

,000

$100

,000

$100

,000

45 S

t @ U

S 1

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$75,

000

$0$6

00,

58th

Ave

@ 3

3rd

St$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$25,

000

58th

Ave

@ 3

7th

St$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$25,

000

58th

Ave

@ 6

9th

St$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$25,

000

66th

Ave

from

4th

Ave

to 1

2th

St$0

$0$0

$0$0

$2,7

81,3

81$0

$066

th A

ve fr

om 1

2th

St to

SR

60$0

$0$5

3,07

9$0

$810

,238

$2,0

27,0

84$0

$066

th A

ve fr

om 7

7th

St to

Seb

astia

n Ci

ty Li

mits

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$7

,550

,000

$500

,66

th A

ve fr

om S

R 60

to 4

9th

St$1

,517

,365

$1,4

79,7

65$8

,435

$1,0

73,3

95$3

72,1

77$4

,600

,000

$9,1

00,0

00$0

69th

St @

US

1$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$25,

000

4th

St @

82n

d Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$755

,000

$0$0

CR 5

10 fr

om 6

1st D

r to

Indi

an R

iver

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$4

00,0

00$7

,300

,CR

510

from

70t

h Av

e to

61s

t Dr

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$4,7

00,

Mis

cella

neou

s$0

$0$0

$0$0

$600

,000

$600

,000

$600

,000

$600

,M

isce

llane

ous

$0$0

$0$0

$0$5

00,0

00$5

00,0

00$5

00,0

00$5

00,

Osl

o Rd

@ S

R 60

$0$0

$0$0

$0$2

5,00

0$0

$0Co

unty

wid

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,$1

,686

,410

$1,7

84,3

42$3

90,6

97$2

,906

,967

$1,1

82,4

15$1

4,36

8,46

5$1

1,52

5,00

0$1

1,57

9,83

4$1

8,80

3,rio

d To

tals

--

--

2008

-201

3:$2

2,31

9,29

6-

-

FY 2

009

– FY

201

8 In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y FD

OT

Wor

k Pr

ogra

m &

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am –

Cap

acity

-Exp

ansi

on P

roje

cts

for I

ndia

n Ri

ver C

ount

y an

d th

e FY

201

4-20

18 T

rans

port

atio

n Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

tion

On/

From

/To

FY 2

009

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

FY 2

015

FY 2

016

FY

ctio

n82

nd A

ve fr

om 2

6th

St to

CR

510

$142

,341

$132

,786

$31,

548

$45,

415

$47,

443

$3,6

50,0

22$8

,045

,507

$0st

ruct

SR 5

/US

1 fr

om S

t. Lu

cie

Co. L

ine

to S

of H

ighl

and

Dr$3

4,96

2$1

,166

$164

,904

$14,

451,

369

$375

,523

$0$0

$0st

ruct

SR 5

/US

1 fr

om S

of H

ighl

and

Dr to

S o

f Osl

o Rd

$1,9

86$3

2,95

7$2

47,2

78$1

2,41

9,01

2$2

85,6

55$0

$0$0

stru

ctSR

5/U

S 1

from

S o

f Osl

o Rd

to S

of I

ndia

n Ri

ver B

lvd

$75,

921

$391

,440

$165

,180

$72

$3,3

22$0

$0$0

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Enha

nce

Traf

fic S

igna

l Sys

tem

$200

,000

$35,

750

$111

,181

$0$0

$0$0

$0In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Co

unty

wid

e Tr

affic

Sig

nal E

quip

men

t Upg

rade

s$0

$0$0

$656

,578

$0$0

$0$0

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

Coun

tyw

ide

Traf

fic S

igna

l Equ

ipm

ent U

pgra

des

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$706

,543

$0st

ruct

SR 6

0/O

sceo

la B

lvd

from

W o

f 82n

d Av

e/CR

609

to 6

6th

Ave/

CR 6

15$1

,143

,945

$15,

786,

537

$1,6

35,8

91$1

74,4

90$0

$0$0

$0st

ruct

SR 6

0/O

sceo

la B

lvd

from

W o

f I-9

5 to

W o

f 82n

d Av

e/CR

609

$791

,639

$4,0

50$3

85,4

20$5

,012

,856

$5,0

00,0

00$0

$0$0

stru

ct16

/17t

h St

from

500

' W o

f 14t

h Av

e to

W o

f SR

5/US

1$4

,056

,733

$168

,834

$93,

759

$249

$0$0

$0$0

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

JPA

Sign

al M

aint

enan

ce &

Ops

on

SHS

$103

,457

$102

,679

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

I-95/

SR 9

@ O

slo

Rd In

terc

hang

e$3

69$0

$59,

529

$1,1

54,8

40$7

,350

$0$3

,400

,000

$0vi

ces/

Syst

emIn

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Si

gnal

Sys

tem

Gro

up 3

$3,0

68,9

99$7

9,25

4$7

42$0

$0$0

$0$0

17th

St S

. of I

ndia

n Ri

ver B

lvd

in V

ero

Beac

h$0

$0$9

9,83

3$1

,150

$0$0

$0$0

Schu

man

n Dr

@ B

arbe

r St

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

,690

,000

stru

ct66

th A

ve fr

om S

R 60

to 4

1st S

t$0

$0$0

$5,7

09,6

02$5

60,7

77$0

$0$0

Indi

an R

iver

City

JPA

Sign

al M

aint

enan

ce &

Ops

on

SHS

$0$0

$104

,802

$107

,576

$110

,744

$114

,600

$118

,000

$0In

dian

Riv

er C

ity JP

A Si

gnal

Mai

nten

ance

& O

ps o

n SH

S$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$121

,600

$182

nd A

ve fr

om 2

6th

St to

CR

510

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$2

,835

,946

$1,8

stru

ctO

slo

Rd fr

om S

R 9/

I-95

to 5

8th

Ave

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

,610

,000

$0$2

,210

,000

stru

ctSR

5/U

S 1

from

53r

d St

to C

R 51

0$0

$0$0

$0$1

1,00

0$3

,005

,000

$5,0

00$0

$1,9

vem

ent

SR 6

0 @

43r

d Av

e$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

,708

,759

$1,1

20,0

00$1

,1ct

ion

CR 5

12$0

$0$0

$0$3

64,0

00$0

$0$0

$9,6

20,3

52$1

6,73

5,45

3$3

,100

,067

$39,

733,

209

$6,7

65,8

14$8

,379

,622

$13,

983,

809

$7,9

77,5

46$5

,0od

Tot

als

--

-20

09-2

013:

$75,

954,

895

--

-20

14

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

D-9

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e D-

8 Av

erag

e M

otor

Veh

icle

Fue

l Effi

cien

cy –

Exc

ludi

ng In

ters

tate

Tra

vel

So

urce

: See

Tab

le D

-9

21.4

6.3

@ 2

1.4

mpg

@ 6

.3 m

pgO

ther

Art

eria

l Rur

al32

2,03

7,00

0,00

0

46

,267

,000

,000

368,

304,

000,

000

87

%13

%O

ther

Rur

al31

9,46

5,00

0,00

0

32

,818

,000

,000

352,

283,

000,

000

91

%9%

Oth

er U

rban

1,39

7,05

9,00

0,00

0

83,0

69,0

00,0

00

1,

480,

128,

000,

000

94

%6%

Tota

l 2,

038,

561,

000,

000

16

2,15

4,00

0,00

0

2,20

0,71

5,00

0,00

0

93

%7%

Gal

lons

@ 2

1.4

mpg

Gal

lons

@ 6

.3 m

pg2,

200,

715

m

iles (

mill

ions

)O

ther

Art

eria

l Rur

al15

,048

,457

,944

7,34

3,96

8,25

4

22,3

92,4

26,1

98

12

0,99

9

ga

llons

(mill

ions

)O

ther

Rur

al14

,928

,271

,028

5,20

9,20

6,34

9

20,1

37,4

77,3

77

18

.19

m

pgO

ther

Urb

an65

,283

,130

,841

13,1

85,5

55,5

56

78

,468

,686

,397

Tota

l 95

,259

,859

,813

25,7

38,7

30,1

59

12

0,99

8,58

9,97

2

Sour

ce:

U.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Hig

hway

Sta

tistic

s 201

1, S

ectio

n V,

Tab

le V

M-1

Annu

al V

ehic

le D

ista

nce

Trav

eled

in M

iles

and

Rela

ted

Data

- 20

11 b

y Hi

ghw

ay C

ateg

ory

and

Vehi

cle

Type

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/pol

icyi

nfor

mat

ion/

stat

istic

s.cf

m

Fuel

Con

sum

edTo

tal M

ileag

e an

d Fu

el

Trav

elVe

hicl

e M

iles o

f Tra

vel (

VMT)

@Pe

rcen

t VM

T

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

D-10

Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tabl

e D-

9 An

nual

Veh

icle

Dist

ance

Tra

vele

d in

Mile

s and

Rel

ated

Dat

a (2

011)

- By

Hig

hway

Cat

egor

y an

d Ve

hicl

e Ty

pe1/

Publ

ishe

d M

arch

201

3TA

BLE

VM

-1

ALL

LIGH

T VE

HICL

ES(2

)

SIN

GLE-

UNIT

2-A

XLE

6-TI

RE O

R M

ORE

AN

D CO

MBI

NAT

ION

TR

UCKS

Mot

or-V

ehic

le T

rave

l:

(m

illio

ns o

f veh

icle

-mile

s)20

11 I

nter

stat

e Ru

ral

140,

603

1,24

31,

670

42,9

619,

495

47,6

1618

3,56

457

,111

243,

587

2011

Oth

er A

rter

ial R

ural

232,

385

2,81

41,

981

89,6

5116

,945

29,3

2132

2,03

746

,267

373,

099

2011

Oth

er R

ural

226,

037

3,01

62,

052

93,4

2718

,090

14,7

2931

9,46

532

,818

357,

351

2011

All

Rura

l59

9,02

67,

073

5,70

322

6,04

044

,530

91,6

6682

5,06

513

6,19

697

4,03

8

2011

Int

erst

ate

Urba

n34

1,86

52,

134

2,11

282

,652

14,1

2633

,815

424,

517

47,9

4247

6,70

4

2011

Oth

er U

rban

1,10

2,51

99,

293

5,96

729

4,54

144

,859

38,2

101,

397,

059

83,0

691,

495,

389

2011

All

Urba

n

1,44

4,38

411

,427

8,07

937

7,19

358

,985

72,0

261,

821,

576

131,

011

1,97

2,09

4

2011

Tot

al R

ural

and

Urb

an(5

)2,

043,

409

18,5

0013

,783

603,

232

103,

515

163,

692

2,64

6,64

126

7,20

72,

946,

131

2011

Num

ber o

f mot

or v

ehic

les

192,

513,

278

8,33

0,21

066

6,06

441

,328

,144

7,81

9,05

52,

451,

638

233,

841,

422

10,2

70,6

9325

3,10

8,38

9 r

egis

tere

d(2)

2011

Ave

rage

mile

s tr

avel

ed10

,614

2,22

120

,693

14,5

9613

,239

66,7

6811

,318

26,0

1611

,640

per

veh

icle

2011

Per

son-

mile

s of

trav

el(4

)2,

839,

083

19,9

2729

2,19

280

5,88

810

3,51

516

3,69

23,

644,

971

267,

207

4,22

4,29

7 (

mill

ions

)20

11 F

uel c

onsu

med

88,5

36,6

0242

5,41

01,

932,

823

35,3

25,7

9114

,183

,270

28,1

93,3

5512

3,86

2,39

242

,376

,625

168,

597,

250

(th

ousa

nd g

allo

ns)

2011

Ave

rage

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n pe

r46

051

2,90

285

51,

814

11,5

0053

04,

126

666

veh

icle

(gal

lons

)20

11 A

vera

ge m

iles

trav

eled

per

23.1

43.5

7.1

17.1

7.3

5.9

21.4

6.3

17.5

gal

lon

of fu

el c

onsu

med

(6) T

he c

hang

e in

the

num

ber o

f bus

es is

pri

mar

ily

due

to th

e de

clin

e of

repo

rted

pub

lic

oper

ated

sch

ool b

uses

.

(3) S

ingl

e-U

nit -

sin

gle

fram

e tr

ucks

that

hav

e 2-

Axle

s an

d at

leas

t 6 ti

res

or a

gro

ss v

ehic

le w

eigh

t rat

ing

exce

edin

g 10

,000

lbs.

(4) V

ehic

le o

ccup

ancy

is e

stim

ated

by

the

FHW

A fr

om th

e 20

09 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y (N

HTS

); Fo

r sin

gle

unit

truc

k an

d he

avy

truc

ks, 1

mot

or v

ehic

le m

ile

trav

elle

d =

1 pe

rson

-mil

e tr

avel

ed.

(5) V

MT

data

are

bas

ed o

n th

e la

test

HPM

S da

ta a

vail

able

; it m

ay n

ot m

atch

pre

viou

s pu

blis

hed

resu

lts.

SIN

GLE-

UNIT

TR

UCKS

(3)

COM

BIN

ATIO

N

TRUC

KS

SUBT

OTA

LS

ALL

MO

TOR

VEHI

CLES

()

yg

pg

yg

y(

)p

()

g(

MV-

9, a

nd M

V-10

), ot

her d

ata

such

as

the

R.L.

Pol

k ve

hicl

e da

ta, a

nd a

hos

t of m

odel

ing

tech

niqu

es.

FOr 2

011,

cha

nges

in a

cou

ple

of S

tate

s' tr

uck

VMT

subs

tant

iall

y im

pact

ed n

atio

nal t

ruck

VM

T tr

ends

. U

pon

furt

her r

evie

w w

ith

the

Stat

es in

volv

ed, F

HW

A st

ill c

onsi

ders

thes

e ch

ange

s as

mat

eria

l fac

t. H

owev

er, F

HW

A w

ill c

ondu

ct fu

rthe

r ana

lysi

s w

hen

the

2012

dat

a ar

e re

port

ed b

y th

e St

ates

in 2

013.

(2) L

ight

Dut

y Ve

hicl

es S

hort

WB

- pas

seng

er c

ars,

ligh

t tru

cks,

van

s an

d sp

ort u

tili

ty v

ehic

les

wit

h a

whe

elba

se (W

M) e

qual

to o

r les

s th

an 1

21 in

ches

. Li

ght D

uty

Vehi

cles

Lon

g W

B - l

arge

pas

seng

er

cars

, van

s, p

icku

p tr

ucks

, and

spo

rt/u

tili

ty v

ehic

les

wit

h w

heel

base

s (W

B) la

rger

than

121

inch

es.

All L

ight

Dut

y Ve

hicl

es -

pass

enge

r car

s, li

ght t

ruck

s, v

ans

and

spor

t uti

lity

veh

icle

s re

gard

less

of

YEAR

IT

EMLI

GHT

DUTY

VE

HICL

ES

SHO

RT W

B(2)

MO

TOR-

CYCL

ESBU

SES(6

)LI

GHT

DUTY

VE

HICL

ES

LON

G W

B(2)

Appendix E Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule

Calc

ulat

ed T

rans

port

atio

n Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e

Gaso

line

Tax

Unit

Cons

truct

ion

Cost

:$2

,591

,000

Inte

rsta

te/T

oll F

aci

r gal

lon

to c

apita

l:$0

.211

$0.1

11Co

unty

Rev

(No

ST):

$0.0

56Ca

paci

ty p

er la

ne m

ile:

8,25

5Fa

cilit

y lif

e (y

ears

):25

5Co

unty

Rev

(ST)

:$0

.111

Fuel

Effi

cien

cy:

18.1

9m

pgIn

tere

st ra

te:

2.5%

2.5%

Stat

e Re

venu

es:

$0.1

55Ef

fect

ived

ays

per y

ear:

365

Unit

Trip

Rat

eTr

ip R

ate

Sour

ceAs

sess

able

Tr

ip L

engt

hTo

tal T

rip

Leng

thTr

ip L

engt

h So

urce

% N

ew T

rips

% N

ew T

rips S

ourc

eN

et V

MT(1

) To

tal I

mpa

ct

Cost

Annu

al G

as

Tax

Gas T

ax

Cred

itAn

nual

Sa

les T

axSa

les T

ax

Cred

itTo

tal

du du6.

25FL

Stu

dies

(NHT

S,

AHS,

Cen

sus)

6.62

7.12

FL S

tudi

es10

0%N/

A17

.11

$5,3

70$9

4$1

,732

$50

$232

$1,9

du7.

81FL

Stu

dies

(NHT

S,

AHS,

Cen

sus)

6.62

7.12

FL S

tudi

es10

0%N/

A21

.38

$6,7

10$1

18$2

,174

$62

$288

$2,4

du9.

20FL

Stu

dies

(NHT

S,

AHS,

Cen

sus)

6.62

7.12

FL S

tudi

es10

0%N/

A25

.18

$7,9

04$1

39$2

,561

$73

$339

$2,9

du6.

60Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s5.

105.

60FL

Stu

dies

(LUC

220

/230

)10

0%N/

A13

.92

$4,3

69$7

8$1

,437

$41

$190

$1,6

du4.

17FL

Stu

dies

4.60

5.10

FL S

tudi

es10

0%N/

A7.

93$2

,490

$45

$829

$24

$111

$94

room

6.36

Blen

d IT

E 9t

h &

FL

Stud

ies

6.26

6.76

FL S

tudi

es66

%FL

Stu

dies

10.8

7$3

,410

$60

$1,1

05$3

2$1

49$1

,2

room

5.63

ITE

9th

Editi

on4.

344.

84FL

Stu

dies

77%

FL S

tudi

es7.

78$2

,442

$44

$811

$23

$107

$9

bed

2.76

Blen

d IT

E 9t

h &

FL

Stud

ies

2.59

3.09

FL S

tudi

es89

%FL

Stu

dies

2.63

$826

$16

$295

$8$3

7$3

LF)

bed

2.97

Blen

d IT

E 9t

h &

FL

Stud

ies

3.28

3.78

FL S

tudi

es72

%Sa

me

as L

UC 2

53(s

ee A

ppen

dix

B)2.

90$9

10$1

7$3

13$9

$42

$3

or le

ss1,

000

sf23

.83

FL S

tudi

es(C

ollie

r Cou

nty)

5.55

6.05

FL S

tudi

es89

%FL

Stu

dies

48.6

7$1

5,27

7$2

72$5

,011

$143

$664

$5,6

n 10

,000

sf

1,00

0 sf

34.7

2Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s5.

556.

05FL

Stu

dies

89%

FL S

tudi

es70

.92

$22,

258

$396

$7,2

96$2

08$9

66$8

,2

1,00

0 sf

121.

30IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

2.46

2.96

Sam

e as

LUC

912

46%

Sam

e as

LUC

912

56.7

6$1

7,81

5$3

50$6

,449

$184

$855

$7,3

1,00

0 sf

159.

34Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s2.

462.

96FL

Stu

dies

46%

FL S

tudi

es74

.56

$23,

401

$459

$8,4

57$2

42$1

,124

$9,5

1,00

0 sf

11.0

3IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

5.15

5.65

FL S

tudi

es92

%FL

Stu

dies

21.6

1$6

,783

$121

$2,2

29$6

4$2

97$2

,5

1,00

0 sf

8.11

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

385.

88Sa

me

as L

UC 7

70

(see

App

endi

x B)

89%

Sam

e as

LUC

770

(s

ee A

ppen

dix

B)16

.06

$5,0

40$9

0$1

,658

$47

$218

$1,8

1,00

0 sf

3.82

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1092

%Sa

me

as L

UC 7

107.

48$2

,349

$42

$774

$22

$102

$8

1,00

0 sf

3.56

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1092

%Sa

me

as L

UC 7

106.

97$2

,189

$39

$719

$21

$98

$8

1,00

0 sf

2.15

Blen

d IT

E 9t

h &

FL

Stud

ies

3.10

3.60

FL S

ched

ules

92%

Sam

e as

LUC

710

2.54

$796

$15

$276

$8$3

7$3

use

1,00

0 sf

1.68

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1092

%Sa

me

as L

UC 7

103.

29$1

,033

$18

$332

$10

$46

$3

1,00

0 sf

6.97

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1092

%Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1013

.66

$4,2

86$7

7$1

,419

$40

$186

$1,6

acre

15.6

020

05 IR

C Im

pact

Fee

Stud

y5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1092

%Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1030

.56

$9,5

93$1

72$3

,169

$90

$418

$3,5

acre

2.00

2005

IRC

Impa

ctFe

e St

udy

5.15

5.65

Sam

e as

LUC

710

92%

Sam

e as

LUC

710

3.92

$1,2

30$2

2$4

05$1

2$5

6$4

Calc

ulat

ed T

rans

port

atio

n Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e

Unit

Trip

Rat

eTr

ip R

ate

Sour

ceAs

sess

able

Tr

ip L

engt

hTo

tal T

rip

Leng

thTr

ip L

engt

h So

urce

% N

ew T

rips

% N

ew T

rips S

ourc

eN

et V

MT(1

) To

tal I

mpa

ct

Cost

Annu

al G

as

Tax

Gas T

ax

Cred

itAn

nual

Sa

les T

axSa

les T

ax

Cred

itTo

tal C

1,00

0 gs

f42

.70

ITE

9th

Editi

on2.

643.

14FL

Cur

ve73

%FL

Cur

ve34

.03

$10,

680

$207

$3,8

14$1

09$5

06$4

,32

w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

157.

33Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s1.

902.

40FL

Stu

dies

23%

FL S

tudi

es28

.43

$8,9

23$1

84$3

,390

$97

$451

$3,8

4

1,00

0 sf

28.2

5Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s4.

605.

10FL

Stu

dies

79%

FL S

tudi

es42

.45

$13,

324

$241

$4,4

40$1

27$5

90$5

,03

1,00

0 sf

116.

60Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s3.

173.

67FL

Stu

dies

71%

FL S

tudi

es10

8.52

$34,

060

$643

$11,

847

$338

$1,5

70$1

3,4

1,00

0 sf

511.

00Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s2.

052.

55FL

Stu

dies

58%

FL S

tudi

es25

1.23

$78,

855

$1,6

00$2

9,47

9$8

42$3

,912

$33,

3

1,00

0 sf

103.

38Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s2.

082.

58FL

Stu

dies

56%

FL S

tudi

es49

.79

$15,

628

$316

$5,8

22$1

66$7

71$6

,59

1,00

0 sf

31.4

3Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s3.

624.

12FL

Stu

dies

72%

FL S

tudi

es33

.87

$10,

632

$197

$3,6

30$1

04$4

83$4

,11

serv

ice

bay

43.9

4Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s2.

182.

68FL

Stu

dies

68%

FL S

tudi

es26

.93

$8,4

54$1

70$3

,132

$89

$413

$3,5

4

mps

1,00

0 sf

775.

14Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s1.

512.

01FL

Stu

dies

28%

FL S

tudi

es13

5.52

$42,

534

$924

$17,

024

$486

$2,2

58$1

9,2

1,00

0 sf

5.06

ITE

9th

Editi

on6.

096.

59FL

Stu

dies

54%

FL S

tudi

es6.

88$2

,160

$38

$700

$20

$93

$793

hole

35.7

4IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

6.62

7.12

Sam

e as

LUC

210

90%

FL S

ched

ules

88.0

5$2

7,63

6$4

85$8

,936

$255

$1,1

85$1

0,1

e St

udio

1,00

0 sf

32.9

3IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

5.15

5.65

Sam

e as

LUC

710

94%

FL S

tudi

es65

.92

$20,

690

$370

$6,8

17$1

95$9

06$7

,72

acre

2.28

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

115.

61FL

Sch

edul

es90

%FL

Sch

edul

es4.

34$1

,361

$24

$442

$13

$60

$502

cour

t38

.70

ITE

9th

Editi

on5.

155.

65Sa

me

as L

UC 7

1094

%Sa

me

as L

UC 4

9277

.47

$24,

315

$435

$8,0

15$2

29$1

,064

$9,0

7

boat

ber

th2.

96IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

6.62

7.12

Sam

e as

LUC

210

90%

FL S

ched

ules

7.29

$2,2

89$4

0$7

37$2

1$9

8$8

35

1,00

0 sf

108.

19IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

5.15

5.65

Sam

e as

LUC

710

35%

2009

IRC

Tran

sp.

Impa

ct F

ee S

tudy

80.6

4$2

5,31

0$4

53$8

,346

$238

$1,1

06$9

,45

1,00

0 sf

56.2

4IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

6.62

7.12

Sam

e as

LUC

210

85%

2009

IRC

Tran

sp.

Impa

ct F

ee S

tudy

130.

86$4

1,07

2$7

21$1

3,28

4$3

79$1

,761

$15,

0

1,00

0 sf

27.9

2IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

5.15

5.65

Sam

e as

LUC

710

92%

Sam

e as

LUC

710

54.7

0$1

7,16

9$3

07$5

,656

$162

$753

$6,4

0

bed

5.50

2005

IRC

Impa

ctFe

e St

udy

5.15

5.65

Sam

e as

LUC

710

92%

Sam

e as

LUC

710

10.7

8$3

,382

$61

$1,1

24$3

2$1

49$1

,27

1,00

0 sf

71.8

8Bl

end

ITE

9th

& F

L St

udie

s2.

032.

53FL

Stu

dies

73%

FL S

tudi

es44

.05

$13,

825

$281

$5,1

77$1

48$6

88$5

,86

1,00

0 sf

13.2

2IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

6.62

7.12

Sam

e as

LUC

210

77%

FL S

ched

ules

27.8

6$8

,746

$153

$2,8

19$8

1$3

76$3

,19

1,00

0 sf

40.1

2IT

E 9t

h Ed

ition

5.10

5.60

Sam

e as

LUC

630

(S

ee A

ppen

dix

B)93

%Sa

me

as L

UC 6

30

(see

App

endi

x B)

78.6

8$2

4,69

7$4

42$8

,144

$233

$1,0

82$9

,22

1,00

0 sf

9.11

ITE

9th

Editi

on3.

904.

40FL

Sch

edul

es90

%FL

Sch

edul

es13

.22

$4,1

50$7

6$1

,400

$40

$186

$1,5

8

scre

en10

6.63

Blen

d IT

E 6t

h &

FL

Stud

ies

2.22

2.72

FL S

tudi

es88

%FL

Stu

dies

86.1

4$2

7,03

6$5

40$9

,949

$284

$1,3

19$1

1,2

stud

ent

1.29

ITE

9th

Editi

on4.

304.

80FL

Sch

edul

es80

%FL

Sch

edul

es1.

83$5

76$1

0$1

84$6

$28

$212

stud

ent

162

ITE

9th

Editi

on4

304

80FL

Sche

dule

s90

%FL

Sche

dule

s2

59$8

14$1

5$2

76$8

$37

$313

Calc

ulat

ed T

rans

port

atio

n Im

pact

Fee

Sch

edul

e

rip G

ener

atio

n Ra

te*

Trip

Len

gth*

% N

ew T

rips)

*(1-

Inte

rsta

te/T

oll F

acili

ty A

djus

tmen

t Fac

tor)

/2).

Thi

s ref

lect

s the

uni

t of v

ehic

le m

iles o

f cap

acity

con

sum

ed p

er u

nit o

f dev

elop

men

t and

is m

ultip

lied

by th

e co

st p

er v

ePl

anni

ng D

ivisi

on.

Fees

do

not i

nclu

de th

e ad

min

istra

tive

char

ge

as a

dded

bac

k in

to th

e IT

E 9th

edi

tion

hand

book

, as i

t was

rem

oved

from

ITE

8th e

ditio

n. T

he re

com

men

ded

trip

gen

erat

ion

rate

is b

ased

on

the

peak

hou

r of a

djac

ent s

tree

t tra

ffic

(one

hou

r bet

wee

n 4p

m a

nd 6

pm) m

uo m

men

ded

for t

he v

eter

inar

y cl

inic

is b

ased

on

the

peak

hou

r of a

djac

ent s

tree

t tra

ffic

from

ITE

9th e

ditio

n, m

ultip

lied

by 1

0

Unit

Trip

Rat

eTr

ip R

ate

Sour

ceAs

sess

able

Tr

ip L

engt

hTo

tal T

rip

Leng

thTr

ip L

engt

h So

urce

% N

ew T

rips

% N

ew T

rips S

ourc

eN

et V

MT(1

) To

tal I

mpa

ct

Cost

Annu

al G

as

Tax

Gas T

ax

Cred

itAn

nual

Sa

les T

axSa

les T

ax

Cred

itTo

tal C

r

stud

ent

1.71

ITE

9th

Editi

on4.

304.

80FL

Sch

edul

es90

%FL

Sch

edul

es2.

74$8

59$1

6$2

95$8

$37

$332

or fe

wer

stu

dent

s)

stud

ent

2.00

ITE

Regr

essi

on

Anal

ysis

6.62

7.12

Sam

e as

LUC

210

90%

FL S

ched

ules

4.93

$1,5

47$2

7$4

97$1

4$6

5$5

62

1,00

0 sf

5.40

2005

IRC

Impa

ctFe

e St

udy

2.02

2.52

2009

IRC

Tran

sp.

Impa

ct F

ee S

tudy

89%

2009

IRC

Tran

sp.

Impa

ct F

ee S

tudy

4.01

$1,2

60$2

6$4

79$1

3$6

0$5

39

Appendix F Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for

Correctional, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Public Buildings, Library, Solid Waste and Parks and Recreation

Impact Fees


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-1 Impact Fee Update Study

This Appendix provides a summary of building and land value estimates for all impact fee program areas with the exception of transportation and educational facilities. Information related to transportation cost estimates is included in Appendix C and cost estimates for educational facilities are included in Appendix G. Building Values For all of the program areas, the following information was reviewed to estimate building values:

Recent construction completed by Indian River County (if any); Estimates for any planned facilities; Insurance values of existing facilities; Data from other jurisdictions for recently completed facilities; and Discussions with architects/contractors.

The following paragraphs provide a summary for each program area. Correctional Facilities As presented in Table F-1, the construction cost associated with the County’s most recent jail addition (completed in 2008) was $288 per square foot. There are no estimates available for future jail additions, and the insurance values of the existing jail buildings ranged from $140 to $220 per square foot. It is important to note insurance values are considered to provide estimates below the full cost since they typically do not take into consideration certain building components, such as foundation, architectural/design cost, furniture/fixture/equipment, security features, etc. Recent jail construction in other Florida counties and estimates obtained from construction companies and architects suggested a range of $225 to $445 per square foot. Given all this information, a unit cost of $250 per square foot for jail buildings is used in the study. This figure is approximately 8 percent higher than that used in the 2005 study ($232 per square foot) and 22 percent lower that the figure used in the 2007 impact fee study ($321 per square foot). Given that the most recent jail construction in Indian River County was completed at a cost of $288 per square foot, $250 per square foot represents a conservative estimate.



Table F-1 Correctional Facilities Building Value

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County, figures rounded to nearest $10 (3) Source: AJAX Engineering and Florida Department of Correctional Facilities, figures rounded to

nearest $10 (4) Source: Reed Construction (5) Based on discussions with industry architects for a range of a typical jail in Florida based on their

experience To determine the building value of the support facilities, such as the guard house, maintenance shop, etc., insurance value of the existing buildings was reviewed. This analysis suggested a unit cost of $125 per square foot. Emergency Services Facilities As part of this analysis, TOA contacted several Florida jurisdictions to obtain more recent cost information. The bids and estimates received in 2010 for facilities built in 2010 or 2012 range from $190 to $300 per square foot (excluding furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits, fees and other similar expenses). The following chart presents the building construction cost trends based on bids, estimates, and other information obtained during the previous impact fee studies completed by TOA. As presented, the variation in station costs is relatively minor over the past few years.

Source YearBuilding Cost per

Square FootConstruction of IRC Jail Unit E(1) 2008 $288Estimates for a Future Jail N/A N/AInsurance Values of Existing Jail Buildings(2) 2013 $140 - $220Recent Jail Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2009, 2013 $225Estimates from National Construction Companies(4) 2013 $270-$300Estimates from Florida Architects(5) 2013 $285-$445

Used in the Study 2013 $250



Figure F-1 Fire/EMS Station Construction Cost per Square Foot

Source: Fire station construction cost data collected from Florida jurisdictions

In determining the appropriate unit cost for station construction in Indian River County, in addition to these trends, the following data was evaluated:

The most recent fire station expansion and renovation project cost was approximately $300 per square foot (Stations 9 and 12).

The County’s current Capital Improvement Plan includes an estimate ranging from $280 to $325 for a prototype fire station.

The insurance value of existing fire stations is $190 per square foot, which is considered to be a conservative value.

Based on the information summarized in Table F-2, a unit cost of $260 per square foot is used for fire station building value. This figure is based primarily on local construction cost and estimates in Indian River County and is also consistent with statewide trends. Finally, it is almost the same unit value used in the 2005 study and approximately 5 percent lower than that used in the 2007 study ($273 per square foot).

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Table F-2 Fire Station Building Value

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (3) Source: Indian River County, figures rounded to nearest $10 (4) Source: Individual jurisdictions (5) Based on discussions with industry architects for a range of a typical fire station in Florida based on their

experience (includes adjustment for ff&e, site preparation, permits, etc.) In addition to fire stations, the Emergency Services building inventory includes the Training Tower, which was built in 2008. The tower was built for $150 per square foot, which is also used in the impact fee calculations. Law Enforcement Law enforcement buildings tend to include a wide range of buildings, such as office buildings, crime scene buildings, maintenance sheds, etc. In addition, law enforcement facilities tend to include both prime buildings and support buildings, which tend to vary significantly in terms of building cost. Given this, it is difficult to have a comparable cost database from other jurisdictions since the combination of these different types of buildings vary from one jurisdiction to another. Therefore, the estimates used in the impact fee calculations relied primarily on local data. As presented in Table F-3, the County recently completed the conversion of a warehouse to a Crime Scene Investigation Center, at a cost of almost $200 per square foot. In addition, the estimates obtained from the Sheriff’s Master Plan for a future Sheriff’s Office Building and a new Crime Scene Unit Facility range from $250 to $300 per square foot. The insurance values of existing buildings average $165 per square foot and the value of support facilities is $65 per square foot. Finally, the available data from other Florida jurisdictions suggests a range of $175 to $270 per square foot for law enforcement facilities.


Square FootExpansion of Stations 9 and 12(1) 2010 $300Estimates for Stations 13 and 14(2) FY 2013 - FY 2017 $280 to $325Insurance Values of Existing Fire Stations(3) 2013 $190Recent Fire Station Construction in Other Florida Counties(4) 2010-2012 $190 - $300Estimates from Florida Architects(5) 2013 $230 - $280




Given this data, the value of prime buildings is estimated at $200 per square foot and the support buildings at $50 per square foot. The value for support buildings took into consideration the insurance values of not only law enforcement support buildings, but also those of public buildings, as presented in Table F-4. These unit figures provided a weighted average cost of $197 per square foot, which is 50 percent higher than the value included in the 2005 study, which was based on historical costs provided by the County and is the same value included in the 2007 study.

Table F-3 Law Enforcement Building Value

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Master Plan (3) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (4) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (5) Recent impact fee studies, represents weighted average of prime and support buildings Public Buildings Similar to law enforcement buildings, public buildings also tend to include a wide range of buildings, such as offices, courthouses, maintenance buildings, parking garages, etc. as well as prime versus support buildings. The most recent public buildings constructed in Indian River County were completed in 2007. Given the changes in construction costs since then, these cost figures were considered outdated and not used. The County has plans to add approximately 10,000 square feet of courtroom space over the next five years, and the cost associated with this expansion is estimated at $200 per square foot. As presented in Table F-4, the insurance value of existing prime buildings averaged $210 per square foot and support buildings averaged $46 per square foot. Finally, the building value of prime and support facilities in other Florida jurisdictions for which information was available, range from $135 to $200 per square foot.


Square FootConstruction of Crime Scene Investigation Center(1) 2013 $197Future Planned Facilities(2) N/A $250 to $300Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (prime)(3) 2013 $165Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (support)(4) 2013 $65Recent Public Building Construction in Other Florida Counties(5) 2010-2012 $175 - $270

Used in the Study -- Prime Buildings 2013 $200Used in the Study -- Support Buildings 2013 $50



Given this information, the building value of prime facilities is estimated at $210 per square foot and support buildings at $50 per square foot. This results in a weighted average value of $167 per square foot for all buildings, which is within the range of other jurisdiction. It is also almost the same figure as that used in the 2005 study ($169 per square foot) and approximately 25 percent lower than the figure used in the 2007 study ($226 per square foot).

Table F-4 Value of Public Buildings

(1) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (2) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (3) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (4) Source: Recent impact fee studies, represents weighted average of prime and support buildings Libraries The most recent library construction in Indian River County was completed in 2009 for a building cost of $263 per square foot. The current average insurance value of existing libraries is $206 per square foot, which tends to represent a conservative estimate. Finally, recent library construction in other Florida jurisdictions provided an average building cost of $245 per square foot. Given this information, a building value of $240 per square foot is used in the library impact fee calculations. This figure is almost same as that used in the 2005 study ($242 per square foot) and represents a decrease of approximately 20 percent from the 2007 study ($296 per square foot).


Square FootFuture Planned Facilities(1) N/A $200Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (prime)(2) 2013 $210Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (support) (3) 2013 $46Recent Public Building Construction in Other Florida Counties(4) 2010-2012 $135 - $200

Used in the Study -- Prime Buildings 2013 $210Used in the Study -- Support Buildings 2013 $50



Table F-5 Library Building Value

(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Recent impact fee studies Parks & Recreation Facilities The parks and recreation facilities impact fee inventory includes several recreational facilities. The value of these facilities is based on insurance values, information from other jurisdictions and discussions with the County staff. Solid Waste Facilities The solid waste impact fee inventory includes several customer care centers. Due to the limited information on these facilities, the value is based on the recent reconstruction and expansion of Oslo Convenience Center at a cost of $2.6 million. Land Values For each impact fee program area, land values were determined based on the following analysis, as data available:

Recent land purchases for the related infrastructure (if any); Value of current parcels as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser; Value of vacant land by size and by land use; and Vacant land sales over the past three years by size and by land use.

It should be noted that the land value and sales analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser’s database for those vacant properties that have not been sold for a while. This may be due to a lag in the update of land values. The following paragraphs summarize the data used for each program area.


Square FootConstruction of Brackett Library(1) 2009 $263Insurance Values of Existing Libraries(2) 2013 $206Recent Library Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2010-2012 $245




Correctional Facilities The land value estimate for correctional facilities was provided by the County during the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre) and was based on the sale of vacant land for 4- to 6-acre parcels in West Indian River County (IRC) during the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre). West IRC is defined as the area between 58th Avenue and County Road 512 and represents the area where the County is likely to build future facilities. To provide an apples-to-apples comparison to the 2007 study, vacant land sales for parcels with 4 to 6 acres in West IRC was conducted and supplemented with additional analysis, which is summarized in Table F-6.

The County has not purchased any land for correctional facilities since 2005 and the recent jail expansions were located on the existing Jail/Sheriff Complex. As presented in Table F-6, the value of parcels where the current facilities are located is approximately $46,000 per acre. To supplement this figure, TOA conducted an analysis of vacant land sales and values based on the data included in the Indian River County Property Appraiser database.

Vacant land sales and values were evaluated by land use (residential vs. all land uses) and by size. As mentioned previously, this analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser’s database for those properties that have not been sold for a while.

Because correctional facilities do not have to be located in centralized areas, it is thought to be appropriate to evaluate values of residential properties, which tend to be lower than those for commercial properties. In addition, values of all land uses are also provided. In terms of size, because the current facilities are located on parcels with 10 to 15 acres, values and sales of similar size parcels were evaluated.

Given that the land of current facilities is valued at $46,000 per acre, sales of 4 to 6-acre parcels suggested an average price of $51,000 per acre, and the remaining analysis provided a range of $13,000 per acre to $124,000 per acre for residential properties, an average land value of $50,000 per acre for correctional facilities is found to be a reasonable estimate. This figure represents an increase of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study and a decrease of 70 percent from the 2007 study.



Table F-6 Land Value Analysis - Correctional Facilities

(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database

Value of Current Parcels 2013 $45,600Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $21,353 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $22,622 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,620 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $26,160 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $32,543 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $31,644Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $95,109 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $97,836 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $61,063 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $124,315 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $63,042 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $130,357

Used in the Study 2013 $50,000

Variable(1) Year Average Land Value per Acre



Law Enforcement The most recent land purchase for law enforcement facilities was made in 2011, for a price of $355,000 per acre. However, because the parcel included structures, this price is considered to be higher than what the County is likely to pay in the future for vacant land. Discussions with the County and Sheriff’s Office suggested that future expansions outlined in the Master Plan are likely to be located on the existing Jail/Sheriff’s Complex and the recently purchased land. The current value of existing parcels is approximately $50,000 per acre based on information obtained from the Indian River County Property Appraiser. Given this and the range of related vacant land values and sales is of $13,000 per acre to $66,000 per acre, an estimate of $50,000 per acre is used for land value in the calculation of law enforcement impact fee. This figure represents an increase of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre) and a decrease of 70 percent from the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre).



Table F-7 Land Value Analysis - Law Enforcement Facilities

(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office, the parcel included structures

Emergency Services Typically, fire stations need to be located at or near major intersections and not in residential areas, for better access and minimum disturbance. As such, land value of these facilities tends to be higher. This can be seen in the current land value of existing fire stations at $102,000 per acre with a range of $16,000 per acre to $171,000 per acre. The

Value of Current Parcels 2013 $50,702Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) 2011 $355,104Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 Unincorporated - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $18,754 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $20,824 Unincorporated - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $23,844 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $29,338Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 Unincorporated - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,614 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $62,617 Unincorporated - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $50,480 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $66,238





County purchased land for Station 13 in 2010 at a cost of $121,000 per acre. This information along with relevant vacant land value and sales information are summarized in Table F-8.

Table F-8 Land Value Analysis - Emergency Services Facilities

(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County; Represents land purchase for Station 13, made in 2010.

Value of Current Parcels 2013 $101,802Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) 2010 $120,517Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,620 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $32,543Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $61,063 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $63,042





Given this information, the high end of vacant land sales ($60,000 per acre) is used for the value of land for emergency services impact fee calculations. This figure is lower than the value of land where existing stations are located and represents a 30-percent decrease from the 2005 study and a 60-percent decrease from the 2007 study. Public Buildings Public buildings include a range of facilities from County offices and courthouses that need to be in central locations to maintenance facilities that have more flexibility in location. Given that the County has not bought any land for public buildings recently and programmed capital expansions will take place on existing land, the land value of parcels where the existing buildings are located is evaluated, which averaged $89,615. This value is used in the impact fee calculations, and represents a decrease of 12 percent from the 2005 study and 50 percent decrease from the 2007 study. Libraries As presented in Table F-9, the current value of land where existing libraries are located averages $38,000, with a range of $15,000 per acre to $330,000 per acre. This information along with the vacant sales values of 4 to 6-acre parcels suggests that an average land value of $50,000 per acre is a reasonable estimate. This figure is 50 percent lower than that used in the 2005 study and 75 percent lower than the 2007 study.



Table F-9 Land Value Analysis - Libraries


Parks Indian River County’s parks inventory includes parcels ranging from 0.3 acres to 140 acres. As such, a more detailed land value analysis was conducted, as shown in Table F-10. The value of current inventory averages $31,000 per acre. Given that the land values and sales for different acreage groupings range from $17,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre, an average value of $50,000 per acre is found to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. This represents a 45 percent increase from the 2005 study and a 10 percent decrease from the 2007 study.

Value of Current Parcels 2013 $38,929Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868





Table F-10 Land Value Analysis - Parks


Solid Waste The inventory of solid waste facilities includes only the customer convenience centers used by residential land uses. These facilities are typically built on previous landfills. Given the unique nature of these facilities, the current value of parcels where existing centers are located is used in the study, which averaged $20,000 per acre.

West IRC Unincorporated0.5 to 4 acres $29,474 $94,7974 to 6 acres $12,855 $18,7546 to 15 acres $18,105 $20,82415 to 25 acres $21,353 $22,98520 to 60 acres $18,612 $17,33440 to 130 acres $19,851 $18,754

West IRC Unincorporated0.5 to 4 acres $100,046 $147,0864 to 6 acres $43,238 $42,6146 to 15 acres $59,271 $62,61715 to 25 acres $95,109 $84,91920 to 60 acres $74,877 $64,13140 to 130 acres $47,197 $41,018

$50,000Used in the Study

2013 PA Just Values per Acre (Residential)(1)

2013 Sales per Acre (Residential)(1)

Acreage

Acreage

Appendix G Educational Facilities Impact Fee:

Supplemental Information


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-1 Impact Fee Update Study

This appendix presents the inventory of traditional schools in Indian River County as well as an explanation of building and land value estimates used in the impact fee calculations. School District Inventory The current inventory of traditional schools in Indian River County is presented in Table G-1.

Table G-1 Indian River County School District Existing School Inventory

Source: Indian River School District

Elementary Schools1 Beachland Elementary K-5 543 543 94,5442 Citrus Elementary K-5 556 556 74,7753 Dodgertown Elementary PK-5 560 560 117,3054 Fellsmere Elementary PK-5 546 546 77,4065 Glendale Elementary K-5 612 612 71,7696 Highlands Elementary K-5 619 619 65,8677 Liberty Magnet K-5 666 666 105,7938 Osceola Magnet (NEW) K-5 557 557 78,2179 Pelican Island Elementary K-5 573 573 65,98810 Rosewood Elementary K-5 543 543 84,04211 Sebastian Elementary K-5 637 637 85,82512 Treasure Coast Elementary PK-5 553 553 94,71913 Vero Beach Elementary PK-5 796 796 106,460

Subtotal - Elementary Schools 7,761 7,761 1,122,710Middle Schools

1 Gifford Middle School 6-8 1,136 1,022 135,0332 Oslo Middle School 6-8 1,140 1,026 152,0453 Sebastian River Middle School 6-8 1,107 996 147,7064 Storm Grove Middle School 6-8 1,382 1,244 167,794

Subtotal - Middle Schools 4,765 4,288 602,578High Schools

1 Sebastian River High School 9-12 2,440 2,318 344,334Vero Beach High School (Main Campus) 9-12 2,200 2,090 352,408Vero Beach High School (Freshman Learning Center) 9-12 870 827 129,987Subtotal - High Schools 5,510 5,235 826,729

Grand Total - All Schools 18,036 17,284 2,552,017

2

SchoolsNumberPermanent

Capacity (after FISH capacity

Permanent Student Stations

GradeFISH

Permanent Net Square



Building Cost Analysis To determine the architectural, civil design, site improvement, construction, and FF&E costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, the following information was evaluated:

Recently built schools in Indian River County; Cost estimates included in the Educational Plant Survey; Insurance values of the existing schools; Cost related information provided by the Indian River County School District; and School cost information for 135 schools in other Florida counties.

The following paragraphs provide further detail on this research and analysis. Construction Cost The last schools built in Indian River County included the replacement of Vero Beach Elementary School in 2012 and the construction of a new middle school (Storm Grove Middle School) in 2009. The cost associated with these schools ranged from $156 per net square foot for the elementary school to $241 per net square foot for the middle school, as shown in Table G-2. In addition, the District’s Educational Plant Survey includes several school expansion projects. The estimated cost associated with these expansions ranges from $228 per net square foot to $343 per net square foot. Discussions with the School District confirmed that there were certain elements unique to the Storm Grove Middle School, which resulted in higher cost and the additions tend to be more expensive than new school construction. Finally, the insurance values of existing school buildings range from approximately $145 per net square foot for elementary schools to $185 per net square foot for high schools, with an average of $165 per net square foot for all traditional schools. These figures are consistent with the construction costs observed in other jurisdictions. Table G-3 summarizes data obtained from the Florida Department of Education for schools built in 2011. As shown, the average construction cost is approximately $175 per net square foot, with a range of $145 per net square foot for elementary schools to $200 per net square foot for high schools. Given this data and information, average construction costs of $145 per net square foot for elementary schools, $175 per net square foot for middle schools, and $185 per net square



foot for high schools are used in this study, which is based on the insurance values that are also consistent with costs obtained from other Florida jurisdictions and represent a conservative estimate.

Table G-2 Construction Cost Analysis – Indian River County

(1), (2), (3), (4) Source: Indian River County School District (5) Construction cost (Item 3) divided by net permanent square feet (Item 4) (6) Source: IRC School District Educational Plant Five Year Survey Report, August 23, 2013 (7) Source: IRC Statement of Values for School Facilities, 2013

Year Built(1) Facility Name(2) Construction

Cost(3)

Net Permanent

Square Feet(4)

Constrution Cost per NSF(5)

2009 Storm Grove Middle School $34,106,673 141,066 $2422012 Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 110,495 $156

Educational Plant Survey Estimates for School Additions(6) $228 - $343

$146$175$186$165

Insurance Values of Existing School Buildings:(7)

- Elementary Schools - Middle Schools - High Schools - All Traditional Schools

Indi

an R

iver

Cou

nty

| Im

pact

Fee

Upd

ate

Stud

y

Tind

ale-

Oliv

er &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

In

dian

Riv

er C

ount

y Se

ptem

ber 2

014

G-4

Impa

ct F

ee U

pdat

e St

udy

Tabl

e G-

3 Co

nstr

uctio

n Co

st A

naly

sis

– O

ther

Flo

rida

Juris

dict

ions

So

urce

: Flo

rida

Depa

rtm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n

Year

Bui

ltCo

unty

Faci

lity

Nam

e/Ty

peCo

nstr

uctio

n Co

stTo

tal C

ost

Net

Sq.

Ft.

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

per

Net

SF

2011

Char

lott

eM

eado

w P

ark

Elem

enta

ry$1

2,69

6,11

6$1

8,41

5,28

089

,652

$142

2011

Duva

lW

ater

leaf

Ele

men

tary

$14,

882,

021

$24,

786,

442

82,0

62$1

8120

11Es

cam

bia

Glob

al Le

arni

ng A

cade

my

$17,

019,

155

$24,

108,

501

120,

015

$142

2011

Osc

eola

High

land

s Ele

men

tary

$1

4,53

4,30

9$1

8,14

5,24

410

6,91

8$1

3620

11Pa

sco

Conn

erto

n El

emen

tary

"R"

$11,

598,

590

$19,

102,

688

84,9

72$1

36To

tal/

Wei

ghte

d Av

erag

e --

Ele

men

tary

Sch

ools

$70,

730,

191

$104

,558

,155

483,

619

$146

Mid

dle

Scho

ols

2011

Dade

Nor

th D

ade

Mid

dle

$18,

921,

534

$21,

216,

883

94,6

60$2

0020

11O

rang

eLa

ke N

ona

Mid

dle

$16,

923,

455

$23,

466,

083

149,

897

$113

2011

Polk

Boon

e M

iddl

e$1

7,90

0,96

3$2

0,31

2,46

869

,921

$256

2011

Wal

ton

Emer

ald

Coas

t Mid

dle

$15,

918,

884

$25,

134,

830

126,

770

$126

Tota

l/W

eigh

ted

Aver

age

-- M

iddl

e Sc

hool

s$6

9,66

4,83

6$9

0,13

0,26

444

1,24

8$1

58Hi

gh S

choo

ls20

11Br

owar

dLa

nier

Jam

es E

duca

tion

Cent

er$8

,889

,147

$12,

412,

686

42,6

08$2

0920

11Ca

lhou

nBl

ount

stow

n Hi

gh$1

9,40

7,91

0$2

5,13

5,92

810

0,36

6$1

9320

11Ch

arlo

tte

Char

lott

e Hi

gh$6

1,75

5,84

2$9

2,39

0,74

725

8,70

0$2

3920

11Da

deIn

tern

atio

nal S

tudi

es S

HS$7

,192

,325

$21,

846,

054

35,1

37$2

0520

11Da

deM

edic

al A

cade

my

or S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y$9

,303

,705

$18,

811,

197

78,8

45$1

1820

11O

keec

hobe

eO

keec

hobe

e Ac

hiev

emen

t Aca

dem

y$5

,499

,975

$6,6

96,9

3143

,024

$128

2011

Polk

Aubu

rnda

le S

enio

r$1

9,52

2,05

3$2

4,48

2,93

310

1,46

6$1

9220

11Po

lkDa

venp

ort S

choo

l of t

he A

rts

$29,

136,

512

$32,

548,

129

157,

446

$185

2011

Polk

Kath

leen

Sen

ior

$24,

323,

662

$27,

493,

666

112,

017

$217

2011

Polk

Win

ter H

aven

Sen

ior

$26,

374,

234

$29,

588,

106

140,

940

$187

Tota

l/W

eigh

ted

Aver

age

-- H

igh

Scho

ols

$211

,405

,365

$291

,406

,377

1,07

0,54

9$1

97$3

51,8

00,3

92$4

86,0

94,7

961,

995,

416

$176

Tota

l/W

eigh

ted

Aver

age

(All

Scho

ols)

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

ls



Architectural, Civil Design, Site Preparation, Furniture, Fixture and Equipment Costs The architectural, civil design, site preparation (including on-site improvement and traffic control costs), and FF&E costs (including technology) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Indian River County and other jurisdictions. These figures were also discussed with the District’s representatives and are estimated at 10 percent of construction for architectural/civil design costs, 10 percent for site preparation costs, and 7 percent for FF&E costs. Tables G-4 and G-5 summarize the data obtained from Indian River County and other jurisdictions.

008 Clay Elem OakLeaf Vil lage Elementary $22,067,755 $1,132,542 5% $1,497,860008 Clay Elem Plantation Oaks Elementary $15,709,595 $927,982 6% $900,000008 Clay Elem Shadowlawn Elementary $23,666,356 $1,091,411 5% $1,544,656008 Collier Elem Parkside Elementary $21,099,395 $671,650 3% $2,665,658008 Collier Elem Veterans Memorial Elementary $16,957,004 $546,022 3% $2,625,757008 Highlands Elem Memorial Elementary $10,296,575 $749,240 7% $1,691,188008 Hillsborough Elem Kimbell Elementary $10,540,220 $510,924 5% $1,150,000008 Hillsborough Elem Reddick Elementary $13,342,791 $765,913 6% $1,117,452008 Lake Elem Grassy Lake Elementary $16,110,171 $607,929 4% $1,572,102008 Lake Elem Mascotte Charter Elementary $17,028,093 $552,701 3% $1,414,128008 Lake Elem Minneola Charter Elementary $16,878,476 $624,283 4% $1,506,036008 Lake Elem Sawgrass Bay Elementary $15,816,096 $472,825 3% $1,538,956008 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $21,224,842 $396,000 2% $1,451,720008 Lee Elem Treeline Elementary School $15,989,080 $385,950 2% $1,452,508008 Orange Elem Conway Elementary School $10,376,998 $550,000 5% $750,000008 Orange Elem Lakemont Elementary School $12,830,008 $761,020 6% $912,049008 Orange Elem Timber Lakes Elementary School $12,465,522 $663,155 5% $968,647008 Orange Elem Westbrooke Elementary School $13,259,968 $473,978 4% $1,000,000008 Osceola Elem Flora Ridge Elementary $15,804,425 $414,305 3% $2,161,629008 Osceola Elem New ES "J" (Harmony Community) $13,632,941 $566,980 4% $2,299,583008 Palm Beach Elem Allamanda Elementary $23,238,839 $1,171,581 5% $879,820008 Palm Beach Elem Forest Park Elementary $24,150,475 $1,185,476 5% $779,820008 Palm Beach Elem Hagen Ranch Elementary $22,672,614 $1,267,703 6% $971,083008 Palm Beach Elem Palm Beach Gardens Elementary $22,077,886 $1,262,407 6% $779,838008 Palm Beach Elem Pine Jog Elementary $29,144,023 $1,358,825 5% $992,167008 Palm Beach Elem Westward Elementary $27,207,724 $1,324,188 5% $869,654008 Palm Beach Elem Sunset Palms Elementary $24,576,913 $1,069,387 4% $997,614008 Pasco Elem New River Elementary "M" $11,301,689 $521,935 5% $1,325,467008 Pinellas Elem New Heights Elementary $22,910,850 $1,374,287 6% $1,171,311008 Pinellas Elem Tarpon Springs Elementary $19,675,615 $989,498 5% $2,746,022008 Polk Elem Horizons Elementary $18,873,956 $557,676 3% $1,642,347008 Volusia Elem Pride Elementary ("Y") $14,935,273 $723,815 5% $1,590,038008 Walton Elem Mossy Head School $18,827,427 $1,021,674 5% $578,838008 St. Lucie High Ft. Pierce Central High School $63,908,401 $2,108,410 3% $3,993,169008 Broward High West Broward High $74,974,472 $2,627,821 4% $5,739,011008 Franklin High Franklin County Schools $22,955,575 $1,395,385 6% $975,000008 Lee High Island Coast High School $41,559,854 $1,138,351 3% $4,350,121008 Pasco High Wiregrass Ranch High School "CCC" $22,880,482 $1,045,502 5% $3,502,243008 Polk High Tenoroc Senior $60,017,596 $1,454,175 2% $3,972,131008 Sarasota High Suncoast Polytechnical High School $11,730,040 $1,030,406 9% $2,160,265008 St. Johns High Creekside High School ("DDD") $45,425,406 $2,399,921 5% $3,150,626008 St. Johns High Ponte Vedra High School CCC $54,638,612 $2,115,456 4% $3,096,813008 Leon Middle Montford Middle School $22,008,118 $1,345,194 6% $2,049,255008 Bay Middle Breakfast Point Academy K-8 $25,975,683 $1,463,300 6% $1,661,916008 Charlotte Middle Punta Gorda Middle School $23,896,506 $1,829,098 8% $564,072008 Collier Middle Cypress Palm Middle $26,535,164 $1,654,176 6% $3,551,727008 Collier Middle Marco Charter Middle $14,450,518 $580,583 4% $539,228008 Duval Middle North Shore K-8 $25,222,118 $1,690,172 7% $2,651,960008 Flagler Middle Bunnell K-8 $17,776,495 $1,431,966 8% $1,481,305008 Hillsborough Middle Smith Middle $20,160,152 $969,246 5% $2,010,000008 Lee Middle Oak Hammock Middle School $24,359,562 $623,895 3% $1,932,445008 Marion Middle Liberty Middle $28,242,481 $753,275 3% $1,391,187008 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $3,004,145 10% $2,077,048008 St. Lucie Middle Allapattah Flats K-8 $34,488,744 $2,109,609 6% $4,788,814008 St. Lucie Middle Palm Pointe Educational Research School at Tradition $24,836,235 $1,164,091 5% $4,425,642009 Okaloosa Elem Riverside Elementary School $11,716,323 $1,448,365 12% $3,066,309009 Bay Elem Deer Point Elementary $16,646,867 $1,046,428 6% $1,106,071009 Broward Elem Discovery Elementary (K-6) $24,813,884 $1,017,051 4% $2,729,823009 Broward Elem Heron Heights Elementary $25,377,383 $1,101,087 4% $2,821,297009 Charlotte Elem East Elementary $14,128,364 $1,189,449 8% $750,180009 Collier Elem Eden Park Elementary (K-6) $19,625,793 $743,765 4% $2,824,488009 Collier Elem Mike Davis Elementary $18,747,061 $830,774 4% $2,390,841009 Duval Elem Bartram Springs Elementary $16,349,939 $942,474 6% $1,752,167009 Hillsborough Elem Bailey Elementary $7,308,787 $554,962 8% $1,475,000009 Hillsborough Elem Stowers Elementary $10,360,379 $596,594 6% $1,475,000009 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $20,794,081 $464,500 2% $1,635,759009 Lee Elem Lehigh Elementary School $15,702,253 $641,950 4% $856,087009 Manatee Elem G.D. Rogers Garden Elementary $12,223,480 $1,049,384 9% $788,800009 Martin Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $21,130,325 $1,067,331 5% $1,280,297009 Orange Elem Keene's Crossing Elementary School $12,452,304 $515,371 4% $1,196,557009 Osceola Elem KOA Elementary School (Elem L) $12,610,702 $621,750 5% $1,787,818009 Osceola Elem Narcoossee Elementary (ES M) $14,770,196 $611,435 4% $1,800,412009 Palm Beach Elem C.O. Taylor/Kirklane Elementary $35,663,420 $1,864,969 5% $1,013,080009 Palm Beach Elem Hope-Centennial Elementary $25,030,950 $2,092,633 8% $868,294009 Polk Elem Spessard Holland Elementary $15,642,049 $572,492 4% $1,508,553009 Sarasota Elem Atwater Elementary School $12,524,430 $1,802,665 14% $651,817009 V l i El Ch i El t $14 696 164 $725 513 5% $950 364

rce: IRC School District for IRC schools; Florida Department of Education for all other jurisdictions

009 Osceola Middle Westside K-8 School $23,051,370 $1,363,350 6% $2,686,144009 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $3,004,145 10% $2,077,048009 St. Johns Middle Liberty Pines Academy (K-8) $25,277,687 $971,288 4% $1,197,445010 Broward Elem Norcrest Elementary $22,286,245 $885,319 4% $1,257,845010 Collier Elem Palmetto Elementary $20,224,743 $889,743 4% $2,671,470010 Lake Elem Sorrento Elemenatry $15,842,160 $668,339 4% $1,896,206010 Orange Elem Old Cheney/North Forsyth Elementary $12,096,899 $783,588 6% $987,926010 Osceola Elem East Lake Elementary $11,747,305 $537,980 5% $1,885,002010 Palm Beach Elem Everglades Elementary $15,940,134 $1,863,296 12% $1,075,126010 Palm Beach Elem Northboro Elementary $24,168,146 $1,990,621 8% $780,037010 Palm Beach Elem Plumosa Elementary $21,038,789 $2,075,316 10% $715,049010 Seminole Elem New Midway Elementary $12,297,322 $810,700 7% $1,133,007010 Clay High Oakleaf High $50,819,745 $2,562,240 5% $3,064,772010 Duval High Atlantic Coast High $50,466,294 $5,220,136 10% $5,048,820010 Hernando High Weeki Watchee High $33,006,787 $1,939,097 6% $4,719,813010 Sarasota High Riverview High $78,561,000 $5,999,998 8% $4,377,536010 Collier High Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology High $9,843,413 $795,386 8% $1,312,405010 Orange High Apopka HS Replacement $70,267,621 $2,112,349 3% $4,733,044010 Palm Beach High Palm Beach Gardens Community High $75,097,581 $3,829,735 5% $3,330,581010 Palm Beach High Suncoast High $59,972,270 $3,938,916 7% $2,280,000010 Volusia High University High $72,990,143 $3,092,214 4% $6,096,162011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 $944,273 7% $674,842011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 $1,621,628 11% $1,899,236011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 $1,682,415 10% $2,861,931011 Osceola Elem Highlands Elementary $14,534,309 $666,978 5% $1,650,318011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 $858,671 7% $1,298,389011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 $1,968,893 10% $994,719011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 $6,502,129 11% $2,676,408011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center $8,889,147 $1,075,459 12% $1,304,137011 Dade High International Studies SHS $7,192,325 $684,965 10% $757,496011 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technology $9,303,705 $762,932 8% $919,966011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 $453,761 8% $427,114011 Polk High Auburndale Senior $19,522,053 $1,462,146 7% $3,124,050011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts $29,136,512 $1,042,674 4% $2,330,971011 Polk High Kathleen Senior $24,323,662 $875,094 4% $2,267,250011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior $26,374,234 $853,483 3% $2,360,389011 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $18,921,534 $867,900 5% $1,122,762011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 $14,559,177 $880,709 6% $4,279,500011 Orange Middle Lake Nona Middle $16,923,455 $1,277,253 8% $1,795,567011 Polk Middle Boone Middle $17,900,963 $1,080,157 6% $1,331,348011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 $1,709,689 11% $700,000012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,476,006 9% $1,342,512

$3,366,044,179 $185,827,182 6% $281,633,327$51,349,776 $3,681,013 7% $5,533,513

$3,314,694,403 $182,146,169 5% $276,099,814

/Weighted Average/Weighted Average (IRC Schools ONLY)/Weighted Average (Excluding IRC Schools)

2008 Citrus Elem Central Ridge Elementary $20,066,027 $3,200 02008 Clay Elem Plantation Oaks Elementary $15,709,595 $2,001,795 132008 Collier Elem Parkside Elementary $21,099,395 $609,364 32008 Collier Elem Veterans Memorial Elementary $16,957,004 $554,493 32008 Highlands Elem Memorial Elementary $10,296,575 $2,623,522 252008 Hillsborough Elem Kimbell Elementary $10,540,220 $798,597 82008 Hillsborough Elem Reddick Elementary $13,342,791 $692,203 52008 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $21,224,842 $705,540 32008 Lee Elem Treeline Elementary School $15,989,080 $1,494,920 92008 Orange Elem Conway Elementary School $10,376,998 $500,000 52008 Orange Elem Lakemont Elementary School $12,830,008 $300,967 22008 Orange Elem Timber Lakes Elementary School $12,465,522 $1,601,516 132008 Orange Elem Westbrooke Elementary School $13,259,968 $1,145,801 92008 Osceola Elem Flora Ridge Elementary $15,804,425 $684,259 42008 Osceola Elem New ES "J" (Harmony Community) $13,632,941 $1,300,802 102008 Palm Beach Elem Allamanda Elementary $23,238,839 $2,192,788 92008 Palm Beach Elem Forest Park Elementary $24,150,475 $3,842,794 162008 Palm Beach Elem Hagen Ranch Elementary $22,672,614 $4,135,688 182008 Palm Beach Elem Palm Beach Gardens Elementary $22,077,886 $3,007,648 142008 Palm Beach Elem Pine Jog Elementary $29,144,023 $2,874,817 102008 Palm Beach Elem Westward Elementary $27,207,724 $705,832 32008 Palm Beach Elem Sunset Palms Elementary $24,576,913 $1,359,139 62008 Pasco Elem New River Elementary "M" $11,301,689 $2,134,030 192008 Pinellas Elem New Heights Elementary $22,910,850 $2,778,418 122008 Pinellas Elem Tarpon Springs Elementary $19,675,615 $2,740,407 142008 Volusia Elem Pride Elementary ("Y") $14,935,273 $1,296,294 92008 Walton Elem Mossy Head School $18,827,427 $32,000 02008 St. Lucie High Ft. Pierce Central High School $63,908,401 $5,309,308 82008 Broward High West Broward High $74,974,472 $149,041 02008 Franklin High Franklin County Schools $22,955,575 $500,000 22008 Lee High Island Coast High School $41,559,854 $5,418,852 132008 Pasco High Wiregrass Ranch High School "CCC" $22,880,482 $4,536,580 202008 Sarasota High Suncoast Polytechnical High School $11,730,040 $1,463,101 122008 Leon Middle Montford Middle School $22,008,118 $39,230 02008 Bay Middle Breakfast Point Academy K-8 $25,975,683 $3,838,363 152008 Charlotte Middle Punta Gorda Middle School $23,896,506 $2,968,607 122008 Collier Middle Cypress Palm Middle $26,535,164 $619,584 22008 Collier Middle Marco Charter Middle $14,450,518 $98,219 12008 Duval Middle North Shore K-8 $25,222,118 $450,000 22008 Flagler Middle Bunnell K-8 $17,776,495 $1,168,123 72008 Hillsborough Middle Smith Middle $20,160,152 $932,385 52008 Lee Middle Oak Hammock Middle School $24,359,562 $885,000 42008 Marion Middle Liberty Middle $28,242,481 $3,687,549 132008 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $6,909,752 222008 St. Lucie Middle Allapattah Flats K-8 $34,488,744 $3,351,476 102008 St. Lucie Middle Palm Pointe Educational Research School at Tradition $24,836,235 $4,993,386 202009 Okaloosa Elem Riverside Elementary School $11,716,323 $2,148,260 182009 Bay Elem Deer Point Elementary $16,646,867 $1,711,350 102009 Broward Elem Discovery Elementary (K-6) $24,813,884 $3,397 02009 Charlotte Elem East Elementary $14,128,364 $1,389,286 102009 Collier Elem Eden Park Elementary (K-6) $19,625,793 $2,083,000 112009 Collier Elem Mike Davis Elementary $18,747,061 $1,722,320 92009 Duval Elem Bartram Springs Elementary $16,349,939 $1,427,211 92009 Hillsborough Elem Bailey Elementary $7,308,787 $753,646 102009 Hillsborough Elem Stowers Elementary $10,360,379 $941,642 92009 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $20,794,081 $220,848 12009 Lee Elem Lehigh Elementary School $15,702,253 $679,758 42009 Manatee Elem G.D. Rogers Garden Elementary $12,223,480 $969,092 82009 Martin Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $21,130,325 $722,012 32009 Orange Elem Keene's Crossing Elementary School $12,452,304 $1,487,617 122009 Osceola Elem KOA Elementary School (Elem L) $12,610,702 $1,874,555 152009 Osceola Elem Narcoossee Elementary (ES M) $14,770,196 $631,727 42009 Palm Beach Elem C O Taylor/Kirklane Elementary $35 663 420 $3 628 916 10

ource: IRC School District for IRC schools; Florida Department of Education for all other jurisdictions

2009 Okaloosa Middle Shoal River Middle School $12,779,256 $2,170,119 172009 Duval Middle Westview K-8 $29,119,287 $1,708,817 62009 Hernando Middle Explorer K-8 $41,212,410 $1,200,000 32009 Hillsborough Middle Barrington Middle School $16,315,050 $1,368,167 82009 Indian River Middle Storm Grove Middle School $34,106,673 $6,629,160 192009 Lake Middle East Ridge Middle School $27,281,965 $599,565 22009 Osceola Middle Westside K-8 School $23,051,370 $2,162,558 92009 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $6,909,752 222010 Broward Elem Norcrest Elementary $22,286,245 $37,949 02010 Collier Elem Palmetto Elementary $20,224,743 $2,440,985 122010 Lake Elem Sorrento Elemenatry $15,842,160 $48,712 02010 Orange Elem Old Cheney/North Forsyth Elementary $12,096,899 $1,815,172 152010 Osceola Elem East Lake Elementary $11,747,305 $1,255,467 112010 Palm Beach Elem Everglades Elementary $15,940,134 $2,286,725 142010 Palm Beach Elem Northboro Elementary $24,168,146 $1,482,606 62010 Palm Beach Elem Plumosa Elementary $21,038,789 $1,967,540 92010 Clay High Oakleaf High $50,819,745 $274,000 12010 Duval High Atlantic Coast High $50,466,294 $7,648,460 152010 Sarasota High Riverview High $78,561,000 $14,665,000 192010 Collier High Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology High $9,843,413 $287,278 32010 Orange High Apopka HS Replacement $70,267,621 $9,439,283 132010 Palm Beach High Palm Beach Gardens Community High $75,097,581 $10,693,532 142010 Palm Beach High Suncoast High $59,972,270 $9,785,603 162010 Volusia High University High $72,990,143 $12,232,947 172011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 $1,802,689 142011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 $1,361,500 92011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 $200,000 12011 Osceola Elem Highlands Elementary $14,534,309 $1,293,639 92011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 $2,313,586 202011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 $1,362,604 72011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 $7,904,370 132011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center $8,889,147 $918,943 102011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 $1,300 02011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 $1,717,116 112012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,472,272 9

$2,779,762,814 $273,373,775 10$51,349,776 $8,101,432 16

$2,728,413,038 $265,272,343 10

otal/Weighted Averageotal/Weighted Average (IRC Schools ONLY)otal/Weighted Average (Excluding IRC Schools)



Land Value Analysis To estimate the current land value the following analysis is conducted:

A review of current market value of land from the Property Appraiser database where the existing schools are located;

An analysis of vacant land sales in Indian River County over the past three years for parcels of necessary size; and

An analysis of market value of all vacant land from the Property Appraiser database for parcels of necessary size.

The current value of existing school sites and vacant land value of parcels with similar sizes ranged from $10,000 per acre to $32,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels with similar size over the past three years indicated a range of $18,000 per acre to $130,000 per acre. This data is summarized in Table G-6. Based on this information, an average value of $50,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations.

Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser’s Database

- All Traditional Schools 2013 $20,171Value of Vacant Land:

- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $21,353 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $18,612 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,445 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,851



- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $31,644 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $20,884 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,193 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,288Vacant Land Sales:

- 15 to 25 acres 2010-2012 $95,109 - 20 to 60 acres 2010-2012 $74,877 - 60 to 100 acres 2010-2012 $17,704 - 40 to 130 acres 2010-2012 $47,197





West IRC - Residential

West IRC - All Land Uses

Countywide - Residential

Countywide - All Land Uses

West IRC - Residential

West IRC - All Land Uses

Countywide - Residential

Countywide - All Land Uses


Appendix H Administrative Fee


Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 H-1 Impact Fee Update Study

Administrative Fee The Florida Impact Fee Act, Florida Statute (F.S.) 163.31801, requires that administrative charges for the collection of impact fees be limited to actual costs. Examples of typical administrative costs include:

Personnel expenses associated with the administration of the program (e.g., salary and fringe of the impact fee coordinator and other staff responsible with the administration of the program, etc.);

Cost of the technical studies and other consulting fees; Attorney costs related to impact fee matters; and Other central cost allocation (a portion of the time spent by the County Manager,

various County Departments, etc.). The administrative cost can be taken out of the revenues or can be added to the adopted fee levels. At this time, Indian River County collects 2.5 percent of the impact fee in addition to the impact fee amount. This amount increases to 3 percent within the cities, with the County retaining 1 percent and each City retaining the remaining 2 percent. The County tracks the administrative costs, which are presented in the following table for the past five years. Between 2008 and 2012, the average annual expense associated with the administration of the impact fee program was approximately $178,000. During the same time period, the County collected an average of $1.1 million of impact fees per year. This suggests that the administrative cost is approximately 15 percent of the collections. As such, the 2.5-percent fee that the County is collecting represents a conservative approach and will continue to be so until the impact fee revenues reach to approximately $7 million per year.



Table H-1 Administrative Expense

Source: Indian River County TOA conducted research to understand how other jurisdictions address this issue. The following is a summary of the information obtained:

Brevard County’s impact fee ordinances indicate different administrative fee percentages for each impact fee program area, which are used to limit the amount taken out of the collected fees for administrative costs, and are not charged in addition to the adopted fees. The ordinances include the following general language: “The Board of County Commissioners shall be entitled to, but not more than, X% of the funds collected pursuant to this division, to compensate for the administrative expense of collecting and administrating this impact fee program. All remaining funds collected from impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to, and expansion of, the county’s infrastructure programs.” The allowed percentage is 2% in the case of solid waste impact fee, 5% in the case of library impact fee, and 8% in the case of correctional facilities, fire rescue, EMS, and roads impact fees. In the case of educational facilities impact fee, the interlocal agreement between the County and the School District reads, “The County is entitled to retain up to, but not more than, 2.5% of the amount of educational facilities impact fees collected for administration of the ordinance. In calculating the amount of administrative fee, the County shall include those expenditures that are reasonably associated with the

Expense 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

Personnel $50,635 $76,088 $96,007 $88,567 $86,121 $397,417General & Administrative $6,212 $7,456 $9,285 $9,083 $8,467 $40,503Other Professional Services $29,466 $0 $2,100 $14,003 $101,610 $147,179Interdepartmental Charges $54,597 $51,721 $56,357 $59,697 $74,689 $297,062Supplies, Equipment & Other $722 $2,015 $1,495 $773 $1,813 $6,817Total $141,632 $137,280 $165,243 $172,123 $272,699 $888,977

Annual Impact Fee Collections $2,396,539 $596,338 $618,892 $759,760 $1,102,670 $5,474,199% Administrative Expense 6% 23% 27% 23% 25% 16%

$177,795$1,094,840

16%

Average Annual Administrative ExpenseAverage Annual Impact Fee Collections% Administrative Expense



administration of the program. These expenditures may include but are not limited to, compensation and benefits for personnel involved in the administration of the ordinance; supplies and expenses related to administration of the ordinance; costs associated with consulting services for establishment and periodic updates of the ordinance; and those attorneys fees that may be necessary for administration and enforcement of the ordinance. The County acknowledges that it administers other impact fee programs not related to public educational facilities and pledges to consolidate its administrative efforts in order to cost effectively administer all impact fee programs. When shared administrative costs cannot be isolated by specific impact fee program, the County shall prorate those costs based on amount of revenue collected with each program.”

Collier County does not collect an additional percentage but uses a portion of impact fee revenues to offset the related administrative costs. The County keeps track of these costs and distributes them among impact fee accounts for different program areas. In the case of educationa facilities impact fee, Collier County’s interlocal agreement requires that the School District pays the County $6.25 per $1,000 of collections (0.625 percent). This amount is not added to the impact fee, but rather, is taken out of the gross collections.

Osceola County’s Impact Fee Ordinance the following language: “Actual administrative costs for the county will be determined and will be adopted by resolution and will be reviewed annually. The administrative fee will be determined by comparing actual program expenditures to actual collections for the completed fiscal year immediately preceding the calculation. Cost will be allocated to each type of impact fee based on the best estimate by the impact fee coordinator of time spent on each type. This fee will be in addition to the impact fee.” In addition, Osceola County’s interlocal agreement states that “To reimburse the County, Kissimmee, and St. Cloud for cost of collecting impact fees, each may charge an administrative fee in addition to the Impact Fee, not to exceed the actual cost of collection.”



Volusia County collects a 3-percent administrative fee in addition to the adopted impact fee.

Given these findings and the State requirements, Indian River County’s administrative fee of 2.5% is found to be a conservative amount and is consistent with practices of other communities in Florida.

Appendix I Master Fee Schedules:

Full Calculated Fee Rates

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$2

6676

.2%

$75

$135

80.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$648

50.7

%$2

47$2

9017

.du

$170

$287

68.8

%$7

5$1

4694

.7%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$7

0044

.9%

$278

$314

12.

du$1

84$3

2073

.9%

$75

$163

117.

3%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$781

49.0

%$3

01$3

4815

.du

$100

$162

62.0

%$5

7$8

345

.6%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

9739

.3%

$176

$181

2.du

$123

$183

48.8

%$7

5$9

324

.0%

$149

$470

215.

4%$3

49$4

4627

.8%

$182

$197

8.

room

$99

$121

22.2

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$312

36.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$1

31-1

8.ro

om$9

9$1

1213

.1%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$2

8825

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$121

-24.

bed

$107

$171

59.8

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$442

41.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

CLF)

bed

$107

$171

59.8

%$6

2$0

-100

.0%

$312

$442

41.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$212

14.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$5

47-5

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$229

-23.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$3

0966

.1%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$797

-37.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$3

3411

.1,

000

sf$2

12$4

1595

.8%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$1,0

71-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$341

$449

31.

1,00

0 sf

$174

$425

144.

3%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

91$1

,095

-8.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$4

5963

.1,

000

sf$1

53$1

8621

.6%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$480

-54.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$2

01-1

8.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$158

95.1

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$408

-26.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$1

7131

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$93

69.1

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$240

-36.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$1

0114

.1,

000

sf$4

2$5

223

.8%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

34-5

3.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$56

-17.

1,00

0 sf

$8$1

137

.5%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$2

9-2

7.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13

$12

-7.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$26

-38.

1%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$67

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$6

8$2

8-5

8.1,

000

sf$7

5$1

2972

.0%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$5

12$3

31-3

5.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$120

$139

15.

acre

$165

$289

75.2

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

30$7

44-3

4.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$312

17.

acre

$21

$37

76.2

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$145

$96

-33.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

4$4

017

.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$441

41.3

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$1

,138

-25.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$5

03$4

77-5

.or

w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$188

$356

89.4

%$3

9$0

-100

.0%

$921

$917

-0.4

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

03$3

8527

.1,

000

sf$1

86$2

7447

.3%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$9

12$7

06-2

2.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$300

$296

-1.

1,00

0 sf

$800

$1,2

6357

.9%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$3,2

55-1

7.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

89$1

,365

5.1,

000

sf$8

63$1

,658

92.1

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$4

,273

1.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

89$1

,792

29.

1,00

0 sf

$222

$382

72.1

%$4

24$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

87$9

84-9

.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$357

$413

15.

1,00

0 sf

$70

$279

298.

6%$2

0$0

-100

.0%

$134

$720

437.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

07$3

0218

2.se

rvic

e ba

y$2

06$1

62-2

1.4%

$77

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,009

$418

-58.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$3

32$1

75-4

7.Pu

mps

1,00

0 sf

$463

$1,0

8613

4.6%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$2,7

9923

.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$746

$1,1

7457

.1,

000

sf$3

5$4

322

.9%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$1

70$1

10-3

5.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$56

$46

-17.

hole

$267

$201

-24.

7%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$5

18-6

0.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$217

-49.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$5

7512

2.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$1,4

8316

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$417

$622

49.

acre

$17

$37

117.

6%$8

5$0

-100

.0%

$81

$96

18.5

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$4

048

.co

urt

$253

$589

132.

8%$1

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

41$1

,517

22.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$6

3655

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$35

105.

9%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$91

11.0

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$3

840

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$302

55.7

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$7

78-2

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$326

4.1,

000

sf$1

88$3

2874

.5%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$8

45-8

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$302

$354

17.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$259

75.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$238

$280

17.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$6

6743

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$153

$175

14.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$166

50.9

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$427

-43.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$1

791.

1,00

0 sf

$171

$255

49.1

%$8

3$0

-100

.0%

$838

$658

-21.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

75$2

760.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$473

165.

7%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$1

,219

-0.3

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

87$5

1178

.1,

000

sf$5

8$9

563

.8%

$33

$0-1

00.0

%$2

85$2

45-1

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$94

$103

9.sc

reen

$925

$1,1

1420

.4%

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,535

$2,8

71-3

6.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,4

90$1

,204

-19.

5)st

uden

t$1

0$1

110

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$2

9-5

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$12

-29.

stud

ent

$10

$13

30.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$34

-51.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$1

4-1

7.st

uden

t$1

3$1

515

.4%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$9

0$3

8-5

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$16

-23.

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$11

$19

72.7

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$78

$48

-38.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

8$2

011

.1,

000

sf$6

9$1

1769

.6%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$3

39$3

02-1

0.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

nng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

Ad

du$1

,302

$1,7

8837

.3%

$2,9

74$3

,406

14.5

%$1

,756

$6,0

7724

6.1%

$183

$342

86.9

%du

$1,4

63$1

,947

33.1

%$4

,483

$4,2

48-5

.2%

$1,7

56$6

,077

246.

1%$2

29$3

7262

.4%

du$1

,587

$2,1

6436

.4%

$5,0

31$5

,004

-0.5

%$1

,756

$6,0

7724

6.1%

$249

$404

62.2

%ry

Uni

tdu

$884

$1,1

1125

.7%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.9

%$5

00$2

,387

377.

4%$1

17$1

9365

.0%

dow

n)du

$942

$1,0

8615

.3%

$1,7

45$1

,550

-11.

2%$6

23$3

,665

488.

3%$1

09$1

9881

.7%

GRO

UP:

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,8

04$2

,156

-23.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$8

6$7

2-1

6.3%

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,5

16$1

,524

0.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$54

$55

1.9%

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$432

$494

14.4

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

0$3

930

.0%

acili

ty (A

CLF)

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$620

$555

-10.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$3

6$4

011

.1%

10,0

00 s

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$9,6

02-2

8.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$273

-29.

8%gr

eate

r tha

n 10

,000

sf

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$13,

996

4.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$397

2.1%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

634

$10,

511

-1.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

26$3

260.

0%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,02

0$1

3,82

06.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$3

76$4

119.

3%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

,798

$4,2

5712

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$139

$135

-2.9

%en

t Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,7

98$3

,164

13.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$1

039.

6%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

18$1

,473

11.8

%n/

an/

an/

a$5

4$5

1-5

.6%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

28$1

,372

11.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$4

3$4

2-2

.3%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$862

$483

-44.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$2

4$1

4-4

1.7%

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$655

-46.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$4

3$2

0-5

3.5%

al1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

,404

$2,6

8111

.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$86

$87

1.2%

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

82$6

,006

11.6

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

85$1

944.

9%ac

ren/

an/

an/

a$6

90$7

6911

.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$28

$25

-10.

7%

1,00

0 sf

gla

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,1

63$6

,360

101.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

55$2

2746

.5%

on w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,5

87$5

,082

-9.0

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

83$1

82-0

.5%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

108

$8,2

94-1

7.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$297

$249

-16.

2%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

2,15

2$2

0,64

3-6

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$741

$710

-4.2

%e-

Thru

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34,

781

$45,

464

30.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,070

$1,3

9130

.0%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

179

$9,0

35-1

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$340

$284

-16.

5%dy

Sho

p1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$7

,830

$6,5

19-1

6.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$207

$206

-0.5

%se

rvic

e ba

yn/

an/

an/

a$1

4,58

9$4

,909

-66.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$4

13$1

48-6

4.2%

with

Gas

Pum

ps1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

5,43

0$2

3,25

2-8

.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$750

$748

-0.3

%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

,373

$1,3

67-0

.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$48

$41

-14.

6%

hole

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$17,

515

55.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

42$4

6937

.1%

lub/

Danc

e St

udio

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$12,

967

19.8

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

31$4

1224

.5%

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$718

$859

19.6

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

4$2

712

.5%

cour

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

2,18

0$1

5,23

625

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$361

$471

30.5

%bo

at b

erth

n/a

n/a

n/a

$973

$1,4

5449

.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$29

$42

44.8

%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

199

$15,

858

11.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$4

04$4

439.

7%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

7,92

5$2

6,02

745

.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$492

$701

42.5

%m

plex

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$9,6

32$1

0,76

011

.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$258

$292

13.2

%be

dn/

an/

an/

a$3

89$2

,109

442.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

9$8

017

5.9%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$8,8

47$7

,960

-10.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$2

57$2

24-1

2.8%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$5

,551

4.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$173

$178

2.9%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$1

5,47

134

0.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$139

$459

230.

2%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

,588

$2,5

64-0

.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$79

$79

0.0%

nee

scre

enn/

an/

an/

a$2

2,74

3$1

5,76

8-3

0.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$780

$565

-27.

6%va

te, K

-5)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$364

144.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$7

$11

57.1

%e,

6-9

)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

49$5

0123

6.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$7$1

511

4.3%

9-12

)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$5

38$5

27-2

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$15

-11.

8%eg

e (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$6

53$9

8550

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$20

$27

35.0

%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$9

83$7

21-2

6.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$40

$33

-17.

5%

ed)

Adm

inist

rativ

e Fe

e (2

.5%

)Pa

rks &

Rec

reat

ion

Tran

spor

tatio

nEd

ucat

iona

l Fac

ilitie

s*La

nd U

seUn

it

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$2

6676

.2%

$75

$135

80.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$648

50.7

%$2

47$2

9017

.du

$170

$287

68.8

%$7

5$1

4694

.7%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$7

0044

.9%

$278

$314

12.

du$1

84$3

2073

.9%

$75

$163

117.

3%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$781

49.0

%$3

01$3

4815

.du

$100

$162

62.0

%$5

7$8

345

.6%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

9739

.3%

$176

$181

2.du

$123

$183

48.8

%$7

5$9

324

.0%

$149

$470

215.

4%$3

49$4

4627

.8%

$182

$197

8.

room

$99

$121

22.2

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$312

36.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$1

31-1

8.ro

om$9

9$1

1213

.1%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$2

8825

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$121

-24.

bed

$107

$171

59.8

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$442

41.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

CLF)

bed

$107

$171

59.8

%$6

2$0

-100

.0%

$312

$442

41.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$212

14.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$5

47-5

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$229

-23.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$3

0966

.1%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$797

-37.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$3

3411

.1,

000

sf$2

12$4

1595

.8%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$1,0

71-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$341

$449

31.

1,00

0 sf

$174

$425

144.

3%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

91$1

,095

-8.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$4

5963

.1,

000

sf$1

53$1

8621

.6%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$480

-54.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$2

01-1

8.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$158

95.1

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$408

-26.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$1

7131

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$93

69.1

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$240

-36.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$1

0114

.1,

000

sf$4

2$5

223

.8%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

34-5

3.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$56

-17.

1,00

0 sf

$8$1

137

.5%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$2

9-2

7.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13

$12

-7.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$26

-38.

1%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$67

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$6

8$2

8-5

8.1,

000

sf$7

5$1

2972

.0%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$5

12$3

31-3

5.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$120

$139

15.

acre

$165

$289

75.2

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

30$7

44-3

4.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$312

17.

acre

$21

$37

76.2

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$145

$96

-33.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

4$4

017

.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$441

41.3

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$1

,138

-25.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$5

03$4

77-5

.or

w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$188

$356

89.4

%$3

9$0

-100

.0%

$921

$917

-0.4

%n/

an/

an/

a$3

03$3

8527

.1,

000

sf$1

86$2

7447

.3%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$9

12$7

06-2

2.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$300

$296

-1.

1,00

0 sf

$800

$1,2

6357

.9%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$3,2

55-1

7.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

89$1

,365

5.1,

000

sf$8

63$1

,658

92.1

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$4

,273

1.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

89$1

,792

29.

1,00

0 sf

$222

$382

72.1

%$4

24$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

87$9

84-9

.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$357

$413

15.

1,00

0 sf

$70

$279

298.

6%$2

0$0

-100

.0%

$134

$720

437.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

07$3

0218

2.se

rvic

e ba

y$2

06$1

62-2

1.4%

$77

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,009

$418

-58.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$3

32$1

75-4

7.Pu

mps

1,00

0 sf

$463

$1,0

8613

4.6%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$2,7

9923

.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$746

$1,1

7457

.1,

000

sf$3

5$4

322

.9%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$1

70$1

10-3

5.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$56

$46

-17.

hole

$267

$201

-24.

7%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$5

18-6

0.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$217

-49.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$5

7512

2.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$1,4

8316

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$417

$622

49.

acre

$17

$37

117.

6%$8

5$0

-100

.0%

$81

$96

18.5

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$4

048

.co

urt

$253

$589

132.

8%$1

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

41$1

,517

22.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$6

3655

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$35

105.

9%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$91

11.0

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$3

840

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$302

55.7

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$7

78-2

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$326

4.1,

000

sf$1

88$3

2874

.5%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$8

45-8

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$302

$354

17.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$259

75.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$238

$280

17.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$6

6743

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$153

$175

14.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$166

50.9

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$427

-43.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$1

791.

1,00

0 sf

$171

$255

49.1

%$8

3$0

-100

.0%

$838

$658

-21.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

75$2

760.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$473

165.

7%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$1

,219

-0.3

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

87$5

1178

.1,

000

sf$5

8$9

563

.8%

$33

$0-1

00.0

%$2

85$2

45-1

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$94

$103

9.sc

reen

$925

$1,1

1420

.4%

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,535

$2,8

71-3

6.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,4

90$1

,204

-19.

5)st

uden

t$1

0$1

110

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$2

9-5

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$12

-29.

stud

ent

$10

$13

30.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$34

-51.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$1

4-1

7.st

uden

t$1

3$1

515

.4%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$9

0$3

8-5

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$16

-23.

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$11

$19

72.7

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$78

$48

-38.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

8$2

011

.1,

000

sf$6

9$1

1769

.6%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$3

39$3

02-1

0.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

nng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

,756

$6,0

7724

6.1%

$116

$230

98.3

%$5

8$1

1598

.3%

$5,9

90$1

1,8

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sf

du$1

,756

$6,0

7724

6.1%

$149

$250

67.8

%$7

5$1

2566

.7%

$7,6

75$1

2,8

- 2,

500

sf o

r lar

ger

du$1

,756

$6,0

7724

6.1%

$162

$270

66.7

%$8

1$1

3566

.7%

$8,3

37$1

3,9

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

/Acc

esso

ry U

nit

du$5

00$2

,387

377.

4%$7

3$1

2774

.0%

$37

$64

73.0

%$3

,777

$6,5

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (t

ied

dow

n)du

$623

$3,6

6548

8.3%

$65

$132

103.

1%$3

2$6

610

6.3%

$3,3

43$6

,8TR

ANSI

ENT,

ASS

ISTE

D, G

ROUP

:Ho

tel

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$66

$54

-18.

2%$3

3$2

7-1

8.2%

$3,4

12$2

,8M

otel

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$41

$41

0.0%

$20

$20

0.0%

$2,0

86$2

,1Nu

rsin

g Ho

me

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$26

23.8

%$1

1$1

318

.2%

$1,0

88$1

,3As

sist

ed C

are

Livi

ng F

acili

ty (A

CLF)

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25

$27

8.0%

$13

$14

7.7%

$1,3

11$1

,3O

FFIC

E &

FIN

ANCI

AL:

Med

ical

Offi

ce/C

linic

10,

000

sf o

r les

s1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

06$2

12-3

0.7%

$153

$106

-30.

7%$1

5,74

8$1

0,9

Med

ical

Offi

ce/C

linic

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sf1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

06$3

091.

0%$1

53$1

540.

7%$1

5,74

8$1

5,8

Bank

/Sav

ings

Wal

k-In

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$255

$249

-2.4

%$1

28$1

24-3

.1%

$13,

142

$12,

8Ba

nk/S

avin

gs D

rive

-In1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

96$3

166.

8%$1

48$1

586.

8%$1

5,22

7$1

6,2

Gene

ral O

ffice

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$107

$102

-4.7

%$5

3$5

1-3

.8%

$5,5

01$5

,2Re

sear

ch &

Dev

elop

men

t Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$73

$78

6.8%

$37

$39

5.4%

$3,7

68$4

,0IN

DUST

RIAL

:M

anuf

actu

ring

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$41

$38

-7.3

%$2

1$1

9-9

.5%

$2,1

34$1

,9W

areh

ousi

ng1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

3$3

2-3

.0%

$17

$16

-5.9

%$1

,723

$1,6

Min

i-War

ehou

se1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

9$1

1-4

2.1%

$9$5

-44.

4%$9

70$5

High

-Cub

e (A

utom

ated

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

3$1

6-5

1.5%

$17

$8-5

2.9%

$1,7

23$8

Gene

ral L

ight

Indu

stri

al1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$6

7$6

6-1

.5%

$33

$33

0.0%

$3,4

47$3

,3Co

ncre

te P

lant

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$143

$147

2.8%

$72

$74

2.8%

$7,3

70$7

,5Sa

nd M

inin

gac

ren/

an/

an/

a$2

2$1

9-1

3.6%

$11

$9-1

8.2%

$1,1

36$9

RETA

IL:

Reta

il1,

000

sfgl

an/

an/

an/

a$1

15$1

6846

.1%

$57

$84

47.4

%$5

,917

$8,6

Gaso

line/

Serv

ice

Stat

ion

with

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.n/

an/

an/

a$1

41$1

35-4

.3%

$70

$67

-4.3

%$7

,249

$6,9

New

/Use

d Au

to S

ales

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$232

$191

-17.

7%$1

16$9

6-1

7.2%

$11,

972

$9,8

Rest

aura

nt1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$5

70$5

31-6

.8%

$285

$265

-7.0

%$2

9,34

9$2

7,3

Fast

Foo

d Re

st. w

/Dri

ve-T

hru

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$832

$1,0

6427

.9%

$416

$532

27.9

%$4

2,83

8$5

4,7

Supe

rmar

ket

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$216

-18.

5%$1

33$1

08-1

8.8%

$13,

667

$11,

1Au

tom

obile

Rep

air/

Body

Sho

p1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

63$1

56-4

.3%

$82

$78

-4.9

%$8

,406

$8,0

Self-

Serv

ice

Car W

ash

serv

ice

bay

n/a

n/a

n/a

$324

$113

-65.

1%$1

62$5

7-6

4.8%

$16,

699

$5,8

Conv

enie

nce

Mar

ket w

ith G

as P

umps

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$587

$566

-3.6

%$2

93$2

83-3

.4%

$30,

213

$29,

1Fu

rnitu

re S

tore

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$37

$31

-16.

2%$1

9$1

6-1

5.8%

$1,9

26$1

,6RE

CREA

TIO

NAL

:Go

lf Co

urse

hole

n/a

n/a

n/a

$266

$369

38.7

%$1

33$1

8539

.1%

$13,

688

$19,

0Ra

cque

t Clu

b/He

alth

Clu

b/Da

nce

Stud

io1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

58$3

1321

.3%

$129

$156

20.9

%$1

3,27

5$1

6,1

Coun

ty P

ark

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$19

$21

10.5

%$9

$10

11.1

%$9

56$1

,0Te

nnis

Cou

rtco

urt

n/a

n/a

n/a

$282

$360

27.7

%$1

41$1

8027

.7%

$14,

523

$18,

5M

arin

abo

at b

erth

n/a

n/a

n/a

$23

$32

39.1

%$1

1$1

645

.5%

$1,1

78$1

,6GO

VERN

MEN

TAL:

Post

Offi

ce1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

18$3

458.

5%$1

59$1

738.

8%$1

6,38

3$1

7,7

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$551

41.6

%$1

94$2

7642

.3%

$20,

011

$28,

3Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

02$2

2611

.9%

$101

$113

11.9

%$1

0,41

5$1

1,6

Jail

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$20

$59

195.

0%$1

0$3

020

0.0%

$1,0

54$3

,0M

ISCE

LLAN

EOUS

:Da

y Ca

re C

ente

r1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

03$1

75-1

3.8%

$101

$87

-13.

9%$1

0,42

9$8

,9Ho

spita

l1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

34$1

350.

7%$6

7$6

70.

0%$6

,877

$6,9

Vete

rina

ry C

linic

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$106

$353

233.

0%$5

3$1

7723

4.0%

$5,4

76$1

8,2

Chur

ch1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$6

1$6

0-1

.6%

$31

$30

-3.2

%$3

,150

$3,0

Mov

ie T

heat

er w

/Mat

inee

scre

enn/

an/

an/

a$5

98$4

19-2

9.9%

$299

$210

-29.

8%$3

0,77

8$2

1,5

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

l (Pr

ivat

e, K

-5)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5$8

60.0

%$3

$433

.3%

$266

$4M

iddl

e Sc

hool

(Pri

vate

, 6-9

)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$5

$11

120.

0%$3

$610

0.0%

$266

$5Hi

gh S

choo

l (Pr

ivat

e, 9

-12)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14

$12

-14.

3%$7

$6-1

4.3%

$696

$6Un

iver

sity

/Jun

ior C

olle

ge (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

5$2

140

.0%

$8$1

137

.5%

$796

$1,1

Fire

Sta

tion

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$30

$23

-23.

3%$1

5$1

1-2

6.7%

$1,5

30$1

,1

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Tota

l (Al

l Fee

Land

Use

Unit

City

Adm

in F

ee (2

.0%

)Co

unty

Adm

in. F

ee (1

.0%

)Ed

ucat

iona

l Fac

ilitie

s*

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$2

6676

.2%

$75

$135

80.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$648

50.7

%$2

,974

$3,4

0614

.du

$170

$287

68.8

%$7

5$1

4694

.7%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$7

0044

.9%

$4,4

83$4

,248

-5.

du$1

84$3

2073

.9%

$75

$163

117.

3%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$781

49.0

%$5

,031

$5,0

04-0

.du

$100

$162

62.0

%$5

7$8

345

.6%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

9739

.3%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.

du$1

23$1

8348

.8%

$75

$93

24.0

%$1

49$4

7021

5.4%

$349

$446

27.8

%$1

,745

$1,5

50-1

1.

room

$99

$121

22.2

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$312

36.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,804

$2,1

56-2

3.ro

om$9

9$1

1213

.1%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$2

8825

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,5

16$1

,524

0.be

d$1

07$1

7159

.8%

$33

$0-1

00.0

%$3

12$4

4241

.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$432

$494

14.

CLF)

bed

$107

$171

59.8

%$6

2$0

-100

.0%

$312

$442

41.7

%n/

an/

an/

a$6

20$5

55-1

0.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$212

14.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$5

47-5

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$9,6

02-2

8.ha

n 10

,000

sf

1,00

0 sf

$186

$309

66.1

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$7

97-3

7.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$13,

996

4.1,

000

sf$2

12$4

1595

.8%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$1,0

71-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

634

$10,

511

-1.

1,00

0 sf

$174

$425

144.

3%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

91$1

,095

-8.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

3,02

0$1

3,82

06.

1,00

0 sf

$153

$186

21.6

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

50$4

80-5

4.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,7

98$4

,257

12.

er1,

000

sf$8

1$1

5895

.1%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$5

55$4

08-2

6.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,7

98$3

,164

13.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$93

69.1

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$240

-36.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,318

$1,4

7311

.1,

000

sf$4

2$5

223

.8%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

34-5

3.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

28$1

,372

11.

1,00

0 sf

$8$1

137

.5%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$2

9-2

7.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$862

$483

-44.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$26

-38.

1%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$67

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$655

-46.

1,00

0 sf

$75

$129

72.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$512

$331

-35.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,404

$2,6

8111

.ac

re$1

65$2

8975

.2%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,130

$744

-34.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$5

,382

$6,0

0611

.ac

re$2

1$3

776

.2%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

45$9

6-3

3.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$690

$769

11.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$441

41.3

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$1

,138

-25.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$3

,163

$6,3

6010

1.or

w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$188

$356

89.4

%$3

9$0

-100

.0%

$921

$917

-0.4

%n/

an/

an/

a$5

,587

$5,0

82-9

.1,

000

sf$1

86$2

7447

.3%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$9

12$7

06-2

2.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

108

$8,2

94-1

7.1,

000

sf$8

00$1

,263

57.9

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$3,9

23$3

,255

-17.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$2

2,15

2$2

0,64

3-6

.1,

000

sf$8

63$1

,658

92.1

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$4

,273

1.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34,

781

$45,

464

30.

1,00

0 sf

$222

$382

72.1

%$4

24$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

87$9

84-9

.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

179

$9,0

35-1

9.1,

000

sf$7

0$2

7929

8.6%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$7

2043

7.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$7,8

30$6

,519

-16.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$162

-21.

4%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$4

18-5

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

589

$4,9

09-6

6.Pu

mps

1,00

0 sf

$463

$1,0

8613

4.6%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$2,7

9923

.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25,

430

$23,

252

-8.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$43

22.9

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$110

-35.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,373

$1,3

67-0

.

hole

$267

$201

-24.

7%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$5

18-6

0.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$17,

515

55.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$5

7512

2.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$1,4

8316

.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$12,

967

19.

acre

$17

$37

117.

6%$8

5$0

-100

.0%

$81

$96

18.5

%n/

an/

an/

a$7

18$8

5919

.co

urt

$253

$589

132.

8%$1

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

41$1

,517

22.2

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

2,18

0$1

5,23

625

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$35

105.

9%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$91

11.0

%n/

an/

an/

a$9

73$1

,454

49.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$302

55.7

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$7

78-2

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

199

$15,

858

11.

1,00

0 sf

$188

$328

74.5

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$919

$845

-8.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7,92

5$2

6,02

745

.1,

000

sf$1

48$2

5975

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a$9

,632

$10,

760

11.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$6

6743

.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$2,1

0944

2.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$166

50.9

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$427

-43.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$8

,847

$7,9

60-1

0.1,

000

sf$1

71$2

5549

.1%

$83

$0-1

00.0

%$8

38$6

58-2

1.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$5

,551

4.1,

000

sf$1

78$4

7316

5.7%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,223

$1,2

19-0

.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$1

5,47

134

0.1,

000

sf$5

8$9

563

.8%

$33

$0-1

00.0

%$2

85$2

45-1

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,5

88$2

,564

-0.

scre

en$9

25$1

,114

20.4

%$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$4,5

35$2

,871

-36.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

2,74

3$1

5,76

8-3

0.5)

stud

ent

$10

$11

10.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$29

-58.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

49$3

6414

4.st

uden

t$1

0$1

330

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$3

4-5

1.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$501

236.

stud

ent

$13

$15

15.4

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$90

$38

-57.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$5

38$5

27-2

.0

or fe

wer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

t$1

1$1

972

.7%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$7

8$4

8-3

8.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$653

$985

50.

1,00

0 sf

$69

$117

69.6

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$339

$302

-10.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$9

83$7

21-2

6.ng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

Libr

arie

sTr

ansp

orta

tion

Publ

ic Bu

ildin

gsd

Use

Unit

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ties

Solid

Was

te F

acili

ties

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Fu

ll Ca

lcul

ated

Fee

; Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Full

Calcu

late

dPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

11$2

2410

1.8%

$56

$112

100.

0%$5

,736

$11,

555

101.

4% -

1,50

0 to

2,4

99 s

fdu

$143

$244

70.6

%$7

2$1

2269

.4%

$7,3

88$1

2,56

370

.0%

- 2,

500

sf o

r lar

ger

du$1

56$2

6368

.6%

$78

$132

69.2

%$8

,027

$13,

566

69.0

%22

0M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

tdu

$70

$124

77.1

%$3

5$6

277

.1%

$3,5

96$6

,375

77.3

%24

0M

obile

Hom

e/RV

(tie

d do

wn)

du$6

1$1

2810

9.8%

$31

$64

106.

5%$3

,156

$6,5

9910

9.1%

TRAN

SIEN

T, A

SSIS

TED,

GRO

UP:

310

Hote

lro

om$6

3$5

2-1

7.5%

$32

$26

-18.

8%$3

,248

$2,6

67-1

7.9%

320

Mot

elro

om$3

7$3

82.

7%$1

9$1

90.

0%$1

,921

$1,9

813.

1%62

0Nu

rsin

g Ho

me

bed

$18

$22

22.2

%$9

$11

22.2

%$9

11$1

,140

25.1

%25

2As

sist

ed C

are

Livi

ng F

acili

ty (A

CLF)

bed

$22

$23

4.5%

$11

$12

9.1%

$1,1

34$1

,203

6.1%

OFF

ICE

& F

INAN

CIAL

:M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$300

$207

-31.

0%$1

50$1

04-3

0.7%

$15,

440

$10,

672

-30.

9%M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic g

reat

er th

an 1

0,00

0 sf

1,00

0 sf

$300

$302

0.7%

$150

$151

0.7%

$15,

440

$15,

555

0.7%

911

Bank

/Sav

ings

Wal

k-In

1,00

0 sf

$248

$240

-3.2

%$1

24$1

20-3

.2%

$12,

790

$12,

357

-3.4

%91

2Ba

nk/S

avin

gs D

rive

-In1,

000

sf$2

90$3

075.

9%$1

45$1

535.

5%$1

4,93

8$1

5,80

05.

8%71

0Ge

nera

l Offi

ce1,

000

sf$1

02$9

8-3

.9%

$51

$49

-3.9

%$5

,248

$5,0

70-3

.4%

760

Rese

arch

& D

evel

opm

ent C

ente

r1,

000

sf$7

1$7

55.

6%$3

5$3

75.

7%$3

,634

$3,8

425.

7%IN

DUST

RIAL

:14

0M

anuf

actu

ring

1,00

0 sf

$40

$36

-10.

0%$2

0$1

8-1

0.0%

$2,0

44$1

,860

-9.0

%15

0W

areh

ousi

ng1,

000

sf$3

2$3

1-3

.1%

$16

$16

0.0%

$1,6

53$1

,605

-2.9

%15

1M

ini-W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$19

$10

-47.

4%$9

$5-4

4.4%

$957

$538

-43.

8%15

2Hi

gh-C

ube

(Aut

omat

ed) W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$32

$15

-53.

1%$1

6$7

-56.

3%$1

,653

$770

-53.

4%11

0Ge

nera

l Lig

ht In

dust

rial

1,00

0 sf

$65

$63

-3.1

%$3

2$3

1-3

.1%

$3,3

24$3

,235

-2.7

%n/

aCo

ncre

te P

lant

acre

$138

$141

2.2%

$69

$70

1.4%

$7,0

97$7

,250

2.2%

n/a

Sand

Min

ing

acre

$21

$18

-14.

3%$1

1$9

-18.

2%$1

,101

$929

-15.

6%RE

TAIL

:82

0Re

tail

1,00

0 sf

gla

$105

$159

51.4

%$5

2$7

951

.9%

$5,3

99$8

,177

51.5

%94

4/ 9

46Ga

solin

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

n w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$135

$127

-5.9

%$6

7$6

4-4

.5%

$6,9

37$6

,546

-5.6

%84

1Ne

w/U

sed

Auto

Sal

es1,

000

sf$2

26$1

85-1

8.1%

$113

$93

-17.

7%$1

1,66

3$9

,552

-18.

1%93

2Re

stau

rant

1,00

0 sf

$544

$503

-7.5

%$2

72$2

52-7

.4%

$28,

021

$25,

916

-7.5

%93

4Fa

st F

ood

Rest

. w/D

rive

-Thr

u1,

000

sf$8

04$1

,028

27.9

%$4

02$5

1427

.9%

$41,

407

$52,

937

27.8

%85

0Su

perm

arke

t1,

000

sf$2

58$2

08-1

9.4%

$129

$104

-19.

4%$1

3,29

9$1

0,71

3-1

9.4%

942

Auto

mob

ile R

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

1,00

0 sf

$161

$150

-6.8

%$8

1$7

5-7

.4%

$8,2

96$7

,743

-6.7

%94

7Se

lf-Se

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

y$3

18$1

10-6

5.4%

$159

$55

-65.

4%$1

6,35

8$5

,654

-65.

4%85

3Co

nven

ienc

e M

arke

t with

Gas

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$5

72$5

43-5

.1%

$286

$271

-5.2

%$2

9,44

5$2

7,95

1-5

.1%

890

Furn

iture

Sto

re1,

000

sf$3

6$3

0-1

6.7%

$18

$15

-16.

7%$1

,868

$1,5

65-1

6.2%

RECR

EATI

ON

AL:

430

Golf

Cour

seho

le$2

57$3

6542

.0%

$129

$182

41.1

%$1

3,24

6$1

8,78

141

.8%

492

Racq

uet C

lub/

Heal

th C

lub/

Danc

e St

udio

1,00

0 sf

$249

$301

20.9

%$1

25$1

5020

.0%

$12,

845

$15,

476

20.5

%41

2Co

unty

Par

kac

re$1

8$2

011

.1%

$9$1

011

.1%

$928

$1,0

2210

.1%

491

Tenn

is C

ourt

cour

t$2

74$3

4726

.6%

$137

$173

26.3

%$1

4,10

3$1

7,86

226

.7%

420

Mar

ina

boat

ber

th$2

2$3

245

.5%

$11

$16

45.5

%$1

,150

$1,6

2841

.6%

GOVE

RNM

ENTA

L:73

2Po

st O

ffice

1,00

0 sf

$312

$339

8.7%

$156

$169

8.3%

$16,

062

$17,

446

8.6%

590

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

$383

$544

42.0

%$1

91$2

7242

.4%

$19,

700

$28,

016

42.2

%73

3Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sf$1

97$2

2011

.7%

$99

$110

11.1

%$1

0,17

0$1

1,34

911

.6%

571

Jail

bed

$17

$56

229.

4%$9

$28

211.

1%$8

97$2

,860

218.

8%M

ISCE

LLAN

EOUS

:56

5Da

y Ca

re C

ente

r1,

000

sf$1

99$1

71-1

4.1%

$99

$86

-13.

1%$1

0,24

6$8

,810

-14.

0%61

0Ho

spita

l1,

000

sf$1

28$1

290.

8%$6

4$6

51.

6%$6

,593

$6,6

581.

0%64

0Ve

teri

nary

Clin

ic1,

000

sf$1

01$3

4323

9.6%

$50

$172

244.

0%$5

,181

$17,

678

241.

2%56

0Ch

urch

1,00

0 sf

$59

$58

-1.7

%$3

0$2

9-3

.3%

$3,0

53$2

,991

-2.0

%44

4M

ovie

The

ater

w/M

atin

eesc

reen

$568

$395

-30.

5%$2

84$1

98-3

0.3%

$29,

243

$20,

346

-30.

4%52

0El

emen

tary

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

K-5

)st

uden

t$5

$860

.0%

$2$4

100.

0%$2

48$4

1667

.7%

522

Mid

dle

Scho

ol (P

riva

te, 6

-9)

stud

ent

$5$1

112

0.0%

$2$5

150.

0%$2

48$5

6412

7.4%

530

High

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

9-1

2)st

uden

t$1

3$1

2-7

.7%

$7$6

-14.

3%$6

74$5

98-1

1.3%

540/

550

Univ

ersi

ty/J

unio

r Col

lege

(7,5

00 o

r few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$15

$21

40.0

%$8

$11

37.5

%$7

78$1

,084

39.3

%n/

aFi

reSt

atio

n1,

000

sf$3

0$2

3-2

3.3%

$15

$11

-26.

7%$1

,530

$1,1

74-2

3.3%

720

210

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

City

Adm

in F

ee (2

.0%

)Co

unty

Adm

in. F

ee (1

.0%

)To

tal (

All F

ees)

ITE

LUC

Land

Use

Unit

Appendix J Master Fee Schedules:

Affordable Growth Fee Rates

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$622

44.7

%$2

47$3

2-8

7.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$6

7239

.1%

$278

$35

-87.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$750

43.1

%$3

01$3

8-8

7.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

8133

.7%

$176

$20

-88.

du$1

23$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

49$4

7021

5.4%

$349

$428

22.6

%$1

82$2

2-8

7.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$162

-29.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$0

-100

.ro

om$9

9$0

-100

.0%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$1

50-3

4.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$0-1

00.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$230

-26.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$0

-100

.CL

F)be

d$1

07$0

-100

.0%

$62

$0-1

00.0

%$3

12$2

30-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$172

$0-1

00.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$2

84-7

7.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$0-1

00.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$414

-67.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$557

-61.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$3

41$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

74$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,191

$569

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$250

-76.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$0

-100

.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$212

-61.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$125

-66.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$7

0-7

5.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$1

5-6

2.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13

$0-1

00.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$0-1

00.0

%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$35

-87.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$6

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$5

12$1

72-6

6.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$120

$0-1

00.

acre

$165

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

30$3

87-6

5.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$0-1

00.

acre

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$145

$50

-65.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$3

4$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$5

92-6

1.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$503

$0-1

00.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$4

77-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$303

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$367

-59.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

00$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$8

00$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$1,6

93-5

6.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

89$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$8

63$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,227

$2,2

22-4

7.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

89$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$2

22$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,087

$512

-52.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$3

57$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$7

0$0

-100

.0%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$3

7417

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$107

$0-1

00.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$0-1

00.0

%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$2

17-7

8.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$332

$0-1

00.

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$4

63$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$1,4

55-3

5.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$746

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$57

-66.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$5

6$0

-100

.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$2

69-7

9.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$0-1

00.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$771

-39.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$4

17$0

-100

.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$5

0-3

8.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$27

$0-1

00.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$789

-36.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$0

-100

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$0-1

00.0

%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$47

-42.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$4

05-6

3.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$919

$439

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$3

02$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

48$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a$2

38$0

-100

.be

dn/

an/

an/

a$1

6$0

-100

.0%

$466

$347

-25.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

53$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$222

-70.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

71$0

-100

.0%

$83

$0-1

00.0

%$8

38$3

42-5

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$275

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$6

34-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$287

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$127

-55.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$0

-100

.sc

reen

$925

$0-1

00.0

%$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$4,5

35$1

,493

-67.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,490

$0-1

00.

5)st

uden

t$1

0$0

-100

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$1

5-7

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$0-1

00.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$18

-74.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$0

-100

.st

uden

t$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$9

0$2

0-7

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$0-1

00.

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$11

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$78

$25

-67.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$6

9$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$3

39$1

57-5

3.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

nng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

Publ

ic Bu

ildin

gsd

Use

Unit

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ties

Solid

Was

te F

acili

ties

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

Ado

du$1

,302

$1,6

4526

.3%

$2,9

74$3

,406

14.5

%$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$183

$212

15.8

%du

$1,4

63$1

,791

22.4

%$4

,483

$4,2

48-5

.2%

$1,7

56$1

,702

-3.1

%$2

29$2

415.

2%du

$1,5

87$1

,991

25.5

%$5

,031

$5,0

04-0

.5%

$1,7

56$1

,702

-3.1

%$2

49$2

708.

4%or

y Un

itdu

$884

$1,0

2215

.6%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.9

%$5

00$6

6833

.7%

$117

$138

17.9

%d

dow

n)du

$942

$999

6.1%

$1,7

45$1

,550

-11.

2%$6

23$1

,026

64.7

%$1

09$1

188.

3% G

ROUP

:ro

omn/

an/

an/

a$2

,804

$970

-65.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$8

6$3

3-6

1.6%

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,5

16$6

86-5

4.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$54

$25

-53.

7%be

dn/

an/

an/

a$4

32$2

22-4

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$30

$18

-40.

0%ac

ility

(ACL

F)be

dn/

an/

an/

a$6

20$2

50-5

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$36

$18

-50.

0%

10,

000

sf o

r les

s1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,41

1$4

,321

-67.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

89$1

23-6

8.4%

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sf1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,41

1$6

,298

-53.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$3

89$1

79-5

4.0%

n1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

0,63

4$4

,730

-55.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$3

26$1

47-5

4.9%

n1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,02

0$6

,219

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$3

76$1

85-5

0.8%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,7

98$1

,916

-49.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

39$6

1-5

6.1%

men

t Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,7

98$1

,424

-49.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$4

7-5

0.0%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

18$6

63-4

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$54

$23

-57.

4%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$617

-49.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$4

3$1

9-5

5.8%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$862

$217

-74.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

4$6

-75.

0%d)

War

ehou

se1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$295

-76.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$4

3$9

-79.

1%al

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,4

04$1

,206

-49.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$8

6$3

9-5

4.7%

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

82$2

,703

-49.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

85$8

8-5

2.4%

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$690

$346

-49.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$2

8$1

1-6

0.7%

1,00

0 sf

gla

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,1

63$2

,862

-9.5

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

55$1

03-3

3.5%

ion

with

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.n/

an/

an/

a$5

,587

$2,2

87-5

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$183

$82

-55.

2%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

0,10

8$3

,732

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

97$1

13-6

2.0%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$22,

152

$9,2

89-5

8.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$741

$321

-56.

7%ve

-Thr

u1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

4,78

1$2

0,45

9-4

1.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,0

70$6

28-4

1.3%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

179

$4,0

66-6

3.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$340

$129

-62.

1%od

y Sh

op1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$7

,830

$2,9

34-6

2.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$207

$93

-55.

1%h

serv

ice

bay

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

589

$2,2

09-8

4.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$413

$67

-83.

8%w

ith G

as P

umps

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25,

430

$10,

463

-58.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$7

50$3

38-5

4.9%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

73$6

15-5

5.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$48

$18

-62.

5%

hole

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$7,8

82-2

9.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$342

$211

-38.

3%Cl

ub/D

ance

Stu

dio

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$5,8

35-4

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$331

$186

-43.

8%ac

ren/

an/

an/

a$7

18$3

87-4

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$24

$12

-50.

0%co

urt

n/a

n/a

n/a

$12,

180

$6,8

56-4

3.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$361

$213

-41.

0%bo

at b

erth

n/a

n/a

n/a

$973

$654

-32.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

9$1

9-3

4.5%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

199

$7,1

36-4

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$404

$200

-50.

5%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

7,92

5$1

1,71

2-3

4.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$492

$316

-35.

8%om

plex

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$9,6

32$4

,842

-49.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

58$1

31-4

9.2%

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$949

144.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$2

9$3

831

.0%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$8,8

47$3

,582

-59.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

57$1

01-6

0.7%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$2

,498

-52.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

73$8

0-5

3.8%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$6

,962

98.3

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

39$2

0748

.9%

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,5

88$1

,154

-55.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$7

9$3

6-5

4.4%

inee

scre

enn/

an/

an/

a$2

2,74

3$7

,096

-68.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$7

80$2

56-6

7.2%

riva

te, K

-5)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$164

10.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$7

$5-2

8.6%

te, 6

-9)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$225

51.0

%n/

an/

an/

a$7

$70.

0%9-

12)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$538

$237

-55.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$7

-58.

8%le

ge (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$6

53$4

43-3

2.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$20

$12

-40.

0%1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$9

83$3

24-6

7.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$40

$16

-60.

0%/

Adm

inist

rativ

e Fe

e (2

.5%

)

ed)

Park

s & R

ecre

atio

nTr

ansp

orta

tion

Educ

atio

nal F

acili

ties*

Land

Use

Unit

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$622

44.7

%$2

47$3

2-8

7.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$6

7239

.1%

$278

$35

-87.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$750

43.1

%$3

01$3

8-8

7.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

8133

.7%

$176

$20

-88.

du$1

23$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

49$4

7021

5.4%

$349

$428

22.6

%$1

82$2

2-8

7.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$162

-29.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$0

-100

.ro

om$9

9$0

-100

.0%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$1

50-3

4.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$0-1

00.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$230

-26.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$0

-100

.CL

F)be

d$1

07$0

-100

.0%

$62

$0-1

00.0

%$3

12$2

30-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$172

$0-1

00.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$2

84-7

7.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$0-1

00.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$414

-67.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$557

-61.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$3

41$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

74$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,191

$569

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$250

-76.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$0

-100

.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$212

-61.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$125

-66.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$7

0-7

5.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$1

5-6

2.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13

$0-1

00.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$0-1

00.0

%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$35

-87.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$6

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$5

12$1

72-6

6.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$120

$0-1

00.

acre

$165

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

30$3

87-6

5.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$0-1

00.

acre

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$145

$50

-65.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$3

4$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$5

92-6

1.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$503

$0-1

00.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$4

77-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$303

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$367

-59.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

00$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$8

00$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$1,6

93-5

6.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

89$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$8

63$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,227

$2,2

22-4

7.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

89$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$2

22$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,087

$512

-52.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$3

57$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$7

0$0

-100

.0%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$3

7417

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$107

$0-1

00.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$0-1

00.0

%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$2

17-7

8.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$332

$0-1

00.

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$4

63$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$1,4

55-3

5.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$746

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$57

-66.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$5

6$0

-100

.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$2

69-7

9.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$0-1

00.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$771

-39.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$4

17$0

-100

.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$5

0-3

8.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$27

$0-1

00.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$789

-36.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$0

-100

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$0-1

00.0

%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$47

-42.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$4

05-6

3.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$919

$439

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$3

02$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

48$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a$2

38$0

-100

.be

dn/

an/

an/

a$1

6$0

-100

.0%

$466

$347

-25.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

53$0

-100

.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$222

-70.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$1

71$0

-100

.0%

$83

$0-1

00.0

%$8

38$3

42-5

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$275

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$6

34-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$287

$0-1

00.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$127

-55.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$0

-100

.sc

reen

$925

$0-1

00.0

%$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$4,5

35$1

,493

-67.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,490

$0-1

00.

5)st

uden

t$1

0$0

-100

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$1

5-7

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$0-1

00.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$18

-74.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$0

-100

.st

uden

t$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$9

0$2

0-7

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$0-1

00.

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$11

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$78

$25

-67.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

8$0

-100

.1,

000

sf$6

9$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$3

39$1

57-5

3.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

nng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

leGr

owth

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$116

$129

11.2

%$5

8$6

410

.3%

$5,9

90$6

,6 -

1,50

0 to

2,4

99 s

fdu

$1,7

56$1

,702

-3.1

%$1

49$1

48-0

.7%

$75

$74

-1.3

%$7

,675

$7,6

- 2,

500

sf o

r lar

ger

du$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$162

$166

2.5%

$81

$83

2.5%

$8,3

37$8

,5M

ulti-

Fam

ily/A

cces

sory

Uni

tdu

$500

$668

33.7

%$7

3$8

516

.4%

$37

$42

13.5

%$3

,777

$4,3

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (t

ied

dow

n)du

$623

$1,0

2664

.7%

$65

$70

7.7%

$32

$35

9.4%

$3,3

43$3

,6TR

ANSI

ENT,

ASS

ISTE

D, G

ROUP

:Ho

tel

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$66

$23

-65.

2%$3

3$1

1-6

6.7%

$3,4

12$1

,1M

otel

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$41

$17

-58.

5%$2

0$8

-60.

0%$2

,086

$8Nu

rsin

g Ho

me

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$21

$9-5

7.1%

$11

$5-5

4.5%

$1,0

88$4

Assi

sted

Car

e Li

ving

Fac

ility

(ACL

F)be

dn/

an/

an/

a$2

5$1

0-6

0.0%

$13

$5-6

1.5%

$1,3

11$4

OFF

ICE

& F

INAN

CIAL

:M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$306

$92

-69.

9%$1

53$4

6-6

9.9%

$15,

748

$4,7

Med

ical

Offi

ce/C

linic

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sf1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

06$1

34-5

6.2%

$153

$67

-56.

2%$1

5,74

8$6

,9Ba

nk/S

avin

gs W

alk-

In1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

55$1

06-5

8.4%

$128

$53

-58.

6%$1

3,14

2$5

,4Ba

nk/S

avin

gs D

rive

-In1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

96$1

36-5

4.1%

$148

$68

-54.

1%$1

5,22

7$6

,9Ge

nera

l Offi

ce1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

07$4

3-5

9.8%

$53

$22

-58.

5%$5

,501

$2,2

Rese

arch

& D

evel

opm

ent C

ente

r1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$7

3$3

3-5

4.8%

$37

$16

-56.

8%$3

,768

$1,6

INDU

STRI

AL:

Man

ufac

turi

ng1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$4

1$1

6-6

1.0%

$21

$8-6

1.9%

$2,1

34$8

War

ehou

sing

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$33

$14

-57.

6%$1

7$7

-58.

8%$1

,723

$7M

ini-W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$19

$5-7

3.7%

$9$2

-77.

8%$9

70$2

High

-Cub

e (A

utom

ated

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

3$7

-78.

8%$1

7$3

-82.

4%$1

,723

$3Ge

nera

l Lig

ht In

dust

rial

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$67

$28

-58.

2%$3

3$1

4-5

7.6%

$3,4

47$1

,4Co

ncre

te P

lant

acre

n/a

n/a

n/a

$143

$62

-56.

6%$7

2$3

1-5

6.9%

$7,3

70$3

,1Sa

nd M

inin

gac

ren/

an/

an/

a$2

2$8

-63.

6%$1

1$4

-63.

6%$1

,136

$4RE

TAIL

:Re

tail

1,00

0 sf

gla

n/a

n/a

n/a

$115

$69

-40.

0%$5

7$3

5-3

8.6%

$5,9

17$3

,5Ga

solin

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

n w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

n/a

n/a

n/a

$141

$55

-61.

0%$7

0$2

8-6

0.0%

$7,2

49$2

,8Ne

w/U

sed

Auto

Sal

es1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

32$8

2-6

4.7%

$116

$41

-64.

7%$1

1,97

2$4

,2Re

stau

rant

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$570

$220

-61.

4%$2

85$1

10-6

1.4%

$29,

349

$11,

3Fa

st F

ood

Rest

. w/D

rive

-Thr

u1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$8

32$4

54-4

5.4%

$416

$227

-45.

4%$4

2,83

8$2

3,3

Supe

rmar

ket

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$92

-65.

3%$1

33$4

6-6

5.4%

$13,

667

$4,7

Auto

mob

ile R

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$163

$66

-59.

5%$8

2$3

3-5

9.8%

$8,4

06$3

,4Se

lf-Se

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

yn/

an/

an/

a$3

24$4

9-8

4.9%

$162

$24

-85.

2%$1

6,69

9$2

,4Co

nven

ienc

e M

arke

t with

Gas

Pum

ps1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$5

87$2

38-5

9.5%

$293

$119

-59.

4%$3

0,21

3$1

2,2

Furn

iture

Sto

re1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

7$1

3-6

4.9%

$19

$7-6

3.2%

$1,9

26$6

RECR

EATI

ON

AL:

Golf

Cour

seho

len/

an/

an/

a$2

66$1

63-3

8.7%

$133

$82

-38.

3%$1

3,68

8$8

,3Ra

cque

t Clu

b/He

alth

Clu

b/Da

nce

Stud

io1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

58$1

32-4

8.8%

$129

$66

-48.

8%$1

3,27

5$6

,8Co

unty

Par

kac

ren/

an/

an/

a$1

9$9

-52.

6%$9

$4-5

5.6%

$956

$4Te

nnis

Cou

rtco

urt

n/a

n/a

n/a

$282

$153

-45.

7%$1

41$7

6-4

6.1%

$14,

523

$7,8

Mar

ina

boat

ber

thn/

an/

an/

a$2

3$1

4-3

9.1%

$11

$7-3

6.4%

$1,1

78$7

GOVE

RNM

ENTA

L:Po

st O

ffice

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$318

$151

-52.

5%$1

59$7

5-5

2.8%

$16,

383

$7,7

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$243

-37.

5%$1

94$1

22-3

7.1%

$20,

011

$12,

5Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

02$9

7-5

2.0%

$101

$48

-52.

5%$1

0,41

5$4

,9Ja

ilbe

dn/

an/

an/

a$2

0$2

630

.0%

$10

$13

30.0

%$1

,054

$1,3

MIS

CELL

ANEO

US:

Day

Care

Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$203

$76

-62.

6%$1

01$3

8-6

2.4%

$10,

429

$3,9

Hosp

ital

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$134

$57

-57.

5%$6

7$2

8-5

8.2%

$6,8

77$2

,9Ve

teri

nary

Clin

ic1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

06$1

5243

.4%

$53

$76

43.4

%$5

,476

$7,8

Chur

ch1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$6

1$2

6-5

7.4%

$31

$13

-58.

1%$3

,150

$1,3

Mov

ie T

heat

er w

/Mat

inee

scre

enn/

an/

an/

a$5

98$1

72-7

1.2%

$299

$86

-71.

2%$3

0,77

8$8

,8El

emen

tary

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

K-5

)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$5

$4-2

0.0%

$3$2

-33.

3%$2

66$1

Mid

dle

Scho

ol (P

riva

te, 6

-9)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5$5

0.0%

$3$2

-33.

3%$2

66$2

High

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

9-1

2)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

4$5

-64.

3%$7

$3-5

7.1%

$696

$2Un

iver

sity

/Jun

ior C

olle

ge (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

5$9

-40.

0%$8

$5-3

7.5%

$796

$4Fi

re S

tatio

n1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

0$1

0-6

6.7%

$15

$5-6

6.7%

$1,5

30$4

Tota

l (Al

l Fee

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Educ

atio

nal F

acili

ties*

City

Adm

in F

ee (2

.0%

)Co

unty

Adm

in. F

ee (1

.0%

)La

nd U

seUn

it

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$6

8727

5.4%

$430

$622

44.7

%$2

,974

$3,4

0614

.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$739

258.

7%$4

83$6

7239

.1%

$4,4

83$4

,248

-5.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$8

2627

0.4%

$524

$750

43.1

%$5

,031

$5,0

04-0

.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$418

245.

5%$2

85$3

8133

.7%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.

du$1

23$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

49$4

7021

5.4%

$349

$428

22.6

%$1

,745

$1,5

50-1

1.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$162

-29.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,804

$970

-65.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$150

-34.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,516

$686

-54.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$230

-26.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$4

32$2

22-4

8.CL

F)be

d$1

07$0

-100

.0%

$62

$0-1

00.0

%$3

12$2

30-2

6.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$620

$250

-59.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$2

84-7

7.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$4,3

21-6

7.ha

n 10

,000

sf

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$4

14-6

7.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$6,2

98-5

3.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$557

-61.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

0,63

4$4

,730

-55.

1,00

0 sf

$174

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

91$5

69-5

2.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

020

$6,2

19-5

2.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$250

-76.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$3

,798

$1,9

16-4

9.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$212

-61.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,798

$1,4

24-4

9.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$125

-66.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,318

$663

-49.

1,00

0 sf

$42

$0-1

00.0

%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$70

-75.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$617

-49.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$1

5-6

2.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$862

$217

-74.

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$42

$0-1

00.0

%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$35

-87.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$295

-76.

1,00

0 sf

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$512

$172

-66.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,404

$1,2

06-4

9.ac

re$1

65$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,130

$387

-65.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$5

,382

$2,7

03-4

9.ac

re$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

45$5

0-6

5.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$690

$346

-49.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$5

92-6

1.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,1

63$2

,862

-9.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$4

77-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,5

87$2

,287

-59.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$367

-59.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

0,10

8$3

,732

-63.

1,00

0 sf

$800

$0-1

00.0

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$3,9

23$1

,693

-56.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

2,15

2$9

,289

-58.

1,00

0 sf

$863

$0-1

00.0

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$2

,222

-47.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$3

4,78

1$2

0,45

9-4

1.1,

000

sf$2

22$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,087

$512

-52.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

1,17

9$4

,066

-63.

1,00

0 sf

$70

$0-1

00.0

%$2

0$0

-100

.0%

$134

$374

179.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$7

,830

$2,9

34-6

2.se

rvic

e ba

y$2

06$0

-100

.0%

$77

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,009

$217

-78.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

4,58

9$2

,209

-84.

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$4

63$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$1,4

55-3

5.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25,

430

$10,

463

-58.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$57

-66.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,373

$615

-55.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$2

69-7

9.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$7,8

82-2

9.ce

Stu

dio

1,00

0 sf

$259

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

70$7

71-3

9.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$5,8

35-4

6.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$5

0-3

8.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$718

$387

-46.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$789

-36.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

2,18

0$6

,856

-43.

boat

ber

th$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$45

$0-1

00.0

%$8

2$4

7-4

2.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$973

$654

-32.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$4

05-6

3.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

199

$7,1

36-4

9.1,

000

sf$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$4

39-5

2.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17,

925

$11,

712

-34.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$9,6

32$4

,842

-49.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$3

47-2

5.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$949

144.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$222

-70.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$8

,847

$3,5

82-5

9.1,

000

sf$1

71$0

-100

.0%

$83

$0-1

00.0

%$8

38$3

42-5

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$2

,498

-52.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$6

34-4

8.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$6

,962

98.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$127

-55.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,588

$1,1

54-5

5.sc

reen

$925

$0-1

00.0

%$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$4,5

35$1

,493

-67.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

2,74

3$7

,096

-68.

5)st

uden

t$1

0$0

-100

.0%

$12

$0-1

00.0

%$7

0$1

5-7

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$164

10.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$18

-74.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

49$2

2551

.st

uden

t$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$9

0$2

0-7

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$538

$237

-55.

0 or

few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$11

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$78

$25

-67.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$6

53$4

43-3

2.1,

000

sf$6

9$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$3

39$1

57-5

3.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$983

$324

-67.

ngle

Fam

ily (d

etac

hed)

rate

sho

uld

also

be

used

for "

Sing

le F

amily

Atta

ched

/Tow

nhou

se" r

esid

entia

l lan

d us

e.

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Libr

arie

sTr

ansp

orta

tion

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– Af

ford

able

Gro

wth

Fee

; Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Affo

rdab

le

Grow

thPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

11$1

2815

.3%

$56

$64

14.3

%$5

,736

$6,6

0915

.2%

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sf

du$1

43$1

472.

8%$7

2$7

42.

8%$7

,388

$7,5

822.

6% -

2,50

0 sf

or l

arge

rdu

$156

$166

6.4%

$78

$83

6.4%

$8,0

27$8

,531

6.3%

220

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

/Acc

esso

ry U

nit

du$7

0$8

420

.0%

$35

$42

20.0

%$3

,596

$4,3

3520

.6%

240

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (t

ied

dow

n)du

$61

$69

13.1

%$3

1$3

512

.9%

$3,1

56$3

,578

13.4

%TR

ANSI

ENT,

ASS

ISTE

D, G

ROUP

:31

0Ho

tel

room

$63

$23

-63.

5%$3

2$1

1-6

5.6%

$3,2

48$1

,166

-64.

1%32

0M

otel

room

$37

$17

-54.

1%$1

9$8

-57.

9%$1

,921

$861

-55.

2%62

0Nu

rsin

g Ho

me

bed

$18

$9-5

0.0%

$9$5

-44.

4%$9

11$4

66-4

8.8%

252

Assi

sted

Car

e Li

ving

Fac

ility

(ACL

F)be

d$2

2$1

0-5

4.5%

$11

$5-5

4.5%

$1,1

34$4

95-5

6.3%

OFF

ICE

& F

INAN

CIAL

:M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$300

$92

-69.

3%$1

50$4

6-6

9.3%

$15,

440

$4,7

43-6

9.3%

Med

ical

Offi

ce/C

linic

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sf1,

000

sf$3

00$1

34-5

5.3%

$150

$67

-55.

3%$1

5,44

0$6

,913

-55.

2%91

1Ba

nk/S

avin

gs W

alk-

In1,

000

sf$2

48$1

06-5

7.3%

$124

$53

-57.

3%$1

2,79

0$5

,446

-57.

4%91

2Ba

nk/S

avin

gs D

rive

-In1,

000

sf$2

90$1

36-5

3.1%

$145

$68

-53.

1%$1

4,93

8$6

,992

-53.

2%71

0Ge

nera

l Offi

ce1,

000

sf$1

02$4

3-5

7.8%

$51

$22

-56.

9%$5

,248

$2,2

31-5

7.5%

760

Rese

arch

& D

evel

opm

ent C

ente

r1,

000

sf$7

1$3

3-5

3.5%

$35

$16

-54.

3%$3

,634

$1,6

85-5

3.6%

INDU

STRI

AL:

140

Man

ufac

turi

ng1,

000

sf$4

0$1

6-6

0.0%

$20

$8-6

0.0%

$2,0

44$8

12-6

0.3%

150

War

ehou

sing

1,00

0 sf

$32

$14

-56.

3%$1

6$7

-56.

3%$1

,653

$708

-57.

2%15

1M

ini-W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$19

$5-7

3.7%

$9$2

-77.

8%$9

57$2

39-7

5.0%

152

High

-Cub

e (A

utom

ated

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sf$3

2$7

-78.

1%$1

6$3

-81.

3%$1

,653

$340

-79.

4%11

0Ge

nera

l Lig

ht In

dust

rial

1,00

0 sf

$65

$28

-56.

9%$3

2$1

4-5

6.3%

$3,3

24$1

,420

-57.

3%n/

aCo

ncre

te P

lant

acre

$138

$62

-55.

1%$6

9$3

1-5

5.1%

$7,0

97$3

,183

-55.

2%n/

aSa

nd M

inin

gac

re$2

1$8

-61.

9%$1

1$4

-63.

6%$1

,101

$408

-62.

9%RE

TAIL

:82

0Re

tail

1,00

0 sf

gla

$105

$69

-34.

3%$5

2$3

5-3

2.7%

$5,3

99$3

,558

-34.

1%94

4/ 9

46Ga

solin

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

n w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$135

$55

-59.

3%$6

7$2

8-5

8.2%

$6,9

37$2

,847

-59.

0%84

1Ne

w/U

sed

Auto

Sal

es1,

000

sf$2

26$8

2-6

3.7%

$113

$41

-63.

7%$1

1,66

3$4

,222

-63.

8%93

2Re

stau

rant

1,00

0 sf

$544

$220

-59.

6%$2

72$1

10-5

9.6%

$28,

021

$11,

312

-59.

6%93

4Fa

st F

ood

Rest

. w/D

rive

-Thr

u1,

000

sf$8

04$4

54-4

3.5%

$402

$227

-43.

5%$4

1,40

7$2

3,36

2-4

3.6%

850

Supe

rmar

ket

1,00

0 sf

$258

$92

-64.

3%$1

29$4

6-6

4.3%

$13,

299

$4,7

16-6

4.5%

942

Auto

mob

ile R

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

1,00

0 sf

$161

$66

-59.

0%$8

1$3

3-5

9.3%

$8,2

96$3

,407

-58.

9%94

7Se

lf-Se

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

y$3

18$4

9-8

4.6%

$159

$24

-84.

9%$1

6,35

8$2

,499

-84.

7%85

3Co

nven

ienc

e M

arke

t with

Gas

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$5

72$2

38-5

8.4%

$286

$119

-58.

4%$2

9,44

5$1

2,27

5-5

8.3%

890

Furn

iture

Sto

re1,

000

sf$3

6$1

3-6

3.9%

$18

$7-6

1.1%

$1,8

68$6

92-6

3.0%

RECR

EATI

ON

AL:

430

Golf

Cour

seho

le$2

57$1

63-3

6.6%

$129

$82

-36.

4%$1

3,24

6$8

,396

-36.

6%49

2Ra

cque

t Clu

b/He

alth

Clu

b/Da

nce

Stud

io1,

000

sf$2

49$1

32-4

7.0%

$125

$66

-47.

2%$1

2,84

5$6

,804

-47.

0%41

2Co

unty

Par

kac

re$1

8$9

-50.

0%$9

$4-5

5.6%

$928

$450

-51.

5%49

1Te

nnis

Cou

rtco

urt

$274

$153

-44.

2%$1

37$7

6-4

4.5%

$14,

103

$7,8

74-4

4.2%

420

Mar

ina

boat

ber

th$2

2$1

4-3

6.4%

$11

$7-3

6.4%

$1,1

50$7

22-3

7.2%

GOVE

RNM

ENTA

L:73

2Po

st O

ffice

1,00

0 sf

$312

$151

-51.

6%$1

56$7

5-5

1.9%

$16,

062

$7,7

67-5

1.6%

590

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

$383

$243

-36.

6%$1

91$1

22-3

6.1%

$19,

700

$12,

516

-36.

5%73

3Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sf$1

97$9

7-5

0.8%

$99

$48

-51.

5%$1

0,17

0$4

,987

-51.

0%57

1Ja

ilbe

d$1

7$2

652

.9%

$9$1

344

.4%

$897

$1,3

3548

.8%

MIS

CELL

ANEO

US:

565

Day

Care

Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

$199

$76

-61.

8%$9

9$3

8-6

1.6%

$10,

246

$3,9

18-6

1.8%

610

Hosp

ital

1,00

0 sf

$128

$57

-55.

5%$6

4$2

8-5

6.3%

$6,5

93$2

,925

-55.

6%64

0Ve

teri

nary

Clin

ic1,

000

sf$1

01$1

5250

.5%

$50

$76

52.0

%$5

,181

$7,8

2451

.0%

560

Chur

ch1,

000

sf$5

9$2

6-5

5.9%

$30

$13

-56.

7%$3

,053

$1,3

20-5

6.8%

444

Mov

ie T

heat

er w

/Mat

inee

scre

en$5

68$1

72-6

9.7%

$284

$86

-69.

7%$2

9,24

3$8

,847

-69.

7%52

0El

emen

tary

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

K-5

)st

uden

t$5

$4-2

0.0%

$2$2

0.0%

$248

$185

-25.

4%52

2M

iddl

e Sc

hool

(Pri

vate

, 6-9

)st

uden

t$5

$50.

0%$2

$20.

0%$2

48$2

500.

8%53

0Hi

gh S

choo

l (Pr

ivat

e, 9

-12)

stud

ent

$13

$5-6

1.5%

$7$3

-57.

1%$6

74$2

65-6

0.7%

540/

550

Univ

ersi

ty/J

unio

r Col

lege

(7,5

00 o

r few

er s

tude

nts)

stud

ent

$15

$9-4

0.0%

$8$5

-37.

5%$7

78$4

82-3

8.0%

n/a

Fire

Sta

tion

1,00

0 sf

$30

$10

-66.

7%$1

5$5

-66.

7%$1

,530

$496

-67.

6%*F

orEd

ucat

iona

lFac

ilitie

sIm

pact

Fee

the

Sing

leFa

mily

(det

ache

d)ra

tesh

ould

also

beus

edfo

r"Si

ngle

Fam

ilyAt

tach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

"res

iden

tiall

and

use

720

210

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Tota

l (Al

l Fee

s)IT

E LU

CLa

nd U

seUn

itCi

ty A

dmin

Fee

(2.0

%)

Coun

ty A

dmin

. Fee

(1.0

%)

Appendix K Master Fee Schedules:

Staff Recommended Fee Rates

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$3

4488

.0%

$430

$0-1

00.0

%$2

47$2

9017

.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$370

79.6

%$4

83$0

-100

.0%

$278

$314

12.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$4

1385

.2%

$524

$0-1

00.0

%$3

01$3

4815

.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$209

72.7

%$2

85$0

-100

.0%

$176

$181

2.du

$123

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$149

$235

57.7

%$3

49$0

-100

.0%

$182

$197

8.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$81

-64.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$1

31-1

8.ro

om$9

9$0

-100

.0%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$7

5-6

7.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$121

-24.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$115

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

CLF)

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$6

2$0

-100

.0%

$312

$115

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$1

42-8

8.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$229

-23.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$207

-83.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$3

3411

.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$279

-80.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

41$4

4931

.1,

000

sf$1

74$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,191

$285

-76.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$4

5963

.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$125

-88.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$2

01-1

8.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$106

-80.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$1

7131

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$63

-83.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$1

0114

.1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$3

5-8

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$56

-17.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$8

-80.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$1

3$1

2-7

.ou

se1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

8-9

3.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$28

-58.

1,00

0 sf

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$512

$86

-83.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

20$1

3915

.ac

re$1

65$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,130

$194

-82.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

65$3

1217

.ac

re$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

45$2

5-8

2.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34

$40

17.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$2

96-8

0.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$503

$477

-5.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$2

39-7

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$303

$385

27.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$184

-79.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

00$2

96-1

.1,

000

sf$8

00$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$847

-78.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,289

$1,3

655.

1,00

0 sf

$863

$0-1

00.0

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$1

,111

-73.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,389

$1,7

9229

.1,

000

sf$2

22$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,087

$256

-76.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$3

57$4

1315

.1,

000

sf$7

0$0

-100

.0%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$1

8739

.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$107

$302

182.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$0-1

00.0

%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$1

09-8

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$332

$175

-47.

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$4

63$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$728

-67.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$7

46$1

,174

57.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$29

-82.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$5

6$4

6-1

7.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$1

35-8

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$217

-49.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$386

-69.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$4

17$6

2249

.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$2

5-6

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$27

$40

48.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$395

-68.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$6

3655

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$0-1

00.0

%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$24

-70.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$3

840

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$2

03-8

1.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$326

4.1,

000

sf$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$2

20-7

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$302

$354

17.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$238

$280

17.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$1

74-6

2.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$153

$175

14.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$111

-85.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$1

791.

1,00

0 sf

$171

$0-1

00.0

%$8

3$0

-100

.0%

$838

$171

-79.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$2

75$2

760.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$3

17-7

4.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$287

$511

78.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$64

-77.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$1

039.

scre

en$9

25$0

-100

.0%

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,535

$747

-83.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,490

$1,2

04-1

9.5)

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$8-8

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$12

-29.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$9-8

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$14

-17.

stud

ent

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$90

$10

-88.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$2

1$1

6-2

3.0

or fe

wer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

t$1

1$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$7

8$1

3-8

3.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$18

$20

11.

1,00

0 sf

$69

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$339

$79

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an

ngle

Fam

ily (d

etac

hed)

rate

sho

uld

also

be

used

for "

Sing

le F

amily

Atta

ched

/Tow

nhou

se" r

esid

entia

l lan

d us

e.

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

Publ

ic Bu

ildin

gsd

Use

Unit

Corr

ectio

nal F

acili

ties

Solid

Was

te F

acili

ties

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Coun

ty

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Ra

500

sf$1

,302

$1,2

34-5

.2%

$2,9

74$3

,406

14.5

%$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$183

$184

0.5%

$7,5

99 s

f$1

,463

$1,3

43-8

.2%

$4,4

83$4

,248

-5.2

%$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$229

$210

-8.3

%$9

,3ar

ger

$1,5

87$1

,493

-5.9

%$5

,031

$5,0

04-0

.5%

$1,7

56$1

,702

-3.1

%$2

49$2

36-5

.2%

$10,

1/A

cces

sory

Uni

t$8

84$7

67-1

3.2%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.9

%$5

00$6

6833

.7%

$117

$120

2.6%

$4,8

/RV

(tied

dow

n)$9

42$7

49-2

0.5%

$1,7

45$1

,550

-11.

2%$6

23$1

,026

64.7

%$1

09$1

00-8

.3%

$4,4

SSIS

TED,

GRO

UP:

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,8

04$9

70-6

5.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$86

$34

-60.

5%$3

,5n/

an/

an/

a$1

,516

$686

-54.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$5

4$2

6-5

1.9%

$2,2

en/

an/

an/

a$4

32$2

22-4

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$30

$19

-36.

7%$1

,2Li

ving

Fac

ility

(ACL

F)n/

an/

an/

a$6

20$2

50-5

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$36

$20

-44.

4%$1

,4AN

CIAL

:e/

Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$4,3

21-6

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$125

-67.

9%$1

5,9

e/Cl

inic

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,41

1$6

,298

-53.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$3

89$1

82-5

3.2%

$15,

9W

alk-

Inn/

an/

an/

a$1

0,63

4$4

,730

-55.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$3

26$1

52-5

3.4%

$13,

3Dr

ive-

Inn/

an/

an/

a$1

3,02

0$6

,219

-52.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$3

76$1

90-4

9.5%

$15,

4e

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,7

98$1

,916

-49.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

39$6

3-5

4.7%

$5,6

evel

opm

ent C

ente

rn/

an/

an/

a$2

,798

$1,4

24-4

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$94

$48

-48.

9%$3

,8

gn/

an/

an/

a$1

,318

$663

-49.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$5

4$2

4-5

5.6%

$2,2

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

28$6

17-4

9.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$43

$20

-53.

5%$1

,7us

en/

an/

an/

a$8

62$2

17-7

4.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$24

$6-7

5.0%

$9ut

omat

ed) W

areh

ouse

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

28$2

95-7

6.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$43

$9-7

9.1%

$1,7

Indu

stri

aln/

an/

an/

a$2

,404

$1,2

06-4

9.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$86

$41

-52.

3%$3

,5t

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

82$2

,703

-49.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

85$9

1-5

0.8%

$7,5

n/a

n/a

n/a

$690

$346

-49.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$2

8$1

2-5

7.1%

$1,1

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,1

63$2

,862

-9.5

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

55$1

07-3

1.0%

$6,3

vice

Sta

tion

with

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,5

87$2

,287

-59.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

83$8

6-5

3.0%

$7,4

to S

ales

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

108

$3,7

32-6

3.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$297

$115

-61.

3%$1

2,1

n/a

n/a

n/a

$22,

152

$9,2

89-5

8.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$741

$334

-54.

9%$3

0,3

t. w

/Dri

ve-T

hru

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34,

781

$20,

459

-41.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,070

$645

-39.

7%$4

3,8

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

179

$4,0

66-6

3.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$340

$132

-61.

2%$1

3,9

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

n/a

n/a

n/a

$7,8

30$2

,934

-62.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

07$9

6-5

3.6%

$8,4

ar W

ash

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

589

$2,2

09-8

4.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$413

$68

-83.

5%$1

6,9

Mar

ket w

ith G

as P

umps

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25,

430

$10,

463

-58.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$7

50$3

49-5

3.5%

$30,

7e

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,3

73$6

15-5

5.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$48

$19

-60.

4%$1

,9L:

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$7,8

82-2

9.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$342

$213

-37.

7%$1

4,0

/Hea

lth C

lub/

Danc

e St

udio

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$5,8

35-4

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$331

$192

-42.

0%$1

3,5

n/a

n/a

n/a

$718

$387

-46.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

4$1

3-4

5.8%

$9n/

an/

an/

a$1

2,18

0$6

,856

-43.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$3

61$2

19-3

9.3%

$14,

8n/

an/

an/

a$9

73$6

54-3

2.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$29

$19

-34.

5%$1

,1TA

L:n/

an/

an/

a$1

4,19

9$7

,136

-49.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$4

04$2

03-4

9.8%

$16,

5n/

an/

an/

a$1

7,92

5$1

1,71

2-3

4.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$492

$319

-35.

2%$2

0,1

Offi

ce C

ompl

exn/

an/

an/

a$9

,632

$4,8

42-4

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$258

$138

-46.

5%$1

0,5

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$949

144.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$2

9$3

831

.0%

$1,1

OUS

:te

rn/

an/

an/

a$8

,847

$3,5

82-5

9.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$257

$103

-59.

9%$1

0,5

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$2

,498

-52.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

73$8

3-5

2.0%

$7,0

nic

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$6

,962

98.3

%n/

an/

an/

a$1

39$2

1252

.5%

$5,7

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,5

88$1

,154

-55.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$7

9$3

7-5

3.2%

$3,2

r w/M

atin

een/

an/

an/

a$2

2,74

3$7

,096

-68.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$7

80$2

67-6

5.8%

$31,

9ho

ol (P

riva

te, K

-5)

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$164

10.1

%n/

an/

an/

a$7

$5-2

8.6%

$2l (

Priv

ate,

6-9

)n/

an/

an/

a$1

49$2

2551

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$7$7

0.0%

$2Pr

ivat

e, 9

-12)

n/a

n/a

n/a

$538

$237

-55.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

7$7

-58.

8%$7

nior

Col

lege

(7,5

00 o

r few

er s

tude

nts)

n/a

n/a

n/a

$653

$443

-32.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$2

0$1

3-3

5.0%

$8n/

an/

an/

a$9

83$3

24-6

7.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$40

$14

-65.

0%$1

,6

Adm

inist

rativ

e Fe

e (2

.5%

)

(det

ache

d)

Park

s & R

ecre

atio

nTr

ansp

orta

tion

Educ

atio

nal F

acili

ties*

Land

Use

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$3

4488

.0%

$430

$0-1

00.0

%$2

47$2

9017

.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$370

79.6

%$4

83$0

-100

.0%

$278

$314

12.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$4

1385

.2%

$524

$0-1

00.0

%$3

01$3

4815

.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$209

72.7

%$2

85$0

-100

.0%

$176

$181

2.du

$123

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$149

$235

57.7

%$3

49$0

-100

.0%

$182

$197

8.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$81

-64.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$1

60$1

31-1

8.ro

om$9

9$0

-100

.0%

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

29$7

5-6

7.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$160

$121

-24.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$115

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

CLF)

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$6

2$0

-100

.0%

$312

$115

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$1

72$1

857.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$1

42-8

8.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$299

$229

-23.

han

10,0

00 s

f1,

000

sf$1

86$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,275

$207

-83.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

99$3

3411

.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$279

-80.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

41$4

4931

.1,

000

sf$1

74$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,191

$285

-76.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

80$4

5963

.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$125

-88.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$2

46$2

01-1

8.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$106

-80.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

30$1

7131

.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$63

-83.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$8

8$1

0114

.1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$3

5-8

7.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$56

-17.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$8

-80.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$1

3$1

2-7

.ou

se1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

8-9

3.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$68

$28

-58.

1,00

0 sf

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$512

$86

-83.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

20$1

3915

.ac

re$1

65$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,130

$194

-82.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$2

65$3

1217

.ac

re$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$213

$0-1

00.0

%$1

45$2

5-8

2.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34

$40

17.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$2

96-8

0.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$503

$477

-5.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$2

39-7

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$303

$385

27.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$184

-79.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$3

00$2

96-1

.1,

000

sf$8

00$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$3

,923

$847

-78.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,289

$1,3

655.

1,00

0 sf

$863

$0-1

00.0

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$4,2

27$1

,111

-73.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,389

$1,7

9229

.1,

000

sf$2

22$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,087

$256

-76.

4%n/

an/

an/

a$3

57$4

1315

.1,

000

sf$7

0$0

-100

.0%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$1

8739

.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$107

$302

182.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$0-1

00.0

%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$1

09-8

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$332

$175

-47.

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$4

63$0

-100

.0%

$424

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,270

$728

-67.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$7

46$1

,174

57.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$29

-82.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$5

6$4

6-1

7.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$1

35-8

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$429

$217

-49.

ce S

tudi

o1,

000

sf$2

59$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,270

$386

-69.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$4

17$6

2249

.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$2

5-6

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$27

$40

48.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$395

-68.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$4

08$6

3655

.bo

at b

erth

$17

$0-1

00.0

%$4

5$0

-100

.0%

$82

$24

-70.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$2

7$3

840

.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$2

03-8

1.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$312

$326

4.1,

000

sf$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$2

20-7

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$302

$354

17.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$238

$280

17.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$1

74-6

2.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$153

$175

14.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$111

-85.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$1

77$1

791.

1,00

0 sf

$171

$0-1

00.0

%$8

3$0

-100

.0%

$838

$171

-79.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$2

75$2

760.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$3

17-7

4.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$287

$511

78.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$64

-77.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$9

4$1

039.

scre

en$9

25$0

-100

.0%

$188

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,535

$747

-83.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,490

$1,2

04-1

9.5)

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$8-8

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$12

-29.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$9-8

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17

$14

-17.

stud

ent

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$90

$10

-88.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$2

1$1

6-2

3.0

or fe

wer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

t$1

1$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$7

8$1

3-8

3.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$18

$20

11.

1,00

0 sf

$69

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$339

$79

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an

ngle

Fam

ily (d

etac

hed)

rate

sho

uld

also

be

used

for "

Sing

le F

amily

Atta

ched

/Tow

nhou

se" r

esid

entia

l lan

d us

e.

Libr

arie

sEm

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

City

of F

ells

mer

e, T

own

of O

rchi

d, C

ity o

f Seb

astia

n, C

ity o

f Ver

o Be

ach

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

f

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$116

$115

-0.9

%$5

8$5

7-1

.7%

$5,9

90$5

,91

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sf

du$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$149

$133

-10.

7%$7

5$6

6-1

2.0%

$7,6

75$6

,83

- 2,

500

sf o

r lar

ger

du$1

,756

$1,7

02-3

.1%

$162

$149

-8.0

%$8

1$7

5-7

.4%

$8,3

37$7

,69

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

/Acc

esso

ry U

nit

du$5

00$6

6833

.7%

$73

$76

4.1%

$37

$38

2.7%

$3,7

77$3

,91

Mob

ile H

ome/

RV (t

ied

dow

n)du

$623

$1,0

2664

.7%

$65

$60

-7.7

%$3

2$3

0-6

.3%

$3,3

43$3

,09

TRAN

SIEN

T, A

SSIS

TED,

GRO

UP:

Hote

lro

omn/

an/

an/

a$6

6$2

4-6

3.6%

$33

$12

-63.

6%$3

,412

$1,2

1M

otel

room

n/a

n/a

n/a

$41

$18

-56.

1%$2

0$9

-55.

0%$2

,086

$90

Nurs

ing

Hom

ebe

dn/

an/

an/

a$2

1$1

0-5

2.4%

$11

$5-5

4.5%

$1,0

88$5

3As

sist

ed C

are

Livi

ng F

acili

ty (A

CLF)

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25

$11

-56.

0%$1

3$6

-53.

8%$1

,311

$56

OFF

ICE

& F

INAN

CIAL

:M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$306

$94

-69.

3%$1

53$4

7-6

9.3%

$15,

748

$4,8

3M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic g

reat

er th

an 1

0,00

0 sf

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$306

$137

-55.

2%$1

53$6

8-5

5.6%

$15,

748

$7,0

4Ba

nk/S

avin

gs W

alk-

In1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

55$1

09-5

7.3%

$128

$55

-57.

0%$1

3,14

2$5

,62

Bank

/Sav

ings

Dri

ve-In

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$296

$139

-53.

0%$1

48$7

0-5

2.7%

$15,

227

$7,1

7Ge

nera

l Offi

ce1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

07$4

5-5

7.9%

$53

$22

-58.

5%$5

,501

$2,3

0Re

sear

ch &

Dev

elop

men

t Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$73

$34

-53.

4%$3

7$1

7-5

4.1%

$3,7

68$1

,75

INDU

STRI

AL:

Man

ufac

turi

ng1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$4

1$1

7-5

8.5%

$21

$8-6

1.9%

$2,1

34$8

5W

areh

ousi

ng1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

3$1

4-5

7.6%

$17

$7-5

8.8%

$1,7

23$7

2M

ini-W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$19

$5-7

3.7%

$9$2

-77.

8%$9

70$2

4Hi

gh-C

ube

(Aut

omat

ed) W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$33

$7-7

8.8%

$17

$3-8

2.4%

$1,7

23$3

5Ge

nera

l Lig

ht In

dust

rial

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$67

$29

-56.

7%$3

3$1

4-5

7.6%

$3,4

47$1

,47

Conc

rete

Pla

ntac

ren/

an/

an/

a$1

43$6

4-5

5.2%

$72

$32

-55.

6%$7

,370

$3,3

0Sa

nd M

inin

gac

ren/

an/

an/

a$2

2$8

-63.

6%$1

1$4

-63.

6%$1

,136

$42

RETA

IL:

Reta

il1,

000

sfgl

an/

an/

an/

a$1

15$7

3-3

6.5%

$57

$36

-36.

8%$5

,917

$3,7

4Ga

solin

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

n w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

n/a

n/a

n/a

$141

$58

-58.

9%$7

0$2

9-5

8.6%

$7,2

49$2

,99

New

/Use

d Au

to S

ales

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$232

$84

-63.

8%$1

16$4

2-6

3.8%

$11,

972

$4,3

3Re

stau

rant

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$570

$230

-59.

6%$2

85$1

15-5

9.6%

$29,

349

$11,

84Fa

st F

ood

Rest

. w/D

rive

-Thr

u1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$8

32$4

67-4

3.9%

$416

$234

-43.

8%$4

2,83

8$2

4,06

Supe

rmar

ket

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$265

$95

-64.

2%$1

33$4

7-6

4.7%

$13,

667

$4,8

7Au

tom

obile

Rep

air/

Body

Sho

p1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

63$6

8-5

8.3%

$82

$34

-58.

5%$8

,406

$3,5

2Se

lf-Se

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

yn/

an/

an/

a$3

24$5

0-8

4.6%

$162

$25

-84.

6%$1

6,69

9$2

,56

Conv

enie

nce

Mar

ket w

ith G

as P

umps

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$587

$247

-57.

9%$2

93$1

24-5

7.7%

$30,

213

$12,

73Fu

rnitu

re S

tore

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$37

$14

-62.

2%$1

9$7

-63.

2%$1

,926

$71

RECR

EATI

ON

AL:

Golf

Cour

seho

len/

an/

an/

a$2

66$1

65-3

8.0%

$133

$82

-38.

3%$1

3,68

8$8

,48

Racq

uet C

lub/

Heal

th C

lub/

Danc

e St

udio

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$258

$137

-46.

9%$1

29$6

8-4

7.3%

$13,

275

$7,0

4Co

unty

Par

kac

ren/

an/

an/

a$1

9$9

-52.

6%$9

$5-4

4.4%

$956

$46

Tenn

is C

ourt

cour

tn/

an/

an/

a$2

82$1

58-4

4.0%

$141

$79

-44.

0%$1

4,52

3$8

,12

Mar

ina

boat

ber

thn/

an/

an/

a$2

3$1

4-3

9.1%

$11

$7-3

6.4%

$1,1

78$7

3GO

VERN

MEN

TAL:

Post

Offi

ce1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

18$1

53-5

1.9%

$159

$77

-51.

6%$1

6,38

3$7

,89

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$246

-36.

8%$1

94$1

23-3

6.6%

$20,

011

$12,

65Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$2

02$1

02-4

9.5%

$101

$51

-49.

5%$1

0,41

5$5

,27

Jail

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$20

$26

30.0

%$1

0$1

330

.0%

$1,0

54$1

,33

MIS

CELL

ANEO

US:

Day

Care

Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$203

$77

-62.

1%$1

01$3

9-6

1.4%

$10,

429

$3,9

8Ho

spita

l1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

34$5

9-5

6.0%

$67

$29

-56.

7%$6

,877

$3,0

3Ve

teri

nary

Clin

ic1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$1

06$1

5647

.2%

$53

$78

47.2

%$5

,476

$8,0

2Ch

urch

1,00

0 sf

n/a

n/a

n/a

$61

$26

-57.

4%$3

1$1

3-5

8.1%

$3,1

50$1

,36

Mov

ie T

heat

er w

/Mat

inee

scre

enn/

an/

an/

a$5

98$1

81-6

9.7%

$299

$90

-69.

9%$3

0,77

8$9

,31

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

l (Pr

ivat

e, K

-5)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5$4

-20.

0%$3

$2-3

3.3%

$266

$19

Mid

dle

Scho

ol (P

riva

te, 6

-9)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5$5

0.0%

$3$2

-33.

3%$2

66$2

5Hi

gh S

choo

l (Pr

ivat

e, 9

-12)

stud

ent

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14

$5-6

4.3%

$7$3

-57.

1%$6

96$2

7Un

iver

sity

/Jun

ior C

olle

ge (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

tn/

an/

an/

a$1

5$1

0-3

3.3%

$8$5

-37.

5%$7

96$4

9Fi

re S

tatio

n1,

000

sfn/

an/

an/

a$3

0$8

-73.

3%$1

5$4

-73.

3%$1

,530

$41

Tota

l (Al

l Fee

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Educ

atio

nal F

acili

ties*

City

Adm

in F

ee (2

.0%

)Co

unty

Adm

in. F

ee (1

.0%

)La

nd U

seUn

it

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

du$1

51$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

83$3

4488

.0%

$430

$0-1

00.0

%$2

,974

$3,4

0614

.du

$170

$0-1

00.0

%$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$206

$370

79.6

%$4

83$0

-100

.0%

$4,4

83$4

,248

-5.

du$1

84$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$2

23$4

1385

.2%

$524

$0-1

00.0

%$5

,031

$5,0

04-0

.du

$100

$0-1

00.0

%$5

7$0

-100

.0%

$121

$209

72.7

%$2

85$0

-100

.0%

$2,4

28$2

,742

12.

du$1

23$0

-100

.0%

$75

$0-1

00.0

%$1

49$2

3557

.7%

$349

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,745

$1,5

50-1

1.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$81

-64.

6%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,804

$970

-65.

room

$99

$0-1

00.0

%$2

1$0

-100

.0%

$229

$75

-67.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,516

$686

-54.

bed

$107

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$312

$115

-63.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$4

32$2

22-4

8.CL

F)be

d$1

07$0

-100

.0%

$62

$0-1

00.0

%$3

12$1

15-6

3.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$620

$250

-59.

f or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$1

42-8

8.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$4,3

21-6

7.ha

n 10

,000

sf

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

75$2

07-8

3.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

411

$6,2

98-5

3.1,

000

sf$2

12$0

-100

.0%

$118

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,454

$279

-80.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

0,63

4$4

,730

-55.

1,00

0 sf

$174

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

91$2

85-7

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$13,

020

$6,2

19-5

2.1,

000

sf$1

53$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,050

$125

-88.

1%n/

an/

an/

a$3

,798

$1,9

16-4

9.er

1,00

0 sf

$81

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$555

$106

-80.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,798

$1,4

24-4

9.

1,00

0 sf

$55

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$375

$63

-83.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,318

$663

-49.

1,00

0 sf

$42

$0-1

00.0

%$4

7$0

-100

.0%

$288

$35

-87.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,228

$617

-49.

1,00

0 sf

$8$0

-100

.0%

$19

$0-1

00.0

%$4

0$8

-80.

0%n/

an/

an/

a$8

62$2

17-7

4.ou

se1,

000

sf$4

2$0

-100

.0%

$47

$0-1

00.0

%$2

88$1

8-9

3.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$1,2

28$2

95-7

6.1,

000

sf$7

5$0

-100

.0%

$236

$0-1

00.0

%$5

12$8

6-8

3.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$2,4

04$1

,206

-49.

acre

$165

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

30$1

94-8

2.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

82$2

,703

-49.

acre

$21

$0-1

00.0

%$2

13$0

-100

.0%

$145

$25

-82.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$6

90$3

46-4

9.

1,00

0 sf

gla

$312

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$1,5

31$2

96-8

0.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,1

63$2

,862

-9.

or w

/o C

ar W

ash

fuel

pos

.$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$39

$0-1

00.0

%$9

21$2

39-7

4.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,5

87$2

,287

-59.

1,00

0 sf

$186

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$912

$184

-79.

8%n/

an/

an/

a$1

0,10

8$3

,732

-63.

1,00

0 sf

$800

$0-1

00.0

%$3

30$0

-100

.0%

$3,9

23$8

47-7

8.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$22,

152

$9,2

89-5

8.1,

000

sf$8

63$0

-100

.0%

$330

$0-1

00.0

%$4

,227

$1,1

11-7

3.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$34,

781

$20,

459

-41.

1,00

0 sf

$222

$0-1

00.0

%$4

24$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

87$2

56-7

6.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

179

$4,0

66-6

3.1,

000

sf$7

0$0

-100

.0%

$20

$0-1

00.0

%$1

34$1

8739

.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$7,8

30$2

,934

-62.

serv

ice

bay

$206

$0-1

00.0

%$7

7$0

-100

.0%

$1,0

09$1

09-8

9.2%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

589

$2,2

09-8

4.Pu

mps

1,00

0 sf

$463

$0-1

00.0

%$4

24$0

-100

.0%

$2,2

70$7

28-6

7.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$25,

430

$10,

463

-58.

1,00

0 sf

$35

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$170

$29

-82.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$1

,373

$615

-55.

hole

$267

$0-1

00.0

%$3

8$0

-100

.0%

$1,3

07$1

35-8

9.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$11,

248

$7,8

82-2

9.ce

Stu

dio

1,00

0 sf

$259

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

70$3

86-6

9.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$10,

824

$5,8

35-4

6.ac

re$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$85

$0-1

00.0

%$8

1$2

5-6

9.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$718

$387

-46.

cour

t$2

53$0

-100

.0%

$18

$0-1

00.0

%$1

,241

$395

-68.

2%n/

an/

an/

a$1

2,18

0$6

,856

-43.

boat

ber

th$1

7$0

-100

.0%

$45

$0-1

00.0

%$8

2$2

4-7

0.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$973

$654

-32.

1,00

0 sf

$194

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$1,1

07$2

03-8

1.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$14,

199

$7,1

36-4

9.1,

000

sf$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$94

$0-1

00.0

%$9

19$2

20-7

6.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$17,

925

$11,

712

-34.

1,00

0 sf

$148

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

$9,6

32$4

,842

-49.

bed

n/a

n/a

n/a

$16

$0-1

00.0

%$4

66$1

74-6

2.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$389

$949

144.

1,00

0 sf

$110

$0-1

00.0

%$2

36$0

-100

.0%

$755

$111

-85.

3%n/

an/

an/

a$8

,847

$3,5

82-5

9.1,

000

sf$1

71$0

-100

.0%

$83

$0-1

00.0

%$8

38$1

71-7

9.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$5,3

09$2

,498

-52.

1,00

0 sf

$178

$0-1

00.0

%$1

18$0

-100

.0%

$1,2

23$3

17-7

4.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$3,5

11$6

,962

98.

1,00

0 sf

$58

$0-1

00.0

%$3

3$0

-100

.0%

$285

$64

-77.

5%n/

an/

an/

a$2

,588

$1,1

54-5

5.sc

reen

$925

$0-1

00.0

%$1

88$0

-100

.0%

$4,5

35$7

47-8

3.5%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$22,

743

$7,0

96-6

8.5)

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$8-8

8.6%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$164

10.

stud

ent

$10

$0-1

00.0

%$1

2$0

-100

.0%

$70

$9-8

7.1%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$149

$225

51.

stud

ent

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$1

3$0

-100

.0%

$90

$10

-88.

9%n/

an/

an/

a$5

38$2

37-5

5.0

or fe

wer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

t$1

1$0

-100

.0%

$13

$0-1

00.0

%$7

8$1

3-8

3.3%

n/a

n/a

n/a

$653

$443

-32.

1,00

0 sf

$69

$0-1

00.0

%$9

4$0

-100

.0%

$339

$79

-76.

7%n/

an/

an/

a$9

83$3

24-6

7.ng

le F

amily

(det

ache

d) ra

te s

houl

d al

so b

e us

ed fo

r "Si

ngle

Fam

ily A

ttach

ed/T

ownh

ouse

" res

iden

tial l

and

use.

d Us

eUn

itCo

rrec

tiona

l Fac

ilitie

sSo

lid W

aste

Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Build

ings

Libr

arie

sTr

ansp

orta

tion

Mas

ter F

ee S

ched

ule

– St

aff R

ecom

men

ded

Fee;

Tow

n of

Indi

an R

iver

Sho

res

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

2009

Adop

ted

Rate

Staf

fPe

rcen

t Ch

ange

RESI

DEN

TIAL

:

- Le

ss th

an 1

,500

sf

du$1

11$1

09-1

.8%

$56

$55

-1.8

%$5

,736

$5,6

16-2

.1%

- 1,

500

to 2

,499

sf

du$1

43$1

26-1

1.9%

$72

$63

-12.

5%$7

,388

$6,5

09-1

1.9%

- 2,

500

sf o

r lar

ger

du$1

56$1

42-9

.0%

$78

$71

-9.0

%$8

,027

$7,3

32-8

.7%

220

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

/Acc

esso

ry U

nit

du$7

0$7

22.

9%$3

5$3

62.

9%$3

,596

$3,7

273.

7%24

0M

obile

Hom

e/RV

(tie

d do

wn)

du$6

1$5

6-8

.2%

$31

$28

-9.7

%$3

,156

$2,8

95-8

.3%

TRAN

SIEN

T, A

SSIS

TED,

GRO

UP:

310

Hote

lro

om$6

3$2

1-6

6.7%

$32

$11

-65.

6%$3

,248

$1,0

83-6

6.7%

320

Mot

elro

om$3

7$1

5-5

9.5%

$19

$8-5

7.9%

$1,9

21$7

84-5

9.2%

620

Nurs

ing

Hom

ebe

d$1

8$7

-61.

1%$9

$3-6

6.7%

$911

$347

-61.

9%25

2As

sist

ed C

are

Livi

ng F

acili

ty (A

CLF)

bed

$22

$7-6

8.2%

$11

$4-6

3.6%

$1,1

34$3

76-6

6.8%

OFF

ICE

& F

INAN

CIAL

:M

edic

al O

ffice

/Clin

ic 1

0,00

0 sf

or l

ess

1,00

0 sf

$300

$89

-70.

3%$1

50$4

5-7

0.0%

$15,

440

$4,5

97-7

0.2%

Med

ical

Offi

ce/C

linic

gre

ater

than

10,

000

sf1,

000

sf$3

00$1

30-5

6.7%

$150

$65

-56.

7%$1

5,44

0$6

,700

-56.

6%91

1Ba

nk/S

avin

gs W

alk-

In1,

000

sf$2

48$1

00-5

9.7%

$124

$50

-59.

7%$1

2,79

0$5

,159

-59.

7%91

2Ba

nk/S

avin

gs D

rive

-In1,

000

sf$2

90$1

30-5

5.2%

$145

$65

-55.

2%$1

4,93

8$6

,699

-55.

2%71

0Ge

nera

l Offi

ce1,

000

sf$1

02$4

1-5

9.8%

$51

$20

-60.

8%$5

,248

$2,1

02-5

9.9%

760

Rese

arch

& D

evel

opm

ent C

ente

r1,

000

sf$7

1$3

1-5

6.3%

$35

$15

-57.

1%$3

,634

$1,5

76-5

6.6%

INDU

STRI

AL:

140

Man

ufac

turi

ng1,

000

sf$4

0$1

5-6

2.5%

$20

$7-6

5.0%

$2,0

44$7

48-6

3.4%

150

War

ehou

sing

1,00

0 sf

$32

$13

-59.

4%$1

6$7

-56.

3%$1

,653

$672

-59.

3%15

1M

ini-W

areh

ouse

1,00

0 sf

$19

$5-7

3.7%

$9$2

-77.

8%$9

57$2

32-7

5.8%

152

High

-Cub

e (A

utom

ated

) War

ehou

se1,

000

sf$3

2$6

-81.

3%$1

6$3

-81.

3%$1

,653

$322

-80.

5%11

0Ge

nera

l Lig

ht In

dust

rial

1,00

0 sf

$65

$26

-60.

0%$3

2$1

3-5

9.4%

$3,3

24$1

,331

-60.

0%n/

aCo

ncre

te P

lant

acre

$138

$58

-58.

0%$6

9$2

9-5

8.0%

$7,0

97$2

,984

-58.

0%n/

aSa

nd M

inin

gac

re$2

1$7

-66.

7%$1

1$4

-63.

6%$1

,101

$382

-65.

3%RE

TAIL

:82

0Re

tail

1,00

0 sf

gla

$105

$63

-40.

0%$5

2$3

2-3

8.5%

$5,3

99$3

,253

-39.

7%94

4/ 9

46Ga

solin

e/Se

rvic

e St

atio

n w

ith o

r w/o

Car

Was

hfu

el p

os.

$135

$51

-62.

2%$6

7$2

5-6

2.7%

$6,9

37$2

,602

-62.

5%84

1Ne

w/U

sed

Auto

Sal

es1,

000

sf$2

26$7

8-6

5.5%

$113

$39

-65.

5%$1

1,66

3$4

,033

-65.

4%93

2Re

stau

rant

1,00

0 sf

$544

$203

-62.

7%$2

72$1

01-6

2.9%

$28,

021

$10,

440

-62.

7%93

4Fa

st F

ood

Rest

. w/D

rive

-Thr

u1,

000

sf$8

04$4

31-4

6.4%

$402

$216

-46.

3%$4

1,40

7$2

2,21

7-4

6.3%

850

Supe

rmar

ket

1,00

0 sf

$258

$86

-66.

7%$1

29$4

3-6

6.7%

$13,

299

$4,4

51-6

6.5%

942

Auto

mob

ile R

epai

r/Bo

dy S

hop

1,00

0 sf

$161

$62

-61.

5%$8

1$3

1-6

1.7%

$8,2

96$3

,214

-61.

3%94

7Se

lf-Se

rvic

e Ca

r Was

hse

rvic

e ba

y$3

18$4

6-8

5.5%

$159

$23

-85.

5%$1

6,35

8$2

,387

-85.

4%85

3Co

nven

ienc

e M

arke

t with

Gas

Pum

ps1,

000

sf$5

72$2

24-6

0.8%

$286

$112

-60.

8%$2

9,44

5$1

1,52

7-6

0.9%

890

Furn

iture

Sto

re1,

000

sf$3

6$1

3-6

3.9%

$18

$6-6

6.7%

$1,8

68$6

63-6

4.5%

RECR

EATI

ON

AL:

430

Golf

Cour

seho

le$2

57$1

60-3

7.7%

$129

$80

-38.

0%$1

3,24

6$8

,257

-37.

7%49

2Ra

cque

t Clu

b/He

alth

Clu

b/Da

nce

Stud

io1,

000

sf$2

49$1

24-5

0.2%

$125

$62

-50.

4%$1

2,84

5$6

,407

-50.

1%41

2Co

unty

Par

kac

re$1

8$8

-55.

6%$9

$4-5

5.6%

$928

$424

-54.

3%49

1Te

nnis

Cou

rtco

urt

$274

$145

-47.

1%$1

37$7

3-4

6.7%

$14,

103

$7,4

69-4

7.0%

420

Mar

ina

boat

ber

th$2

2$1

4-3

6.4%

$11

$7-3

6.4%

$1,1

50$6

99-3

9.2%

GOVE

RNM

ENTA

L:73

2Po

st O

ffice

1,00

0 sf

$312

$147

-52.

9%$1

56$7

3-5

3.2%

$16,

062

$7,5

59-5

2.9%

590

Libr

ary

1,00

0 sf

$383

$239

-37.

6%$1

91$1

19-3

7.7%

$19,

700

$12,

290

-37.

6%73

3Go

vern

men

t Offi

ce C

ompl

ex1,

000

sf$1

97$9

7-5

0.8%

$99

$48

-51.

5%$1

0,17

0$4

,987

-51.

0%57

1Ja

ilbe

d$1

7$2

229

.4%

$9$1

122

.2%

$897

$1,1

5628

.9%

MIS

CELL

ANEO

US:

565

Day

Care

Cen

ter

1,00

0 sf

$199

$74

-62.

8%$9

9$3

7-6

2.6%

$10,

246

$3,8

04-6

2.9%

610

Hosp

ital

1,00

0 sf

$128

$53

-58.

6%$6

4$2

7-5

7.8%

$6,5

93$2

,749

-58.

3%64

0Ve

teri

nary

Clin

ic1,

000

sf$1

01$1

4644

.6%

$50

$73

46.0

%$5

,181

$7,4

9844

.7%

560

Chur

ch1,

000

sf$5

9$2

4-5

9.3%

$30

$12

-60.

0%$3

,053

$1,2

54-5

8.9%

444

Mov

ie T

heat

er w

/Mat

inee

scre

en$5

68$1

57-7

2.4%

$284

$78

-72.

5%$2

9,24

3$8

,078

-72.

4%52

0El

emen

tary

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

K-5

)st

uden

t$5

$3-4

0.0%

$2$2

0.0%

$248

$177

-28.

6%52

2M

iddl

e Sc

hool

(Pri

vate

, 6-9

)st

uden

t$5

$50.

0%$2

$20.

0%$2

48$2

41-2

.8%

530

High

Sch

ool (

Priv

ate,

9-1

2)st

uden

t$1

3$5

-61.

5%$7

$2-7

1.4%

$674

$254

-62.

3%54

0/55

0Un

iver

sity

/Jun

ior C

olle

ge (7

,500

or f

ewer

stu

dent

s)st

uden

t$1

5$9

-40.

0%$8

$5-3

7.5%

$778

$470

-39.

6%n/

aFi

reSt

atio

n1,

000

sf$3

0$8

-73.

3%$1

5$4

-73.

3%$1

,530

$415

-72.

9%

720

210

Sing

le F

amily

(det

ache

d)

Tota

l (Al

l Fee

s)IT

E LU

CLa

nd U

seUn

itCi

ty A

dmin

Fee

(2.0

%)

Coun

ty A

dmin

. Fee

(1.0

%)

indian river county impact fee update study final...

Documents