-:indian river -,..,. metropolitan roadway impact final report · 9/30/1998 · with impact fees....

-:Indian River . -.. tpuntv ·. ·

\ -,..,. Metropolitan

Planning Organization UPDATE OF THE FAIR SHARE

ROADWAY IMPACT ORDINANCE

FINAL REPORT

September 1998

Prepared by.·

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc.

In association with.·

Icara; Merri4 Cul/i~ 77mm, Furen, and Ginsburg

and

Ghyabi Lassiter and Associates, Inc.

............ ~.,. 'tj .. ..... ....._.., .... ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REVIEW OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Benefit Districts Versus Impact Fee Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Legal Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Historical and Projected Revenues Collected by Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Comparison of 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs Versus

Projected Impact Fee Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Travel Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Geographic Features and Jurisdictional Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Administrative Management of Impact Fee Program .................... 22 Benefit District Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

REVIEW OF DEMAND AND COST COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Introduction ................................................... 26 Review of Demand Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Trip Generation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Trip Length .............................................. 31 Percent New Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Review of New Land Use Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Review and Calculation of Unit Cost Component ...................... 41

Update of Impact Fee Cost Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Recommended Cost Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Review and Calculation of Credit Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Calculation of Equivalent Gas Tax ............................ · 46 Summary of Changes to Credit Component ..................... 47

COLLECTION OF TRIP CHARACTERISTIC DATA . . .. .. .. . .. .. • . • . . .. . . . . . 49 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Site Descriptions and Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Study Methodology .............................. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Statistical Sample Confidence Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998

Indian River County MPO Update Fair Share Roadway Impact Ordinance

Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Trip Characteristic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Contractor Trade Trip Characteristics Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE AND ALTERNATIVES ......... 61 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Existing and Proposed Land Use Schedule ........................... 61 Summary ..................................................... 68

TABLES

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 1 - Historical and Projected Impact Fee Revenues for Existing Impact Fee Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Historical and Projected Impact Fees for Proposed Impact Fee Districts . 9 Indian River County Year 2020 Cost Feasible Plan by Proposed Impact Fee Benefit Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Distribution of 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Existing Benefit Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Distribution of 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Proposed Benefit Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Percent of Trips from 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Network Between Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Relationship of Old Benefit Districts To Recommended Benefrt Districts 23 Comparison of Trip Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Comparison of Trip Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Model Based Average Trip Length Estimates ..................... 34 Comparison of Percent New Trips ............................... 37 Recommended New Land Use Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Indian River County Planned Improvements, 1998 to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . 42 Summary of Cost per Lane Mile by Road Improvement Benefit District . 46 Calculation of Gas Tax Credit Including State Road 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Calculation of Gas Tax Credit Excluding State Road 60 ............. 48 Trip Characteristic Study Sites ... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Convenience Market w/Fast food and Gas Service Land Use Sample Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Contractor Trade Land Use Sample Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Trip Generation Summary of Convenience Market, Fast Food Restaurant, and Gas Service Land Use ................................... 55

Tindale-0/ive.r and Associates, Inc. September 30, J 998


Table 21 Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Land Use Sample Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 22 Trip Generation Summary of Contractor Trade Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 23 Summary of Contractor Trades Trip Characteristic Studies ........... 59 Table 24 Current Land Use Schedule, Existing Trip Characteristics, Current District 5 cost, Current Credit and 15% Discount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table 25 Current Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Costs and Credits and No Discount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 26 Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and No Discount Factor ......................... 66 Table 26a Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and 15% Discount Factor ......................... 67.1

FIGURES Figure 1 Indian River County Original Impact Fee Benefit Districts ............... 2 Figure 2 Indian River County Proposed Impact Fee Benefit Districts ............. 3 Figure 3 Indian River County Plan Improvements 1998-2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . Figure 4 Indian River County Residential Development and Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 5 Indian River County Commercial and Service Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 6 Indian River County Approved DRI's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 7 Indian River County Percent of Cost Affordable 2020 Network Trips from Barrier Islands ..................................................... 21 Figure 8 Indian River County Proposed Benefit District Trip Influence ........... 24

Appendix A Historical Transportation Impact Fee Revenues Appendix B Summary of Weekday Trip Lengths Appendix C Traffic Count Data Appendix D Origin/Destination Data

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 indian River County MPO Update Fair Share Roadway Impact Ordinance

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

UPDATE OF THE FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPACT ORDINANCE

FINAL REPORT

REVIEW OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS

Introduction

The Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has initiated a study to update the Indian River County Fair Share Roadway Impact Ordinance. The first task of this work effort involves the review and evaluation of the existing fair share ordinance benefit districts. The purpose of this review is to determine if the number of benefit districts should be reduced from the existing nine districts. The nine existing districts are illustrated in Figure 1. These districts have remained unchanged since the establishment of the Indian River County Fair Share Impact Ordinance in February of 1986.

Discussions with members of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) confirmed the desire to reduce the number of impact fee districts. TAC members indicated that they would like to see the number of districts reduced from 9 districts to 2 or 3 districts. The proposed three districts are illustrated in Figure 2. The Consultant team generally supported a reduction in the number of benefit districts from 9 to 3. However, the Consultantteam also felt that going to only 2 districts countywide would be more difficult to defend. Therefore, an evaluation of the 9 existing and 3 proposed benefit districts will consider the following factors:

0 Benefit districts versus impact fee districts; 0 Legal Considerations; 0 Historical and projected revenues collected by districts; 0 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Districts;

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNVR/VF.RIFJNLTC.IfTD I

indian River County MPO Update Fair Share Roadway impact Ordinance

'-'

Bm•anl

Indian Rlwr a.1nry

7

"' ~ I I I. '1"'?' I ka el I \I I 11-

~ ~

l ~~HeOWkB j ................................................................ ~--------~~~~~~ --------------------------------------------------

--------------------------

-·--··----· ·-· -~-· ----····-

FIGURE1 Indian River County Original Impact Fee Benefit Districts

G:~!-llrn~EVW>g1 AAa

----------------------:. .. -·----· -------- ---· --- ----·-·

f? ij ..-b'

WI I !I •

India,. Rmn- 2'ou,.~·

. --

------------------- ·- - -- ·-·-- .....

~ i!. ~-

1

2

·~ ~n

"''"• .......

. -. }

. ' '; ..

·' ,,

-----·---------· -----·--------··

~'(.,.,. :·~ •..

..-' '§,

3 MljorRoads ~j I) I I ) jl(fastrict -~ 1 . 3 o 3

L--------

FIGURE2 Indian River County

Proposed Impact Fee Benefit Districts ---------- -----·-----------·--··-·-------

'------------~-'-------------·-------------------·-·------------------

... - . ---- _!1:\i~~\arcvi~vJifjg2.apr

<."

0 Comparison of 2020 Cost Feasible Plan Costs Versus Project Impact Fee Revenues;

0 Travel characteristics; 0 Geographical features and jurisdictional boundaries; and · 0 Administrative management of Impact Fee Program.

Based upon the above factors, final recommendations concerning the number and locations of proposed benefit districts will be developed.

Benefit Districts Versus Impact Fee Districts

In order to establish the basis to present the documentation used to develop boundaries, it is first important to understand the difference between benefit districts and impact fee districts. A benefit district is a geographic area established to provide a reasonable benefit to those developments located in the area surrounding the public improvements paid for with impact fees. A benefit district is used to demonstrate benefit to the person or entity responsible for paying the fee.

Impact fee districts, on the other hand, are the specific boundaries used to delineate changes in the amount of the impact fee collected between one district and another. These boundaries may or may not be the exact boundaries of the benefit districts; that depends on whether or not grouping has been possible. If district grouping has been accomplished, the number of impact fee districts will be smaller than the number of benefit districts. If grouping is not possible, the number of impact fee districts will be the same as the number of benefit districts.

Legal Considerations

From a legal perspective, Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 41h DCA - . 1983), established the benchmark with regard to impact fee benefit districts. That case .. . .

involved a challenge to Broward County's ordinance. that required a developer, as a condition of plat approval, to dedicate land or pay a fee to be used in expanding a countylevel park system sufficiently to accommodate the new residents of platted development. Among other things, the court in that case held that "the government must show a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of the funds collected

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRIVERIFJNLTC wPD 4


and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents." 1Q. At 611-12.

The court in Hollywood, Inc v. Broward County, supra, found that Broward County demonstrated a "reasonable connection" or a "rational nexus," between the expenditures of the funds collected under its ordinance and the benefits accruing to proposed development. That ordinance required the funds collected to be "expended within a reasonable period of time, for the purpose of acquiring and developing land necessary to meet the need for County-level parks created by the development in order to provide a system of County-level parks which will be available to and substantially benefit the residents of the platted area." ld. At 612 (quoting the ordinance). The Broward ordinance further limited the use of the funds to acquiring and developing new land for park purposes within 15 miles of the proposed development. The court emphasized th-at "[t]he reasonableness of this distance is shown by the County's evidence that residents travel widely in order to take advantage of the features that can be provided at County-level parks. Based on this evidence, we believe that the ordinance adequately earmarks the funds collected for use in expanding the regional park system to accommodate the subdivision residents." 1Q.

The court in Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County cautioned that a requirement that the funds be used to construct or improve roads "in the vicinity" of the proposed development was an "insufficient and nebulous limitation on the County's discretion in expending the funds," when it distinguished the case of Broward County v. Janis Development Corp., 311 So. 2d 371 (Fla. -4th DCA 1975). However, it noted that the ordinance in Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County did not have this flaw, and it "sufficiently earmarks the future use of the money for capital facilities to serve the new subdivision." 1Q. At 613.

In St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders Association. Inc., 583 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1991), the Florida Supreme Court took the opportunity, among other things, to rule on the "benefits test" for an impact fee relating to schools. The Florida Supreme Court approved

- the imposition of impact fees that meet the requirements ofthe dual rational nexus test adopted by other courts in evaluation impact fees, and it stated with regard to the "benefits" requirement of the second prong of the dual rational nexus test that:

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:VNDRJVERIFINLT'C WPD 5


"In addition, the government must show a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents."

ld. at 637 (quoting Hollywood. Inc .. v. Broward County. supra.) Perhaps, the Florida Supreme Court was most instructive on the "benefits" requirements of the second prong of the test when it explained:

"The question of whether the ordinance meets the requirements of the second prong of the test is more troublesome. As indicated, we see no requirement that every new unit of development benefit from the impact fee in the sense that there must be a child residing in that unit who will attend public school. It is enough that new public schools are available to serve that unit of development. Thus. if this were a County-wide impact fee designed to fund construction of new schools as needed throughout the County. we could easily conclude that the second prong of the test had been met."

ld. at 639 (emphasis added).

The Florida Supreme Court applied a "rational nexus" or "reasonableness" test to the benefits portion of the dual rational nexus test. In fact, the Court opined that a County-wide impact fee designed to fund construction throughout the County "could easily" satisfy the second prong of the controlling test.

Applying this established rule to Indian River County's transportation irnpact fee regulations, it is safe to say that the nine (9) original impact benefit districts established under the existing ordinance would meet the benefits requirements under the second prong of the ration~l nexus test because such districts are· relatively small in size and are justified by existing technical data. Likewise, a reduction in number of nine (9) districts to three (3) benefit districts in a proposed road impact fee regulation for Indian River county would be justified if the technical analysis generally support these larger districts~

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:VNDRJVERIFJNLTC. WPD 6


Furthermore, should the County desire to separately collect funds in each benefit district, but spend them on a County-wide basis for roads, such a County-wide spending program would likely be defensible, provided, however, that all funds that would otherwise be earmarked for a particular benefit district must be accounted for and spent within that district within a reasonable period of time, say six years after collection. The advantage of "pooling" the funds collected from each of several benefit districts into one fund for expenditure County-wide (subject to a reasonable time limit and accountability based on the amount that would otherwise be earmarked for each benefit district) is that some of the same road projects could be constructed sooner due to availability of funds from all districts. In other words, if the funds from each benefit district were to be segregated, as is currently the practice in Indian River County, the County may not have sufficient funds to commence any road project in any of the benefit districts until a later date when an individual benefit district builds up its fund. On the other hand, the County-wide "pooling" offunds, while maintaining accountability for each benefit district fund during a reasonable block of time, will allow certain projects to be expedited or "fast-tracked" because of the larger pool of funds that are available on an earlier date. Those projects that are not "fasttracked" are not substantially delayed, if delayed at all, due to the reasonable time limit that would be required for the ultimate expenditure of funds within each benefit district. Therefore, because of these proposed additional safeguards, or limitations, there would be no reduction in benefits to any district.

Therefore, from a legal perspective, it appears safe for Indian River County to reduce its benefit districts from nine (9) to three (3) in number, provided the technical data and travel characteristics exist to support such a reduction. These data need not be an exact fit, but must simply be reasonable to support the new district divisions.

Historical And Projected Revenues Collected by Districts

Indian River County began its Transportation Impact Fee Program effective March 1, 1986. Since that time, over $20.6 million in impact fee revenues have been collected (and this does not ·include interest earnings on collected fees). Appendix A - Historical Transportation Impact Fee Revenues, contains a tabular listing of impact fee collections by the nine (9) existing and three (3) proposed benefit districts since the inception of the program through the end of FY96/97.

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, inc. September 30, i998 G:VNDRIVERIF!NLTC. WPD 7


Discussions with the Indian River County Community Development Department indicate that the development trends during the last five years are indicative of the types of development that can be expected to occur in the future. Therefore, the average revenue collections during the last five years were used to project potential transportation impact fee revenues through the year 2020. This information is presented in Table 1. In a similar manner, Table 2 illustrates the projected impact fee revenue generation using the three (3) proposed districts.

Reducing the number of impact fee benefit districts from nine (9) to three (3) provides greater flexibility to the County concerning the expenditure of impact fee monies, while still providing a reasonable level of benefit to the fee payer. Further, the reduction in impact fee districts will provide the County with the ability to accelerate the construction of needed road improvement projects due to the quicker accumulation of funds within the larger districts.

2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Districts

Information from several sources was used to create Table 3, a listing of planned improvements from 1998 to 2020. The sources of information include:

• Indian River County Urban Area Year 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan; • Florida Department of Transportation Improvement Program for FY 97/98 to

FY 01/02;

• Indian River County Public Works Department Five-Year Road Improvement Program; and

• Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Year 2020 Road Improvement Program.

This table illustrates the amount of right-of-way and construction costs by the proposed three impact fee districts. Because of the significant cost of the SR60 project and the fact that this improvement will be funded with state and federal gas tax as opposed to impact

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRJVERIF7NLTC. WPD 8

indian River County MPO Update Fair Share Roadway Impact Ordinance

Table 1 Historical and Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenues for Existing Benefit Districts

Cumulative

Total Revenues Average Revenues Average Revenues Projected Old Impact Since Inception 1987 to 1997 1993 to 1997 Revenues Fee District March 1, 1986 (11 Years) (5 Years) 1998 to 2020

1 $2,078,390 $186,286 $174,747 $4,019,172 2 $1,372,986 $122,063 $60,617 $1,394,194 3 $5,096,715 $451,065 $395,741 $9,102,045 4 $1,214,083 $109,910 $114,819 $2,640,826 5 $2,801,546 $251,242 $270,126 $6,212,891 6 $3,715,582 $330,855 $409,630 $9,421,484 7 $526,913 $47,368 $67,444 $1,551,209 8 $3,302,555 $297,940 $504,595 $11,605,692 9 $518,886 $46,736 $48,688 $1,119,824

TOTAL $20,627,655 $1,843,465 $2,046,406 $47,067,338

Table 2 Historical and Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenues for Proposed Benefit Districts

Cumulative

Total Revenues Average Revenues Average Revenues Projected Proposed Old Impact Since Inception 1987 to 1997 1993 to 1997 Revenues

Fee District Fee District March 1, 1986 (11 Years) (5 Y~ars) 1998 to 2020 1

Part of 1, 4, $7,175,105. $637,351 $570,488 $13,121,217 and 7; and 3

2 Part of 1, 2, 4, $7,845,097 $706,460 $956,983 $22,010,618 5, and 7; and 8

3 Part of 2 and 5;

$5,607,454 $499,654 $518,935 $11,935,503 and 6, 9 TOTAL $20,627,655 $1,843,465 $2,046,406 $47,067,338

Tindale-0/iver and Associates G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFEESS\" q

fees, it was excluded from the cost comparison by district. As can be seen by Table 3, the total year 2020 Cost Affordable Plan cost, ranges from $45.5 million for District 1 to $47.2 million for District 3 to $53.9 million for District 2. The relatively small difference in total costs between districts indicates a good balance of projects between the three proposed impact fee benefit districts.

Figure 3 illustrates the planned improvements between 1998 and 2020. This figure includes only roadway capacity expansion projects included in the current County and FOOT 5 year programs, as well as similar improvements included in the 2020 Cost Feasible Plan referenced above.

Comparison of 2020 Cost Affordable Costs Versus Projected Impact Fee Revenues

Using the historical and projected impact fee revenues documented in Tables 1 and 2, and the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan breakout by impact fee districts presented in Table 3, a comparison was made between project costs and projected revenues for the existing nine (9) benefit districts and the proposed three (3) benefit districts. Table 4 presents a comparison of costs versus revenues for the nine (9) existing benefit districts. This table indicates that when the costs for 2020 Cost Affordable Plan improvements are broken down by district, impact fee revenues are projected to exceed 2020 plan improvements in districts 1 and 2. This has the potential of creating an impact fee refund problem for the County's impact fee program.

In a similar manner, the projected impact fee revenues versus the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan improvement costs were compared using the proposed three benefit districts. This information is presented in Table 5. This comparison indicates that the cost of the planned improvements exceeds that projected impact fee revenues for the time period from 1998 to 2020. Therefore, establishing the three (3) revised benefit districts should eliminate the potential for· refunds existing from the inability to construct improvements within the ordinance required timeframe.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:IINDRIVERIFINLTC WPD IO


Table 3 Indian River County Planned Improvement!! 1999 to 2020 by Proposed Benefit Oistrlcts

Percent Percent Percent

Total I length Impact Impact Impact R-0-W R.Q.W R.Q.W Cons! Cons! Cons I Total Total

FacUlty From To (Miles) Foe Foe Foe lmprOVB• Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by I Dlst1 Dlst2 Dlst3 mont Type Dlstrlct1 Dlstrlc12 Dlstrlcl3 Dlstrlcl1 Dlstrlcl2 Dlstrlctl Dlstrlct1 Dlstrlct2 Dlslrlct3 J In Current Transportation ImProvement Proaram 15 Years\

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd C.R.512 661h.Ave 42 100% Add 2 Lns $1 330 560 $0 $0 $8 000 000 so $0 $9330 560 so so 53rd Sl U.S.1 5BihAve 2.0 100% New 4 Lns. so $1 584 000 $0 so S3 000 000 $0 so S4 584 000 so Barber SVSiraHon Ave C.R. 512 U.S.1 3.7 100% Add2 Lns $0 so $0 S5 000 000 so $0 S5 000 000 so so 66th Ave 121hSI. 41h51. 1.0 29% 71% New2 Lns $0 $71 280 S178 200 so $285 714 $714 286 so S356 994 S892 486 C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd. 1.4 100% Add 2 Lns $250 000 $0 so S3 190 000 $0 so S3440000 $0 so C.R. 512 1-95 C.R.510 2.2 100% Add 2 Lns $250 000 $0 $0 ' $4 660000 $0 $0 $4 910000 so so Old Dixie 16th St. 121h Sl 0.5 100% Add lln $0 $50 000 $0 so $920000 so so $970 000 $0 Old Dixie 121h St. 1st St. 1.5 100% Add 1 Ln $0 $0 $300 000 so $0 $1 850 000 so so S2 150 000 43 Ave. 261h5t. 121h Sl 1.5 100% Add 3 Lns so S500 000 $0 $0 S4 500000 $0 so $5000 000 so 43 Ave. 12th St. Blh St. 0.5 100% Add 3 Lns so $0 $200 000 so so $950000 $0 $0 S1150 000 41h Sl. 271hAve. Old Dixie 1.5 100% Add 1 Ln $0 $0 $200 000 so so S2 300000 so so S2 500000 Oslo Rd. 271hAve. 82ndAve. 5.1 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $0 $1 000 000 $0 so $10100000 so so S11 100 000 58th Ave. 261hSt. 161h 51. 10 100% Add 3 Lns $0 S500 000 $0 $0 S6 350 000 so so $6650000 $0 58th Ave. 161h St. 121h5l 0.5 100% Add 3 Lns so $300 000 $0 $0 $700000 so so Sl 000 000 so 58th Ave. 121h St. Oslo Rd. 2.5 100% Add 4 Lns so $0 $500 000 so $0 $5 700 000 so so S6200000 661h Ave. S.R. 60 12th Sl 1.0 100% Add2 Lns $0 S300000 so so $1 800 000 so so S2100000 so 66th Ave. S.R. 60 41st St. 2.0 100% Add 3 Lns so $800 000 so so $4 600000 $0 so $5400000 $0

North/South Facilities

Citrus HIQhw.IY St. lucie Countv line C.R.510 9.0 34% 57% 9% New 2 Lns $446 617 S754 286 $119098 S2 465 323 $4 163 657 $657 420 $2911940 $4 917 943 S776 517 U.S.1 Brevard Countv C.R. 512 3.7 100% Add 2 Lns $1 172 160 $0 so $4 428160 so so $5600320 so $0 U.S.1 Old Dixie Hwv/U.S. 1 Allantlc Blvd 1.2 100% Add 2 Lns $0 S760 320 so so $1 436160 $0 $0 S2196480 so U.S.1 41h 51 St Lucie Countv 4.3 100% Add2 Lns $0 so so $0 so S5146240 so so $5146240 Old Dixie Hwv IsiS!. St. lucie Countv 2.4 100% Add2 Lns $0 $0 $1 520 640 $0 $0 S3000000 $0 $0 $4 520640 27th Ave S.R. 60 St. Lucie Countv 5.4 18% 82% Add2 Lns $0 $103 680 $466 560 $0 $1 227 273 $5522727 so $1330953 $5989.287 Roseland Rd U.S.1 C.R.512 3.7 100% Add 2 Lns $390 720 so $0 $4 625 000 $0 $0 .$5015 720 $0 .$0 661h Ave/Schumann Dr U.S.1 Barner svstranon 1.9 tOO% Ad.d2 Lns $351120 $0 $0 $2 375 000 $0 so $2 726120 so $0 66th AVe/Schumann Dr Barber SUStraHon C;R.S10 0.8 100%. Add2 Lns $147 840 $0 $0 $1 000 000 so so $1147 840 $0 $0 66th Ave/Schumann Dr C.R. 510 41stSl 5.6 18% 82% Add 2 Lns $214.286 $985,714 $0 $1,250,000 S5.750.000 $0 S1,464,286 $6 735 714 $0 t:a~UHIII5[ ra:[;IIUI'B:!i"

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd 66th Ave U.S. I 1.6 100% Add 2 Lns $337 920 $0 $0 $2 000000 so $0 $2 337 920 so $0 C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd U.S.1 1stBridae 0.8 100% Add2 Lns $633 600 $0 $0 $937 500 so $0 $1571100 $0 $0 53rd St 58th Ave/Kings Hwv Citrus Highway 3.0 100% New4 Lns $0 S1 584 000 $0 $0 S4 385 850 so $0 $5969850 so 26th 51 43rd Ave 5Bih Ave Kinas Hwv 1.0 100% Add2 Lns $0 $844 800 $0 so $1196 800 $0 $0 $2 041600 so 26th 51 58th Ave Kinas Hwv 66th Ave 1.0 100% New2 Lns $0 $211200 $0 $0 $2000000 $0 $0 $2 211200 $0 S.R.60 58th Ave/Kinas Hwv 82ndAve 3.0 100% Add2 Lns $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 152 000 $0 $0 $4 152 000 $0 S.R. 60 82ndAve 1-95 2.0 100% Add 2 Lns so $0 $0 $0 $3,932 000 $0 $0 $3 932000 $0 S.R. 60 MP 22.5 (W. 1-95) MP19 3.5. 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 257 856 $0 $0 $11 257 856 $0 S.R. 60 MP19 MP 15.5 3.5 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $3 750 000 $0 $0 $15 150 571 $0 $0 $18 900 571 so S.R. 60 MP15.5 MP12 3.5 100% Add 3 Lns $0 s:i.85o.ooo $0 $0 $4,358,000 $0 $0 $8208000 $0 -

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates

G·\INDRIVFR\0("')(':~\IMPI=S::S::C:.~\A

~ N

Table 3 Indian River County Planned Improvements 1998 to 2020 by Proposed Benefit Districts

~ -~

Percent Percent Percent

Length Impact Impact Impact R.O·W R-O·W R-O·W Cons! Cons! Cons! Totol Totol Total F•clllty From To· (Milas) Fee Fee Faa Improve- Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Dls11 Dls12 DlsiJ moniTypo Dlslrlct1 Dlslrlc12 Dlstrlct3 Dlslrlct1 Dlslrlc12 DlslrlctJ Dlslrlcl1 Dlslrlc12 Dlslrlct3 S.R.60 MP12 MP9 3.0 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $3 100 000 $0 $0 $4 305000 $0 $0 $7 405000 so S.R. 60 MP9 MP6 3.0 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $3 300 000 $0 $0 $4 061000 $0 $0 $7 361000 so S.R. i!O MP6 MP3 3.0 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $3 396 000 $0 so $4 153 000 $0 so $7 549000 $0 S.R. 60 MP3 MPO 3.0 100% Add 3 Lns $0 $3 300 000 $0 $0 $4 101000 $0 $0 $7 401000 $0 5thSt.S.W. U.S.1 2oth Avo· 0.7 100% New2 Ln $0 $0 $40 000 $0 $0 $1400 000 so $0 $1 440 000 5th St. S.W. 43rdAva 56111 Avall<lnas Hwv 1.1 100% New2 Ln $0 $0 $232 320 $0 $0 $1100 000 $0 $0 $1332 320 Oslo Rdl9th 51 S. W. Old Dixie Hwv 27th Avo 2.0 100% Add2 Lns so $0 $739 200 $0 $0 $2 500000 $0 $0 $3,239 200 1·95 lnlarchanae/Oslo $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 $0 Oslo Rdl9th 51 S.W. 82ndAve 1-!ISinte@anltl! _ - _0.5 ,_

- - 100% Ad_d2lns_ -~

_$0 - - $0 $92,400 $0 $0 $625,000 $0 $0 $717,4!10

Total Cost lndudlng State Road 60 lmpmvemants $5,524,822 $30.045,280 $5,588,418 $39,930,983 $97,785,881 $41,565.673 $45,455.806 $127,831.161 $47.154.090

T a tal Cost Exdudlng State Road 60 Improvements $5,524.822 $9,349,280 $5,588,418 $39,930,983 $42,315,454 $41.565.673 $45,455,806 $51,664,734 $47,154,090

TincbJf:J-Ofi\nlr :mrf Ac:c:tv"ill!toe

Table 4 Distribution of 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Existing Benefit Districts

Projected Impact Old Impact Right-of-Way Improvement Total Fee Revenues Revenues I Fee District Cost Cost Cost 1998·2020 Costs

1 $0 $0 $0 $4,019,172 0.00% 2 $0 $0 $0 $1,394,194 0.00% 3 $2,237,920 $20,118,160 $22,356,080 $9,102,045 40.71% 4 $2,555,520 $5,937,500 $8,493,020 $2,640,826 31.09% 5 $1,336,931 $7,927,544 $9,264,475 $6,212,891 67.06% 6 $3,703,469 $23,444,856 $27,148,325 $9,421,484 34.70% 7 $4,565,680 $25,138,954 $29,704,634 $1,551,209 5.22% 8 $25,553,869 $87,276,011 $112,829,880 $11,605,692 10.29% 9 $1,205,131 $9,439,512 $10,644,643 $1,119,824 10.52%

TOTAL $41,158,520 $179,282,53 7 $220,441,057 $47,067,338 -- 21.35%

Table 5 Distribution of Cost Affordable Plan Costs by Proposal Benefit Districts

Projected Impact Proposed Old Impact Right-of-Way Improvement Total Fee Revenues Revenues I

Fee District Fee District Cost Cost Cost 1998-2020 Costs 1

Part of 1, 4, and $2,237,920 $20,118,160 $22,356,080 $13,121,217 58.69% 7; and 3

2 Part of 1,2, 4,5, $34,012,000 $126,280,009 $164,127,649 $22,010,618 13.41% and 7; and 8

3 Part of 2 and 5;

$4,908,600 $32,884,368 $33,957,328 $11,935,503 35.15% and 6, 9 TOTAL $41,158,520 $179,282,537 $220,441 ,057 $47,067,338 21.35%

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 13 G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFEESS\"

i i ! i I I I i i

1 I

! I ; i !

i I I

!

I i I

;

!

I i i i i ! ~ I

i I

N ..... 1.1)

0::. (.); 2

i :

SR60

3

! '

' • I

'I ~ !

~==~~~==~~~~==~~~~~~ : :~ Type of Road Improvement I FIGURE 3 : i~ N. _No Improvement. . Ind .. 1.an Ri'IJe· ·r ·eounty· . ; 161 ~. /Add 1 Lane v~ ··~%\%Add 2 Lanes Planned Improvements ! ~'''~'New2 Lane Facility 1998 to 2.020 · ~ ~ New 4 Lane Facility . ~ '1\1 District Boundaries

3 0 3 "0' ~~---------------------

14

Travel Characteristics

A review was undertaken of the major generators and attractors in Indian River County. This review was done to see how the major generators and attractors overlay with of the proposed impact fee benefit districts. Information was obtained from the Community Development Department concerning the major residential areas, schools, major service centers, developments of regional impact, and shopping centers. Additionally, the Quarterly Update: Major New Development and Projects and Proposals of General Interest, July 11, 1997, was obtained and reviewed to identify current and pending major developments. All information was geo-coded and used to produce a series of maps containing the above types of development overlayed on the proposed impact fee benefit districts. These maps include:

0 Figure 4- Indian River County Residential Development and Schools; 0 Figure 5- Indian River County Commercial and Service Centers; and 0 Figure 6- Indian River County Approved DRI's.

These maps illustrate a reasonable distribution of service and commercial development in all districts. As expected, the majority of development is located east of 1-95. Also, while there is a concentration of commercial and service development in the Vero Beach area, the other districts do have varying levels of service and commercial development. Similarly, there is a reasonable distribution of schools and residential development among the districts. In summary, residential development and schools appear to adequately support the service and commercial development within each of the districts.

In order to further review the balance of productions and attractions within Indian River County, a review was undertaken of the percent of trips from the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan that occur between the proposed impact fee districts. This information is presented in Table 6 and indicates that a significant percentage of the trips in benefit districts 1, 2, and 3 are occurring within each district, 59%, 48%, and 36%, respectively. There are trips that occur betWeen the proposed impact fee districts. Most notably, the percentage of trips occurring between District 2 to 3, and Districts 1 to 2 is 16% and 21%, respectively. This is expected since there is a large number of service oriented businesses in District 2, as well as governmental functions.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 (j, VNDRJVERIFINLTC.IITD 15


• Residential Dev. • School 1\1 District Boundaries

FIGURE4 Indian River County

Residential Development &Schools

16

I i :! f;

; !

I i 'I ~ :

. i

'1 : i

;

..-· ... .J,. r.~'""~-r.-·· .. ~

·~ ""'· '!. «. li;

r-

2

3

: : ! • Commercial

'· CR512

· ! i • . Service Center •

1 iN District ·Boundaries ! :

; ;

FIGURES I Indian River County

Commercial & 1

1

Service Centers 3~~--0~-~~~~3 --;;;;~6 Miles

g:\indrivr\geo\arcvie.tJ.fo.g5.apr

17

' : i

'' ''

. i '' . ;

. ! : ~

. !

~ ! . '

! :

. ~·.

::.. ,..r<i:~" . .:..'

~ .... ' •'

- •''

1 <;¥"• .,

2

..... ~.-~ . '

' r~ '· "·

'

. ., 3

:~~. --------------------------~ :! ; . '! ..

; i J • Approved DRI.· · .· .· FIGURE6

· Indian River County Approved DRI

3 0 3 6 Miles ~~~~~~---

g:\indrivr\geo\arcvie'Mb&w.tig6.apr I 18

f-' ~

Table 6 Percent of Trips from the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Network In and Between Districts

DisTRICT 1· ol.sTRicT DescRIPTio:T=·-_1 ~=~~ ; ---~~~--~=~-~~£~R~e1f...9~T_oT~L TRI:~---r:_6 ____ TToTAC-1 DISTRICT 1 59.4% 20.7% 3.3% 0.8% 3.4% 12.4% 100.0% 2 =-D~I-==s=T=R~Ic=T~2-------------~---1o:4%- ---48:3% --16:3% ·----·a:s% ·--7.4% ···----- ---1oo.o% 3 DISTRICT 3 ·------ ---- ·4.0% -----39.3% ----36.2%. --------· --·6:6% --·--·-- -·1aoJ)%. 4 BARRIERISLANDNOFCR510·--·-·25:6% 30.3% 5.8% 17.1% 9.3% -100.0% 5 BARRIER ISLAND SOFCR51a·---·--a}%··----3Ys% ____ 14:0% ----"1":3% ---2£3:0% ···---12:3%- 100:0%· 6 INTERNAUEX.TERNAL TRIPS --14:5%- ---39:4% --13:2% - ---5:3% 5.6°/~- -----27:0% 100.0% ··--·--·--·- - --------- -----· ----- ··----- ··--

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFEES\PERCTTRS.WK4

Geographic Features And Jurisdictional Boundaries

In developing the proposed impact fee boundaries, more importance was placed on the need to establish districts in which the revenues collected could reasonably be expected to be expended on projects proposed in the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan. The balance of projects contained in the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan to projected revenues for the· 3 proposed districts has previously been discussed. The current impact fee benefit districts include separate districts for the barrier islands. Based on the review of future projects required in the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan, it is apparent that there are not enough improvements programmed for the barrier island districts on which to expend impact fees. This brings up the question of benefit to the barrier islands and the need for development to pay a transportation impact fee. In order to determine where trips from people who live on the barrier island go, an analysis was made of the projected 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Network trips. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Table 6 and indicate that a

--

significant number of trips leave the barrier island for destination points within Districts ·1, 2, and 3. Figure 7 indicates that, for the barrier island north of County Road 510, approximately 62% of the trips leave the barrier island and go to the mainland. The same phenomenon is true of the percent of trips generated south of County Road 510 on the barrier island. Of these trips, approximately 61% leave the barrier island and go to destinations on the mainland. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that development paying an impact fee for new development on the barrier island will receive benefit because of the travel on the road network off the island onto the mainland.

In reviewing the percentages of travel on the barrier island south of County Road 510, it appears that a large percentage of traffic is traveling to destinations within District 2, and a to a lesser degree to District 3. This suggests that perhaps the impact fee boundary for the area south of County Road 510 should be split between Districts 2 and 3. The recommended location for splitting this boundary is to use the 171

h Street Bridge as the boundary between Districts 2 and 3.

Another way of reviewing the reasonableness of the benefit districts is to establish and review a benefit district influence area. An analysis of the 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Network indicates that the average home based trip length -is approximately 6 miles. Approximate centroids of the each of the three proposed benefit districts were established

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 F:IUSERSVACOBWPOITIF1FJNALRPT. WPD 20


I I ,

j I

i ; ~ ;

""' ...

1 '"" . ' , I

! ! r l

2

3 ' '

! i : \

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I · F FIGURE·7 · J,l · ! Percentage of Trips

~~~C:~~~nds Indian River County I! --· ~=rWer~sT;~ Percent of Cost Affordable II'

SouthotcRs10 2020 Network Trips 1

· ... ' Noistrict Boundaries From Barrier Islands I : : 3 0 3 6 Miles 1 !

g:\indrivr\ge\arcvieMb&w.tig7.apr II 'iL------------0 :

21

and a six mile radius around the centroids was drawn and illustrated in Figure 8. This map indicates that virtually all the developed area within the centroids of each district is included in the six mile radius. Eveh if the centroids were placed close to the boundaries of each benefit district, the ensuing circle of influence would still nearly cover each respective benefit district. This once again indicates the reasonableness of the proposed benefit

districts.

Administrative Management of Impact Fee Program

Indian River County currently tracks impact fee payments by nine (9) impact fee districts and several sub-accounts for municipalities. Reducing the number of impact fee districts, will reduce the number of impact fee accounts necessary to track impact fee payments. Correspondingly, the reduction in impact fee districts will reduce the administrative time associated with the overall management (:!nd reporting on the impact fee program.

More importantly, the larger impact fee districts will create additional flexibility concerning the budgeting and expenditure of impact fee funds. Larger districts mean greater revenue collections per district each year and the ability to construct needed improvements sooner due to the availability of funds. Additionally, the tracking of expenditures by the three (3) districts is simplified over the current tracking of expenditures by the nine impact fee districts.

The.issue of the expenditure of the funds currently available in the existing nine impact fee trust accounts needs to be addressed. The issue is whether to allocate the current balances of the nine trust accounts into the trust accounts that would be created for the proposed three benefit districts.

Administratively, it would be very time consuming to go back and identify the exact location of the impact fee payments that comprise the current balances on the nine trust accounts. This would have to be done because impact fees collected in old impact fee districts 1 and

. . .

7 are split between proposed districts 1 and 2.

A simpler way of resolving .this issue is to expand the current balances in the nine existing trust accounts within the districts in which they were collected, and delete each original trust account when all funds have been expended from it. Impact fees collected after the

Tindal e-O liver and Associates, Inc. September 30, i998 G:VNDRIVERIF!NLTC. H7'D 22


effective date of the revised ordinance would be deposited into one of the three new trust fund accounts.

Benefit District Summary And Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, reducing the number of benefit districts from nine (9) to three (3) is recommended. Figure 2 illustrates the boundaries of the new recommended benefit districts. Table 7 illustrates the old benefit district numbers and generally how they correlate to the new benefit district numbers.

Table 7 Relationship of Old Benefit Districts To

Recommended Benefit Districts Recommended Benefit Districts Current Benefit Districts

1

2

3

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 F,!USERSVACOBIMPO!TIF1F!NALRPT.WPD 23

----

Part of 1, 4, and 7; and 3

Part of 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7; and 8

Part of 2 and 5; and 6, 9


N .!>

-

!? ~ j

-. ·- --· --······· ···-·-····--··-------- ·-------.. -..... _ .. _

·,·-

Itu/itJ,. n 1Wr~1tn9' '

~ it

. ;-. ~

1

2

3

f· \ . .. ,

-] ~ Roads !

~rnmn~ 1 ...... ~ .... ~~ .... ~ .... ~5j~~ ......... Trip Jnfl~nce . 3 0 3 6 Miles

-- ·-------------------

FIGURES Indian River County

- -·-Proposed Benefit District Trip Influence g:\imri~\arcvievAb&Wifigs.apr

--·--··--------- - . ----------- ---------- ---------- ------- ··-- .. --·- . ··--··· ----------- ------------ ----------· ---·-·--··-·-··-- ----- ---- .. --- ---- ---

The recommended reduction to the number of benefit districts offers the following advantages over the existing nine (9) districts:

0 Creates an improved balance of potential 2020 Cost Affordable Plan projects between districts;

0 Creates an improved balance of projected future revenue collections based on historical collection rates;

0 Reduces the administrative complexity in tracking collected funds; 0 Satisfies maintaining reasonable relationship between the collection of funds and

where funds are spent (i.e. benefit to the fee payer); 0 Creates improved flexibility concerning the budgeting and expenditure of funds

for future projects due to the larger collection districts; 0 Reduces potential for future refunds due to not expending collected fees; and 0 Considers additional boundary refinement on the barrier island.

The recommended impact fee districts will be used in the review and preparation of recommendations concerning the administrative processes of the impact fee program, the demand, cost and credit components of the impact fee formula, and the revisions to the ordinance and fee schedule.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRIVERIFINLTC. WPD 25


REVIEW OF DEMAND AND COST COMPONENTS

Introduction

This section of the final report was prepared to document the review and evaluation of the existing demand and credit components of the Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee. The remainder of this introduction identifies the major components reviewed as part of this work effort and presents the impact fee formula.

Net Impact Fee= Gross Impact Fee- Credit Net Impact Fee= [(TGR/2) x TL x %NT x CC]/CL

[(TGR/2) x TL x %NT x TPG x 365 x PVIF]/MPG

where:

TGR =Trip Generation Rate (varies by land use) TL =Trip Length (varies by land use) %NT = Percent New Trips (varies by land use) CC = Unit Cost to Construct one lane mile of capacity (currently $836,946) CL =Capacity per Lane Mile (8,000) TPG =Tax Paid Per Gallon of Gasoline for capacity improvements (currently 11.8

cents) PVIF = Net Present Value@ interest rate (currently 7%) for N Years (25) MPG =Average Miles Per Gallon (currently 17.16)

• Review of Demand Component- Reviewed formula variables currently used to calculate the demand component of the traffic impact fee to determine if they produce an accurate estimate of the traffic impact for each land use;

• Review of New Land Use Categories :- Reviewed the land use categories in the current transportation impact fee ordinance and determined the need for additional categories; recommendations were also made regarding new categories to be added to the fee schedule.

• Review and Calculation of Unit Cost Component- Reviewed existing and proposed roadway networks, as described in the Cost Feasible Plan of the MPO's adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, the five-year

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 F.-\USERSVACOBIMPO\TIF1FJNALRPT. WPD 26


.. MPO's adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, the five-year Transportation Improvement Program, and the MPO's five-year incremental strategy for funding and implementation of the Long Range Transportation Plan; and reviewed and updated data for computing the average cost of roadway construction and right-of-way acquisition.

• Review and Calculation of Credit Component - Identified and reviewed revenue sources used for transportation purposes; determined the appropriate present value factor to use based on current trends in the value of money; assessed credit components of the current impact fee formula; and determined the credit amount to be applied in the impact fee formula.

The remainder of this section reviews and summarizes the results of the work activities identified inthis Introduction.

Review of Demand Component

This section reviews the demand component of the impact fee equation. More specifically, trip generation rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips are reviewed and discussed. Specific recommendations are made for each land use category.

Trip Generation Rate The trip generation rates for land uses in the_current Indian River County ordinance were reviewed and evaluated in order to provide recommendations regarding the trip generation rates .that should be used for existing and potential expanded land use classifications. Table 8 provides a summary of this review.

·The first two columns provide the ITE land use code and classification, while the next column indicates whether this land use is included in the current Indian River County

. ordinance. This is followed by the unit of measurement for each land use category and the · trip generation rate as reported in the County ordinance. The high, low, and average JTE

trip generation rates are then reported along with the high, low, and average as compiled in other Florida studies. An assessment of the County ordinance, ITE rates, and Florida studies was performed, resulting in the recommended trip generation rates for each land use category, along with a comment regarding the source from which the recommendations came.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:VNDRJVERIFINLTC. W/'D 27


Table 8. Comparison of Trip Generation Rates

INEXISTINI.i TRIP RATE I'IE LAND IRC UNITS 11\l.o ""'""'"'" I r~I.II\ILJI\ "ILJLJII:" P<AN'-'t <AIIIUII8nl

CODE USE ORDINANCE TRIP AVERAGE I LOW HIGH LOW HIGH AVERAGE Rec:ommondation I Comments RATE RESIOI:NT/At.

.:210 Single Family y UnH 8.93 9.57 I ~.31 21.85 6.80 13.20 7.70 i 9.57 f1TE 6th Edition

.:230 Si~~~~m'l!y y UnH 5.1~ 5.ee 1.83 11.79 I 6.10 6.50 6.~0 5.ee liTE 6th Edition !

.:230 MultiFamily y UnH 5.1~ 5.ee 1.83 11.79 6.10 6.50 6.40 5.ee ITE 6th Edition

240 ·Mobile Home y UnH 4.81 U1 ! 2.29 10.42 3.10 10.80 ~.25 ! ~.81 ITE 6th Edition

310 Hotel y Room 8.70 8.23 3.47 9.58 7.30 12.50 10.~ 8.23 f1TE 6th Edition

320 Motel y Room 10.19 5.63 3.47 10.04 NJA NIA NIA 5.63 !ITE 6th Edition

620 Nursing Home y B&d 2.60 2.61 1.88 3.97 2.90 I 2.90 2.90 i 2.61 liTE 6th Edition

252 ACLF y UnH 2.80 2.15 I 2.12 2.15 3.50 3.50 3.50 I 2.15 liTE 6th Edition I OFFICE AND FINANCIAL

720 Medical Office y 1000 SQF 34.17 36.13 I 23.16 i 50.51 I 28.50 57.20 I I

36.30 i 36.13 pre 6th Edition

911 Bank y 1.000 SQF 189.95 156.48 I 156.48 156.~8 NJA ! NIA NIA I 156.46 liTE 6th Edition

912 Bank w/Driv&-ln y 1000SQF 291.11 265.21 150.66 817.00 1~3.50 680.00 318.30 265.21 ITE 6th Edition

710 1 Office under 10.000 GSF

y 1000SQF 24.39 22.64 22.64 22.64 NJA I NIA N/A 22.64 ITE 6th Edition

710 Office over 10,000 y 1000SQF 16.31 13.27 13.27 13.27 18.50 18.50 16.50 13.27 ITE 6th Edition GSF INOUSTRIAL

1-40 Manufaduring N 1000SQF NIA 3.82 0.50 I . 52.05 I N/A i NIA i NIA I 3.82 liTE 6th Edition '·

I

150 Warehouse y 1000SOF 4.88 4.96 1.51 I 17.00 N/A i NIA NIA i 4.88 liTE 6th Edition I

151 Minj.Warehouse y 1000 SQF N/A 2.50 i 1.21 i 4.36 N/A NIA ! N/A 2.50 pre 6th Edition ..

; ..

N/A Vehicle Storage (per y Acre 20.20 NJA i N/A NIA N/A ! N/A I NIA 20.20 IRC Ordinance acre)

110 General industrial y 1000SQF 5.40 6.97 l 1.58 16.66 N/A i NIA i N/A ! 6.97 liTE 6th Edition

N/A Concrete Plant y Acre 15.60 N/A i N/A N/A i N/A i N/A i N/A 15.60 j1RC Ordinance

N/A Sand Mining y Acre 2.00 N/A I N/A i N/A i N/A ! N/A N/A I 2.00 IRC Ordinance

N/A ContradorfTrade y 1000SQF 35.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A See Study Reaulll Multi Tennant

N/A ~~;"to;~,'!~" y 1000SOF 9.40 N/A l N/A I N/A i N/A ! N/A i N/A N/A [See Study Resufll RET AIUSERVICE

620 1 Ketal uG~~ 1u.wu y 1000SQF 166.35 155.05 I 155.05 i 155.05 NJA i N/A I 167.60 167.60 !Florida studies curve 820 Relail 10.001 to y 1000SOF 94.71 67.31 67.31 87.31 ! NJA NIA 91.70 91.70 Florida studies curve 50,000 GSF

620 Reoail 50,001 to y 1000 SOF 74.31 66.17 i 66.17 I 66.17 ! N/A i NIA 70.70 70.70 Florida studies curve 100.000 GSF ' I

620 Retail 100,001 to y 1000SOF 56.93 53.22 53.22 i 53.22 NIA I N/A 54.60 54.50 Florida studies curve 200,000 GSF I I

820 Retail over 200,001 y 1000SQF 46.31 41.56 i 41.56 i 41.56 ! N/A I N/A 42.00 42.00 Florida studies curve GSF I

84o4 Gas Station y Pumps 133.00 166.56 73.00 305.00 NJA N/A NIA 188.56 ITE6th Edition 641 New and Used Auto y Acres 272.30 NIA ! N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A 272.30 IRC Ordinance Sales

841 New and Used Auto N 1000SOF NIA 37.50 I 15.64 79.66 NIA

' NIA 2UO i 37.50 ITE 6th Edition Sales

631 Quality Restaurant N 1000SOF N/A 89.95 i 33.41 ! 139.60 110.60 110.60 110.80 89.95 ITE 8th Edition 832 Restaurant y 1000SOF 200.90 130.34 I "73.51 2~.00 102.70 i 187.50 135.50 130.34 ITE 8th Edition 83o4 Fast Food Restauran y 1000SQF 264.00 496.12 ! 195.98 1132.92 149.50 I 962.50 I 480.90 I 496.12 ITE 6th Edition 850 Supermall<et N 1000SQF NIA 111.51 66.65 168.68 106.30 106.30 106.30 111.51 ITE 6th Edition 640 Auto Repair y 1000SOF NIA N/A I NIA NIA NJA NIA 37.60 37.60 Florida studies 847 CarWBsh N 1000SOF NIA 108.00 106.00 106.00 N/A I NIA NIA 108.00 ITE6th Edition 847 Car wash y StaD 106.00 5.79 4.00 6.00 NJA NIA NIA 5.79 ITE 6th Edition 853 Convenience Stora y 1000SQF 396.00 845.60 576.52 1084.72 ~.70 997.60 636.30 636.30 Florida studies w/gaa

N/A . \O:l;.~"i~= N Pump NIA NIA NIA NIA NJA NIA NIA NJA See Study Resufll 890 Furniture Stont N 1000SQF NIA 5.06 0.70 15.35 NJA NIA NIA 5.06 ITE 6th Edition

Tindai&-Oiiver and Associates 28 G:UNORIVER\OOCSUMPFEESIDEMAN02.Vv1<4

Table 8 • Comparison of Trip Generation Rates

IN EXISTING TRIP RA'Il: liE LAND IRC UNITS lr\v 11'""1"-'" r"IJI<IUA ::01 UUit:::> """"'" ' """IUIUin '

CODE USE ORDINANCE TRIP AVERAGE I LOW I HIGH LOW HIGH AVERAGE ! Recommendation / Comments RATE RliZCREATIONA~

<130 GolrCouroe y Perking Spece 8.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A i N/A N/A 8.60 IIRC Ordintlnce <130 GolfCouroe N Actes N/A 5.0<1 2.33 10.89 N/A N/A N/A I 5.0<1 lfTE 8th Edition 492 Racquet Club y 1000SQF 15.90 17.14 7.83 81.50 N/A N/A N/A 17.14 liTE 8th Edition 412 County Park y Parking Space 2.10 N/A N/A N/A I N/A I N/A N/A i 2.10 JIRC Ordinance 412 County Park N Actes N/A 2.28 0.17 53.41 N/A

I N/A N/A 2.28 liTE 8th Edition I

491 Tennis Court y cou" 35.00 31.0<1 20.17 47.71 N/A N/A N/A 31.0<1 liTE 8th Edition 420 Marina y Berth 3.00 2.96 i 1.91 10.0<1 N/A I NJi.

I N/A ! 2.96 !ITE 8th Edition

N/A Club House y 1000 SQF 3.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A I 17.14 !Based on RaQuet Club GOVERNMENTAl.

732 Post Office y 1000 SQF 86.70 106.19 '

35.57 i 352.42 ! N/A N/A ! N/A 108.19 !ITE 8th Edition 590 Library y 1000 SQF 45.00 54.00

I 26.75 86.25 N/A I N/A i N/A i 54.00 jiTE 8th Edition

730 Govemment Office y 1000 SQF 66.90 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.90 liTE 5th Edition 571 Jail y Bed 1.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I 1.21 IIRC Ordinanc..

M!SCEUANEOUS

565 Day Care Center y 1000SQF 125.70 79.26 57.17 126.07 N/A I N/A I 67.00 i 79.26 /ITE 6th Edition 610 Hospital y 1000SQF 16.70 16.76 11.40 ! 45.14 N/A I N/A ! N/A i 16.78 \ITE 6th Edition NIA Veterinary Clinic N 1000SQF N/A N/A ' N/A i N/A ! N/A

I N/A I 32.80 32.60 !Florida Studies ! 560 Church y 1000 SQF 11.40 9.11 i 4.35 30.20 ! N/A i N/A I

i N/A I 9.11 iiTE 6th Edition

443 Movie Theater w/o y 1000 SQF n.79 78.06 I 78.06 ! 78.06 N/A ! N/A I N/A 78.06 jiTE 6th Edition Matinee

444 Movie Theater w/ N Screens N/A 153.33 : N/A ' N/A I 63.40 i 113.10 I

64.30 I 153.33 iiTE 6th Edition Matinee !

441 Uve Theatre y 1000 SQF 11.40 N/A N/A I N/A N/A I N/A N/A 11.40 JIRC Ordinance

441 Uve Theatre N Seat N/A 0.02 N/A i N/A N/A I N/A N/A 0.02 liTE 8th Edition ! N/A Social HaiVCivic y 1000 SQF 11.40 N/A I N/A I N/A N/A N/A I N/A I 11.40 [IRC Ordinance

Center

520 School (Elementary) y Student 1.03 1.02 0.45 2.12 ! N/A N/A N/A 1.02 jiTE 6th Edition N/A Fire Station y Bed NIA N/A NIA NIA i NIA

I N/A N/A N/A jiRC Ordinance

N/A Fire Station (w/o y 1000SQF 5.40 N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A i NIA I NIA 5.40 IIRC Ordinance beds)

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 29 G:~NDRIVERIDOCS~MPFEES\DEMAND2.WK<I

Several observations are provided below as they relate to the· recommended trip generation rates included in the table:

• It is recommended that the County's use of trip generation rates in previous ITE editions be updated to reflect the 6th and most current edition.

• Several land uses are not included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual or are not included using the same unit of measurement; as a result, it is recommended that the rates in the existing County Ordinance be used. These land uses include, but are not limited to, concrete plant, sand mining, and contractor trades.

• Several new land uses were added to the existing uses, including manufacturing, several retail categories (quality restaurant, supermarket, furniture store), and veterinary clinic movie theater with matinee, and convenience store with Gas and Fast Food.

• In addition, two land use categories are also reflected in the table for which studies are being conducted as part of the Update of the Fairshare Roadway Impact Ordinance. These land uses include contractor trades and convenience store with gas and fast food. The results of these studies are included in the section entitled "Collection of Trip Characteristics Data."

• Recommendations also include changing the unit of measure for three land use categories, including new and used cars, golf course, and county park.

• Some of the recommendations result in significant changes from what is currently in the County ordinance. A -major change in the trip generation rate .is recommended for the following land use categories:

.. restaurant from 200.90 to 130.34;

.. fast food restaurant from 284.00 to 496.12;

.. convenience store with gas from 396.00 to 636.30;

.. day care center from 125.70 to 79.26.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:I!NDRJVERIF/NLTC. W!'D 30


Trip Length Similar to the trip generation rates, the trip lengths in the current ordinance were reviewed and evaluated. This review and evaluation enabled the Consultant to recommend a new set of trip lengths for Indian River County. Very little data are available from ITE as they relate to trip length and percent new trips. Tindale-Oiiver and Associates is recognized nationally as the leader in the compilation and development of this information and is currently in the process of developing a chapter for the ITE Toolbox on trip length and percent new trips. As a result, many of the recommendations provided for trip length and later for percent new trips rely on information from Florida studies contained in Appendix B, Summary of Weekday Trip Lengths. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 9.

As in Table 8, the first two columns provide the ITE land use code and classification, while the next column indicates whether this land use is included in the current Indian River County ordinance. This is followed by the unit of measurement for each land use category and the currently adopted trip length as reported in the County ordinance. The table also reports the trip length generated by the FSUTMS travel demand model for the County and the high, low, and average trip length as compiled in other Florida studies by TOA.

Table 10 provides a summary of trip lengths generated by the travel demand model (2020 Cost Feasible Plan) for each land use classification. The use of these data was precluded because, while the model is reasonable for primary trips like home to work, for other land uses, it tends to overestimate trip length compared to field studies.

An assessment of the County ordinance and Florida studies resulted in Consultant recommendations for each land use category, along with a comment regarding the source from which the recommendations came. The following observations relate to Table 9 and the recommendations contained therein:

• The substantial use of Florida trip characteristic studies is based upon this· information being the best available data. A total of 161 studies were performed for 38 land use categories to estimate weighted average trip generation rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips for some or all land use categories. These studies are the basis for the Consultant recommendations for trip length.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G: VNDR!VERIF1NLTC. H'J'D 31


ITE

CODE

LAND

USE

RE$/OENnAI.

210

230

:230

:240

:310

320

620

252

Single Family

Accessory Single-Family

MultiFamily

Mobile Home

Hotel

Motel

Nursing Home

ACLF

OFFICE ANO FINANCIAl.

720 Medical Office

911

912

710

710

Bank

Bank w/Orive-ln

Office under 1 0. 000 GSF

Office over 10.000 GSF

INDUSTRIAl.

140

150

151

N/A

110

N/A

N/A

Manufacturing

Warehouse

Mini-Warehouse

Vehicle Storage (per acre)

General Industrial

Concrete Plant

Sand Mining

Nl A ContractorfT rade Mull

N/A ContractorfTrade Single Tennant

RETAIUSERVICE

820

820

820

820

841

841

831

B32

834

850

840

847

847

853

NIA

890

Retail10.001 to 50,000GSF

Retail50,001 to 100,000 GSF

Retaii100,001 to 200,000GSF

Retail over 200,001 GSF

Gas Station

New and Used Auto Sales

New arid Used Auto Sales

Qualny Restaurant

Restaurant

Fast Food Restaurant

Supermarket

Auto Repair

Car Wash

Car Wash

Convenience Store· wlgas

Convenrence Stone w/gas & Fastfood

Fumnure Stone


EXISTING IRC

ORDINANCE

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

N

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

N

N

y

y

N

y

N

y

y

N

N

UNITS

Un~

Un~

Unit

Room

Room

Bed

Unit

1000SOF

1000SOF

1000SQF

1000SOF

1000 SOF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SOF

Acre

1000 SQF

Acre

Acre

1000 SOF

1000SOF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

Pumps

Acres

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000 SQF

1000SQF

1000SQF

1000SQF

Stall

1000 SOF

Pump

1000 SQF

Table 9- Comparison ofTrip Lengths

IRC TRIP

LENGTH

5.87

5.87

5.87

5.87

5.30

5.30

5.87

N/A

3.43

3.43

3.43

3.43

3.43

NIA

2.47

NIA

.2.47

2.47

2.47

.2.47

NIA

NIA

1.90

1.90

2.46

.2.77

3.20

1.90

1.90

N/A

NIA

1.90

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.90

1.90

1.90

NIA

IRC I FSUTMS MODEL

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

N/A

N/A

5.7 ! 5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

32

TRIP LENGTH

FLORIDA STUDIES RANGE I TOA I LOW i HIGH !AVERAGE Recommendation . Comments

3.00 10.80 5.70

5.00 5.20 5.10

5.00 5.20 5.10

2.30 5.10 4.30

6.20 6.30 6.W I 2.80 5.20 4.30

2.60 2.60 2.60

2.20 3.40 3.10

1.20 6.50 5.20

N/A N/A N/A

0.90 5.20 2.40

NIA NIA N/A

3.40 6.30 I <1.60

NIA N/A NIA J NIA NIA NIA I NIA N/A N/A

N/A N/A NIA I

NIA NIA NIA

N/A NIA NIA

NIA NIA NIA

N/A NIA N/A

NIA NIA I NIA I 1.70 1.70 1.10 1

1.80 1.80 1.80

1.90 1.90 1.90

.2.00 2.00 2.00

2.40 2.40 2.40

1.00 1.90 1.90

4.50 4.70 4.70

4.50 4.70 4.70

2.10 3.50 1 3.1o

2.00 4.20 3.00

0.90 3.60 1.60

,_10 2.10 2.10

1.40 . 4.60 3.60

N/A N/A 2.50

1.30 2.00 2.00

0.90 3.10 1.60

N/A N/A NIA

4.60 7.40 6.1o 1

5.70

5.10

5.10

4.30

6.30

4.30

2.60

3.10

5.20

2.40

2.40

4.60

4.60

<1.60

<1.60

<1.60

<1.60

4.60

<1.60

4.60

N/A

NIA

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.40

1.90

4.70

4.70

3.10

3.00

1.60

2.10

3.60

2.50

2.00

1.60

NIA

6.10

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

!Florida Studies ' [Florida Studies

i Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Based on Bank w/Orive In

Florida Studies

Based on Office Florida Studies > 10,000 sqf

[Florida Studies

[Based on Office Flonda Studies

!Based on Office Florida Studies

Based on Ott-.ce Florida Studies

Based on OffiCII Florida Studies

Based on Office Florida Studies ' Based on OffiCII Florida Studies

Based on Office Florida Studies

Sae Study Results ' jsae Study Resutts

Florida Studies Curve





jFiorida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Florida Studies

Sae Study Results

Florida Studies

G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFEESIDEMAN02.WK4

ITE

CODE

LAND

USE

RECREA nONAL

430 Goff Course

430 Goff Course

492 Racquet Club

412 County Park

412 County Park

491 Tennis Court

420 Marina

N/A Club House

GOVERNMENTAL

732 Post Office

590 Ubrary

730 . Govemment Office

571 Jail

MISCELLANEOUS

565

610

N!A

560

443

441

441

N!A

520

N/A

N/A

Day Care Center

Hospital

Veterinary Clinic

Church

Movie Theater w/o Matinee

Movie Theater w/ Matinee

Live Theatre

Live Theatre

Soc1al Hall/Civic Center

School (Elementary)

Fire Station

Fire Station (w/o beds)


EXISTING

IRC

ORDINANCE

y

N

y

y

N

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

N

y

y

N

y

y

y

y

y

y

Table 9- Comparison of Trip Lengths

UNITS IRC

TRIP LENGTH

Parking Space 3.43

ACfeS N/A

1000 SOF 3.43

Parking Space N/A

ACfes 3.43

Court 3.43

Berth 1.90

1000 SQF 5.87

1000 SQF 3.43

1000 SQF 3.43

1000 SQF 3.43

Bed 3.43

1000 SOF 1.90

1000 SQF 1.90

1000 SOF N/A

1000 SQF 1.90

1000SQF 3.43

Screens N/A

1000 SQF 1.90

Seat 1.90

1000 SQF 1.90

Student 1.90

Bed N/A

1000 SQF N/A

TRIP LENGTH IRC i FLORIDA STUDIES RANGE I

FSUTMS ,f---L-O-W---,-1 -H-IG-H--,r-A_VE_RA_G-IE MODEL , ,

5.6 N/A N/A I N/A I 5.6 N/A N/A ! N/A I 5.6 NJA N/A i N/A

5.6 N/A N/A N/A

5.6 N/A N/A N/A

5.6 N/A N/A j N/A I

5.6 N/A N/A N/A

5.6 N/A N/A ! N/A I

6.0 N/A N/A N/A

6.0 N/A N/A NJA

6.0 N/A N/A N/A

6.0 N/A N/A ! N/A I

5.8 1.90 2.60 i 2.00 ! 5.8 5.10 5.10 i 5.1o 1

5.8 N/A N/A ! 2.00

5.8 N/A N/A ! 3.90 1

5.8 N/A N/A ! N/A

5.8 1.90 2.70 \ 2.20

5.8 N/A N/A i N/A

5.8 N/A N/A r N/A

5.8 N/A N/A I N/A

5.8 N/A N/A ! N/A I 5.8 N/A N/A I N/A

5.8 N/A N/A i N/A I

33

TOA

Recommendation

4.30

4.30

4.30

-4.30

4.30

4.30

4.30

4.30

4.60

4.60

4.60

4.60

2.00

5.10

2.00

3.90

3.43

2.20

1.90

1.90

1.90

1.90

2.60

2.60

Comments

IOther Florida Ordinance I

jOther Florida Ordinance

!other Florida Ordinance

jother Florida Ordinance

!Other Florida Ordinance

iother Florida Ordinance

leased on Recquet Club

!Based on Racquet Club

!Based on Office Florida Studies

!Based on Offl08 Florida Studies

jBased on Offl08 Florida Studies

iBased on Off10e Florida Studies

IFiorida Studies

Other Florida Ordinance

Florida Studies

jOther Florida Ordinance

Florida Studies, ITE 444

Florida Studies

IRC Ordinance

IRC Ordinance

jtRC Ordinance

IOther Florida Ordinance

jeesed on Nursing Home

!eased on Nursing Home

G:\INDRNERIODCSIIMPFEESIOEMAND2. WK4

Indian River County Impact Fee Table 10 • Model Based Average Trip Length Estimates

Trtp Purpose: I HBW I Coun~ Wide Averaae Non-Local Trte Lensth: · 6.45 '

HBS I HBSR I HBO I NHB I 5.41 ' 5.46 ' 5.43 ' U2 Trr 1 5.06. ':s1l

Baals Percent Person • Trtps by Purpose Average Non-lnteratate

Vehicle Trtp Length LAND USE TYPE of Estimate HBW HBS HBSR HBO NHB TfT liE TOTAL

!RESIDENTIAL sou 25%1 14%1 20%1 2o% 1 B%1 11%1 2%1 100%1 5.7J

!OFFICE AND FINANCIAL SE 25%1 0%1 5%J 20%1 22%! 13%1 15%! 100%1 6.o 1

iiNDUSTRIAL IE 15%! 0%1 0%1 1B%i 0%1 30%! 37'.!.1 100%1 6.6!

!RETAIL CE 15%1 25%1 5%i 6%1 32%1 7%J 1o% 1 100%1 5.7:

I RECREATIONAL SE 10%1 0%1 44%1 12.,. 1 25%1 2%1 7%1 100%1 5.6J

I GOVERNMENTAL SE m> I 0%1 15%1 12.,. 1 25%[ 13%1 20%! 100%1 6.o 1

i MISCELLANEOUS SE 15%! 0'.!.1 5%1 30%! 25%\ 13%1 12%! 100%1 5.8\

Noles: 1. The percentages of trips by purpose have been modified based on judgement to more closely reflect expected trip characteristics of these land uses. 2. SOU= Single Family Dwelling Unit

IE = Industrial Employment SE = Service Employment CE = Commercial Employment

3. HBW = Home Based Worlc Trip Purpose 4. HBS =Home Based Shopping Trip Furpose 5. HBSR = Home Based Social-Recreational Trip Purpose 6. HBO = Home Based Other Trip Purpose 7. NHB = Non Home Based Trip Purpose B. TfT =Truck/Taxi Trips 9. liE = lntemai/Extemal Trips

lindale-Oliver and Associates 34 G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFESS\MODEL TL.Vv'K4

• Other Florida ordinances are the basis for the trip length recommendations for the Recreational land use category, which includes golf course, racquet club, and county park. No Florida studies are in the trip characteristics database for this land use category.

• Several new land uses were added to the existing schedule of land uses, including ACLF, two industrial categories (manufacturing, mini-warehouse), several retail categories (quality restaurant, supermarket, auto repair, car wash, furniture store), veterinary clinic, and movie theater with matinee. Recommended trip lengths for these new land uses are all based on ·other Florida studies.



• Some of the recommendations result in significant changes from what is currently in the County ordinance. A major change in trip length is recommended for the following land use categories:

~ mobile home from 5.87 to 4.30; ~ motel from 5.30 to 4.30;

~ medical office from 3.43 to 5.20; ~ office from 3.43 to 4.60;

~ all industrial land uses from 2.47 to 4.60; ~ new and used cars from 1.90 to 4.70; ~ restaurant from 1.90 to 3.00; ~ all recreational land uses from 3.43 to 4.30; ~ hospital from 1.90 to 5.1 0; ~ church from 1.90 to 3.90;

~ movie theater with matinee from 3.43 to 2.20.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRIVERIF7NLTC. WPD 35


Percent New Trips The percent new trips in the current ordinance were also reviewed and evaluated. This review and evaluation enabled the Consultant to recommend percent new trips by land use for Indian River County. As indicated previously, little data are available from ITE or other sources as they relate to percent new trips. As a result, most of the recommendations for percent new trips rely on the database of Florida studies provided in Appendix B. The results of the percent new trips analysis are provided in Table 11.

The table for percent new trips is fashioned in the same manner as those presented for trip generation rate and trip length, with the first two columns providing the ITE land use code and classification/category. The third column indicates whether the land use is within the current County ordinance, while the fourth column provides the unit of measurement for each of the respective land uses. This is followed by the percent new trips currently adopted by County ordinance which can be compared with the low, high, and average percent new trips for all J=lorida studies conducted for each tand use. Based on a review of the current ordinance and the Florida studies, specific recommendations for percent new trips are presented in the table for each land use. The following observations relate to these recommendations:

• The substantial use of Florida trip characteristic studies is based upon this information being the best available data .. As indicated previously, the database includes 161 studies over 38 land use categories. This information was used to estimate weighted average trip generation rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips for some or all land use categories. These studies are the basis for the Consultant recommendations for percent new trips.

• Other Florida ordinances are the basis for the percent new trips recommendations for the Recreational land use category, which includes golf course, racquet club, and county park. No Florida studies are in the trip characteristic database for this land use category.

• Several new land uses were added to the existing schedule of land uses, including ACLF, two industrial categories (manufacturing, mini-warehouse), several retail categories (quality restaurant, supermarket, auto repair, car wash, furniture store), veterinary clinic, and movie theater with matinee.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRJVERIFINLTC Wl'D 36


Table 11 - Comparison of Percent New Trips

EXISTING PERCENT NEW TRIPS ITE LAND IRC UNITS IRC I FLORIDA STUDIES RANGE I TOA

I CODE USE ORDINANCE %NEW LOW ! HIGH AVERAGE ! Recommendation Comments TRIPS I RESIOENnAL.

210 Single Family y Un" 100.0% 100.0% ! 100.0% 100.0% 100% /Primary Trip ;

230 Accessory Single-Family

y Un" 100.0% NIA NIA NIA 100% I Primary Trip

230 MuniFamily y Un" 100.0% NIA NIA NIA 100% /Primary Trip 240 Mobile Home y Un" 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100% Primary Trip 310 Hotel y Room 100.0% 47.0% 79.0% 66.3% 66% Florida Studies

' 320 Motel y Room 100.0% 65.0% I 84.6% l 76.6% 77% !Florida Studies 620 Nursing Home y Bed 100.0% 89.0% 89.0% 89.0% 89% [Florida Studies

' 252 ACLF y Unit NIA 69.0% I 79.0% I 71.6°k I 72% JFiorida Studies ! OFFIC:E AND FINANCIAL.

720 Medical Office y 1000 SQF 85.0% 73.0% 93.8% 86.6% I 87% jFiorida Studies 911 Bank y 1000SOF 35.0% NIA NIA NIA 47% jeased on Bank W!Orive In

I 912 Benk w/Orive-ln y 1000SQF 35.0% 24.7% 73.0% 46.8% 47% Florida Studies

710 Office under 10,000 y 1000SQF 85.0% NIA I NIA i NIA ! 92% !Based on OffiC8 Florida Studies GSF I 1>10,000 sqf

710 Office over 10,000 GSF y 1000 SQF 85.0% 90.0% i 94.0°k ! 92.3% ! 92'% !Florida Studies INDUSTRIAL

140 Manutacturing N 1000 SQF NIA N/A N/A N/A I 92% JBased on OffiC8 Florida Studies I 150 Warehouse y 1000 SQF 100.0% N/A ! N/A ! N/A ! 92% iBased on Office Florida Studies I 151 Mini·Warehouse y 1000 SOF N/A NIA I NIA NIA 92% /Based on Office Florida Studies

' NIA Vehicle Storage (per y Acre 100.00% NIA NIA NIA I 92% Based on Office Florida Studies acre)

110 General Industrial y 1000 SQF 100.0% NIA I N/A I NIA I 92°k \Based on Office Florida Studies N/A Concrete Plant y Acre 100.0% NIA I NIA I NIA 92% Based on OffiCe Florida Studies N/A Sand Mining y Acre 100.0% NIA I NIA i NIA 92% jeased on Office Florida Studies · NIA ContractorfTrade MuHi y 1000SQF N/A N/A I NIA N/A N/A !see Study Resuns

Tennant i N/A ContractorfTrade y 1000 SQF N/A N/A I NIA I

NIA ! N/A !See Study ResuHs Single T ennanl

I ! RETAIUSERV/CE

B20 Retail under 10.000 y 1000 SQF 35.0% NIA ' NIA I 48.0% i 48°k Florida Studies Curve GSF

i B20 Reta/110,001 to 50,000 y 1000 SQF 35.0% NIA I NIA 59.0% ! 59% Florida Studies Curve

GSF

B20 Retail 50,001 to y 1000SQF 40.0% N/A ! N/A 84.0% 64% Florida Studies Curve 100,000 GSF

820 Relail100.001 to y 1000SQF 50.0% NIA i N/A 69.0% 69% Florida Studies Curve 200,000 GSF

B20 Retail over 200,001 y 1000 SQF 60.0% NIA I N/A 75.0°k I 75% !Florida Studies Curve GSF

844 Gas Station y Pumps 35.0% 23.0% i

23.8% ! 23.0% 23% !Florida Studies J 841 New and Used Auto y Acres 35.0% 78.0% I 79.0% 79.0% 79% !Florida Studies

Sales

841 New and Used Auto N 1000 SQF NIA 78.0% 79.0% 79.0% I 79% Florida Studies

Sales

831 Quality Restaurant N 1000 SQF N/A 67.0% 87.0% i 76.7% I 77% Florida Studies 832 Restaurant y 1000 SQF 35.0% 60.2% 92.0% 72.9% 73% Florida Studies 834 Fast Food Restaurant y 1000SQF 35.0% 33.9% 67.5% 59.1% 59% Florida Studies 850 Supermarket N 1000 SQF NIA NIA NIA 62.0% 62% Florida Studies 840 Auto Repair y 1000 SQF N/A 59.0% 88.0% 72.2% 72% Florida Studies 847 Car Wash N 1000 SOF NIA N/A NIA 69.0% 69% Florida Studies 847 Car Wash y Stall 35.0% 61.0% 76.0% 76.0%

; 76% Florida Studies i

Convenience Store 35.0°k ' 28.5%

853 wlgas y 1000 SQF 16.4% 39.6% 29% Florida Studies

NIA Convenience Store N Pump NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA See Study Resuns

wlgas & Fasttood

890 F umiture Store N 1000 SQF N/A 52.5% 55.7% 54.2°k I 54% !Florida Studies

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 37 G:\INDRIVERIDOCSUMPFEESIDEMAND2. WK4

Table 11 - Comparison of Percent New Trips

EXISTING PERCENT NEW TRIPS ITE LAND IRC UNITS IRC I FLORIDA STUDIES RANGE TOA

I

CODE USE ORDINANCE %NEW LOW I HIGH I AVERAGE RecommendaUon I Com menta TRIPS RECREAnONAL

~30 Goff Course y Parl<ing Space 100.0% N/A NIA N!A 90% JOther Florida Ordinance

~30 GoffCourae N Acres N/A N/A N/A N!A 90% jolher Florida Ordinance

~92 Racquel Club y 1000 SQF 100.0'.4 N/A NIA NIA 94'.4 jFiorida Studies

<112 Counly Pari< y Parl<ing Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 90'.4 jolher Florida Ordinance

<112 County Pari< N Acres 100.0% N/A N/A N!A 90% iother Florida Ordinance

<191 Tennis Court y Court 75.0% N/A N/A I

N/A i 90% jOther Florida Ordinance

<120 Marina y Berth 100.0% N/A I NIA N/A 94% \Based on Racquet Club

I N/A N/A I

94% !Basad on Racquet Club N/A Club House y 1000 SOF 100.0% N/A I -

' GOVERNMENTAL

732 Post Office y 1000 SOF 35.0% N/A N/A N/A I 35% !IRC Ordinance

590 Library y 1000SOF 65.0% N/A N/A NIA 85% iiRC Ordinance

730 Government Office y 1000 SQF 100.0% N/A N/A NIA 92% Based on OffiCe Florida Studies

571 Jail y Bed 65.0% N/A N/A ! N/A I 65% IIRC Ordinance MISCELLANEOUS

565 Day Care Center y 1000 SQF 35.0% 70.0% i 69.0% ··73.2°.0 i 73% IFiorida Studies !

610 Hospital y 1000 SQF 80.0% 77.0% I 77.0'.0 77.0% i 77% !Other Florida Ordinance i

N/A Veterinary Clinic N 1000 SOF N/A 70.0% I 70.0% 70.0% i 70% !Florida Studies

560 Church y 1000 SQF 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% I 90.0% 90% Other Florida Ordinance

443 Movie Theater w/o y 1000 SOF 65.0% 77.0% I 95.0% 87.4% 67% Florida Studies, ITE ~ Matinee

44<1 Movie Theater w/ N Screens 100.0% 77.0% 95.0% 87.4% 87% Florida Studies Matinee

441 Live Theatre y 1000 SOF 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% IRC Ordinance

441 live Theatre y Seat 100.0% N/A ! N/A N/A I 100.0% ,IRC Ordinance

N/A Social HaiVCivic Center y 1000 SOF 100.0% N/A N/A I

NIA 100.0% IIRC Ordinance

520 School (Elementary) y Student 88.0% N/A ! N/A N/A ! 80.0% JOther Florida Ordinance

N/A Fire Station y Bed N/A N/A I NIA N/A 89.0% iBased on Nursing Home

N/A Fire Station (w/o beds) y 1000 SOF 100.0% N/A ; I

N/A I N/A I

69.0% IBased on Nursing Home

lindale-Oliver and Associates 38 G:\INDRIVERIDOCSUMPFEESIDEMAN02. WK4

Recommended percent new trips for these new land uses are all based on other Florida studies.



• Some of the recommendations result in significant changes from what is currently in the County ordinance. A major change in percent new trips is recommended for the following land use categories:

~>-- hotel from 100 percent to 66 percent; ~>-- motel from 1 00 percent to 77 percent; ~>-- retail under 10,000 GSF from 35 percent to 48 percent; ~>-- retail1 0,001 to 50,000 GSF from 35 percent to 59 percent; ~>-- retail 50,001 to 100,000 GSF from 40 percent to 64 percent; ~>-- retail 100,001 to 200,000 GSF from 50 percent to 69 percent; ~>-- retail greater than 200,000 GSF from 60 percent to 75 percent; ~>-- new and used car from 35 percent to 79 percent; ~>-- restaurant from 35 percent to 73 percent; ~>-- fast food restaurant from 35 percent to 59 percent; ~>-- day care center from 35 percent to 73 percent.

Review of New Land Use Categories

Based on a review of historical development approvals, several land uses are recommended for addition to the impact fee schedule in Indian River County. Data are available from other Florida studies for many of these land uses and have been incorporated into other sections of this report. For those land uses with no data available, studies were conducted in Indian River County to collect trip characteristics data for the new land use categories. Table 12 provides the new land use categories and inCludes the

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:VNDRIVERIFINLTr:. Wl'D 39


sources for trip generation rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips for each of the new land uses.

Table 12 Recommended New Land Use Categortes

Source of Data

New Land Use Category Trip Generation Trip Percent

Rate Length New Trips

INDUSTRIAL

Manufacturing ITE 6th Edition Office Trip Office Percent Length New Trips

RETAIL

Quality Restaurant ITE 6th Edition Florida Studies Florida Studies

Supermarket ITE 6th Edition Florida Studies Florida Studies -

Furniture Store ITE 6th Edition Florida Studies Florida Studies

MISCELLANEOUS

Veterinary Clinic Florida Studies Florida Studies Florida Studies

Movie Theater w/ Matinee ITE 6th Edition Florida Studies Florida Studies

Convenience Store w/ Gas and Fast Food IRC Studies IRC Studies IRC Studies

This table illustrates the recommendation that several land use categories be added in Indian River County. With a few exceptions, the primary source for trip generation rates is the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. The exceptions include land use categories that are not reflected in the ITE manual, including auto repair and veterinary clinic. In these cases, the weighted average trip generation rate for other Florida studies was used. Recommended trip length and percent new trips data for all new land uses are also taken from the weighted averages calculated for other Florida studies conducted for these land uses. For the final two land uses in Table 12, studies conducted in Indian River County for these land uses will be used to develop the needed trip characteristics.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:IJNDRJVERIF1NLTC. WPD 40


Review and Calculation of Unit Cost Component

Update of Impact Fee Cost Component Information from the sources previously indicated in the section entitled 2020 Cost Affordable Plan Costs By District was assimilated into Table 13, which summarizes Indian River County roadway capacity improvement projects from 1998 to 2020. This table highlights the facility, from and to termini, length of the facility, percent of each project by impact fee district, number of lanes added, estimated right-of-way and construction costs, right-of-way and construction costs per lane mile for each project, and right-of-way and construction costs by proposed impact fee benefit district. Additionally, the road projects from 1998 to 2020 are illustrated in Figure 3.

The County Five-Year Capital Improvement Program was reviewed by County staff to provide a breakdown of design, right-of-way, construction, and construction engineering inspection costs. Cost figures for current projects were also updated based on final engineering cost estimates. For the purposes of Table 13, construction costs include design, construction, and construction engineering inspection.

Review of the Florida Department ofTransportation Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program and the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element indicates a significant investment in the widening of SR60. Approximately $76.1 million dollars is earmarked for improvements from the west Indian River County line to Interstate 95, a distance of 22.5 miles. In addition, funds are also included for a PD&E study ($1, 1 00,000) along SR60 from 66th Avenue to Interstate 95. Because of the significance of this project in terms of cost and cost per Jane of construction, Table 6 includes totals of all projects and totals of all projects excluding SR60.

Recommended Cost Component A summary of the right-of-way construction and total costs per lane mile by impact fee benefit district is illustrated in Table 14. This table includes the cost per lane mile by benefit district for all roadways.

Table 14 indicates that; when all roads are considered, the total cost per Jane mile among the districts varies by $148,165 or 20%. This variability in cost by district is counteracted by the impact of the updated credit component discussed later in this report. As a result,

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRJVERIFINLT'C. WPD 41


.to> N

Facility From To

In Current Transportation Improvement Proaram 5 Ye~rs) C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd C.R.512 66th Ave

53rd St U.S.1 58th Ave

Barber SVStraHon Ave C.R.512 U.S.1

66th Ave 12th St. 4th St.

C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd.

C.R. 512 1-95 C.R.510

Old Dixie 16th St. 12th St.

Old Dixie 12th St. 1st St.

43Ave. 26th St. 12th St.

43Ave. 12th St. 8th St.

4th St. 27th Ave. Old Dixie

Oslo Rd. 27th Ave. 82ndAve.

58th Ave . 26th St. 16th St.

58th Ave. 16th St. 12th St.

58th Ave. 12th St. Oslo Rd.

66th Ave. S.R.60 12th St.

66th Ave. S.R.60 41st St.

North/South Facilities

cnrus Highway St. lucie County Line C.R. 510

U.S.1 Brevard County .C.R. 512

U.S.1 Old Dixie Hwv/U.S. 1 A6antlcBivd

u.s. 1 4thSt St. Lucie County

Old Dixie Hwy_ 1st St. St. lucie County

27th Ave S.R.60 St. Lucie County

Roseland Rd U.S.1 C.R. 512

66th Ave/Schumann Or U.S.1 Barber SVStratton

66th Ave/Schumann Or Barber SVStraHon C.R.510

66th Ave/Schumann Or C.R. 510 41st St.

Tlndale-Otiver and Associates

Table 13 Indian River County Planned lmprovements.1998 to 2020

length R-0-W R-0-W R-0-W Cons! Cons! (Miles) Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by

District 1 Dlstrlct2 District 3 District 1 Dlstrlct2

4.2 $1 330 560 $0 $0 $8 000 000 $0 2.0 $0 $1 584 000 $0 $0 $3,000 000 3.7 $0 $0 $0 $5 000,000 $0 1.0 $0 $71 280 $178,200 $0 $285 714

1.4 $250 000 $0 $0 $3 190,000 $0

2.2 $250 000 $0 $0 $4 660,000 $0 0.5 $0 $50 000 $0 $0 $920 000 1.5 $0 $0 $300 000 $0 $0

1.5 $0 $500 000 $0 $0 $4 500,000

0.5 $0 $0 $200 000 $0 $0

1.5 $0 $0 $200 000 $0 $0

5.1 $0 $0 $1 000 000 '$0 $0

1.0 $0 $500 000 $0 $0 $6,350 000

0.5 $0 $300 000 $0 $0 $700 000

2.5 $0 $0 $500 000 $0 $0

1.0 $0 $300 000 $0 $0 $1 800 000

2.0 $0 $800,000 $0 $0 $4,600,000

9.0 $446 617 $754 286 $119 098 $2 465 323 $4 163 657

3.7 $1172,160 $0 $0 $4 428,160 $0

1.2 $0 $760 320 $0 $0 $1,436160

4.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2.4 $0 $0 $1 520 640 $0 $0

5.4 $0 $103,680 $466 560 $0 $1 227 273

3.7 $390 720 $0 $0 $4 625 000 $0

1.9 $351120 $0 $0 $2 375 000 $0

0.8 $147,840 $0 $0 $1 000,000 $0

5.6 $214.286 $985.714 $0 $1,250,000 $5.750,000

Cons! Total Total Total Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by

District 3 Dlstrlct1 Dlstrlct2 Distrlct3

$0 $9,330 560 $0 $0

$0 $0 $4 584 000 $0

$0 $5 000 000 $0 $0

$714,286 $0 $356994 $892486

$0 $3,440000 $0 $0-

$0 $4,910000 $0 $0

$0 $0 $970 000 $0

$1 850 000 $0 $0 $2150000

$0 $0 $5000000 $0

$950 000 $0 $0 $1150000

$2,300 000 $0 $0 $2500000

$10 100 000 $0 $0 $11100 000

$0 $0 $6850000 $0

$0 $0 $1000000 $0

$5,700 000 $0 $0 $6 200000

$0 $0 $2100000 $0

$0 $0 $5,400,0011_ - _ _j(l_

$657,420 $2 911 940 $4917943 $776 517

$0 $5600 320 $0 $0

$0 $0 $2196480 $0

$5 146.240 $0 $0 $5 146 240

$3 000 000 $0 $0 $4 520640

$5 522 727 $0 $1 330 953 $5989 287

$0 $5,015 720 $0 $0

$0 $2,726 120 $0 $0

$0 $1147,840 $0 $0

$0 $1,464,286 $6 735 714 $0

G:IINDRIVERIDOCS\IMPFEESSI" .

t>. ..oJ

-

Facility From

East/West FacUlties - ---------- ---~-

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd 66th Ave

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd U.S.1

53rd St 58th Ave/Kings Hwv

26th$! 43rd Ave

26th$! 58th Ave Kinos Hwv

S.R. 60 58th Ave/Kinas Hwv

S.R. 60 82ndAve

S.R.60 MP 22.5 (W. l-95) -·

S.R.60 MP19

S.R.60 MP15.5

S.R. 60 MP12

S.R. 60 MP9

S.R. 60 MPil

S.R.60 MP3

5th St. S.W. U.S.1

SthSI.S.W. 43rdAve

Oslo Rd/9th St S.W. Old Dixie Hwv

1-95 Interchange/Oslo

Oslo Rd/91h St S.W. 82nd Ave

Tlndale-Oiiver and Associates

Table 13 Indian River County Planned Improvements 1998 to 2020

length R-0-W R-0-W R-0-W Cons! Cons! Cons! Total Total Total To (Miles) Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by Costs by District 1 ,____plstrJ<:! 2_ District 3 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 1 District 2 District 3

-

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 u.s:1 1.6 $337 920 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,337,920 $0 $0 1st Bridae 0.8 $633 600 $0 $0 $937 500 $0 $0 $1 571 100 $0 so I CHrus Hl11hwav 3.0 $0 $1 584,000 $0 $0 $4 385 850 $0 $0 $5 969850 $0 I

58th Ave Kln11s Hwv 1.0 $0 $844 800 $0 $0 $1 196 800 $0 $0 $2 041 600 $0' 66th Ave 1.0 $0 $211 200 $0 $0 $2 000 000 $0 $0 $2 211 200 $0 82ndAve 3.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 152 000 $0 $0 $4 152000 $0 1-95 2.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 932 000 $0 $0 $3,932000 $0 MP19 3.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 257 856 $0 $0 $11 257 856 $0 MP 15.5 3.5 $0 $3 750 000 $0 $0 $15 150 571 $0 $0 $18 900 571 $0 MP12 3.5 $0 $3 850 000 $0 $0 $4 358 000 $0 $0 $8208000 $0 MP9 3.0 $0 $3 100,000 $0 $0 $4 305000 $0 $0 $7 405000 $0 MP6 3.0 $0 $3 300 000 $0 $0 $4 061 000 $0 $0 $7 361000 $0 MP3 3.0 $0 $3 396 000 $0 $0 $4 153 000 $0 so $7549000 $0 MPO 3.0 $0 $3 300 000 $0 $0 $4 101 000 $0 $0 $7 401000 $0 2oth Ave 0.7 $0 $0 $40 000 $0 $0 $1 400 000 $0 $0 $1440000 58th Ave/Kinas Hwv 1.1 $0 $0 $232 320 $0 $0 $1100 000 $0 $0 $1332320 27th Ave 2.0 $0 $0 $739 200 $0 $0 $2,500 000 $0 $0 $3239200

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1-95 lnterchanae 0.5 $0 $Q_ $92,400 $0 $0 $625,000 $0 $0 $717 400

$5,524,822 $30,045,280 $5,588,418 $39,930,983 $97,785,881 $41,565,673 $45,455,806 $127,831 '161 $47,154,090

$5,524,822 $9,349,280 $5,588,418 $39,930,983 $42,315,454 $41,565,673 $45,455,806 $51,664,734 $47,154,090

G:\INDRIVER\DOCS\IMPFEESS\"

,f:>.

,f:>.

Facility From To

In Current Tr.~nsoortallon lmorovemenl Proar.om 5 Ye1tr11l

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd C.R. 512 . 66th Ave 53rd Sl U.S.! 581hAve Barber SUStratton Ave C.R.512 U.S.! 66th Ave 12th Sl. . 41hSl

C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd. C.R.512 1-95 C.R.510 Old Dixie 16th Sl 12th Sl

Old Dixie 121h Sl 111Sl

43Ave. 26th Sl 12th St 43Ave. 1211151. 81hSt

4th Sl 271hAve. otdOixle Oslo Rd. 27th Ave. 82ndAve. 581hAve. 26th SL 1BihSl 5BihAve. 1Bih Sl 12th Sl

58th Ave. 12th Sl Oslo Rd. 661hAve. S.R.60 12th 51.

661hAve. S.R.60 41sl Sl Nonh/South FociiHies

Citrus H!Qhwav Sl Lucie County Une C.R.510

U.S.1 Brevard County C.R.512

U.S.1 Old Dixie Hwv/U.S. 1 Allanlfc Blvd U.S. I 41hSI 51. Lucie Coun1v.

Old Dixie Hwv 1s1Sl Sl Lucie County

27th Ave S.R.60 SL Lucie CouniY RoselandRd U.S. I C.R.512 66th A~ Dr U.S. I Bar1ier SUStratton 68th Ave/Schumam Dr Bart>erSUStraHon C.R.510 66th Ave/Sci>Jmann Dr C.R.510 41s1Sl

Tlndale-OIIver and Associates

-

Percenl length Impact

(Miles I Fee

Dlst1

4.2 100%

2.0

3.7 100%

1.0

1.4 100%

2.2 100%

0.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

5.1

1.0

'0.5

2.5

1.0

2.0

9.0 34%

3.7 100%

1.2

4.3

2.4

5.4

3.7 100%

1.9 100%

0.6 100%

5.6 18%


-

Percent Pert.:ent 19!t4

Impact Impact Existing ' Number Fee Fee Number Urbani Improve- lanes R.O·W Average

Dill 2 Dl•t 3 of lanes Rural ment Type Added Cost CostiMife

2 Lanes u Add 2 Lns 2 $1330560 N/A 100% NeYt' 4 Lns u New4 Lns 4 $1 584 000 N/A

2lanes u Add2 Lns 2 ExisUflQ NIA 29% 71% 2lanes u New 2 Lns 2 $249 460 N/A

2 Lanes Add 2 Lns 2 $250 000 2 Lanes Add 2 Lns 2 $250000

100% 2lanes Add 1ln 1 _$50000 100% 2 Lanes Add 1Ln 1 $300000

100% 2 Lanes Add 3lns 3 $500000 100% 2 Lanes Add 3 Lns 3 $200000 100% 2 Lanes Add 1 Ln 1 $200000 100% 2Lanes Add 3 Lns 3 l$1000000 $1.250000

100% 2Lanes Add3 lns 3 _1500 oOO 100% 2Lanes Add 3lns 3 $300000

100% o lanes Add4 Lns 4 $500000 100% 2lanes Add2lns 2 $300 000 100% 2lanes Add 3 Lns 3 $800000

57% 9% New2Lns u New2Lns 2 $1 320000 $609600 4 Lanes u Add2Lns 2 I S1t72160 I st196800

100% 4Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 S760 320 $1196 800 100% 4Lanes u Add2Lns 2 ExlsUno I $1196.800 100% 2 Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $1520640 I s1.250ooo

18% 82% 2Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $570 240 $1250000 2 Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $390720 $1250000 2lanes u Add2lns 2 $351120 ! si 25oooo 2lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $147 640 I s1 250000

82% 2 Lanes u Add2Lns 2 $1.200000 : $1.250000

Total 2020

Total Coot Coot Aflrd. Cost Per Cost Per Cost Per Const R..Q.W& PlanT~a1 Lano Mile Lane Mile lane Mile Cost Consl. Cost R..Q.W Con at Total

$8000000 $9 330.560 ~~761 000 $158400 $952 381 $1110781 $3 000000 S4 584 000 $2049000 $198000 $375000 $573000 $5000000 $5000000 $1261 Olio $0 $675676 $675676 $1 000000 $1.249480 $1.261 000 $124 740 $500000· $624 740 $3190000 (3 440000 $89266 $1139.286 $1.228 571 $4660000 $4 910000 S56.818 $1059091 $1 115909

$920000 $970000 $100000 S184oim $1940000 $1850000 $2150000 $200000 $1233 333 $1 433.333 $4 500000 $5.000000 $111111 S1 000000 S1111 111

$950000 S1150000 $133.333 $633.333 S786667 $2 300000 $2 500000 $133 333 $1.533.333 $1666667

$10100000 $11100000 $65 359 $660131 $725490 $5.350 000 $5 650000 $166667 $2116667 $2283.333

$700000 $1 000000 $200000 $466667 $666667 $5.700000 $6200000 ·sso.ooo $570000 $620000 $1800000 $2.100000 $150000 $900000 St 050000 U600000 55400000 $133333 $766667 $900000

$7266400 _$8 606400 $10822400 $73.333 $404800 $478133 $4.428160 $5600320 $6468120 $158400 $598400 $756800 $1436 160 $2196480 $2103600 $316800 $598400 $915.200 $5,146,240 $5,146.240 $7,506,940 so $598400 S598400 $3000000 $4520640 $7 720560 $316800 $625000 $9411100 $6750000 $7 320240 $8 729840 $52.800 $825.000 $677800

. $4.625000 $5015720 $5,981420 $52..800 $625000 $677800 _$2375000 $2 726120 $3.222.020 $92400 $625000 $717 400 $1000000 $1147 840 $1 356840 $92400 $625000 $717 400 $7 000000 $8.200000 $12 888 0130 $107143 $625000 $732.143

G \INDRIVE;R\OOCS\IMPFEESSI'

ol:>o lJl

Facility From

Eosi/West Facllhl< Eosi/West Facllhles

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd 66th Ave

C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd U.S.1

53rd St 58th AveiKifl!IS Hwv 25th Sl 43rdAve

26th St 58th Ave l<loos Hwv S.R. 60 581hAW!IIClnasHwv

S.R. 60 62ndAve

S.R.60 MP 22.5 IW. 1-951

S.R.60 MP19

S.R.60 MP15.5

S.R.60 MP12

S.R.60 MP9

S.R.60 MP6

S.R. 60 MP3

5thSL S.W. U.S.1

5th St. S.W. 43rdAve

Oslo Rd'91h St S. W. Old Dixie Hwv

1-95 lnlerchanoe/Oslo

Oslo Rd'91h St S.W. 82ndAve

Tlndafe-Oiiver and Assodates

-

Pereenl Length Impact

To (MIIesl FH

Dlst 1

U.S.! 1.8 100%

lsi Brldae 0.8 100% Cllrus Hlahwav 3.0

58th Ave KlnM Hwv 1.0

66th Ave 1.0

82ndAve 3.0

1-95 2.0

MP19 3.5

MP15.5 3.5

MP12 3.5

MP9 3.0

MP8 3.0

MP3 3.0

MPO 3.0

201hAve 0.7

58th AYeJKinos Hwv 1.1

27th Ave 2.0

1-951- 0.5


Percent Percent 1994

Imp ott Impact Existing Number Total FH Fee Number Urban/ Improve .. lanes R.O·W Aver.1ge Const Dlst 2 Dlsl3 of lanes Rural menl Type Added Cost CosUMIIe Cost

2 Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $337 920 l$1250000 $2000000 2 Lanes u Add 2lns 2 $633 600 I s1 25oooo $937 500

100% New4Lns u New4Lns 4 St 584 000 $t 46t 950 $4 385 850 tOO% 2 Lanes u Add2 Lns 2 $844 BOO I $1196800 $tt96800 100% New2Ln u New2Ln 2 $211 200 $2 000000 $2 000000 100% 4lanes u Add2 Lns 2 Exlstlno I s1195 800 $4152 000 100% 4Lanes u Add2Lns 2 Exlstlnq $1196800 S3 932000 100% 2 Lanes r Add3 Lns 3 $0 $11257 856 100% 2lanes r Add 3 Lns 3 '$3 750000 $15150571 100% 2 Lanes r Add 3 Lns 3 $3 850 000 $4 358000 100% 2Lanes r Add3 Lns 3 $3 100 000 ... 305000 100% 2 Lanes r Add 3 Lns 3 I $3 3ooooo $4.061000 100% 2lanes r Add3 Lns 3 $3 396 000 ... 153000 100% 2lanes r Add 3 Lns 3 I s3 3oo ooo $4.101000

100% New2Ln u New2ln 2 $40 000 I s1 oooooo •t400000 tOO% New2Ln u New2Ln 2 $232 320 I $1 oooooo $1100000 tOO% 2 Lanes u Add2Lns 2 $739 200 I $1250000 $2500000

100% 2Lanes u Add2Lns 2 $92 400 $1250000 •625000

Total Cost All Roads

Total Cost All Roads (Excluding S.R. 60)

·,

Total 2020

Cost Cost Alfrd. Cost Per Cost Per Cost Per R.Q..W& Plan Total Lane Mile Lane Mile Lane Mile Const. Cost R.Q..W Cons! Total

$2 337 920 $2 755520 $105600 $625000 $730600 $1 571100 $t 766850 $422400 $625 000 St 047 400 $5 969850 $700t850 $132 000 $365488 $497 488 $2 04t600 $2 355 800 $422 400 $598400 $t 020800 $2 211200 $2 472.200 $105600 $1000000 $1105600 $4 152 000 $5 237 400 so $692 000 $692000 $3 932 000 $3 491600 so $983000 $983000

$11 257 856 $0 $1072177 $1 072177 $16 900 571 $357143 S1 442 912 S1.B00.054 $8208000 $366667 $415048 $781714 $7 405 000 $3444« U78333 $822778 $7 361 000 $366667 .... ~1 ?17 $817889 SL'\.49000 $377.333 $461 444 $838778 $7 40t 000 $366667 $455.667 ~~-333

$1 440000 $2708.300 S2ti571 St 000000 S1 028.571 $1332 320 $1619420 0105600 ssoo.ooo $605600 $3 239200 $3 761.200 $184800 $625000 $809800

$717 400 $991900 $92 400 $625000 $717 400

$220.441.057 $110.091.460 S4t.158.520 St79.262.537 $220.441.057

$220.44t.057 $20.462.520 $123.812.110 $144.274.630

G:UNDRIVER\OOCS\IMPFEESSI"

it is feasible to use the county-wide average cost per lane mile of $836,946. This is a change from the current methodology which uses a unique unit cost for each district.

Table 14 Summary of c ost per ane 1 e ,Y oa L M'l b R d I mprovemen ene 1 IS r1ct t e n D' t ·

Cost Average Cost Category District 1 District 2 District 3 per Lane Mile

All Roads

Right-of-Way $98,675 $209,490 $87,745 $156,437

Construction Cll $713,178 $681,811 $652,635 $681,424

Total Cost $811,853 $891,302 $740,381 $837,860 (1) Construction est1mate mcludes des1gn, construction, and engmeenng mspectlon

Review And Calculation of Credit Component

Calculation of Equivalent Gas Tax

The scope of this analysis was to determine the portion of gasoline taxes that government agencies use to construct new and expanded roads. This was determined by finding the number of pennies per gallon that return to the community for non-Interstate, capital improvements for State, County, and collector road improvements. The amount of revenue generated by one cent of gas tax was taken from the "Local Government Financial Information Handbook, July 1997 ," and was indicated to be $608,436 per one cent of gas tax.

The MPO Transportation Improvement Program (FY 1997/98 - FY 2001/02) and the County Capital Improvement Program (FY 1997/98) were reviewed to estimate the funds appropriated for roadway expansion projects over the next five year period. The TIP/CIP work program indicated $4.48 and $2.72 million of facility expansion funds per }_lear over the next five years for State and County/Municipal governments, respectively. In addition, roadway capital expansion projects in the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (Cost Feasible Plan) were reviewed to determine the monies to be spent annually through the year 2020. All roadway expansion projects were listed previously as part of the review and

· calculation of the costcomponent in Table 13.

Using this information, the equivalent cents per gallon of gasoline were estimated for allocation to transportation system capacity expansion projects. The gas tax calculations were estimated for all road improvements and all road improvements excluding revenues

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 F:\USERSVACOB\MPO\TIF1TEXTV'INALRPT. WPD 46

Indian River County MPO Update Fair Share Roadway Impact Ordinance ·

for SR60, the results of which are presented in Tables 15 and 16, respectively. The inclusion of the SR60 projects increases the amount of the gas tax credit from 6.4ci per gallon to 11.8i per gallon, an increase of 5.4i per gallon. This increase in gas tax more than offsets the increase in construction costs resulting from the inclusion of the SR60 project in the calculation of unit costs.

The present value of annually recurring gasoline tax revenues for a 25 year period was computed assuming an annual interest rate of five percent. The 25 year period was selected because it is a conservative estimate of the life of a roadway and this period generally corresponds to the time period for which road improvement bonds are issued. If the County implements additional revenue sources to fund needed roads, these sources should be recognized and the impact fee credit should be updated accordingly.

The current impact fee equation trip lengths represent travel on tbe functionally classified road system. However, gas taxes are collected for travel on local roads as well as functionally classified roads. To account for the fact that gas taxes are collected on all roads, a new factor was added to the impact fee equation. This factor adjusts the impact fee trip length for the gas taxes collected for travel on the local road system. This factor was estimated at 0.50 miles, and was added to the trip length used in the calculation of the impact fee credit.

Summary of Changes to Credit Component The following changes are being recommended to the credit component:

• a change in gas tax pennies going to capital from 6 cents in the existing ordinance to a projected 11.8 cents per gallon.

• the interest rate used for estimating present value was reduced from 7% to 5% to better reflect current economic conditions.

• the addition of a factor to adjust local trip length by 0.50 miles.

• miles per gallon was reduced from 17.16 to 16.91 to reflect a more current source (1997 National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) and to include all roadway vehicles consuming fuel.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G: VNDR/VERIFINLTC. WPD 47


Source of

Revenue

State

County/Municipal

Total

State

Source of

Revenue

County/Municipal

Total

Notes:

I I

I

Table 15 Calculation of Gas Tax Credit Including State Road 60

Indian River County

TIP/CIP Revenue LRTP Revenue Total Avg Annual

1998-2002 2003-2020 Revenue Revenue

$71 ,202,427 $31,903,840 $103,106,2671 $4,482,881 ,

$51,082,010 $11,385,322 $62,467,332 $2,715,971

$122 284 437 $43 289162 $165 573 5991 $7198 852

Table 16 Calculation of Gas Tax Credit Excluding State Road 60

Indian River County

i TIP/CIP Revenue I I 1998-2002 i

LRTP Revenue I 2003-2020

Total I Revenue I

Avg Annual

Revenue

$3.120.000 I $23,819.840 I $26,939.840 I $1,171,297

$51.082.010 I $11 ,385,322 i $62,467,3321 $2,715,971

I I I

!

$54 202 o1o I I $35.205 162 i

! $89 407 1721 $3 887 2681

Pennies/

Gallon

$0.074

$0.045

$0.118

Pennies/

Gallon

$0.019

$0.045

$0.064

(1) Revenues reflected above include capital expansion projects funded by gas tax and sales tax as indicated in the five-year TIP/CIP and 2020 Cost Feasible Plan; projects funded by impact fees were excluded from the revenues indicated in the table.

(2) Revenues reflect current five-year FOOT TIP and County CIP, and discussions with County Staff.

(3) Intersection, resurfacing and paving projects are not included in the revenue projections.

(4) Revenues that fund unique costs such as bridge structures are not included in the revenue projections. (5) For projects included in the current five-year TIP/CIP and in the 2020 Cost Feasible Plan, the cost estimates in the five-year TIP/CIP

were used.

(6) Project limits and lengths were adjusted for consistency between the five-year TIP/CIP and 2020 Cost Feasible Plan. (7) Pennies J)er gallon is estimated by dividing average annual revenue by the proceeds of one penny of gas tax as reported in the Local

Government Financial Information Handbook, July 1997; proce~ds of one penny estimated at $608,436 for 1997/98.

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 48 g:\indriver\docs\impfee\CREDIT.WK4

COLLECTION OF TRIP CHARACTERISTICS DATA

Introduction

This work effort involves the collection of local trip characteristics data for the following two land uses:

• Convenience market with fast good and gas service; and • Construction trades building, with single and multiple tenants.

These data will be used to develop trip characteristics for the above land uses. The resulting trip characteristics will be used to calculate transportation impact fee for the above land uses.

Site Descriptions and Locations

Trip characteristic studies were conducted at three convenience markets with fast food and gas service, and three contractor trades sites. The intent of selecting the three sites for each land use was to represent a typical mixture of these land uses within Indian River County.

General information about each study location is contained in Table 17. This table identifies the location number, land use, square footage, and general location of the study site.

Table 17 -Trip Characteristic Study Sites

. ·. E , <}·:·~r·· .. . : ... h.,:·'·,',·:,.~: . .-.-:·' > ':.\.

1'.:· ;i;: ; , ;,;;;;,:.~.· · •.. ·. ·.· Land· Use ..

location:#<:· . . . ·•:;•'"·''·:'>''T'•'' ·.

1 Conv. market with fast food ahd gas service

2 Conv. market With fast food and gas ser\lice

3 Conv. market with fast food and gas service

4 Contractor Trades-Multiple tenants

5 Contractor Trades-Multiple tenants

6 Contractor Trades-Single tenant

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, i998

49 G:\JNDRJVERIFINLTC. WPD

·Total·sq. :u<·· ~ General Site Footage· .. Location

2,500 US1 corridor .

3,000 CR51 0 corridor

3,120 US1 corridor

58,147 US1 corridor

20,000 Oslo Road corridor

12,000 401h St. corridor


Study Methodology

Two types of data were collected at each study site: (1) trip generation data, and (2) origin destination surveys. The trip generation data were collected through the use of machine traffic counters during the weekdays for a period of 72 consecutive hours (3 days). Additionally, manual counts were conducted periodically during the week to verify the accuracy of the machine traffic counts. These data were then used to develop a trip generation rate for each study site.

Origin/destination survey data were collected at each study site through on-site patron interviews. The interviews were conducted between the times of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This time period allowed data to be collected for both work and non-work related trips.

Individuals were asked the location of where they just came from upon entering the site, -·

where they were going upon leaving the site, and the location of any intermediate stops, if made. Persons being interviewed were asked to provide descriptions of the locations they were going to or coming from. This description included the name of the location and the address or name of a nearby major intersection. Individuals were also asked the purpose of their trip.

Following the collection of data in the field, the Consultant entered the survey information into a spreadsheet and determined the trip length, and percent new trips for each valid survey. Surveys with incomplete information were not used in the determination of trip length and percent new trips. The Consultant then assimilated the data into summary tables containing the trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips data for each site and each classification of sites by land use.

The survey traffic count data are contained in Appendix C, Indian River County Traffic Count Data. These data was used to develop a trip generation rate for each site. Appendix D, .Indian River County Origin/ Destination Data, contains the survey data used for calculating trip lengths and percent new trips information for each site, as appropriate. The data contained in Appendices C arid D are discussed more fully in subsequent

· .. sections of this report.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:VNDRIVERIFJNLT'C. WPD 50


Study Results

Statistical Sample Confidence Level One of the considerati'ons in the collection of origin/destination data was to collect enough survey samples to develop a reasonable level of confidence that the data collected reflects local travel conditions in Indian River County. From a statistical sampling perspective, the goal was to collect enough survey samples to be able to be 85% confident that the average trip length from the sample data was within a+/- 15% level of accuracy for each study site.

Table 18 presents a summary of the number of acceptable samples and the required number of samples to obtain the desired level of confidence for the convenience market with fast food and gas service. A total of 246 trip length surveys were collected for the three convenience market with fast food and gas service sites. From a statistical sampling perspective, when all sites are combined, the resulting average trip length was determined to be statistically significant within plus/minus 10% of a 90% level of confidence. This level of confidence exceeds the scope of services requirement of 85% confidence level at plus/minus 15%. Additionally, more than 150 samples were collected at the three study sites for the purpose of calculating site trip length, again exceeding the scope of services requirement.

In a similar manner, Table 19 presents a summary of the number of acceptable samples and the required number of samples necessary in order to obtain the desired level of confidence for the contractor trades land use. A total of 222 trip length surveys were collected for the three contractor trades sites. From a statistical sampling perspective, when all sites are combined, the resulting average trip length was determined to be within plus/minus 10% at a 90% level of confidence. This level of confidence meets the scope of services requirement of 85% confidence level at plus/minus 15%. Additionally, more than 150 samples were collected at the three study sites for the purpose of calculating trip length information, again exceeding the scope of services requirement.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 G:VNDRJVERIFJNLTC. WPD 51


SITE NBR

Table 18 ·Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Land Use Sample Size Analysis

NBR SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT OF TRIP COEFFICIENT AT 90% CONFIDENCE AT 85% CONFIDENCE LENGTH OF 10% MARGIN 15% MARGIN 10% MARGIN

I 15 %MARGIN

SAMPLES VARIATION OF ERROR OF ERROR OF ERROR 1 84 0.91 223 99 171 1 2 52 0.70 134 59 1021 3 110 0.85 193 86 148:

ALL i 2461 '

0.881 183 82 I 141 i

NOTES:

1. Coefficient of Variation (C) is the standard deviation of the sample divided by the sample mean.

2. The Normal Distribution Z value statistic at 90% and 85% confidence level is 1.645 and 1.440, respectively.

3. The sample size requirement is calculated by the formula N = ((C**2) *( Z**2)}/(E**2), where C is the coefficient of variation, Z is the Z value statistic and E is the margin of error. This formula is based on a methodology reported by Michael E. Smith in "Design of Small-Sample Home Interview Travel Surveys," Transportation research Board 701, 1979.

OF ERROR

4. For the trip length analysis, the Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Land Use exceeded 90% confidence at plus or minus 10%.

The scope of services requires an 85% confidence level at plus or minus 15%. The accuracy of the data collected exceeds the scope of services requirement.

76' 46 66 62

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 52 G:\INDRIVER\OATA\ODSTUDYIFINALCONVFNL.WK4

Table 19 -Contractor Trade Land Use Sample Size Analysis

I

SITE I NBR I I

SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT I

SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT ' I NBR OF TRIP COEFFICIENT AT 90% CONFIDENCE AT 85% CONFIDENCE '

i

I

I LENGTH OF 10% MARGIN 15% MARGIN

I 10% MARGIN

I 15% MARGIN

I SAMPLES VARIATION OF ERROR OF ERROR OF ERROR 4 I 44 0.30 ' 25 11 5 : 98! 0.87 203 90 6 I 78i 1.05, 297 132

I ALL 2201 0.92[ 175) 78!

NOTES:

1. coefficient of Variation (C) is the standard deviation of the sample divided by the sample mean.

2. The Normal Distribution Z value statistic at 90% and 85% confidence level is 1.645 and 1.440, respectively. . .

3. The sample size requi~ement is calculated by the formula N = ((C"*2) *( Z"*2))/(E**2), where C is the coefficient of variation, Z is the Z value statistic and E is the margin of error. This formula is based on a methodology reported by Michael E. Smith in "Design of Small-Sample Home Interview Travel Surveys," Transportation research Board 701, 1979.

191 156i 2271 134:

4. For the trip length analysis, the Contractor Trades Land Use exceeded 90% confidence at plus or minus 10%. The scope of services requires an 85% confidence level at plus or minus 15%. The accuracy of the data collected exceeds the scope of services requirement.

OF ERROR 8/

69[ 101[

I 60~

Tindale-Oiiver and Associates 53 G:\INDRIVER\DOCSIJMPFEESSIJNDUFNL2.WK4

Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Trip Characteristics Data

Traffic counts were taken for a three-day period during the week and averaged to develop a daily trip generation rate for each convenience market with fast food and gas service site. Table 20, presents a summary of the trip generation data for each convenience market with fast food and gas service study site. All counts were completed between March 17, 1998 and March 26, 1998. The resulting trip generation rates indicated in Table 20 ranged from 563.1 to 1,396.0 trips per 1,000 square feet for the convenience market sites studied in Indian River County. The corresponding trip rate per fueling station ranged from 211.2 to 435.6 for the same convenience market sites. The County Ordinance currently assesses the Convenience Markets with Gas Pumps land use based on the number of fueling stations. To maintain consistency with this assessment approach, it is recommended that the Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service land LJSe also be assessed based on the number of fueling stations.

A summary of the convenience market with fast food and gas service trip characteristics for the studies conducted in Indian River County is presented in Table 21. For each site, Table 21 includes square footage, number of fueling stations, number of trip length samples, number of origin/destination surveys, average daily trip generation, occupancy level, average daily trip generation rate, average trip length, percent new trips, vehicle miles of travel, sample standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The information in Table 21 indicates a weighted average trip generation rate per fueling station for the three convenience market with fast food and gas service of 304.5 and a simple average trip generation rate of 293.5 trips per fueling station. Consistent with the methodology used by ITE, it is recommended that the weighted average trip generation rate of 304.5 be used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee for the convenience market with fast food and gas service land use.

The weighted average trip length from the studies in Indian River County is 2.4 miles and the simple average trip length is 2.5 miles. For percent new trips, the weighted average . is 33.2% and 33.5% for the simple average. Total vehicle miles of travel between the two methods (weighted average and simple average) is 245.3 using the weighted average and 247.1 for the simple average. For purposes of consistency with the methods used by ITE, the weighted average method is recommended for use in Indian River County. These values, as presented in Table 21, are 2.4 miles and 33.2% for the trip length and percent new trip factors, respectively.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, I998 F,.\USER.SIJA COBIMPO\Tlf1FlNALRPT. WPD 54


Ln Ln

lindale-Oliver and Associates

Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table 20 • Trip Generation Summary of Convenience Market, Fast Food Restaurant, and Gas Service Land Use

Total J Adjustment I Net Trips

:·~.:·:~~i~~~~t~?l~~;j ~·~~ ~. --~~~-~~-: :~1~: }: ~~:: :~.~ ~{~ ~--

Percent Net Trip Trip

G:IINDRIVERIDATAICOUNTSICNTSUMYf .WK4

lJ1 <J)

NOTES: .

Table 21 -Convenience Market with Fast Food and Gas Service Land Use Sample Size Analysis

··ace: RATE

-;otHi% ·1oo.o%!

HiO:o%.

100.0% __ J!JQ,Q~ .. -

..... ··a 10 - ·-a ..

··-· ··----~~~1------~~ 293.5) -~'~

(1) Weighted average is computed by summfrig the multipllcallon of the computed variable by number of units for each site and then dividing by the total number of un~s.

')\VG% ... --VMT=ffiiP .. -----· --·· NEW LENGTH SAMPLE j COEFF OF

!~~~~(NT) • TGR"N_! __ .. STD. Df:Y.:... . Y!-~--~~TtQ~-39.3'k 168.0 1.84 0.91 ···41.i'-' -----3-23:9 ·---·--rs, --- - o.as --,9.7% - --11n - -- 2.61 ··· - «Ho ··------ --·-·- .. -- ...... - ..

_ _ERRJ ... ~!! _____ 33.5% L 247.1

;~1~~~~:~-*::r ~_-;F~;~~~~~-:~.

g;'«<drhrr\docsVmpfeH\C0NVFNl6JIVK~.

In summary, the recommended trip characteristics for the convenience market with fast food and gas service land use in the Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee are:

Trip Rate - 304.5 trips per fueling station; trip length - 2. 4 miles; and percent new trips -33%

Contractor Trade Trip Characteristics Data

Traffic counts were taken for a three-day period during the week and averaged to develop a daily trip generation rate for each contractor trade site. Table 22 presents a summary of the trip generation data for each contractor trade study site. All counts were completed between March 17, 1998 and March 26, 1998. The resulting trip generation rates indicated in Table 22 ranged from 15.2 to 20.9 trips per 1,000 square feet for the contractor trade sites studied in Indian River County.

A summary of the contractor trades trip characteristics for the studies conducted in Indian River County is presented in Table 23. For each site, Table 23 includes square footage, number of trip length samples, number of origin/destination surveys, average daily trip generation, occupancy level, average daily trip generation rate, average trip length, percent new trips, vehicle miles of travel, sample standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The information in Table 23 indicates a weighted average trip generation rate per 1,000 square feet for the three contractor trade sites of 20.0 and a simple average trip generation rate of 18.8 trips per 1,000 square feet. Consistent with the methodology used by ITE, it is recommended that the weighted average trip generation rate of 20.0 be used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee for the contractor trades land use.

The weighted average trip length from the studies in Indian River County is 4.6 and the simple average trip length is 3.8. For percent new trips, the weighted average is 81.3% and 83.9% for the simple average. Total vehicle miles of travel between the two methods (weighted average and simple average) is 74.4 using the weighted average and 60.6 for the simple average, For purposes of consistency with the methods used by ITE, the weighted average method is recommended for use in Indian River County. These values, as presented in Table 23, are 4.6 miles and 81.3% for the trip length and percent new trip factors, respectively.

Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 F.·\USERSVACOB\MPO\TJF\FINALRPT. WPD 57


\.Jl co


Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study

Table 22 ·Trip Generation Summary of Contractor Trade land Use

Total I Adjustment Total Vacant I Percent Net Trip

G:\INDRIVER\DATA\COUNTSICNTSUMYf. WK4

lJl 1..0

TABLE 23- SUMMARY OF CONTRACTOR TRADES TRIP CHARACTERISTIC STUDIES

NUMBER

NOTES: (1) Weighted average is computed by summing the multiplication of the computed variable by number of units for each site and then dividing by the total number of units.

Tindal e-O liver and Associates

>:' :_'~. . :: , '> : ~ '

G:IINORIVERIOOCSIIMPFEESS\INOUFNL2.WK4

One single and two multiple tenant contractor trade sites were studied. The Vehicle miles of travel for the single tenant site was 45.9. For the multi-tenant sites, the vehicle miles of travel were 45.5 and 90.3. Thus, one multi-tenant site had approximately the same vehicle miles of travel as the single tenant site (both sites had relatively the same impact on the road system), while the other multi-tenant site's vehicle miles of travel was nearly double that of the single tenant site.

Because of the small sample size (1 single tenant and 2 multi-tenant sites), and the difference in vehicle miles of travel between these sites, it is not possible to develop separate trip characteristic data from the survey data for single tenant and multi tenant contractor trade uses.

However, the data as presented above are reasonable for use in determining the trip characteristics of the Contractor Trades Land Use. If the County wishes to consider possible breakout of the contractor trades l~md use between single and multi-tenant land uses, additional studies (2 single tenant and 1 multi-tenant, at a minimum) should be undertaken.

In summary, the recommended trip characteristics for the contractor trade land use in the Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee are:

Trip Rate- 20.0 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.; trip length- 4.6 miles; and percent new trips-81%

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:IINDRIVERIFINLT'C. W1'D 60


TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE AND ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

The existing impact fee schedule for District 5 and 2 alternatives were developed to allow the comparison of resulting impact fee schedules. These alternatives are illustrated in the following tables:

• Table 24- Current Fee Schedule, Existing Trip Characteristics, Current District 5 Cost, Current Credit, and 15% Reduction

• Table 25- Current Fee Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Costs and Credits and 0% Reduction

• Table 26- Expanded Fee Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Costs and Credits, and 0% Reduction

Existing and Proposed Land Use Schedule

Table 24 illustrates the input parameters and associated land uses contained in the current Indian River County Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. It also includes a 15 percent across-the-board reduction. This table replicates the current fee schedule and is included as a reference for comparing other alternatives.

Table 25 presents the fee schedule with the existing land uses using the updated cost and credit components and trip characteristics, as previously discussed. Trip characteristics for land uses were updated using the /TE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition and results from other Florida studies. The resulting fees are calculated using the updated cost and credit components. Jt also includes a local trip length adjustment for credit calculations, and updated factors for interest rate, cents per gallon of gas tax used for capital expansion, and miles per gallon. No across-the-board reduction is used in this fee schedule.

Table 26 provides an expanded fee schedule containing the recommended new land uses, updated trip characteristics and updated costs and credits. The schedule also includes a . . . .

local trip length adjustment for credit calculations, and updated factors for interest rate, cents per gallon of gas tax used for capital expansion, and miles per gallon. No acrossthe-board reduction is used in this fee schedule.

Tindale-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:UNDRIVERIFINLTC WPD 6I


()'I

N

Table 24 • Current Land Use Schedule, Existing Trip Characteristics, Current District 5 Cost, Current Credit and 15% Discount

·Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax:

$ per gallon to capital: Facility life (years): Interest 111te:

$0.060

25 7.0%

Unit Construction Cost: Capacity per lane: Fuel efficiency: Effective days per year:

Total Percent

$679,378

8,000

17.16

365

Total Annual

Local Trip Length: Interstate Mileage %: Across-the-Board Adjustment:

Gas Net

0.0

0% 15.00%

ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent Code Land Use Unit Rate Length length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee (1) Dllference

Residential: tAl (Bl fCl (0} !El !Fl !Gl !Hl (I) (J} !Kl flJ

---

Slnale FamilY 210 du 8.93 5.87 5.87 100% $2.~~ r-· $38 $446 $1,513 $1,513 0% 230 Accessor~ Slnale-Famllv du 5.14 5.87 ____ 5,!1!_ __ 100%_ ~~~~ ___ $~2 $257 $871 $871 0% 230 Muiii-Famllv du 5.14 5.87 ~,87 100% $1,281 $22 $257 $871 $871 0% 240 Mobile Home du 4.81 5.87 ~87 100% $1,199 $21 $240 $815 $615 0% 310 Hotel room 6.70 5.30 5.30 100% $1,958 f-- $34 $392 $1,331 $1,331 0% 320 Motel

- room 10.19 5_,~ 5.30 100% $2,293_ f--- $39 $459 $1,559 $1,559 0% 620 Nurslna Home --~- 2.60 5.6? 5.87 100% $648 ------- $11 $130 $441 $441 0% 252 ACLF· bed 2.15 5.25 5.25 100% $479

·--~-$6 $96 $326 $326 0%

Offlce and Financial.· 720 Medical Office 1,000sf 34.17 __ 3~=! 3.43 65% $4,~ IQ. __ F3 $647 $2,676 $2,676 0% 911 Bank 1,000 sf 189.95 3.43 3.43 35% $9,6S .:!_ __ $166 $1,939 ~6.562 $6,563 0% 912 Bank w/Drlve-ln 1,000sf 291.11 3.43 3.43 35% $14,82 :9 $255 $2,972 $10,067 $10,066 0% 710 omce under 10,000GSF 1,000 sf 24.39 3.43 ,-----3.43 85% $3,01 9 $52 $605 $2,052 $2,053 0% 710 omce over 10,000 GSF

-- - - 1,000_sf - 16.31 3.43

--3.43 85%

---·- J2,01 9 $35 $404 $1,373 $1,373 0%

Industrial.· -__ 150 Warehous.e -- 1,000 sf 4.86 2.47 ~- 100% -~~1~ --~- $103 $346 $346 0% 151 Mini Warehouse !~ __ 4.86 ,-------1,47. 2.47 100% $512 $9 $103 $346 $346 0% N/A Vehicle Storage aae 20.20 2.47 2.47 100% $2,119 -~ $424 $1,440 $1,440 0% 110 Gener:allriduslrial 1,000 sf- 5.40 2.47 2.47 100% ~~ -- $10 $113 $385 $385 0% NIA Conctele Plant acre 15.60 2.47 2.47 100% $1,636 $28 $328 $1,112 $1,112 0% N/A Sand Mining acre 2.00 2.47 2.47 100% $210 $4 $42 $143 $143 0% N/A Conlr:actoriTrade (Multi tennant) 1,000sf 35.20 2.47 2.47 92% $3,396 $56 $660 $2,309 $2,309 0% NIA Conlr:actor Tr:ade (Single Tennanl) 1,000sf 9.40 2.47 2.47 92% $907 $16 $162 $617 $617 0%

Tlnda/,..01/ver and Assodales r-.\ll.lnMI\Irr'll.\nru""'"''"••,...,...,... .............. - --··. ··-· •

j\

.JJ

ITE

Code

820

820 820 820

820

1144 841

832 834 853

- B4I

430

492 r-:m

491

420

400

732 590 730 571

565 610

560

443

444 441

N/A

520

N/A

Tindale-Oiiver and Assodales

Table 24- Current Land Use Schedule, Existing Trip Characteristics, Current ~istrict 5 Cost, Current Credit and 15% Discount

Retail.· . -------

land Use (A)

Retail under 10,000 GSF Retall10,001 to 50,000 GSF Retall50,001 to 100,000 GSF Retall100,001 to 200,0!10 GSF

. Retall over 200,000 GSF Gas Station Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fest Food Restaurant Convenience Slore Qa_r_Wash

Recreational: .•.

Golf Course Racquet Club County Park Tennis Court Marina Club.House

Governmental.· Post Office Ubracy Govemment Olllce Jail

·Miscellaneous· Dav Care center Hospital Church Movie Thealer wto Matlnea MoVie Theater wt MaUnee Live Theatre

'

Unit

(B)

1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf' 1,000sf 1,000 sf.

J!!!!!IPS aae

1,000sf 1,000sf 1,000 sf

Stall

I Park space 1,000 sf

I park spa~

CQUrl

berth park space

1.00o sf 1,000sf 1,olio sf

bed

1.000 sf 1.000 sf

1.000 sf 1.000 sf Saeens 1,000 sf

Trip Rate

(C)

168.35 94.71 74.31 58.93 48.31

133.00 272.30 200.90 284.00 396.00 108.00

Trip length

(D)

1.90 1.90 2.46 2.77 3.20

1.90 1.90 1.90

_!J!Q_ 1.90 1.90

__ 6.~--~ 15.90f-~~

____ ?.10 ····- 3.43

35.00 3.43 -3"QQ. _ __!,!!Q 3.10 5.87

86.70 3.43 45.00 3.43 68.90 3.43 _1.2! 3.43

125.70 1.90 16.70 1.90 11.40 1.90 77.79 3.43

153.33 3.43 11.40 1.90

Total Percent Trip New

length Trips (E) (F)

1.90 35% 1.90 35% 2.46 40% 2.77 50% 3.20 60% 1.90 35% 1.90 35% 1.90 35%

___ 1.~ 35% 1.90 35% 1.90 35%

~43 100% ,____l.43 100%

3.43 100% 3.43 75% 1.90 100% 5.87 100% -

3.43 35% 3.43 8S% 3.43 85% 3.43 85%

1.90 35% 1.90 80%

1.90. ~ 3.43 85% 3.43 85% 1.90 ___ 100%

Total

Impact Cost

(G)

$4,697 _ ___g674

$3,105

$~.466

$3,938 $3,755 $7,689 $5,673 $8,019

$11,182 $3,050

$961 $2,316

$306 $3,823

$242 $773

$4,419

$5.~I!_

$8,530 $150

$~.549

Annual

Gas Tax

(H)

$81 $46 $53 $60 $68 $65

$132 $97

$138 $192

$52

$17 $40

1--- $5

1---$~ $4

$13

$76 $96

$147 $3

---f--_!1

$1,078 _____ ! ~920 $

$9,630 1----!!. $18,982 ·---~~

c__. __ $920 1-------. ~

Gas

Tax Credit

(I)

$941 $536 $622 $694 $789 $752

$1,540 $1,136 $1,608 $2,239

$611

$193 $464

$61 $766 $48

$155

$685 $1,116 $1,708

$30

Net

Impact Fee

(J)

$3,1~!

.!!.~1!1 $?,111 $2,356 $2,677 $2,553 $5,227 $3.856 $5.451 $7,601 $2,073

$653 ---$1,574

$208 $2,599

$165 $525

$3,004 $3,787 $5,798

$102

Current Fee(1)

(K)

r---· $3,193 $1,818 $2,111 $2,356 $2.677· $2,553 $5,227 $3,856 $5,452 $7,602 $2,073

$653 $1,574

$208 $2,599

$165 $525

$3,004 $3,787 $5,799

$102

$2,413

$733t $733 $62~ $625

Pen:ent Difference

(l)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% O%' 0%•

0% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

Social HaiVCivic Center 1,000sf 11.40 1.90 1.90 100% $920 '$ School (Eiemereta!Y) student 1.032 1.90 1.90 88% $73 --- ~j~~-- s;~1=j~[=--=---- s~~L~-=-~~. Fire Station 1.000 sr 5.40 2.47 2.47 100%

Noles: (1) All trip characteristics are from the current Indian River Counly Fair Share Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance (2) Calculaled rees for the land uses shown In Table 24 are based on District 5 cost components. (3) · Differences In fees for District 5 and Table 24 are due to rounding errors

Soun:e: Tlndale-OIIver and Associales, Inc. 1998

$566 10 $113 0% ----·-·-

G:IINDRIVERIDOCS\IMPFEESS\IF sr.H1 WK.&

0'1 ~

Table 25 -Current Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Costs and Credits and No Discount

Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $837,860 Local Trip Length: 0.5 $ per gallon to capital: $0.118 Capacity per lane: 8,000 Interstate Mileage %: 0% Facility life (years): 25 Fuel efficiency: 16.91 Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% Interest rate: 5.0% Effective days per year: 365

Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent Code Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee (1) Difference (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) Residential.· 210 Single Family du 9.57 5.70 6.20 100% $2,857 : $76 $1,065 $1,792 $1,513 18% 230 Accessory Single-Family du 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% $1,565 $42 $589 $976 $871 12% 230 Multi-FamilY· du 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% $1,565 $42 $589 $976 $871 ·12% 240 Mobile Home du 4.81 4.30 4.80 100% $1,083 $29 $414 $669 $815 -18% 310 Hotel· room 8.23 6.30 6.80 66% $1,792 $47 $663 $1,129 $1,331 -15% 320 Motel room 5.63 4.30 4.80 77% $976 $26 $373 $603 $1,559 -61% 620 Nursing Home bed 2.61 2.60 3.10 89% $316 $9. $129 . $187 $441 ·-58% 252 ACLF bed 2.15 3.10 3.60 72% $251 $7 $100 _1151_ L_ __ $3~ -54%

-~~-

. Office and Financial: 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf 36.13 5.20 5.70 87% $8,559 $228 $3,216 $5,344 $2,876 86% 911 Bank 1,000 sf 156.48 2.40 2.90 47% $9,243 $272 $3,828 $5,415 $6,583 -18% 912 Bank w/Drive-ln 1,000 sf 265.21 2.40 2.90 47% $15,666 $460 $6,488 $9,178 $10,088 -9% 710 Office under 10,000GSF 1.000 sf 22.64 4.60 5.10 92% $5,017 $135 $1,907 $3,111 $2,053 52% 710 Office over 10,000 GSF 1,000 sf 13.27 4.60 5.10 92% $2,941 $79 $1,118 $1,823 $1,373 33%

Industrial: 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf 4.88 4.60 5.10 92% $1,081 $29 $411 $671 $348 93% 151 Mini Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.50 4.60 5.10 92% $554 $15 $211 $343 $348 -1% N/A Vehi.cle Storage acre 20.20 4.60 5.10 92% $4,477 $121 $1,701 . $2,775 $1,440 93% 110 General industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.60 5.10 92% $1,545 $42 $587 $958 $385 149% N/A Concrete Plant acre 15.60 4.60 5.10 92% $3,457 $93 $1,314 $2,143 $1,112 93% N/A Sand Mining acre 2.00 4.60 5.10 92% $443 $12 $168 $275 $143 92% N/A Contractor/Trade (Multi tenant) 1,000 sf 20.00 4.60 5.10 81% $3,902 $105 $1,483 $2,419 $2,309 5% N/A C_ontrac:t(JrTrade @rlgle Tenan 1,000~ __ 20.00 4.60

---5.10 81% $3,902 $105 $1,483 $2,419 $617 292%


0\ Vl

Table 25 -Current Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Costs and Credits and No Discount

ITE Code

820 820 820 820 820 844 841 832 834 853 847

430 492 412 491 420

732 590 730 571

565 610 560 443 444 441 N/A 520 530 540 N/A

Retail:

land Use (A)

Retail under 10.000 GSF Retail10,001 to 50,000 GSF Retail 50,001to 100,000 GSF Retai1100,001 to 200,000 GSF RetaH over 200,000 GSF Gas Station Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant Convenience Store Car Wash

Recreational: Golf Course Racquet Club County Park Tennis Court Marina

------- --· ~-

Governmental: ---- ---------~--

Post Office Library Government Office Jail

Miscellaneous· Day Care Center Hospital Church Movie Theater wto Matinee Movie Theater w/ Matinee Live Theater Social Hall/Civic Center School (Elementary) School (High) School (College) Fire Station (w/o beds)

Notes:

Unit

(B)

1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf

J:JUmps 1,000 sf .1,000sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf

stall

acres 1,000 sf acres court berth

1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf

bed

1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf screens 1,000 sf 1,000 sf student student

·student 1,000 sf

Trip Rate

(C)

167.60 91.70 70.70 54.50 42.00

168.56 37.50

130.34 496.12 636.30 108.00

6.60 17.14 2.10 31.04 2.96

--·

108.19 54.00

68.90 1.21

79.26 16.78 9.11

78.06 153.33 11.40 11.40

1.02 1.40 1.60

5.40

Trip length

(D)

1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.40 1.90 4.70 3.00 1.60 1.60 2.50

4.30 4.30 4.30

4.30 4.30

4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60

2.00 5.10 3.90

3.43 2.20

1.90 1.90 1.90 4.30 7.30

2.60

(1 1 Trip characteristics data is documented in Tables 8, 9, and 11.

Total Trip

Length (E)

2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.90 2.40 5.20 3.50 2.10 2.10 3.00

4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80

5.10 5.10 5.10 5.10

2.50 5.60 4.40 3.93 2.70 2.40 2.40 2.40 4.80 7.80 3.10

Percent

New Trips

(F)

48% 59% 64% 69% 75% 23% 79% 73% 59% 29% 69%

90% 94% 90% 90% 94%

35% 85%

92% 85%

73% 77% 90%

87% 87%

100% 100%

88% 90% 90% 89%

Total Impact Cost (G)

$7,162 $5,100 $4,502 $3,938 $3,959 $3,857 $7,291

$14,948 $24,525 $15,461

$9,756

$1,338 $3,628

$426 $6,290

$627

$9,121 $11,057 $15,269

$248 _ ..

$6,060 $3.451 $1,674

$12,198 $15,368

$1,134 $1,134

$89 $284 $550 $654

Annual Gas Tax (H)

$225 $158 $138 $120 $116 $118 $196 $424 $783 $493 $285

$36 $98 $12

$17-1 $17

$246 $298 $412

$7

$184 $92 $46

' $340 $459

$35 $35 $3 $8

$14 $19

(2) Service station m·ust have kiosk of less than 1000 square feet: otherwise it is classified as a convenience store. (3) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th, 5th and 6th Edition. (41 For Shopping Center (Retail), Specially Retail (Retail), and Automotive Care Center (General Industrial) land uses,

the traffic impact fee shall be assessed based on gross leasable area where different from gross floor area.

Source: Tindale-Oiiver and Associates, Inc. 1998


Gas Tax

Credit (I)

$3,177 $2,233 $1,949 $1,687 $1,640 $1,670 $2,765 $5,977

$11,033 $6,955

$4,0~

$512 $1,388

$163 $2,407

$240

$3,466 $4,202 $5,802

$94

$2,596 $1,299

$648.

$4,790 $6,465

$491 $491 $39

$109 $202 $267

Net Impact

Fee

(J)

$3.985 $2,866 $2,553 $2.251 $2,319 $2,187 $4,526 $8,970

$13,492 $8,506 $5,743

-

$826 $2,240

$263 $3.884

$387

$5,655 $6,855 $9,467

$154

$3,464 $2,152 $1,027 $7,408 $8,903

$643 $643 $51

$175 $349 $387

Current Percent Fee {1 1 Difference

(K) (l)

$3,193 25% $1,818 58%_ $2,111 21% $2,356 -4% $2,677 -13% $2,553 -14% $5,227 -13% $3,856 133% $5,452 147% $7,602 12% $2,073 177%

$653 26% $1.574 42%

$208 26% $2,599 49%

$165 134%

$3,004 88% $3,787 81% $5,799 63%

$102 51%

$2,413 44% $733 194% $625 64%

$6,547 13% $12,904 -31%

$625 JOfo

$625 3% $45 13% $45 289% $45 675%

$385 1%

("!·\lt..lr\OI\ICD\r\A,...C\IUncr-rrC"'"-

::1'1 ::1'1

Tindale-OiivP.r Anrf A~c:nri::ti~Dc::

Table 26 - Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and No Discount Factor

Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $837,860 Local Trip Length: $per gallon to capital: $0.118 Capacity per lane: 8,000 Interstate Mileage '/.: Facility life (years): 25 Fuel efficiency: 16.91 Across-the-Board Adjustment: Interest rate: 5.0'!. Effective days per year: 365

Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Code Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee (1) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) Residential; 210 Single Family du 9.57 5.70 6.20 100% $2,857 $76' $1.065 $1,792 $1,513 230 Accessory Single-Family du 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% $1,565 $42 $589 $976 $871 2.30 MuHI-Famlty_ du 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% $1.565 $42 $589 $976 $871 240 Mobile Home du 4.81 4.30 4.80 100% $1,083 $29 $414 $669 $815 310 Hotel room 8.23 6.30 6.80 66% $1,792 $47 $663 $1,129 $1,331 320 Motel room 5.63 4.30 4.80 77% $976 $26 $373 $603 $1,559 620 Nursing Home bed 2.61 2.60 3.10 89% $316 $9 $129 $187 $441 252 ACLF bed 2.15 3.10 3.60 72% $251 $7 $100 $151 $326

Offlce and Financial.· 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf 36.13 5.20 5.70 87% $8,559 $228 $3,216 $5,344 $2,876 911 Bank 1,000 sf 156.48 2.40 2.90 47% $9,243 $272 $3,828 $5,415 $6,583 912 Bank w/Drive-ln 1,000 sf 265.21 2.40 2.90 47% $15,666 $460 $6,488 $9,178 $10,088 710 Office under 10,000GSF 1,000 sf 22.64 4.60 5.10 92% $5,017 $135 $1,907 $3,111 $2,053 710 Office over 10,000 GSF 1,000 sf 13.27 4.60 5.10 92%

-· $2,941

--$79 ~1.118

-$1,823 $1,373

Industrial.· 140 Manufacturing 1,1)00sf 3.82 4.60 5.10 92% $847 $23 $322 $525 $348 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf 4.88 4.60 5.10 92% $1,081 $29 $411 $671 $348 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.50 4.60 5.10 92% $554 $15 $211 $343 $348 110 General Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.60 5.10 92% $1,545 $42 $587 $958 $385 N/A Concrete Plant acre 15.60 4.60 5.10 92% $3.457 $93 $1,314 $2,143 $1,112 N/A Sand Mining acre 2.00 4.60 5.10 92% $443 $12 $168 $275 $143 N/A C!Jillra~or Trades .. ---~ ~.000 sf_ -

20.00 4.60 5.10 81% $3,902 $105 $1,483 $2,419 $2.309

0.5 o•t. 0%

Percent Difference

(L)

18% 12% 12%

·18% -15% -61% -58% -54%

86% -18%

-9% 52% 33%

51% 93% -1%

149% 93% 92% 5%

0'1 -....!


Table 26 -Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and No Discount Factor

ITE Code

820 820 820

820 820 844 841 831 832

834 850 840.

847 853

NIA ._{19_(1_

430 492 412 491

_420

732 590 730 571

565 610 NIA 560 444 520 530

540 NIA

Total Percent Total Annual Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax (A) (B) (C) (0) (E) (F) (G) (H) Retail:

Retail under 10,000 GSF 1.000sf 167.60 1.70 2.20 48% $7,162 $225 Retaft 10,001 to 50,000 GSF 1.000 sf 91.7.0 1.80 2.30 59% $5,100 $158 Retai150,001 to 100,000 GSF 1,000sf 70.70 1.90 2.40 64% $4,502 $138 Retail100,001 to 200,000 GSF 1,000 sf 54.50 2.00 2.50 69% $3,938 $120 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1,000sf 42.00 2.40 2.90 75% $3,959 $116 Gas Station pumps 168.56 1.90 2.40 23% $3,857 $118 New and Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 37.50 4.70 5.20 79% $7,291 $196 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 89.95 3.10 3.60 77% $11,244 $318 Restaurant 1,000 sf 130.34 3.00 3.50 73% $14,948 $424 Fast Food Restaurant 1,000 sf 496.12 1.60 2.10 59% $24,525 $783 Supermarket 1,000 sf 111.51 2.10 2.60 62% $7,603 $229 Auto Repair 1;000sf 37.60 3.60 4.10 72% $5,104 $141 Car Wash stall 108.00 2.50 3.00 69% $9,756 $285 C!invenience Store 1,000 sf 636.30 1.60 2.10 29% $15,461 $493 Conv. w/ gas and fast food pump 304.50 2.40 2.90 33% $12,629 $371 f'tJmilure~<>rl!__ _ _ _ 1,000 sf 5.06 6.10 6.60 54% $873 $23

Recreational.· Golf Course acres 6.60 4.30 4.80 90% $1,338 $36 Racquet Club 1,000 sf 17.14 4.30 4.80 94% $3,628 $98 Coun_tyPark acres 2.10 4.30 4.80 90% $426 $12 Tennis Court couil 31.04 4.30 4.80 90% $6,290 $171 ll.larinll_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ,_berth_ 2.96 4.30 4.80 94%

--$627 $17

Governmental: Post Office 1,000 sf 108.19 4.60 5.10 35% $9,121 $246 Library 1,000 sf 54.00 4.60 5.10 85% $11,057 $298 Government Office 1,000sf 68.90 4.60 5.10 92% $15,269 $412 Jail bed 1.21 4.60 5.10 85% $248 $7

Miscellaneous· Day care Center 1.000 sf 79.26 2.00 2.50 73% $6,060 $184 Hospital 1,000sf 16.78 5.10 5.60 77% $3,451 $92 Veterinary· Clinic t,OOO sf 32.80 2.00 2.50 70% $2,405 $73 Church 1,000 sf 9.11 3.90 4.40 90% $1,674 $46 Movie Theater w/ Matinee screens 153.33 2.20 2.70 87% $15,368 $459 School (Elementary) student 1.02 1.90 2.40 80% $81 $2 School (High) :student 1.40 4.30 4.80 90% $284 $8 Schoof (College) student 1.60 7.30 7.80 90% $550 $14 Fire Station ·(wlo beds) 1,000 sf 5.40 2.60 3.10 89%

-· $654

-$19

Noles: (1) Trip cllaracteristics data Is documented in Tables 8, 9. and 11. (2) Service st.allon must have kiosk of less than 1000 square feet; otherwise it is classified as a convenience store. (3) ITE =Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 41h, 5th and 6th Edition.

Gas Tax

Credit (I)

$3,177 $2,233 $1,949 $1,687 $1,640 $1,670 $2,765 $4,475 $5,977

$11,033 $3,226 .$1,992 $4,013 $6,955 $5,230

$324

$512 $1,388

$163 $2,407

$240

$3,466 $4,202 $5,802

$94

$2.596 $1,299 $1,030

$648 $6.465

$35 $109 $202 $267 --

(4) For Shopping Center (Retail). Specialty Retail (Retail), and Automotive Care Center (General Industria!) !and uses. the traffic impact fee shall be assessed based on gross leasable area where different from gross floor area.

Source: Tindale-Oiiver and Associates, Inc. 1998

Net Impact Current Percent

Fee Fee (1) Difference (J) (K) (l)

$3,985 $3,193 25% $2,866 $1,818 58% $2,553 $2.111 21% $2.251 $2.359 -5% $2,319 $2,677 -13% $2,187 $2,553 -14% $4,526 $5,227 -13% $6,768 $3,856 76% $8,970 $3,856 133%

$13,492 $5,452 147% $4,376 N/A N/A $3,111 N/A N/A $5,743 $2,073 177% $8,506 $7,602 12% $7,398 N/A N/A

$549 N/A N/A

$826 N/A N/A $2,240 $1,574 42%

$263 N/A N/A $3,884 $2,599 49%

$387 $165 134%

$5,655 $3,004 BB% $6,855 $3,787 81% $9,467 $5,799 63%

$154 $102 51%

$3,464 $2,413 44% $2,152 $733 194% $1,374 N/A N/A $1,027 $625 64% $8,903 $12,904 -31%

$46 $45 2% $175 $45 289% $349 $45 675% $387 $385 1% -

~

G:INORIVERIDOC~IIMPFFFSS\'

Table 26a - Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and 15% Discount Factor

ITE

Fee Schedule Assumptions: GuollneT811: S per gallon to c:apllal: Faclllllflll• (ll .. ra): lnteraat rata:

$0.118 25

5.0%

Trip

Unit Conotrucllon Cost: Capacity per lano: Fuol oNicloncy: Erfectlvo day• per year:

Total Percent Trip Trip Now

$837,880 Local Trip Length: 8,000 lnterotata Mllaago %: 18.111 Acrooa-tha-Bo.,d Adjuotmant:

388 Total Annual Gao Net

Impact Goo Tax lmpoel Current

0.5 0%

15%

Percent-Coda land Uae Unll

(8) Rata Length Length Tripe Cool Tax Credit Fee Faa (1) OINoreneo

0'\ -...)

_.

(A)

Residential: 210 Single Famlty 230 Accessory Slllllle-FamiiY 230 MuH~FamUv 240 Mobile Home 310 Hotel 320 Motel 620 Nursing_ Home 252 AC_l,F __________

Office and Financial: 720 Medical Olfoce 911 Bank 912 Bank w/Orlve-ln 710 Ofllea under·10,000GSF 710 orne• ov.., 10.000 csr

Industrial: 140 Manufacturing 150 Warehouse 151 Mini-Warehouse 110 Generallndus1rlal N/A Concrete Plant N/A Sand Milling


du du du du

room room

bed bed

-· -- -------

1,000af 1,000 sf 1,000sf 1,000af 1,000of

1,000 af I,OOOsf 1,000af 1,000sf

acre acre

(C) (D) (E) (F)

9.!57 5.70 6.20 100% 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% 5.86 5.10 5.60 100% 4.61 4.30 4.80 100% 8.23 6.30 6.60 66% 5.63 4.30 4.80 77% 2.61 2.60 3.10 69%

- 2.15 3.10 3.60 72%

36.13 5.20 5.70 67% 156.48 2.40 2.90 H% 265.21 2.40 2.90 47% ~2.§4 _o4.§0 5.10 92% 13.27 4.60 0.10 112%

3.82 4·60 5.10 92% 4.88 ~.60 5.10 92% 2.50 4.80 5.10 92% 8.97 4.60 5.10 92%

15.60 4.60 5.10 92% 2.00 4.60 -- ~ 92%

(G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (l)

$2,857 $76 $1,065 $1,523 $1,513 1% $1,565 $42 $589 $830 $871 -5% $1,565 $42 $589 $630 $671 -5% $1,063 $29 $414 $566 $815 -30% $1,792 $47 $663 $960 $1,331 ·26% $976 $26 $373 $512 $1,559 -67%

$316 $9 $129 $159 $441 -64% - _$2_!;1 $7 $100 $129 $326 -61%

$6,559 $228 $3,216 $4,542 $2 876 58% $9,243 $272 $3,826 $4,603 $6,583 -30% $15,866 $460 $6,488 $7,601 $10,088 -23°Ao $5,017 $135 $1 907 $2644 $2053 29% $2,1141 $711 S1,ttll Sl,eeo $1,373 1J%

$847 $23 $322 $4~8 $3~8 28% $1,081 $29 $411 $570 $348 64%

$554 $15 $211 $292 •$348 -16% $1,545 $42 $587· $814 $365 111% $3,457 $93 $1,314 $1,822 $1,112 64%

$443 $12 $168 $234 $143 63% - -·

G INOI~IV(n\DOC!;IIMI'I 1 rssv~

Cf\ -....1 . N

Table 26a -Expanded Land Use Schedule, Updated Trip Characteristics, Updated Cost and Credit and 15% Discount Factor

Total Percent Total Annual Gas ITE

Trip Trip Trip Now Impact Gas Tu Code landU .. Unit Rate length Length Trlpo Coot lox Credit

(A) (B) (C) (0) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Retail: 820 Retail under 10,000 GSF 1,000 Sf 167.60 1.70 2.20 ~8% $7,162 $225 $3,177 820 Retail10,001 to 50,000 GSF 1,000 sl 91.70 1.80 2.30 59% $5,100 $156 $2,233 820 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 GSF 1,000 sf 70.70 1.90 2.40 64% $4,502 $138 $1.949 820 Retail100,001 to 200.000 GSF 1,000 sf 54.50 2.00 2.50 69% $3,938 $120 $1,687 820 Retail over 200,000 GSF 1,000 sf ~2.00 2.40 2.90 75% $3,959 $116 $1,640 ~· Gas Statton fueling position 168.56 1.90 2.~0 23% $3,657 $118 $1,670 ~1 New and Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 37.50 4.70 5.20 79% $7,291 $196 $2,765 831 Oualltv Restaurant 1,000 sf 89.95 3.10 3.60 77% $11,24~ $316 $4,475 832 Restaurant 1.000sf 130.34 3.00 3.50 73% $14,946 $424 $5,977 834 F aot rood Reot11uranl 1,000 ., 4111112 160 2 10 00% $24 520 $7HJ $11,0J:t 850 i Supermarket 1,000 st 111.51 2.10 2.60 62% $7,603 $229 $3,226 640 Auto Repair 1,000sl 37.60 3.60 4.10 72% $5,104 $141 $1,992 647 Car Wash a tall 108.00 2.50 3.00 69% $9,756 $285 $~.013 853 Convenience Slortt 1,000st 836.30 1.60 2.10 29% $15,461 $~93 $6,955 N/A Conv. wl gas and fast. food tueling posHior 304.50 2.40 2.90 33% $12,629 $371 $5,230 890 Furniture Store 1,000sf 5.06 8.10 6.60 54% $873 $23 $324 Recreational.· 430 Golf Course acres 6.60 4.30 4.60 90% $1;338 $36 $512 492 Racquet Club 1,000 ., 17.14 4.30 4.60 94% $3,828 $96 $1,388 412 County Park acres 2.10 4.30 4.80 90% $~26 $12 $163 491 Tennis Court court 31.04 4.30 4.80 90% $6,290 $171 $2.407 420 Marina berth 2.96 4.30 4.80 94% $627 $17 $240 Governmental.· 732 Post Otftce 1,000 st 108.19 4.60 5.10 35 Vo $9,121 $246 $3,466 590 Library 1.000 sf 54.00 4.60 5.10 85'% $11,057 $296 $4.202 730 Government Office 1,000 st 68.90 4.60 5 10 92% $15,269 $412 $5,802 571 Jail bed - _11_1

-4.60 5.10 8~- $248 $1 S94 Miscellaneous·

565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 79.26 200 2 50 73% $6,060 S11l4 $2,!,~Jfj 610 Hosprlal 1,000 st 16.78 5.10 5.60 71% $3,451 $92 S1,2H9 N/A Veterinary Clinic 1,000 st 32.80 2.00 2.50 70% $2,405 $73 $1,030 560 Church 1,000 ,, 9.11 3.90 4.40 90% $1,674 $40 $648 444 Movie T healer w/ Mallnee screens 153.33 2 20 2.70 87% $15,368 $459 $6,465 520 School (Elementary) student 1.02 1.90 2.40 80% $81 $2 $35 530 School (High) student 1.40 4.30 4.80 90% $284 $8 $109 540 School tColleual aludent 1.60 7 30 7.60 90% $550 $14 $202 N/A Fire Slalioil (w/o beds) 1.000 st 5.40 2.60 3.10 89% --- _$~~--!1!1 . - - $267

Notes. (1) Trip characteristics data Is documented In Tablet il. 9, and 11 (2) Service staliot) must have kiosk of less than 1000 square teet; otherwise Ills claosilied as a convenience store (3) ITE = lnslttule of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. 4th, 5th and 81h Edition (4) For Shopping Center (RetaH). Specially RelaH (R!!tad), and Automotive Care Center (General lnduolrlal) land uoes. the traffic Impact lee shall be assessed based on gross leasable area where different from gross noor area

Source: Tlndale-Oiiver and Associates. Inc. 1998

lindale. Oliver and Associates

Not Impact Current Percent

Foe Fee (1) Difference (J) _(K} (l)

$3,387 $3,193 6%1 $2,438 $1,818 J.4%1 $2,170 $2,111 3%' $1,913 $2,359 -19%' $1,971 $2,677 -26%, $1,659 $2,553 -27% $3,647 $5,227 -26% $5,753 $3,856 49% $7,625 $3,856 96%

$11,40R $!1,452 110% $3,720 N/A N/A $2,645 NIA N/A $4,682 $2,073 135% $7,230 $7,602 -5% $6;289 NIA NIA

$467 N/A NIA

$702 N/A N/A $1,904 $1,574 21%

$223 N/A N/A $3,301 $2,599 27%

$329 ' $165 99%

$4,807 $3,004 60% $5,827 $3,767 54% $8,047 $5,799 39%

$131 $102 28%

$2.1144 $2,413 22% $1,1)29 $733 150% $1,168 NIA N/A

SIJ73 $825 40% $7,508 $12.904 -41%

$39 $45 -13% $149 $45 231% $297 $45 5511% $329 $385 -15% -

G INOHIVFR\DOCS\IMI'III SSI~

Summary

The Indian River County transportation impact fee has been updated to consider:

• recommended new land use categories; • updated trip characteristics, including the use of local studies; • updated cost and credit components; and • the inclusion of the local trip length in the credit calculations.

Tinda/e-0/iver and Associates, Inc. September 30, 1998 G:IINDRJVERIFINLTC. WPD 68


' t

-:indian river -,..,. metropolitan roadway impact final report · 9/30/1998 · with impact fees....

Documents