Post on 22-May-2018
transcript
Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Indian River County Community Development Dept. – Planning Division
1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960
ph (772) 226-1237
September 26, 2014
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 i Impact Fee Update Study
Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2
Legal Standard Overview ........................................................................................... 3
Measurement of Level-of-Service for Impact Fee Calculation Purposes .................. 6
Implementation Issues ............................................................................................... 7
II. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES .................................................................................... 12
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 12
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 15
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 16
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 18
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 19
Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost ...................................................................... 22
Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................ 22
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 24
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 25
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .......................................... 25
III. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ....................................................................................... 27
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 28
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 28
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 29
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 29
Net Solid Waste Impact Cost ..................................................................................... 31
Calculated Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................. 31
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 33
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 33
Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .......................................... 33
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 ii Impact Fee Update Study
IV. PUBLIC BUILDINGS ............................................................................................... 35
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 35
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 38
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 38
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 40
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 41
Net Public Buildings Impact Cost ............................................................................... 43
Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule ...................................................... 43
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 45
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 47
Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ................................................... 49
V. LIBRARIES ............................................................................................................. 51
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 51
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 54
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 54
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 57
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 58
Net Library Facilities Impact Cost .............................................................................. 59
Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ..................................................... 60
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 62
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 63
Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .................................................. 63
VI. EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 65
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 65
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 68
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 68
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 70
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 71
Net Emergency Services Impact Cost ........................................................................ 74
Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule ............................................... 75
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 iii Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 77
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 79
Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ............................................ 79
VII. LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................. 81
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 81
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 83
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 83
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 85
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 86
Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost ............................................................................ 86
Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule ................................................... 86
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 88
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 88
Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ................................................ 88
VIII. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES ......................................................................... 90
Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities .............................................................. 90
Service Area and Population ...................................................................................... 92
Level-of-Service .......................................................................................................... 92
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 95
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 98
Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost ........................................................... 101
Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ................................. 102
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 102
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 103
Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ............................... 104
IX. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 106
Demand Component .................................................................................................. 108
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 110
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 116
Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ....................................................... 119
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 123
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 iv Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 126
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison .................................................... 126
X. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ..................................................................................... 128
Facility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 128
Service Area and Enrollment ..................................................................................... 129
Facility Service Delivery ............................................................................................. 130
Cost Component ........................................................................................................ 131
Credit Component ...................................................................................................... 137
Net Impact Cost per Student ..................................................................................... 140
Student Generation Rate ........................................................................................... 141
Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ............................................. 142
Affordable Growth Strategy ....................................................................................... 142
Staff Recommended Fee Rate ................................................................................... 144
Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison ........................................... 144
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Population
Appendix B: Transportation Impact Fee -- Demand Component Calculations
Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee -- Cost Component Calculations
Appendix D: Transportation Impact Fee -- Credit Component Calculations
Appendix E: Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Appendix F: Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for Correctional, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Government Buildings, Library, Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
Appendix G: Educational Facilities Impact Fee -- Supplemental Information
Appendix H: Administrative Fee
Appendix I: Master Fee Schedules (Full Calculated Fee Rates)
Appendix J: Master Fee Schedules (Affordable Growth Fee Rates)
Appendix K: Master Fee Schedules (Staff Recommended Fee Rates)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 1 Impact Fee Update Study
I. Introduction In response to high growth levels and the need to provide infrastructure to support this growth, Indian River County (IRC) implemented a Transportation Impact Fee in 1986. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees in eight more program areas, including:
Correctional Facilities Solid Waste Facilities Public Buildings Library Facilities Emergency Services Law Enforcement Educational Facilities Parks & Recreation Facilities
The technical studies for all program areas were updated in 2007; however, these technical studies were not adopted. Of the nine program areas, only the transportation impact fee was later updated substantially in 2009 by an internally generated County update using data from the 2005 and 2007 studies, resulting in a fee reduction for almost all the land uses. The eight non-transportation program fees were slightly modified in the 2009 update. Since then, the County suspended the collection of five impact fee types to promote construction during the economic downturn, and more recently extended suspension of correctional facilities, solid waste, and public buildings impact fees. Indian River County has retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to prepare an update study to reflect changes to the cost, credit, and demand components since the last study. In addition, the study includes “affordable growth” calculations, which take into account the existing development’s ability to absorb new growth and calculates the level of possible policy discounts without reducing the level of service. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of updated impact fees. Given that the updated fees under the Affordable Growth method indicated a decrease for almost all of the non-residential fee categories, which is consistent with the County’s economic development goals, the BOCC adopted the updated fees for non-residential land uses on April 22, 2014. At that time, calculations for residential land uses were not yet finalized due to considerations for expanding the residential land use categories and to allow for some time to obtain the input of the School Board for the educational facilities impact fee. This
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 2 Impact Fee Update Study
technical report includes the final calculations for residential land uses in addition to non-residential land uses. It should be noted that figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. In fact, in addition to using the affordable growth fees, the “Staff Recommended Fees” shown in Appendix K include policy discounts proposed by the Indian River County staff for certain program areas, primarily based on a consideration of future capital needs. More specifically, these discounts include the following:
Use of full calculated fees for emergency services program area; Application of a 50-percent reduction to affordable growth scenario for public
buildings impact fees for all land uses; Application of a 25-percent reduction to affordable growth scenario for parks and
recreation facilities impact fees for all land uses; and Suspension of the library impact fees.
Methodology The methodology used to update the County’s impact fee program is a consumption-based impact fee methodology, which is used throughout Florida. This methodology was also used in preparing the 2004 and 2005 technical reports for Indian River County and is the basis for the current adopted fees. A consumption-based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit of land use in the case of all impact fee program areas with the exception of educational facilities and transportation. In the case of educational facilities, student generation rate is used and in the case of transportation, vehicle-miles of travel is used. A consumption-based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. Cost estimates reflect the current value of capital assets for each program area (i.e., the cost to buy or build the same asset today). In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for contributions of the new development toward any capacity expansion projects through other revenue sources. Contributions used to calculate the credit component include estimates of future non-impact fee revenues generated by the new development that will be used toward
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 3 Impact Fee Update Study
capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same service. Legal Standard Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980’s. Generally speaking, impact fees must comply with the “dual rational nexus” test, which requires that they:
Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and
Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through a list of capacity-adding projects included in the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan.
In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the “Florida Impact Fee Act,” which recognized impact fees as “an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction.” § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute – concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations – did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify procedural and methodological prerequisites, most of which were common to the practice already. More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the following:
HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard.
SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 4 Impact Fee Update Study
Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on “mobility fees,” which were completed in 2010.
HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar-for-dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. The payment must be reduced by the percentage share the project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the selected improvement (up to a maximum of 20% or to an amount specified by ordinance, whichever results in a higher credit). The courts have not yet taken up the issue of whether a local government may still charge an impact/mobility fee in lieu of proportionate share if the impact/mobility fee is higher that the calculated proportionate share contribution.
HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes, including:
1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density.
2. Adoption of an area-wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function.
3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system.
4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit.
5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non-vehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility.
6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or districts, or for affordable or workforce housing.
Also, under HB 319, a mobility fee funding system expressly must comply with the dual rational nexus test applicable to traditional impact fees. Furthermore, any mobility fee revenues collected must be used to implement the local government’s plan, which served
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 5 Impact Fee Update Study
as the basis for the fee. Finally, under HB 319, an alternative mobility system, that is not mobility fee-based, must not impose upon new development any responsibility for funding an existing transportation deficiency. At this time, Indian River County is not interested in implementing a mobility fee primarily due to the suburban nature of the county. Instead, the County is using the affordable growth approach to reduce fees for non-residential land uses to accomplish its economic development goals. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards applicable here. Impact Fee Definition
An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure
capacity consumed by new development. The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of
projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories.
Impact Fee vs. Tax
An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established as a condition for improving property and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue, as are taxes.
Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity
created by new development. Authority to Impose Impact Fees in Indian River County
IRC is a non-charter county. o A non-charter county derives its authority from the state constitution and
statutory sources; o A non-charter county may adopt ordinances that are not inconsistent with
general law; and o A non-charter county may adopt countywide ordinances that do not conflict
with municipal ordinances.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 6 Impact Fee Update Study
The fiscal burden of providing countywide services must be borne by property owners in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county.
Measurement of Level-of-Service for Impact Fee Calculation Purposes Florida law requires that there be a “reasonable connection” or “rational nexus” between the demand for new facilities created by development and the amount of the impact fees charged; and, that there be a “reasonable connection” or “rational nexus” between the amount of the fees charged and provision of new facilities to those paying the fees. This test, roughly speaking, assures that new growth is paying for its facilities, not existing needs, and that existing development is not shouldering the burdens created by new growth. In part to meet these criteria, the practice in Florida, when calculating impact fees, is to base impact fee amounts for new growth on either the level of service (LOS) being provided to existing development, which measures the investment made by the existing development or the adopted LOS standard that shows the future commitment levels of a community, whichever is lower. Although the LOS measure (or “units,” so to speak) in the impact fee calculation tends to be based on a single variable, such as acres of land for parks, number of student stations per student for educational facilities, etc., the true measure of level of service delivered and the demand created by new development includes the value of all related capital assets that must be in place to deliver the infrastructure. For example, in the case of educational facilities, the School District’s current adopted LOS standard is one permanent student station for each student. For impact fee calculation purposes, the value of the station used in the calculations includes all capital assets needed countywide to provide educational services, such as buildings, land, furniture/fixture/equipment, transportation and ancillary facilities, etc. In other words, to provide the student station, the school district must also provide land, furniture, buses, and other infrastructure. Or, for example, a park includes not only park land, but also recreational facilities, such as baseball/softball fields, tennis courts, picnic tables, etc. Impact fee calculations for County parks, therefore, have included the value of both the land and recreational facilities that are owned and provided by the County to calculate a cost per acre figure to reflect both land and improvement costs for each acre of parks to be built with impact fee revenues. In the 2014 fee update, the existing achieved LOS was maintained to reach the figure of asset value per resident. This LOS will be achieved through the purchase of park land, first, and the subsequent improvement of those lands once they are acquired and sufficient impact
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 7 Impact Fee Update Study
fee revenues collected. Over time, the park land and park improvement demanded by new development are provided, based on the County’s ongoing capital improvements planning process. During this process, the dollar amount of investment per person will remain constant as land is converted to a park through the construction of recreational facilities. In summary, a consumption based impact fee is calculated as the value of all related capital assets per population rather than a single component of these assets (such as park land, fire station, law enforcement officers, etc. per population). The following provides the LOS used in the calculations of impact fee levels for each program. Dollar amounts indicated are for additional capital assets.
Correctional Facilities: $186 per functional resident. Educational Facilities: 1 permanent station per student, which includes an average
of 148 permanent net square footage per student station and $24,114 of capital investment per student.
Emergency Services: $201 per functional resident. Law Enforcement: $274 per functional resident. Libraries: $310 per weighted resident. Parks and Recreational Facilities: $836 per weighted resident. Public Buildings: $480 per functional resident. Solid Waste: $64 per weighted resident. Transportation: The average level of service for impact fee calculations for Indian
River County is “D” during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions for all roadways in the county. This suggests that some roads will operate above LOS D while others will operate below LOS D.
Implementation Issues This section addresses several considerations as part of the implementation of the impact fee program.
Fee Calculations
Calculated impact fees represent a land use’s proportionate impact on infrastructure over the life of that land use. For example, a home is likely to go through cycles where at times it houses one or two people, such as a young couple without children
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 8 Impact Fee Update Study
or a retired couple, etc. and at other times, a family with several children. The fees are calculated based on the average impact (occupancy) of a home or another land use over its lifetime.
In the case of tiered fees, such as single family residential, office and retail, a different fee for each tier is calculated to reflect the incremental increase in impact on facilities among land uses. This tiered approach increases the fairness and equity among land uses by differentiating the impact of different size buildings on a per unit basis. Any given increase in building size should be charged additional impact fees in order to reflect additional impact on facilities, if applicable, in order to maintain level of service standards and to ensure that existing residents and businesses are not unfairly bearing the burden of new growth.
Timing of Fee Payments
Impact fees are typically collected at the building permit stage, which is also the practice used by Indian River County. This allows the County to plan for and build infrastructure needed to timely serve new growth and to effectively coordinate impact fee collections between the County and the municipalities.
Fee Schedule Updates Impact fee calculations should be updated every three to five years to ensure the
fees are based on current data. This approach is useful in recognizing more permanent changes and trends as opposed to varying the fee based on short-term fluctuations.
Alternative Studies/Individual Assessments
The County’s impact fee ordinance currently outlines a process for alternative studies (individual assessments) for determining traffic impact fees when a proposed land use is not expressly included in the fee schedule. The primary considerations for alternative studies (individual assessments) include the following:
o The focus of the alternative studies (individual assessments) is the demand component of the land use, which is the subject of the alternative study. Cost and credit components are calculated based on countywide facilities and investment levels and are not the subject of an alternative study.
o The study should clearly identify the differences in the demand component of the actual use and the closest land use category in the fee schedule in order to verify the actual impacts of the proposed land use over the life of
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 9 Impact Fee Update Study
the use. For example, if not included in the fee schedule, a retirement community may have different demand characteristics than the average single family subdivision. However, this community must be restricted (with the County as a party to or having confirmed that restriction) for a different fee to be calculated for a retirement community. Without such restriction, the retirement community, in this example, could change to other residential uses over time, creating a different impact on the community.
o Land uses included in the fee schedule table have impacts on public facilities that have been widely documented for impact fee purposes. For example, in the case of traffic impact fees, there is a large sample of trip characteristics data on single family subdivisions located in Florida. Therefore, an alternative study (individual assessment) for a specific single family subdivision is not needed or appropriate to establish the level of impact single family homes have on roads. Trip characteristics data already include a range of travel characteristics and eliminate outliers prior to using an average travel demand representative of the land use category. This approach verifies that there is a “reasonable connection” or “nexus” between the impacts of each listed land use and the calculated fees.
o For all program areas, the demand components (measured in terms of persons per unit or students per unit for categories other than transportation) should be studied when either the proposed land use is not listed or the applicant demonstrates that the impacts of the proposed use are significantly different than those captured in the study. The current data that support the non-transportation impact fees are based on Census data for Indian River County or student addresses matched with the land use type from the Indian River County Property Appraiser database for residential land uses. These data are representative of average local development and are the most current data available. As mentioned previously, a study would be appropriate only when the development type is completely different than the land uses included in the fee schedule and this difference can be maintained over the life of the development due to its nature or through legal restrictions.
o Individual assessments should be generally consistent with the methodology used in this study.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 10 Impact Fee Update Study
Portability
Impact fees are attached to the project property and are calculated to mitigate the land use’s proportionate impact on County facilities. Once that land use is permitted, the County will provide needed facilities as required by its own ordinances. If a land use is later proposed that has a greater impact on County facilities than did the previously approved land use, then, of course, impact fees for the new land use would be limited to an amount that simply reflects the increased impact. However, the question frequently arises of whether impact fees should be returned (in cash or as “portable” credits, for example) if the intensity of a land use is reduced or terminated in the future. “Portability,” some argue, would allow the credit associated with tearing down a building to be used for another parcel. However, none of the jurisdictions we work with allow for the portability of impact fees that we are aware of, due to a number of reasons. First, local governments plan for capital project funding and provide infrastructure based on development in an area. As part of that process, impact fee revenues are programmed and spent for the construction of necessary infrastructure in the same district as the proposed use. Once the applicant has moved forward with its development, so too does the County with the development’s needed infrastructure for that property in that area of the County. Once these fees are committed for use to serve a proposed development, they cannot be “uncommitted,” and, of course, previously-built and contracted infrastructure improvements cannot be “ported” to new locations or benefit districts. Second, if the County “refunded” fees to properties that reduce or eliminate their impacts, those “refunds” (having now been committed to meet the needs of the initial land use) would necessarily redirect impact fees paid by others or general fund sources, creating a misallocation of burden between existing development and new growth. Third, during the typical construction timeframe, running from building permit issuance to certificate of occupancy, impact fees paid by a developer will not have been committed and spent by the County. Therefore, if a proposed land use pays
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 11 Impact Fee Update Study
impact fees (at building permit) but never comes to fruition (i.e., fails to receive a certificate of occupancy) then impact fees paid by the applicant can be safely returned without disrupting the County’s CIP and budgeting process or unfairly shifting costs to existing development or other fee payers. This policy, of course, should be used only during this limited time and should be tied to the termination of issued building permits to reflect the fact that the development (and therefore the need for new infrastructure capacity) will not occur. Finally, it should be noted that the payment of impact fees on a given parcel relieves future owners or developers of that parcel from the need to pay fees for those impacts in the future, which, presumably, is reflected in the value of the parcel, even if there is a subsequent change of use. In this sense, the individual’s investment in impact fees can be “recouped,” so to speak in the value added to the parcel.
This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements. Although the Florida courts have yet to expressly address the methodology underpinning the Affordable Growth Strategy, this aspect of the report is based on the long-standing legal standards described in this section. The technical report also documents the methodology components for each of the impact fee areas in the following sections, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area, level-of-service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 12 Impact Fee Update Study
II. Correctional Facilities Correctional facility impact fees are used to fund capital construction and expansion of services related to land, facilities, and capital equipment required to support the additional correctional facility demand created by new growth. This section presents the results of the correctional facility impact fee update study for the County and will serve as the technical support document for the updated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated with the development of the correctional facilities impact fee. These include:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this section, with the result being the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory The correctional facilities inventory includes the County’s jails and other related facilities that are primarily for the provision of corrections and does not include any of the buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by the County, Indian River County has a total of 258,000 square feet of correctional facility-related space. This includes the square footage of all four phases of the Correctional Facility as well as other related buildings, such as the guardhouses, warehouse visitation building, and maintenance shop. Table 1 presents a
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 13 Impact Fee Update Study
summary of the correctional facilities land and building inventory, including a total land value of $1.8 million and a total building value of $63 million. As previously mentioned, these values do not include building space or land associated with other County departments. The building value per square foot is estimated based on research on recently built correctional facilities, discussions and information from architectural and construction companies, and the insurance values of the existing correctional facilities in Indian River County. This value is estimated at $250 per square foot for correctional facilities and $125 per square foot for the other ancillary facilities included in the inventory. Appendix F provides further detail on the building cost estimates. The land value for correctional facilities is estimated at $50,000 per acre based on an analysis of vacant land values and parcels sold in the County over the last three years as well as the value of land where the current facilities are located (see Appendix F).
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
14
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e II-
1 Co
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
s Lan
d an
d Bu
ildin
g In
vent
ory
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Num
ber o
f acr
es m
ultip
lied
by th
e la
nd v
alue
per
acr
e (It
em 9
) (3
) Sq
uare
feet
mul
tiplie
d by
$25
0 in
the
case
of c
orre
ctio
nal f
acili
ties a
nd $
125
in th
e ca
se o
f misc
ella
neou
s bui
ldin
gs
(4)
Sum
of l
and
and
build
ing
valu
e (5
) Si
nce
the
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ty a
nd D
eten
tion
Com
plex
and
the
Sher
iff’s
Adm
inist
ratio
n Bu
ildin
g ar
e lo
cate
d at
the
sam
e sit
e, it
was
ass
umed
that
eac
h oc
cupi
es 5
0 pe
rcen
t of t
he si
te
(6)
Thes
e bu
ildin
gs a
re o
n th
e sa
me
parc
els a
s the
cor
rect
iona
l fac
ilitie
s (7
) O
pera
tiona
l cap
acity
bed
s is l
ower
due
to re
quire
men
ts to
kee
p in
mat
es se
para
te b
ased
on
thei
r cus
tody
leve
ls an
d cl
assif
icat
ions
(8
) To
tal b
uild
ing
valu
e (It
em 3
) div
ided
by
tota
l squ
are
foot
age
(9)
Estim
ated
bas
ed o
n va
cant
land
sale
s and
val
ues f
or p
arce
ls w
ith si
mila
r acr
eage
as w
ell a
s the
val
ue o
f the
cur
rent
inve
ntor
y
Faci
lity
Desc
riptio
nYe
ar
Acqu
ired/
Built
(1)
Num
ber o
f Ac
res(1
)
Squa
re
Feet
(1)
Num
ber
of B
eds(1
)
Land
Va
lue(2
)
Build
ing
Valu
e(3)
Tota
l Bu
ildin
g an
d La
nd V
alue
(4)
IRC
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ty P
hase
I(5)
1987
149
IRC
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ty P
hase
II(5
)19
8812
0
IRC
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ty P
hase
III
1991
10.0
014
2$5
00,0
00
IRC
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ty P
hase
IV20
0816
.70
181,
000
301
$835
,000
$45,
250,
000
$46,
085,
000
Mis
cella
neou
s Bui
ldin
gs o
n Si
te(6
) : G
uard
hous
en/
an/
a10
0n/
an/
a$1
2,50
0$1
2,50
0
Gua
rdho
use
n/a
n/a
100
n/a
n/a
$12,
500
$12,
500
Mai
nten
ance
Sho
p20
08n/
a10
0n/
an/
a$1
2,50
0$1
2,50
0
War
ehou
se V
isita
tion
2008
n/a
8,88
4n/
an/
a$1
,110
,500
$1,1
10,5
00
36.5
125
7,90
071
2$1
,825
,500
$63,
327,
000
$65,
152,
500
612
$246
$50,
000
$17,
919,
500
$16,
929,
000
67,7
169.
81$4
90,5
00
Tota
lO
pera
tiona
l Cap
acity
Bed
s(7)
Build
ing
Valu
e pe
r Squ
are
Foot
(8)
Land
Val
ue p
er A
cre(9
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 15 Impact Fee Update Study
In addition to land and building costs, the correctional facility services also require the use of necessary equipment and vehicles. As presented in Table II-2, the total vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $2.8 million based on information provided by the County.
Table II-2
Correctional Facilities Equipment and Vehicle Inventory
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Total value (Item 3) divided by units (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County
Service Area and Population The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current level of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County’s comprehensive planning process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. Weighted seasonal population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, correctional facilities is one of the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A.
Facility Description Units(1) Unit Value(2) Total Value(3)
Vehicles 19 $31,437 $597,295Vehicle/Radio Equipment 377 $1,172 $441,953Weapons 212 $464 $98,375Office Equipment 1 $31,784 $31,784Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 3 $19,966 $59,899Electronic Equipment 1 $1,077,078 $1,077,078Computer Equipment 20 $4,099 $81,977Miscellaneous Equipment 40 $9,806 $392,240Total Vehicle/Equipment Cost $2,780,601
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 16 Impact Fee Update Study
Level-of-Service As presented in Table II-3, there is a relation between population growth and the need for correctional facilities. Table II-3 presents the average daily jail population over the last ten years, along with the corresponding population. The relation between the population and jail population is used to establish a general trend in the need for correctional facility beds, and to account for random fluctuations, the three-year average number of bookings and population also is shown.
Table II-3 Service Area Population and Jail Bookings
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (2) Source: Indian River County
For planning purposes, the level-of-service (LOS) for correctional facility services is expressed in terms of jail facility beds per 1,000 residents. Using this method, Indian River County’s current achieved LOS is 4.14 beds per 1,000 residents. The County’s current adopted LOS standard for correctional facilities is 4.5 beds per 1,000 residents. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted standard, impact fee calculations for correctional facilities are based on the achieved LOS. As mentioned previously, for impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to capture workers, visitors, and residents to calculate the correctional facilities impact fee. In terms of functional population, the current LOS is 4.37 beds per 1,000 functional residents. Table II-4 summarizes the calculation of the county’s current LOS using both weighted seasonal population and functional population.
Population Bookings Population Bookings2003 126,869 473 n/a n/a n/a n/a2004 131,175 529 n/a n/a n/a n/a2005 134,573 543 130,872 515 n/a n/a2006 139,121 562 134,956 545 3.1% 5.8%2007 143,177 544 138,957 550 3.0% 0.9%2008 145,212 537 142,503 548 2.6% -0.4%2009 145,356 513 144,582 531 1.5% -3.1%2010 145,854 518 145,474 523 0.6% -1.5%2011 146,325 490 145,845 507 0.3% -3.1%2012 147,118 446 146,432 485 0.4% -4.3%
Year Population(1) Average Daily Jail Population(2)
3-Year Average Change in 3-Year Average
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 17 Impact Fee Update Study
Table II-4 Current Level-of-Service
(1) Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted seasonal population and Table A-8 for functional population (2) Source: Table II-1 (3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County; LOS standard for functional resident is calculated based on the ratio
of actual LOS in terms of weighted population versus functional population
Table II-5 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian River County and counties with correctional facility impact fees throughout the State of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for all entities because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these entities, as it was for Indian River County. In addition, the number of beds for all jurisdictions presented in the following table is based on gross beds. As presented, Indian River County’s LOS is within the range of these counties. Although the LOS is measured in terms of beds per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for each program area of infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for correctional facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes. It is important to note that the construction of correctional facilities tend to be “lumpy” and requires significant investments for large scales of construction. Indian River County completed its most recent expansion in 2008, which was funded primarily with sales tax revenues, and currently does not have any plans to build additional jails. In addition, the average daily occupancy of approximately 450 inmates represents 75 percent of the available functional capacity. As mentioned previously, correctional impact fees are not being collected in Indian River County at this time, and there appears to be sufficient
Weighted Population
Functional Population
Population(1) 148,001 140,186Number of Beds(2) 612 612LOS (beds per 1,000 residents)(3) 4.14 4.37Adopted LOS Standard (beds per 1,000 residents) (4) 4.50 4.75
ComponentYear 2013
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 18 Impact Fee Update Study
capacity available to accommodate additional inmates due to growth in the near future. This will be addressed further in the Affordable Growth section of the report.
Table II-5 Level-of-Service Comparison
(1) Source: Each jurisdiction’s respective Sheriff’s Office or Correctional Facilities
Department (2) Source: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (3) Gross beds (Item 1) divided by the 2012 permanent population (Item 2) divided
by 1,000 for each jurisdiction Cost Component Table II-6 provides the total asset value per resident. As shown, total asset value owned by the County amounts to $67.9 million or $111,000 per bed. The total impact cost per functional resident for correctional facilities in Indian River County is calculated by multiplying the total cost per bed by the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000, which is approximately $485 per functional resident.
JurisdictionGross Beds(1)
2012 Permanent
Population(2)
LOS (Beds per 1,000
Residents)(3)
Osceola County 873 280,866 3.11Brevard County 1,709 545,625 3.13St. Johns County 664 196,071 3.39Collier County 1,304 329,849 3.95Hernando County 818 173,104 4.73St. Lucie County 1,370 280,355 4.89Indian River County (Existing) 712 139,446 5.11Highlands County 504 98,955 5.09Citrus County 760 140,761 5.40Okeechobee County 232 39,805 5.83Charlotte County 960 163,357 5.88
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 19 Impact Fee Update Study
Table II-6 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table II-1 (2) Source: Table II-2 (3) Source: Table II-4 (4) Total asset value divided by the number of beds (Item 3) (5) Source: Table II-4 (6) Net asset value per bed (Item 4) multiplied by the current correctional facilities LOS (Item 5)
divided by 1,000 (7) Percent of building value, land value, and equipment value of the total asset value
Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the correctional facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for correctional services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on the capital expansion projects that were completed over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years. The average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. The County completed Phase IV expansion of the correctional facilities in 2008, which was funded with sales tax revenues. Since then, there have not been any capacity expansion
Description FigurePercent of
Total Value(7)
Building Value(1) $63,327,000 93.22% Land Value(1) $1,825,500 2.69% Equipment Value(2) $2,780,601 4.09%Total Asset Value $67,933,101 100.00% Number of Beds(3) 612Net Asset Value per Bed(4) $111,002 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) (5) 4.37Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(6) $485.08
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 20 Impact Fee Update Study
projects and there are none programmed for the next five years. This spending associated with a portion of the Phase IV expansion results in an average capital expansion expenditure of $2.3 million per year. Since the review of these expenditures spanned Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average functional population for this same period. As shown in Table II-7, the result is an average expansion cost of $16 per functional resident. It should be noted that although the optional sales tax will expire in 2019, this analysis assumes that, if the sales tax is not re-adopted, another revenue source will be used in the future.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
21
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e II-
7 Hi
stor
ical
Cap
ital E
xpan
sion
Expe
nditu
res(1
)
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Aver
age
capi
tal e
xpen
ditu
res o
ver t
he te
n-ye
ar p
erio
d (3
) So
urce
: App
endi
x A,
Tab
le A
-11
(4)
Aver
age
annu
al c
apita
l exp
ansio
n ex
pend
iture
s (Ite
m 2
) div
ided
by
aver
age
func
tiona
l pop
ulat
ion
(Item
3)
Desc
riptio
nFY
200
8FY
200
9FY
201
0FY
201
1FY
201
2FY
201
3FY
201
4FY
201
5FY
201
6FY
201
7To
tal
Opt
iona
l Sal
es T
ax R
even
ues
Hous
ing
Unit
E Co
nstr
uctio
n$2
2,75
6,00
6-
--
--
--
--
$22,
756,
006
Tota
l$2
2,75
6,00
6-
--
--
--
--
$22,
756,
006
$2,2
75,6
0114
0,30
1$1
6.22
Aver
age
Annu
al C
apita
l Exp
endi
ture
s(2)
Aver
age
Annu
al F
unct
iona
l Pop
ulat
ion(3
)
Expe
nditu
re p
er F
unct
iona
l Res
iden
t(4)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 22 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost The net correctional impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table II-8 summarizes the calculation of the net correctional facility cost per resident. The first section of Table II-8 identifies the total impact cost as $485 per functional resident for correctional facilities. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the impact fee. The credit calculation includes a total of approximately $299 per functional resident. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $186 per functional resident, which also represents the LOS for impact fee purposes.
Table II-8 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table II-6 (2) Source: Table II-7 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a
discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate was provided by Indian River County.
(4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3) Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table II-9 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table II-8.
Calculation Step Impact CostRevenue Credits
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) $485.08 -
Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(2) $16.22 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(3) $298.84
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $186.24 -
Revenue Credit
Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost
Note: gsf = gross square feet
- 2,500 sf or greater du 1.72 $320 $184 73220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.87 $162 $100 62240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $183 $123 48
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0.65 $121 $99 22320 Motel room 0.60 $112 $99 13
252/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $171 $107 59OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $212 $186 14Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $309 $186 66
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $415 $212 95912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $425 $174 144710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $186 $153 21760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $158 $81 95
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $93 $55 69150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $52 $42 23151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $11 $8 37152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.14 $26 $42 -38110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $129 $75 72n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $289 $165 75n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $37 $21 76
RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 gsf 2.37 $441 $312 41
944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 1.91 $356 $188 89841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $274 $186 47932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,263 $800 57934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $1,658 $863 92850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $382 $222 72942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $279 $70 298947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $162 $206 -21853 Convenience Market w/Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,086 $463 134890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $43 $35 22
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $201 $267 -24492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $575 $259 122412 County Park acre 0.20 $37 $17 117491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $589 $253 132420 Marina berth 0.19 $35 $17 105
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $302 $194 55590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $328 $188 74733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $259 $148 75
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $166 $110 50610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $255 $171 49640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $473 $178 165560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $95 $58 63444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,114 $925 20520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $11 $10 10522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $13 $10 30530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $15 $13 15
540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $19 $11 72n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 0.63 $117 $69 69
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 24 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy
In the case of correctional facilities, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between Fiscal Years 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $2.3 million per year of non-impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure II-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated in this report. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of correctional facilities impact fee calculated, if the historical levels of non-impact fee funding were to be continued, the County would not need any impact fee revenue to continue to maintain the current LOS.
It should be noted that the historical average non-impact fee contribution is based on spending made for the last jail expansion, which was completed in 2008. Since then, the County did not have any non-impact fee spending and does not have any capacity expansion projects programmed in the CIP. This is reflective of “lumpy” nature of jail construction in that correctional facilities tend to require large scale investments that provide sufficient capacity for a longer term than most other infrastructure types. As mentioned previously, the current jail population is approximately 75 percent of the jail functional capacity.
Figure II-1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 25 Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommended Fee Rate For correctional facilities impact fee, the County staff recommends suspending the impact fee based on the affordable growth calculations included in the previous section. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s correctional facilities impact fee program, a comparison of correctional facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table II-10 presents this comparison. As presented, Indian River County’s calculated fee is within the range of fees adopted by other Counties.
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ties I
mpa
ct F
ee S
ched
ule
Com
paris
on
(1)
du =
dw
ellin
g un
it (2
) So
urce
: Tab
le II
-9
(3)
Calc
ulat
ed b
ased
on
an a
nnua
l gro
wth
rate
of 1
.4%
and
non
-impa
ct fe
e sp
endi
ng o
f $2.
3 m
illio
n pe
r yea
r (4
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
the
affo
rdab
le g
row
th fe
e ra
tes.
(5
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty;
fees
are
cur
rent
ly su
spen
ded
(6)
Sour
ce: B
reva
rd C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent;
Indu
stria
l lan
d us
es a
re e
xem
pt fr
om im
pact
fees
. (7
) So
urce
: Oke
echo
bee
Coun
ty B
oard
of C
ount
y Co
mm
issio
ners
Adm
inist
rativ
e De
part
men
t (8
) So
urce
: Col
lier C
ount
y Im
pact
Fee
Adm
inist
ratio
n De
part
men
t. F
ees h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s th
roug
h an
nual
inde
. (9
) So
urce
: Her
nand
o Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
(10)
Sour
ce: H
ighl
ands
Cou
nty
Code
of O
rdin
ance
s, S
ectio
n 13
-28;
Impa
ct fe
e m
orat
oriu
m in
effe
ct th
roug
h Ju
ne 3
0, 2
017.
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff (4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Ra
te(5
)
Date
of L
ast U
pdat
e20
1420
1420
1420
0520
0020
1220
1020
0520
06Ad
optio
n Pe
rcen
tage
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25%
Resi
dent
ial:
Sing
le F
amily
(2,0
00 sf
)du
$287
$0$0
$170
$72
$533
$488
$7$1
7N
on-R
esid
entia
l:Li
ght I
ndus
tria
l1,
000
sf$1
29$0
$0$7
5n/
a$1
10$1
76$3
n/O
ffic
e (5
0,00
0 sq
ft)
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0$0
$153
$34
$258
$362
$5n/
Reta
il (1
00,0
00 sq
ft)
1,00
0 sf
$441
$0$0
$312
$160
$551
$670
$10
n/Ba
nk w
/Driv
e-Th
ru1,
000
sf$4
25$0
$0$1
74$8
1$5
51$6
04$1
0n/
Fast
Foo
d w
/Driv
e-Th
ru1,
000
sf$1
,658
$0$0
$863
$428
$551
$2,2
97$1
6n/
Land
Use
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Brev
ard
Coun
ty(6
)
Oke
echo
bee
Coun
ty(7
)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(8
)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(9)
High
land
s Co
unty
(10)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 27 Impact Fee Update Study
III. Solid Waste Facilities This section provides the results of the solid waste facilities impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the solid waste facilities impact fee:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Cost Component Credit Component Net Solid Waste Impact Cost Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
These various elements are summarized in this section. It should be noted that solid waste impact fees are not very common and there is limited literature. Solid waste operations are typically an Enterprise Fund and tend to be self-sufficient in terms of funding. In the case of Indian River County, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), a dependent district, provides the solid waste services. At this time, the solid waste impact fee is suspended in Indian River County. Prior to the suspension, the County charged a solid waste impact fee to both residential and non-residential land uses. These fees were calculated taking into account both the landfill and garbage trucks used for waste collection. Since the last study, the County started outsourcing the waste collection service. The landfill is used by both existing and new growth on a continuous basis, and as such, it is difficult to establish a need directly tied to new growth. In this study, the impact fee calculations are based on the customer convenience centers, which are used only by residential land uses. Given this, the revised fee schedule includes only residential land uses.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 28 Impact Fee Update Study
Facility Inventory As mentioned previously, the SWDD has the landfill site and also operates five customer convenience centers throughout the District for the collection of Class I waste, yard trash, cardboard, newsprint, and mixed recyclables. The landfill and operations of the customer convenience centers are funded through an annual non-ad-valorem assessment and tipping fees charged at the landfill. In addition, an outside contractor provides waste collection services. As explained previously, the inventory related to the new growth consists of the customer convenience centers, which are summarized in Table III-1. The value of customer convenience center buildings and land are based on the most recently built center and the value of existing properties. A more detailed explanation is provided in Appendix F.
Table III-1 Summary of SWDD Capital Facilities Inventory
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Based on the cost of on-going expansion of the Oslo Customer Convenience Center (3) Acres (Item 1) multiplied by the land value per acre (Item 6) (4) Sum of the building (item 3) and land value (Item 4) (5) Based on a review of values of land where existing facilities are located and vacant land sales and values Service Area and Population Solid waste facilities are provided on a countywide basis. Because customer convenience centers serve only the residential customers, weighted population is used in this analysis. The County’s current weighted seasonal population estimate and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1 (countywide).
Facility Description Acres(1) Facility Value(2)
Land Value(3)
Total Facility & Land Value(4)
Transfer Stations:Winter Beach Customer Convenience Center 19.55 $2,600,000 $391,000 $2,991,000Roseland Customer Convenience Center 1.38 $2,600,000 $27,600 $2,627,600Gifford Customer Convenience Center 10.81 $2,600,000 $216,200 $2,816,200Oslo Customer Convenience Center 11.61 $2,600,000 $232,200 $2,832,200Fellsmere Customer Convenience Center 4.75 $2,600,000 $95,000 $2,695,000Total 48.10 $13,000,000 $962,000 $13,962,000
$20,000 -Land Value per Acre(5)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 29 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component Table III-2 presents a summary of asset value related to the solid waste impact fee and resulting value per resident ($94 per person). It should be noted that this amount also reflects an average annual residential solid waste generation rate of 0.7 tons per capita per year.
Table III-2 Net Impact Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Table III-1 (2) Source: Table III-1 (3) Sum of the total building value (Item 1) and the total land value (Item 2) (4) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1; Countywide (5) Total asset value (Item 3) divided by population (Item 4) (6) Each component divided by total asset value
Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the solid waste facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for customer care facilities was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities and land included in the inventory. As presented in Table III-3, the County uses an average annual amount of approximately $252,000 of the SWDD’s revenues toward the construction/expansion of customer convenience center expansion. This amount results in an annual expenditure of approximately $1.62 per resident, which is used the calculated the impact fee credit.
Capital Asset Component FigurePercent of
Total Value(6)
Total Building Value(1) $13,000,000 93%Total Land Value(2) $962,000 7%Total Asset Value(3) $13,962,000 100%2013 Population(4) 148,001Total Solid Waste Asset Value per Resident(5) $94.34
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
30
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e III
-3
Hist
oric
al a
nd P
lann
ed C
apita
l Exp
ansi
on E
xpen
ditu
res
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty,
incl
udes
onl
y th
e ex
pend
iture
s ass
ocia
ted
with
cap
acity
exp
ansio
n (e
stim
ated
at 5
0% o
f tot
al a
mou
nt fo
r Ros
elan
d, O
slo a
nd
Giffo
rd C
ente
rs)
(2)
Tota
l exp
endi
ture
s div
ided
by
20 y
ears
due
to h
igh
inve
stm
ent l
evel
s dur
ing
the
2008
-201
7 pe
riod,
whi
ch a
re li
kely
to re
peat
eve
ry 2
0 ye
ars
base
d on
in
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y.
(3)
Sour
ce: A
ppen
dix
A, T
able
A-1
; Cou
ntyw
ide
(4)
Aver
age
annu
al c
apita
l exp
endi
ture
s (Ite
m 2
) div
ided
by
the
aver
age
annu
al w
eigh
ted
popu
latio
n (It
em 3
)
Desc
riptio
n(1)
FY 2
008
FY 2
009
FY 2
010
FY 2
011
FY 2
012
FY 2
013
FY 2
014
FY 2
015
FY 2
016
- FY
202
7To
tal
SWDD
Fells
mer
e Cu
stom
er C
onve
nien
ce C
ente
r-
-$2
,106
,493
--
--
--
$2,1
06,4
93Ro
sela
nd C
usto
mer
Con
veni
ence
Cen
ter
--
--
--
-$9
60,0
00-
$960
,000
Osl
o Cu
stom
er C
onve
nien
ce C
ente
r-
--
--
$1,2
50,0
00-
--
$1,2
50,0
00Gi
ffor
d Cu
stom
er C
onve
nien
ce C
ente
r-
--
--
-$7
15,0
00-
-$7
15,0
00To
tal
--
$2,1
06,4
93-
-$1
,250
,000
$715
,000
$960
,000
$0$5
,031
,493
$251
,575
155,
514
$1.6
2
Aver
age
Annu
al C
apita
l Exp
endi
ture
s(2)
Aver
age
Annu
al W
eigh
ted
Popu
latio
n(3)
Expe
nditu
re p
er R
esid
ent(4
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 31 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Solid Waste Impact Cost The net impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table III-4 summarizes the calculation of the net solid waste impact cost per resident, which is also the relevant LOS for impact fee purposes and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of serviced used for impact fee calculation purposes.
Table III-4 Net Impact Cost per Weighted Resident
(1) Source: Table III-2 (2) Source: Table III-3 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a discount
rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years (4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the capital expansion credit per resident (Item 3)
Calculated Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule The calculated solid waste impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table III-5. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons per unit by land use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $83 for the multi-family residential land use to $163 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet or more space.
Calculation Step Impact CostRevenue Credits
Total Impact Cost per Weighted Resident(1) $94.34
Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Weighted Resident(2) $1.62 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Weighted Resident(3) $29.85
Net Impact Cost per Weighted Resident(4) $64.49
Impact Cost
Revenue Credit
Net Impact Cost
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 2.26 $64.49 $146 $75 94 - 2,500 sf or greater du 2.52 $64.49 $163 $75 117
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.28 $64.49 $83 $57 45240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 1.44 $64.49 $93 $75 24
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room n/a n/a $0 $21 -100320 Motel room n/a n/a $0 $21 -100260 Nursing Home bed n/a n/a $0 $33 -100252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed n/a n/a $0 $62 -100
OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100710 General Office 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100150 Warehousing 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $47 -100151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $19 -100152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $47 -100110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100n/a Concrete Plant acre n/a n/a $0 $213 -100n/a Sand Mining acre n/a n/a $0 $213 -100
RETAIL :820 Retail Center 1,000 sfgla n/a n/a $0 $236 -1004/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. n/a n/a $0 $39 -100841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100932 Restaurant 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $330 -100934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $330 -100850 Supermarket 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $424 -100942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $20 -100947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay n/a n/a $0 $77 -100853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $424 -100890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole n/a n/a $0 $38 -100492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100412 County Park site n/a n/a $0 $85 -100491 Tennis Court court n/a n/a $0 $18 -100420 Marina berth n/a n/a $0 $45 -100
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100590 Library 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $94 -100571 Jail bed n/a n/a $0 $16 -100
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $236 -100610 Hospital 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $83 -100640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $118 -100560 Church 1,000 sf n/a n/a $0 $33 -100444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen n/a n/a $0 $188 -100520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student n/a n/a $0 $12 -100522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student n/a n/a $0 $12 -100530 High School (Private, 9-12) student n/a n/a $0 $13 -1000/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student n/a n/a $0 $13 -100
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 33 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Figure III-1, due to the availability of a large amount of non-impact fee revenue and relatively low growth rate, the County does not need any impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. If the County decides not to use the recurring revenues toward future customer convenience centers, the calculated impact fee for a mid-size single family home would be approximately $213 ($94.34 multiplied by 2.26 persons per housing unit) and the full impact fee would be needed for this service.
Figure III-1 Solid Waste Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of solid waste impact fees, the County staff recommends suspending the fee schedule based on affordable growth calculations. Solid Waste Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As mentioned previously, solid waste impact fees are relatively rare. Table III-6 presents the comparison of Indian River County’s existing and calculated fees to those jurisdictions that do collect a solid waste impact fee.
IRC Average Annual
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
34
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e III
-6
Solid
Was
te Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e Co
mpa
rison
(1
) du
= d
wel
ling
unit
(2)
Sour
ce: T
able
III-5
(3
) Ca
lcul
ated
bas
ed o
n av
erag
e an
nual
gro
wth
rate
of 1
.4%
and
non
-impa
ct fe
e sp
endi
ng o
f app
roxi
mat
ely
$252
,000
per
yea
r (4
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
that
affo
rdab
le g
row
th fe
e ra
tes
(5)
Sour
ce: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y; fe
es a
re c
urre
ntly
susp
ende
d (6
) So
urce
: Bre
vard
Cou
nty
Plan
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t (7
) So
urce
: City
of N
orth
Por
t Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t (8
) So
urce
: City
of F
ort P
ierc
e
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Ra
te(5
)
Date
of L
ast U
pdat
e20
1420
1420
1420
0520
0020
1120
07Ad
optio
n Pe
rcen
tage
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
50%
60%
Resi
dent
ial:
Sing
le F
amily
(2,0
00 sf
)du
$146
$0$0
$75
$160
$150
$136
Non
-Res
iden
tial:
Ligh
t Ind
ustr
ial
1,00
0 sf
$0$0
$0$2
36n/
a$9
0$1
59O
ffic
e (5
0,00
0 sq
ft)
1,00
0 sf
$0$0
$0$9
4n/
a$4
9$8
7Re
tail
(100
,000
sq ft
)1,
000
sf$0
$0$0
$236
n/a
$104
$185
Bank
w/D
rive-
Thru
1,00
0 sf
$0$0
$0$1
18n/
a$6
4$1
14Fa
st F
ood
w/D
rive-
Thru
1,00
0 sf
$0$0
$0$3
30n/
a$7
80$1
,387
Land
Use
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Brev
ard
Coun
ty(6
)
City
of N
orth
Po
rt(7
)
City
of F
ort
Pier
ce(8
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 35 Impact Fee Update Study
IV. Public Buildings Public buildings impact fees are used to fund the land purchases and capital construction and expansion of facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional government service demand created by growth. There are several major elements associated with the development of the administrative facilities impact fee. These include:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Public Buildings Impact Cost Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
Facility Inventory The public facilities inventory includes facilities that are primarily for the provision of essential county services and do not include any of the buildings included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by Indian River County, the County has approximately 565,000 square feet of general public facility space. This includes the square footage of both primary and support buildings. Support facilities are defined as trailers, facilities without air-conditioning, or facilities that are unlikely to be occupied by personnel. Table IV-1 shows a summary of the public buildings inventory and the current value of buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 414,000 square feet of primary bulding space and 151,000 square feet of support space.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 36 Impact Fee Update Study
Building value of the facilities included in the inventory was estimated based on insurance values, estimates for future buildings, and cost information obtained from other jurisdictions. This analysis resulted in an estimate cost of $210 per square foot for primary buildings and $50 per square foot for support buildings. In addition to building value, land values were estimated for future land purchases. Land value was determined primarily through a review of the value of parcels where the current public buildings are located, as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser, and an analysis of vacant land sales and values of 1- to 15-acre lots in Indian River County. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $90,000 per acre. Additional information is included in Appendix F.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
37
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e IV
-1
Sum
mar
y of
Pub
lic B
uild
ings
Fac
ilitie
s Inv
ento
ry(1
)
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Base
d on
$21
0 pe
r squ
are
foot
for p
rimar
y bu
ildin
gs a
nd $
50 p
er sq
uare
foot
for s
uppo
rt fa
cilit
ies
(3)
Base
d on
$90
,000
per
acr
e (4
) Su
m o
f bui
ldin
g va
lue
(Item
2) a
nd la
nd v
alue
(Ite
m 3
) (5
) Ex
clud
es sq
uare
foot
age
asso
ciat
ed w
ith L
aw L
ibra
ry, w
hich
is in
clud
ed a
s par
t of t
he in
vent
ory
used
in th
e lib
rary
impa
ct fe
e (6
) To
tal b
uild
ing
and
land
val
ue d
ivid
ed b
y to
tal b
uild
ing
squa
re fo
otag
e an
d ac
reag
e, re
spec
tivel
y. S
ee A
ppen
dix
F fo
r fur
ther
det
ail.
Faci
lity
Year
Bu
ilt(1
)
Build
ing
Squa
re F
eet(1
)Ac
reag
e(1)
Build
ing
Valu
e(2)
Land
Valu
e(3)
Tota
l Va
lue(4
)
Prim
ary
Build
ings
New
Cou
nty
Adm
in. B
uild
ing
Com
plex
2007
177,
092
5.71
$37,
189,
320
$513
,900
$37,
703,
220
Heal
th D
epar
tmen
t Bui
ldin
g19
9039
,130
1.90
$8,2
17,3
00$1
71,0
00$8
,388
,300
Cour
thou
se -
Judi
cial
Com
plex
(5)
1994
116,
007
2.17
$24,
361,
470
$195
,300
$24,
556,
770
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Anne
x19
628,
400
0.81
$1,7
64,0
00$7
2,90
0$1
,836
,900
Road
& B
ridge
/Tra
ffic
Fac
ilitie
sVa
ries
18,3
5011
.16
$3,8
53,5
00$1
,004
,400
$4,8
57,9
00Tr
ansi
t Adm
in. B
uild
ing
2012
8,17
12.
86$1
,715
,910
$257
,400
$1,9
73,3
10Su
perv
isor
of E
lect
ions
Sub
-Ann
ex (4
3rd
Ave)
2006
31,2
385.
82$6
,559
,980
$523
,800
$7,0
83,7
80Em
erge
ncy
Ope
ratio
ns C
ente
r20
0716
,000
13.3
8$3
,360
,000
$1,2
04,2
00$4
,564
,200
Old
Hum
ane
Soci
ety
Build
ing
1986
n/a
4.77
n/a
$429
,300
$429
,300
Subt
otal
-- P
rimar
y Bu
ildin
gs41
4,38
848
.58
$87,
021,
480
$4,3
72,2
00$9
1,39
3,68
0Su
ppor
t Bui
ldin
gsCo
urth
ouse
- Ju
dici
al C
ompl
ex P
arki
ng G
arag
e19
9413
5,78
01.
49$6
,789
,000
$134
,100
$6,9
23,1
00Fl
eet M
anag
emen
t Fac
ility
2004
15,6
733.
62$7
83,6
50$3
25,8
00$1
,109
,450
Subt
otal
-- S
uppo
rt B
uild
ings
151,
453
5.11
$7,5
72,6
50$4
59,9
00$8
,032
,550
565,
841
53.6
9$9
4,59
4,13
0$4
,832
,100
$99,
426,
230
$167
.17
$90,
000
Unit
Cost
(6)
Tota
l -- A
ll Bu
ildin
gs
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 38 Impact Fee Update Study
Service Area and Population Indian River County provides all residents, workers, and visitors the benefit of government services. As such the service area was determined to be the entire county.
To be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, for purposes of this technical analysis, the weighted seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections. As mentioned previously, weighted seasonal population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect estimates provided in the Indian River County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for seasonal residents. In addition, public buildings is one of the program areas where functional population is used to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. A more detailed explanation of weighted and functional population estimates is provided in Appendix A.
Level-of-Service
Based on the information provided by the County, Indian River County’s 2013 achieved level-of-service (LOS) is 2.80 square feet of primary facilities per weighted resident. Table IV-2 presents the calculation of the existing LOS. In addition, the adopted LOS standard is 1.99 square feet per resident. The County’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the addition of approximately 10,000 square feet of public buildings space. With this additional investment, the LOS is estimated at 2.78 square feet per resident by 2017. Given that both the current and 2017 estimated LOS are higher than the adopted LOS standard, the impact fee calculations were based on the adopted LOS standard, resulting in more conservative impact fee levels. The adopted LOS standard is converted to square feet per functional resident, which resulted in 2.10 square feet per resident, as shown in Table IV-2.
Although the LOS is measured in terms of building square feet per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for public buildings infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for public buildings, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 39 Impact Fee Update Study
Table IV-2 Current Level-of-Service
(1) Source: Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-11 (2) Source: Table IV-1 (3) Total square footage (Item 2) divided by the countywide population (Item 1) (4) Source: Indian River County (5) The CIP includes the addition of 10,000 square feet of public buildings space over the next five years (6) Future public buildings square footage (Item 5) divided by the 2017 population
Table IV-3 presents a comparison of IRC’s LOS standard with the LOS standards of other counties. It is important to note that the public building square footage for different jurisdictions is not readily available in a format to provide an “apples-to-apples” comparison. As such, information obtained from a recent study on the LOS analysis for government buildings was used as the basis for the comparison included in Table IV-3.
Weighted Population
Functional Population
Population(1) 148,001 140,186Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings) (2) 414,388 414,388Achieved LOS (Sq. Ft. per Resident)(3) 2.80 2.96Adopted LOS Standard (Sq. Ft. per Residents) (4) 1.99 2.10
Population -- 2017(1) 152,612 144,582Public Buildings Square Footage (Primary Buildings) (5) 424,388 424,388Achieved LOS (Sq. Ft. per Resident)(6) 2.78 2.94
ComponentYear 2013
Future LOS:
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 40 Impact Fee Update Study
Table IV-3 Level-of-Service Comparison
(1) Source: Table IV-1 for IRC; “Collier County Government Buildings & Law
Enforcement Facilities Level-of-Service Analysis, 2010” for other jurisdictions (2) Source: BEBR, 2012 final population estimates (3) Primary square footage divided by permanent population (Item 2)
Cost Component The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings and land. Table IV-4 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to $240 per square foot of public buildings, and $504 per functional resident.
CountyTotal Square
Footage(1)
Primary Square
Footage(1)
Permanent Population(2)
Sq. Ft. per Resident(3)
Seminole 770,029 710,096 428,104 1.66Hernando 319,946 313,305 173,104 1.81Palm Beach 3,431,780 2,588,451 1,335,415 1.94Pasco 1,027,749 922,219 468,562 1.97Manatee 829,913 763,290 330,302 2.31Polk 1,692,402 1,416,373 606,888 2.33Brevard 1,418,931 1,370,073 545,625 2.51Collier 1,436,493 891,384 329,849 2.70Osceola 969,392 807,020 280,866 2.87Escambia 1,263,692 872,880 299,511 2.91Indian River 565,841 414,388 139,446 2.97Marion 1,357,640 1,045,175 332,989 3.14Charlotte 664,786 641,994 163,357 3.93St. Johns 773,347 771,047 196,071 3.93
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 41 Impact Fee Update Study
Table IV-4 Public Building Total Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table IV-1 (2) Source: Table IV-1 (3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (Item 2) (4) Source: Table IV-1 (5) Total building and land value (Item 3) divided by primary building square footage (Item 4) (6) Source: Table IV-2 (7) Building and land value per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by building square footage per functional
resident (Item 6) (8) Percentage distribution of building value and land value in relation to the combined building and land
value Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the public buildings impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for public buildings was conducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits that should be considered for revenues generated by new development that could be used for capital facilities and land expansion for public buildings. To estimate an average annual non-impact fee expenditure, capital projects funded during the past five years and programmed for the next five years were reviewed. Based on this analysis, a credit for these expenditures is provided in Table IV-5, which results in an average annual credit of $5 per functional resident. It should be noted that a large part of this funding is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. The credit calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the credit calculations should be evaluated to determine if a revision is necessary.
Cost Component FigurePercent of
Total Value(8)
Total Building Value(1) $94,594,130 95.14%
Total Land Value(2) $4,832,100 4.86%
Total Building and Land Value(3) $99,426,230 100.00%
Primary Building Square Footage(4) 414,388
Total Building and Land Value per Square Foot(5) $239.94
Adopted LOS Standard - Bldg Sq Ft per Functional Resident(6) 2.10
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(7) $503.87
Capi
tal E
xpan
sion
Pro
ject
Fun
ding
per
Fun
ctio
nal R
esid
ent(1
)
y
res
fund
ed b
y th
e op
tiona
l sal
es ta
x di
vide
d by
10
year
s ex
pend
iture
s fun
ded
with
sale
s tax
reve
nues
(Ite
m 2
) div
ided
by
the
aver
age
annu
al fu
nctio
nal p
opul
atio
n (It
em 7
) re
s fun
ded
with
cou
rt fa
cilit
y su
rcha
rge
reve
nues
div
ided
by
10 y
ears
ex
pend
iture
s fun
ded
with
cou
rt fa
cilit
y su
rcha
rge
reve
nues
(Ite
m 4
) div
ided
by
the
aver
age
annu
al fu
nctio
nal p
opul
atio
n (It
em 7
) di
ture
s fun
ded
with
sale
s tax
reve
nues
and
the
subt
otal
exp
endi
ture
s fun
ded
with
cou
rt fa
cilit
y su
rcha
rge
reve
nues
A-
11
nsio
n ex
pend
iture
s per
yea
r (Ite
m 6
) div
ided
by
aver
age
annu
al fu
nctio
nal p
opul
atio
n (It
em 7
)
Desc
riptio
nFY
200
7/08
FY 2
008/
09FY
200
9/10
FY 2
010/
11FY
201
1/12
FY 2
012/
13FY
201
3/14
FY 2
014/
15FY
201
5/16
etw
ork
--
--
-$3
59,6
80$1
18,5
08-
tiona
l Off
ices
)-
--
--
-$2
,000
,000
-en
ter
$4,1
52,6
40$3
06,5
86-
--
--
-un
ded
with
Sal
es T
ax R
even
ues
$4,1
52,6
40$3
06,5
86-
--
$359
,680
$2,1
18,5
08-
--
--
--
$250
,000
-un
ded
with
Cou
rt F
acili
ty S
urch
arge
Rev
enue
s$0
$0-
--
-$2
50,0
00-
urt F
acili
ty S
urch
arge
:$4
,152
,640
$306
,586
--
-$3
59,6
80$2
,368
,508
-ns
ion
Expe
nditu
res p
er Y
ear(6
)
Pop
ulat
ion(7
)
pans
ion
Expe
nditu
res p
er R
esid
ent(8
)
Exp
endi
ture
s Fun
ded
with
Sal
es T
ax R
even
ues(2
)
res p
er R
esid
ent (
Sale
s Tax
)(3)
Exp
endi
ture
s Fun
ded
with
Cou
rt F
acili
ty S
urch
arge
Rev
enue
s(4)
res p
er R
esid
ent (
Cour
t Fac
ility
Sur
char
ge)(5
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 43 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Public Buildings Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the Cost Component and the Credit Component. Table IV-6 presents the calculation of the net public buildings facilities impact cost per functional resident. The first section of Table IV-6 identifies the total impact cost as $504 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the capital expandion expenditure credits for the public buildings facilities impact fee. The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference between the total impact cost per functional resident of $504 and the total revenue credit of $24 per functional resident. The result is a net impact cost of $480 per functional resident, which also represents the relevant LOS measure for impact fee purposes.
Table IV-6
Net Public Building Impact Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table IV-4 (2) Source: Table IV-5 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of
2.5% for 5 years for sales tax and the court facility surcharge. The estimated discount rate is provided by Indian River County.
(4) Total cost per resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident (Item 3)
Calculated Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule
Based on the analysis conducted in this section, a public buildings impact fee schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table IV-7.
Sales TaxCourt
Facility Surcharge
Total
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) $503.87
Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit Amount per Functional Resident(2) $4.94 $0.18
Capitalization Rate 2.5% 2.5%
Capitalization Period (in years) 5 5
Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(3) $22.95 $0.84 $23.79
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $480.08
Net Impact Cost
Revenue CreditsImpact
CostCalculation Step
Impact Cost
Revenue Credit
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-12 for residential and lodging land uses and Table A-15 for non-residential land uses (2) Calculated impact fee determined by multiplying the net impact cost per functional resident (Table IV-6) by the functional resident coefficient (Item
- 2,500 sf or greater du 1.72 $826 $223 270220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.87 $418 $121 245240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $470 $149 215
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0.65 $312 $229 36320 Motel room 0.60 $288 $229 25
252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $442 $312 41OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $547 $1,275 -57Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $797 $1,275 -37
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $1,071 $1,454 -26912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $1,095 $1,191 -8710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $480 $1,050 -54760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $408 $555 -26
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $240 $375 -36150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $134 $288 -53151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $29 $40 -27152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.14 $67 $288 -76110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $331 $512 -35n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $744 $1,130 -34n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $96 $145 -33
RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 2.37 $1,138 $1,531 -25
944/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 1.91 $917 $921 -0841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $706 $912 -22932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $3,255 $3,923 -17934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $4,273 $4,227 1850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $984 $1,087 -9942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $720 $134 437947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $418 $1,009 -58853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $2,799 $2,270 23890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $110 $170 -35
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $518 $1,307 -60492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $1,483 $1,270 16412 County Park acre 0.20 $96 $81 18491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $1,517 $1,241 22420 Marina berth 0.19 $91 $82 11
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $778 $1,107 -29590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $845 $919 -8571 Jail bed 1.39 $667 $466 43
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $427 $755 -43610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $658 $838 -21640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $1,219 $1,223 -0560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $245 $285 -14444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $2,871 $4,535 -36520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $29 $70 -58522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $34 $70 -51530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $38 $90 -57
540/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $48 $78 -38n/a Fire Station 1,000 sf 0.63 $302 $339 -10
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 45 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy
Based on the data shown in Table IV-5, the County will use $694,000 per year of sales tax revenues for the next five years. In addition, the County uses approximately $25,000 per year of recurring non-impact fee funding for capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure IV-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of public buildings impact fee calculated, if the historical levels of non-impact fee funding were to be continued, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard used in the calculations. If the County decides to charge the residential land uses the full calculated fee (at 100 percent), the fee adoption rate for non-residential land could be reduced to 52 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, these calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or another revenue source becomes available for public buildings capital projects, these calculations need to be revised. Finally, the level of discount is a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent and still maintain the adopted LOS standard.
Figure IV-1 Public Buildings Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
90%
- Less than 1,500 sf du 100% $687 $183 275 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% $739 $206 258 - 2,500 sf or greater du 100% $826 $223 270
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 100% $418 $121 245240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 100% $470 $149 215
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 52% $162 $229 -29320 Motel room 52% $150 $229 -34
52/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 52% $230 $312 -26OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 52% $284 $1,275 -77Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 52% $414 $1,275 -67
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 52% $557 $1,454 -61912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 52% $569 $1,191 -52710 General Office 1,000 sf 52% $250 $1,050 -76760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 52% $212 $555 -61
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 52% $125 $375 -66150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 52% $70 $288 -75151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 52% $15 $40 -62152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 52% $35 $288 -87110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 52% $172 $512 -66n/a Concrete Plant acre 52% $387 $1,130 -65n/a Sand Mining acre 52% $50 $145 -65
RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 52% $592 $1,531 -61
44/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 52% $477 $921 -48841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 52% $367 $912 -59932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 52% $1,693 $3,923 -56934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 52% $2,222 $4,227 -47850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 52% $512 $1,087 -52942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 52% $374 $134 179947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 52% $217 $1,009 -78853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 52% $1,455 $2,270 -35890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 52% $57 $170 -66
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 52% $269 $1,307 -79492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 52% $771 $1,270 -39412 County Park acre 52% $50 $81 -38491 Tennis Court court 52% $789 $1,241 -36420 Marina berth 52% $47 $82 -42
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 52% $405 $1,107 -63590 Library 1,000 sf 52% $439 $919 -52571 Jail bed 52% $347 $466 -25
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 52% $222 $755 -70610 Hospital 1,000 sf 52% $342 $838 -59640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 52% $634 $1,223 -48560 Church 1,000 sf 52% $127 $285 -55444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 52% $1,493 $4,535 -67520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 52% $15 $70 -78522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 52% $18 $70 -74530 High School (Private 9-12) student 52% $20 $90 -77
210
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 47 Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommendation Fee Rate
Based on a review of upcoming capital needs, the County staff recommends adopting the affordable growth fee schedule with a 50 percent discount. This is a policy discount based on a review capital needs over the next several year and will be reviewed over the next three to four years, when an impact fee update study is prepared.
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 50% $370 $206 79 - 2,500 sf or greater du 50% $413 $223 85
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 50% $209 $121 72240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 50% $235 $149 57
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 50% $81 $229 -64320 Motel room 50% $75 $229 -67
52/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 50% $115 $312 -63OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 50% $142 $1,275 -88Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 50% $207 $1,275 -83
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 50% $279 $1,454 -80912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 50% $285 $1,191 -76710 General Office 1,000 sf 50% $125 $1,050 -88760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 50% $106 $555 -80
INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 50% $63 $375 -83150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 50% $35 $288 -87151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 50% $8 $40 -80152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 50% $18 $288 -93110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 50% $86 $512 -83n/a Concrete Plant acre 50% $194 $1,130 -82n/a Sand Mining acre 50% $25 $145 -82
RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 50% $296 $1,531 -80
44/946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 50% $239 $921 -74841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 50% $184 $912 -79932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 50% $847 $3,923 -78934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 50% $1,111 $4,227 -73850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 50% $256 $1,087 -76942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 50% $187 $134 39947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 50% $109 $1,009 -89853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 50% $728 $2,270 -67890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 50% $29 $170 -82
RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 50% $135 $1,307 -89492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 50% $386 $1,270 -69412 County Park acre 50% $25 $81 -69491 Tennis Court court 50% $395 $1,241 -68420 Marina berth 50% $24 $82 -70
GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 50% $203 $1,107 -81590 Library 1,000 sf 50% $220 $919 -76571 Jail bed 50% $174 $466 -62
MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 50% $111 $755 -85610 Hospital 1,000 sf 50% $171 $838 -79640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 50% $317 $1,223 -74560 Church 1,000 sf 50% $64 $285 -77444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 50% $747 $4,535 -83520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 50% $8 $70 -88522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 50% $9 $70 -87530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 50% $10 $90 -88
40/550 University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 50% $13 $78 -83n/a Fire Station 1 000 sf 50% $79 $339 76
210
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 49 Impact Fee Update Study
Public Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s public buildings impact fee schedule, the County’s calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedule and those in similar or nearby jurisdictions. Table IV-10 presents this comparison.
Publ
ic B
uild
ings
Impa
ct F
ee S
ched
ule
Com
paris
on
ling
unit
able
IV-7
ab
le IV
-8
able
IV-9
; Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
cha
rgin
g 50
per
cent
of t
he a
fford
able
gro
wth
fee
rate
s.
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y; fe
es a
re c
urre
ntly
susp
ende
d.
. Luc
ie C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Ser
vice
s Dep
artm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en in
crea
sed
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
ha
rlott
e Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Lan
d De
velo
pmen
t Dep
artm
ent.
In C
harlo
tte,
ban
k w
/driv
e-th
ru is
cha
rged
“pe
r lan
e”.
Fees
hav
e be
en re
duce
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g. F
ees a
re c
urre
d.
trus
Cou
nty
Plan
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t ol
lier C
ount
y Im
pact
Fee
Adm
inist
ratio
n De
part
men
t. F
ees h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
er
nand
o Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
artin
Cou
nty
Grow
th M
anag
emen
t Dep
artm
ent
. Joh
ns C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Zon
ing
Depa
rtm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en in
crea
sed
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Ra
te(5
)
Last
Upd
ate
2014
2014
2014
2005
2009
2009
2010
2010
2005
2012
Perc
enta
ge10
0%n/
an/
a10
0%10
0%62
%50
%10
0%10
0%10
0%
y (2
,000
sf)
du$7
39$7
39$3
70$2
06$3
36$3
78$2
64$7
66$4
66$6
4nt
ial:
ial
1,00
0 sf
$331
$172
$86
$512
$68
$131
$60
$271
$168
$18
00 sq
ft)
1,00
0 sf
$480
$250
$125
$1,0
50$2
97$2
38$1
51$5
58$3
35$3
100
sq ft
)1,
000
sf$1
,138
$592
$296
$1,5
31$5
04$3
66$3
05$9
66$6
51$5
5e-
Thru
1,00
0 sf
$1,0
95$5
69$2
85$1
,191
$438
$515
$305
$895
$651
$55
/Driv
e-Th
ru1,
000
sf$4
,273
$2,2
22$1
,111
$4,2
27$4
38$1
,473
$305
$3,5
39$1
,012
$2,4
8
Mar
tin
Coun
ty(1
1)
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(7)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(8
)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(9
)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(10)
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(6)
d U
seU
nit(1
)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 51 Impact Fee Update Study
V. Libraries Library impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of library services related buildings, land, and materials/equipment required to support the additional library facilities demand created by new growth. This section provides the results of the library impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the library facilities impact fee:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Library Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
These various elements are summarized in this section. It should be noted that library impact fees are charged to residential land uses only. Facility Inventory The IRC Library Service operates five libraries with a total square footage of 110,000. The following table presents the inventory of library facilities. The building value is estimated at $240 per square foot based on recent library construction and insurance values of existing libraries. Land value for library buildings is estimated at $50,000 per acre based on value of current parcels and an analysis of recent vacant land sales and values. Appendix F provides additional information on building and land value estimates.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
52
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e V-
1 Li
brar
y La
nd &
Bui
ldin
g In
vent
ory
(1)
Sour
ce: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y
(2)
Sour
ce: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y; L
and
asso
ciat
ed w
ith L
aw, G
iffor
d Yo
uth
Activ
ities
Cen
ter a
nd B
rack
ett L
ibra
ries
is no
t inc
lude
d be
caus
e it
is ei
ther
not
ow
ned
by th
e Co
unty
or a
ccou
nted
for i
n an
othe
r im
pact
fee
prog
ram
are
a (3
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(4)
Acre
s (Ite
m 2
) mul
tiplie
d by
the
land
val
ue p
er a
cre
(Item
7)
(5)
Squa
re fo
otag
e (It
em 3
) mul
tiplie
d by
bui
ldin
g va
lue
per s
quar
e fo
ot (I
tem
8)
(6)
Sum
of l
and
valu
e (It
em 4
) and
bui
ldin
g va
lue
(Item
5)
(7)
Base
d on
a re
view
of v
acan
t lan
d sa
les a
nd v
alue
s. S
ee A
ppen
dix
F fo
r add
ition
al d
etai
l. (8
) Ba
sed
on re
cent
con
stru
ctio
n, in
sura
nce
valu
es, a
nd o
ther
ava
ilabl
e m
ater
ials.
See
App
endi
x F
for a
dditi
onal
det
ail.
Faci
lity
Desc
riptio
nAd
dres
sYe
ar
Built
(1)
Acre
s(2)
Squa
re
Foot
age(3
)
Land
Va
lue(4
)
Build
ing
Valu
e(5)
Tota
l Bui
ldin
g an
d La
nd
Valu
e(6)
Mai
n Li
brar
y16
00 2
1st S
tree
t, Ve
ro B
each
, FL 3
2960
1991
4.18
049
,286
$209
,000
$11,
828,
640
$12,
037,
640
Nor
th C
ount
y Li
brar
y10
01 C
R 51
2, S
ebas
tian,
FL 3
2958
1993
4.11
525
,445
$205
,750
$6,1
06,8
00$6
,312
,550
Law
Libr
ary
2000
16t
h Av
enue
, Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2960
1994
n/a
3,99
3n/
a$9
58,3
20$9
58,3
20Gi
ffor
d Yo
uth
Activ
ities
Cen
ter L
ibra
ry48
75 4
3rd
Aven
ue, V
ero
Beac
h, F
L 329
67n/
an/
a1,
513
n/a
$363
,120
$363
,120
Brac
kett
Libr
ary
6155
Col
lege
Lane
, Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2966
2009
n/a
30,0
00n/
a$7
,200
,000
$7,2
00,0
008.
295
110,
237
$414
,750
$26,
456,
880
$26,
871,
630
$50,
000
$240
Land
Val
ue p
er A
cre(7
)
Tota
l
Build
ing
Valu
e pe
r Squ
are
Foot
(8)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 53 Impact Fee Update Study
The five facilities identified in Table V-1 house a wide variety of materials available to the public. Table V-2 presents the inventory of library materials.
Table V-2
Library Material Inventory
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Number of units multiplied by the cost (3) Total value for all library materials divided by the total units for all library materials
In addition to the available material, the IRC Library System owns a variety of equipment, both for public use and for its own operations. Table V-3 presents the inventory of equipment for public versus operational use. It should be noted that impact fee standards are based on the equipment for public use, excluding the equipment used by the library staff.
Description Units(1) Unit Cost(1) Total Value(2)
Books:Gifford Youth Activities Center Library 9,724 $25 $243,100Law Library 225 $80 $18,000Main, North, Brackett Libraries: - All Books 443,181 $53 $23,488,593 - Electronic Resources 28,812 $100 $2,881,200 - Electronic Books 1,525 $100 $152,500 - Serials 14,027 $75 $1,052,025 - Books on Tape/CD 15,023 $75 $1,126,725Total - Books 512,517 $28,962,143Online Resources:Online Resource Subscriptions 68 $4,094 $278,392Other Library Items:Music CDs 16,200 $15 $243,000DVDs 24,798 $20 $495,960Videos 4,386 $15 $65,790Print Subscriptions 1,775 $39 $69,225Other Print Materials 24,775 $50 $1,238,750Total - Other Library Items 71,934 $2,112,725Total - All Library Materials 584,519 $31,353,260Total Value per Item(3) $54
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 54 Impact Fee Update Study
Table V-3 Library Equipment Inventory
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Number of items multiplied by the unit cost
Service Area and Population Library services are provided on a countywide basis and the impact fee is charged only to residential land uses. As such, consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, countywide weighted seasonal population is used in the calculation. The County’s current population estimates and future population projections are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. Level-of-Service The following table provides a summary of the current LOS as well as the adopted LOS standard for library buildings, books, other library materials, and computers in Indian River County.
Public Staff TotalCopiers 6 4 10 $7,000 $70,000Book Scribe Copier 1 0 1 $16,500 $16,500Laser Printers 10 6 16 $2,136 $34,176Computers 121 74 195 $900 $175,500Large Print Readers 1 0 1 $5,000 $5,00030" TV 1 0 1 $800 $80045" TVs 1 0 1 $2,000 $2,00052" TVs 1 0 1 $2,356 $2,35642" TVs 1 0 1 $1,527 $1,52746" TVs 1 0 1 $2,205 $2,20532" TVs 3 0 3 $2,428 $7,284Dollar Changer 1 0 1 $2,955 $2,955Laminator 1 1 $1,265 $1,265Camcorder 1 0 1 $800 $800LCD Projectors 5 0 5 $2,500 $12,500Total - All Items 154 85 239 $334,868Total - All (excluding computers) 33 11 44 $159,368
Number of Items(1) Unit Cost(1)Equipment
Total Equipment
Value(2)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 55 Impact Fee Update Study
Although the LOS is measured in terms of buildings, materials and equipment per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for library infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for libraries, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.
Table V-4 Level-of-Service (2013)
(1) Source: Table V-1 for buildings, Table V-2 for materials, and Table V-3 for computers and equipment (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (3) Square footage/count (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2) multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County (5) Source: Table V-3; only computers and equipment available for public use are included
As presented in the table, the County’s current LOS is above the adopted LOS standard for all elements, except for other library equipment. For impact fee calculations, the adopted LOS standard is used in order to ensure new development is not overcharged. In addition, a review of the CIP indicated that there are no capital expansion projects programmed for the next five years. As such, the existing LOS is likely to decrease somewhat, which suggests that it is preferable to use the adopted LOS standard to provide a more conservative approach. A comparison of the current Indian River County LOS, the adopted LOS standard, LOS of the other Florida counties, and the suggested State standards is presented in Table V-5. The comparison includes counties with a population of 100,000 to 750,000, and is based on the information obtained from the Library Directory with Statistics, published by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services.
ItemSq.
Footage/ Count(1)
Population(2)
LOS (per 1,000
Residents)(3)
Adopted LOS Standard (per
1,000 Residents)(4)
Library Buildings (sf) 110,237 148,001 745 580Library Materials (items) 584,519 148,001 3,949 3,200Computers(5) 121 148,001 0.8 0.7Other Library Equipment (items)(5) 33 148,001 0.2 0.2
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 56 Impact Fee Update Study
Table V-5 Comparison of IRC Current LOS to Florida Standards
(1) Source: Table V-4 (2) Source: Standards for Florida Public Libraries, 2004; Updated April 2013 (3) Library materials include books, online resources, subscriptions, and other library items
IRC’s adopted LOS standard for buildings does not meet the Florida Library Association’s (FLA) essential standards. However, the County’s adopted standard for library materials and computers and achieved LOS for all other areas are between the enhanced and exemplary LOS standards established by the State. The following table provides a comparison of the current IRC LOS to those of surrounding counties as well as other Florida counties. IRC’s LOS is higher than surrounding counties in all areas, except for computers. In terms of computers, IRC ranks second after Brevard County.
Table V-6
Comparison of IRC Current LOS to Surrounding Counties (per 1,000 residents)
(1) Library materials for IRC include books, CDs, DVDs, videos, print, and online resource subscriptions.
Library materials for other counties include books, serial subscriptions, and Audio/video volumes (2) Source: Department of State – Division of Library & Information Services, 2009/10 Library Directory with
Statistics; Includes public computers only (3) Source: Table V-4 (4) Peer group includes jurisdictions with 100,000 to 750,000 service area population (excluding IRC) (5) Includes all jurisdictions in Florida (excluding IRC)
Essential Enhanced Exemplary
Library Buildings (sq. ft.) 745 580 600 700 1,000Library Materials(3) 3,949 3,200 2,000 3,000 4,000Computers 0.8 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.00
FL Public Library Standards(2)
Item
IRC LOS Standard (per
1,000 Residents)(1)
IRC Achieved LOS (per 1,000
Residents)(1)
Indian River (Existing)(3) Brevard Osceola Okeechobee St. Lucie
Avg. of Peer Group(4)
Avg. of Other FL Counties(5)
Library Buildings (sq. ft.) 745 700 337 388 317 422 500Library Materials(1) 3,949 2,662 1,011 2,256 1,146 1,898 2,074Computers(2) 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8
ItemPer 1,000 Residents
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 57 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component Costs are calculated separately for facilities and items/equipment. Facility costs are based on the estimated cost to add the next library building, and the cost of library items and equipment is based on the estimated current value per unit. Buildings and Land Table V-7 summarizes the calculation of library facility and land values. The total impact cost or total value per resident for library buildings and land in Indian River County is $141.
Table V-7 Building and Land Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Table V-1 (2) Source: Table V-1 (3) Sum of building value (Item 1) and land value (item 2) (4) Source: Table V-1 (5) Building and land value (Item 3) divided by building square footage (Item 4) (6) Source: Table V-4 (7) Total building and land value per square foot (Item 5) multiplied by the
adopted LOSS (Item 6) divided by 1,000 Library Materials and Equipment The following table provides a summary of library materials and equipment costs per resident, which amounts to $175.
Element FigureTotal Building Value (1) $26,456,880Total Land Value(2) $414,750Total Building and Land Value(3) $26,871,630Building Square Footage(4) 110,237Total Building and Land Cost per Square Foot(5) $243.76Adopted LOS Standard (sf per 1,000 residents)(6) 580Total Building and Land Cost per Resident(7) $141.38
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 58 Impact Fee Update Study
Table V-8 Library Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Table V-2 (2) Source: Table V-4 (3) Library materials value per item (Item 1) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for
materials per resident (Item 2) (4) Source: Table V-3; Total value divided by the number of items available for public use (5) Source: Table V-4 (6) Unit value of computers (Item 4) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for
computers per resident (Item 5) (7) Source: Table V-3; Total value divided by the number of items available for public use (8) Source: Table V-4 (9) Other library equipment cost (Item 7) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard for other
library equipment per resident (Item 8) (10) Sum of library materials, computer, and other library equipment costs per resident
(Items 3, 6, and 9)
Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development, a review of funding for library capital expansion projects over the past five years and those programmed for the next five years was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, that are being used or will be used to fund the expansion of capital facilities, land, and materials for the County’s libraries program. This review suggests that historically the County used primarily State grants to fund a portion of capacity expansion over the past five years and has no capacity projects included in the CIP.
Element Figure
Library Materials Value per Item(1) $54
Adopted LOS Standard for Materials per Resident(2) 3.20
Library Materials Value per Resident(3) $172.80
Computers - Unit Value(4) $1,450
Adopted LOS Standard for Computers per Resident(5) 0.0007
Computer Value per Resident(6) $1.02
Other Library Equipment Value per Item(7) $4,829
Adopted LOS Standard for Other Library Equipment per Resident(8) 0.0002
Other Library Equipment Value per Resident(9) $0.97
Total Materials and Equipment Cost per Resident(10) $174.79
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 59 Impact Fee Update Study
Capital Improvement Credit Table V-9 summarizes the library related capital expansion projects that are funded by state grants. The table includes recent expenditures for the years 2008 through 2017. The average annual capital expansion expenditure during this five-year period is $0.34 per resident. This figure is calculated by dividing the average annual total capital expenditure amount for the ten-year period by the County’s average population during the same time period.
Table V-9 Historical Library Capital Expansion Funding Sources
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Average expenditure per year (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 (4) Average annual capacity expansion expenditures (Item 2) divided by the
average annual population (Item 3) Net Library Facilities Impact Cost The net impact fee per residence is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table V-10 summarizes the calculation of the net library impact cost per resident, which reflects the relevant LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.
Fiscal YearState Library
Grant(1)
Construction of Brackett Library:FY 2008 $0FY 2009 $300,000FY 2010 $200,000
FY 2011 - FY 2017 $0Total $500,000
Average Annual Capacity Expansion Expenditures(2) $50,000Average Annual Population(3) 148,070Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(4) $0.34
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 60 Impact Fee Update Study
Table V-10 Net Library Facilities Impact Cost
(1) Source: Table V-7 (2) Source: Table V-8 (3) Source: Table V-8 (4) The sum of building, land, materials, and equipment costs (Items 1, 2, and 3) (5) Source: Table V-9 (6) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident
(Item 2) at a discount rate of 2.5% with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate was provided by Indian River County.
(7) Total impact cost per resident (Item 4) less total credit per resident (Item 6) Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule The calculated library impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table V-11. The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the average persons per unit by land use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit range from $397 for the multi-family residential land use to $781 for single family land use with 2,500 square feet or more space.
Calculation StepImpact
CostRevenue Credits
Building and Land Value per Resident (1) $141.38 Library Materials Value per Resident (2) $172.80 Library Computer & Equipment Value per Resident (3) $1.99 Total Impact Cost (4) $316.17
Average Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(5) $0.34 Capitalization Rate 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(6) $6.26
Net Impact Cost per Resident (7) $309.91
Impact Cost
Revenue Credit
Net Impact Cost
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
61
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e V-
11
Calc
ulat
ed L
ibra
ry F
acili
ties I
mpa
ct F
ee S
ched
ule
(1
) So
urce
: Ap
pend
ix A
, Tab
le A
-2
(2)
Sour
ce: T
able
V-1
0 (3
) Re
siden
ts p
er u
nit (
Item
1) m
ultip
lied
by n
et c
ost p
er re
siden
t (Ite
m 2
) (4
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty.
Fee
s sho
wn
do n
ot in
clud
e th
e ad
min
istra
tive
fee.
(5
) Pe
rcen
t cha
nge
from
the
curr
ent a
dopt
ed ra
tes (
Item
4) t
o th
e to
tal i
mpa
ct fe
e (It
em 3
)
Resi
dent
ial L
and
Use
Resi
dent
s pe
r Uni
t (1)
Net
Cos
t per
Re
side
nt(2
)
Impa
ct
Fee(3
)
2009
Adop
ted
Fee(4
)
Perc
ent
Chan
ge(5
)
Resi
dent
ial
Sin
gle
Fam
ily (l
ess t
han
1,50
0 sf
)2.
09$3
09.9
1$6
48$4
3050
.7%
Sin
gle
Fam
ily (1
,500
to 2
,499
sf)
2.26
$309
.91
$700
$483
44.9
% S
ingl
e Fa
mily
(2,5
00 sf
or g
reat
er)
2.52
$309
.91
$781
$524
49.0
% M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
t1.
28$3
09.9
1$3
97$2
8539
.3%
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV P
ark
(tie
d do
wn)
1.44
$309
.91
$446
$349
27.8
%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 62 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Table V-9, the County uses approximately $50,000 per year of non-impact fee funding for library capacity projects. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure V-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum impact fee calculated above. This level is compared to investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Given that the available non-impact fee funding for library capital facilities is very limited, the County needs most of the impact fee (approximately 95 percent) to maintain the adopted LOS standards used to calculate the impact fee. In addition, library impact fees are charged only to residential land uses and the County’s primary focus at this time is to provide some impact fee relief to non-residential land uses.
Figure V-1 Library Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
95%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 63 Impact Fee Update Study
Table V-12 Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth
(1) Calculated based on the average annual growth rate of 1.4% and non-impact fee funding of $50,000
per year. (2) Source: Calculated impact fee from Table V-11 multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate
(Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees shown do not include the administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1)
Staff Recommended Fee Rate Based on a review of capital needs in the near future, the County staff recommends suspension of library impact fees until the next technical update study. At that time, the capital expansion needs for libraries will be reviewed and the suspension may need to be lifted. Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s library impact fee program, a comparison of library facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table V-13 presents this comparison. As presented, Indian River County’s calculated fee is higher than fees adopted by other Counties, which reflects the high investment levels to the County’s library facilities.
Residential Land Use
Affordable Growth
Adoption Rate(1)
Total Impact Fee(2)
2009 Adopted
Fee(3)
Percent Change(4)
Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) 96% $622 $430 44.7% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) 96% $672 $483 39.1% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) 96% $750 $524 43.1% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit 96% $381 $285 33.7% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) 96% $428 $349 22.6%
Libr
ary
Faci
litie
s Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e Co
mpa
rison
uni
t e
V-11
e
V-12
Co
unty
Sta
ff re
com
men
ds su
spen
sion
of th
e lib
rary
faci
litie
s im
pact
fee
base
d on
a re
view
of u
pcom
ing
capi
tal n
eeds
. n
Rive
r Cou
nty.
Fee
s sho
wn
do n
ot in
clud
e th
e ad
min
istra
tive
fee.
ar
d Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
ucie
Cou
nty
Plan
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
ces D
epar
tmen
t; Fe
es h
ave
been
incr
ease
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
otte
Cou
nty
Plan
ning
& L
and
Deve
lopm
ent D
epar
tmen
t. F
ees h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Fee
s are
cur
rent
ly su
spen
ded.
s C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
er C
ount
y Im
pact
Fee
Adm
inist
ratio
n De
part
men
t; Fe
es h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
an
do C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
ands
Cou
nty
Code
of O
rdin
ance
s, S
ectio
n 13
-28;
Impa
ct fe
e m
orat
oriu
m in
effe
ct th
roug
h Ju
ne 3
0, 2
017.
in
Cou
nty
Grow
th M
anag
emen
t Dep
artm
ent
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Ra
te(5
)
f Las
t Upd
ate
2014
2014
2014
2005
2000
2009
2009
2010
2010
2005
2on
Per
cent
age
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
29%
100%
78%
100%
100%
100%
10
2,00
0 sf
)du
$700
$672
$0$4
83$6
4$2
17$1
33$2
38$3
15$1
07$
cces
sory
Uni
t1,
000
sf$3
97$3
81$0
$285
$38
$140
$90
$179
$160
$81
$RV
Par
k (t
ied
dow
n)1,
000
sf$4
46$4
28$0
$349
$46
$170
$94
$228
$237
$107
$
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(8)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(9
)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(1
0)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(11)
High
Cou
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(7)
and
Use
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Brev
ard
Coun
ty(6
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 65 Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Emergency Services This section provides the results of the emergency services impact fee analysis. There are several major elements associated with the development of the emergency services impact fee:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Emergency Services Impact Cost Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this section with the result being the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule. Facility Inventory Table VI-1 presents the building and land inventory for Indian River County. Indian River County currently has a total of 12 fire/EMS stations. In addition, the County has a training tower and owns the land where Station 13 will be built. Table VI-1 summarizes the County’s emergency services land and building inventory. The value of buildings and land are based on recent construction, insurance and land values of the existing facilities, vacant land sales and values of parcels with similar characteristics, and information obtained from other jurisdictions. A more detailed explanation of building and land value estimates is included in Appendix F.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
66
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e VI
-1
Land
& B
uild
ings
Inve
ntor
y
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Build
ing
squa
re fo
otag
e m
ultip
lied
by $
260
for p
rimar
y bu
ildin
gs a
nd $
150
for T
rain
ing
Tow
er b
ased
on
rece
nt c
onst
ruct
ion,
insu
ranc
e va
lues
, inf
orm
atio
n fr
om o
ther
juris
dict
ions
, and
disc
ussio
ns w
ith a
rchi
tect
s/co
ntra
ctor
s. A
ppen
dix
F pr
ovid
es fu
rthe
r det
ail.
(3)
Num
ber o
f acr
es m
ultip
lied
by la
nd v
alue
per
acr
e (It
em 8
) (4
) Su
m o
f bui
ldin
g va
lue
(Item
2) a
nd la
nd v
alue
(Ite
m 3
) (5
) Th
e Co
unty
doe
s not
ow
n, b
ut le
ases
the
land
for S
tatio
n 1.
As s
uch,
it is
not
incl
uded
in th
e in
vent
ory
(6)
Land
ass
ocia
ted
with
the
build
ing
is in
clud
ed in
the
inve
ntor
y of
pub
lic b
uild
ings
, as
part
of t
he E
mer
genc
y O
pera
tions
Cen
ter.
(7)
Tota
l bui
ldin
g va
lue
(Item
2) d
ivid
ed b
y sq
uare
foot
age
(8)
Land
val
ue is
est
imat
ed a
t $60
,000
per
acr
e ba
sed
on re
cent
sale
s, va
cant
land
val
ues o
f par
cels
with
sim
ilar s
ize
and/
or lo
catio
n. S
ee A
ppen
dix
F fo
r ad
ditio
nal d
etai
l.
Faci
lity
Desc
riptio
nLo
catio
n(1)
Year
Ac
quire
d/
Built
(1)
Num
ber o
f Ac
res(1
)
Squa
re
Feet
(1)
Build
ing
Valu
e(2)
Land
Valu
e(3)
Tota
l Bui
ldin
g an
d La
nd
Valu
e(4)
Fire
Sta
tion
1(5)
1500
Old
Dix
ie H
wy,
Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2960
1986
n/a
10,4
18$2
,708
,680
n/a
$2,7
08,6
80Fi
re S
tatio
n 2
3301
Brid
ge P
laza
Dr,
Vero
Bea
ch, F
L 329
6320
070.
928,
436
$2,1
93,3
60$5
5,20
0$2
,248
,560
Fire
Sta
tion
329
00 4
3rd
Ave,
Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2960
2007
2.72
9,27
5$2
,411
,500
$163
,200
$2,5
74,7
00Fi
re S
tatio
n 4
1500
9th
St S
W, V
ero
Beac
h, F
L 329
6220
072.
187,
440
$1,9
34,4
00$1
30,8
00$2
,065
,200
Fire
Sta
tion
565
80 O
ld D
ixie
Hw
y, V
ero
Beac
h, F
L 329
6720
072.
447,
533
$1,9
58,5
80$1
46,4
00$2
,104
,980
Fire
Sta
tion
610
1 So
uth
A1A,
Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2963
1986
2.20
3,08
0$8
00,8
00$1
32,0
00$9
32,8
00Fi
re S
tatio
n 7
1215
82n
d Av
e, V
ero
Beac
h, F
L 329
6619
860.
503,
136
$815
,360
$30,
000
$845
,360
Fire
Sta
tion
811
15 B
arbe
r St,
Seba
stia
n, F
L 329
5819
991.
006,
243
$1,6
23,1
80$6
0,00
0$1
,683
,180
Fire
Sta
tion
916
40 U
S 1,
Seb
astia
n, F
L 329
5820
097.
057,
386
$1,9
20,3
60$4
23,0
00$2
,343
,360
Fire
Sta
tion
1062
Nor
th B
road
way
, Fel
lsm
ere,
FL 3
2948
1996
0.48
5,52
0$1
,435
,200
$28,
800
$1,4
64,0
00Fi
re S
tatio
n 11
2555
93r
d St
, Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2963
2001
1.51
6,97
6$1
,813
,760
$90,
600
$1,9
04,3
60Fi
re S
tatio
n 12
3620
49t
h St
, Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2967
2009
4.00
7,38
6$1
,920
,360
$240
,000
$2,1
60,3
60Tr
aini
ng T
ower
(6)
4225
43r
d Av
enue
, Ver
o Be
ach,
FL 3
2967
2008
n/a
2,60
4$3
90,6
00n/
a$3
90,6
00Pl
anne
d St
atio
n 13
4440
4th
St,
Vero
Bea
ch, F
L 329
68FY
08/
093.
21n/
an/
a$1
92,6
00$1
92,6
0028
.21
85,4
33$2
1,92
6,14
0$1
,692
,600
$23,
618,
740
$257
$60,
000
Tota
lBu
ildin
g Va
lue
per S
quar
e Fo
ot(7
)
Land
Val
ue p
er A
cre(8
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 67 Impact Fee Update Study
In addition to land and buildings, the IRC emergency services inventory includes the necessary vehicles and equipment required to perform its services. As presented in Table VI-2, the total vehicle cost is approximately $15 million.
Table VI-2
Vehicle Inventory and Values
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Units multiplied by unit cost
Table VI-3 presents the equipment inventory and related costs for Indian River County.
Table VI-3
Equipment Inventory and Values
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Units per station multiplied by 12 (number of stations in Indian River County) (3) Unit cost multiplied by total units
Description Units(1) Unit Cost(1) Total Value(2)
Ladder Truck 2 $800,000 $1,600,000Brush Truck 8 $193,000 $1,544,000Dive Rescue Unit 1 $130,000 $130,0003,000 Gallon Tanker Truck 1 $150,000 $150,000Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 $150,000 $150,000Marine Fire Boat 1 $100,000 $100,000Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 1 $20,000 $20,000Fire Engine 16 $465,000 $7,440,000Ambulance 17 $225,000 $3,825,000
$14,959,000Total
DescriptionUnits per Station(1)
Total Units(12 Stations)(2)
UnitCost(1)
TotalValue(3)
Turnout Gear 15 180 $2,150 $387,000Lifepack 2 24 $32,000 $768,000Radio (portable) 5 60 $4,000 $240,000Radio (vehicle) 4 48 $4,000 $192,000Stretcher 1 12 $13,000 $156,000Thermal Imager 1 12 $9,800 $117,600MSA, Airbag 5 60 $10,885 $653,100Spreader, Ocutter, K12 1 12 $24,339 $292,068Suction Unit 1 12 $1,000 $12,000
$2,817,768Total
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 68 Impact Fee Update Study
Service Area and Population Emergency services are provided by the County in the unincorporated areas and most municipalities. The Town of Indian River Shores, however, maintains its own fire department. Therefore, the proper benefit district for emergency services is the entire county excluding the Town of Indian River Shores. For impact fee calculations, the current 2013 countywide functional population estimate, excluding Indian River Shores, is used, which is provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. Because simply using weighted population does not fully address all of the benefactors of emergency service, the “functional” weekly 24-hour population approach is used to establish a common unit of demand across different land uses (See Appendix A for further information). Level-of-Service Typically, level of service for emergency services is expressed in terms of stations per 1,000 residents for capital facility planning purposes. Using this method, IRC’s current level of service (LOS) is 1 station per 11,963 residents or 0.084 stations per 1,000 residents. The County’s adopted LOS standard is 0.089 stations per 1,000 residents. Since the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard, the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. As mentioned in the previous sections, LOS needs to be measured using functional population to capture all residents, workers, and visitors that benefit from emergency services. In terms of functional population, LOS is calculated at 0.088 stations per 1,000 functional residents. Table VI-4 summarizes the calculation of the LOS standard using the 2013 population and functional population. The County has plans to add two stations over the next five years. This would result in a LOS of 0.095 stations per 1,000 residents. However, since this LOS is not yet achieved, the existing LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. Although the LOS is measured in terms of stations per population for planning purposes and in terms of response time for operational purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for emergency services infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 69 Impact Fee Update Study
per resident for emergency services, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.
Table VI-4 Level-of-Service (2013)
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-11. Figures exclude population of Indian River Shores. (2) Source: Table VI-1 (3) Population (Item 1) divided by the number of stations (Item 2) (4) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1) divided by 1,000 (5) Source: Indian River County (6) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (7) 2017 population divided by the future number of stations (Item 6) (8) Future number of stations (Item 7) divided by the 2017 population multiplied by 1,000
Table VI-5 compares the levels of service for other Florida counties as well as the state of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for the service area of all entities.
Weighted Population
FunctionalPopulation
Population(1) 143,561 136,323Number of Stations(2) 12 12Population per Station(3) 11,963 11,360LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(4) 0.084 0.088Adopted LOSS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(5) 0.089 0.093
Population -- 2017(1) 148,034 140,598Future Number of Stations(6) 14 14Future Population per Station(7) 10,574 10,043Future LOS (Stations per 1,000 Residents)(8) 0.095 0.100
Year 2013Calculation Step
Future LOS:
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 70 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VI-5 Level-of-Service Comparison
(1) Source: BEBR, 2012 final population estimates (2) Source: County websites and the U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Department Census (3) Service area population (Item 1) divided by number of stations (Item 2) (4) Number of stations (Item 2) divided by the service area population (Item 1) divided by 1,000
Cost Component Table VI-6 summarizes the total current value of land, buildings, and equipment for emergency services, including:
Twelve stations with a total asset value of $23.6 million for buildings and land and $17.8 million for vehicles and equipment, for a total asset value of $41.4 million; and
An average value of $3.5 million per station. In addition, Table VI-6 presents the total impact cost per functional resident for emergency services in Indian River County, which is calculated by multiplying the net asset value per station by the LOS (stations per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000. The total impact cost for emergency services provided by the County is $304 per functional resident.
JurisdictionService Area Population
(2012)(1)
Number of Stations(2)
Residents per Station(3)
LOS (Stations) per 1,000
Residents)(4)
Okeechobee County 39,805 2 19,903 0.050St. Lucie County 280,355 17 16,491 0.061Hernando County 173,104 14 12,365 0.081Osceola County 180,821 16 11,301 0.088Indian River County 135,510 12 11,293 0.089Collier County 293,343 28 10,477 0.095Citrus County 132,285 13 10,176 0.098St. Johns County 176,128 18 9,785 0.102Charlotte County 146,373 17 8,610 0.116Martin County 128,332 15 8,555 0.117Brevard County 205,690 31 6,635 0.151Highlands County 98,955 21 4,712 0.212
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 71 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VI-6 Total Impact Cost
(1) Source: Table VI-1 (2) Source: Table VI-1 (3) Source: Table VI-2 (4) Source: Table VI-3 (5) Source: Table VI-1 (6) Total asset value divided by the number of stations (Item 5) (7) Source: Table VI-4 (8) Cost per station (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) divided by 1,000 (9) Distribution of building, land, vehicle, and equipment values
Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the emergency services impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for emergency services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, vehicles, and equipment included in the inventory. It should be noted that the credit component does not include any capital renovation, maintenance, or operations expenses, as these types of expenditures cannot be funded with impact fee revenue. Capital Expansion Expenditure Credit To calculate the capital expansion expenditure credit per functional resident, the historical capital expansion projects and those programmed in the CIP are reviewed. During the time period from 2008 through 2017, the County allocated an average annual non-impact fee funding of $757,000 toward emergency services capital facilities. The annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same
Description FigurePercent of
Total Value(9)
Building Value(1) $21,926,140 52.97%Land Value(2) $1,692,600 4.09%Vehicle Value(3) $14,959,000 36.14%Equipment Value(4) $2,817,768 6.81%Total Asset Value $41,395,508 100.01%Number of Stations(5) 12Cost per Station(6) $3,449,626LOS(7) 0.088Total Impact Cost per Resident(8) $303.57
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 72 Impact Fee Update Study
period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. Although the County used some sales tax revenues toward emergency services capacity projects, because this amount was insignificant (less than 1 percent of non-impact fee spending), a separate credit for sales tax revenues was not calculated. As presented in Table VI-7, the result is an average annual expansion cost of $5.55 per functional resident.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
73
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e VI
-7
Capa
city
Exp
ansio
n Pr
ojec
ts
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Tota
l cap
ital e
xpan
sion
expe
nditu
res d
ivid
ed b
y 10
(3
) So
urce
: Ap
pend
ix A
, Tab
le A
-11
(4)
Aver
age
annu
al c
apita
l exp
ansio
n ex
pend
iture
s (Ite
m 2
) div
ided
by
aver
age
func
tiona
l pop
ulat
ion
(Item
3)
Expe
nditu
re(1
)FY
200
7/08
FY 2
008/
09FY
200
9/10
FY 2
010/
11FY
201
1/12
FY 2
012/
13FY
201
3/14
FY 2
014/
15FY
201
5/16
FY 2
016/
17To
tal
Emer
genc
y Se
rvic
es D
istr
ict F
und
Fibe
r Opt
ics
$13,
097
--
--
--
--
-$1
3,09
7EO
C Tr
aini
ng C
ente
r$6
10,8
01-
--
--
--
--
$610
,801
Fire
Sta
tion
12$4
0,23
1$1
,980
,929
$59,
514
--
--
--
-$2
,080
,674
Fire
Sta
tion
13-
--
--
$426
,304
$426
,304
--
-$8
52,6
08Fi
re S
tatio
n 14
--
--
--
-$2
00,0
00$1
,600
,000
-$1
,800
,000
Med
Uni
t-
--
--
$225
,000
-$2
25,0
00-
-$4
50,0
00Fi
re P
umpe
r-
--
--
-$4
57,0
00-
$457
,000
-$9
14,0
00O
ne Q
uint
(Fire
App
arat
us)
--
--
--
--
$800
,000
-$8
00,0
00O
ptio
nal S
ales
Tax
Rev
enue
sFi
re S
tatio
n 12
$47,
209
--
--
--
--
-$4
7,20
9Em
erge
ncy
Ser
vice
s Dis
tric
t Fun
d an
d O
ptio
nal S
ales
Tax
Rev
enue
s$7
11,3
38$1
,980
,929
$59,
514
--
$651
,304
$883
,304
$425
,000
$2,8
57,0
00-
$7,5
68,3
89$7
56,8
3913
6,43
5$5
.55
Capi
tal E
xpan
sion
Exp
endi
ture
s per
Fun
ctio
nal R
esid
ent(4
)
Tota
l Cap
ital E
xpan
sion
Exp
endi
ture
s
Aver
age
Func
tiona
l Pop
ulat
ion(3
)
Aver
age
Annu
al C
apita
l Exp
ansi
on E
xpen
ditu
res(2
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 74 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Emergency Services Impact Cost The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VI-8 summarizes the calculation of the net emergency services impact cost per functional resident. The first section of this table identifies the total impact cost as $304 per functional resident. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the emergency services impact fee totaling approximately $102 per functional resident which is equal to the net present value of the capital expansion credit per functional resident. The net impact cost per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit. This results in a net impact cost of $201 per functional resident, which reflects the relevant LOS for emergency services.
Table VI-8
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table VI-6 (2) Source: Table VI-7 (3) Average annual capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) over a capitalization rate of
2.5% for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate is provided by Indian River County. (4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per functional resident
(Item 3)
Impact Cost / Credit Element Impact CostRevenue Credits
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(1) $303.57
Avg Annual Capital Improvement Credit per Functional Resident(2) $5.55Capitalization Rate 2.5%Capitalization Period (in years) 25Capital Improvement Credit per Resident(3) $102.26
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $201.31Net Impact Cost
Impact Cost
Revenue Credit
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 75 Impact Fee Update Study
Calculated Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Table VI-9 presents the calculated emergency services impact fee schedule developed for Indian River County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously presented in Table VI-8. The table also includes a comparison to the 2009 adopted fees.
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.56 $314 $278 12.9 - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.73 $348 $301 15.6
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.90 $181 $176 2.8240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 0.98 $197 $182 8.2
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 0.65 $131 $160 -18.1320 Motel room 0.60 $121 $160 -24.4
252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $185 $172 7.6OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $229 $299 -23.4Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $334 $299 11.7
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $449 $341 31.7912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $459 $280 63.9710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $201 $246 -18.3760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $171 $130 31.5
INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $101 $88 14.8150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $56 $68 -17.6151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.06 $12 $13 -7.7152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 0.14 $28 $68 -58.8110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $139 $120 15.8n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $312 $265 17.7n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $40 $34 17.6
RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 2.37 $477 $503 -5.2
944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 1.91 $385 $303 27.1841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $296 $300 -1.3932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,365 $1,289 5.9934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $1,792 $1,389 29.0850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $413 $357 15.7942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $302 $107 182.2947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $175 $332 -47.3853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,174 $746 57.4890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $46 $56 -17.9
RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $217 $429 -49.4492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $622 $417 49.2412 County Park acre 0.20 $40 $27 48.1491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $636 $408 55.9420 Marina berth 0.19 $38 $27 40.7
GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $326 $312 4.5590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $354 $302 17.2733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $280 $238 17.6571 Jail bed 0.87 $175 $153 14.4
MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $179 $177 1.1610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $276 $275 0.4640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $511 $287 78.0560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $103 $94 9.6444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,204 $1,490 -19.2520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $12 $17 -29.4522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $14 $17 -17.6
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 77 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy In the case of emergency services, based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County uses approximately $757,000 per year of non-impact fee funding. During the next 25 years, the County is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure VI-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum calculated impact fee. This level is compared to the level of investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of emergency services impact fee calculated, only approximately 8 percent of this amount is needed to maintain the current/achieved LOS due to non-impact fee contributions from the existing development and low rate of population growth. If the impact fee is adopted at a level higher than 8 percent, the LOS is likely to improve as long as the County continues to spend approximately $757,000 of non-impact fee revenues per year toward capacity projects. In addition, if the County would like to charge no fee to non-residential land uses, it can do so and still maintain the existing LOS as long as the fee for residential land uses is adopted at 11 percent.
Figure VI-1 Emergency Services Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
8%
- Less than 1,500 sf du 11% $32 $247 -87.0 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 11% $35 $278 -87.4 - 2,500 sf or greater du 11% $38 $301 -87.4
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 11% $20 $176 -88.6240 Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) du 11% $22 $182 -87.9
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room 0% $0 $160 -100.0320 Motel room 0% $0 $160 -100.0
252/260 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0% $0 $172 -100.0OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 0% $0 $299 -100.0Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 0% $0 $299 -100.0
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 0% $0 $341 -100.0912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 0% $0 $280 -100.0710 General Office 1,000 sf 0% $0 $246 -100.0760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0% $0 $130 -100.0
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0% $0 $88 -100.0150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0% $0 $68 -100.0151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 0% $0 $13 -100.0152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf 0% $0 $68 -100.0110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0% $0 $120 -100.0n/a Concrete Plant acre 0% $0 $265 -100.0n/a Sand Mining acre 0% $0 $34 -100.0
RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 sfgla 0% $0 $503 -100.0
944/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 0% $0 $303 -100.0841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 0% $0 $300 -100.0932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 0% $0 $1,289 -100.0934 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 0% $0 $1,389 -100.0850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 0% $0 $357 -100.0942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 0% $0 $107 -100.0947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0% $0 $332 -100.0853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 0% $0 $746 -100.0890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0% $0 $56 -100.0
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole 0% $0 $429 -100.0492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 0% $0 $417 -100.0412 County Park acre 0% $0 $27 -100.0491 Tennis Court court 0% $0 $408 -100.0420 Marina berth 0% $0 $27 -100.0
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf 0% $0 $312 -100.0590 Library 1,000 sf 0% $0 $302 -100.0733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 0% $0 $238 -100.0571 Jail bed 0% $0 $153 -100.0
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0% $0 $177 -100.0610 Hospital 1,000 sf 0% $0 $275 -100.0640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 0% $0 $287 -100.0560 Church 1,000 sf 0% $0 $94 -100.0444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 0% $0 $1,490 -100.0520 Elementary School (Private K-5) student 0% $0 $17 -100 0
210
720
g y ( )
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 79 Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of emergency services, the County staff recommends adopting the full calculated fee to fund the needed capital projects in this area and be able to allocate a larger portion of the ad valorem dollars for operational expenses. Emergency Services Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s emergency services impact fee program, a comparison of impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table VI-11 presents this comparison.
Emer
genc
y Se
rvic
es Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e Co
mpa
rison
Rive
r Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
the
full
calc
ulat
ed fe
e ra
tes.
y.
Fee
s sho
wn
do n
ot in
clud
e th
e ad
min
istra
tive
fee.
an
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t; Fi
re/R
escu
e an
d EM
S ra
tes a
re c
ombi
ned;
Indu
stria
l lan
d us
es a
re e
xem
pt fr
om im
pact
fees
. ty
Boa
rd o
f Cou
nty
Com
miss
ione
rs A
dmin
istra
tion
Depa
rtm
ent.
Fire
and
EM
S ra
tes a
re c
ombi
ned.
an
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
ces D
epar
tmen
t; Fe
es h
ave
been
incr
ease
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
Plan
ning
& L
and
Deve
lopm
ent D
epar
tmen
t. In
Cha
rlott
e, b
ank
w/d
rive-
thru
is c
harg
ed “
per l
ane”
. Fe
es h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Fee
s are
cur
rent
ly su
spen
ded.
ni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
act F
ee A
dmin
istra
tion
Depa
rtm
ent;
EMS
rate
s onl
y; F
ees h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent;
Fire
and
EM
S ra
tes a
re c
ombi
ned.
Co
de o
f Ord
inan
ces,
Sec
tion
13-2
8; F
ire/R
escu
e an
d EM
S ra
tes a
re c
ombi
ned;
Impa
ct fe
e m
orat
oriu
m in
effe
ct th
roug
h Ju
ne 3
0, 2
017.
ow
th M
anag
emen
t Dep
artm
ent
lann
ing
& Z
onin
g De
part
men
t; Fe
es h
ave
been
incr
ease
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Fe
e(5)
2014
2014
2014
2005
2000
2012
2009
2006
2009
2010
2010
2005
200
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25%
du$3
14$3
5$3
14$2
78$9
3$5
74$5
57$1
65$1
71$3
93$9
4$2
35
1,00
0 sf
$139
$0$1
39$1
20n/
a$1
19$7
4$5
0$5
9$9
0$4
6$8
61,
000
sf$2
01$0
$201
$246
$44
$278
$329
$90
$108
$226
$95
$171
1,00
0 sf
$477
$0$4
77$5
03$2
07$5
95$5
17$3
00$1
65$4
55$1
65$3
341,
000
sf$4
59$0
$459
$280
$105
$595
$517
$300
$234
$455
$153
$328
1,00
0 sf
$1,7
92$0
$1,7
92$1
,389
$552
$595
$517
$1,3
90$6
69$4
55$6
03$5
10$
Osc
eola
Co
unty
(9)
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(10)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(1
1)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(1
2)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(13)
High
laCo
unt
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(8)
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Brev
ard
Coun
ty(6
)
Oke
echo
bee
Coun
ty(7
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 81 Impact Fee Update Study
VII. Law Enforcement
Law enforcement impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of police service related land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional law enforcement service demand created by new growth. This section of the report presents the results of the law enforcement impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated law enforcement impact fee schedule.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the law enforcement impact fee. These include:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
Facility Inventory
According to information provided by the IRC Sheriff’s Office (IRCSO) and the County, Indian River County has 68,000 square feet of building space and almost 13 acres of land associated with law enforcement services. Table VII-1 presents this information.
Building value is estimated based on recent construction, insurance values of existing buildings, and information from other Florida jurisdictions. Land value is based on the value of parcels where existing buildings are located and an analysis of vacant land sales and values. Additional information is provided in Appendix F.
It should be noted that, in addition to these buildings, IRCSO leases several buildings to accommodate substations and storage facilities. For the purposes of this impact fee study, the inventory includes only the space owned by the County.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
82
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e VI
I-1
Land
and
Bui
ldin
g In
vent
ory
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Repr
esen
ts sq
uare
foot
age
of a
ll bu
ildin
gs o
n th
e as
soci
ated
acr
eage
(whe
ther
law
enf
orce
men
t-re
late
d or
not
) (3
) N
umbe
r of a
cres
div
ided
by
the
tota
l squ
are
foot
age
on-s
ite, m
ultip
lied
by sq
uare
foot
age
(4)
Calc
ulat
ed b
ased
on
$200
per
squa
re fo
ot fo
r prim
ary
build
ings
and
$50
per
squa
re fo
ot fo
r sup
port
bui
ldin
gs
(5)
Allo
cate
d ac
reag
e (It
em 3
) mul
tiplie
d by
land
val
ue p
er a
cre
(Item
9)
(6)
Sum
of b
uild
ing
and
land
val
ues (
Item
s 4 a
nd 5
) (7
) Ac
reag
e in
clud
ed in
the
publ
ic b
uild
ings
impa
ct fe
e ca
lcul
atio
ns
(8)
Tota
l bui
ldin
g va
lue
divi
ded
by to
tal s
quar
e fo
otag
e (9
) Es
timat
ed b
ased
on
valu
e of
cur
rent
par
cels,
a re
view
of r
ecen
t sal
es a
nd v
acan
t lan
d va
lues
of p
arce
ls w
ith si
mila
r siz
e an
d lo
catio
n
Faci
lity
Desc
riptio
nYe
ar
Acqu
ired/
Bu
ilt(1
)
Num
ber o
f Ac
res(1
)
Squa
re
Feet
(1)
Tota
l Squ
are
Foot
age
on
Site
(2)
Allo
cate
d Ac
reag
e(3)
Build
ing
Valu
e(4)
Land
Valu
e(5)
Tota
l Bui
ldin
g an
d La
nd
Valu
e(6)
Sher
iff's
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Build
ing
1988
33,3
326.
88$6
,666
,400
$344
,000
$7,0
10,4
00Sh
eriff
's Fl
eet C
ompo
und
1988
9,85
62.
03$1
,971
,200
$101
,500
$2,0
72,7
00Ge
nera
l Ser
vice
s Bui
ldin
gN
/A2,
100
0.43
$420
,000
$21,
500
$441
,500
Sher
iffs C
rime
Scen
e Ev
iden
ce A
dditi
on20
031,
000
0.21
$200
,000
$10,
500
$210
,500
Cour
thou
se S
ecur
ityN
/A58
7N
/A$1
17,4
00N
/A$1
17,4
00Co
urth
ouse
Civ
il Pr
oces
sN
/A1,
914
N/A
$382
,800
N/A
$382
,800
SunS
ky O
ffic
e Sp
ace
2011
4,92
00.
75$9
84,0
00$3
7,50
0$1
,021
,500
Crim
e Sc
ene
Build
ing
2013
13,2
262.
00$2
,645
,200
$100
,000
$2,7
45,2
00
Bas
eN
/A26
40.
05$1
3,20
0$2
,500
$15,
700
Sto
rage
Bld
g/M
aint
enan
ce S
hed
N/A
1,00
00.
21$5
0,00
0$1
0,50
0$6
0,50
0To
tal
68,1
9912
.56
$13,
450,
200
$628
,000
$14,
078,
200
$197
$50,
000
Build
ing
Valu
e pe
r Squ
are
Foot
(8)
N/A
(7)
122,
501
Land
Val
ue p
er A
cre(9
)
Prim
ary
Build
ings
:
2.75
9.81
9.81
18,1
46
47,5
52
47,5
52
Mis
cella
neou
s Sup
port
Bui
ldin
gs O
n-Si
te:
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 83 Impact Fee Update Study
In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the IRCSO also has the vehicles and equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table IV-2 summarizes the equipment and vehicle inventory.
Table VII-2
Equipment and Vehicle Inventory
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Calculated by dividing the total value by number of units
Service Area and Population Law enforcement services are provided by the IRCSO in the unincorporated areas of the County. Municipalities within IRC have their own police departments. Therefore, the proper benefit district for law enforcement is the unincorporated county and weighted seasonal population for unincorporated county is used in the impact fee calculations. In addition, because law enforcement services are provided to all land uses and all residents, visitors, and workers, the “functional” population for unincorporated county is calculated and used as well. Appendix A provides further information on population estimates. Level-of-Service Based on the information provided by the County, the Indian River County’s 2013 level-of-service is 1.89 law enforcement officers per 1,000 weighted residents. The County’s adopted LOS standard is 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Table VII-3 presents this information. Given that the achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard and new
Equipment Units(1) Unit Value(2) Total Value(1)
Vehicles 281 $13,347 $3,750,435Vehicle/Radio Equipment 1,577 $1,523 $2,401,999Weapons 450 $535 $240,733Office Equipment 1 $148,292 $148,292Specialty Vehicles/Equipment 2 $65,266 $130,532Electronic Equipment 1 $196,760 $196,760Computer Equipment 1 $1,604,426 $1,604,426Misc. Equipment 1 $890,490 $890,490911 Center Equipment 76 $7,723 $586,930
$9,950,597Total Equipment Value
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 84 Impact Fee Update Study
development cannot be charged for a higher LOS than what is being provided, the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. The County does not have any new law enforcement capital facilities programmed in the Five-Year CIP; however, the Sheriff’s Master Plan identifies needs for additional administrative space and a crime scene investigation unit. The estimated cost for this project is $25 million to $30 million. Due to lack of funding, this project is not yet programmed. Since the timing of this project is not known yet, a future LOS estimate is not calculated. While the 2013 LOS is 1.89 officers per 1,000 weighted residents, in order to calculate the law enforcement facilities impact fee, the LOS needs to be calculated in terms of officers per 1,000 functional residents. Table VII-3 also illustrates the calculation of the current LOS using the total functional residents within the service area. The current LOS of law enforcement facilities is 2.11 officers per 1,000 functional residents.
Table VII-3 Level-of-Service (2013)
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 for weighted population and Table A-11 for functional population;
Unincorporated population (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office (3) Number of officer (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1) multiplied by 1,000 (4) Source: Indian River County
Table VII-4 summarizes a LOS comparison between Indian River County and other Florida counties. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for all jurisdictions because a functional population analysis has not been completed for these entities. The LOS comparison is based on the permanent population for 2012, as this is the most recent population data available for all jurisdictions. As presented in this table, the Indian River County’s LOS is on the high end of these other communities.
Weighted Population
Functional Population
Population(1) 97,681 87,590Number of Officers(2) 185 185LOS (officers per 1,000 residents)(3) 1.89 2.11Adopted LOS Standard (officers per 1,000 residents)(4) 2.09 2.33
ComponentYear 2013
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 85 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VII-4 Level-of-Service Comparison
(1) Source: Indian River County and Florida Department of Law Enforcement Criminal
Justice Agency Profile Report, 2012 (2) Permanent population (Item 1) divided by the number of officers (Item 2) divided by
1,000 Finally, although the LOS is measured in terms of officers per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for law enforcement infrastructure. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for law enforcement capital facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes. Cost Component
The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment. Table VII-5 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to approximately $130,000 per sworn law enforcement officer. Table VII-5 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost was calculated as the total capital cost of approximately $130,000 per officer multiplied by the LOS of 2.11 officers per 1,000 functional residents divided by 1,000. As shown in the
JurisdictionService Area Population
(2012)(1)
Number of Officers(1)
LOS (Officers per 1,000
Residents)(2)
Collier County 293,744 270 0.92St. Johns County 176,721 219 1.24Highlands County 77,041 99 1.29Charlotte County 146,373 189 1.29Citrus County 140,761 181 1.29Hernando County 165,402 216 1.31Okeechobee County 34,227 47 1.37Martin County 128,656 183 1.42St. Lucie County 71,457 137 1.92Osceola County 180,821 358 1.98Indian River County (Existing) 92,795 185 1.99Brevard County 223,781 474 2.12
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 86 Impact Fee Update Study
following table, the total impact cost per resident is approximately $274 for law enforcement facilities.
Table VII-5 Unit Cost per Functional Resident
(1) Source: Table VII-1 (2) Source: Table VII-1 (3) Source: Table VII-2 (4) Sum of building value (Item 1), land value (Item 2), and vehicle/equipment value (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VII-3 (6) Total asset value (Item 4) divided by number of officers (Item 5) (7) Source: Table VII-3 (8) Total asset value per officer (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) divided by 1,000 (9) Distribution of building, land, vehicle and equipment values
Credit Component
A review of historical expenditures as well as projects programmed in the Five-Year CIP suggested that there were no non-impact fee funding used toward capacity projects between 2008 and 2017. As such, a credit for non-impact fee funding is not needed.
Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost
Given that there is no credit, net law enforcement impact cost is $274 per resident, as shown previously in Table VII-5, which is also the relevant LOS measure for impact fee calculation purposes.
Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule
A law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and non-residential land uses and is illustrated in Table VII-6.
Component CostPercent of
Total Value(9)
Building Value(1) $13,450,200 55.98%Land Value(2) $628,000 2.61%Vehicle and Equipment Value(3) $9,950,597 41.41%Total Asset Value(4) $24,028,797 100.00%Number of Officers(5) 185Total Asset Value per Officer(6) $129,885Level-of-Service (Officers/1,000 Functional Residents) (7) 2.11Cost per Functional Resident(8) $274.06
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 1.59 $436 $245 78 - 2,500 sf or greater du 1.77 $485 $265 83
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 0.91 $249 $148 68240 Mobile Home / RV (Tied Down) du 0.89 $244 $158 54
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 0.65 $178 $140 27320 Motel room 0.60 $164 $140 17
52/620 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF)/Nursing Home bed 0.92 $252 $151 66OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.14 $312 $262 19Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 1.66 $455 $262 73
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 2.23 $611 $299 104912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 2.28 $625 $245 155710 General Office 1,000 sf 1.00 $274 $216 26760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $233 $114 104
INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.50 $137 $77 77150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 0.28 $77 $59 30151 Mini-Warehouse/Storage 1,000 sf 0.06 $16 $12 33152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 0.14 $38 $59 -35110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.69 $189 $105 80n/a Concrete Plant acre 1.55 $425 $232 83n/a Sand Mining acre 0.20 $55 $30 83
RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 gsf 2.37 $650 $441 47
44/946 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 1.91 $523 $265 97841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $403 $263 53932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 6.78 $1,858 $1,129 64934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 8.90 $2,439 $1,217 100850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.05 $562 $313 79942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 1.50 $411 $114 260947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $238 $291 -18853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 5.83 $1,598 $653 144890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.23 $63 $49 28
RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 1.08 $296 $376 -21492 Raquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 3.09 $847 $366 131412 County Park acre 0.20 $55 $23 139491 Tennis Court court 3.16 $866 $357 142420 Marina berth 0.19 $52 $24 116
GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 1.62 $444 $273 62590 Library 1,000 sf 1.76 $482 $265 81733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 1.39 $381 $209 82571 Jail bed 0.87 $238 $134 77
MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.89 $244 $155 57610 Hospital 1,000 sf 1.37 $375 $241 55640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 2.54 $696 $251 177560 Church 1,000 sf 0.51 $140 $82 70444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 5.98 $1,639 $1,305 25520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 0.06 $16 $14 14522 Middle School (Private, 6-8) student 0.07 $19 $14 35530 High School (Private, 9-12) student 0.08 $22 $18 22
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 88 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy Currently, it appears that the only funding source available for law enforcement capital facilities is the impact fee. As such, unless another revenue source is identified, any reduction in the impact fee will result in a decline in the LOS. In addition, the current achieved LOS is lower than the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, the Sheriff’s Master Plan identifies two projects that are estimated to cost approximately $25 million to $35 million. These projects are not yet programmed due to lack of funding. Given these, the policy decision should focus on the LOS and whether the adopted and/or existing LOS should be reduced or impact fees and/or other revenue sources should be used to maintain/improve the LOS. Staff Recommended Fee Rate The County staff recommends adopting the full calculated impact fee for law enforcement services. Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s law enforcement impact fee schedule, the County’s calculated impact fee schedule was compared to the adopted fee schedule and those in similar or nearby jurisdictions. Table VII-7 presents this comparison.
Calc
ulat
ed L
aw E
nfor
cem
ent I
mpa
ct F
ee S
ched
ule
dwel
ling
unit
rce:
Tab
le V
II-6
rce:
Tab
le V
II-6;
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
the
full
calc
ulat
ed fe
e ra
tes.
rc
e: In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y. F
ees s
how
n do
not
incl
ude
the
adm
inist
rativ
e fe
e.
rce:
St.
Luci
e Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Ser
vice
s Dep
artm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en in
crea
sed
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
rc
e: C
harlo
tte
Coun
ty P
lann
ing
& L
and
Deve
lopm
ent D
epar
tmen
t. In
Cha
rlott
e, b
ank
w/d
rive-
thru
is c
harg
ed “
per l
ane”
. Fe
es h
ave
been
redu
ced
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Fee
s are
en
ded.
us
Cou
nty
Plan
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t er
Cou
nty
Impa
ct F
ee A
dmin
istra
tion
Depa
rtm
ent;
Fees
hav
e be
en re
duce
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
rce:
Her
nand
o Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
rce:
Hig
hlan
ds C
ount
y Co
de o
f Ord
inan
ces,
Sec
tion
13-2
8; Im
pact
fee
mor
ator
ium
in e
ffect
thro
ugh
June
30,
201
7.
rce:
Mar
tin C
ount
y Gr
owth
Man
agem
ent D
epar
tmen
t rc
e: S
t. Jo
hns C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng &
Zon
ing
Depa
rtm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en in
crea
sed
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)St
aff(3
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Ra
te(4
)
e of
Last
Upd
ate
2014
2014
2005
2009
2009
2010
2010
2005
2006
2012
ptio
n Pe
rcen
tage
100%
n/a
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ntia
l:Fa
mily
(2,0
00 sf
)du
$436
$436
$245
$206
$78
$290
$449
$86
$230
$760
side
ntia
l:du
stria
l1,
000
sf$1
89$1
89$1
05$4
8$2
7$6
6$1
49$3
1n/
a$1
5850
,000
sq ft
)1,
000
sf$2
74$2
74$2
16$3
17$4
9$1
66$3
07$6
2n/
a$2
7410
0,00
0 sq
ft)
1,00
0 sf
$650
$650
$441
$351
$76
$335
$531
$121
n/a
$742
/Driv
e-Th
ru1,
000
sf$6
25$6
25$2
45$3
05$1
06$3
35$4
92$1
21n/
a$4
81od
w/D
rive-
Thru
1,00
0 sf
$2,4
39$2
,439
$1,2
17$3
05$3
03$3
35$1
,946
$187
n/a
$2,7
57
Mar
tin
Coun
ty(1
1)
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(6)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(7
)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(8
)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(9)
High
land
s Co
unty
(10)
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(5)
Land
Use
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 90 Impact Fee Update Study
VIII. Parks & Recreation Facilities This section discusses the analysis used in the development of the parks and recreation impact fee. To develop the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule, multiple elements must be addressed, including:
Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities Service Area and Population Level-of-Service Cost Component Credit Component Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
These various elements are summarized throughout this section, with the result being the proposed parks and recreation impact fee schedule. Inventory of Land and Recreation Facilities According to information provided by IRC, the County owns 29 parks located in the unincorporated county. In addition, there are five parks where the land is not owned by the County, but the facilities are. As such, only the facilities in these parks are included in the inventory. Parks that are owned by the County, but located in cities are excluded since the impact fee is collected only in the unincorporated county. Finally, recreation facilities that generate revenue (such as golf courses and the shooting range) are also excluded from the inventory. IRC parks and recreational facilities can be classified into three different types, depending on the population and areas they serve and types of amenities offered. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes definitions of each park type. Table VIII-1 provides the parks and recreation inventory used as the basis for the impact fee. It is important to note that IRC conducted a detailed GIS analysis to ensure that only the useable park upland acreage is included in the inventory, excluding wetlands, habitat land, etc. This approach results in conservative impact fee levels.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Park
s & R
ecre
atio
n Fa
cilit
ies I
nven
tory
y Dist
rict
nage
men
t Dist
rict
eage
was
not
incl
uded
in th
e to
tal a
crea
ge su
mm
ary
since
it is
not
ow
ned
by th
e Co
unty
Tota
l Ac
reag
eO
wne
rshi
pCl
ass
Bask
etba
ll Co
urt
Boat
Ra
mp
Cano
e La
unch
Com
mun
ity
Cent
erDu
ne
Wal
kove
rFi
shin
g Pi
er
Jogg
ing
Trai
ls
(mile
s)
Life
guar
d To
wer
Mai
nten
ance
Fa
cilit
yM
ulti-
Purp
ose
Build
ing
(sf)
Oly
mpi
c Aq
uatic
Ce
nter
Picn
ic
Pavi
lion
Play
-
grou
ndRe
stro
oms
Socc
er
Fiel
dSo
1.00
Coun
tyR
10.
30Co
unty
R1
10.0
0Co
unty
R2
11
15.
00FI
ND(2
)R
41
4.56
SJRW
MD(3
)R
41
12
6.00
SJRW
MD(3
)R
21
21
27.2
5Co
unty
R1
0.50
31
127
.25
Coun
tyR
11
0.50
2,50
01
138
.96
Coun
tyR
26,
006
1.00
1,40
03
13
114
.30
Coun
tyR
11
41
14.
65Co
unty
N2.
00Co
unty
N1
12.
00Co
unty
N1
113
7.92
Coun
tyR
0.25
70,0
003
1N
/ACo
unty
R8,
850
80.0
0St
ate
R1,
500
11.
00Co
unty
R1
271
.43
Coun
tyR
11.
007
35.
84Co
unty
N1
155.
00St
ate
R0.
5040
01
11
0.30
Coun
tyR
10.
50Co
unty
N1
12.
00Co
unty
N1,
401
11
19.
36Co
unty
R1
0.25
16
11
17.0
0Co
unty
R2
11
0.25
11
11.
03Co
unty
C1
172
.70
Coun
tyR
21.
0080
010
13
45.
50Co
unty
R1
11
ompl
ex)
17.0
0Co
unty
R1
0.25
11
11.
00Co
unty
R2
12
15.
00Co
unty
R3
22
71
54.0
0Co
unty
R2
11
31
7.36
Coun
tyN
11
10.0
0Co
unty
N2
1.00
31
110
185
7407
715
6.50
58,
850
76,6
001
5913
326
cilit
ies
Tota
l Ac
reag
eBa
sket
ball
Cour
tBo
at
Ram
pCa
noe
Laun
chCo
mm
unity
Ce
nter
Dune
W
alko
ver
Fish
ing
Pier
Jogg
ing
Trai
ls
(mile
s)
Life
guar
d To
wer
Mai
nten
ance
Fa
cilit
yM
ulti-
Purp
ose
Build
ing
(sf)
Oly
mpi
c Aq
uatic
Ce
nter
Picn
ic
Pavi
lion
Play
-
grou
ndRe
stro
oms
Socc
er
Fiel
dSo
34.3
55
00
1,40
10
11.
00
00
04
54
01.
030
01
00
00.
00
00
01
00
051
1.27
518
46,
006
714
5.5
58,
850
76,6
001
548
286
546.
6510
185
7,40
77
156.
505
8,85
076
,600
159
1332
6
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 92 Impact Fee Update Study
Service Area and Population IRC provides parks and recreation facilities and services in the unincorporated areas of the county. The municipalities provide these facilities and services within their respective jurisdictions. As a result, the parks and recreation impact fee analysis will consider only unincorporated county area population and parks and recreational facilities located within the unincorporated county area. Appendix A, Table A-1, provides the estimated unincorporated area population for 2013 and the projected unincorporated area population through 2040. Parks impact fees are charged only to residential land uses. As such, the weighted seasonal population per housing unit is used to measure demand from each residential land use, which is presented in Appendix A, Table A-3. Level-of-Service The current LOS for all county-owned and maintained neighborhood, community and regional parks in unincorporated county is 5.59 acres per 1,000 residents. Table VIII-2 presents the calculation of the current LOS for each park type included in the inventory, as well as Indian River County’s adopted LOS standard of 6.61 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee cannot charge new growth at a rate to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, there needs to be a commitment to continue providing the LOS used in the impact fee calculation, which is typically achieved through the adopted LOS standard. For impact fee calculation purposes, this study used the lower of the two figures to provide a conservative approach. With this approach, the current achieved LOS is used in the calculation of the parks and recreation impact fee.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 93 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VIII-2 Current Level-of-Service (2013)
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1; Unincorporated County (2) Source: Table VIII-1 (3) Current regional parks number of acres (Item 2) divided by the unincorporated population (Item 1),
multiplied by 1,000 residents. (4) Sum of current neighborhood parks number of acres and current community parks number of acres. (5) Current neighborhood/community parks number of acres (Item 4) divided by the unincorporated
population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 residents. (6) Sum of current regional parks LOS (Item 3) and current neighborhood/community parks LOS (Item 5). (7) Source: Indian River County Table VIII-3 presents a comparison of the parks and recreation adopted LOS standards of other Florida counties to Indian River County’s adopted LOS standards. Based on this comparison, Indian River County’s adopted LOS standards are in the range of the required acreage per 1,000 residents in other communities.
Calculation Step Figure2013 Unincorporated Population(1) 97,681Current Regional Parks Number of Acres(2) 511.27Current Regional Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(3) 5.23Current Neighborhood Parks Number of Acres(2) 34.35Current Community Parks Number of Acres(2) 1.03Total Number of Acres (Neighborhood and Community)(4) 35.38Current Neighborhood & Community Parks LOS Component (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(5) 0.36Current Total Parks LOS (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(6) 5.59Adopted Total Parks LOS Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(7) 6.61
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 94 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VIII-3 Level-of-Service Comparison
(1) Adopted LOS standards provided only include community, regional, and
other similar types of parks and exclude local parks (2) Source: Brevard County Comprehensive Plan (3) Source: Martin County FY 2013 Capital Improvement Program (4) Source: Collier County 2013 AUIR (5) Source: Hernando County Comprehensive Plan (6) Source: Citrus County Comprehensive Plan (7) Source: Okeechobee County Parks & Recreation Master Plan (8) Source: Table VIII-2 (9) Source: Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (10) Source: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (11) Source: Smart Charlotte 2050 Comprehensive Plan (12) Source: Highlands County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (13) Source: Osceola County Comprehensive Plan (14) Source: St. Johns County 2025 Comprehensive Plan
Although the LOS is measured in terms of acres per population for planning purposes, for impact fee calculation purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per resident, which reflects the capacity investment made by the County for park land and facilities. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities, and should be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as the level of service used for impact fee calculation purposes.
JurisdictionLOS Standard
(Acres per 1,000 Residents)(1)
Brevard County(2) 3.00Martin County(3) 3.00Collier County(4) 3.90Hernando County(5) 4.00Citrus County(6) 4.50Okeechobee County(7) 5.50Indian River County (Existing)(8) 5.59Indian River County (Adopted)(9) 6.61St. Lucie County(10) 7.50Charlotte County(11) 10.00Highlands County(12) 10.00Osceola County(13) 10.00St. Johns County(14) 28.00
Average (excluding IRC) 8.13
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 95 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Land Cost Because of recent fluctuations in land values statewide, a detailed analysis of land values for each type of park (and the geographic subareas within the county) was conducted. This analysis takes into consideration current land value of the existing parks as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser as well as an analysis of recent sales of vacant land similar in size and location to Indian River County’s parks. Based on this analysis, an average land value of $50,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations. Appendix F provides the data used for this analysis. The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost of the land. Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/paving costs are also considered. These costs can vary greatly, depending on the type of services offered at each park. Based on information provided by the County, as well as information from similarly sized jurisdictions and park types, basic landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs were estimated and are presented in Table VIII-4.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 96 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VIII-4 Land Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-10 (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Indian River County (4) Sum of land purchase cost (Item 1), landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs (Item 2), and
utilities and paving per acre cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VIII-2 (6) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by regional parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (7) Total land cost per acre (Item 4) multiplied by neighborhood/community parks LOS, divided by 1,000 (8) Sum of land cost per resident for regional parks (Item 6) and neighborhood/community parks (Item 7)
Facility and Equipment Cost The second step in calculating the total cost for parks and recreation services in Indian River County involves estimating the current value of recreational facilities. When available, the value for the parks facilities and equipment is estimated based on recent bids or purchases made by the County for its park facilities. When recent bid/purchase information was not available, unit costs from the County’s insurance reports and recent costs for similar facilities from other jurisdictions were used. As presented in Table VIII-5, the total park facility value is $3.3 million for neighborhood and community parks and $40.7 million for regional parks, for a combined total of $44 million, including facilities, equipment, and architecture and engineering (A&E) costs.
Facility/Calculation Step Cost per AcreLand Purchase Cost per Acre(1) $50,000Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Costs (per acre) (2) $5,000Utilities and Paving (per acre)(3) $20,000Total Land Cost per Acre(4) $75,000Regional Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents) (5) 5.23Land Cost per Resident - Regional Park Component(6) $392.25Neighborhood/Community Parks LOS (acres per 1,000 Residents) (5) 0.36Land Cost per Resident - Neighborhood/Community Park Component(7) $27.00Land Cost per Resident - All Parks(8) $419.25
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 97 Impact Fee Update Study
Table VIII-5 Recreational Facility Asset Value
(1) Source: Table VIII-1 (2) Based on insurance values of existing facilities, information from previous studies for IRC as well as
information from other Florida jurisdictions (3) Source: Table VIII-1 (4) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 3) (5) Source: Table VIII-1 (6) Unit replacement value (Item2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 5) (7) Sum of the total value for community parks (Item 4) and the total value of regional parks (Item 6) (8) Facility and equipment value multiplied by 12.5% based on discussions with Indian River County (9) Sum of the facilities and equipment replacement value and the architecture, engineering, and inspection
cost (Item 8) for each park (10) Source: Table VIII-1 (11) Total facilities and equipment cost (Item 9) divided by the total number of acres (Item 10) for each park
type (12) Source: Table VIII-2 (13) Facilities and equipment value per acre (Item 11) multiplied by the level-of-service (Item 12) divided by
1,000
Description Unit Count(3) Total Value(4) Count(5) Total Value(6)
Basketball Court court $55,000 5 $275,000 5 $275,000 $550,000Boat Ramp ramp lane $100,000 0 $0 18 $1,800,000 $1,800,000Canoe Launch launch $188,000 1 $188,000 4 $752,000 $940,000Community Center sq ft $180 1,401 $252,180 6,006 $1,081,080 $1,333,260Dune Walkover walkover $43,000 0 $0 7 $301,000 $301,000Fishing Pier pier $12,500 1 $12,500 14 $175,000 $187,500Jogging Trails mile $150,000 1.0 $150,000 5.5 $825,000 $975,000Lifeguard Tower tower $25,000 0 $0 5 $125,000 $125,000Maintenance Facility sq ft $100 0 $0 8,850 $885,000 $885,000Multi-Purpose Bldg sq ft $150 0 $0 76,600 $11,490,000 $11,490,000Olympic Aquatic Center center $3,000,000 0 $0 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000Picnic Pavilion pavilion $40,000 5 $200,000 54 $2,160,000 $2,360,000Playground playground $90,000 5 $450,000 8 $720,000 $1,170,000Restroom restroom $85,000 4 $340,000 28 $2,380,000 $2,720,000Soccer Field field $325,000 0 $0 6 $1,950,000 $1,950,000Softball Field field $500,000 2 $1,000,000 12 $6,000,000 $7,000,000Swimming Pool pool $2,000,000 0 $0 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000Tennis Courts court $50,000 1 $50,000 4 $200,000 $250,000Volleyball Court court $20,000 1 $20,000 3 $60,000 $80,000
$2,937,680 $36,179,080 $39,116,760$367,210 $4,522,385 $4,889,595
$3,304,890 $40,701,465 $44,006,35535.38 511.27 546.65
$93,411 $79,609 $80,5020.36 5.23 5.59
$33.63 $416.36 $449.99Facilities and Equipment Value per Resident(13)
Neighborhood/Community Parks Total Cost
Facilities and Equipment ValueArchitecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 12.5%(8)
Total Facilities and Equipment Value(9)
Total Number of Acres(10)
Facility(1)
Unit Value(2) Regional Parks
Facilities and Equipment Value per Acre(11)
Level-of-Service(12)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 98 Impact Fee Update Study
Total Impact Cost per Resident Table VIII-6 presents the total impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in Indian River County. Using the current achieved LOS, as previously presented in Table VIII-2, the total cost for neighborhood/community parks in Indian River County is $61 per resident and the total cost for regional parks is $809 per resident, for a total of $869 per resident.
Table VIII-6 Total Impact Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Table VIII-4 (2) Source: Table VIII-5 (3) Sum of the land value per resident (Item 1) and the facility value per acre (Item 2)
Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the capital cost of providing parks and recreation services, a review of the capital financing program for the parks and recreation program was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new development, other than impact fees, which have been used within the last five years or planned to be used over the next five years to fund the expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment related to Indian River County’s parks and recreation program. Based on this review, Indian River County’s parks capital expansion improvements are being funded primarily with sales tax revenues (96 percent of total non-impact fee spending), and, at a lesser degree, with general fund and grant revenues. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit Between 2008 and 2017, Indian River County spent or planned to spend a total of $6.4 million for capital expansion of parks, resulting in an average annual capital expansion expenditure of $639,000. Since the review of these expenditures spanned 2008 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average population for
Neighborhood/Community
Regional
Total Land Value per Resident(1) $27.00 $392.25 $419.25Total Facility Value per Resident(2) $33.63 $416.36 $449.99Total Impact Cost per Resident(3) $60.63 $808.61 $869.24
ComponentPark Type
Total
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 99 Impact Fee Update Study
this same period. As presented in Table VIII-7, the average annual capital expansion expenditure is approximately $7 per resident. As mentioned previously, a large part of this funding (96 percent) is obtained from the optional sales tax, which will expire in 2019. This analysis assumes that the sales tax will not be re-adopted. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the credit calculations should be reviewed to determine if a revision is needed.
Tabl
e VI
II-7
Hist
oric
al a
nd P
rogr
amm
ed C
apita
l Cos
ts
Rive
r Cou
nty
nditu
res f
unde
d w
ith sa
les t
ax re
venu
es d
ivid
ed b
y 10
yea
rs
age
annu
al e
xpen
ditu
res f
unde
d w
ith s
ales
tax
reve
nues
(Ite
m 2
) div
ided
by
the
aver
age
annu
al p
opul
atio
n (It
em 7
) nd
iture
s fun
ded
with
gen
eral
fund
s & g
rant
s div
ided
by
10 y
ears
ag
e an
nual
exp
endi
ture
s fun
ded
with
gen
eral
fund
& g
rant
s (Ite
m 4
) div
ided
by
the
aver
age
annu
al p
opul
atio
n (It
em 7
) ec
reat
iona
l fac
ilitie
s exp
endi
ture
s div
ided
by
10 y
ears
di
x A,
Tab
le A
-1; U
ninc
orpo
rate
d Co
unty
e
xpen
ditu
res (
Item
6) d
ivid
ed b
y th
e av
erag
e an
nual
pop
ulat
ion
(Item
7)
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n(1)
FY 2
007/
08FY
200
8/09
FY 2
009/
10FY
201
0/11
FY 2
011/
12FY
201
2/13
FY 2
013/
14FY
201
4/15
FY 2
015/
16FY
2
ce C
ompl
ex-
-$1
,512
,092
--
--
--
rity
Hous
e$1
46,0
84-
--
--
--
-io
nal P
ark
--
--
--
--
-$1
,ce
r Lig
hts
--
--
--
--
-gi
onal
Par
k Fe
nce
Proj
ect P
h. II
--
--
--
$100
,000
--
erge
nera
tiona
l Mul
ti-Pu
rpos
e Fa
cilit
y-
--
--
$1,8
43,5
45$1
,500
,000
--
ditu
res F
unde
d w
ith S
ales
Tax
Rev
enue
s$1
46,0
84-
$1,5
12,0
92-
-$1
,843
,545
$1,6
00,0
00-
-$1
,
venu
es &
Gra
nts:
ball
Fiel
ds-
$15,
210
--
--
--
-ba
ll Fi
elds
(Giff
ord
Park
)$2
3,31
0-
--
--
--
-&
Par
king
--
--
-$2
00,0
00-
--
ditu
res F
unde
d w
ith G
ener
al F
und
& G
rant
s$2
3,31
0$1
5,21
0-
--
$200
,000
--
-
nera
l Fun
d Re
venu
es a
nd G
rant
s:$1
69,3
94$1
5,21
0$1
,512
,092
$0$0
$2,0
43,5
45$1
,600
,000
$0$0
$1,
Expe
nditu
res(6
)
Popu
latio
n - U
ninc
orpo
rate
d Co
unty
(7)
Expe
nditu
res p
er R
esid
ent(8
)
Expe
nditu
res p
er R
esid
ent (
Sale
s Tax
)(3)
ge A
nnua
l Exp
endi
ture
s Fun
ded
with
Sal
es T
ax R
even
ues(2
)
ge A
nnua
l Exp
endi
ture
s Fun
ded
with
Gen
eral
Fun
d &
Gra
nts(4
)
Expe
nditu
res p
er R
esid
ent (
Gen
eral
Fun
d &
Gra
nts)
(5)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 101 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Cost The net parks and recreation impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table VIII-8 summarizes the calculation of the net parks and recreation cost per resident for both neighborhood/community and regional parks. The first section of Table VIII-8 identifies the total impact cost as $869 per resident for all parks. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the parks and recreation impact fee, totaling approximately $34 for all parks. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of $836 per resident for all parks, which also reflects the relevant measure of LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.
Table VIII-8 Net Impact Cost per Resident
(1) Source: Table VIII-6 (2) Source: Table VIII-7 (3) Source: The present value of the capital improvement credit per resident (Item 2) at a discount rate of
2.5% with a capitalization period of 5 years for sales tax expenditures and 25 years for general fund & grant expenditures.
(4) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident (Item 3)
Sales TaxGeneral Fund
& GrantsTotal
Total Impact Cost per Resident(1) $869.24
Avg Annual Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(2) $6.31 $0.24 Capitalization Rate 2.5% 2.5% Capitalization Period (in years) 5 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Resident(3) $29.32 $4.42 $33.74
Net Impact Cost per Resident(4) $835.50
Revenue CreditsImpact
CostCalculation Step
Net Impact Cost
Revenue Credit
Impact Cost
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 102 Impact Fee Update Study
Calculated Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table VIII-9 presents the calculated parks and recreation impact fee schedule developed for residential land uses. As previously mentioned, only residential development within unincorporated Indian River County is assessed a parks and recreation impact fee.
Table VIII-9 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-3 (2) Source: Table VIII-8 (3) Residents per unit (Item 1) for each land use category multiplied by net cost per resident (Item 2) (4) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee (5) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 4) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 3)
Affordable Growth Strategy Based on a review of capital expansion expenditures between 2008 and 2017, the County will use approximately $639,000 per year of non-impact fee funding over the next five years and $24,000 per year afterwards. As mentioned previously, during the next 25 years, the County is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure VIII-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. The maximum calculated fee is compared investment needed to maintain the current adopted LOS standard. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of parks and recreation impact fee calculated, the County needs approximately 92 percent of the maximum impact fee revenues to maintain the current LOS. As mentioned previously, the available non-impact fee consists primarily of sales tax revenues. These calculations assume that the sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. If the sales tax is re-adopted, the Affordable Growth calculations should be reviewed to see if a revision is necessary. In addition, the County is targeting non-residential land uses for potential discounts and the parks and recreation fees are charged only to residential land uses.
Land UseImpact
UnitResidents per Unit(1)
Net Cost per Resident(2)
Total Impact Fee(3)
Current Adopted
Fee(4)
Percent Change(5)
Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 2.14 $835.50 $1,788 $1,302 37.3% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 2.33 $835.50 $1,947 $1,463 33.1% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 2.59 $835.50 $2,164 $1,587 36.4% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 1.33 $835.50 $1,111 $884 25.7% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 1.30 $835.50 $1,086 $942 15.3%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 103 Impact Fee Update Study
Figure VIII-1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Strategy
Table VIII-10 presents discounted impact fee schedule.
Table VIII-10 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth
(1) Calculated based on an average annual spending of $639,000 for the next 5 years and $24,000 per year
afterwards, and an average annual growth rate of 1.4% over the next 25 years (2) Total impact fee from Table VIII-9 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2)
Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of parks and recreation facilities impact fee, the County staff recommends adopting the affordable growth fees with a 25-percent discount. This approach takes into
Land UseImpact
Unit
Affordable Growth
Adoption Rate(1)
Total Impact Fee(2)
Current Adopted
Fee(3)
Percent Change(4)
Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 92% $1,645 $1,302 26.3% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 92% $1,791 $1,463 22.4% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 92% $1,991 $1,587 25.5% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 92% $1,022 $884 15.6% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 92% $999 $942 6.1%
92%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 104 Impact Fee Update Study
consideration the expected capital needs over the next several years and will be reviewed during the next technical study update.
Table VIII-11 Calculated Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Schedule – Staff Recommended Fee Rates
(1) Indian River County Staff recommends charging 75 percent of the affordable growth fee rates. (2) Total impact fee from Table VIII-10 multiplied by the staff recommended adjustment (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County. Fees do not include the administrative fee. (4) Percent change from the current adopted rates (Item 3) to the calculated total impact fee rate (Item 2)
Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s parks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison impact fee schedules was completed for surrounding counties and other jurisdictions throughout Florida. Table VIII-12 presents this comparison.
Land UseImpact
Unit
Staff Recommended Adjustment(1)
Total Impact Fee(2)
Current Adopted
Fee(3)
Percent Change(4)
Residential Single Family (less than 1,500 sf) du 75% $1,234 $1,302 -5.2% Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 75% $1,343 $1,463 -8.2% Single Family (2,500 sf or greater) du 75% $1,493 $1,587 -5.9% Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 75% $767 $884 -13.2% Mobile Home/RV Park (tied down) du 75% $749 $942 -20.5%
Park
s & R
ecre
atio
n Im
pact
Fee
Com
paris
on
t -9
-10
-11;
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
reco
mm
ends
cha
rgin
g 75
per
cent
of t
he a
fford
able
gro
wth
fee
rate
s.
ver C
ount
y; F
ees d
o no
t inc
lude
the
adm
inist
rativ
e fe
e.
Coun
ty P
lann
ing
& D
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
ces D
epar
tmen
t. F
ees h
ave
been
incr
ease
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
Coun
ty C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
Coun
ty C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en re
duce
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g. F
ees a
re c
urre
ntly
susp
ende
d.
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
unty
Impa
ct F
ee A
dmin
istra
tion
Depa
rtm
ent.
Ave
rage
of c
omm
unity
and
regi
onal
par
ks.
Fees
hav
e be
en re
duce
d to
abo
ve ra
tes t
hrou
gh a
nnua
l ind
exin
g.
o Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
s Cou
nty
Code
of O
rdin
ance
s, S
ectio
n 13
-28.
Im
pact
fees
mor
ator
ium
in e
ffect
thro
ugh
June
30,
201
7.
ount
y Gr
owth
Man
agem
ent D
epar
tmen
t Co
unty
Pla
nnin
g &
Zon
ing
Depa
rtm
ent.
Fee
s hav
e be
en in
crea
sed
to a
bove
rate
s thr
ough
ann
ual i
ndex
ing.
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Fe
e(5)
st U
pdat
e20
1420
1420
1420
0520
0920
0620
0920
1020
1020
0520
06er
cent
age
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
100%
36%
100%
100%
100%
25%
0 sf
)du
$1,9
47$1
,791
$1,3
43$1
,463
$1,5
33$9
24$6
72$5
66$3
,133
$411
$189
ssor
y Un
it1,
000
sf$1
,111
$1,0
22$7
67$8
84$1
,368
$679
$449
$425
$1,6
85$3
11$1
31Pa
rk (t
ied
dow
n)1,
000
sf$1
,086
$999
$749
$942
$1,0
04$6
77$4
75$5
43$2
,393
$411
$108
CO
sceo
la
Coun
ty(7
)
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(8)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(9
)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(1
0)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(11)
High
land
s Co
unty
(12)
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(6)
Use
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 106 Impact Fee Update Study
IX. Transportation Indian River County’s Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was most recently updated in 2009 to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. This section of the impact fee report provides the results of the transportation impact fee analysis and consists of the following sections:
Demand Component Cost Component Credit Component Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Staff Recommended Fee Rate Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
As in the case of other impact fee program areas, the methodology used for the transportation impact fee study follows a consumption-based impact fee approach, in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is:
[Demand x Cost] – Credit = Fee
The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is expressed in units of VMT (daily vehicle-trip generation rate times the trip length times the percent new trips [of total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. The trip generation is expressed in average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The cost of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle mile or lane mile of roadway capacity. The credit is an estimate of the future non-impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to transportation capacity expansion construction projects. Thus, the impact fee is an “up front” payment for a
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 107 Impact Fee Update Study
portion of the cost of building a lane mile of capacity directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by new development. It should be noted that the information used to develop the impact fee schedule was based on the most recent, reliable, and localized data available. The following input variables used in the fee equation: Demand Variables:
Trip generation rate Trip length Percent new trips Interstate and toll facility discount factor
Cost Variables:
Cost per lane mile Capacity added per lane mile
Credit Variables:
Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) Present worth Fuel efficiency Effective days per year
A review of impact fee variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following subsections.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 108 Impact Fee Update Study
Demand Component Travel Demand The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is measured in terms of the vehicle miles of new travel a unit of development consumes on the existing road system.
Number of daily trips generated; Average length of those trips; and Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on
the road system and is captured by new development. As part of this update, the trip characteristics variables were obtained primarily from two sources: (1) trip characteristics studies previously conducted throughout Florida by TOA (Florida Studies Database), and (2) the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation report (9th edition). The Florida Studies Database is included in Appendix B. This database was used to determine VMT, which is developed from trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses in the fee schedule. The data in the trip characteristics database is based on actual land use studies and was collected throughout Florida using machine traffic counts and site specific land use origin-destination surveys. In addition, trip generation data from the ITE 9th Edition Trip Generation report was used. In instances where trip generation was available from the ITE Trip Generation report and the Florida Studies Database, a blended average calculation was used to increase the sample size. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor This variable is used to recognize that improvements to Interstate highways are funded by the State using earmarked and Federal funds, while toll facility improvements are funded with toll revenues. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements, and the portion of new development’s travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system usually is eliminated from the total travel for each land use. To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility discount factor, the loaded highway network file was generated for the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v3.4 (GTCRPM). A select link analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within Indian
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 109 Impact Fee Update Study
River County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin or destination within the county. Currently, the only interstate/toll facilities in Indian River County are I-95 and the Florida Turnpike (SR 19). The limited access vehicle miles of travel (Limited Access VMT) for trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian River County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total Indian River County VMT was calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within Indian River County for all roads, including limited access roads, located within Indian River County. The I/T discount factor of 17.3 percent was determined by dividing the total Limited Access VMT by the total Indian River County VMT. By applying this factor to the total Indian River County VMT for each land use in the fee schedule, the reduced VMT is then representative of only the roadways which are funded by impact fees. Appendix B, Table B-1 provides further detail on this calculation.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 110 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component The cost of providing roadway system capacity has decreased in recent years. Construction costs increased significantly in Florida between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, the housing market growth, and other factors. Appreciation in land values also resulted in higher right-of-way (ROW) costs during the same period. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and in recent years, communities have experienced a decrease in construction costs, returning to levels seen before 2005. Cost information from Indian River County, other Florida Counties, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was reviewed to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane-mile of roadway capacity. The following subsections summarize the methodology and findings of the total unit cost analysis for county and state roads. Appendix C provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. County Roadway Costs This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Indian River County. For this purpose, recent bid data for ongoing projects provided by the County and recent construction bid data from county roadway projects throughout Florida were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for county improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four phases: design, construction/engineering inspection (CEI), ROW and construction. Design and CEI Design costs for county roads were estimated at 10 percent construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for county roads were estimated at 9 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-16. Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, to build a new road. A review of recent ROW cost data for Indian River
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 111 Impact Fee Update Study
County identified 12 recent improvements with acquisition data. Using the construction costs for these improvements, a ROW factor of construction was calculated for each improvement, ranging from six (6) to 150 percent, with a weighted average of approximately 41 percent. This calculated local factor was consistent with county road ROW factors observed in recent impact fee studies throughout Florida and was used as the basis for ROW costs in Indian River County. As seen in Table IX-1, this amount is equal to approximately $0.66 million per lane mile for county roads. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables C-4, C-11, and C-12. Construction The construction cost for county roads was based on a review of local and statewide projects. A review of recent construction cost data for Indian River County identified 12 recent capacity expansion improvements throughout the County. Based on these improvements, a weighted average cost of $1.80 million per lane mile was calculated for use in the impact fee calculation (as seen in Table IX-1). This figure was compared to the average construction cost per lane mile observed in other jurisdictions throughout the state. These statewide projects averaged approximately $2.18 million per lane mile for construction. Therefore, compared to the statewide data, Indian River County’s local costs are approximately 83 percent of the statewide average. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Tables, C-6, C-13, and C-14.
Table IX-1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads
(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-4 (3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-6 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-8
UrbanDesign
RuralDesign
Weighted Average
Design(1) $180,000 $149,000 $159,000Right-of-Way(2) $738,000 $613,000 $656,000Construction(3) $1,800,000 $1,494,000 $1,598,000CEI(4) $162,000 $134,000 $143,000Total Cost $2,880,000 $2,390,000 $2,556,000
Cost PhaseCost per Lane Mile
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 112 Impact Fee Update Study
State Roadway Costs This section examines the ROW, construction, and other cost components associated with state roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Indian River County. For this purpose, recent bid data from state roadway projects throughout Florida and the FDOT’s Long Range Estimates (LRE) were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for state improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into four phases: design, CEI, ROW and construction. Design and CEI Design costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-10. CEI costs for state roads were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based on a review of cost data collected for recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-16. Right-of-Way Due to a lack of local right-of-way acquisition cost data for state roads in Indian River County, a review of ROW costs from recent transportation fee studies throughout Florida was conducted. Based on this review, ROW for state roadways was estimated at 44 percent of the construction cost for state roads. As shown in Table IX-2, this amount is equal to approximately $0.78 million per lane mile. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-12. Construction A review of recent state road capacity improvements in Indian River County identified three projects from 2008 and 2009 (SR 60 and SR 5 widening). These three projects averaged approximately $2.95 million per lane mile for construction. However, due to the small sample size, these projects were blended with 49 additional capacity expansion projects throughout Florida, which resulted in a weighted average cost of $2.44 million per lane mile. An analysis of county roadway improvements, where a larger sample of local projects was available, in relation to statewide county road improvements, indicated that construction costs average approximately 83 percent of construction costs statewide. Based on this conclusion, the construction costs for state roadways in Indian River County
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 113 Impact Fee Update Study
were estimated at 83 percent of the state average of $2.44 million. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-15.
Table IX-2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads
(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-5 (3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-7 (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-9
Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for county and state roads is presented in Table X-3. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $2.59 million per lane mile was utilized as the roadway cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee schedule. The weighted average cost per lane mile includes county and state roads and is based on weighting the lane miles of roadway improvements in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Compared to the previous transportation impact fee update, the estimated cost of $2.59 million represents a slight increase in the unit cost per lane mile for roadway. The previous cost, established in a 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study, was estimated at $2.46 million. This represents a five percent increase in the roadway unit cost per lane mile since the 2004 study. Compared to recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida in the past few years, the unit cost per lane mile estimated in this update study for Indian River County is considerably lower. Recent unit costs have ranged from approximately $2.91 million to $4.44 million, with an average cost of $3.61 million. The lower costs in Indian River County can be attributed to the lower construction costs observed in recent local bids
UrbanDesign
RuralDesign
Weighted Average
Design(1) $220,000 $183,000 $196,000Right-of-Way(2) $880,000 $730,000 $781,000Construction(3) $2,000,000 $1,660,000 $1,776,000CEI(4) $220,000 $183,000 $196,000Total Cost $3,320,000 $2,756,000 $2,949,000
Cost PhaseCost per Lane Mile
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 114 Impact Fee Update Study
as well as the mix of planned urban and rural designed roadways. Compared to other jurisdictions, Indian River County plans to construct a greater proportion of rural designed roadways, which are less expensive than roadways with urban design characteristics.
Table IX-3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile
for County and State Roadway Projects in Indian River County
(1) Source: Table IX-1 (2) Source: Table IX-2 (3) Lane mile distribution (Item 4) multiplied by the design, ROW, construction, and
CEI phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile (4) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17, Items (a) and (b)
Capacity Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the transportation impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also known as the maximum service volume added per mile) of roadway constructed. To calculate the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of constructed future roadway, an analysis of the 2035 projects (see Appendix C, Table C-17) was conducted to reflect the mix of county and state road improvement that will be built in the future. As shown in Table IX-4, the resulting average capacity per lane mile calculated based on these projects is 8,255. The updated capacity added per lane mile estimate of 8,255 is approximately three percent less than the figure used in the 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Study. It should be noted that this figure (8,499) was not changed as part of the 2009 update.
Cost PhaseCountyRoads(1)
StateRoads(2)
County and State Roads(3)
Design $159,000 $196,000 $162,000Right-of-Way $656,000 $781,000 $667,000Construction $1,598,000 $1,776,000 $1,614,000CEI $143,000 $196,000 $148,000Total Cost $2,556,000 $2,949,000 $2,591,000
Lane Mile Distribution(4) 91% 9% 100%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 115 Impact Fee Update Study
Table IX-4 Weighted Average Vehicle-Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile
(1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county and state roads (Item 2) divided by the
total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle-mile of capacity. As shown in Tables IX-3 and IX-4, the cost and capacity for county roads have been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. As shown in Table IX-5, the cost per VMC for travel within IRC is approximately $314. This average cost per VMC figure is used in the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle-miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle-mile of travel that is added to the road system, approximately $314 of roadway capacity is consumed.
Table IX-5 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added
(1) Source: Table IX-3 (2) Source: Table IX-4 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 2)
It is important to note that capacity projects eligible for impact fee funding include not only new construction and lane additions, but also associated intersection improvements, traffic signalization, and other amenities and technology improvements that allow for additional vehicle capacity.
SourceLane Mile Added(1)
Vehicle Miles of Capacity Added(2)
VMC Added per Lane Mile(3)
County Roads 201.90 1,632,287 8,085State Roads 19.00 191,352 10,071Total 220.90 1,823,639Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(4) 8,255
SourceCost per Lane
Mile(1)
Average VMC Added per Lane
Mile(2)Cost per VMC(3)
County Roads $2,556,000 8,085 $316.14State Roads $2,949,000 10,071 $292.82Weighted Average $2,591,000 8,255 $313.87
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 116 Impact Fee Update Study
Credit Component Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of non-impact fee revenues (converted to equivalent gasoline taxes) generated by a new development over a 25-year period that is projected to be expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. County A review of the County’s historical roadway financing program (FY 2008-2013) and the FY 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shows that all roadway projects are being funded by a combination of fuel taxes, sales tax, grants, developer funds, and transportation impact fees. Currently, capacity-adding projects in the county are primarily funded with fuel tax and sales tax revenues. Based on the FY 2014-2017 CIP and discussions with County staff, it was assumed that sales tax revenues will only be available to fund transportation capacity over the next five years, and will not be a recurring revenue source. Therefore, only five years of sales tax revenues are included in the credit calculations. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or a different revenue source is allocated to the transportation capacity to replace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures may need to be revised. As shown in Table IX-6, the sales tax portion of the county credit was separated from the total county credit and all non-impact fee funding allocated to transportation capacity was converted to equivalent gas tax revenues. A total gas tax equivalent revenue credit of 11.1 pennies was given for sales tax revenues and 5.6 pennies was given for all other revenue sources. State State expenditures on state roads were reviewed, and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was estimated. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects was determined from projects spanning a 10-year period (2009-2018). This period represents past expenditures (from 2009 to 2013) from the FDOT Work Program and the projected expenditures (from 2014 to 2018) from the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A list of capacity-adding roadway projects was developed, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, interchanges, traffic signal projects, and other capacity-addition projects. This review (summarized in Appendix D, Table D-3) indicates that FDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 15.5 pennies of gas tax revenue annually, which is within the range of what is observed in most other Florida jurisdictions.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 117 Impact Fee Update Study
In summary, Indian River County contributes approximately 16.7 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while the State spends an average of 15.5 pennies for state roadway projects in Indian County. Therefore, a total of 32.2 pennies of credit are included in the impact fee calculation to recognize the future capital revenue that is expected to be generated by new development from all non-impact fee revenues, as shown in Table IX-6.
Table IX-6 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue
(1) Source: Appendix D, Table D-2 (2) Source: Appendix D, Table D-3 (only accounts for 5 years of sales
tax revenues) (3) Source: Appendix D, Table D-4
Present Worth Variables Facility Life The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway. Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 2.5 percent was used in the transportation impact fee calculation based on the estimate obtained from Indian River County. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use.
CreditEquivalent
Pennies per Gallon
County Revenues (excluding sales tax)(1) $0.056County Revenues (sales tax ONLY)(2) $0.111State Revenues(3) $0.155Total $0.322
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 118 Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix D, Table D-8 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following equation, where “VMT” is vehicle miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon.
TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle
TypeVehicleTypeRoadway MPG
VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel
The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a “weighted” fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2011. Based on the calculation completed in Appendix D, Table D-8, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 18.19 miles per gallon. Effective Days per Year
An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 119 Impact Fee Update Study
Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix E, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix E illustrates the following:
Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips); Total impact fee cost; Annual gas tax credit; Present value of the gas tax credit; Net transportation impact fee; Current Indian River County impact fee; and Percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the 2009 adopted impact
fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix E is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the technically defensible impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Indian River County. For clarification purposes, the calculation of an impact fee for one land use category is presented. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the impact fee schedule included in Appendix E, Table E-1. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee:
Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Gas Tax Credit Where:
Total Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate × Assessable Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (1 – Interstate/Toll Facility Disc. Factor) × (Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 2.5% interest rate & 25-year facility life
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 120 Impact Fee Update Study
Annual Gas/Sales Tax = ([Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency
Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category:
Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.81). Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles
(6.62). Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile,
which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (6.62 + 0.50 = 7.12).
% New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%).
Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate*length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination.
Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor = discount factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (17.3%).
Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane-mile ($2,591,000).
Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,255).
Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development. Cost per lane mile divided by average capacity added per lane mile ($2,591,000 / 8,255 = $313.87).
Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 2.5% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 18.4244. For sales tax, which is available only for the next five years, the present worth factor is 4.6458.
Effective Days per Year = 365 days.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 121 Impact Fee Update Study
$/Gallon to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.211 for gas tax; $0.111 for sales tax).
Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.19). Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached land use (1,500-2,499 sf) category as follows:
Total Impact Cost = ([7.81 * 6.62 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.173) * ($313.87) = $6,710 Annual Sales Tax Credit = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.111 /18.19) = $62 Sales Tax Credit = $62 * 4.6458 = $288 Annual Credit for Gas Tax and Other Sources = ([7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.211
/18.19) = $118 Gas Tax Credit = $118 * 18.4244 = $2174 Total Credit =$288 + $2,174 = $2,462 Net Impact Fee = $6,710 – $2,462 = $4,248
A comparison of calculated fee schedule to the current adopted fee by land use is presented in Table IX-7. The detailed fee schedule that includes the calculations shown above is presented in Appendix E, Table E-1.
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $6,710 $2,462 $4,248 $4,483 - - 2,500 sf or larger du $7,904 $2,900 $5,004 $5,031 -
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du $4,369 $1,627 $2,742 $2,428 1240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du $2,490 $940 $1,550 $1,745 -1
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP :310 Hotel room $3,410 $1,254 $2,156 $2,804 -2320 Motel room $2,442 $918 $1,524 $1,516620 Nursing Home bed $826 $332 $494 $432 1252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed $910 $355 $555 $620 -1
OFFICE & FINANCIAL :Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $15,277 $5,675 $9,602 $13,411 -2Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf $22,258 $8,262 $13,996 $13,411
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf $17,815 $7,304 $10,511 $10,634 -912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf $23,401 $9,581 $13,820 $13,020710 General Office 1,000 sf $6,783 $2,526 $4,257 $3,798 1760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf $5,040 $1,876 $3,164 $2,798 1
INDUSTRIAL :140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $2,349 $876 $1,473 $1,318 1150 Warehousing 1,000 sf $2,189 $817 $1,372 $1,228 1151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $796 $313 $483 $862 -4152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,033 $378 $655 $1,228110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $4,286 $1,605 $2,681 $2,404 1n/a Concrete Plant acre $9,593 $3,587 $6,006 $5,382 1n/a Sand Mining acre $1,230 $461 $769 $690 1
RETAIL :820 Retail 1,000 gsf $10,680 $4,320 $6,360 $3,163 10
44/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. $8,923 $3,841 $5,082 $5,587 -841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $13,324 $5,030 $8,294 $10,108 -1932 Restaurant 1,000 sf $34,060 $13,417 $20,643 $22,152 -934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $78,855 $33,391 $45,464 $34,781 3850 Supermarket 1,000 sf $15,628 $6,593 $9,035 $11,179 -1942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf $10,632 $4,113 $6,519 $7,830 -1947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay $8,454 $3,545 $4,909 $14,589 -6853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf $42,534 $19,282 $23,252 $25,430 -890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $2,160 $793 $1,367 $1,373
RECREATIONAL :430 Golf Course hole $27,636 $10,121 $17,515 $11,248 5492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf $20,690 $7,723 $12,967 $10,824 2412 County Park acre $1,361 $502 $859 $718 2491 Tennis Court court $24,315 $9,079 $15,236 $12,180 2420 Marina boat berth $2,289 $835 $1,454 $973 4
GOVERNMENTAL :732 Post Office 1,000 sf $25,310 $9,452 $15,858 $14,199 1590 Library 1,000 sf $41,072 $15,045 $26,027 $17,925 4733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf $17,169 $6,409 $10,760 $9,632 1571 Jail bed $3,382 $1,273 $2,109 $389 44
MISCELLANEOUS :565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf $13,825 $5,865 $7,960 $8,847 -1610 Hospital 1,000 sf $8,746 $3,195 $5,551 $5,309640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf $24,697 $9,226 $15,471 $3,511 34560 Church 1,000 sf $4,150 $1,586 $2,564 $2,588 -444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen $27,036 $11,268 $15,768 $22,743 -3520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student $576 $212 $364 $149 14522 Middle School (Private, 6-9) student $814 $313 $501 $149 23530 High School (Private 9-12) student $859 $332 $527 $538 -
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 123 Impact Fee Update Study
Affordable Growth Strategy As presented in Table IX-6 and Appendix D, in addition to impact fees, the County will uses a combination of gas tax, sales tax, and grant revenues to fund the transportation system. In terms of affordable growth calculations, it is important to note the following:
Consistent with the methodology used by many Florida jurisdictions, impact fee calculations are based on the adopted LOS standard, which is lower than the current achieved LOS. In other words, under the current methodology, even with the full impact fee, unless the County uses other revenue sources, the current achieved LOS for the system will deteriorate and more congestion will be experienced. It is Indian River County’s policy to conduct a link-by-link capacity analysis and ensure that no link drops below LOS standard D. When the fee is calculated using the current achieved LOS, it amounts to $12,700 for a mid-size single family home, compared to $4,248 per home calculated using the adopted LOS standard. As such, the standard methodology used for transportation impact fees results in fee levels that slows down the degradation of the system, but does not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the existing conditions when they are better than the adopted LOS standard.
As mentioned previously, the credit calculations assume that the local option sales tax will not be re-adopted in 2019. In addition, the County had to defer maintenance expenses since 2006 through the CIP period due to lack of funding for capacity projects. Therefore, the available revenues for transportation capacity are likely to decrease in the future. The Affordable Growth calculations are based on this reduced funding and do not take into account funding from the State since the County does not control the State budget. If the sales tax is re-adopted or other revenue sources become available, these calculations will need to be revised.
Although the medium population projections from the University of Florida, Bureau
of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) suggest an average growth rate of approximately 1.4 percent through 2040, the high projections indicate almost a 2-percent annual growth rate. To mitigate the uncertainty of growth rates and given that even if adopted at 100 percent level, impact fees will not generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current LOS and that the transportation system will
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 124 Impact Fee Update Study
continue to degrade, the high growth projection is used in the affordable growth calculations for the transportation impact fee.
Based on this scenario, the County would need approximately 90 percent of the fee for all land uses, as long as an additional funding of $10 million per year is available for the next five years and $2.7 million per year afterwards, with an average annual population growth rate of 2 percent. As presented in Figure IX-1, the red horizontal line represents the maximum technically acceptable fee. Although the County may charge the maximum amount of transportation impact fee calculated, if the estimated levels of non-impact fee funding continue to be available, the County could adopt the impact fee at approximately 90 percent for all land uses and continue to maintain the adopted LOS standard. Alternatively, if the County adopts the residential land uses at 100 percent, the fees for non-residential land uses could be reduced by up to 55 percent (or adopted at 45 percent) to maintain the adopted LOS standard. As mentioned previously, the level of discount is more of a policy decision and could be at any level between the minimum levels calculated in this section and 100 percent.
Figure IX-1
Transportation Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Strategy Adopted LOS Standard
Table IX-8 presents discounted impact fee schedule.
90%
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf du 100% $4,248 $4,483 -5 - 2,500 sf or larger du 100% $5,004 $5,031 -1
220 Multi-Family/Accessory Unit du 100% $2,742 $2,428 13240 Mobile Home/RV (tied down) du 100% $1,550 $1,745 -11
TRANSIENT, ASSISTED, GROUP ( Adopted ):310 Hotel room 45% $970 $2,804 -65320 Motel room 45% $686 $1,516 -55620 Nursing Home bed 45% $222 $432 -49252 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 45% $250 $620 -60
OFFICE & FINANCIAL ( Adopted ):Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 45% $4,321 $13,411 -68Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,000 sf 45% $6,298 $13,411 -53
911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000 sf 45% $4,730 $10,634 -56912 Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 45% $6,219 $13,020 -52710 General Office 1,000 sf 45% $1,916 $3,798 -50760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf 45% $1,424 $2,798 -49
INDUSTRIAL ( Adopted ):140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 45% $663 $1,318 -50150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 45% $617 $1,228 -50151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 45% $217 $862 -75152 High-Cube (Automated) Warehouse* 1,000 sf 45% $295 $1,228 -76110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 45% $1,206 $2,404 -50n/a Concrete Plant acre 45% $2,703 $5,382 -50n/a Sand Mining acre 45% $346 $690 -50
RETAIL ( Adopted ):820 Retail 1,000 gsf 45% $2,862 $3,163 -10
944/ 946 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash fuel pos. 45% $2,287 $5,587 -59841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 45% $3,732 $10,108 -63932 Restaurant 1,000 sf 45% $9,289 $22,152 -58934 Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 45% $20,459 $34,781 -41850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 45% $4,066 $11,179 -64942 Automobile Repair/Body Shop 1,000 sf 45% $2,934 $7,830 -63947 Self-Service Car Wash service bay 45% $2,209 $14,589 -85853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 1,000 sf 45% $10,463 $25,430 -59890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 45% $615 $1,373 -55
RECREATIONAL ( Adopted ):430 Golf Course hole 45% $7,882 $11,248 -30492 Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio 1,000 sf 45% $5,835 $10,824 -46412 County Park acre 45% $387 $718 -46491 Tennis Court court 45% $6,856 $12,180 -44420 Marina boat berth 45% $654 $973 -33
GOVERNMENTAL ( Adopted ):732 Post Office 1,000 sf 45% $7,136 $14,199 -50590 Library 1,000 sf 45% $11,712 $17,925 -35733 Government Office Complex 1,000 sf 45% $4,842 $9,632 -50571 Jail bed 45% $949 $389 144
MISCELLANEOUS ( Adopted ):565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 45% $3,582 $8,847 -60610 Hospital 1,000 sf 45% $2,498 $5,309 -53640 Veterinary Clinic 1,000 sf 45% $6,962 $3,511 98560 Church 1,000 sf 45% $1,154 $2,588 -55444 Movie Theater w/Matinee screen 45% $7,096 $22,743 -69520 Elementary School (Private, K-5) student 45% $164 $149 10
( ) $ $
720
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 126 Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of transportation impact fees, the County staff recommends implementing the affordable growth fees.
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Indian River County transportation impact fee program, a comparison of calculated fees to transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was completed. Table IX-9 presents Indian River County’s calculated impact fee and a comparison to transportation impact fees in the surrounding and other jurisdictions in Florida. It should be noted that the differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variations in costs, credits and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc.
Tran
spor
tatio
n Im
pact
Fee
Com
paris
on
Rive
r Cou
nty
Staf
f rec
omm
ends
cha
rgin
g th
e af
ford
able
gro
wth
fee
rate
s.
y. F
ees d
o no
t inc
lude
the
adm
inist
rativ
e fe
e.
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
impa
ct fe
e m
orat
oriu
m in
effe
ct th
roug
h De
cem
ber 2
014.
ty
Boa
rd o
f Cou
nty
Com
miss
ione
rs A
dmin
istra
tion
Depa
rtm
ent
rdin
ance
Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t Ser
vice
s Dep
artm
ent;
Aver
age
of fo
ur im
pact
fee
dist
ricts
Co
mm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent;
Aver
age
of th
ree
impa
ct fe
e di
stric
ts
ning
& D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t ac
t Fee
Adm
inist
ratio
n De
part
men
t Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent;
Tran
spor
tatio
n im
pact
fee
mor
ator
ium
in e
ffect
thro
ugh
June
201
5 Co
de o
f Ord
inan
ces,
Sec
tion
13-2
8; T
rans
port
atio
n im
pact
fee
mor
ator
ium
in e
ffect
thro
ugh
June
201
7 ow
th M
anag
emen
t Dep
artm
ent
lann
ing
& Z
onin
g De
part
men
t
Calc
ulat
ed(2
)Af
ford
able
G
row
th(3
)St
aff(4
)
2009
Ad
opte
d Fe
e(5)
2014
2014
2014
2009
2000
2012
2009
2009
2010
2010
2013
2006
100%
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
44%
25%
du$4
,248
$4,2
48$4
,248
$4,4
83$4
,353
$963
$4,2
35$6
,278
$1,9
85$5
,753
$2,5
37$1
,6
1,00
0 sf
$2,6
81$1
,206
$1,2
06$2
,404
n/a
$473
$390
$4,5
87$6
28$4
,333
$1,6
11$1
,11,
000
sf$4
,257
$1,9
16$1
,916
$3,7
98$5
,058
$1,0
91$1
,287
$2,4
33$1
,803
$9,2
91$3
,031
$3,0
1,00
0 sf
$6,3
60$2
,862
$2,8
62$3
,163
$5,2
70$1
,194
$2,5
03$9
,090
$1,4
87$1
0,98
0$3
,769
$2,4
1,00
0 sf
$13,
820
$6,2
19$6
,219
$13,
020
$23,
331
$1,1
94$2
,503
$11,
814
$1,4
87$2
1,95
4$8
,514
$11,
21,
000
sf$4
5,46
4$2
0,45
9$2
0,45
9$3
4,78
1$3
5,79
1$2
,829
$2,5
03$1
4,93
8$1
,487
$74,
793
$34,
795
$25,
2
Char
lott
e Co
unty
(9)
Citr
us
Coun
ty(1
0)
Colli
er
Coun
ty(1
1)
Hern
ando
Co
unty
(12)
High
land
Coun
ty(1
3
St. L
ucie
Co
unty
(8)
Uni
t(1)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Brev
ard
Coun
ty(6
)
Oke
echo
bee
Coun
ty(7
)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 128 Impact Fee Update Study
X. Educational Facilities Educational facilities impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the additional school facilities demand created by new growth. This section presents the results of the educational facilities impact fee update study for Indian River County and will serve as the technical support document for the calculated school impact fee schedule. There are several major elements associated with the development of the educational facilities impact fee. These include:
Facility Inventory Service Area and Enrollment Facility Service Delivery Cost Component Credit Component Net Impact Cost per Student Student Generation Rate Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Affordable Growth Strategy Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
Facility Inventory The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all school-age residents of Indian River County. As such, this analysis will consider all public elementary, middle, and high school level facilities and the students attending these facilities located throughout and living within Indian River County. The District currently operates 19 traditional public schools that serve the students of Indian River County and its municipalities, including 13 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The District’s current traditional school inventory (excluding charter, alternative or adult education) is provided in Appendix G, Table G-1.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 129 Impact Fee Update Study
Service Area and Enrollment
The Indian River County School District provides public education facilities that are available to all Pre-Kindergarten thru 12th grade (PK-12) students throughout the entire county. Attendance boundaries can be redrawn to balance school enrollment with available school capacity and therefore can serve different geographic areas over time. As such, the appropriate impact fee district for public schools is countywide.
Table X-1 presents the historical student enrollment since 2000-01 school year and projected enrollment through 2023-24. The annual percent change for the enrollment is presented, as well as a three-year average to account for any random fluctuations. Table X-1 reflects that student enrollment is expected to decline slightly over the next two years, and then stabilize and start increasing as of 2016-17 school year.
Table X-1 Indian River County Enrollment
(1) Source: Indian River County School District and Florida
Department of Education (2) Percent change from one year to the next (3) Average change over the last three years
SchoolYear Enrollment(1) Annual %
Change(2)
Three-Year Average(3)
2000-01 15,477 - -2001-02 14,467 -6.5% -2002-03 14,917 3.1% -2003-04 15,412 3.3% -2004-05 15,604 1.2% 2.6%2005-06 15,901 1.9% 2.2%2006-07 16,273 2.3% 1.8%2007-08 16,365 0.6% 1.6%2008-09 15,794 -3.5% -0.2%2009-10 15,710 -0.5% -1.2%2010-11 15,549 -1.0% -1.7%2011-12 15,597 0.3% -0.4%2012-13 15,541 -0.4% -0.4%2013-14 15,424 -0.8% -0.3%2014-15 15,303 -0.8% -0.6%2015-16 15,245 -0.4% -0.6%2016-17 15,294 0.3% -0.3%2017-18 15,307 0.1% 0.0%2018-19 15,425 0.8% 0.4%2019-20 15,607 1.2% 0.7%2020-21 15,859 1.6% 1.2%2021-22 16,168 1.9% 1.6%2022-23 16,547 2.3% 1.9%2023-24 16,990 2.7% 2.3%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 130 Impact Fee Update Study
Facility Service Delivery The Indian River County School District inventory was reviewed and trends in the net square feet per student stations were evaluated. This review along with discussions with the District representatives suggested that the design characteristics of future facilities are likely to be consistent with the existing schools. Table X-2 illustrates the facility service delivery in Indian River County, which is 144.7 net square feet per permanent student station for elementary schools, 140.5 net square feet per permanent student station for middle schools, and 157.9 net square feet per permanent student station for high schools. The weighted average facility service delivery based on all three school types is 147.7 net square feet per permanent student station. Reference to net square feet pertains to the most recent figures published per the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Report for the District.
Table X-2 Facility Service Delivery
(1) Source: Indian River County School District (2) Source: Indian River County School District. Indicates permanent capacity after FISH adjustment. (3) Permanent net square footage (Item 1) divided by permanent student stations (Item 2) The service delivery is based on the permanent student stations because it is the School District’s policy to remove portable stations and use them only as a temporary solution. This approach is also consistent with the methodology used in the 2005 technical study, which is the basis of the current adopted impact fee schedule. Portable stations will always be used at some level since they provide valuable flexibility to address temporary increases in enrollment. The School District’s policy is to provide the necessary permanent student stations in the long term.
Elementary Middle HighPermanent Net Square Footage(1) 1,122,710 602,578 826,729 2,552,017Permanent Student Stations(2) 7,761 4,288 5,235 17,284Net Square Feet per Student Station(3) 144.7 140.5 157.9 147.7
Description School Type Total / Weighted Avg
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 131 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component The capital costs of providing educational facilities includes three components, including the school facility cost, transportation cost, and ancillary facility costs. This section addresses each of these components. Facility Cost per Student Station The first step in determining the cost of providing public schools to Indian River County residents is to calculate the facility cost per student station. Several cost components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a school, including architectural/civil design/site improvement costs; construction costs; furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) costs; and the cost to purchase the land. Each component of the school facility cost is described in more detail in the following subsections. Architectural/Civil Design/Site Improvement, Construction and FF&E Costs To determine the administration, architect/civil design/site improvement, construction, and FF&E costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, cost information was obtained for new schools built or proposed in Indian River County. The most recent construction included Storm Grove Middle School (opened in 2009), and renovation and expansion of the Vero Beach Elementary School (opened in 2012). In addition to these schools, insurance values of the existing schools and estimates included in the Educational Plant Survey for upcoming school expansions were reviewed and supplemented with discussions with the District’s representatives. Given the recent fluctuations in construction costs and the limited number of schools built in the County over the past few years, a review of schools that were built over the past five years throughout the State was conducted. This database included approximately 135 schools. Of these, approximately 20 were built in 2011. Based on this information, a construction cost of $145 per net square foot was used in the study for elementary schools, $175 per net square foot for middle schools, and $185 per net square foot for high schools, with a weighted average construction cost of $165 per net square foot for all school levels. Appendix G provides additional information on cost estimates. The architectural, civil design, site preparation (including on-site improvement and traffic control costs), and FF&E costs (including technology) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Indian River County and other jurisdictions. These figures were also discussed with the District representatives and are
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 132 Impact Fee Update Study
estimated at 10 percent of construction for architectural/civil design costs, 10 percent for site preparation costs, and 7 percent for FF&E costs. Table X-3 presents the cost per square foot figures for the architectural/civil design/site improvement, construction, and FF&E cost components for each school type. Table X-3 also presents the weighted average figure for each cost component, based on all three school types. Land Cost For each school type, the land cost per square foot is based on a value of $50,000 per acre. This cost per acre is based on the current value of land owned by the District as well as additional analysis. This additional analysis included a countywide review of vacant land sales over the last three years and market values of all vacant land of parcels similar in size to the District’s school sites. The results of the vacant land analysis confirm that the cost per acre used in the impact fee analysis is reasonable. Appendix G documents the results of the land value analysis. The land cost per square foot by school type was developed based on the acres per 1,000 permanent net square feet needed for the future schools. The resulting land cost figures for each type of school also are presented in Table X-3. Net Interest Cost When a School District issues Certificates of Participation (COP) or other types of bonds to fund additional capacity, interest costs incurred during the construction period need to be added to the school facility construction costs. The Indian River County School District has been using COPs to fund a portion of its expansion projects; however, to provide a conservative estimate, this cost is not included in the calculation.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
133
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e X-
3 Fa
cilit
y Co
st p
er S
tude
nt S
tatio
n
(1
) So
urce
: Tab
le X
-2
(2)
Estim
ated
at
20%
of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
bas
ed o
n es
timat
es o
btai
ned
from
the
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Scho
ol D
istric
t and
rec
ent
cost
obt
aine
d fr
om o
ther
Flo
rida
Scho
ol D
istric
ts.
Deta
iled
info
rmat
ion
on c
ost e
stim
ates
is in
clud
ed in
App
endi
x G.
(3
) Co
nstr
uctio
n co
st is
est
imat
ed to
rang
e fr
om $
145
per n
et sq
uare
foot
to $
185
per n
et s
quar
e fo
ot, b
ased
on
info
rmat
ion
obta
ined
fr
om th
e In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Sc
hool
Dist
rict a
nd re
cent
ly c
onst
ruct
ed s
choo
ls in
oth
er F
lorid
a ju
risdi
ctio
ns.
Deta
iled
info
rmat
ion
on c
ost e
stim
ates
is in
clud
ed in
App
endi
x G.
(4
) Es
timat
ed a
t 7%
of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
bas
ed o
n es
timat
es o
btai
ned
from
the
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Scho
ol D
istric
t and
rece
nt c
ost
obta
ined
from
oth
er F
lorid
a Sc
hool
Dist
ricts
. De
taile
d in
form
atio
n on
cos
t est
imat
es is
incl
uded
in A
ppen
dix
G.
(5)
The
land
cos
t pe
r sq
uare
foot
for
each
sch
ool t
ype
is ba
sed
on t
he a
crea
ge p
er 1
,000
per
man
ent
squa
re fe
et fo
r fu
ture
sch
ools
at
a c
ost o
f $50
,000
per
acr
e. T
his c
ost p
er a
cre
figur
e is
base
d on
the
land
val
ue o
f cur
rent
scho
ols
with
in th
e co
unty
and
ave
rage
la
nd v
alue
s for
vac
ant l
and
thro
ugho
ut th
e co
unty
. Fu
rthe
r inf
orm
atio
n is
incl
uded
in A
ppen
dix
G.
(6)
Sum
of t
he sc
hool
faci
lity
cost
per
net
squa
re fo
ot (I
tem
s 2
thru
5)
(7)
The
net s
quar
e fe
et p
er p
erm
anen
t stu
dent
sta
tion
(Item
1) m
ultip
lied
by th
e to
tal s
choo
l fac
ility
cos
t per
net
squ
are
foot
(Ite
m 6
) fo
r eac
h re
spec
tive
scho
ol ty
pe.
Cost
Com
pone
ntEl
emen
tary
Sc
hool
Mid
dle
Scho
olHi
ghSc
hool
Wei
ghte
d Av
erag
eN
et S
quar
e Fe
et p
er S
tude
nt S
tatio
n(1)
144.
714
0.5
157.
914
7.7
Arc
hite
ctur
al/C
ivil
Desi
gn/S
ite Im
prov
emen
t Co
st p
er N
et S
q Ft
(2)
$29.
00$3
5.00
$37.
00$3
3.01
Con
stru
ctio
n Co
st p
er N
et S
q Ft
(3)
$145
.00
$175
.00
$185
.00
$165
.04
FF&
E Co
st p
er N
et S
q Ft
(4)
$10.
15$1
2.25
$12.
95$1
1.55
Lan
d Co
st p
er N
et S
q Ft
(5)
$11.
60$1
3.30
$14.
50$1
2.40
Tota
l Fac
ility
Cos
t per
Net
Sq
Ft(6
)$1
95.7
5$2
35.5
5$2
49.4
5$2
22.0
0To
tal F
acili
ty C
ost p
er S
tude
nt S
tatio
n(7)
$28,
325
$33,
095
$39,
388
$32,
789
Scho
ol F
acili
ty C
ost C
ompo
nent
s:
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 134 Impact Fee Update Study
Total Facility Cost per Student The total facility impact cost per student for each school type is based on the facility cost per student station figures derived in Table X-3, and is typically calculated by dividing the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity. The adjustment of multiplying the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity converts the cost per student station to a cost per student. In addition, this calculation accounts for the current available permanent capacity and adjusts the costs accordingly. If there is available capacity (e.g., currently more permanent student stations than students), then the total facility cost per student increases because the cost of building this additional capacity is being recouped. Similarly, if there are currently more students enrolled than available capacity, the cost per student is adjusted downward. In the case of Indian River County, although there is available capacity countywide, because the District’s adopted LOS standard is 100 percent, the cost per student station calculated in Table X-3 also represents the facility cost per student. This is also appropriate because part of the available capacity is used for the Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) students and allows for the space needed for special needs students and their aides, and therefore, is not available for additional students.
Table X-4 Facility Cost per Student
(1) Source: Table X-3 (2) Source: Indian River County School District (3) Facility cost per student stations (Item 1) multiplied by the adopted LOS standard (Item 2) Although the School District’s adopted LOS standard is measured in terms of stations to enrollment ratio for planning purposes, for impact fee purposes, the level of service is shown as the level of investment (or dollar value of capital assets) per student, which reflects the capacity investment made by the School District for schools and other related
Calculation StepElementary
SchoolMiddleSchool
HighSchool
Weighted Average /
TotalFacility Impact Cost per Student Facility Cost per Student Station(1) $28,325 $33,095 $39,388 $32,789 Adopted LOS Standard (2) 100% 100% 100% 100%Total Facility Impact Cost per Student(3) $28,325 $33,095 $39,388 $32,789
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 135 Impact Fee Update Study
capital assets. This figure is shown later in this section in terms of net cost per student, which should be included in the Comprehensive Plan for impact fee purposes. Total Cost per Student In addition to the facility cost per student calculated in Table X-4, the total facility cost per student includes two additional cost components: the capital costs associated with providing transportation services and ancillary facilities. Both of these cost components are calculated on a per-student basis and are not dependent on school type. Each of these additional cost components is discussed in the following paragraphs. Transportation Costs The first additional capital cost component is the cost of providing transportation services to students. The District currently owns 111 buses used for student transportation. Of these, approximately 10 percent are equipped for handicapped students at a cost of approximately $111,000 per bus. The cost for the remaining buses is estimated at $98,000 per bus, which is consistent with bus costs observed in other school districts. The result is a total transportation capital value of $11 million. The total value of the transportation fleet is divided by the District’s enrollment for schools included in Appendix G, Table G-1, as well as the District’s alternative school students, as this is the total existing student population benefiting from services provided by the District’s transportation fleet. The result is a cost of $709 per student for transportation services, as presented in Table X-5. Ancillary Facilities Costs The other additional capital cost component is for the ancillary facilities that are necessary for the District to provide support services for students, schools, transportation services, and administrative personnel. The District currently has approximately 85,000 net square feet of permanent ancillary facilities for transportation, maintenance, warehouse, and administrative functions. Leased facilities are not included in this square footage. Current value of each existing ancillary facility depends on the type of facility and was provided by District staff, with the weighted average value of approximately $185 per square foot. This figure is consistent with costs of similar buildings observed in other jurisdictions throughout Florida. In terms of land, the only ancillary facility that is not located on a school property is the Transportation Building, which is located on a 6-acre parcel, valued at $155,000 according to the Property Appraiser’s database. This figure is used for the additional land value for
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 136 Impact Fee Update Study
ancillary facilities since the acreage associated with facilities that are located on school parcels is already accounted for as part of the school acreage. The ancillary facility cost per student is based on the existing inventory, which is valued at $15.8 million, including $15.7 million for buildings and $0.2 million for land. Based on the current enrollment, the result is a cost of $1,020 per student for ancillary facilities, as presented in Table X-5. Similar to transportation cost, the ancillary facility value is divided by the enrollment to the traditional and alternative schools to account for any administrative support provided to alternative school students at these facilities.
Table X-5
Transportation Services and Ancillary Facility Cost per Student
(1) Source: Indian River County School District (2) Source: District enrollment from Table X-1 (which includes students from
the schools listed in Appendix G, Table G-1) plus alternative school students. The total value of the District’s transportation fleet is divided by this larger enrollment figure to account for the total student population that benefits from services provided by the District’s transportation fleet.
(3) Total value of transportation services (Item 1) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2)
(4) Source: Indian River County School District (5) Land value for the Transportation Building. All other facilities are
located on school sites. (6) Sum of the building value (Item 4) and land value (Item 5) of the
District’s current inventory of ancillary facilities. (7) Total value for ancillary facilities (Item 6) divided by the current
enrollment (Item 2)
Description FigureTransportation Services Cost per Student Total Current Value of Transportation Services(1) $11,021,000 Current Enrollment(2) 15,541 Total Transportation Services Cost per Student(3) $709Ancillary Facility Cost per Student Building Value for Ancillary Facilities(4) $15,691,885 Land Value for Ancillary Facilities(5) $155,000 Total Current Value for Ancillary Facilities(6) $15,846,885Total Ancillary Facility Cost per Student(7) $1,020
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 137 Impact Fee Update Study
Credit Component To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for construction of future student stations, any non-impact fee revenue that will be generated by new development and that will be used towards the capital expansion of school facilities must be included as a credit to reduce the total cost per student. It is important to note that a credit for educational facilities impact fees is not given for revenue generated by new development that is used for capital renovation of existing schools that does not add capacity or for maintenance or operational costs. Based on a review of the District’s capacity addition expenditures over the past five years and planned expenditures over the next five years, it has been determined that revenue credits will be calculated for cash expenditures as well as debt service funding. Capital Improvement Credit The Florida Statutes authorizes several sources of revenue for school districts, such as Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) and Capital Outlay & Debt Service (CO & DS) that can be used for the construction of capital facilities. With regard to state revenue, the District has used both PECO and CO & DS revenue sources as well as Classroom for Kids revenue over the past five years for the construction of additional permanent capacity. In addition, a portion of the local capital ad valorem tax was also used toward the construction and is programmed to be used for the upcoming expansion of Citrus Elementary School. The capital improvement revenue credit per student is calculated by dividing the total amount of capital revenue by the average enrollment during this ten-year period. As presented in Table X-6, the resulting capital improvement revenue available for the capital expansion of public schools in Indian River County $186 per student per year or $3,427 per student over the next 25 years, for non-impact fee funding.
Reve
nue
Cred
it
Coun
ty S
choo
l Dist
rict
vide
d by
10
year
s to
calc
ulat
e th
e av
erag
e an
nual
exp
endi
ture
s
nditu
res (
Item
2) d
ivid
ed b
y th
e av
erag
e en
rollm
ent (
Item
3)
rict i
s lik
ely
to p
ay fo
r fut
ure
bond
s, e
stim
ated
bas
ed o
n di
scus
sions
with
the
Dist
rict a
nd C
ount
y re
pres
enta
tives
ic
h m
ajor
repa
irs a
re n
eede
d nu
e cr
edit
per s
tude
nt (I
tem
4) a
t 2.5
% in
tere
st ra
te (I
tem
5) o
ver a
25-
year
cap
italiz
atio
n pe
riod
(Item
6)
Proj
ect
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
tary
-- A
dditi
on o
f Caf
eter
ia-
--
$1,1
67,6
49-
--
--
nues
--
$0$1
,167
,649
--
--
-Ta
x(1) :
Scho
ol --
Add
ition
of R
OTC
Fac
ility
$1,0
79,1
56-
--
--
--
-Sc
hool
-- N
ew S
choo
l-
$453
,668
--
--
--
-ta
ry --
Add
ition
of C
afet
eria
--
-$1
91,0
23-
--
--
mpl
ex --
New
Bui
ldin
g-
--
-$3
,160
,329
--
--
enta
ry E
xpan
sion
$3,1
57,0
55pa
nsio
n-
--
--
--
-$3
,000
,000
Scho
ol --
Fre
shm
an Le
arni
ng C
tr C
lass
room
Bld
g-
--
-$3
,321
,009
--
--
l$1
,079
,156
$453
,668
$0$1
91,0
23$6
,481
,338
$0$3
,157
,055
-$3
,000
,000
ther
(1) :
Scho
ol --
New
Sch
ool
-$8
,315
,310
--
--
--
-ta
ry --
Add
ition
of C
afet
eria
--
-$1
,974
,793
--
--
-m
plex
-- N
ew B
uild
ing
--
--
$198
,821
--
--
Scho
ol --
Fre
shm
an Le
arni
ng C
tr C
lass
room
Bld
g-
--
-$6
62,8
50-
--
-or
Kid
s/O
ther
-$8
,315
,310
-$1
,974
,793
$861
,671
--
--
$1,0
79,1
56$8
,768
,978
$0$3
,333
,465
$7,3
43,0
09-
--
$3,0
00,0
00nd
iture
s(2)
uden
t(4)
Year
s(6)
tal I
mpr
ovem
ent R
even
ue C
redi
t per
Stu
dent
(7)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 139 Impact Fee Update Study
Debt Service Credit per Student The District has been using COPs and other types of bonds to pay for a portion of the capacity expansion projects. Given that there is still an outstanding debt service on these, a credit is calculated for future debt service payments related to capacity expansion projects. In cases where the distribution of bond funding for capacity expansion versus replacement/renovation projects was not available, it was assumed that the entire amount was used for capacity expansion projects, which results in a generous credit and a conservative impact fee. The District uses local capital outlay millage and federal subsidies to pay the debt service. A revenue credit is calculated for the remaining portion of each outstanding COP/bond issue used to fund capacity expansion projects. The remaining payments were brought back to present value, based on the remaining number of years and annual interest rate of each respective issue. As presented in Table X-7, the debt service credit is $6,977 per student.
Table X-7 Debt Service Credit per Student
(1), (2) Source: Indian River County School District (3) Present value of the total remaining payments due, based on the interest rate of each payment and the
number of years of remaining payments. (4) Source: Table X-1. Enrollment for 2017 through 2025 is based on projections obtained from the Florida
Department of Education, and afterwards based on a 1% annual growth. (5) Present value of total remaining payments (Item 3) divided by the average annual enrollment over the life
of the remaining payments (Item 4)
Description
Number of Years of
Remaining Payments(1)
Remaining Payments Due for Expansion(2)
Present Value of Total
Remaining Payments(3)
Average Annual
Enrollment(4)
Debt Service Credit per Student(5)
Certificates of Participation 2005 COPS Issue 12 $75,408,441 $57,465,002 15,861 $3,623 2007 COPS Issue 14 $55,753,771 $38,059,999 16,083 $2,366 2005 COBI 14 $1,373,338 $970,000 16,083 $60 2008 COBI 11 $5,450,594 $4,305,000 15,900 $271 2010 COBI 16 $194,350 $139,999 16,457 $9 2010 QSCB Issue 15 $16,259,236 $10,589,769 16,352 $648
$6,977Total COPs Debt Service Credit per Student
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 140 Impact Fee Update Study
Net Impact Cost per Student
The net impact fee per student is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table X-8 summarizes the three-step process used to calculate the net impact cost per student for public schools in Indian River County.
First, the total impact cost per student is determined. This is the sum of the weighted average facility impact cost per student from Table X-4 and the transportation and ancillary facility cost components per student from Table X-5.
Second, the total revenue credit is determined. This is the sum of the capital improvement revenue credit per student from Table X-6 and the debt service revenue credit per student from Table X-7. Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit per student. The resulting figure of $24,114 per student is also the relevant measure of LOS for impact fee calculation purposes.
Table X-8 Net Impact Cost per Student
(1) Source: Table X-4 (2) Source: Table X-5 (3) Source: Table X-5 (4) Sum of the facility impact cost (Item 1), the transportation
impact cost (Item 2), and the ancillary facility cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Table X-6 (6) Source: Table X-7 (7) Sum of the capital improvement credit (Item 5) and the
debt service credit (Item 6) (8) Total impact cost per student (Item 4) less total revenue
credit per student (Item 7)
Total Impact Cost Per Student Facility Impact Cost(1) $32,789 Transportation Impact Cost(2) $709 Ancillary Facility Cost(3) $1,020Total Impact Cost per Student(4) $34,518
Revenue Credit Per Student Capital Improvement Credit(5) $3,427 Debt Service Credit(6) $6,977Total Revenue Credit per Student(7) $10,404
Net Impact Cost Per StudentNet Impact Cost per Student(8) $24,114
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 141 Impact Fee Update Study
Student Generation Rate The number of students living in a household typically varies depending on the type of residential housing. Therefore, school impact fees are typically assessed based on the specific student generation rates for different types of residential land uses. Indian River County’s current school impact fee developed the student generation rates using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and Census 2000 data. This impact fee study employs a new methodology using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to develop the student generation rate for Indian River County. Specifically, GIS was used to link student addresses to parcels in the Indian River County Property Appraiser’s database in order to generate the number of students per unit by school type and land use based on the latest tax roll. Indian River County School District and Indian River County worked together to provide a geocoded student addresses. This file was then linked to the addresses of students who attend those schools listed in Appendix G, Table G-1. Results of this analysis are provided in Table X-9.
Table X-9 Student Generation Rates
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser for single family/multi-
family homes and the American Census Survey, 2012 Estimates, for mobile homes
(2) Source: Indian River County School District and Indian River County (3) Number of students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for
each residential land use type.
As presented, student generation rates are calculated at 0.252 students per home for single family homes, 0.099 students for multi-family units, and 0.152 students for mobile homes, for a weighted average of 0.210 students per home.
Residential Land UseTotal
Housing Units(1)
Number of Students(2)
Students per Unit(3)
Traditional Schools Single Family 51,423 12,979 0.252 Multi-Family 17,277 1,712 0.099 Mobile Home 4,836 733 0.152Total/Weighted Average 73,536 15,424 0.210
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 142 Impact Fee Update Study
Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule To determine the calculated school impact fee for each residential land use under each fee schedule scenario, the net impact cost per student is multiplied by the student generation rate. The resulting impact fee levels are presented in Table X-10.
Table X-10 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
(1) Source: Table X-9 (2) Source: Table X-8 (3) Students per unit (Item 1) multiplied by the net impact cost per student (Item 2) (4) Source: Indian River County Planning Division (5) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 6) to the total impact fee (Item 5)
Affordable Growth Strategy Based on the data shown in Tables X-6 and X-7, the School District uses approximately $3 million per year of non-impact fee funding for school capacity projects and $12 million per year to pay off the debt service, for a total of $15 million per year. During the next 25 years, Indian River County is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Figure X-1 presents how impact fee levels would change over time with different growth rates. As shown, the red horizontal line represents the maximum legally acceptable fee. This level is compared investment needed to maintain the current LOS. Given that the available non-impact fee funding, the District could adopt the impact fee at approximately 28 percent and still maintain the current LOS as long as the non-impact fee contributions indicated above continue and the annual growth rate remains at or below 1.4 percent. However, the County has the legal right to adopt the fees at any level less than the full calculated amount shown in Table X-10. It is important to note this is a countywide-calculation and does not take into consideration capacity needs in sub-areas of the county, such as Fellsmere and North County, where schools are overcrowded.
Land Use UnitStudents
per Unit(1)
Net Impact Cost per
Student(2)
Total Impact Fee(3)
Current Adopted
Fee(4)
Percent Change(5)
Residential: Single Family du 0.252 $24,114 $6,077 $1,756 246% Multi-Family du 0.099 $24,114 $2,387 $500 377% Mobile Home du 0.152 $24,114 $3,665 $623 488%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 143 Impact Fee Update Study
Figure X-1 Educational Facilities Impact Fee – Affordable Growth Approach
Table X-11 presents the calculated impact fee using the 28-percent adoption ratio. Under this scenario, the fees would range from $668 for a multi-family home to $1,702 for a single family home.
Table X-11 Calculated Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule – Affordable Growth
(1) Source: Figure X-1 (2) Total impact fee from Table X-10 (Item 5) multiplied by the affordable growth adoption rate (Item 1) (3) Source: Indian River County Planning Division (4) Percent change from the current adopted fee (Item 2) to the total impact fee (Item 1)
Land Use UnitAffordable
Growth Adoption Rate(1)
Total Impact Fee(2)
Current Adopted
Fee(3)
Percent Change(4)
Residential: Single Family du 28% $1,702 $1,756 -3.1% Multi-Family du 28% $668 $500 33.7% Mobile Home du 28% $1,026 $623 64.7%
28%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 144 Impact Fee Update Study
Staff Recommended Fee Rate In the case of educational facilities impact fees, the County staff recommends implementing the affordable growth fees.
Educational Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Indian River County’s school impact fee program, a comparison of the calculated single family school impact fee for IRC to the single family school impact fees adopted by other counties throughout Florida has been prepared. Table X-12 presents this comparison.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 145 Impact Fee Update Study
Table X-12 Comparison of School Impact Fee Schedules
(1) County’s tagged with an asterisk (*) have fees that are currently suspended (2) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with representatives from
each County and Tables X-10 and X-11 for Indian River County figures (3) Represents the full calculated fee for each jurisdiction. Note: The fees for Manatee County and Volusia County include a 3.0% administrative fee.
County(1)Date of
Last Update
Adoption Percentage
Adopted Single Family Impact Fee(2)
Indian River County (Aff. Growth) 2014 28% $1,702Indian River County (2009 Adopted) 2005 100% $1,756Palm Beach County 2012 26% $1,866Citrus County 2010 50% $1,936Sarasota County* 2004 100% $2,032Lake County 2011 25% $2,573Volusia County 2013 67% $3,000Flagler County 2004 76% $3,600Marion County* 2006 100% $3,967Hillsborough County 2007 100% $4,000Polk County 2010 44% $4,160Hernando County* 2005 100% $4,266Brevard County 2004 100% $4,445Pasco County 2005 n/a $4,828Seminole County 2007 99% $5,000Collier County 2011 50% $5,378Martin County 2007 100% $5,567Highlands County* 2006 100% $5,801St. Johns County 2011 100% $6,072Indian River County (Calculated) 2014 100% $6,077St. Lucie County 2009 100% $6,091Broward County 2008 100% $6,267Orange County 2007 50% $6,525Manatee County* 2005 100% $6,572Clay County 2005 n/a $7,034Osceola County 2010 90% $8,742
Appendix A Population
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-1 Impact Fee Update Study
Population All impact fee program areas (except for educational facilities and transportation) require the use of population data in calculating current levels-of-service, performance standards, and future demand for capital facilities. With this in mind, a consistent approach to developing population estimates and projections is an important component of the data compilation process. To accurately determine demand for services, as well as to be consistent with Indian River County’s Comprehensive Plan, not only the residents, or permanent population of the County, but also the seasonal residents and visitors were considered. Seasonal residents include visitors to hotel and motel facilities, visitors to RV parks, visitors that stay with relatives and friends, and part-time residents, which are defined as living in Indian River County for less than six months each year. Therefore, for purposes of calculating future demand for capital facilities for each impact fee program area, the weighted average seasonal population will be used in all population estimates and projections. References to population contained in this report pertain to the weighted average seasonal population, unless otherwise noted. Indian River County provides all of the services areas included in the impact fee program countywide, with the exception of the following three program areas:
Law enforcement, which is provided in unincorporated county; Parks and recreation services, also provided only in unincorporated county; and Emergency services, which are provided countywide with the exception of the Town
of Indian River Shores. Given the differences in services areas, population estimates are provided separately for these three areas. Table A-1 presents the population trend for Indian River County. The projections indicate that the population of Indian River County is estimated to increase by 40 percent between 2013 and 2040 countywide.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-1 Weighted Population Trends and Projections
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-18 (2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-21 (3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-24
Indian RiverCounty(1)
Unincorporated Indian River County(2)
IRC, Excluding Indian River Shores(3)
2000 119,351 75,723 115,7072001 121,732 77,277 118,0282002 124,110 78,824 120,4262003 126,869 80,523 123,1282004 131,175 84,000 127,4032005 134,573 86,741 130,7922006 139,121 89,255 135,2922007 143,177 92,824 139,4132008 145,212 93,905 141,2872009 145,356 94,014 141,4522010 145,854 96,546 141,7322011 146,325 96,955 142,2022012 147,118 97,461 142,9662013 148,001 97,681 143,5612014 148,964 98,316 144,4952015 150,081 99,053 145,5782016 151,175 99,776 146,6402017 152,612 100,724 148,0342018 154,214 101,781 149,5882019 155,911 102,901 151,2342020 157,705 104,085 152,9742021 159,470 105,250 154,6862022 161,463 106,566 156,6192023 163,563 107,951 158,6562024 165,771 109,409 160,7972025 168,091 110,940 163,0492026 170,444 112,493 165,3302027 172,950 114,147 167,7612028 175,526 115,848 170,2612029 178,124 117,562 172,7802030 180,743 119,290 175,3202031 183,381 121,032 177,8802032 186,031 122,781 180,4502033 188,710 124,549 183,0492034 191,428 126,342 185,6852035 194,165 128,149 188,3402036 196,923 129,969 191,0152037 199,699 131,801 193,7082038 202,495 133,647 196,4202039 205,289 135,491 199,1312040 208,079 137,332 201,837
YearWeighted Seasonal Population Figure
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-3 Impact Fee Update Study
Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size
The residential land uses to be used for the impact fee calculations are the following: Single Family Multi-Family/Accessory Unit Mobile Home/RV (tied down)
Table A-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Indian River County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant.
To address fairness and equity issues between land uses and to be consistent with the County’s current fee schedules, the single family land use is tiered based on three categories of square footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and 2,500 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit. This analysis utilized national data from the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) and date from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Reports to examine this relationship. Because the 2010 Census data do not provide population by land use, a comparison of weighted average population per housing units between the two Census data sets was conducted and the resulting ratio was applied to the residents per housing unit figure for each land use.
Table A-2
Residents per Housing Unit (Countywide)
(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the
decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010
Housing Type Population(1) Housing Units(2) Ratio(3)
Residents / Housing Units(4)
Residents / Housing Units
with 2010 Adj(5)
Single Family (detached) 83,498 34,383 2.43 2.26 - Less than 1,500 sf 92% 2.24 2.09 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.43 2.26 - 2,500 sf or greater 111% 2.70 2.52Multi-Family/Accessory 22,768 16,649 1.37 1.28Mobile Home 10,516 6,786 1.55 1.44
Weighted Average 116,782 57,818 2.02 1.88
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-3 Residents per Housing Unit (Unincorporated IRC)
(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the
decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010
Table A-4 Residents per Housing Unit (IRC excluding Indian River Shores)
(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33 (adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-30 (3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2) (5) Residents per housing unit based on Census 2000 are adjusted downward by 6.8 percent to reflect the
decrease in people per housing unit between 2000 and 2010
Functional Population Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the
Housing Type Population(1) Housing Units(2) Ratio(3)
Residents / Housing Units(4)
Residents / Housing Units
with 2010 Adj(5)
Single Family (detached) 52,420 20,997 2.50 2.33 - Less than 1,500 sf 92% 2.30 2.14 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.50 2.33 - 2,500 sf or greater 111% 2.78 2.59Multi-Family/Accessory 14,195 9,923 1.43 1.33Mobile Home 7,454 5,378 1.39 1.30
Weighted Average 74,069 36,298 2.04 1.90
Housing Type Population(1) Housing Units(2) Ratio(3)
Residents / Housing Units(4)
Residents / Housing Units
with 2010 Adj(5)
Single Family (detached) 81,290 33,010 2.46 2.29 - Less than 1,500 sf 92% 2.26 2.11 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.46 2.29 - 2,500 sf or greater 111% 2.73 2.54Multi-Family/Accessory 21,493 15,176 1.42 1.32Mobile Home 10,516 6,786 1.55 1.44
Weighted Average 113,299 54,972 2.06 1.92
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-5 Impact Fee Update Study
number of employees, since the service-demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of the Indian River County functional population, an analysis of the County’s population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4 hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables A-5 and A-6.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-6 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-5 Indian River County Population & Employment Characteristics
(1) Source: Estimated based on data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning Package (CTOO) Pt. 3 (2) Sum of workers who live/work in IRC and workers who live elsewhere but work in IRC (3) Source: 2010 U.S. Census (4) Total workers living in IRC (Item 2) divided by the census population (Item 3) (5) Source: 2010 U.S. Census (6) School age population (Item 5) divided by the census population (Item 3) (7) Census population (Item 3) less total workers living in Indian River County (Item 2) and
school age population (Item 5) (8) Population net of worker and school age population (Item 7) divided by census population
(Item 3)
Table A-6 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population
(1) Source: Assumed (2) Source: Table A-5 (3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) (4) Sum of effective hours (Item 3) (5) Total hours at residence (Item 4) divided by 24
Item/Calculation Step Figure
Workers who live and work in Indian River County (2010) (1) 47,755Workers who live in Indian River County but work elsewhere (2010) (1) 8,560Total workers living in Indian River County(2) 56,315Indian River County Census Population (2010) (3) 138,028Total workers as a percent of population(4) 40.8%School age population (5-17 years) (2010)(5) 19,444School age population as a percent of population(6) 14.1%Population net of workers and school age population(7) 62,269Other population as a percent of total population(8) 45.1%
Pop. GroupHours at
Residence(1)
Percent of Population(2)
Effective Hours(3)
Workers 13 40.8% 5.3 Students 15 14.1% 2.1
Other 20 45.1% 9.0 Total Hours at Residence(4) 16.4 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5) 68.3%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-7 Impact Fee Update Study
The resulting percentage from Table A-6 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table A-8. Non-Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing estimated functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used internationally1. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and TOA’s Trip Characteristics Database, information of passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include:
Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips).
Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees).
Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker-hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week).
Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping).
Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use.
Table A-7 also shows the functional population coefficients for non-residential uses in Indian River County. The functional population coefficients in Table A-7 were used to estimate the County’s functional population in Table A-8.
1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, “Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
A-8
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e A-
7 Ge
nera
l Fun
ctio
nal P
opul
atio
n Co
effic
ient
s Po
pula
tion/
Em
ploy
men
t Cat
egor
yIT
E LU
CEm
ploy
ee
Hour
s In-
Plac
e(1)
Trip
s per
Em
ploy
ee(2
)
One
-Way
Tr
ips p
er
Empl
oyee
(3)
Jour
ney-
to-
Wor
k O
ccup
ants
pe
r Trip
(4)
Daily
O
ccup
ants
per
Tr
ip(5
)
Visi
tors
per
Em
ploy
ee(6
)
Visi
tor H
ours
pe
r Trip
(1)
Days
per
W
eek(7
)
Func
tiona
l Po
pula
tion
Coef
ficie
nt(8
)
Popu
latio
n7.
000.
683
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
esn/
a9.
003.
021.
511.
321.
380.
091.
007.
000.
379
Cons
truc
tion
110
9.00
3.02
1.51
1.32
1.38
0.09
1.00
5.00
0.27
1M
anuf
actu
ring
140
9.00
2.13
1.07
1.32
1.38
0.06
1.00
5.00
0.27
0Tr
ansp
orta
tion,
Com
mun
icat
ion,
Util
ities
110
9.00
3.02
1.51
1.32
1.38
0.09
1.00
5.00
0.27
1W
hole
sale
Tra
de15
09.
003.
891.
951.
321.
380.
121.
005.
000.
271
Reta
il Tr
ade
820
9.00
52.1
026
.05
1.24
1.73
12.7
61.
507.
001.
173
Fina
nce,
Insu
ranc
e, R
eal E
stat
e71
09.
003.
321.
661.
241.
730.
811.
005.
000.
292
Serv
ices
(9)
n/a
9.00
28.6
214
.31
1.24
1.73
7.01
1.00
6.00
0.57
2Go
vern
men
t(10)
730
9.00
11.9
55.
981.
241.
732.
931.
007.
000.
497
(1) A
ssum
ed(2
) Tri
ps p
er e
mpl
oyee
repr
esen
ts a
ll tr
ips
divi
ded
by th
e nu
mbe
r of e
mpl
oyee
s an
d is
bas
ed o
n Tr
ip G
ener
atio
n 9t
h Ed
ition
(Ins
titut
e of
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Engi
neer
s 20
12) a
s fo
llow
s:
ITE
Cod
e 11
0 at
3.0
2 w
eekd
ay tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
, pag
e 93
.
ITE
Cod
e 14
0 at
2.1
3 w
eekd
ay tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
, pag
e 16
4.
ITE
Cod
e 15
0 at
3.8
9 w
eekd
ay tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
, pag
e 19
3.
ITE
Cod
e 71
0 at
3.3
2 w
eekd
ay tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
, pag
e 12
52.
I
TE C
ode
730
at 1
1.95
wee
kday
trip
s pe
r em
ploy
ee, p
age
1304
.
ITE
Cod
e 82
0 ba
sed
on b
lend
ed a
vera
ge o
f tri
ps b
y re
tail
cent
er s
ize
calc
ulat
ed b
elow
, ada
pted
from
pag
e 15
61.
T
rips
per
reta
il em
ploy
ee fr
om th
e fo
llow
ing
tabl
e:As
sum
edSq
Ft p
erTr
ips p
erW
eigh
ted
R
etai
l Sca
leCe
nter
Size
Trip
Rat
eEm
ploy
ee(1
1)Em
ploy
eeSh
are
Trip
sNe
ighb
orho
od <
50k
sq.ft
.50
86.5
680
269
40.0
%27
.60
Com
mun
ity 5
0k-2
50k
sq.ft
.25
049
.28
975
4830
.0%
14.4
0Re
gion
al 2
50k-
500k
sq.
ft.50
038
.66
1,04
340
20.0
%8.
00Su
per R
eg. 5
00k-
1000
k sq
.ft.
1,00
030
.33
676
2110
.0%
2.10
Su
m o
f Wei
ghte
d Tr
ips/
1k s
q.ft.
52.1
0(3
) Tri
p pe
r em
ploy
ee (I
tem
2) m
ultip
lied
by 0
.5.
(4) J
ourn
ey-to
-Wor
k O
ccup
ants
per
Tri
p fr
om 2
001
Natio
nwid
e Ho
useh
old
Trav
el S
urve
y (F
HWA
2001
) as
follo
ws:
1
.32
occu
pant
s pe
r Con
stru
ctio
n, M
anuf
actu
ring
, TCU
, and
Who
lesa
le tr
ip
1.2
4 oc
cupa
nts
per R
etai
l Tra
de, F
IRE,
and
Ser
vice
s tr
ip(5
) Dai
ly O
ccup
ants
per
Tri
p fr
om 2
001
Natio
nwid
e Ho
useh
old
Trav
el S
urve
y (F
HWA
2001
) as
follo
ws:
1
.38
occu
pant
s pe
r Con
stru
ctio
n, M
anuf
actu
ring
, TCU
, and
Who
lesa
le tr
ip
1.7
3 oc
cupa
nts
per R
etai
l Tra
de, F
IRE,
and
Ser
vice
s tr
ip(6
) [Da
ily o
ccup
ants
per
trip
(Ite
m 5
) mul
tiplie
d by
one
-way
trip
s pe
r em
ploy
ee (I
tem
3)]
- [(Jo
urne
y-to
-Wor
k oc
cupa
nts
per t
rip
(Item
4) m
ultip
lied
by o
ne-w
ay tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
(Ite
m 3
)](7
) Typ
ical
num
ber o
f day
s pe
r wee
k th
at in
dica
ted
indu
stri
es p
rovi
de s
ervi
ces
and
rele
vant
gov
ernm
ent s
ervi
ces
are
avai
labl
e.(8
) Tab
le A
-6 fo
r res
iden
tial a
nd th
e eq
uatio
n be
low
to d
eter
min
e th
e Fu
nctio
nal P
opul
atio
n Co
effic
ient
per
Em
ploy
ee fo
r all
land
-use
cat
egor
ies
exce
pt re
side
ntia
l inc
lude
s th
e fo
llow
ing:
(10)
Incl
udes
Fed
eral
Civ
ilian
Gov
ernm
ent,
Fede
ral M
ilita
ry G
over
nmen
t, an
d St
ate
and
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent c
ateg
orie
s.(1
1) S
quar
e fe
et p
er re
tail
empl
oyee
from
the
Ener
gy In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istr
atio
n fr
om T
able
B-1
of t
he C
omm
erci
al E
nerg
y Bu
ildin
g Su
rvey
, 200
3
((Day
s pe
r Wee
k x
Empl
oyee
Hou
rs in
Pla
ce) +
(Vis
itors
per
Em
ploy
ee x
Vis
itor H
ours
per
Tri
p x
Days
per
Wee
k)
(24
Hour
s pe
r Day
x 7
Day
s pe
r Wee
k)
(9) T
rips
per
em
ploy
ee fo
r the
ser
vice
s ca
tego
ry is
the
aver
age
trip
s pe
r em
ploy
ee fo
r the
follo
win
g se
rvic
e re
late
d la
nd u
se c
ateg
orie
s: q
ualit
y re
stau
rant
, hig
h-tu
rnov
er re
stau
rant
, sup
erm
arke
t, ho
tel,
mot
el, e
lem
enta
ry s
choo
l, m
iddl
e sc
hool
, hig
h sc
hool
, hos
pita
l, m
edic
al o
ffice
, and
chu
rch.
Sou
rce
for t
he tr
ips
per e
mpl
oyee
figu
re fr
om IT
E, 9
th e
d., w
hen
avai
labl
e, o
r els
e de
rive
d fr
om th
e sq
uare
feet
per
em
ploy
ee fo
r the
app
ropr
iate
land
use
ca
tego
ry fr
om th
e En
ergy
Info
rmat
ion
Adm
inis
trat
ion
from
Tab
le B
-1 o
f the
Com
mer
cial
Ene
rgy
Build
ing
Surv
ey (2
003)
.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-9 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-8 Countywide Functional Population – Year 2013
(1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2013 Woods & Poole for employment data (2) Source: Table A-7 (3) The functional population is Indian River County baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional
resident coefficient (Item 2) (4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine
employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) (5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (101,085) and
employment functional population (39,101)
Population CategoryIndian River County
Baseline Data(1)
Functional Resident Coefficient(2)
Functional Population(3)
2013 Weighted Population 148,001 0.683 101,085
Employment Category Natural Resources 4,228 0.379 1,602 Construction 3,560 0.271 965 Manufacturing 2,480 0.270 670 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,876 0.271 508 Wholesale Trade 926 0.271 251 Retail Trade 9,526 1.173 11,174 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 8,066 0.292 2,355 Services 32,704 0.572 18,707 Government Services 5,772 0.497 2,869Total Employment by Category Population(4) 39,101
2013 Total Functional Population(5) 140,186
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-10 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-9 Unincorporated County Functional Population – Year 2013
(1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2013 Woods & Poole for employment data (2) Source: Table A-7 (3) The functional population is Indian River County baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional
resident coefficient (Item 2) (4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine
employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) (5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (66,716) and
employment functional population (20,874)
Population CategoryIndian River County
Baseline Data(1)
Functional Resident Coefficient(2)
Functional Population(3)
2013 Weighted Population 97,681 0.683 66,716
Employment Category Natural Resources 2,832 0.379 1,073 Construction 1,730 0.271 469 Manufacturing 1,661 0.270 448 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,256 0.271 340 Wholesale Trade 560 0.271 152 Retail Trade 5,766 1.173 6,764 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3,919 0.292 1,144 Services 15,891 0.572 9,090 Government Services 2,805 0.497 1,394Total Employment by Category Population(4) 20,874
2013 Total Functional Population(5) 87,590
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-11 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-10 IRC excluding Indian River Shores Functional Population – Year 2013
(1) Source: Table A-1 for population and 2013 Woods & Poole for employment data (2) Source: Table A-7 (3) The functional population is Indian River County baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional
resident coefficient (Item 2) (4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine
employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) (5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (98,052) and
employment functional population (38,271) Table A-11 presents the County’s annual functional population figures from 2000 through 2040, based on the 2013 functional population figures from Tables A-8 through A-10 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table A-1.
Population CategoryIndian River County
Baseline Data(1)
Functional Resident Coefficient(2)
Functional Population(3)
2013 Weighted Population 143,561 0.683 98,052
Employment Category Natural Resources 4,189 0.379 1,588 Construction 3,469 0.271 940 Manufacturing 2,457 0.270 663 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,859 0.271 504 Wholesale Trade 912 0.271 247 Retail Trade 9,387 1.173 11,011 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7,859 0.292 2,295 Services 31,867 0.572 18,228 Government Services 5,624 0.497 2,795Total Employment by Category Population(4) 38,271
2013 Total Functional Population(5) 136,323
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-12 Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-11 Indian River County Functional Population (2000-2040)
(1) Source: Table A-8 for 2013 total functional population (2) Source: Table A-9 for 2013 total functional population (3) Source: Table A-10 for 2013 total functional population
Indian RiverCounty(1)
Unincorporated Indian River County(2)
IRC Excluding Indian River Shores(3)
2000 113,139 70,691 110,0232001 115,402 72,105 112,2232002 117,710 73,547 114,4672003 120,300 75,165 116,9852004 124,390 77,721 120,9622005 127,624 79,742 124,1072006 131,963 82,453 128,3272007 135,790 84,844 132,0482008 137,691 86,032 133,8972009 137,829 86,118 134,0312010 138,242 86,376 134,4332011 138,657 86,635 134,8362012 139,350 87,068 135,5102013 140,186 87,590 136,3232014 141,167 88,203 137,2772015 142,155 88,820 138,2382016 143,150 89,442 139,2062017 144,582 90,336 140,5982018 146,172 91,330 142,1452019 147,780 92,335 143,7092020 149,553 93,443 145,4342021 151,198 94,471 147,0342022 153,164 95,699 148,9452023 155,155 96,943 150,8812024 157,172 98,203 152,8422025 159,372 99,578 154,9822026 161,603 100,972 157,1522027 164,027 102,487 159,5092028 166,487 104,024 161,9022029 168,984 105,584 164,3312030 171,519 107,168 166,7962031 174,092 108,776 169,2982032 176,529 110,299 171,6682033 179,000 111,843 174,0712034 181,506 113,409 176,5082035 184,047 114,997 178,9792036 186,624 116,607 181,4852037 189,237 118,239 184,0262038 191,886 119,894 186,6022039 194,572 121,573 189,2142040 197,296 123,275 191,863
Functional PopulationYear
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 A-13 Impact Fee Update Study
Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Indian River County was calculated for the single family, multi-family, and mobile home/RV land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census. Besides the residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses, such as hotels, motels, nursing homes, and assisted care living facilities (ACLF). Secondary sources, such as the IRC Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes/ACLF land uses. As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee service areas to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Tables A-12 through A-14. Non-Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table A-15 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non-residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the certain impact fee programs and will be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the select impact fee schedules.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
A-14
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e A-
12
Func
tiona
l Res
iden
ts fo
r Res
iden
tial a
nd T
rans
ient
Lan
d U
ses -
Cou
ntyw
ide
Resi
dent
ial L
and
Use
Impa
ct
Uni
tIT
E
LU
C(1)
Resi
dent
s/
Visi
tors
Per
U
nit(2
)
Occ
upan
cy
Rate
(3)
Adju
sted
Re
side
nts
Per U
nit(4
)
Pea
k Vi
sito
r Ho
urs a
t Pl
ace(5
)
Wor
kers
Pe
r Uni
t(6)
Wor
k Da
y Ho
urs(7
)Da
ys P
er
Wee
k(8)
Wor
k W
eek
Resi
dent
s Per
U
nit(9
)
Resi
dent
ial
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sfdu
210
2.09
1.43
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sfdu
210
2.26
1.54
- 2,
500
sf o
r gre
ater
du21
02.
521.
72 M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
tdu
220
1.28
0.87
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (T
ied
Dow
n)du
240
1.44
0.98
Tran
sien
t, As
sist
ed, G
roup
H
otel
room
310
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
579
70.
65 M
otel
room
320
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
449
70.
60 N
ursi
ng H
ome/
ACLF
bed
252/
620
1.00
91%
0.91
160.
849
70.
92(1
) Lan
d us
e co
de fr
om th
e In
stitu
te o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Engi
neer
s (IT
E) T
rip
Gene
ratio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n
(4) R
esid
ents
per
uni
t tim
es o
ccup
ancy
rate
(5),
(7),
(8) E
stim
ated
(6) A
dapt
ed fr
om IT
E Tr
ip G
ener
atio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n(9
) For
resi
dent
ial t
his
is R
esid
ents
Per
Uni
t tim
es 0
.683
. Fo
r Tra
nsie
nt, A
ssis
ted,
and
Gro
up it
is:
[
(Adj
uste
d Re
side
nts
per U
nit X
Hou
rs a
t Pla
ce X
Day
s pe
r Wee
k) +
(Wor
kers
Per
Uni
t X W
ork
Hour
s Pe
r Day
X D
ays
per W
eek)
]
(2) E
stim
ates
for t
he s
ingl
e fa
mily
, mul
ti-fa
mily
, and
mob
ile h
ome
land
use
from
Tab
le A
-2; e
stim
ates
for t
he h
otel
/mot
el la
nd u
se is
bas
ed o
n da
ta o
btai
ned
from
oth
er F
lori
da ju
risd
ictio
ns.
One
per
son
per b
ed is
ass
umed
for n
ursi
ng h
omes
.
( 24
Hour
s pe
r Day
X 7
Day
s pe
r Wee
k)
(3) S
ourc
e fo
r hot
el/m
otel
occ
upan
cy: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y Ch
ambe
r of C
omm
erce
. Av
erag
e ho
tel/
mot
el o
ccup
ancy
rate
for 2
007
thro
ugh
2012
. So
urce
for n
ursi
ng h
ome/
ACLF
occ
upan
cy ra
te is
th
e Fl
orid
a De
part
men
t of E
lder
ly A
ffair
s, In
dian
Cou
nty
Prof
ile.
Aver
age
occu
panc
y ra
te fo
r 201
1 an
d 20
12.
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
A-15
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e A-
13
Func
tiona
l Res
iden
ts fo
r Res
iden
tial a
nd T
rans
ient
Lan
d U
ses
– U
ninc
orpo
rate
d Co
unty
Resi
dent
ial L
and
Use
Impa
ct
Uni
tIT
E
LU
C(1)
Resi
dent
s/
Visi
tors
Per
U
nit(2
)
Occ
upan
cy
Rate
(3)
Adju
sted
Re
side
nts
Per U
nit(4
)
Pea
k Vi
sito
r Ho
urs a
t Pl
ace(5
)
Wor
kers
Pe
r Uni
t(6)
Wor
k Da
y Ho
urs(7
)Da
ys P
er
Wee
k(8)
Wor
k W
eek
Resi
dent
s Per
U
nit(9
)
Resi
dent
ial
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sfdu
210
2.14
1.46
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sfdu
210
2.33
1.59
- 2,
500
sf o
r gre
ater
du21
02.
591.
77 M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
tdu
220
1.33
0.91
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (T
ied
Dow
n)du
240
1.30
0.89
Tran
sien
t, As
sist
ed, G
roup
H
otel
room
310
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
579
70.
65 M
otel
room
320
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
449
70.
60 N
ursi
ng H
ome/
ACLF
bed
620
1.00
91%
0.91
160.
849
70.
92(1
) Lan
d us
e co
de fr
om th
e In
stitu
te o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Engi
neer
s (IT
E) T
rip
Gene
ratio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n
(4) R
esid
ents
per
uni
t tim
es o
ccup
ancy
rate
(5),
(7),
(8) E
stim
ated
(6) A
dapt
ed fr
om IT
E Tr
ip G
ener
atio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n(9
) For
resi
dent
ial t
his
is R
esid
ents
Per
Uni
t tim
es 0
.683
. Fo
r Tra
nsie
nt, A
ssis
ted,
and
Gro
up it
is:
[
(Adj
uste
d Re
side
nts
per U
nit X
Hou
rs a
t Pla
ce X
Day
s pe
r Wee
k) +
(Wor
kers
Per
Uni
t X W
ork
Hour
s Pe
r Day
X D
ays
per W
eek)
]
( 24
Hour
s pe
r Day
X 7
Day
s pe
r Wee
k)
(2) E
stim
ates
for t
he s
ingl
e fa
mily
, mul
ti-fa
mily
, and
mob
ile h
ome
land
use
from
Tab
le A
-3; e
stim
ates
for t
he h
otel
/mot
el la
nd u
se is
bas
ed o
n da
ta o
btai
ned
from
oth
er F
lori
da ju
risd
ictio
ns.
One
per
son
per b
ed is
ass
umed
for n
ursi
ng h
omes
.
(3) S
ourc
e fo
r hot
el/m
otel
occ
upan
cy: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y Ch
ambe
r of C
omm
erce
. Av
erag
e ho
tel/
mot
el o
ccup
ancy
rate
for 2
007
thro
ugh
2012
. So
urce
for n
ursi
ng h
ome/
ACLF
occ
upan
cy ra
te is
th
e Fl
orid
a De
part
men
t of E
lder
ly A
ffair
s, In
dian
Cou
nty
Prof
ile.
Aver
age
occu
panc
y ra
te fo
r 201
1 an
d 20
12.
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
A-16
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e A-
14
Func
tiona
l Res
iden
ts fo
r Res
iden
tial a
nd T
rans
ient
Lan
d U
ses
– IR
C ex
clud
ing
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
Resi
dent
ial L
and
Use
Impa
ct
Uni
tIT
E
LU
C(1)
Resi
dent
s/
Visi
tors
Per
U
nit(2
)
Occ
upan
cy
Rate
(3)
Adju
sted
Re
side
nts
Per U
nit(4
)
Pea
k Vi
sito
r Ho
urs a
t Pl
ace(5
)
Wor
kers
Pe
r Uni
t(6)
Wor
k Da
y Ho
urs(7
)
Days
Per
W
eek(8
)
Wor
k W
eek
Resi
dent
s Per
U
nit(9
)
Resi
dent
ial
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sfdu
210
2.11
1.44
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sfdu
210
2.29
1.56
- 2,
500
sf o
r gre
ater
du21
02.
541.
73 M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
tdu
220
1.32
0.90
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (T
ied
Dow
n)du
240
1.44
0.98
Tran
sien
t, As
sist
ed, G
roup
H
otel
room
310
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
579
70.
65 M
otel
room
320
1.70
51%
0.87
120.
449
70.
60 N
ursi
ng H
ome/
ACLF
bed
620
1.00
91%
0.91
160.
849
70.
92(1
) Lan
d us
e co
de fr
om th
e In
stitu
te o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Engi
neer
s (IT
E) T
rip
Gene
ratio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n
(4) R
esid
ents
per
uni
t tim
es o
ccup
ancy
rate
(5),
(7),
(8) E
stim
ated
(6) A
dapt
ed fr
om IT
E Tr
ip G
ener
atio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
n(9
) For
resi
dent
ial t
his
is R
esid
ents
Per
Uni
t tim
es 0
.683
. Fo
r Tra
nsie
nt, A
ssis
ted,
and
Gro
up it
is:
[
(Adj
uste
d Re
side
nts
per U
nit X
Hou
rs a
t Pla
ce X
Day
s pe
r Wee
k) +
(Wor
kers
Per
Uni
t X W
ork
Hour
s Pe
r Day
X D
ays
per W
eek)
]
(3) S
ourc
e fo
r hot
el/m
otel
occ
upan
cy: I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y Ch
ambe
r of C
omm
erce
. Av
erag
e ho
tel/
mot
el o
ccup
ancy
rate
for 2
007
thro
ugh
2012
. So
urce
for n
ursi
ng h
ome/
ACLF
occ
upan
cy ra
te is
th
e Fl
orid
a De
part
men
t of E
lder
ly A
ffair
s, In
dian
Cou
nty
Prof
ile.
Aver
age
occu
panc
y ra
te fo
r 201
1 an
d 20
12.
( 24
Hour
s pe
r Day
X 7
Day
s pe
r Wee
k)
(2) E
stim
ates
for t
he s
ingl
e fa
mily
, mul
ti-fa
mily
, and
mob
ile h
ome
land
use
from
Tab
le A
-4; e
stim
ates
for t
he h
otel
/mot
el la
nd u
se is
bas
ed o
n da
ta o
btai
ned
from
oth
er F
lori
da ju
risd
ictio
ns.
One
per
son
per b
ed is
ass
umed
for n
ursi
ng h
omes
.
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Func
tiona
l Res
iden
ts fo
r Non
-Res
iden
tial L
and
Use
s
Land
Use
Impa
ct U
nit
Trip
s Per
U
nit(2
)
Trip
s Pe
r Em
ploy
ee(3
)
Empl
oyee
s Pe
r Uni
t(4)
One
-Way
Fa
ctor
@
50%
(5)
Wor
ker
Hour
s(6)
Occ
upan
ts
Per T
rip(7
)Vi
sito
rs(8
)
Visi
tor
Hour
s Per
Tr
ip(9
)
Da W
& F
inan
cial
Off
ice/
Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
23.8
38.
912.
6711
.92
91.
4214
.26
1.00
Off
ice/
Clin
ic g
reat
er th
an 1
0,00
0 sf
1,00
0 sf
34.7
28.
913.
9017
.36
91.
4220
.75
1.00
avin
gs W
alk-
In1,
000
sf12
1.30
34.6
93.
5060
.65
91.
5288
.69
0.35
avin
gs D
rive-
In1,
000
sf15
9.34
30.9
45.
1579
.67
91.
5211
5.95
0.15
Off
ice
1,00
0 sf
11.0
33.
323.
325.
529
1.28
3.75
1.00
h &
Dev
elop
men
t Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
8.11
2.77
2.93
4.06
91.
282.
271.
00al ct
urin
g1,
000
sf3.
822.
131.
791.
919
1.38
0.85
1.00
ousi
ng1,
000
sf3.
563.
890.
921.
789
1.38
1.54
0.75
areh
ouse
/Sto
rage
1,00
0 sf
2.15
61.9
00.
031.
089
1.38
1.46
0.75
be (A
utom
ated
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sf1.
683.
770.
450.
849
1.38
0.71
0.75
Ligh
t Ind
ustr
ial
1,00
0 sf
6.97
3.02
2.31
3.49
91.
382.
511.
00e
Plan
tac
re15
.60
3.02
5.17
7.80
91.
385.
591.
00ni
ngac
re2.
003.
020.
661.
009
1.38
0.72
1.00
1,00
0 sf
gla
42.7
0n/
a2.
5021
.35
91.
7334
.44
1.00
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
nfu
el p
os.
157.
33n/
a2.
5078
.67
91.
5211
7.08
0.20
sed
Auto
Sal
es1,
000
sf28
.25
21.1
41.
3414
.13
91.
7323
.10
1.00
ant
1,00
0 sf
116.
60n/
a9.
9258
.30
91.
8597
.94
0.75
od R
est w
/ Driv
e-Th
ru
1,00
0 sf
511.
00n/
a10
.90
255.
509
1.85
461.
780.
25ar
ket
1,00
0 sf
103.
3887
.82
1.18
51.6
99
1.52
77.3
90.
50ob
ile R
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
1,00
0 sf
31.4
3n/
a1.
5015
.72
91.
5222
.39
1.00
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
y43
.94
n/a
0.50
21.9
79
1.52
32.8
90.
50ie
nce
Mar
ket w
ith G
as P
umps
1,00
0 sf
775.
14n/
a2.
5038
7.57
91.
5258
6.61
0.20
re S
tore
1,00
0 sf
5.06
12.1
90.
422.
539
1.52
3.43
0.50
iona
lur
seho
le35
.74
20.5
21.
7417
.87
92.
3940
.97
0.25
Club
/Hea
lth C
lub/
Danc
e St
udio
1,00
0 sf
32.9
3n/
a2.
0016
.47
92.
3937
.36
1.50
Park
acre
2.28
n/a
0.10
1.14
92.
392.
621.
50Co
urt
cour
t38
.70
45.7
10.
8519
.35
92.
3945
.40
1.50
bert
h2.
9620
.52
0.14
1.48
92.
393.
401.
00m
enta
lfic
e1,
000
sf10
8.19
25.3
74.
2654
.10
91.
2864
.99
0.25
1,00
0 sf
56.2
452
.52
1.07
28.1
29
1.20
32.6
71.
00m
ent O
ffic
e Co
mpl
ex1,
000
sf27
.92
7.75
3.60
13.9
69
1.28
14.2
71.
00be
d5
502
502
202
759
120
110
100
Func
tiona
l Res
iden
ts fo
r Non
-Res
iden
tial L
and
Use
s
Land
Use
Impa
ct U
nit
Trip
s Per
U
nit(2
)
Trip
s Pe
r Em
ploy
ee(3
)
Empl
oyee
s Pe
r Uni
t(4)
One
-Way
Fa
ctor
@
50%
(5)
Wor
ker
Hour
s(6)
Occ
upan
ts
Per T
rip(7
)Vi
sito
rs(8
)
Visi
tor
Hour
s Per
Tr
ip(9
)
Da W
aneo
use
Cent
er1,
000
sf71
.88
26.7
32.
6935
.94
91.
1137
.20
0.15
l1,
000
sf13
.22
4.50
2.94
6.61
91.
426.
451.
00ar
y Cl
inic
1,00
0 sf
40.1
2n/
a4.
0520
.06
91.
4224
.44
1.00
1,00
0 sf
9.11
20.6
40.
444.
569
1.90
8.22
1.00
Thea
ter w
/Mat
inee
scre
en10
6.63
53.1
22.
0153
.32
92.
3912
5.42
1.00
tary
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
K-5
)st
uden
t1.
2915
.71
0.08
0.65
91.
110.
642.
00Sc
hool
(Priv
ate,
6-8
)st
uden
t1.
6216
.39
0.10
0.81
91.
110.
802.
00ho
ol (P
rivat
e, 9
-12)
stud
ent
1.71
19.7
40.
090.
869
1.11
0.86
2.00
ity/J
unio
r Col
lege
with
7,5
00 o
r few
er st
uden
tsst
uden
t2.
0012
.26
0.16
1.00
91.
110.
952.
00tio
n1,
000
sf5.
40n/
a0.
702.
709
1.20
2.54
3.50
in th
e In
stitu
te o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Engi
neer
s (IT
E) T
rip
Gene
ratio
n Ha
ndbo
ok, 9
th E
ditio
nen
erat
ion
rate
s co
nsis
tent
with
thos
e in
clud
ed in
the
2013
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
rom
ITE
Trip
Gen
erat
ion
Hand
book
, 9th
Edi
tion,
whe
n av
aila
ble
t div
ided
by
trip
s pe
r per
son
(usu
ally
em
ploy
ee).
Whe
n tr
ips
per p
erso
n ar
e no
t ava
ilabl
e, th
e em
ploy
ees
per u
nit i
s es
timat
ed.
2) m
ultip
lied
by 5
0 pe
rcen
t
l Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Surv
eyt X
Occ
upan
ts/T
rip)
- Em
ploy
ees]
./D
ay X
Day
s/W
eek)
+ (V
isito
rs X
Hou
rs/V
isit
X Da
ys/W
eek)
]/(2
4 Ho
urs
x 7
Days
)
es: e A-16: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates e A-17: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-18: Seasonal population from Table A-17 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).
2001 115,200 2001 15,552 2001 115,200 6,532 121,7322002 117,450 2002 15,856 2002 117,450 6,660 124,1102003 120,062 2003 16,208 2003 120,062 6,807 126,8692004 124,137 2004 16,758 2004 124,137 7,038 131,1752005 127,352 2005 17,193 2005 127,352 7,221 134,5732006 131,656 2006 17,774 2006 131,656 7,465 139,1212007 135,494 2007 18,292 2007 135,494 7,683 143,1772008 137,420 2008 18,552 2008 137,420 7,792 145,2122009 137,557 2009 18,570 2009 137,557 7,799 145,3562010 138,028 2010 18,634 2010 138,028 7,826 145,8542011 138,694 2011 18,169 2011 138,694 7,631 146,3252012 139,446 2012 18,267 2012 139,446 7,672 147,1182013 140,283 2013 18,377 2013 140,283 7,718 148,0012014 141,195 2014 18,497 2014 141,195 7,769 148,9642015 142,254 2015 18,635 2015 142,254 7,827 150,0812016 143,463 2016 18,363 2016 143,463 7,712 151,1752017 144,826 2017 18,538 2017 144,826 7,786 152,6122018 146,347 2018 18,732 2018 146,347 7,867 154,2142019 147,957 2019 18,938 2019 147,957 7,954 155,9112020 149,659 2020 19,156 2020 149,659 8,046 157,7052021 151,455 2021 19,083 2021 151,455 8,015 159,4702022 153,348 2022 19,322 2022 153,348 8,115 161,4632023 155,342 2023 19,573 2023 155,342 8,221 163,5632024 157,439 2024 19,837 2024 157,439 8,332 165,7712025 159,643 2025 20,115 2025 159,643 8,448 168,0912026 161,942 2026 20,243 2026 161,942 8,502 170,4442027 164,323 2027 20,540 2027 164,323 8,627 172,9502028 166,771 2028 20,846 2028 166,771 8,755 175,5262029 169,239 2029 21,155 2029 169,239 8,885 178,1242030 171,727 2030 21,466 2030 171,727 9,016 180,7432031 174,234 2031 21,779 2031 174,234 9,147 183,3812032 176,752 2032 22,094 2032 176,752 9,279 186,0312033 179,297 2033 22,412 2033 179,297 9,413 188,7102034 181,879 2034 22,735 2034 181,879 9,549 191,4282035 184,480 2035 23,060 2035 184,480 9,685 194,1652036 187,100 2036 23,388 2036 187,100 9,823 196,9232037 189,738 2037 23,717 2037 189,738 9,961 199,6992038 192,394 2038 24,049 2038 192,394 10,101 202,4952039 195,049 2039 24,381 2039 195,049 10,240 205,2892040 197,700 2040 24,713 2040 197,700 10,379 208,079
es: e A-19: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Unincorporated populatiomed to be 66 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of unincorporated population to total population from the previous five years.e A-20: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-21: Seasonal population from Table A-19 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).
2001 73,130 2001 9,873 2001 73,130 4,147 77,2772002 74,595 2002 10,070 2002 74,595 4,229 78,8242003 76,202 2003 10,287 2003 76,202 4,321 80,5232004 79,493 2004 10,732 2004 79,493 4,507 84,0002005 82,087 2005 11,082 2005 82,087 4,654 86,7412006 84,466 2006 11,403 2006 84,466 4,789 89,2552007 87,843 2007 11,859 2007 87,843 4,981 92,8242008 88,866 2008 11,997 2008 88,866 5,039 93,9052009 88,969 2009 12,011 2009 88,969 5,045 94,0142010 91,366 2010 12,334 2010 91,366 5,180 96,5462011 91,899 2011 12,039 2011 91,899 5,056 96,9552012 92,378 2012 12,102 2012 92,378 5,083 97,4612013 92,587 2013 12,129 2013 92,587 5,094 97,6812014 93,189 2014 12,208 2014 93,189 5,127 98,3162015 93,888 2015 12,299 2015 93,888 5,166 99,0532016 94,686 2016 12,120 2016 94,686 5,090 99,7762017 95,585 2017 12,235 2017 95,585 5,139 100,7242018 96,589 2018 12,363 2018 96,589 5,192 101,7812019 97,652 2019 12,499 2019 97,652 5,250 102,9012020 98,775 2020 12,643 2020 98,775 5,310 104,0852021 99,960 2021 12,595 2021 99,960 5,290 105,2502022 101,210 2022 12,752 2022 101,210 5,356 106,5662023 102,526 2023 12,918 2023 102,526 5,426 107,9512024 103,910 2024 13,093 2024 103,910 5,499 109,4092025 105,364 2025 13,276 2025 105,364 5,576 110,9402026 106,882 2026 13,360 2026 106,882 5,611 112,4932027 108,453 2027 13,557 2027 108,453 5,694 114,1472028 110,069 2028 13,759 2028 110,069 5,779 115,8482029 111,698 2029 13,962 2029 111,698 5,864 117,5622030 113,340 2030 14,167 2030 113,340 5,950 119,2902031 114,994 2031 14,374 2031 114,994 6,037 121,0322032 116,656 2032 14,582 2032 116,656 6,124 122,7812033 118,336 2033 14,792 2033 118,336 6,213 124,5492034 120,040 2034 15,005 2034 120,040 6,302 126,3422035 121,757 2035 15,220 2035 121,757 6,392 128,1492036 123,486 2036 15,436 2036 123,486 6,483 129,9692037 125,227 2037 15,653 2037 125,227 6,574 131,8012038 126,980 2038 15,873 2038 126,980 6,667 133,6472039 128,732 2039 16,092 2039 128,732 6,759 135,4912040 130,482 2040 16,310 2040 130,482 6,850 137,332
es: e A-22: BEBR-Medium projection for 2040. Interim years were interpolated smooth out annual population growth rates. Population excluding Indian Rres is assumed to be 97 percent of the total population based on the average ratio of the population excluding Indian River Shores to the total popula
m the previous five years. e A-23: Seasonal population percentages are taken from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The percentage for 2030 was assumed for 2031 through 2040 e A-24: Seasonal population from Table A-22 was weighed by 0.42 to account for seasonal residents only residing in Indian River County for a portion of(assume 5 months; 5 month divided by 12 months = 0.42).
2001 111,695 2001 15,079 2001 111,695 6,333 118,0282002 113,964 2002 15,385 2002 113,964 6,462 120,4262003 116,521 2003 15,730 2003 116,521 6,607 123,1282004 120,567 2004 16,277 2004 120,567 6,836 127,4032005 123,774 2005 16,709 2005 123,774 7,018 130,7922006 128,033 2006 17,284 2006 128,033 7,259 135,2922007 131,932 2007 17,811 2007 131,932 7,481 139,4132008 133,706 2008 18,050 2008 133,706 7,581 141,2872009 133,862 2009 18,071 2009 133,862 7,590 141,4522010 134,127 2010 18,107 2010 134,127 7,605 141,7322011 134,786 2011 17,657 2011 134,786 7,416 142,2022012 135,510 2012 17,752 2012 135,510 7,456 142,9662013 136,075 2013 17,826 2013 136,075 7,487 143,5612014 136,959 2014 17,942 2014 136,959 7,536 144,4952015 137,986 2015 18,076 2015 137,986 7,592 145,5782016 139,159 2016 17,812 2016 139,159 7,481 146,6402017 140,481 2017 17,982 2017 140,481 7,552 148,0342018 141,957 2018 18,170 2018 141,957 7,631 149,5882019 143,518 2019 18,370 2019 143,518 7,715 151,2342020 145,169 2020 18,582 2020 145,169 7,804 152,9742021 146,911 2021 18,511 2021 146,911 7,775 154,6862022 148,748 2022 18,742 2022 148,748 7,872 156,6192023 150,682 2023 18,986 2023 150,682 7,974 158,6562024 152,716 2024 19,242 2024 152,716 8,082 160,7972025 154,854 2025 19,512 2025 154,854 8,195 163,0492026 157,084 2026 19,635 2026 157,084 8,247 165,3302027 159,393 2027 19,924 2027 159,393 8,368 167,7612028 161,768 2028 20,221 2028 161,768 8,493 170,2612029 164,162 2029 20,520 2029 164,162 8,618 172,7802030 166,575 2030 20,822 2030 166,575 8,745 175,3202031 169,007 2031 21,126 2031 169,007 8,873 177,8802032 171,449 2032 21,431 2032 171,449 9,001 180,4502033 173,918 2033 21,740 2033 173,918 9,131 183,0492034 176,423 2034 22,053 2034 176,423 9,262 185,6852035 178,946 2035 22,368 2035 178,946 9,395 188,3402036 181,487 2036 22,686 2036 181,487 9,528 191,0152037 184,046 2037 23,006 2037 184,046 9,663 193,7082038 186,622 2038 23,328 2038 186,622 9,798 196,4202039 189,198 2039 23,650 2039 189,198 9,933 199,1312040 191,769 2040 23,971 2040 191,769 10,068 201,837
Appendix B Transportation Impact Fee
Demand Component Calculations
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-1 Impact Fee Update Study
Demand Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor Table B-1 presents the interstate and toll facility discount factor used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. This variable is based on data from the Greater Treasure Coast regional travel demand model, specifically the 2035 projected vehicle miles of travel, accounting for roadway improvements included in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. It should be noted that discount factor excludes external-to-external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Indian River County, but does not necessarily stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not come from development within the county. The I/T discount factor is used to reduce the VMT that the impact fee charges for each land use.
Table B-1 Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor
Source: Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model v3.4
Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering As part of this study, an update to the tiering of the assessed impact fee for the single family residential (detached) land use, to ensure equity by size of home, is included. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip-making characteristics of households in the United States. Table B-2 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the current adopted impact fee schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual
RoadwayVMT
(2035)% VMT
I-95 & Turnpike (SR 19) 838,313 17.3%Other Roads 4,005,935 82.7%Total (All Roads) 4,844,247 100.0%Total (Interstate/Toll Roads) 838,313 17.3%
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-2 Impact Fee Update Study
household income levels. In addition, the 2011 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS.
Table B-2 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics
Source: FL Studies for LUC 210, shown later in this appendix
The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables B-3 and B-4. First, the data shown in Table B-3 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units between 1,500 and 2,499 square feet in size ($62,563) is slightly lower than the overall average income for the U.S. ($62,831). Then, in Table B-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS income data in Table B-3.
Table B-3 Annual Income by Housing Size
Source: 2011 American Household Survey
Table B-4
NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category
Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration
Calculated Values Excluding Tiering
Trip RateAssessable Trip Length
Daily VMTRatio to Mean
Single Family (Detached) 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.00
2011 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size
Annual Income(1)
Less than 1,500 sf $42,1561,500 to 2,499 sf $62,5632,500 sf or more $79,443Average of All Houses $62,831
2009 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income
Annual VMT/HH
Days Daily VMTRatio to Mean
Normalized to 0.995
Average of $42,156 19,241 365 52.72 0.796 0.800Total (All Homes) 24,181 365 66.25 1.000Average of $62,563 24,069 365 65.94 0.995 1.000Average of $79,443 28,349 365 77.67 1.172 1.178
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-3 Impact Fee Update Study
To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $42,156 annual income category. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 19,241 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $62,563 (24,069 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.800. Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing unit size (Less than 1,500 sf) to generate a daily VMT of 41.36 for the new tier, as shown in Table B-5. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 6.25 trips per day.
Table B-5 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier
(1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tiered single
family land use category (2) Source: Table B-2 (3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) divided by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sf tier
for each tiered sf single family land use category (4) Source: Table B-4
Table B-6 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached) land use have on the County’s calculated impact fee schedule.
Table B-6 Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier
(1) Source: Table B-5, Item 1 (2) Source: Appendix E, Table E-1
Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Trip Rate(1) Assessable
Trip Length(2)
Daily VMT(3)
Ratio to Mean(4)
Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf 6.25 6.62 41.36 0.8001,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.0002,500 sf or larger 9.20 6.62 60.90 1.178
Impact of Tiering on Fee Schedule Trip Rate(1) Assessable
Trip LengthDaily VMT Net Fee(2)
Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf 6.25 6.62 41.36 $3,4061,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 $4,2482,500 sf or larger 9.20 6.62 60.90 $5,004
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 20 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. TOA estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a transportation impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (9th edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (9th edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin-destination surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin-destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. TOA has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-5 Impact Fee Update Study
Mini-Warehouse (ITE LUC 151)
Orange Co, FL 107.0 - - - 1.45 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 89.6 - - - 1.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 84.7 - - - 1.39 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 93.0 - - - 1.51 - - - - Orange County Orange Co, FL 77.0 - - - 2.18 - - - - Orange County
Total Size 451.3 5 Average Trip Length: n/aITE 784.0 14 Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a
Blended total 1,235.3 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: -Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.53
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.50Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.15
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210)
Gwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.80 - 5.40 N/A 31.32 Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.40 - 6.10 N/A 32.94 Street SmartsSarasota Co, FL 76 Jun-93 70 70 10.03 - 6.00 N/A 60.18 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 - 4.40 N/A 42.99 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 135 Jun-93 75 75 8.05 - 5.90 N/A 47.50 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 N/A 62.42 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.85 - 4.60 N/A 31.51 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 13.20 - 3.00 N/A 39.60 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 282 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 - 8.40 N/A 55.52 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 393 Jun-93 207 207 7.76 - 5.40 N/A 41.90 Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a-6p 4.85 N/A 48.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 128 May-96 205 205 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 N/A 49.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 232 May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 N/A 36.49 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 9a-6p 3.28 N/A 29.29 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 - 5.30 9a-5p 7.90 N/A 41.87 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 142 Oct-97 245 - 5.20 9a-5p 4.10 N/A 21.32 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 150 Oct-97 160 - 5.00 9a-5p 10.80 N/A 54.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 215 Oct-97 158 - 7.60 9a-5p 4.60 N/A 34.96 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 257 Oct-97 225 - 7.60 9a-5p 7.40 N/A 56.24 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 345 Oct-97 161 - 7.00 9a-5p 6.60 N/A 46.20 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 368 Oct-97 152 - 6.60 9a-5p 5.70 N/A 37.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 383 Oct-97 516 - 8.40 9a-5p 5.00 N/A 42.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 441 Oct-97 195 - 8.20 9a-5p 4.70 N/A 38.54 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct-97 348 - 6.10 9a-5p 8.00 N/A 48.80 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 - 12.80 8a-6p 11.40 N/A 145.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.40 N/A 49.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 49 Apr-02 170 - 6.70 7a-6p 10.20 N/A 68.34 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 52 Apr-02 212 - 10.00 7a-6p 7.60 N/A 76.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 126 Apr-02 217 - 8.50 7a-6p 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 55 Apr-02 133 - 6.80 8a-6p 8.12 N/A 55.22 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 60 Apr-02 106 - 7.73 8a-6p 8.75 N/A 67.64 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 70 Apr-02 188 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.03 N/A 47.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 74 Apr-02 188 - 8.18 8a-6p 5.95 N/A 48.67 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 189 Apr-02 261 - 7.46 8a-6p 8.99 N/A 67.07 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Marion Co, FL 102 Apr-02 167 - 8.02 7a-6p 5.10 N/A 40.90 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 105 Apr-02 169 - 7.23 7a-6p 7.22 N/A 52.20 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 124 Apr-02 170 - 6.04 7a-6p 7.29 N/A 44.03 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 132 Apr-02 171 - 7.87 7a-6p 7.00 N/A 55.09 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 133 Apr-02 209 - 8.04 7a-6p 4.92 N/A 39.56 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 111 Oct-03 273 - 8.66 7a-6p 7.70 N/A 66.68 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 231 Oct-03 155 - 5.71 7a-6p 4.82 N/A 27.52 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 306 Oct-03 146 - 8.40 7a-6p 3.94 N/A 33.10 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 364 Oct-03 345 - 7.20 7a-6p 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 374 Oct-03 248 - 12.30 7a-6p 6.88 N/A 84.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 42 Dec-06 122 - 11.26 - 5.56 N/A 62.61 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 51 Dec-06 346 - 18.22 - 9.46 N/A 172.36 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 59 Dec-06 144 - 12.07 - 10.79 N/A 130.24 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 90 Dec-06 194 - 9.12 - 5.78 N/A 52.71 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 239 Dec-06 385 - 7.58 - 8.93 N/A 67.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr-07 516 - 8.02 7a-6p 8.16 N/A 65.44 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 95 Apr-07 256 - 8.08 7a-6p 5.88 N/A 47.51 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 90 Apr-07 338 - 7.13 7a-6p 5.86 N/A 41.78 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 58 Apr-07 153 - 6.16 7a-6p 8.39 N/A 51.68 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Collier Co, FL 74 Mar-08 503 - 12.81 7a-6p 3.05 N/A 39.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 97 Mar-08 512 - 8.78 7a-6p 11.29 N/A 99.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 315 Mar-08 1,347 - 6.97 7a-6p 6.55 N/A 45.65 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 42 Mar-08 314 - 9.55 7a-6p 10.98 N/A 104.86 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Average Trip Length: 6.79Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.62
Note: Georgia studies are not included in summary statistics. Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.81
Percent New Trips
DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size / Units VMT Source
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-6 Impact Fee Update Study
Multi-Family/Apartment and Residential Condo/Townhouse (ITE LUC 220/230)
Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5.78 - 5.20 N/A 30.06 Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.84 - - N/A - Sarasota CountyMarion Co, FL 214 Apr-02 175 175 6.84 - 4.61 N/A 31.53 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 240 Apr-02 174 174 6.96 - 3.43 N/A 23.87 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 288 Apr-02 175 175 5.66 - 5.55 N/A 31.41 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 480 Apr-02 175 175 5.73 - 6.88 N/A 39.42 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 500 Apr-02 170 170 5.46 - 5.94 N/A 32.43 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Lake Co, FL 250 Dec-06 135 135 6.71 - 5.33 N/A 35.76 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 157 Dec-06 265 265 13.97 - 2.62 N/A 36.60 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 169 Dec-06 212 - 8.09 - 6.00 N/A 48.54 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 226 Dec-06 301 - 6.74 - 2.17 N/A 14.63 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr-07 456 - 4.09 - 5.95 N/A 24.34 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 176 Apr-07 332 - 5.38 - 5.24 N/A 28.19 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 31 May-96 31 31 6.12 9a-6p 4.98 N/A 30.48 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 128 May-96 128 128 6.47 9a-6p 5.18 N/A 33.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr-02 198 198 4.77 9a-6p - N/A - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 248 Apr-02 353 353 4.24 9a-6p 3.53 N/A 14.97 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 4,103 Average Trip Length: 4.84Total Size (TL) 3,631 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10
LUC 220: Multi-FamilyTotal Size 3,467 13 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.31
ITE 18,480 88 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.65Blended total 21,947 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.60
LUC 230: Condo/TownhouseTotal Size 636 4 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.97
ITE 10,024 56 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.81Blended total 10,660 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.76
VMT Source
LUC 230 Studies are highlighted
Location Size / Units DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length
Percent New Trips
Mobile Home Park (ITE LUC 240)
Marion Co, FL 67 Jul-91 22 22 5.40 48hrs. 2.29 N/A 12.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 N/A 40.18 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 137 Jul-91 22 22 3.10 24hr. 4.88 N/A 15.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 188 Apr-02 147 - 3.51 24hr. 5.48 N/A 19.23 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 227 Apr-02 173 - 2.76 24hr. 8.80 N/A 24.29 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 - 5.10 N/A 17.90 Sarasota CountyMarion Co, FL 297 Apr-02 175 - 4.78 24hr. 4.76 N/A 22.75 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 996 Jun-93 181 181 4.19 - 4.40 N/A 18.44 Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 1,892 May-96 425 425 4.13 9a-6p 4.13 N/A 17.06 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 4,121 9 1,303 Average Trip Length: 4.84
Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size / Units Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Senior Adult Housing - Attached (ITE LUC 252)
Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct-91 726 726 2.46 24hr. 3.28 - 8.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 208 1 Average Trip Length: 3.28
ITE 230 5 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.28Blended total 438 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.46
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.44Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.97
Location Size / Units DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length
Percent New Trips
VMT Source
Congregate Care Facility ( ITE LUC 253)
Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug-89 25 19 3.50 9am-5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPalm Harbor, FL 200 Oct-89 58 40 - 9am-5pm 3.40 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 272 2 83 Average Trip Length: 2.80ITE 388 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.08
Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6460 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.50
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.02Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.25
Percent New Trips
DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size / Units VMT Source
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-7 Impact Fee Update Study
Hotel (ITE LUC 310)
Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesOrange Co, FL 70 - - - 1.85 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 211 - - - 2.23 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 112 - - - 2.78 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,495 - - - 3.50 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 123 - - - 3.70 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 130 - - - 4.29 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,499 - - - 4.69 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 190 - - - 4.71 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 123 - - - 4.81 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 105 - - - 5.25 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 120 - - - 5.27 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 1,584 - - - 5.88 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 128 - - - 6.10 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 174 - - - 7.03 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 144 - - - 7.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 98 - - - 7.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 106 - - - 7.34 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 100 - - - 7.37 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 144 - - - 7.66 - - - - Orange County
Total Size 6,944 21 164 Average Trip Length: 6.25ITE 4,760 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26
Blended total 11,704 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.12
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.17Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.36
Percent New Trips
DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (Rooms) VMT Source
Motel (ITE LUC 320)
Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 - 10a-2p 2.80 65.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 222 3 104 Average Trip Length: 3.93ITE 2,160 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.63
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Rooms) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 444)
Pinellas Co, FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.10 2p-8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 12 Sep-89 122 116 63.40 2p-8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 20 273 Average Trip Length: 2.30ITE 10 estimated Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22
30 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.28
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (6th): 153.33Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.63
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Screens) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Health Club (ITE LUC 492)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 31 - - 7.90 94.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTotal Size 33 Average Trip Length: n/a
ITE 15 1 Percent New Trip Average: 94.0ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.93
Percent New Trips
Date Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (1,000 sf) VMT Source
Day Care Center (ITE LUC 565)
Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 66.99 7a-6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep-89 179 134 66.99 7a-6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 28 25 - - 2.60 89.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTotal Size 15.6 2 301 Average Trip Length: 2.20
ITE 35.0 7 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03Blended total 50.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 74.06
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 71.88
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-8 Impact Fee Update Study
Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620)
Lakeland, FL 120 Mar-90 74 66 2.86 11a-4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 120 1 74 Average Trip Length: 2.59
ITE 714 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.59Blended total 834 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.86ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.74
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.76
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (Beds) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Clinic (ITE LUC 630)
Largo, FL 103.9 Aug-89 614 572 37.03 7a-430p 5.10 93.0 175.63 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL - Oct-89 280 252 - 9a-5p 4.10 90.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 103.9 1 894 Average Trip Length: 4.60ITE 224.0 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10
327.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 93.0Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 37.03
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 31.45Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 33.22
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Time PeriodTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Trip Length
Percent New Trips
VMT Source
General Office Building (ITE LUC 710)
Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 - 11.30 - 529.41 Sarasota CountyGwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec-92 - - 4.30 - 5.40 - - Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec-92 - - 3.60 - 5.90 - - Street Smarts
Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct-89 431 388 18.49 7a-5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 - 7a-5p 3.40 94.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 742.1 5 736 Average Trip Length: 6.46ITE 15,522.0 78 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips
VMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL
Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 22.22Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34Site 4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64
Average 17.59 17.71 35.30Average (excluding Site 4) 11.84 11.99 23.83
AVERAGE AVERAGE (per 1,000 sf)Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720): 10,000 sf or Less
Site Size (1,000 sf)Tues., Jan 11 Wedn., Jan 12 Thur., Jan 13 TOTAL
Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 26 - - 6.00 79.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesPalm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9a-5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL - Nov-89 34 30 57.20 9a-4p 1.20 88.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 58.4 May-96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 28.0 May-96 202 189 49.75 9a-6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct-97 - 186 49.50 9a-5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct-97 - 186 31.00 9a-5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct-97 - 324 39.80 9a-5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct-03 - 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov-03 - 340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec-03 - 20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Orange Co, FL 50.6 - - - 26.72 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 23.5 - - - 16.58 - - - - Orange County
Total Size 298.6 11 763 Average Trip Length: 5.07ITE 450.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.55
Blended total 748.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.59
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 36.13Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 34.72
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period VMT SourceTrip LengthPercent New
TripsLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-9 Impact Fee Update Study
Business Park (ITE LUC 770)
Collier Co, FL 14.1 May-99 - 55 33.48 8a-6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 66.0 May-99 - 43 11.53 8a-6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL 211.1 May-99 - 284 17.91 8a-6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 291.2 3 Average Trip Length: 4.90ITE 6,288.0 16 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38
Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 17.22
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.44Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.65
VMT SourceTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length
Percent New Trips
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Shopping Center (ITE LUC 820)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 527 348 - - - 66.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 170 - - - 1.70 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 354 269 - - - 76.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 144 - - - 2.50 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug-89 384 298 - 11a-7p 3.60 78.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep-89 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Largo, FL 425.0 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesDunedin, FL 80.5 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep-89 485 388 - 9a-6p 3.20 80.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSeminole, FL 425.0 Oct-89 674 586 - - - 87.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 74.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep-92 300 185 - 12a-6p - 61.6 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep-92 300 192 - 12a-6p - 64.0 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.
Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec-92 - - 46.00 - 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street SmartsGwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec-92 - - 27.00 - 8.50 84.0 192.78 Street SmartsSarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun-93 58 58 122.14 - 3.20 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun-93 65 65 51.53 - 2.80 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 79.79 - 3.40 - - Sarasota CountySarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun-93 62 62 66.79 - 5.90 - - Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May-96 608 331 77.60 9a-6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct-97 - - 73.50 9a-5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct-97 - - 72.00 9a-5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct-97 - - 43.00 9a-5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 376 65.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr-02 222 - 145.64 9a-5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr-02 134 - 38.23 9a-5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct-03 - 784 55.84 8a-6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov-03 - 390 54.50 8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 - 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesBozeman, MT 159.9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesBozeman, MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 5,757.5 7,536 Average Trip Length: n/aWeighted Average Trip Length: n/a
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips
VMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-10 Impact Fee Update Study
Figure B-1 Shopping Center (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Trip Length Regression
Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820
Figure B-2
Shopping Center (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression
Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Trip
Len
gth
(Mile
s)
Square Footage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Perc
ent N
ew T
rips
Square Footage
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-11 Impact Fee Update Study
New Car Sales (ITE LUC 841)
St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct-89 152 120 - 9a-5p 4.70 79.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesClearwater, FL 43.0 Oct-89 136 106 29.40 9a-5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesOrange Co, FL 116.7 - - - 22.18 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 99.8 - - - 13.45 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 39.1 - - - 10.48 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 66.3 - - - 28.50 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 46.7 - - - 40.34 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 34.4 - - - 23.45 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 13.8 - - - 35.75 - - - - Orange County
Total Size 459.7 8 288 Average Trip Length: 4.60ITE 570.0 15 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60
Blended total 1,029.7 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 23.22
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.30Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 28.25
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date VMT Source
Supermarket (ITE LUC 850)
Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug-89 163 62 106.26 9a-4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 62.0 1 163 Average Trip Length: 2.08
ITE 156.0 4 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.08Blended total 218.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.26ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 102.24
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 103.38
Percent New Trips
DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthLocation Size (1,000 sf) VMT Source
Service Station w/Convenience Market (ITE LUC 853)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 72 - - - 2.00 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 1.1 Jun-91 77 20 544.80 24hr. 0.89 26.0 126.07 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.1 Jun-91 66 24 997.60 24hr. 1.67 36.4 606.42 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 4.4 Jun-91 85 25 486.70 48hrs. 1.06 29.4 151.68 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 96 38 - - 1.19 39.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 78 16 - - 1.06 20.5 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Tampa, FL 2.3 10/13-15/92 239 74 - 24hr. 1.06 31.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesEllenton, FL 3.3 10/20-22/92 124 44 - 24hr. 0.96 35.3 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL 3.8 11/10-12/92 142 23 - 24hr. 3.13 16.4 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Marion Co, FL 2.5 Apr-02 87 - 719.79 24hr. 1.62 32.8 322.19 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.5 Apr-02 23 - 610.46 24hr. 1.77 11.7 126.61 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 3.0 Apr-02 59 - 606.02 24hr. 0.83 32.6 195.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 25.1 9 1,148 Average Trip Length: 1.44ITE 30.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.51
Blended Total 55.1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 27.745.6 15.6 Average Trip Generation Rate: 639.68
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 845.60Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 775.14
Location Size (1,000 sf) DateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsPercent New
TripsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length VMT Source
Furniture Store (ITE LUC 890)
Largo, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 64 34 - - 4.63 52.5 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 - - 7.38 55.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 31.9 2 132 Average Trip Length: 6.01ITE 897.0 13 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.09
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2Average Trip Generation Rate: -
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.06
Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT Source
Total # Interviews
Time Period# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen RateLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-12 Impact Fee Update Study
Drive-In Bank (ITE LUC 912)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 77 - - - 2.40 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 211 - - - - 54.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug-89 113 52 - 9a-6p 5.20 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLargo, FL 2.0 Sep-89 129 94 - - 1.60 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Seminole, FL 4.5 Oct-89 - - - - - - - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.3 Jun-91 69 29 - 24hr. 1.33 42.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 3.1 Jun-91 47 32 - 24hr. 1.75 68.1 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 - 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 162 96 - 24hr. 0.88 59.3 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 116 54 - - 1.58 46.6 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 142 68 - - 2.08 47.9 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Hernando Co, FL 5.4 May-96 164 41 - 9a-6p 2.77 24.7 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.4 Apr-02 70 - - 24hr. 3.55 54.6 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 2.7 May-02 50 - 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 25.2 9 1,407 Average Trip Length: 2.38ITE 21.0 7 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.46
Blended total 46.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.223.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.66
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 148.15Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 159.34
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Restaurant (ITE LUC 932)
Hernando Co, FL 6.2 May-96 242 175 187.51 9a-6p 2.76 72.5 375.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 8.2 May-96 154 93 102.71 9a-6p 4.15 60.2 256.43 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL 5.0 Oct-89 74 68 132.60 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 243.98 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesKenneth City, FL 5.2 Oct-89 236 176 127.88 4p-730p 2.30 75.0 220.59 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Pasco Co, FL 5.2 Apr-02 114 88 82.47 9a-6p 3.72 77.2 236.81 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 5.8 Apr-02 182 102 116.97 9a-6p 3.49 56.0 228.77 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Orange Co, FL 8.9 - - - 52.69 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.3 - - - 62.12 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 6.7 - - - 82.58 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.4 - - - 91.67 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 11.3 - - - 95.33 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.2 - - - 98.06 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.5 - - - 100.18 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 9.7 - - - 105.84 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 4.6 - - - 129.23 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.0 - - - 126.40 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 9.7 - - - 132.32 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.0 - - - 135.68 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.6 - - - 145.59 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 7.4 - - - 147.44 - - - - Orange CountyOrange Co, FL 5.9 - - - 147.74 - - - - Orange County
Total Size 152.8 21 1,102 Average Trip Length: 3.07ITE 98.0 14 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.17
Blended total 250.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 109.84
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 127.15Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 116.60
Location Size (1,000 sf) VMT SourceDateTotal #
Interviews# Trip Length
InterviewsTrip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length
Percent New Trips
Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru (ITE LUC 934)
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 61 - - - 2.70 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 306 - - - - 65.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 11a-2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co, FL 4.30 Oct-89 456 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Tarpon Springs, FL - Oct-89 233 114 - 7a-7p 3.60 49.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 1.60 Jun-91 60 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 4.00 Jun-91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 66 44 - - 1.91 66.7 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier Co, FL - Aug-91 118 40 - - 1.17 33.9 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May-96 136 82 311.83 9a-6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 3.13 May-96 168 82 547.34 9a-6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Lake Co, FL 2.20 Apr-01 376 252 934.30 - 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 3.20 Apr-01 171 182 654.90 - 4.10 47.8 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 3.80 Apr-01 188 137 353.70 - 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 2.66 Apr-02 100 46 283.12 9a-6p 5.10 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 2.96 Apr-02 486 164 515.32 9a-6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr-02 168 120 759.24 9a-6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Orange Co, FL 8.93 - - - 377.00 - - - - Orange CountyTotal Size 48.8 13 4,463 Average Trip Length: 2.42
ITE 63.0 21 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.05Blended total 111.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9
34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 530.19ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 496.12
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 511.00
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT SourceLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 B-13 Impact Fee Update Study
Automobile Care Center (ITE LUC 942)
Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 124 94 - 9a-5p 3.07 76.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesJacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3-4/90 110 74 - 9a-5p 2.96 67.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesJacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3-4/90 132 87 - 9a-5p 2.32 66.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Lakeland, FL 5.2 Mar-90 24 14 - 9a-4p 1.36 59.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLargo, FL 5.5 Sep-89 34 30 37.64 9a-5p 2.40 88.0 79.50 Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov-92 41 39 - 2-6p 4.60 - - LCE, Inc. Lakeland, FL - Mar-90 54 42 - 9a-4p 2.44 78.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 42.6 6 519 Average Trip Length: 2.74ITE 102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.62
Blended total 144.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2107.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 37.64
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 31.10Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 31.43
Time Period Trip LengthPercent New
TripsVMT Source
Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen RateLocation Size (1,000 sf) Date
Service Station with and w/o Car Wash (ITE LUC 944 & 946)
Largo, FL 0.6 Nov-89 70 14 - 8am-5pm 1.90 23.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier County, FL - Aug-91 168 40 - - 1.01 23.8 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 0.6 1 238 Average Trip Length: 1.46ITE LUC 944 (vfp) 48.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.90ITE LUC 946 (vfp) 120.0 10 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 944): 168.56ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position (LUC 946): 152.84Blended ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per fuel position: 157.33
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips
VMT Source
Self-Service Car Wash (ITE LUC 947)
Largo, FL 10 Nov-89 111 84 - 8am-5pm 2.00 76.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesClearwater, FL - Nov-89 177 108 - 10am-5pm 1.30 61.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Collier, FL 11 Dec-09 304 - 30.24 - 2.50 57.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCollier, FL 8 Jan-09 186 - 22.75 - 1.96 72.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Total Size 29 3 778 Average Trip Length: 1.94Total Size (TGR) 19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.18
ITE 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 67.7Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 27.09
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 108.00Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 43.94
Location Size (Bays) VMT SourcePercent New Trips
Date Total # Interviews
# Trip Length Interviews
Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length
Appendix C Transportation Impact Fee
Cost Component Calculations
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-1 Impact Fee Update Study
Cost Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the transportation impact fee update. Backup data and assumptions are provided for all cost variables (for county and state roads), including:
Design Right-of-Way Construction Construction Engineering/Inspection Roadway Capacity
Urban Design vs. Rural Design Due to a lack of roadway construction data for rural-design roadways, the cost per lane mile for these types of roads was calculated using an adjustment factor. This factor was based on the rural-to-urban design cost ratio from the most recent District 7 Long Range Estimates (LRE) provided by FDOT. Based on the LRE, the cost for rural-design roadway capacity expansion (new road construction or lane addition) is approximately 83 percent of the cost of urban-design roadway improvements. For all subsequent tables (for county and state roadways), costs are presented for urban-design roadways, with the rural-design roadway costs being calculated using the cost ratio from Table C-1.
Table C-1 Urban / Rural Design Cost Factor
Source: FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates, 2013
Rural Design Urban Design Ratio0-2 Lanes $2,392,343 $3,383,918 71%0-4 Lanes $1,918,228 $2,382,206 81%0-6 Lanes $1,626,803 $1,944,969 84%2-4 Lanes $2,897,987 $3,439,476 84%4-6 Lanes $3,229,018 $3,833,955 84%4-8 Lanes $2,145,375 $2,532,536 85%6-8 Lanes $4,061,468 $4,569,033 89%Average $2,610,175 $3,155,156 83%
ImprovementCost per Lane Mile
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Design County Roadways The design cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the design-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the design factors ranged from 6 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 10 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for county roads was calculated at 10 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-10 for additional information).
Table C-2 Design Cost Adjustment – County Roads
(1) Design cost is estimated at 10% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in
Table C-10 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design
weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The design cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the design-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the design factors ranged from 10 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this update study, the design cost for state roads was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. See Table C-10 for additional information.
Road TypeDesign Cost per
Lane Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted Design Cost per
Lane Mile(3)
Urban Design $180,000 34% $61,000Rural Design $149,000 66% $98,000Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $159,000
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-3 Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-3 Design Cost Adjustment – State Roads
(1) Design cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in
Table C-10 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Design cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design
weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. County Roadways To determine a ROW acquisition cost per lane mile for county roads, TOA conducted a review of recently completed ROW acquisitions and current ROW estimates along capacity expansion projects in Indian River County and also reviewed ROW estimates from recent transportation impact fee studies from other counties in Florida. For impact fee purposes, the ROW cost for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs from recent local projects and in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways in Indian River County, the ROW factors ranged from 6 percent to 150 percent, with a weighted average of 41 percent, as shown in Table C-11. This factor is consistent with the ratio of ROW to construction cost observed in other Florida jurisdictions, as shown in Table C-12. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for county roads was calculated at 41 percent of the construction cost per lane mile.
Road TypeDesign Cost per
Lane Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted Design Cost per
Lane Mile(3)
Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000Weighted Average Design Cost per Lane Mile $196,000
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-4 Right-of-Way Cost Adjustment – County Roads
(1) ROW cost is estimated at 41% of construction cost based on recent IRC
improvements in Table C-11 (Item 2). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight
(Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways Due to a lack of local acquisition data, the ROW cost for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the ROW-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the ROW factors ranged from 20 percent to 71 percent, with a weighted average of 44 percent. For purposes of this update study, the ROW cost for state roads was calculated at 44 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-12 for additional information).
Table C-5 Right-of-Way Cost Adjustment – State Roads
(1) ROW cost is estimated at 44% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in
Table C-12 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight
(Item 2) for each design type and added together.
Road TypeROW Cost per
Lane Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted ROW Cost per Lane
Mile(3)
Urban Design $738,000 34% $251,000Rural Design $613,000 66% $405,000Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $656,000
Road TypeROW Cost per
Lane Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted ROW Cost per Lane
Mile(3)
Urban Design $880,000 34% $299,000Rural Design $730,000 66% $482,000Weighted Average ROW Cost per Lane Mile $781,000
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-5 Impact Fee Update Study
Construction County Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent local county roadway capacity expansion projects identified 12 improvements over the past five years. These 12 improvements (detailed in Table C-13) had a weighted average construction cost of approximately $1.80 million per lane mile. In addition to local data, a review of recently bid projects throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C-14, a total of 49 projects from 13 different counties provided a weighted average cost per lane mile of $2.18 million per lane mile. Based on this review, it was concluded that construction costs in Indian River County are lower than the costs observed elsewhere in the state. More specifically, roadways costs in Indian River County are approximately 83 percent of costs observed statewide. Due to the large amount of local data, the county roadway construction cost used to calculate the transportation impact fee was estimated at $1.80 million per lane mile for urban-design county roadways.
Table C-6 Construction Cost Adjustment – County Roads
(1) Source: Table C-13. Rural design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs (see
Table C-1) (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Construction cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section
design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways A review of construction cost data for recent local state roadway capacity expansion projects identified three improvements with an average construction cost of approximately $2.95 million per lane mile.
SR 5 (US 1) from S. of Oslo Rd to S. of Indian River Bend SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of 82nd Ave to 66th Ave/CR 505 SR 60 (Osceola Blvd) from W. of I-95 to W. of 82nd Ave/CR 609
Road TypeConstruction Cost per Lane
Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted Constr. Cost per
Lane Mile(3)
Urban Design $1,800,000 34% $612,000Rural Design $1,494,000 66% $986,000Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile $1,598,000
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-6 Impact Fee Update Study
In addition to looking at local data, a review of recently bid projects located throughout the state of Florida was conducted. As shown in Table C-15, a total of 52 projects (including the three projects in Indian River County) from 26 different counties estimated a weighted average cost per lane mile of $2.44 million per lane mile. Due to the lower construction costs observed between local county roads and statewide county improvements, and the small sample size of local state road improvements, the estimated state road construction cost was adjusted downward to provide a conservative estimate for use in the impact fee calculation. This adjustment was based on the ratio of local county roadway improvements to statewide county roadway improvements, which, as previously mentioned, is 83 percent. Therefore, the weighted average construction cost per lane mile for all state road improvements (including local and statewide data) was adjusted by 83 percent. Based on this analysis, a construction cost of $2.00 million per lane mile for urban-design state roadways was used to calculate the transportation impact fee for Indian River County.
Table C-7
Construction Cost Adjustment – State Roads
(1) Source: Table C-15. Rural design is estimated at 83% of urban design costs (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) Construction cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section
design weight (Item 2) for each design type and added together. Construction Engineering/Inspection County Roadways The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI-to-construction cost ratios for county road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For county roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 4 percent to 14 percent, with a weighted average of 9 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information).
Road TypeConstruction Cost per Lane
Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted Constr. Cost per
Lane Mile(3)
Urban Design $2,000,000 34% $680,000Rural Design $1,660,000 66% $1,096,000Weighted Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile $1,776,000
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-7 Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-8
CEI Cost Adjustment – County Roads
(1) CEI cost is estimated at 9% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in
Table C-16 (Item a). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight
(Item 2) for each design type and added together. State Roadways The CEI cost factor for state roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined through a review of the CEI-to-construction cost ratios for state road unit costs in previously completed impact fee studies throughout Florida. For state roadways, the CEI factors ranged from 8 percent to 17 percent, with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this update study, the CEI cost for state roads was calculated at 11 percent of the construction cost per lane mile (see Table C-16 for additional information).
Table C-9 CEI Cost Adjustment – State Roads
(1) CEI cost is estimated at 11% of construction cost based on recent TIF studies in
Table C-16 (Item b). (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-17 (Items c and d) (3) CEI cost per lane mile (Item 1) multiplied by the associated section design weight
(Item 2) for each design type and added together.
Road TypeCEI Cost per Lane
Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted CEI Cost per Lane
Mile(3)
Urban Design $162,000 34% $55,000Rural Design $134,000 66% $88,000Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $143,000
Road TypeCEI Cost per Lane
Mile(1)
Section Design Distribution(2)
Weighted CEI Cost per Lane
Mile(3)
Urban Design $220,000 34% $75,000Rural Design $183,000 66% $121,000Weighted Average CEI Cost per Lane Mile $196,000
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
C-8
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e C-
10
Desi
gn C
ost F
acto
r – C
ount
y &
Sta
te R
oads
So
urce
: Rec
ent i
mpa
ct fe
e st
udie
s con
stru
cted
thro
ugho
ut F
lorid
a
Desi
gnCo
nstr
.De
sign
Rat
ioDe
sign
Cons
tr.
Desi
gn R
atio
2006
Colli
er$3
23,6
39$2
,558
,546
13%
$349
,643
$3,3
85,9
7810
%20
06Ci
trus
$361
,774
$2,5
84,0
9914
%$4
00,4
32$2
,860
,227
14%
2006
High
land
s$2
35,0
30$1
,678
,785
14%
$347
,326
$2,4
80,9
0014
%20
06M
ario
n$1
85,3
33$1
,941
,244
10%
$154
,643
$1,4
30,9
1911
%20
07Pa
sco
$246
,324
$3,0
79,0
518%
$427
,112
$3,0
50,7
9914
%20
07La
ke$2
32,8
82$2
,911
,021
8%$3
18,4
12$3
,184
,125
10%
2007
Flag
ler
$174
,000
$1,7
40,0
0010
%-
-n/
a20
07Vo
lusi
a$2
91,6
96$2
,651
,778
11%
$309
,526
$3,0
95,2
5810
%20
08Le
on$2
12,8
00$2
,660
,000
8%$3
72,1
30$3
,383
,000
11%
2008
Sum
ter
$178
,960
$2,2
37,0
008%
$238
,000
$2,3
80,0
0010
%20
09Co
llier
$217
,000
$3,1
00,0
007%
$320
,000
$3,2
00,0
0010
%20
09Po
lk$9
5,40
0$1
,590
,000
6%$2
17,0
00$2
,170
,000
10%
2009
Hills
boro
ugh/
Tam
pa$3
08,0
00$2
,800
,000
11%
$420
,000
$3,5
00,0
0012
%20
10Co
llier
$119
,560
$1,7
08,0
007%
$241
,800
$2,4
18,0
0010
%20
11Sa
raso
ta/N
orth
Por
t$2
40,0
00$2
,400
,000
10%
$200
,000
$2,0
00,0
0010
%20
12O
sceo
la$3
71,1
96$2
,651
,400
14%
$313
,258
$2,8
47,8
0011
%20
12O
rang
e$2
64,0
00$2
,400
,000
11%
--
n/a
2012
City
of O
rland
o$2
88,0
00$2
,400
,000
12%
$319
,000
$2,9
00,0
0011
%$2
41,4
22$2
,393
,940
10%
$309
,268
$2,7
67,9
3811
%(a
)(b
)
Year
Coun
tyCo
unty
Roa
dway
sSt
ate
Road
way
s
Aver
age
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
C-9
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e C-
11
Righ
t-of
-Way
Fac
tor –
Rec
ent C
ount
y Ro
ad Im
prov
emen
ts in
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Righ
t-of
-way
cos
ts d
ivid
ed b
y co
nstr
uctio
n co
sts
Proj
ect #
Desc
riptio
nFr
omTo
Bid
Year
Stat
usFe
atur
eSe
ctio
n De
sign
Leng
th(M
iles)
Lane
s Ad
ded
Lane
M
iles
Adde
d
Righ
t-of
-W
ay C
ost
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
sRO
W/
Cons
tr.(2
)
0501
317
th La
ne S
W27
th A
ve20
th A
ve20
08Co
mpl
eted
2 to
3 La
nes
Urba
n0.
521
0.52
-$5
25,0
00-
0602
620
th A
ve S
W21
st S
t SW
17th
Lane
SW
20
08Co
mpl
eted
1U to
2D
Lane
sUr
ban
0.27
20.
5406
026
20th
Ave
SW
25th
St S
W21
st S
t SW
2009
Com
plet
ed0
to 2
Lane
sUr
ban
0.25
20.
5006
047
Colle
ge La
ne R
dEx
tens
ion
IRSC
66th
Ave
2009
Com
plet
ed0
to 2
Lane
sUr
ban
0.50
21.
00-
$1,7
00,0
00-
0101
416
th S
t66
th A
ve
74th
Ave
2009
Com
plet
ed0
to 2
Lane
sUr
ban
1.27
22.
53$6
64,2
58$3
,109
,321
21%
0602
166
th A
ve16
th S
tSR
60
2009
Com
plet
ed0
to 3
Lane
sUr
ban
0.51
31.
53$3
,758
,300
$2,5
04,4
2315
0%02
025
53rd
St
King
s Hw
yLa
tera
l H C
anal
2010
Com
plet
ed0
to 4
Lane
sUr
ban
2.04
48.
14$3
,221
,638
$7,0
00,0
0046
%02
025
53rd
St
Late
ral H
Can
alIn
dian
Riv
er B
lvd
2010
Com
plet
ed0
to 4
Lane
sUr
ban
0.50
42.
00$1
,500
,000
$7,6
05,9
9320
%06
018
Osl
o Rd
, Ph.
II43
rd A
ve27
th A
ve20
11Co
mpl
eted
2U to
4D
Lane
sUr
ban
1.20
33.
60$4
,032
,257
$4,5
31,8
2289
%05
004
Osl
o Rd
, Ph.
III
43rd
Ave
58th
Ave
2012
Ong
oing
2U to
4D
Lane
sUr
ban
1.15
22.
30$2
45,4
45$3
,812
,202
6%02
031
66th
Ave
4th
St16
th S
t20
12O
ngoi
ng0
to 2
U/2D
Rura
l1.
502/
35.
50$7
65,9
46$6
,628
,935
12%
0604
066
th A
veSR
60
49th
St
2012
Ong
oing
2 to
4 La
nes
Urba
n3.
052
6.10
$10,
567,
637
$20,
773,
389
51%
Tota
l12
.75
34.2
6$2
4,75
5,48
1$6
0,07
7,80
041
%
--
$1,8
86,7
15
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
C-10
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e C-
12
Righ
t-of
-Way
Fac
tor –
Cou
nty
& S
tate
Roa
ds
So
urce
: Rec
ent i
mpa
ct fe
e st
udie
s con
stru
cted
thro
ugho
ut F
lorid
a
ROW
Cons
tr.
Desi
gn R
atio
ROW
Cons
tr.
Desi
gn R
atio
2006
Colli
er$1
,751
,790
$2,5
58,5
4668
%$1
,751
,790
$3,3
85,9
7852
%20
06Ci
trus
$784
,599
$2,5
84,0
9930
%$9
49,9
79$2
,860
,227
33%
2006
High
land
s$4
68,8
53$1
,678
,785
28%
$507
,500
$2,4
80,9
0020
%20
06M
ario
n$1
,005
,123
$1,9
41,2
4452
%$8
68,9
08$1
,430
,919
61%
2007
Pasc
o$8
14,5
17$3
,079
,051
26%
$1,5
60,7
14$3
,050
,799
51%
2007
Lake
$599
,185
$2,9
11,0
2121
%$1
,462
,133
$3,1
84,1
2546
%20
07Fl
agle
r$4
60,0
00$1
,740
,000
26%
--
n/a
2007
Volu
sia
$858
,109
$2,6
51,7
7832
%$9
54,5
43$3
,095
,258
31%
2008
Leon
$1,1
20,0
00$2
,660
,000
42%
$1,3
63,0
00$3
,383
,000
40%
2008
Sum
ter
$802
,000
$2,2
37,0
0036
%$1
,400
,000
$2,3
80,0
0059
%20
09Co
llier
$1,3
00,0
00$3
,100
,000
42%
$1,3
00,0
00$3
,200
,000
41%
2009
Polk
$1,4
91,0
00$1
,590
,000
94%
$550
,000
$2,1
70,0
0025
%20
09Hi
llsbo
roug
h/Ta
mpa
$1,5
00,0
00$2
,800
,000
54%
$2,5
00,0
00$3
,500
,000
71%
2010
Colli
er$9
01,0
00$1
,708
,000
53%
$901
,000
$2,4
18,0
0037
%20
11Sa
raso
ta/N
orth
Por
t$6
20,0
00$2
,400
,000
26%
$800
,000
$2,0
00,0
0040
%20
12O
sceo
la$1
,087
,074
$2,6
51,4
0041
%$1
,167
,598
$2,8
47,8
0041
%20
12O
rang
e$1
,080
,000
$2,4
00,0
0045
%-
-n/
a20
12Ci
ty o
f Orla
ndo
$1,0
80,0
00$2
,400
,000
45%
$1,3
05,0
00$2
,900
,000
45%
$984
,625
$2,3
93,9
4041
%$1
,208
,885
$2,7
67,9
3844
%(a
)(b
)
Year
Coun
tyCo
unty
Roa
dway
sSt
ate
Road
way
s
Aver
age
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
C-11
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e C-
13
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
– R
ecen
t Cou
nty
Road
Impr
ovem
ents
in In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y
(1
) So
urce
: Ind
ian
Rive
r Cou
nty
(2)
Righ
t-of
-way
cos
ts d
ivid
ed b
y co
nstr
uctio
n co
sts
(3)
The
wei
ghte
d av
erag
e co
nstr
uctio
n co
st p
er la
ne m
ile w
as ro
unde
d fo
r use
in th
e im
pact
fee
calc
ulat
ion
Proj
ect #
Desc
riptio
nFr
omTo
Bid
Year
Stat
usFe
atur
eSe
ctio
n De
sign
Leng
th(M
iles)
Lane
s Ad
ded
Lane
M
iles
Adde
d
Righ
t-of
-W
ay C
ost
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
s
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
per
Lane
M
ile05
013
17th
Lane
SW
27th
Ave
20th
Ave
2008
Com
plet
ed2
to 3
Lane
sUr
ban
0.52
10.
52-
$525
,000
$1,0
09,6
1506
026
20th
Ave
SW
21st
St S
W17
th La
ne S
W
2008
Com
plet
ed1U
to 2
D La
nes
Urba
n0.
272
0.54
0602
620
th A
ve S
W25
th S
t SW
21st
St S
W20
09Co
mpl
eted
0 to
2 La
nes
Urba
n0.
252
0.50
0604
7Co
llege
Lane
Rd
Exte
nsio
n IR
SC66
th A
ve20
09Co
mpl
eted
0 to
2 La
nes
Urba
n0.
502
1.00
-$1
,700
,000
$1,7
00,0
0001
014
16th
St
66th
Ave
74
th A
ve20
09Co
mpl
eted
0 to
2 La
nes
Urba
n1.
272
2.53
$664
,258
$3,1
09,3
21$1
,228
,981
0602
166
th A
ve16
th S
tSR
60
2009
Com
plet
ed0
to 3
Lane
sUr
ban
0.51
31.
53$3
,758
,300
$2,5
04,4
23$1
,636
,878
0202
553
rd S
tKi
ngs H
wy
Late
ral H
Can
al20
10Co
mpl
eted
0 to
4 La
nes
Urba
n2.
044
8.14
$3,2
21,6
38$7
,000
,000
$859
,951
0202
553
rd S
tLa
tera
l H C
anal
Indi
an R
iver
Blv
d20
10Co
mpl
eted
0 to
4 La
nes
Urba
n0.
504
2.00
$1,5
00,0
00$7
,605
,993
$3,8
02,9
9706
018
Osl
o Rd
, Ph.
II43
rd A
ve27
th A
ve20
11Co
mpl
eted
2U to
4D
Lane
sUr
ban
1.20
33.
60$4
,032
,257
$4,5
31,8
22$1
,258
,839
0500
4O
slo
Rd, P
h. II
I43
rd A
ve58
th A
ve20
12O
ngoi
ng2U
to 4
D La
nes
Urba
n1.
152
2.30
$245
,445
$3,8
12,2
02$1
,657
,479
0203
166
th A
ve4t
h St
16th
St
2012
Ong
oing
0 to
2U/
2DRu
ral
1.50
2/3
5.50
$765
,946
$6,6
28,9
35$1
,205
,261
0604
066
th A
veSR
60
49th
St
2012
Ong
oing
2 to
4 La
nes
Urba
n3.
052
6.10
$10,
567,
637
$20,
773,
389
$3,4
05,4
74To
tal
12.7
534
.26
$24,
755,
481
$60,
077,
800
$1,7
53,5
84U
sed
in Im
pact
Fee
Stu
dy:(3
)$1
,800
,000
-$1
,886
,715
$3,7
73,4
30
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
– C
ount
y Ro
ad Im
prov
emen
ts fr
om O
ther
Juris
dict
ions
thro
ugho
ut F
lorid
a nt
yDi
stric
tDe
scrip
tion
From
ToYe
arSt
atus
Feat
ure
Desi
gnLe
ngth
Lane
s Ad
ded
Lane
Mile
s Ad
ded
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
Con pe
er1
Sant
a Ba
rbar
a Bl
vd E
xt.
Ratt
lesn
ake
Ham
moc
k Rd
Davi
s Blv
d20
08Bi
d0
to 6
Urba
n2.
006
12.0
0$1
2,03
5,89
4k
1Si
lver
Con
nect
or R
dE.
F. G
riffin
Rd
US 9
820
08Bi
d0
to 2
Urba
n0.
332
0.66
$1,5
60,4
83k
1Co
unty
Line
Rd
Ewel
l Ave
Pipk
in R
d20
08Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
202
2.40
$3,9
93,8
92si
a5
Deba
ry A
veDe
ltona
Blv
dPr
ovid
ence
Blv
d20
08Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
842
3.68
$7,4
05,9
14si
a5
S. W
illia
mso
n Bl
vd (P
h. II
)S.
of S
abal
Cre
ek B
lvd
N. o
f Moo
dy B
ridge
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.91
23.
82$1
1,10
9,22
5e
5CR
466
(Seg
men
t A)
US 3
01CR
319
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.00
22.
00$4
,062
,660
roug
h7
40th
St
Rive
r Pin
es A
pts
Hum
phre
y St
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.95
21.
90$5
,154
,862
roug
h7
Race
Tra
ck R
d (P
h. I)
Doug
las R
dLi
neba
ugh
Ave
2008
Bid
2 to
6Ur
ban
1.01
44.
04$1
0,09
9,91
1ol
a5
John
You
ng P
kwy
Carr
oll
Ora
nge
Co. L
ine
2008
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
0.85
21.
70$3
,230
,000
ge5
CR 5
35 (S
egm
ents
C a
nd E
)Fi
cque
tte
RdBu
tler R
idge
Dr
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.10
22.
20$3
,693
,616
ge5
Clar
cona
-Oco
ee R
dO
coee
Apo
pka
RdSR
417
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.40
20.
80$2
,803
,484
ge5
Dest
inat
ion
Pkw
yIn
tern
atio
nal D
rTr
ades
how
Blv
d20
08Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n0.
712
1.42
$3,0
17,4
43e
1Gl
adio
lus D
r (Ph
. I)
A&W
Bul
b Rd
Win
kler
Rd
2008
Bid
2 to
4/6
Urba
n1.
942/
45.
44$1
3,97
1,50
9e
1Gl
adio
lus D
r (Ph
. II)
Pine
Rid
ge R
dA&
W B
ulb
Rd20
08Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
022
2.04
$6,7
48,6
42ot
te1
Tole
do B
lade
Cor
ridor
Nor
th P
ort
US 4
120
08Bi
d2
to 4
Subu
rban
1.20
22.
40$3
,174
,852
ge5
Clar
cona
-Oco
ee R
dHi
awas
see
RdCl
ark
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.50
25.
00$1
0,18
2,73
8ge
5W
oodb
ury
RdS.
of S
R 50
Chal
leng
er P
kwy
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.65
21.
30$4
,088
,942
ge5
Sand
Lake
Rd
Pres
iden
t's D
rFL
Mal
l20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
002
2.00
$6,0
20,7
55ge
5Ta
ft-V
inel
and
Road
Ext
ensi
onCe
ntra
l Flo
rida
Pkw
yJo
hn Y
oung
Pkw
y20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n0.
702
1.40
$4,4
62,5
35ol
a5
Nar
coos
see
RdUS
192
Ora
nge
Co. L
ine
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
7.40
214
.80
$47,
360,
000
ola
5O
sceo
la P
kwy
(Ph.
I)FL
Tur
npik
eBu
enav
entu
ra B
lvd
2009
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.57
23.
14$5
,966
,000
ola
5Po
inci
ana
Blvd
(Ph.
II)
Cres
cent
Lake
sUS
17/
9220
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
502
5.00
$16,
000,
000
ola
5O
ld La
ke W
ilson
Rd
(Ph.
I)Li
ving
ston
Rd
Sinc
lair
Rd20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
302
4.60
$14,
720,
000
roug
h7
Bruc
e B.
Dow
nsPa
lm S
prin
gs B
lvd
Pebb
le B
each
Blv
d20
09Bi
d4
to 8
Urba
n7.
204
28.8
0$4
0,57
5,30
5ro
ugh
7Ra
ce T
rack
Rd
(Ph.
IV)
Doug
las R
dHi
llsbo
roug
h Av
e20
09Bi
d2
to 6
Urba
n0.
564
2.24
$4,3
97,4
12ot
a1
Frui
tvill
e Rd
(Ph.
I)Ta
tum
Rd
Debr
ecen
Rd
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.72
21.
44$4
,355
,796
ota
1Fr
uitv
ille
Rd (P
h. II
)Co
burn
Rd
Tatu
m R
d20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
262
2.52
$8,5
57,9
04e
1Co
loni
al B
lvd
(CR
884)
I-75
SR 8
220
09Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n2.
702
5.40
$14,
576,
393
er1
Oil
Wel
l Rd
(Seg
men
t 2)
Imm
okal
ee R
dEv
ergl
ades
Blv
d20
09Bi
d2
to 4
/6Ur
ban
5.05
2/4
10.9
2$1
6,75
9,58
6er
1O
il W
ell R
d (S
egm
ent 4
)O
il W
ell G
rade
Rd
W. o
f Cam
p Ke
ais R
d20
09Bi
d2
to 6
Urba
n4.
724
18.8
8$1
7,91
9,24
4ge
5Al
afay
a Tr
Aval
on P
ark
Blvd
Mar
k Tw
ain
Blvd
2010
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
3.83
27.
66$1
8,91
8,59
9ro
ugh
7Bo
yett
e Rd
(Ph.
III)
McM
ulle
n Rd
Bell
Shoa
ls R
d20
10Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
602
5.20
$23,
184,
354
ard
4Ba
iley
RdN
W 6
4th
Ave
/ SW
81s
t Ave
SR 7
(US
441)
2010
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.00
24.
00$6
,330
,297
e1
Six
Mile
Cyp
ress
Pkw
yDa
niel
s Pkw
yS.
of W
inkl
er R
d Ex
t.20
10Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n3.
092
6.18
$6,7
11,2
42ot
te1
Pipe
r Rd
Henr
y St
Jone
s Loo
p Rd
2010
Bid
2 to
4Su
burb
an2.
102
4.20
$8,6
27,8
03ot
a1
Nor
th C
attle
men
Rd
Rich
ards
on R
dDe
soto
Rd
2011
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.55
25.
10$1
2,15
3,58
4e
1Da
niel
s Pkw
yCh
ambe
rlin
Pkw
yGa
tew
ay B
lvd
2011
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
2.05
24.
10$2
,906
,553
ge5
Rous
e Rd
SR 5
0Co
rpor
ate
Blvd
2011
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.60
25.
20$2
9,38
0,24
9ge
5CR
535
Seg
. AM
agno
lia P
ark
CtSR
429
2011
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.37
22.
74$8
,390
,570
ola
5Go
odm
an R
dTr
i-Cou
nty
Sand
Min
e Rd
2011
Bid
0 to
2Ur
ban
3.53
27.
06$7
,060
,000
las
1Br
yan
Dairy
Rd
Star
key
Rd (C
R 1)
72nd
St
2011
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.47
22.
94$1
0,32
7,38
3ea
ch4
SR 8
06 (A
tlant
ic A
ve)
W. o
f Lyo
ns R
dSt
arke
y Rd
2011
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.80
21.
60$5
,307
,643
each
4Se
min
ole
Prat
t Whi
tney
Rd
SR 8
0N
. of S
ycam
ore
Dr20
11Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n4.
302
8.60
$9,7
33,6
69ot
te1
Burn
t Sto
re R
d (P
h. I)
US 4
1N
otre
Dam
e Bl
vd20
11Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
402
4.80
$13,
512,
394
each
4Se
min
ole
Prat
t Whi
tney
Rd
M C
anal
S. o
f Ora
nge
Blvd
2012
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.30
22.
60$3
,646
,523
k1
Kath
leen
Rd
(CR3
5A) (
Ph. I
I)Ga
llow
ay R
dDu
ff R
d20
12Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n3.
002
6.00
$16,
784,
760
k1
Bart
ow N
orth
ern
Conn
ecto
r (Ph
. I)
US 9
8 US
17/
9220
12Bi
d0
to 4
Urba
n2.
002
4.00
$11,
110,
205
sia
5Ty
mbe
r Cre
ek R
dSR
40
Peru
vian
Ln20
12Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n0.
752
1.50
$5,2
76,0
57er
1Co
llier
Blv
d (C
R 95
1)Go
lden
Gat
e Bl
vdGr
een
Blvd
2013
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
2.74
25.
48$2
1,39
2,03
9al
242.
90$5
28,7
58,9
21
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
–St
ate
Road
s Co
unty
Dist
rict
Desc
riptio
nFr
omTo
Year
Stat
usFe
atur
eDe
sign
Leng
thLa
nes
Adde
dLa
ne M
iles
Adde
dCo
nstr
uctio
n Co
stCo
nstr
uctio
n pe
r Lan
e M
Wal
ton
3SR
83
(US
331)
SR 3
0 (U
S 98
)S.
end
of C
hoct
aw B
ridge
2008
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.08
24.
16$1
1,64
9,36
3$2
,80
Hills
boro
ugh
7US
301
(SR
43)
S. o
f Bal
m R
dN
. of G
ibso
nton
Rd
2008
Bid
2 to
6Ur
ban
6.03
424
.12
$55,
702,
777
$2,3
0In
dian
Riv
er4
SR 5
(US
1)S.
of O
slo
RdS.
of I
ndia
n Ri
ver B
end
2008
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.70
23.
40$1
4,95
3,56
2$4
,39
Indi
an R
iver
4SR
60
(Osc
eola
Blv
d)W
. of 8
2nd
Ave
66th
Ave
/CR
505
2008
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
2.15
24.
30$1
8,49
6,79
3$4
,30
Ora
nge
5SR
50
Good
Hom
es R
dPi
ne H
ills R
d20
08Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n3.
632
7.26
$35,
929,
914
$4,9
4Le
on3
SR 1
0 (M
ahan
Driv
e)De
mps
ey M
ayo
RdW
alde
n Rd
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
3.10
26.
20$1
8,08
3,51
0$2
,91
Indi
an R
iver
4SR
60
(Osc
eola
Blv
d)W
. of I
-95
W. o
f 82n
d Av
e/CR
609
2009
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
3.07
26.
14$7
,366
,557
$1,1
9Sa
raso
ta1
US 3
01W
ood
StM
yrtle
Ave
2009
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
2.60
25.
20$1
8,37
2,05
0$3
,53
Sara
sota
1US
301
Myr
tle A
veDe
soto
Rd
2009
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.00
22.
00$8
,293
,271
$4,1
4Pa
sco
7US
41
(SR
45)
Tow
er R
dRi
dge
Rd20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
842
5.68
$12,
685,
027
$2,2
3Le
e1
SR 7
39US
41
(S. o
f Alic
o)Si
x M
ile C
ypre
ss P
kwy
2009
Bid
0 to
6Ur
ban
2.77
616
.62
$20,
663,
929
$1,2
4M
anat
ee1
US 3
01Er
ie R
dCR
675
2009
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
4.10
28.
20$2
1,04
0,00
0$2
,56
Mar
ion
5SR
35
(US
301)
Sum
ter C
o. Li
ne52
9' S
. of C
R 42
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.40
22.
80$3
,596
,000
$1,2
8M
iam
i-Dad
e6
Perim
eter
Rd
NW
72
Aven
ueN
W 5
7 Av
enue
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.50
23.
00$6
,383
,286
$2,1
2Po
lk1
US 2
7N
. of C
R 54
6S.
of S
R 54
420
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
562
3.12
$4,1
00,0
69$1
,31
Sant
a Ro
sa3
SR 2
81 (A
valo
n Bl
vd)
N. o
f CSX
R/R
Brid
geS.
of C
omm
erce
Rd
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.98
21.
96$5
,621
,006
$2,8
6Sa
nta
Rosa
3SR
281
(Ava
lon
Blvd
)Gu
lf Rd
SR 1
0 (U
S 90
)20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
782
3.56
$9,1
50,5
83$2
,57
St. L
ucie
4SR
70
MP
5.86
0M
P 10
.216
2009
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
4.36
28.
72$1
2,42
6,02
0$1
,42
Sum
ter
5SR
35
(US
301)
N. o
f CR
204
Mar
ion
Coun
ty Li
ne20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
512
3.02
$3,8
56,6
88$1
,27
Was
hing
ton
3SR
79
N. E
nviro
nmen
tal R
dSt
rickl
and
Rd20
09Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
722
3.44
$8,8
77,3
23$2
,58
Lake
5SR
50
E. o
f Gra
nd H
wy
W. o
f Han
cock
Rd
2010
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.30
22.
60$4
,689
,633
$1,8
0Po
lk1
SR 5
59 E
xten
sion
SR 6
55 (R
ecke
r Hw
y)De
rby
Ave
2010
Bid
0 to
2Ur
ban
0.69
21.
38$2
,751
,592
$1,9
9Sa
nta
Rosa
3SR
281
(Ava
lon
Blvd
)SR
8 (I
-10)
S. o
f Moo
r's Lo
dge
2010
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.85
21.
70$5
,378
,226
$3,1
6Sa
nta
Rosa
3SR
281
(Ava
lon
Blvd
)S.
of M
oor's
Lodg
eN
. of C
SX R
/R B
ridge
2010
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
1.48
22.
96$7
,145
,212
$2,4
1Le
e1
US 4
1Co
rksc
rew
Rd
San
Carlo
s Blv
d20
10Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n4.
482
8.96
$12,
822,
677
$1,4
3Po
lk1
US 9
8S.
of M
anor
Dr
N. o
f CR
540A
2010
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
3.32
26.
64$1
1,09
2,90
9$1
,67
St. L
ucie
4SR
70
Oke
echo
bee
Coun
ty Li
neM
P 5.
871
2010
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
5.87
211
.74
$18,
782,
630
$1,5
9Po
lk1
US 9
8 (B
arto
w H
wy)
Broo
ks S
tEd
gew
ood
Dr20
11Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n0.
722
1.44
$4,3
41,9
17$3
,01
Hills
boro
ugh
7CR
39/
Alex
ande
r St
N. o
f I-4
N. o
f Kni
ghts
Grif
fin20
11Bi
d0
to 4
Urba
n3.
194
12.7
6$1
4,78
2,86
2$1
,15
Pine
llas
7SR
688
(Ulm
erto
n Rd
)E.
of 1
19th
St
W. o
f Sem
inol
e By
pass
2011
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.50
23.
00$1
6,90
8,92
9$5
,63
Polk
1
SR 6
0 (V
an F
leet
)W
. of U
S 98
/Bro
adw
ayW
. of U
S 17
(SR
555)
2011
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.86
21.
72$9
,540
,473
$5,5
4La
ke5
SR 5
00 (U
S 44
1)M
artin
Luth
er K
ing
Jr. B
lvd
Lake
Ella
Rd
2011
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
3.25
26.
50$1
6,27
8,88
9$2
,50
Hills
boro
ugh
7SR
574
(MLK
Blv
d)W
. of H
ighv
iew
Rd
E. o
f Par
sons
Ave
2011
Bid
3 to
5Ur
ban
0.91
21.
82$7
,147
,510
$3,9
2Co
llier
1SR
84
(Dav
is B
lvd)
E. o
f San
ta B
arba
ra B
lvd
W. o
f Rad
io R
d20
12Bi
d2
to 6
Urba
n1.
774
7.08
$10,
956,
198
$1,5
4Vo
lusi
a5
SR 4
15Se
min
ole
Co. L
ine
Reed
Elli
s Rd
2012
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
2.26
24.
53$1
8,71
8,63
7$4
,13
Volu
sia
5SR
415
Reed
Elli
s Rd
0.3
mile
s N. o
f Aco
rn La
ke20
12Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n5.
072
10.1
3$1
8,38
8,84
5$1
,81
Pine
llas
7US
19
(SR
55)
N. o
f CR
576/
Suns
et P
ntS.
of C
ount
rysi
de B
lvd
2012
Bid
6 to
10
Urba
n1.
764
7.04
$17,
196,
050
$2,4
4M
iam
i-Dad
e6
SR 8
23/N
W 5
7th
Ave
W. 2
3rd
StW
. 46t
h St
2012
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
1.48
22.
96$1
4,08
1,16
1$4
,75
Hern
ando
7SR
50
(Cor
tez B
lvd)
US 1
9 (S
R 55
)W
. of C
R 58
7/M
arin
er B
lvd
2012
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
6.02
212
.04
$39,
444,
222
$3,2
7O
rang
e5
SR 5
0E.
of W
est O
aks M
all
W. o
f Goo
d Ho
mes
Rd
2012
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
0.45
20.
90$8
,694
,472
$9,6
6Cl
ay
2SR
23
Oak
leaf
Pla
ntat
ion
Pkw
yO
ld Je
nnin
gs20
12Bi
d0
to 2
Urba
n3.
142
6.28
$13,
231,
111
$2,1
0He
ndry
1SR
80
Birc
hwoo
d Pk
wy
Dalto
n La
ne20
12Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n5.
002
10.0
0$1
2,85
5,09
2$1
,28
Hend
ry1
SR 8
0CR
833
US 2
720
12Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n2.
902
5.80
$8,1
17,0
39$1
,39
Lee
1SR
739
Win
kler
Ave
Hans
on S
t20
12Bi
d0
to 6
Urba
n1.
346
8.04
$14,
025,
932
$1,7
4Se
min
ole
5SR
434
I-4Ra
ngel
ine
Rd20
12Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n1.
802
3.60
$10,
111,
333
$2,8
0Pa
lm B
each
4SR
710
/Bee
line
Hwy
W. o
f Con
gres
s Ave
W. o
f Aus
tral
ian
Ave
2012
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.84
21.
68$1
2,18
9,53
3$7
,25
Polk
1US
27
N. o
f Ritc
hie
RdS.
of B
arry
Rd
2012
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
3.20
26.
40$1
4,24
2,91
8$2
,22
Polk
1US
98
(SR
35/S
R 70
0)N
. of C
R 54
0ASR
540
2012
Bid
4 to
6Ur
ban
3.45
26.
90$1
8,00
4,05
1$2
,60
Brev
ard
5SR
5 (U
S 1)
N. o
f Pin
e St
N. o
f Cid
co R
d20
12Bi
d4
to 6
Urba
n3.
842
7.68
$29,
360,
536
$3,8
2Br
evar
d5
SR 5
07 (B
abco
ck S
t)M
elbo
urne
Ave
Fee
Ave
2013
Bid
2 to
4Ur
ban
0.40
20.
80$5
,167
,891
$6,4
5Hi
llsbo
roug
h7
SR 4
1 (U
S 30
1)S.
of T
ampa
Byp
ass C
anal
N. o
f Fow
ler A
ve20
13Bi
d2
to 4
Subu
rban
1.81
23.
61$1
5,75
8,96
5$4
,36
Lee
1US
41
Busi
ness
Litt
leto
n Rd
SR 7
3920
13Bi
d2
to 4
Urba
n1.
232
2.46
$8,4
88,3
93$3
,45
Tota
l29
4.05
$717
,943
,565
$2,4
4
T
otal
(Adj
uste
d In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Co
st p
er La
ne M
ile)
83%
$2,0
0
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
C-14
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e C-
16
Cons
truc
tion
Engi
neer
ing/
Insp
ectio
n Fa
ctor
– C
ount
y &
Sta
te R
oads
So
urce
: Rec
ent i
mpa
ct fe
e st
udie
s con
stru
cted
thro
ugho
ut F
lorid
a
CEI
Cons
tr.
CEI R
atio
CEI
Cons
tr.
CEI R
atio
200
Colli
er$2
94,0
54$2
,558
,546
11%
$354
,442
$3,3
85,9
7810
%20
06Ci
trus
$180
,887
$2,5
84,0
997%
$474
,464
$2,8
60,2
2717
%20
07Pa
sco
$215
,534
$3,0
79,0
517%
$442
,849
$3,0
50,7
9915
%20
07La
ke$1
16,4
41$2
,911
,021
4%$3
18,4
12$3
,184
,125
10%
2007
Flag
ler
$174
,000
$1,7
40,0
0010
%-
-n/
a20
07Vo
lusi
a$2
38,6
60$2
,651
,778
9%$3
09,5
26$3
,095
,258
10%
2008
Leon
$372
,400
$2,6
60,0
0014
%$2
70,6
40$3
,383
,000
8%20
08Su
mte
r$2
23,7
00$2
,237
,000
10%
$238
,000
$2,3
80,0
0010
%20
09Co
llier
$186
,000
$3,1
00,0
006%
$320
,000
$3,2
00,0
0010
%20
09Po
lk$1
11,3
00$1
,590
,000
7%$2
17,0
00$2
,170
,000
10%
2009
Hills
boro
ugh/
Tam
pa$3
08,0
00$2
,800
,000
11%
$315
,000
$3,5
00,0
009%
2010
Colli
er$1
19,5
60$1
,708
,000
7%$2
41,8
00$2
,418
,000
10%
2011
Sara
sota
/Nor
th P
ort
$216
,000
$2,4
00,0
009%
$180
,000
$2,0
00,0
009%
2012
Osc
eola
$265
,140
$2,6
51,4
0010
%$3
13,2
58$2
,847
,800
11%
2012
City
of O
rland
o-
$2,4
00,0
00n/
a-
$2,9
00,0
00n/
a$2
15,8
34$2
,466
,931
9%$3
07,3
38$2
,882
,707
11%
(a)
(b)
Aver
age
Year
Coun
tyCo
unty
Roa
dway
sSt
ate
Road
way
s
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 C-15 Impact Fee Update Study
Roadway Capacity As shown in Table C-17, the average capacity per lane mile was based on the projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Indian River County.
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
2035
Lon
g Ra
nge
Tran
spor
tatio
n Pl
an
dict
ion
y/St
ate)
Desc
riptio
nFr
omTo
Impr
ovem
ent
Leng
thLa
nes
Adde
d
Lane
M
iles
Adde
d
Initi
al
Capa
city
Futu
re
Capa
city
Adde
d Ca
paci
ty
Ve o
asib
le P
lan
ate
US 1
High
land
Dr
St. L
ucie
Co.
Line
4 to
60.
622
1.20
39,8
0059
,900
20,1
00at
eUS
153
rd S
tCR
510
4 to
64.
302
8.60
39,8
0059
,900
20,1
00un
tyCR
510
CR 5
1266
th A
ve2
to 4
4.20
28.
4014
,580
31,9
5017
,370
unty
CR 5
1066
th A
veUS
12
to 4
1.60
23.
2014
,580
31,9
5017
,370
unty
CR 5
10US
1In
terc
oast
al W
ater
way
2 to
40.
502
1.00
14,5
8031
,950
17,3
70un
tyCR
512
I-95
Will
ow S
t2
to 4
3.10
26.
2012
,780
27,3
6014
,580
unty
Osl
o Rd
I-95
58th
Ave
2 to
43.
602
7.20
14,5
8031
,950
17,3
70un
ty43
rd A
veSt
. Luc
ie C
o. Li
neO
slo
Rd2
to 4
2.00
24.
0015
,930
35,8
2019
,890
unty
43rd
Ave
Osl
o Rd
16th
St
2 to
43.
002
6.00
20,1
4935
,820
15,6
71un
ty66
th A
ve41
st S
t69
th S
t2
to 4
3.50
27.
0014
,580
31,9
5017
,370
unty
66th
Ave
69th
St
CR 5
102
to 4
2.00
24.
0014
,580
31,9
5017
,370
unty
66th
Ave
CR 5
10Ba
rber
St
2 to
40.
852
1.70
14,5
8031
,950
17,3
70un
ty82
nd A
ve26
th S
t69
th S
t0
to 2
5.00
210
.00
014
,580
14,5
80un
ty82
nd A
ve69
th S
tCR
510
0 to
22.
002
4.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty82
nd A
veCR
510
Laco
nia
St0
to 2
0.60
21.
200
15,9
3015
,930
unty
Rose
land
Rd
CR 5
12US
12
to 4
4.70
29.
4015
,930
35,8
2019
,890
unty
Indi
an R
iver
Blv
d20
th S
tM
erril
Bar
ber B
ridge
4 to
61.
002
2.00
35,8
2053
,910
18,0
90un
tyIn
dian
Riv
er B
lvd
Mer
ril B
arbe
r Brid
ge45
th S
t4
to 6
2.00
24.
0035
,820
53,9
1018
,090
unty
25th
St S
W27
th A
ve58
th A
ve2
to 4
1.80
23.
6015
,930
35,8
2019
,890
unty
26th
St
43rd
Ave
58th
Ave
2 to
41.
002
2.00
15,9
3035
,820
19,8
90un
ty27
th A
veO
slo
RdSt
. Luc
ie C
o. Li
ne2
to 4
2.00
24.
0015
,930
35,8
2019
,890
unty
4th
St66
th A
ve98
th A
ve0
to 2
4.10
28.
200
14,5
8014
,580
unty
12th
St
58th
Ave
66th
Ave
0 to
21.
002
2.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty53
rd S
t58
th A
ve66
th A
ve0
to 2
1.00
22.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
53rd
St
66th
Ave
82nd
Ave
0 to
22.
002
4.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty69
th S
t66
th A
veFe
llsm
ere
N-S
Rd
10
to 2
7.00
214
.00
014
,580
14,5
80un
ty58
th A
veO
slo
RdSt
. Luc
ie C
o. Li
ne0
to 4
2.10
48.
400
35,8
2035
,820
unty
74th
Ave
8th
StO
slo
Rd0
to 2
2.00
24.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
98th
Ave
8th
St4t
h St
0 to
20.
502
1.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty5t
h St
SW
Old
Dix
ie H
wy
20th
Ave
0 to
21.
402
2.80
015
,930
15,9
30ed
Nee
dsat
eUS
1CR
510
Shum
an D
r4
to 6
3.00
26.
0039
,800
59,9
0020
,100
ate
US 1
Shum
an D
rCR
512
4 to
61.
602
3.20
39,8
0059
,900
20,1
00un
tyCR
510
SR A
1AIn
terc
oast
al W
ater
way
2 to
40.
802
1.60
14,5
8031
,950
17,3
70un
tyCR
512
I-95
CR 5
104
to 6
2.60
25.
2031
,950
48,1
5016
,200
unty
26th
St
58th
Ave
66th
Ave
2 to
41.
002
2.00
15,9
3035
,820
19,8
90
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
2035
Lon
g Ra
nge
Tran
spor
tatio
n Pl
an
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y 20
35 L
ong
Rang
e Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Plan
er
refe
renc
es (i
.e.,
“a”)
are
use
d to
ass
ist w
ith fo
otno
tes a
nd so
urci
ng
dict
ion
y/St
ate)
Desc
riptio
nFr
omTo
Impr
ovem
ent
Leng
thLa
nes
Adde
d
Lane
M
iles
Adde
d
Initi
al
Capa
city
Futu
re
Capa
city
Adde
d Ca
paci
ty
Ve o
ed N
eeds
unty
Fells
mer
e N
-S R
d 1
CR 5
1269
th S
t0
to 2
3.50
27.
000
12,7
8012
,780
unty
Fells
mer
e N
-S R
d 2
CR 5
1269
th S
t0
to 2
3.50
27.
000
12,7
8012
,780
unty
Flem
ing
StAi
rpor
t Per
imet
er R
dCR
512
0 to
21.
302
2.60
014
,580
14,5
80un
tyAi
rpor
t Per
imet
er R
dUS
1Ro
sela
nd R
d0
to 2
2.40
24.
800
14,5
8014
,580
unty
Fells
mer
e E-
W R
dCR
512
Fells
mer
e N
-S R
d 2
0 to
23.
702
7.40
012
,780
12,7
80un
ty33
rd S
t66
th A
ve74
th A
ve0
to 2
1.00
22.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
33rd
St
74th
Ave
82nd
Ave
0 to
21.
002
2.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty74
th A
ve26
th S
t33
rd S
t0
to 2
0.50
21.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
12th
St
66th
Ave
74th
Ave
0 to
21.
002
2.00
015
,930
15,9
30un
ty1s
t St S
W58
th A
ve82
nd A
ve0
to 2
3.00
26.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
5th
St S
W58
th A
ve82
nd A
ve0
to 2
3.00
26.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
13th
St S
W20
th A
ve58
th A
ve0
to 2
2.50
25.
000
15,9
3015
,930
unty
17th
St S
W20
th A
ve58
th A
ve0
to 2
2.50
25.
000
15,9
3015
,930
ll Ro
ads)
:22
0.90
Road
s:20
1.90
91%
(a)
oads
:19
.00
9%(b
)ec
tion
Desi
gn:
74.2
034
%(c
)ec
tion
Desi
gn:
146.
7066
%(d
)
Appendix D Transportation Impact Fee
Credit Component Calculations
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-1 Impact Fee Update Study
Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Currently, in addition to the capital support that ultimately results from State fuel tax revenues, Indian River County also receives financial benefit from several other funding sources. Of these, County fuel taxes that are collected in Indian River County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2¢/gallon)
Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution.
The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes.
The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county.
Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.
2. County Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon) Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County’s reliance on ad valorem
taxes. Proceeds are to be used for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction
of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights-of-way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.
Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.
3. 1st Local Option Tax (up to 6¢/gallon) Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on
diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.
Each year, the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2013-14 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Indian River County for the upcoming fiscal year. In the table, the fuel tax revenue data are used to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel) that should be used to estimate the “equivalent pennies” of other revenue sources. Table D-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of gas tax revenues. The weighted average figure of approximately $0.74 million estimates the annual revenue that one penny of gas tax generates in Indian County.
Table D-1
Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Indian River County & Municipalities, FY 2013-14(1)
(1) Source: Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research,
http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-government/reports/ (2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total
distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100).
Gas Tax Credit A revenue credit for the annual gas tax equivalent expenditures on roadway capacity expansion projects in Indian River County is presented below. The two components of the credit are as follows:
TaxAmount of Levy
per GallonTotal
DistributionDistribution Per
PennyConstitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $1,592,578 $796,289County Fuel Tax $0.01 $701,978 $701,9781st Local Option (1-6 cents) $0.06 $4,364,623 $727,437Total $0.09 $6,659,179
$739,909Weighted Average(2)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-3 Impact Fee Update Study
County gas tax equivalent pennies State gas tax expenditures
County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies A review of the County’s historical roadway financing program (FY 2008-2013) and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2014-2017 indicates that a combination of sales tax revenues, fuel tax revenues, impact fees, developer contributions, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. With the County’s local option sales tax set to expire in 2019 and the re-adoption and dedication to transportation unknown, a sales tax credit was given only for programmed expenditures in the CIP. If the sales tax is re-adopted in 2019 or a different revenue source is allocated to transportation capacity to replace the sales tax revenues, these credit figures may need to be revised. As shown in Table D-2, Indian River County receives a credit of 5.6 pennies for the portion of non-impact fee revenues (excluding sales tax) dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements.
Table D-2 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (Excluding Sales Tax)
(1) Source: Table D-5 (2) Source: Table D-5 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 As shown in Table D-3, Indian River County receives a credit of 11.1 pennies for the portion of non-impact fee revenues (sales tax ONLY) dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements. In the impact fee calculation, this credit will only be applied for five years, as the sales tax will not be considered a recurring revenue source for transportation capacity improvements.
SourceCost of
ProjectsNumber of
Years
Revenue from 1
Penny(3)
Equivalent Pennies(4)
Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2014-2017)(1) $18,612,373 4 $739,909 $0.063Historical County Expenditures (FY 2008-2013)(2) $22,996,416 6 $739,909 $0.052Total $41,608,789 10 $739,909 $0.056
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-3 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (Sales Tax ONLY)
(1) Source: Table D-6 (2) Source: Table D-6 (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 10-year period (from FY 2009 to FY 2018) were reviewed. For calculation purposes, the 10-year period was broken into two increments; historical (FY 2009-2013) and future (FY 2014-2018). Information on historical projects’ funding and the future year estimates was obtained from the FDOT Work Programs and the County’s FY 2014-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The use of a 10-year period, for purposes of developing a State credit for roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable credit, as it accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. The total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the five-year “historical” period and projected in the five-year Transportation Improvement Program are as follows:
FY 2009-2013 work plan equates to 20.5 pennies FY 2014-2018 work plan equates to 10.5 pennies
The combined weighted average over the 10-year period of state expenditure for capacity-adding roadway projects results in a total of 15.5 equivalent pennies, which is a slightly higher state credit than what is observed in most other counties. Table D-4 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table D-7.
SourceCost of
ProjectsNumber of
Years
Revenue from 1
Penny(3)
Equivalent Pennies(4)
Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2014-2017)(1) $59,458,414 4 $739,909 $0.201Historical County Expenditures (FY 2008-2013)(2) $22,319,296 6 $739,909 $0.050Total $81,777,710 10 $739,909 $0.111
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 D-5 Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion
(1) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (2) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 4) divided by 100
SourceCost of
ProjectsNumber of
Years
Revenue from 1
Penny(3)
Equivalent Pennies(4)
Projected TIP (FY 2014-2018)(1) $38,959,997 5 $739,909 $0.105Historical Work Program (FY 2009-2013)(2) $75,954,895 5 $739,909 $0.205Total $114,914,892 10 $739,909 $0.155
Hist
oric
al a
nd F
utur
e Ca
pita
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n Ex
pend
iture
s for
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty,
FY
2007
/08
to 2
016/
17 (e
xclu
ding
sale
s tax
exp
endi
ture
s)
nnin
g De
part
men
t
On/
From
/To
FY 2
007/
08FY
200
8/09
FY 2
009/
10FT
201
0/11
FY 2
011/
12FY
201
2/13
FY 2
013/
14FY
201
4/15
FY 2
015/
1Po
wer
line
Rd fr
om B
arbe
r St t
o CR
510
$134
,482
$478
,904
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
37th
St f
rom
58t
h Av
e to
66t
h Av
e$5
58,2
18-$
4,34
1$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0O
slo
Rd fr
om 2
7th
Ave
to T
imbe
r Rid
ge$1
,202
,748
$35,
586
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
Colle
ge La
ne E
xten
sion
- IR
SC$0
$400
,000
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
CR 5
12 fr
om S
ebas
tian
Rive
r Mid
dle
to I-
95$2
,745
,686
$107
,391
$20,
067
$0$0
$0$0
$016
th S
t fro
m 6
6th
Ave
to 8
2nd
Ave
$512
,500
$266
,380
$878
,005
$110
,351
$0$0
$0$0
20th
Ave
SW
from
17t
h St
to 2
5th
St$1
9,66
2$1
35$8
37$5
42,7
13$1
53,0
32$0
$0$0
66th
Ave
from
12t
h St
to S
R 60
$845
,251
$927
,608
$45,
119
$0$8
,289
$0$0
$053
rd S
t fro
m K
ings
Hw
y to
US
1$0
$0$0
$270
,231
$0$0
$0$0
Osl
o Rd
from
27t
h St
to 4
3rd
Ave
$0$0
$25,
748
$3,4
00$2
,731
$0$0
$066
th A
ve fr
om 4
th A
ve to
12t
h St
$100
,000
$0$0
$2,0
52$0
$500
,000
$0$0
43rd
Ave
from
12t
h St
to 1
8th
St$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$319
,745
$500
,43
rd A
ve fr
om 1
8th
St to
26t
h St
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$2,8
05,3
30$3
,102
,938
$653
,66
th A
ve fr
om S
R 60
to 4
9th
St$0
$0$1
,810
,361
$0$0
$6,2
70,3
79$0
$0CR
510
from
61s
t Dr t
o In
dian
Riv
er$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$1
30,7
80$0
CR 5
10 fr
om 7
0th
Ave
to 6
1st D
r$0
$0$0
$0$0
$403
,691
$700
,000
$600
,000
CR 5
10 fr
om C
R 51
2 to
70t
h Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$4
00,0
00$5
00,0
00$1
,900
,M
isce
llane
ous
$0$0
$0$0
$0$5
00,0
00$5
00,0
00$5
00,0
00$5
00,
Osl
o Rd
from
43r
d Av
e to
58t
h Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$2,8
69,2
00$0
$0Co
unty
wid
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$100
,000
$100
,000
$100
,000
$100
,Co
unty
wid
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,$6
,118
,547
$2,2
11,6
63$2
,780
,137
$928
,747
$164
,052
$10,
793,
270
$4,7
86,1
10$5
,272
,683
$3,8
03,
riod
Tota
ls-
--
-20
08-2
013:
$22,
996,
416
--
Hist
oric
al a
nd F
utur
e Ca
pita
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n Ex
pend
iture
s for
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty,
FY
2007
/08
to 2
016/
17 (s
ales
tax
expe
nditu
res O
NLY
)
anni
ng D
epar
tmen
t
On/
From
/To
FY 2
007/
08FY
200
8/09
FY 2
009/
10FT
201
0/11
FY 2
011/
12FY
201
2/13
FY 2
013/
14FY
201
4/15
FY 2
015/
1At
lant
ic B
lvd,
W o
f 58t
h Av
e$0
$140
,889
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
Osl
o Rd
from
27t
h Av
e to
Tim
ber R
idge
$21,
303
$630
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
16th
St f
rom
66t
h Av
e to
82n
d Av
e$1
45,4
47$7
7,20
9$3
27,1
97$3
09,9
44$0
$0$0
$017
th Ln
from
SW
20t
h Av
e to
27t
h Av
e$2
,295
$49,
462
$1,9
86$0
$0$0
$0$0
53rd
St f
rom
Kin
gs H
wy
to U
S 1
$0$3
6,38
7$0
$1,5
23,6
28$0
$0$0
$0na
l1s
t St S
W @
27t
h Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$1,3
25,0
00$0
$0na
l1s
t St S
W @
43r
d Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$1,3
25,0
00$0
$020
th A
ve @
16t
h St
$0$0
$0$0
$0$7
5,00
0$1
,000
,000
$037
th S
t @ In
dian
Riv
er B
lvd
$0$0
$0$0
$0$1
05,0
00$0
$043
rd A
ve fr
om 1
8th
St to
26t
h St
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$2
,179
,834
$4,4
53,
45 S
t/58
th A
ve$0
$0$0
$0$0
$100
,000
$100
,000
$100
,000
45 S
t @ U
S 1
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$75,
000
$0$6
00,
58th
Ave
@ 3
3rd
St$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$25,
000
58th
Ave
@ 3
7th
St$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$25,
000
58th
Ave
@ 6
9th
St$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$25,
000
66th
Ave
from
4th
Ave
to 1
2th
St$0
$0$0
$0$0
$2,7
81,3
81$0
$066
th A
ve fr
om 1
2th
St to
SR
60$0
$0$5
3,07
9$0
$810
,238
$2,0
27,0
84$0
$066
th A
ve fr
om 7
7th
St to
Seb
astia
n Ci
ty Li
mits
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$7
,550
,000
$500
,66
th A
ve fr
om S
R 60
to 4
9th
St$1
,517
,365
$1,4
79,7
65$8
,435
$1,0
73,3
95$3
72,1
77$4
,600
,000
$9,1
00,0
00$0
69th
St @
US
1$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$25,
000
4th
St @
82n
d Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$755
,000
$0$0
CR 5
10 fr
om 6
1st D
r to
Indi
an R
iver
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$4
00,0
00$7
,300
,CR
510
from
70t
h Av
e to
61s
t Dr
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$4,7
00,
Mis
cella
neou
s$0
$0$0
$0$0
$600
,000
$600
,000
$600
,000
$600
,M
isce
llane
ous
$0$0
$0$0
$0$5
00,0
00$5
00,0
00$5
00,0
00$5
00,
Osl
o Rd
@ S
R 60
$0$0
$0$0
$0$2
5,00
0$0
$0Co
unty
wid
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,$1
,686
,410
$1,7
84,3
42$3
90,6
97$2
,906
,967
$1,1
82,4
15$1
4,36
8,46
5$1
1,52
5,00
0$1
1,57
9,83
4$1
8,80
3,rio
d To
tals
--
--
2008
-201
3:$2
2,31
9,29
6-
-
FY 2
009
– FY
201
8 In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y FD
OT
Wor
k Pr
ogra
m &
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Impr
ovem
ent P
rogr
am –
Cap
acity
-Exp
ansi
on P
roje
cts
for I
ndia
n Ri
ver C
ount
y an
d th
e FY
201
4-20
18 T
rans
port
atio
n Im
prov
emen
t Pro
gram
tion
On/
From
/To
FY 2
009
FY 2
010
FY 2
011
FY 2
012
FY 2
013
FY 2
014
FY 2
015
FY 2
016
FY
ctio
n82
nd A
ve fr
om 2
6th
St to
CR
510
$142
,341
$132
,786
$31,
548
$45,
415
$47,
443
$3,6
50,0
22$8
,045
,507
$0st
ruct
SR 5
/US
1 fr
om S
t. Lu
cie
Co. L
ine
to S
of H
ighl
and
Dr$3
4,96
2$1
,166
$164
,904
$14,
451,
369
$375
,523
$0$0
$0st
ruct
SR 5
/US
1 fr
om S
of H
ighl
and
Dr to
S o
f Osl
o Rd
$1,9
86$3
2,95
7$2
47,2
78$1
2,41
9,01
2$2
85,6
55$0
$0$0
stru
ctSR
5/U
S 1
from
S o
f Osl
o Rd
to S
of I
ndia
n Ri
ver B
lvd
$75,
921
$391
,440
$165
,180
$72
$3,3
22$0
$0$0
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Enha
nce
Traf
fic S
igna
l Sys
tem
$200
,000
$35,
750
$111
,181
$0$0
$0$0
$0In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Co
unty
wid
e Tr
affic
Sig
nal E
quip
men
t Upg
rade
s$0
$0$0
$656
,578
$0$0
$0$0
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
Coun
tyw
ide
Traf
fic S
igna
l Equ
ipm
ent U
pgra
des
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$706
,543
$0st
ruct
SR 6
0/O
sceo
la B
lvd
from
W o
f 82n
d Av
e/CR
609
to 6
6th
Ave/
CR 6
15$1
,143
,945
$15,
786,
537
$1,6
35,8
91$1
74,4
90$0
$0$0
$0st
ruct
SR 6
0/O
sceo
la B
lvd
from
W o
f I-9
5 to
W o
f 82n
d Av
e/CR
609
$791
,639
$4,0
50$3
85,4
20$5
,012
,856
$5,0
00,0
00$0
$0$0
stru
ct16
/17t
h St
from
500
' W o
f 14t
h Av
e to
W o
f SR
5/US
1$4
,056
,733
$168
,834
$93,
759
$249
$0$0
$0$0
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
JPA
Sign
al M
aint
enan
ce &
Ops
on
SHS
$103
,457
$102
,679
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
I-95/
SR 9
@ O
slo
Rd In
terc
hang
e$3
69$0
$59,
529
$1,1
54,8
40$7
,350
$0$3
,400
,000
$0vi
ces/
Syst
emIn
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Si
gnal
Sys
tem
Gro
up 3
$3,0
68,9
99$7
9,25
4$7
42$0
$0$0
$0$0
17th
St S
. of I
ndia
n Ri
ver B
lvd
in V
ero
Beac
h$0
$0$9
9,83
3$1
,150
$0$0
$0$0
Schu
man
n Dr
@ B
arbe
r St
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$1
,690
,000
stru
ct66
th A
ve fr
om S
R 60
to 4
1st S
t$0
$0$0
$5,7
09,6
02$5
60,7
77$0
$0$0
Indi
an R
iver
City
JPA
Sign
al M
aint
enan
ce &
Ops
on
SHS
$0$0
$104
,802
$107
,576
$110
,744
$114
,600
$118
,000
$0In
dian
Riv
er C
ity JP
A Si
gnal
Mai
nten
ance
& O
ps o
n SH
S$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$121
,600
$182
nd A
ve fr
om 2
6th
St to
CR
510
$0$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$2
,835
,946
$1,8
stru
ctO
slo
Rd fr
om S
R 9/
I-95
to 5
8th
Ave
$0$0
$0$0
$0$1
,610
,000
$0$2
,210
,000
stru
ctSR
5/U
S 1
from
53r
d St
to C
R 51
0$0
$0$0
$0$1
1,00
0$3
,005
,000
$5,0
00$0
$1,9
vem
ent
SR 6
0 @
43r
d Av
e$0
$0$0
$0$0
$0$1
,708
,759
$1,1
20,0
00$1
,1ct
ion
CR 5
12$0
$0$0
$0$3
64,0
00$0
$0$0
$9,6
20,3
52$1
6,73
5,45
3$3
,100
,067
$39,
733,
209
$6,7
65,8
14$8
,379
,622
$13,
983,
809
$7,9
77,5
46$5
,0od
Tot
als
--
-20
09-2
013:
$75,
954,
895
--
-20
14
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
D-9
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e D-
8 Av
erag
e M
otor
Veh
icle
Fue
l Effi
cien
cy –
Exc
ludi
ng In
ters
tate
Tra
vel
So
urce
: See
Tab
le D
-9
21.4
6.3
@ 2
1.4
mpg
@ 6
.3 m
pgO
ther
Art
eria
l Rur
al32
2,03
7,00
0,00
0
46
,267
,000
,000
368,
304,
000,
000
87
%13
%O
ther
Rur
al31
9,46
5,00
0,00
0
32
,818
,000
,000
352,
283,
000,
000
91
%9%
Oth
er U
rban
1,39
7,05
9,00
0,00
0
83,0
69,0
00,0
00
1,
480,
128,
000,
000
94
%6%
Tota
l 2,
038,
561,
000,
000
16
2,15
4,00
0,00
0
2,20
0,71
5,00
0,00
0
93
%7%
Gal
lons
@ 2
1.4
mpg
Gal
lons
@ 6
.3 m
pg2,
200,
715
m
iles (
mill
ions
)O
ther
Art
eria
l Rur
al15
,048
,457
,944
7,34
3,96
8,25
4
22,3
92,4
26,1
98
12
0,99
9
ga
llons
(mill
ions
)O
ther
Rur
al14
,928
,271
,028
5,20
9,20
6,34
9
20,1
37,4
77,3
77
18
.19
m
pgO
ther
Urb
an65
,283
,130
,841
13,1
85,5
55,5
56
78
,468
,686
,397
Tota
l 95
,259
,859
,813
25,7
38,7
30,1
59
12
0,99
8,58
9,97
2
Sour
ce:
U.S.
Dep
artm
ent o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion,
Fed
eral
Hig
hway
Adm
inis
trat
ion,
Hig
hway
Sta
tistic
s 201
1, S
ectio
n V,
Tab
le V
M-1
Annu
al V
ehic
le D
ista
nce
Trav
eled
in M
iles
and
Rela
ted
Data
- 20
11 b
y Hi
ghw
ay C
ateg
ory
and
Vehi
cle
Type
http
://w
ww
.fhw
a.do
t.gov
/pol
icyi
nfor
mat
ion/
stat
istic
s.cf
m
Fuel
Con
sum
edTo
tal M
ileag
e an
d Fu
el
Trav
elVe
hicl
e M
iles o
f Tra
vel (
VMT)
@Pe
rcen
t VM
T
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
D-10
Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tabl
e D-
9 An
nual
Veh
icle
Dist
ance
Tra
vele
d in
Mile
s and
Rel
ated
Dat
a (2
011)
- By
Hig
hway
Cat
egor
y an
d Ve
hicl
e Ty
pe1/
Publ
ishe
d M
arch
201
3TA
BLE
VM
-1
ALL
LIGH
T VE
HICL
ES(2
)
SIN
GLE-
UNIT
2-A
XLE
6-TI
RE O
R M
ORE
AN
D CO
MBI
NAT
ION
TR
UCKS
Mot
or-V
ehic
le T
rave
l:
(m
illio
ns o
f veh
icle
-mile
s)20
11 I
nter
stat
e Ru
ral
140,
603
1,24
31,
670
42,9
619,
495
47,6
1618
3,56
457
,111
243,
587
2011
Oth
er A
rter
ial R
ural
232,
385
2,81
41,
981
89,6
5116
,945
29,3
2132
2,03
746
,267
373,
099
2011
Oth
er R
ural
226,
037
3,01
62,
052
93,4
2718
,090
14,7
2931
9,46
532
,818
357,
351
2011
All
Rura
l59
9,02
67,
073
5,70
322
6,04
044
,530
91,6
6682
5,06
513
6,19
697
4,03
8
2011
Int
erst
ate
Urba
n34
1,86
52,
134
2,11
282
,652
14,1
2633
,815
424,
517
47,9
4247
6,70
4
2011
Oth
er U
rban
1,10
2,51
99,
293
5,96
729
4,54
144
,859
38,2
101,
397,
059
83,0
691,
495,
389
2011
All
Urba
n
1,44
4,38
411
,427
8,07
937
7,19
358
,985
72,0
261,
821,
576
131,
011
1,97
2,09
4
2011
Tot
al R
ural
and
Urb
an(5
)2,
043,
409
18,5
0013
,783
603,
232
103,
515
163,
692
2,64
6,64
126
7,20
72,
946,
131
2011
Num
ber o
f mot
or v
ehic
les
192,
513,
278
8,33
0,21
066
6,06
441
,328
,144
7,81
9,05
52,
451,
638
233,
841,
422
10,2
70,6
9325
3,10
8,38
9 r
egis
tere
d(2)
2011
Ave
rage
mile
s tr
avel
ed10
,614
2,22
120
,693
14,5
9613
,239
66,7
6811
,318
26,0
1611
,640
per
veh
icle
2011
Per
son-
mile
s of
trav
el(4
)2,
839,
083
19,9
2729
2,19
280
5,88
810
3,51
516
3,69
23,
644,
971
267,
207
4,22
4,29
7 (
mill
ions
)20
11 F
uel c
onsu
med
88,5
36,6
0242
5,41
01,
932,
823
35,3
25,7
9114
,183
,270
28,1
93,3
5512
3,86
2,39
242
,376
,625
168,
597,
250
(th
ousa
nd g
allo
ns)
2011
Ave
rage
fuel
con
sum
ptio
n pe
r46
051
2,90
285
51,
814
11,5
0053
04,
126
666
veh
icle
(gal
lons
)20
11 A
vera
ge m
iles
trav
eled
per
23.1
43.5
7.1
17.1
7.3
5.9
21.4
6.3
17.5
gal
lon
of fu
el c
onsu
med
(6) T
he c
hang
e in
the
num
ber o
f bus
es is
pri
mar
ily
due
to th
e de
clin
e of
repo
rted
pub
lic
oper
ated
sch
ool b
uses
.
(3) S
ingl
e-U
nit -
sin
gle
fram
e tr
ucks
that
hav
e 2-
Axle
s an
d at
leas
t 6 ti
res
or a
gro
ss v
ehic
le w
eigh
t rat
ing
exce
edin
g 10
,000
lbs.
(4) V
ehic
le o
ccup
ancy
is e
stim
ated
by
the
FHW
A fr
om th
e 20
09 N
atio
nal H
ouse
hold
Tra
vel S
urve
y (N
HTS
); Fo
r sin
gle
unit
truc
k an
d he
avy
truc
ks, 1
mot
or v
ehic
le m
ile
trav
elle
d =
1 pe
rson
-mil
e tr
avel
ed.
(5) V
MT
data
are
bas
ed o
n th
e la
test
HPM
S da
ta a
vail
able
; it m
ay n
ot m
atch
pre
viou
s pu
blis
hed
resu
lts.
SIN
GLE-
UNIT
TR
UCKS
(3)
COM
BIN
ATIO
N
TRUC
KS
SUBT
OTA
LS
ALL
MO
TOR
VEHI
CLES
()
yg
pg
yg
y(
)p
()
g(
MV-
9, a
nd M
V-10
), ot
her d
ata
such
as
the
R.L.
Pol
k ve
hicl
e da
ta, a
nd a
hos
t of m
odel
ing
tech
niqu
es.
FOr 2
011,
cha
nges
in a
cou
ple
of S
tate
s' tr
uck
VMT
subs
tant
iall
y im
pact
ed n
atio
nal t
ruck
VM
T tr
ends
. U
pon
furt
her r
evie
w w
ith
the
Stat
es in
volv
ed, F
HW
A st
ill c
onsi
ders
thes
e ch
ange
s as
mat
eria
l fac
t. H
owev
er, F
HW
A w
ill c
ondu
ct fu
rthe
r ana
lysi
s w
hen
the
2012
dat
a ar
e re
port
ed b
y th
e St
ates
in 2
013.
(2) L
ight
Dut
y Ve
hicl
es S
hort
WB
- pas
seng
er c
ars,
ligh
t tru
cks,
van
s an
d sp
ort u
tili
ty v
ehic
les
wit
h a
whe
elba
se (W
M) e
qual
to o
r les
s th
an 1
21 in
ches
. Li
ght D
uty
Vehi
cles
Lon
g W
B - l
arge
pas
seng
er
cars
, van
s, p
icku
p tr
ucks
, and
spo
rt/u
tili
ty v
ehic
les
wit
h w
heel
base
s (W
B) la
rger
than
121
inch
es.
All L
ight
Dut
y Ve
hicl
es -
pass
enge
r car
s, li
ght t
ruck
s, v
ans
and
spor
t uti
lity
veh
icle
s re
gard
less
of
YEAR
IT
EMLI
GHT
DUTY
VE
HICL
ES
SHO
RT W
B(2)
MO
TOR-
CYCL
ESBU
SES(6
)LI
GHT
DUTY
VE
HICL
ES
LON
G W
B(2)
Appendix E Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Calc
ulat
ed T
rans
port
atio
n Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e
Gaso
line
Tax
Unit
Cons
truct
ion
Cost
:$2
,591
,000
Inte
rsta
te/T
oll F
aci
r gal
lon
to c
apita
l:$0
.211
$0.1
11Co
unty
Rev
(No
ST):
$0.0
56Ca
paci
ty p
er la
ne m
ile:
8,25
5Fa
cilit
y lif
e (y
ears
):25
5Co
unty
Rev
(ST)
:$0
.111
Fuel
Effi
cien
cy:
18.1
9m
pgIn
tere
st ra
te:
2.5%
2.5%
Stat
e Re
venu
es:
$0.1
55Ef
fect
ived
ays
per y
ear:
365
Unit
Trip
Rat
eTr
ip R
ate
Sour
ceAs
sess
able
Tr
ip L
engt
hTo
tal T
rip
Leng
thTr
ip L
engt
h So
urce
% N
ew T
rips
% N
ew T
rips S
ourc
eN
et V
MT(1
) To
tal I
mpa
ct
Cost
Annu
al G
as
Tax
Gas T
ax
Cred
itAn
nual
Sa
les T
axSa
les T
ax
Cred
itTo
tal
du du6.
25FL
Stu
dies
(NHT
S,
AHS,
Cen
sus)
6.62
7.12
FL S
tudi
es10
0%N/
A17
.11
$5,3
70$9
4$1
,732
$50
$232
$1,9
du7.
81FL
Stu
dies
(NHT
S,
AHS,
Cen
sus)
6.62
7.12
FL S
tudi
es10
0%N/
A21
.38
$6,7
10$1
18$2
,174
$62
$288
$2,4
du9.
20FL
Stu
dies
(NHT
S,
AHS,
Cen
sus)
6.62
7.12
FL S
tudi
es10
0%N/
A25
.18
$7,9
04$1
39$2
,561
$73
$339
$2,9
du6.
60Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s5.
105.
60FL
Stu
dies
(LUC
220
/230
)10
0%N/
A13
.92
$4,3
69$7
8$1
,437
$41
$190
$1,6
du4.
17FL
Stu
dies
4.60
5.10
FL S
tudi
es10
0%N/
A7.
93$2
,490
$45
$829
$24
$111
$94
room
6.36
Blen
d IT
E 9t
h &
FL
Stud
ies
6.26
6.76
FL S
tudi
es66
%FL
Stu
dies
10.8
7$3
,410
$60
$1,1
05$3
2$1
49$1
,2
room
5.63
ITE
9th
Editi
on4.
344.
84FL
Stu
dies
77%
FL S
tudi
es7.
78$2
,442
$44
$811
$23
$107
$9
bed
2.76
Blen
d IT
E 9t
h &
FL
Stud
ies
2.59
3.09
FL S
tudi
es89
%FL
Stu
dies
2.63
$826
$16
$295
$8$3
7$3
LF)
bed
2.97
Blen
d IT
E 9t
h &
FL
Stud
ies
3.28
3.78
FL S
tudi
es72
%Sa
me
as L
UC 2
53(s
ee A
ppen
dix
B)2.
90$9
10$1
7$3
13$9
$42
$3
or le
ss1,
000
sf23
.83
FL S
tudi
es(C
ollie
r Cou
nty)
5.55
6.05
FL S
tudi
es89
%FL
Stu
dies
48.6
7$1
5,27
7$2
72$5
,011
$143
$664
$5,6
n 10
,000
sf
1,00
0 sf
34.7
2Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s5.
556.
05FL
Stu
dies
89%
FL S
tudi
es70
.92
$22,
258
$396
$7,2
96$2
08$9
66$8
,2
1,00
0 sf
121.
30IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
2.46
2.96
Sam
e as
LUC
912
46%
Sam
e as
LUC
912
56.7
6$1
7,81
5$3
50$6
,449
$184
$855
$7,3
1,00
0 sf
159.
34Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s2.
462.
96FL
Stu
dies
46%
FL S
tudi
es74
.56
$23,
401
$459
$8,4
57$2
42$1
,124
$9,5
1,00
0 sf
11.0
3IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
5.15
5.65
FL S
tudi
es92
%FL
Stu
dies
21.6
1$6
,783
$121
$2,2
29$6
4$2
97$2
,5
1,00
0 sf
8.11
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
385.
88Sa
me
as L
UC 7
70
(see
App
endi
x B)
89%
Sam
e as
LUC
770
(s
ee A
ppen
dix
B)16
.06
$5,0
40$9
0$1
,658
$47
$218
$1,8
1,00
0 sf
3.82
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1092
%Sa
me
as L
UC 7
107.
48$2
,349
$42
$774
$22
$102
$8
1,00
0 sf
3.56
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1092
%Sa
me
as L
UC 7
106.
97$2
,189
$39
$719
$21
$98
$8
1,00
0 sf
2.15
Blen
d IT
E 9t
h &
FL
Stud
ies
3.10
3.60
FL S
ched
ules
92%
Sam
e as
LUC
710
2.54
$796
$15
$276
$8$3
7$3
use
1,00
0 sf
1.68
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1092
%Sa
me
as L
UC 7
103.
29$1
,033
$18
$332
$10
$46
$3
1,00
0 sf
6.97
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1092
%Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1013
.66
$4,2
86$7
7$1
,419
$40
$186
$1,6
acre
15.6
020
05 IR
C Im
pact
Fee
Stud
y5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1092
%Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1030
.56
$9,5
93$1
72$3
,169
$90
$418
$3,5
acre
2.00
2005
IRC
Impa
ctFe
e St
udy
5.15
5.65
Sam
e as
LUC
710
92%
Sam
e as
LUC
710
3.92
$1,2
30$2
2$4
05$1
2$5
6$4
Calc
ulat
ed T
rans
port
atio
n Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e
Unit
Trip
Rat
eTr
ip R
ate
Sour
ceAs
sess
able
Tr
ip L
engt
hTo
tal T
rip
Leng
thTr
ip L
engt
h So
urce
% N
ew T
rips
% N
ew T
rips S
ourc
eN
et V
MT(1
) To
tal I
mpa
ct
Cost
Annu
al G
as
Tax
Gas T
ax
Cred
itAn
nual
Sa
les T
axSa
les T
ax
Cred
itTo
tal C
1,00
0 gs
f42
.70
ITE
9th
Editi
on2.
643.
14FL
Cur
ve73
%FL
Cur
ve34
.03
$10,
680
$207
$3,8
14$1
09$5
06$4
,32
w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
157.
33Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s1.
902.
40FL
Stu
dies
23%
FL S
tudi
es28
.43
$8,9
23$1
84$3
,390
$97
$451
$3,8
4
1,00
0 sf
28.2
5Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s4.
605.
10FL
Stu
dies
79%
FL S
tudi
es42
.45
$13,
324
$241
$4,4
40$1
27$5
90$5
,03
1,00
0 sf
116.
60Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s3.
173.
67FL
Stu
dies
71%
FL S
tudi
es10
8.52
$34,
060
$643
$11,
847
$338
$1,5
70$1
3,4
1,00
0 sf
511.
00Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s2.
052.
55FL
Stu
dies
58%
FL S
tudi
es25
1.23
$78,
855
$1,6
00$2
9,47
9$8
42$3
,912
$33,
3
1,00
0 sf
103.
38Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s2.
082.
58FL
Stu
dies
56%
FL S
tudi
es49
.79
$15,
628
$316
$5,8
22$1
66$7
71$6
,59
1,00
0 sf
31.4
3Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s3.
624.
12FL
Stu
dies
72%
FL S
tudi
es33
.87
$10,
632
$197
$3,6
30$1
04$4
83$4
,11
serv
ice
bay
43.9
4Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s2.
182.
68FL
Stu
dies
68%
FL S
tudi
es26
.93
$8,4
54$1
70$3
,132
$89
$413
$3,5
4
mps
1,00
0 sf
775.
14Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s1.
512.
01FL
Stu
dies
28%
FL S
tudi
es13
5.52
$42,
534
$924
$17,
024
$486
$2,2
58$1
9,2
1,00
0 sf
5.06
ITE
9th
Editi
on6.
096.
59FL
Stu
dies
54%
FL S
tudi
es6.
88$2
,160
$38
$700
$20
$93
$793
hole
35.7
4IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
6.62
7.12
Sam
e as
LUC
210
90%
FL S
ched
ules
88.0
5$2
7,63
6$4
85$8
,936
$255
$1,1
85$1
0,1
e St
udio
1,00
0 sf
32.9
3IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
5.15
5.65
Sam
e as
LUC
710
94%
FL S
tudi
es65
.92
$20,
690
$370
$6,8
17$1
95$9
06$7
,72
acre
2.28
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
115.
61FL
Sch
edul
es90
%FL
Sch
edul
es4.
34$1
,361
$24
$442
$13
$60
$502
cour
t38
.70
ITE
9th
Editi
on5.
155.
65Sa
me
as L
UC 7
1094
%Sa
me
as L
UC 4
9277
.47
$24,
315
$435
$8,0
15$2
29$1
,064
$9,0
7
boat
ber
th2.
96IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
6.62
7.12
Sam
e as
LUC
210
90%
FL S
ched
ules
7.29
$2,2
89$4
0$7
37$2
1$9
8$8
35
1,00
0 sf
108.
19IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
5.15
5.65
Sam
e as
LUC
710
35%
2009
IRC
Tran
sp.
Impa
ct F
ee S
tudy
80.6
4$2
5,31
0$4
53$8
,346
$238
$1,1
06$9
,45
1,00
0 sf
56.2
4IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
6.62
7.12
Sam
e as
LUC
210
85%
2009
IRC
Tran
sp.
Impa
ct F
ee S
tudy
130.
86$4
1,07
2$7
21$1
3,28
4$3
79$1
,761
$15,
0
1,00
0 sf
27.9
2IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
5.15
5.65
Sam
e as
LUC
710
92%
Sam
e as
LUC
710
54.7
0$1
7,16
9$3
07$5
,656
$162
$753
$6,4
0
bed
5.50
2005
IRC
Impa
ctFe
e St
udy
5.15
5.65
Sam
e as
LUC
710
92%
Sam
e as
LUC
710
10.7
8$3
,382
$61
$1,1
24$3
2$1
49$1
,27
1,00
0 sf
71.8
8Bl
end
ITE
9th
& F
L St
udie
s2.
032.
53FL
Stu
dies
73%
FL S
tudi
es44
.05
$13,
825
$281
$5,1
77$1
48$6
88$5
,86
1,00
0 sf
13.2
2IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
6.62
7.12
Sam
e as
LUC
210
77%
FL S
ched
ules
27.8
6$8
,746
$153
$2,8
19$8
1$3
76$3
,19
1,00
0 sf
40.1
2IT
E 9t
h Ed
ition
5.10
5.60
Sam
e as
LUC
630
(S
ee A
ppen
dix
B)93
%Sa
me
as L
UC 6
30
(see
App
endi
x B)
78.6
8$2
4,69
7$4
42$8
,144
$233
$1,0
82$9
,22
1,00
0 sf
9.11
ITE
9th
Editi
on3.
904.
40FL
Sch
edul
es90
%FL
Sch
edul
es13
.22
$4,1
50$7
6$1
,400
$40
$186
$1,5
8
scre
en10
6.63
Blen
d IT
E 6t
h &
FL
Stud
ies
2.22
2.72
FL S
tudi
es88
%FL
Stu
dies
86.1
4$2
7,03
6$5
40$9
,949
$284
$1,3
19$1
1,2
stud
ent
1.29
ITE
9th
Editi
on4.
304.
80FL
Sch
edul
es80
%FL
Sch
edul
es1.
83$5
76$1
0$1
84$6
$28
$212
stud
ent
162
ITE
9th
Editi
on4
304
80FL
Sche
dule
s90
%FL
Sche
dule
s2
59$8
14$1
5$2
76$8
$37
$313
Calc
ulat
ed T
rans
port
atio
n Im
pact
Fee
Sch
edul
e
rip G
ener
atio
n Ra
te*
Trip
Len
gth*
% N
ew T
rips)
*(1-
Inte
rsta
te/T
oll F
acili
ty A
djus
tmen
t Fac
tor)
/2).
Thi
s ref
lect
s the
uni
t of v
ehic
le m
iles o
f cap
acity
con
sum
ed p
er u
nit o
f dev
elop
men
t and
is m
ultip
lied
by th
e co
st p
er v
ePl
anni
ng D
ivisi
on.
Fees
do
not i
nclu
de th
e ad
min
istra
tive
char
ge
as a
dded
bac
k in
to th
e IT
E 9th
edi
tion
hand
book
, as i
t was
rem
oved
from
ITE
8th e
ditio
n. T
he re
com
men
ded
trip
gen
erat
ion
rate
is b
ased
on
the
peak
hou
r of a
djac
ent s
tree
t tra
ffic
(one
hou
r bet
wee
n 4p
m a
nd 6
pm) m
uo m
men
ded
for t
he v
eter
inar
y cl
inic
is b
ased
on
the
peak
hou
r of a
djac
ent s
tree
t tra
ffic
from
ITE
9th e
ditio
n, m
ultip
lied
by 1
0
Unit
Trip
Rat
eTr
ip R
ate
Sour
ceAs
sess
able
Tr
ip L
engt
hTo
tal T
rip
Leng
thTr
ip L
engt
h So
urce
% N
ew T
rips
% N
ew T
rips S
ourc
eN
et V
MT(1
) To
tal I
mpa
ct
Cost
Annu
al G
as
Tax
Gas T
ax
Cred
itAn
nual
Sa
les T
axSa
les T
ax
Cred
itTo
tal C
r
stud
ent
1.71
ITE
9th
Editi
on4.
304.
80FL
Sch
edul
es90
%FL
Sch
edul
es2.
74$8
59$1
6$2
95$8
$37
$332
or fe
wer
stu
dent
s)
stud
ent
2.00
ITE
Regr
essi
on
Anal
ysis
6.62
7.12
Sam
e as
LUC
210
90%
FL S
ched
ules
4.93
$1,5
47$2
7$4
97$1
4$6
5$5
62
1,00
0 sf
5.40
2005
IRC
Impa
ctFe
e St
udy
2.02
2.52
2009
IRC
Tran
sp.
Impa
ct F
ee S
tudy
89%
2009
IRC
Tran
sp.
Impa
ct F
ee S
tudy
4.01
$1,2
60$2
6$4
79$1
3$6
0$5
39
Appendix F Building and Land Values Supplemental Information for
Correctional, Law Enforcement, Emergency Services, Public Buildings, Library, Solid Waste and Parks and Recreation
Impact Fees
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-1 Impact Fee Update Study
This Appendix provides a summary of building and land value estimates for all impact fee program areas with the exception of transportation and educational facilities. Information related to transportation cost estimates is included in Appendix C and cost estimates for educational facilities are included in Appendix G. Building Values For all of the program areas, the following information was reviewed to estimate building values:
Recent construction completed by Indian River County (if any); Estimates for any planned facilities; Insurance values of existing facilities; Data from other jurisdictions for recently completed facilities; and Discussions with architects/contractors.
The following paragraphs provide a summary for each program area. Correctional Facilities As presented in Table F-1, the construction cost associated with the County’s most recent jail addition (completed in 2008) was $288 per square foot. There are no estimates available for future jail additions, and the insurance values of the existing jail buildings ranged from $140 to $220 per square foot. It is important to note insurance values are considered to provide estimates below the full cost since they typically do not take into consideration certain building components, such as foundation, architectural/design cost, furniture/fixture/equipment, security features, etc. Recent jail construction in other Florida counties and estimates obtained from construction companies and architects suggested a range of $225 to $445 per square foot. Given all this information, a unit cost of $250 per square foot for jail buildings is used in the study. This figure is approximately 8 percent higher than that used in the 2005 study ($232 per square foot) and 22 percent lower that the figure used in the 2007 impact fee study ($321 per square foot). Given that the most recent jail construction in Indian River County was completed at a cost of $288 per square foot, $250 per square foot represents a conservative estimate.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-1 Correctional Facilities Building Value
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County, figures rounded to nearest $10 (3) Source: AJAX Engineering and Florida Department of Correctional Facilities, figures rounded to
nearest $10 (4) Source: Reed Construction (5) Based on discussions with industry architects for a range of a typical jail in Florida based on their
experience To determine the building value of the support facilities, such as the guard house, maintenance shop, etc., insurance value of the existing buildings was reviewed. This analysis suggested a unit cost of $125 per square foot. Emergency Services Facilities As part of this analysis, TOA contacted several Florida jurisdictions to obtain more recent cost information. The bids and estimates received in 2010 for facilities built in 2010 or 2012 range from $190 to $300 per square foot (excluding furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits, fees and other similar expenses). The following chart presents the building construction cost trends based on bids, estimates, and other information obtained during the previous impact fee studies completed by TOA. As presented, the variation in station costs is relatively minor over the past few years.
Source YearBuilding Cost per
Square FootConstruction of IRC Jail Unit E(1) 2008 $288Estimates for a Future Jail N/A N/AInsurance Values of Existing Jail Buildings(2) 2013 $140 - $220Recent Jail Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2009, 2013 $225Estimates from National Construction Companies(4) 2013 $270-$300Estimates from Florida Architects(5) 2013 $285-$445
Used in the Study 2013 $250
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-3 Impact Fee Update Study
Figure F-1 Fire/EMS Station Construction Cost per Square Foot
Source: Fire station construction cost data collected from Florida jurisdictions
In determining the appropriate unit cost for station construction in Indian River County, in addition to these trends, the following data was evaluated:
The most recent fire station expansion and renovation project cost was approximately $300 per square foot (Stations 9 and 12).
The County’s current Capital Improvement Plan includes an estimate ranging from $280 to $325 for a prototype fire station.
The insurance value of existing fire stations is $190 per square foot, which is considered to be a conservative value.
Based on the information summarized in Table F-2, a unit cost of $260 per square foot is used for fire station building value. This figure is based primarily on local construction cost and estimates in Indian River County and is also consistent with statewide trends. Finally, it is almost the same unit value used in the 2005 study and approximately 5 percent lower than that used in the 2007 study ($273 per square foot).
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-2 Fire Station Building Value
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (3) Source: Indian River County, figures rounded to nearest $10 (4) Source: Individual jurisdictions (5) Based on discussions with industry architects for a range of a typical fire station in Florida based on their
experience (includes adjustment for ff&e, site preparation, permits, etc.) In addition to fire stations, the Emergency Services building inventory includes the Training Tower, which was built in 2008. The tower was built for $150 per square foot, which is also used in the impact fee calculations. Law Enforcement Law enforcement buildings tend to include a wide range of buildings, such as office buildings, crime scene buildings, maintenance sheds, etc. In addition, law enforcement facilities tend to include both prime buildings and support buildings, which tend to vary significantly in terms of building cost. Given this, it is difficult to have a comparable cost database from other jurisdictions since the combination of these different types of buildings vary from one jurisdiction to another. Therefore, the estimates used in the impact fee calculations relied primarily on local data. As presented in Table F-3, the County recently completed the conversion of a warehouse to a Crime Scene Investigation Center, at a cost of almost $200 per square foot. In addition, the estimates obtained from the Sheriff’s Master Plan for a future Sheriff’s Office Building and a new Crime Scene Unit Facility range from $250 to $300 per square foot. The insurance values of existing buildings average $165 per square foot and the value of support facilities is $65 per square foot. Finally, the available data from other Florida jurisdictions suggests a range of $175 to $270 per square foot for law enforcement facilities.
Source YearBuilding Cost per
Square FootExpansion of Stations 9 and 12(1) 2010 $300Estimates for Stations 13 and 14(2) FY 2013 - FY 2017 $280 to $325Insurance Values of Existing Fire Stations(3) 2013 $190Recent Fire Station Construction in Other Florida Counties(4) 2010-2012 $190 - $300Estimates from Florida Architects(5) 2013 $230 - $280
Used in the Study 2013 $260
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-5 Impact Fee Update Study
Given this data, the value of prime buildings is estimated at $200 per square foot and the support buildings at $50 per square foot. The value for support buildings took into consideration the insurance values of not only law enforcement support buildings, but also those of public buildings, as presented in Table F-4. These unit figures provided a weighted average cost of $197 per square foot, which is 50 percent higher than the value included in the 2005 study, which was based on historical costs provided by the County and is the same value included in the 2007 study.
Table F-3 Law Enforcement Building Value
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Master Plan (3) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (4) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (5) Recent impact fee studies, represents weighted average of prime and support buildings Public Buildings Similar to law enforcement buildings, public buildings also tend to include a wide range of buildings, such as offices, courthouses, maintenance buildings, parking garages, etc. as well as prime versus support buildings. The most recent public buildings constructed in Indian River County were completed in 2007. Given the changes in construction costs since then, these cost figures were considered outdated and not used. The County has plans to add approximately 10,000 square feet of courtroom space over the next five years, and the cost associated with this expansion is estimated at $200 per square foot. As presented in Table F-4, the insurance value of existing prime buildings averaged $210 per square foot and support buildings averaged $46 per square foot. Finally, the building value of prime and support facilities in other Florida jurisdictions for which information was available, range from $135 to $200 per square foot.
Source YearBuilding Cost per
Square FootConstruction of Crime Scene Investigation Center(1) 2013 $197Future Planned Facilities(2) N/A $250 to $300Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (prime)(3) 2013 $165Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (support)(4) 2013 $65Recent Public Building Construction in Other Florida Counties(5) 2010-2012 $175 - $270
Used in the Study -- Prime Buildings 2013 $200Used in the Study -- Support Buildings 2013 $50
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-6 Impact Fee Update Study
Given this information, the building value of prime facilities is estimated at $210 per square foot and support buildings at $50 per square foot. This results in a weighted average value of $167 per square foot for all buildings, which is within the range of other jurisdiction. It is also almost the same figure as that used in the 2005 study ($169 per square foot) and approximately 25 percent lower than the figure used in the 2007 study ($226 per square foot).
Table F-4 Value of Public Buildings
(1) Source: Indian River County Capital Improvement Plan (2) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (3) Source: Indian River County, includes buildings for which information was available (4) Source: Recent impact fee studies, represents weighted average of prime and support buildings Libraries The most recent library construction in Indian River County was completed in 2009 for a building cost of $263 per square foot. The current average insurance value of existing libraries is $206 per square foot, which tends to represent a conservative estimate. Finally, recent library construction in other Florida jurisdictions provided an average building cost of $245 per square foot. Given this information, a building value of $240 per square foot is used in the library impact fee calculations. This figure is almost same as that used in the 2005 study ($242 per square foot) and represents a decrease of approximately 20 percent from the 2007 study ($296 per square foot).
Source YearBuilding Cost per
Square FootFuture Planned Facilities(1) N/A $200Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (prime)(2) 2013 $210Insurance Values of Existing Buildings (support) (3) 2013 $46Recent Public Building Construction in Other Florida Counties(4) 2010-2012 $135 - $200
Used in the Study -- Prime Buildings 2013 $210Used in the Study -- Support Buildings 2013 $50
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-7 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-5 Library Building Value
(1) Source: Indian River County (2) Source: Indian River County (3) Source: Recent impact fee studies Parks & Recreation Facilities The parks and recreation facilities impact fee inventory includes several recreational facilities. The value of these facilities is based on insurance values, information from other jurisdictions and discussions with the County staff. Solid Waste Facilities The solid waste impact fee inventory includes several customer care centers. Due to the limited information on these facilities, the value is based on the recent reconstruction and expansion of Oslo Convenience Center at a cost of $2.6 million. Land Values For each impact fee program area, land values were determined based on the following analysis, as data available:
Recent land purchases for the related infrastructure (if any); Value of current parcels as reported by the Indian River County Property Appraiser; Value of vacant land by size and by land use; and Vacant land sales over the past three years by size and by land use.
It should be noted that the land value and sales analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser’s database for those vacant properties that have not been sold for a while. This may be due to a lag in the update of land values. The following paragraphs summarize the data used for each program area.
Source YearBuilding Cost per
Square FootConstruction of Brackett Library(1) 2009 $263Insurance Values of Existing Libraries(2) 2013 $206Recent Library Construction in Other Florida Counties(3) 2010-2012 $245
Used in the Study 2013 $240
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-8 Impact Fee Update Study
Correctional Facilities The land value estimate for correctional facilities was provided by the County during the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre) and was based on the sale of vacant land for 4- to 6-acre parcels in West Indian River County (IRC) during the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre). West IRC is defined as the area between 58th Avenue and County Road 512 and represents the area where the County is likely to build future facilities. To provide an apples-to-apples comparison to the 2007 study, vacant land sales for parcels with 4 to 6 acres in West IRC was conducted and supplemented with additional analysis, which is summarized in Table F-6.
The County has not purchased any land for correctional facilities since 2005 and the recent jail expansions were located on the existing Jail/Sheriff Complex. As presented in Table F-6, the value of parcels where the current facilities are located is approximately $46,000 per acre. To supplement this figure, TOA conducted an analysis of vacant land sales and values based on the data included in the Indian River County Property Appraiser database.
Vacant land sales and values were evaluated by land use (residential vs. all land uses) and by size. As mentioned previously, this analysis suggested that sales data indicates higher values than estimates included in the Property Appraiser’s database for those properties that have not been sold for a while.
Because correctional facilities do not have to be located in centralized areas, it is thought to be appropriate to evaluate values of residential properties, which tend to be lower than those for commercial properties. In addition, values of all land uses are also provided. In terms of size, because the current facilities are located on parcels with 10 to 15 acres, values and sales of similar size parcels were evaluated.
Given that the land of current facilities is valued at $46,000 per acre, sales of 4 to 6-acre parcels suggested an average price of $51,000 per acre, and the remaining analysis provided a range of $13,000 per acre to $124,000 per acre for residential properties, an average land value of $50,000 per acre for correctional facilities is found to be a reasonable estimate. This figure represents an increase of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study and a decrease of 70 percent from the 2007 study.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-9 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-6 Land Value Analysis - Correctional Facilities
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database
Value of Current Parcels 2013 $45,600Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $21,353 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $22,622 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,620 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $26,160 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $32,543 - 15 to 20 acres 2013 $31,644Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $95,109 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $97,836 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $61,063 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $124,315 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $63,042 - 15 to 20 acres 2010-2012 $130,357
Used in the Study 2013 $50,000
Variable(1) Year Average Land Value per Acre
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-10 Impact Fee Update Study
Law Enforcement The most recent land purchase for law enforcement facilities was made in 2011, for a price of $355,000 per acre. However, because the parcel included structures, this price is considered to be higher than what the County is likely to pay in the future for vacant land. Discussions with the County and Sheriff’s Office suggested that future expansions outlined in the Master Plan are likely to be located on the existing Jail/Sheriff’s Complex and the recently purchased land. The current value of existing parcels is approximately $50,000 per acre based on information obtained from the Indian River County Property Appraiser. Given this and the range of related vacant land values and sales is of $13,000 per acre to $66,000 per acre, an estimate of $50,000 per acre is used for land value in the calculation of law enforcement impact fee. This figure represents an increase of approximately 40 percent from the 2005 study ($35,000 per acre) and a decrease of 70 percent from the 2007 study ($184,000 per acre).
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-11 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-7 Land Value Analysis - Law Enforcement Facilities
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office, the parcel included structures
Emergency Services Typically, fire stations need to be located at or near major intersections and not in residential areas, for better access and minimum disturbance. As such, land value of these facilities tends to be higher. This can be seen in the current land value of existing fire stations at $102,000 per acre with a range of $16,000 per acre to $171,000 per acre. The
Value of Current Parcels 2013 $50,702Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) 2011 $355,104Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 Unincorporated - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $18,754 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $20,824 Unincorporated - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $23,844 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $29,338Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 Unincorporated - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,614 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $62,617 Unincorporated - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $50,480 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $66,238
Used in the Study 2013 $50,000
Variable(1) Year Average Land Value per Acre
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-12 Impact Fee Update Study
County purchased land for Station 13 in 2010 at a cost of $121,000 per acre. This information along with relevant vacant land value and sales information are summarized in Table F-8.
Table F-8 Land Value Analysis - Emergency Services Facilities
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database (2) Source: Indian River County; Represents land purchase for Station 13, made in 2010.
Value of Current Parcels 2013 $101,802Cost of Recent Land Purchases(2) 2010 $120,517Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $18,105 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,376 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $24,620 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741 - 6 to 15 acres 2013 $32,543Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $59,271 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $56,403 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $61,063 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868 - 6 to 15 acres 2010-2012 $63,042
Used in the Study 2013 $60,000
Variable(1) Year Average Land Value per Acre
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-13 Impact Fee Update Study
Given this information, the high end of vacant land sales ($60,000 per acre) is used for the value of land for emergency services impact fee calculations. This figure is lower than the value of land where existing stations are located and represents a 30-percent decrease from the 2005 study and a 60-percent decrease from the 2007 study. Public Buildings Public buildings include a range of facilities from County offices and courthouses that need to be in central locations to maintenance facilities that have more flexibility in location. Given that the County has not bought any land for public buildings recently and programmed capital expansions will take place on existing land, the land value of parcels where the existing buildings are located is evaluated, which averaged $89,615. This value is used in the impact fee calculations, and represents a decrease of 12 percent from the 2005 study and 50 percent decrease from the 2007 study. Libraries As presented in Table F-9, the current value of land where existing libraries are located averages $38,000, with a range of $15,000 per acre to $330,000 per acre. This information along with the vacant sales values of 4 to 6-acre parcels suggests that an average land value of $50,000 per acre is a reasonable estimate. This figure is 50 percent lower than that used in the 2005 study and 75 percent lower than the 2007 study.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-14 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-9 Land Value Analysis - Libraries
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database
Parks Indian River County’s parks inventory includes parcels ranging from 0.3 acres to 140 acres. As such, a more detailed land value analysis was conducted, as shown in Table F-10. The value of current inventory averages $31,000 per acre. Given that the land values and sales for different acreage groupings range from $17,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre, an average value of $50,000 per acre is found to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. This represents a 45 percent increase from the 2005 study and a 10 percent decrease from the 2007 study.
Value of Current Parcels 2013 $38,929Value of Vacant Land: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $12,855 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $15,727 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $21,884 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2013 $26,741Vacant Land Sales: West IRC - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $43,238 West IRC - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $51,252 Countywide - Residential - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $42,109 Countywide - All Land Uses - 4 to 6 acres 2010-2012 $49,868
Used in the Study 2013 $50,000
Variable(1) Year Average Land Value per Acre
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 F-15 Impact Fee Update Study
Table F-10 Land Value Analysis - Parks
(1) Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser Database
Solid Waste The inventory of solid waste facilities includes only the customer convenience centers used by residential land uses. These facilities are typically built on previous landfills. Given the unique nature of these facilities, the current value of parcels where existing centers are located is used in the study, which averaged $20,000 per acre.
West IRC Unincorporated0.5 to 4 acres $29,474 $94,7974 to 6 acres $12,855 $18,7546 to 15 acres $18,105 $20,82415 to 25 acres $21,353 $22,98520 to 60 acres $18,612 $17,33440 to 130 acres $19,851 $18,754
West IRC Unincorporated0.5 to 4 acres $100,046 $147,0864 to 6 acres $43,238 $42,6146 to 15 acres $59,271 $62,61715 to 25 acres $95,109 $84,91920 to 60 acres $74,877 $64,13140 to 130 acres $47,197 $41,018
$50,000Used in the Study
2013 PA Just Values per Acre (Residential)(1)
2013 Sales per Acre (Residential)(1)
Acreage
Acreage
Appendix G Educational Facilities Impact Fee:
Supplemental Information
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-1 Impact Fee Update Study
This appendix presents the inventory of traditional schools in Indian River County as well as an explanation of building and land value estimates used in the impact fee calculations. School District Inventory The current inventory of traditional schools in Indian River County is presented in Table G-1.
Table G-1 Indian River County School District Existing School Inventory
Source: Indian River School District
Elementary Schools1 Beachland Elementary K-5 543 543 94,5442 Citrus Elementary K-5 556 556 74,7753 Dodgertown Elementary PK-5 560 560 117,3054 Fellsmere Elementary PK-5 546 546 77,4065 Glendale Elementary K-5 612 612 71,7696 Highlands Elementary K-5 619 619 65,8677 Liberty Magnet K-5 666 666 105,7938 Osceola Magnet (NEW) K-5 557 557 78,2179 Pelican Island Elementary K-5 573 573 65,98810 Rosewood Elementary K-5 543 543 84,04211 Sebastian Elementary K-5 637 637 85,82512 Treasure Coast Elementary PK-5 553 553 94,71913 Vero Beach Elementary PK-5 796 796 106,460
Subtotal - Elementary Schools 7,761 7,761 1,122,710Middle Schools
1 Gifford Middle School 6-8 1,136 1,022 135,0332 Oslo Middle School 6-8 1,140 1,026 152,0453 Sebastian River Middle School 6-8 1,107 996 147,7064 Storm Grove Middle School 6-8 1,382 1,244 167,794
Subtotal - Middle Schools 4,765 4,288 602,578High Schools
1 Sebastian River High School 9-12 2,440 2,318 344,334Vero Beach High School (Main Campus) 9-12 2,200 2,090 352,408Vero Beach High School (Freshman Learning Center) 9-12 870 827 129,987Subtotal - High Schools 5,510 5,235 826,729
Grand Total - All Schools 18,036 17,284 2,552,017
2
SchoolsNumberPermanent
Capacity (after FISH capacity
Permanent Student Stations
GradeFISH
Permanent Net Square
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Building Cost Analysis To determine the architectural, civil design, site improvement, construction, and FF&E costs associated with building a new school in Indian River County, the following information was evaluated:
Recently built schools in Indian River County; Cost estimates included in the Educational Plant Survey; Insurance values of the existing schools; Cost related information provided by the Indian River County School District; and School cost information for 135 schools in other Florida counties.
The following paragraphs provide further detail on this research and analysis. Construction Cost The last schools built in Indian River County included the replacement of Vero Beach Elementary School in 2012 and the construction of a new middle school (Storm Grove Middle School) in 2009. The cost associated with these schools ranged from $156 per net square foot for the elementary school to $241 per net square foot for the middle school, as shown in Table G-2. In addition, the District’s Educational Plant Survey includes several school expansion projects. The estimated cost associated with these expansions ranges from $228 per net square foot to $343 per net square foot. Discussions with the School District confirmed that there were certain elements unique to the Storm Grove Middle School, which resulted in higher cost and the additions tend to be more expensive than new school construction. Finally, the insurance values of existing school buildings range from approximately $145 per net square foot for elementary schools to $185 per net square foot for high schools, with an average of $165 per net square foot for all traditional schools. These figures are consistent with the construction costs observed in other jurisdictions. Table G-3 summarizes data obtained from the Florida Department of Education for schools built in 2011. As shown, the average construction cost is approximately $175 per net square foot, with a range of $145 per net square foot for elementary schools to $200 per net square foot for high schools. Given this data and information, average construction costs of $145 per net square foot for elementary schools, $175 per net square foot for middle schools, and $185 per net square
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-3 Impact Fee Update Study
foot for high schools are used in this study, which is based on the insurance values that are also consistent with costs obtained from other Florida jurisdictions and represent a conservative estimate.
Table G-2 Construction Cost Analysis – Indian River County
(1), (2), (3), (4) Source: Indian River County School District (5) Construction cost (Item 3) divided by net permanent square feet (Item 4) (6) Source: IRC School District Educational Plant Five Year Survey Report, August 23, 2013 (7) Source: IRC Statement of Values for School Facilities, 2013
Year Built(1) Facility Name(2) Construction
Cost(3)
Net Permanent
Square Feet(4)
Constrution Cost per NSF(5)
2009 Storm Grove Middle School $34,106,673 141,066 $2422012 Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 110,495 $156
Educational Plant Survey Estimates for School Additions(6) $228 - $343
$146$175$186$165
Insurance Values of Existing School Buildings:(7)
- Elementary Schools - Middle Schools - High Schools - All Traditional Schools
Indi
an R
iver
Cou
nty
| Im
pact
Fee
Upd
ate
Stud
y
Tind
ale-
Oliv
er &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc.
In
dian
Riv
er C
ount
y Se
ptem
ber 2
014
G-4
Impa
ct F
ee U
pdat
e St
udy
Tabl
e G-
3 Co
nstr
uctio
n Co
st A
naly
sis
– O
ther
Flo
rida
Juris
dict
ions
So
urce
: Flo
rida
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
Year
Bui
ltCo
unty
Faci
lity
Nam
e/Ty
peCo
nstr
uctio
n Co
stTo
tal C
ost
Net
Sq.
Ft.
Cons
truc
tion
Cost
per
Net
SF
2011
Char
lott
eM
eado
w P
ark
Elem
enta
ry$1
2,69
6,11
6$1
8,41
5,28
089
,652
$142
2011
Duva
lW
ater
leaf
Ele
men
tary
$14,
882,
021
$24,
786,
442
82,0
62$1
8120
11Es
cam
bia
Glob
al Le
arni
ng A
cade
my
$17,
019,
155
$24,
108,
501
120,
015
$142
2011
Osc
eola
High
land
s Ele
men
tary
$1
4,53
4,30
9$1
8,14
5,24
410
6,91
8$1
3620
11Pa
sco
Conn
erto
n El
emen
tary
"R"
$11,
598,
590
$19,
102,
688
84,9
72$1
36To
tal/
Wei
ghte
d Av
erag
e --
Ele
men
tary
Sch
ools
$70,
730,
191
$104
,558
,155
483,
619
$146
Mid
dle
Scho
ols
2011
Dade
Nor
th D
ade
Mid
dle
$18,
921,
534
$21,
216,
883
94,6
60$2
0020
11O
rang
eLa
ke N
ona
Mid
dle
$16,
923,
455
$23,
466,
083
149,
897
$113
2011
Polk
Boon
e M
iddl
e$1
7,90
0,96
3$2
0,31
2,46
869
,921
$256
2011
Wal
ton
Emer
ald
Coas
t Mid
dle
$15,
918,
884
$25,
134,
830
126,
770
$126
Tota
l/W
eigh
ted
Aver
age
-- M
iddl
e Sc
hool
s$6
9,66
4,83
6$9
0,13
0,26
444
1,24
8$1
58Hi
gh S
choo
ls20
11Br
owar
dLa
nier
Jam
es E
duca
tion
Cent
er$8
,889
,147
$12,
412,
686
42,6
08$2
0920
11Ca
lhou
nBl
ount
stow
n Hi
gh$1
9,40
7,91
0$2
5,13
5,92
810
0,36
6$1
9320
11Ch
arlo
tte
Char
lott
e Hi
gh$6
1,75
5,84
2$9
2,39
0,74
725
8,70
0$2
3920
11Da
deIn
tern
atio
nal S
tudi
es S
HS$7
,192
,325
$21,
846,
054
35,1
37$2
0520
11Da
deM
edic
al A
cade
my
or S
cien
ce a
nd T
echn
olog
y$9
,303
,705
$18,
811,
197
78,8
45$1
1820
11O
keec
hobe
eO
keec
hobe
e Ac
hiev
emen
t Aca
dem
y$5
,499
,975
$6,6
96,9
3143
,024
$128
2011
Polk
Aubu
rnda
le S
enio
r$1
9,52
2,05
3$2
4,48
2,93
310
1,46
6$1
9220
11Po
lkDa
venp
ort S
choo
l of t
he A
rts
$29,
136,
512
$32,
548,
129
157,
446
$185
2011
Polk
Kath
leen
Sen
ior
$24,
323,
662
$27,
493,
666
112,
017
$217
2011
Polk
Win
ter H
aven
Sen
ior
$26,
374,
234
$29,
588,
106
140,
940
$187
Tota
l/W
eigh
ted
Aver
age
-- H
igh
Scho
ols
$211
,405
,365
$291
,406
,377
1,07
0,54
9$1
97$3
51,8
00,3
92$4
86,0
94,7
961,
995,
416
$176
Tota
l/W
eigh
ted
Aver
age
(All
Scho
ols)
Elem
enta
ry S
choo
ls
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-5 Impact Fee Update Study
Architectural, Civil Design, Site Preparation, Furniture, Fixture and Equipment Costs The architectural, civil design, site preparation (including on-site improvement and traffic control costs), and FF&E costs (including technology) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Indian River County and other jurisdictions. These figures were also discussed with the District’s representatives and are estimated at 10 percent of construction for architectural/civil design costs, 10 percent for site preparation costs, and 7 percent for FF&E costs. Tables G-4 and G-5 summarize the data obtained from Indian River County and other jurisdictions.
008 Clay Elem OakLeaf Vil lage Elementary $22,067,755 $1,132,542 5% $1,497,860008 Clay Elem Plantation Oaks Elementary $15,709,595 $927,982 6% $900,000008 Clay Elem Shadowlawn Elementary $23,666,356 $1,091,411 5% $1,544,656008 Collier Elem Parkside Elementary $21,099,395 $671,650 3% $2,665,658008 Collier Elem Veterans Memorial Elementary $16,957,004 $546,022 3% $2,625,757008 Highlands Elem Memorial Elementary $10,296,575 $749,240 7% $1,691,188008 Hillsborough Elem Kimbell Elementary $10,540,220 $510,924 5% $1,150,000008 Hillsborough Elem Reddick Elementary $13,342,791 $765,913 6% $1,117,452008 Lake Elem Grassy Lake Elementary $16,110,171 $607,929 4% $1,572,102008 Lake Elem Mascotte Charter Elementary $17,028,093 $552,701 3% $1,414,128008 Lake Elem Minneola Charter Elementary $16,878,476 $624,283 4% $1,506,036008 Lake Elem Sawgrass Bay Elementary $15,816,096 $472,825 3% $1,538,956008 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $21,224,842 $396,000 2% $1,451,720008 Lee Elem Treeline Elementary School $15,989,080 $385,950 2% $1,452,508008 Orange Elem Conway Elementary School $10,376,998 $550,000 5% $750,000008 Orange Elem Lakemont Elementary School $12,830,008 $761,020 6% $912,049008 Orange Elem Timber Lakes Elementary School $12,465,522 $663,155 5% $968,647008 Orange Elem Westbrooke Elementary School $13,259,968 $473,978 4% $1,000,000008 Osceola Elem Flora Ridge Elementary $15,804,425 $414,305 3% $2,161,629008 Osceola Elem New ES "J" (Harmony Community) $13,632,941 $566,980 4% $2,299,583008 Palm Beach Elem Allamanda Elementary $23,238,839 $1,171,581 5% $879,820008 Palm Beach Elem Forest Park Elementary $24,150,475 $1,185,476 5% $779,820008 Palm Beach Elem Hagen Ranch Elementary $22,672,614 $1,267,703 6% $971,083008 Palm Beach Elem Palm Beach Gardens Elementary $22,077,886 $1,262,407 6% $779,838008 Palm Beach Elem Pine Jog Elementary $29,144,023 $1,358,825 5% $992,167008 Palm Beach Elem Westward Elementary $27,207,724 $1,324,188 5% $869,654008 Palm Beach Elem Sunset Palms Elementary $24,576,913 $1,069,387 4% $997,614008 Pasco Elem New River Elementary "M" $11,301,689 $521,935 5% $1,325,467008 Pinellas Elem New Heights Elementary $22,910,850 $1,374,287 6% $1,171,311008 Pinellas Elem Tarpon Springs Elementary $19,675,615 $989,498 5% $2,746,022008 Polk Elem Horizons Elementary $18,873,956 $557,676 3% $1,642,347008 Volusia Elem Pride Elementary ("Y") $14,935,273 $723,815 5% $1,590,038008 Walton Elem Mossy Head School $18,827,427 $1,021,674 5% $578,838008 St. Lucie High Ft. Pierce Central High School $63,908,401 $2,108,410 3% $3,993,169008 Broward High West Broward High $74,974,472 $2,627,821 4% $5,739,011008 Franklin High Franklin County Schools $22,955,575 $1,395,385 6% $975,000008 Lee High Island Coast High School $41,559,854 $1,138,351 3% $4,350,121008 Pasco High Wiregrass Ranch High School "CCC" $22,880,482 $1,045,502 5% $3,502,243008 Polk High Tenoroc Senior $60,017,596 $1,454,175 2% $3,972,131008 Sarasota High Suncoast Polytechnical High School $11,730,040 $1,030,406 9% $2,160,265008 St. Johns High Creekside High School ("DDD") $45,425,406 $2,399,921 5% $3,150,626008 St. Johns High Ponte Vedra High School CCC $54,638,612 $2,115,456 4% $3,096,813008 Leon Middle Montford Middle School $22,008,118 $1,345,194 6% $2,049,255008 Bay Middle Breakfast Point Academy K-8 $25,975,683 $1,463,300 6% $1,661,916008 Charlotte Middle Punta Gorda Middle School $23,896,506 $1,829,098 8% $564,072008 Collier Middle Cypress Palm Middle $26,535,164 $1,654,176 6% $3,551,727008 Collier Middle Marco Charter Middle $14,450,518 $580,583 4% $539,228008 Duval Middle North Shore K-8 $25,222,118 $1,690,172 7% $2,651,960008 Flagler Middle Bunnell K-8 $17,776,495 $1,431,966 8% $1,481,305008 Hillsborough Middle Smith Middle $20,160,152 $969,246 5% $2,010,000008 Lee Middle Oak Hammock Middle School $24,359,562 $623,895 3% $1,932,445008 Marion Middle Liberty Middle $28,242,481 $753,275 3% $1,391,187008 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $3,004,145 10% $2,077,048008 St. Lucie Middle Allapattah Flats K-8 $34,488,744 $2,109,609 6% $4,788,814008 St. Lucie Middle Palm Pointe Educational Research School at Tradition $24,836,235 $1,164,091 5% $4,425,642009 Okaloosa Elem Riverside Elementary School $11,716,323 $1,448,365 12% $3,066,309009 Bay Elem Deer Point Elementary $16,646,867 $1,046,428 6% $1,106,071009 Broward Elem Discovery Elementary (K-6) $24,813,884 $1,017,051 4% $2,729,823009 Broward Elem Heron Heights Elementary $25,377,383 $1,101,087 4% $2,821,297009 Charlotte Elem East Elementary $14,128,364 $1,189,449 8% $750,180009 Collier Elem Eden Park Elementary (K-6) $19,625,793 $743,765 4% $2,824,488009 Collier Elem Mike Davis Elementary $18,747,061 $830,774 4% $2,390,841009 Duval Elem Bartram Springs Elementary $16,349,939 $942,474 6% $1,752,167009 Hillsborough Elem Bailey Elementary $7,308,787 $554,962 8% $1,475,000009 Hillsborough Elem Stowers Elementary $10,360,379 $596,594 6% $1,475,000009 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $20,794,081 $464,500 2% $1,635,759009 Lee Elem Lehigh Elementary School $15,702,253 $641,950 4% $856,087009 Manatee Elem G.D. Rogers Garden Elementary $12,223,480 $1,049,384 9% $788,800009 Martin Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $21,130,325 $1,067,331 5% $1,280,297009 Orange Elem Keene's Crossing Elementary School $12,452,304 $515,371 4% $1,196,557009 Osceola Elem KOA Elementary School (Elem L) $12,610,702 $621,750 5% $1,787,818009 Osceola Elem Narcoossee Elementary (ES M) $14,770,196 $611,435 4% $1,800,412009 Palm Beach Elem C.O. Taylor/Kirklane Elementary $35,663,420 $1,864,969 5% $1,013,080009 Palm Beach Elem Hope-Centennial Elementary $25,030,950 $2,092,633 8% $868,294009 Polk Elem Spessard Holland Elementary $15,642,049 $572,492 4% $1,508,553009 Sarasota Elem Atwater Elementary School $12,524,430 $1,802,665 14% $651,817009 V l i El Ch i El t $14 696 164 $725 513 5% $950 364
rce: IRC School District for IRC schools; Florida Department of Education for all other jurisdictions
009 Osceola Middle Westside K-8 School $23,051,370 $1,363,350 6% $2,686,144009 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $3,004,145 10% $2,077,048009 St. Johns Middle Liberty Pines Academy (K-8) $25,277,687 $971,288 4% $1,197,445010 Broward Elem Norcrest Elementary $22,286,245 $885,319 4% $1,257,845010 Collier Elem Palmetto Elementary $20,224,743 $889,743 4% $2,671,470010 Lake Elem Sorrento Elemenatry $15,842,160 $668,339 4% $1,896,206010 Orange Elem Old Cheney/North Forsyth Elementary $12,096,899 $783,588 6% $987,926010 Osceola Elem East Lake Elementary $11,747,305 $537,980 5% $1,885,002010 Palm Beach Elem Everglades Elementary $15,940,134 $1,863,296 12% $1,075,126010 Palm Beach Elem Northboro Elementary $24,168,146 $1,990,621 8% $780,037010 Palm Beach Elem Plumosa Elementary $21,038,789 $2,075,316 10% $715,049010 Seminole Elem New Midway Elementary $12,297,322 $810,700 7% $1,133,007010 Clay High Oakleaf High $50,819,745 $2,562,240 5% $3,064,772010 Duval High Atlantic Coast High $50,466,294 $5,220,136 10% $5,048,820010 Hernando High Weeki Watchee High $33,006,787 $1,939,097 6% $4,719,813010 Sarasota High Riverview High $78,561,000 $5,999,998 8% $4,377,536010 Collier High Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology High $9,843,413 $795,386 8% $1,312,405010 Orange High Apopka HS Replacement $70,267,621 $2,112,349 3% $4,733,044010 Palm Beach High Palm Beach Gardens Community High $75,097,581 $3,829,735 5% $3,330,581010 Palm Beach High Suncoast High $59,972,270 $3,938,916 7% $2,280,000010 Volusia High University High $72,990,143 $3,092,214 4% $6,096,162011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 $944,273 7% $674,842011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 $1,621,628 11% $1,899,236011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 $1,682,415 10% $2,861,931011 Osceola Elem Highlands Elementary $14,534,309 $666,978 5% $1,650,318011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 $858,671 7% $1,298,389011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 $1,968,893 10% $994,719011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 $6,502,129 11% $2,676,408011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center $8,889,147 $1,075,459 12% $1,304,137011 Dade High International Studies SHS $7,192,325 $684,965 10% $757,496011 Dade High Medical Academy or Science and Technology $9,303,705 $762,932 8% $919,966011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 $453,761 8% $427,114011 Polk High Auburndale Senior $19,522,053 $1,462,146 7% $3,124,050011 Polk High Davenport School of the Arts $29,136,512 $1,042,674 4% $2,330,971011 Polk High Kathleen Senior $24,323,662 $875,094 4% $2,267,250011 Polk High Winter Haven Senior $26,374,234 $853,483 3% $2,360,389011 Dade Middle North Dade Middle $18,921,534 $867,900 5% $1,122,762011 Hernando Middle Winding Waters K-8 $14,559,177 $880,709 6% $4,279,500011 Orange Middle Lake Nona Middle $16,923,455 $1,277,253 8% $1,795,567011 Polk Middle Boone Middle $17,900,963 $1,080,157 6% $1,331,348011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 $1,709,689 11% $700,000012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,476,006 9% $1,342,512
$3,366,044,179 $185,827,182 6% $281,633,327$51,349,776 $3,681,013 7% $5,533,513
$3,314,694,403 $182,146,169 5% $276,099,814
/Weighted Average/Weighted Average (IRC Schools ONLY)/Weighted Average (Excluding IRC Schools)
2008 Citrus Elem Central Ridge Elementary $20,066,027 $3,200 02008 Clay Elem Plantation Oaks Elementary $15,709,595 $2,001,795 132008 Collier Elem Parkside Elementary $21,099,395 $609,364 32008 Collier Elem Veterans Memorial Elementary $16,957,004 $554,493 32008 Highlands Elem Memorial Elementary $10,296,575 $2,623,522 252008 Hillsborough Elem Kimbell Elementary $10,540,220 $798,597 82008 Hillsborough Elem Reddick Elementary $13,342,791 $692,203 52008 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $21,224,842 $705,540 32008 Lee Elem Treeline Elementary School $15,989,080 $1,494,920 92008 Orange Elem Conway Elementary School $10,376,998 $500,000 52008 Orange Elem Lakemont Elementary School $12,830,008 $300,967 22008 Orange Elem Timber Lakes Elementary School $12,465,522 $1,601,516 132008 Orange Elem Westbrooke Elementary School $13,259,968 $1,145,801 92008 Osceola Elem Flora Ridge Elementary $15,804,425 $684,259 42008 Osceola Elem New ES "J" (Harmony Community) $13,632,941 $1,300,802 102008 Palm Beach Elem Allamanda Elementary $23,238,839 $2,192,788 92008 Palm Beach Elem Forest Park Elementary $24,150,475 $3,842,794 162008 Palm Beach Elem Hagen Ranch Elementary $22,672,614 $4,135,688 182008 Palm Beach Elem Palm Beach Gardens Elementary $22,077,886 $3,007,648 142008 Palm Beach Elem Pine Jog Elementary $29,144,023 $2,874,817 102008 Palm Beach Elem Westward Elementary $27,207,724 $705,832 32008 Palm Beach Elem Sunset Palms Elementary $24,576,913 $1,359,139 62008 Pasco Elem New River Elementary "M" $11,301,689 $2,134,030 192008 Pinellas Elem New Heights Elementary $22,910,850 $2,778,418 122008 Pinellas Elem Tarpon Springs Elementary $19,675,615 $2,740,407 142008 Volusia Elem Pride Elementary ("Y") $14,935,273 $1,296,294 92008 Walton Elem Mossy Head School $18,827,427 $32,000 02008 St. Lucie High Ft. Pierce Central High School $63,908,401 $5,309,308 82008 Broward High West Broward High $74,974,472 $149,041 02008 Franklin High Franklin County Schools $22,955,575 $500,000 22008 Lee High Island Coast High School $41,559,854 $5,418,852 132008 Pasco High Wiregrass Ranch High School "CCC" $22,880,482 $4,536,580 202008 Sarasota High Suncoast Polytechnical High School $11,730,040 $1,463,101 122008 Leon Middle Montford Middle School $22,008,118 $39,230 02008 Bay Middle Breakfast Point Academy K-8 $25,975,683 $3,838,363 152008 Charlotte Middle Punta Gorda Middle School $23,896,506 $2,968,607 122008 Collier Middle Cypress Palm Middle $26,535,164 $619,584 22008 Collier Middle Marco Charter Middle $14,450,518 $98,219 12008 Duval Middle North Shore K-8 $25,222,118 $450,000 22008 Flagler Middle Bunnell K-8 $17,776,495 $1,168,123 72008 Hillsborough Middle Smith Middle $20,160,152 $932,385 52008 Lee Middle Oak Hammock Middle School $24,359,562 $885,000 42008 Marion Middle Liberty Middle $28,242,481 $3,687,549 132008 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $6,909,752 222008 St. Lucie Middle Allapattah Flats K-8 $34,488,744 $3,351,476 102008 St. Lucie Middle Palm Pointe Educational Research School at Tradition $24,836,235 $4,993,386 202009 Okaloosa Elem Riverside Elementary School $11,716,323 $2,148,260 182009 Bay Elem Deer Point Elementary $16,646,867 $1,711,350 102009 Broward Elem Discovery Elementary (K-6) $24,813,884 $3,397 02009 Charlotte Elem East Elementary $14,128,364 $1,389,286 102009 Collier Elem Eden Park Elementary (K-6) $19,625,793 $2,083,000 112009 Collier Elem Mike Davis Elementary $18,747,061 $1,722,320 92009 Duval Elem Bartram Springs Elementary $16,349,939 $1,427,211 92009 Hillsborough Elem Bailey Elementary $7,308,787 $753,646 102009 Hillsborough Elem Stowers Elementary $10,360,379 $941,642 92009 Lee Elem Heights Elementary School $20,794,081 $220,848 12009 Lee Elem Lehigh Elementary School $15,702,253 $679,758 42009 Manatee Elem G.D. Rogers Garden Elementary $12,223,480 $969,092 82009 Martin Elem Citrus Grove Elementary $21,130,325 $722,012 32009 Orange Elem Keene's Crossing Elementary School $12,452,304 $1,487,617 122009 Osceola Elem KOA Elementary School (Elem L) $12,610,702 $1,874,555 152009 Osceola Elem Narcoossee Elementary (ES M) $14,770,196 $631,727 42009 Palm Beach Elem C O Taylor/Kirklane Elementary $35 663 420 $3 628 916 10
ource: IRC School District for IRC schools; Florida Department of Education for all other jurisdictions
2009 Okaloosa Middle Shoal River Middle School $12,779,256 $2,170,119 172009 Duval Middle Westview K-8 $29,119,287 $1,708,817 62009 Hernando Middle Explorer K-8 $41,212,410 $1,200,000 32009 Hillsborough Middle Barrington Middle School $16,315,050 $1,368,167 82009 Indian River Middle Storm Grove Middle School $34,106,673 $6,629,160 192009 Lake Middle East Ridge Middle School $27,281,965 $599,565 22009 Osceola Middle Westside K-8 School $23,051,370 $2,162,558 92009 Sarasota Middle Woodland Middle School $31,412,195 $6,909,752 222010 Broward Elem Norcrest Elementary $22,286,245 $37,949 02010 Collier Elem Palmetto Elementary $20,224,743 $2,440,985 122010 Lake Elem Sorrento Elemenatry $15,842,160 $48,712 02010 Orange Elem Old Cheney/North Forsyth Elementary $12,096,899 $1,815,172 152010 Osceola Elem East Lake Elementary $11,747,305 $1,255,467 112010 Palm Beach Elem Everglades Elementary $15,940,134 $2,286,725 142010 Palm Beach Elem Northboro Elementary $24,168,146 $1,482,606 62010 Palm Beach Elem Plumosa Elementary $21,038,789 $1,967,540 92010 Clay High Oakleaf High $50,819,745 $274,000 12010 Duval High Atlantic Coast High $50,466,294 $7,648,460 152010 Sarasota High Riverview High $78,561,000 $14,665,000 192010 Collier High Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology High $9,843,413 $287,278 32010 Orange High Apopka HS Replacement $70,267,621 $9,439,283 132010 Palm Beach High Palm Beach Gardens Community High $75,097,581 $10,693,532 142010 Palm Beach High Suncoast High $59,972,270 $9,785,603 162010 Volusia High University High $72,990,143 $12,232,947 172011 Charlotte Elem Meadow Park Elementary $12,696,116 $1,802,689 142011 Duval Elem Waterleaf Elementary $14,882,021 $1,361,500 92011 Escambia Elem Global Learning Academy $17,019,155 $200,000 12011 Osceola Elem Highlands Elementary $14,534,309 $1,293,639 92011 Pasco Elem Connerton Elementary "R" $11,598,590 $2,313,586 202011 Calhoun High Blountstown High $19,407,910 $1,362,604 72011 Charlotte High Charlotte High $61,755,842 $7,904,370 132011 Broward High Lanier James Education Center $8,889,147 $918,943 102011 Okeechobee High Okeechobee Achievement Academy $5,499,975 $1,300 02011 Walton Middle Emerald Coast Middle $15,918,884 $1,717,116 112012 Indian River Elem Vero Beach Elementary $17,243,103 $1,472,272 9
$2,779,762,814 $273,373,775 10$51,349,776 $8,101,432 16
$2,728,413,038 $265,272,343 10
otal/Weighted Averageotal/Weighted Average (IRC Schools ONLY)otal/Weighted Average (Excluding IRC Schools)
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 G-10 Impact Fee Update Study
Land Value Analysis To estimate the current land value the following analysis is conducted:
A review of current market value of land from the Property Appraiser database where the existing schools are located;
An analysis of vacant land sales in Indian River County over the past three years for parcels of necessary size; and
An analysis of market value of all vacant land from the Property Appraiser database for parcels of necessary size.
The current value of existing school sites and vacant land value of parcels with similar sizes ranged from $10,000 per acre to $32,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels with similar size over the past three years indicated a range of $18,000 per acre to $130,000 per acre. This data is summarized in Table G-6. Based on this information, an average value of $50,000 per acre is used in the impact fee calculations.
Source: Indian River County Property Appraiser’s Database
- All Traditional Schools 2013 $20,171Value of Vacant Land:
- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $21,353 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $18,612 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,445 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,851
- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $22,622 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $22,181 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,445 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,851
- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $26,160 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $19,602 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,193 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,288
- 15 to 25 acres 2013 $31,644 - 20 to 60 acres 2013 $20,884 - 60 to 100 acres 2013 $19,193 - 40 to 130 acres 2013 $19,288Vacant Land Sales:
- 15 to 25 acres 2010-2012 $95,109 - 20 to 60 acres 2010-2012 $74,877 - 60 to 100 acres 2010-2012 $17,704 - 40 to 130 acres 2010-2012 $47,197
- 15 to 25 acres 2010-2012 $97,836 - 20 to 60 acres 2010-2012 $74,877 - 60 to 100 acres 2010-2012 $17,704 - 40 to 130 acres 2010-2012 $47,197
- 15 to 25 acres 2010-2012 $124,315 - 20 to 60 acres 2010-2012 $85,304 - 60 to 100 acres 2010-2012 $17,704 - 40 to 130 acres 2010-2012 $39,883
- 15 to 25 acres 2010-2012 $130,357 - 20 to 60 acres 2010-2012 $85,304 - 60 to 100 acres 2010-2012 $17,704 - 40 to 130 acres 2010-2012 $39,883
Used in the Study 2013 $50,000
West IRC - Residential
West IRC - All Land Uses
Countywide - Residential
Countywide - All Land Uses
West IRC - Residential
West IRC - All Land Uses
Countywide - Residential
Countywide - All Land Uses
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix H Administrative Fee
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 H-1 Impact Fee Update Study
Administrative Fee The Florida Impact Fee Act, Florida Statute (F.S.) 163.31801, requires that administrative charges for the collection of impact fees be limited to actual costs. Examples of typical administrative costs include:
Personnel expenses associated with the administration of the program (e.g., salary and fringe of the impact fee coordinator and other staff responsible with the administration of the program, etc.);
Cost of the technical studies and other consulting fees; Attorney costs related to impact fee matters; and Other central cost allocation (a portion of the time spent by the County Manager,
various County Departments, etc.). The administrative cost can be taken out of the revenues or can be added to the adopted fee levels. At this time, Indian River County collects 2.5 percent of the impact fee in addition to the impact fee amount. This amount increases to 3 percent within the cities, with the County retaining 1 percent and each City retaining the remaining 2 percent. The County tracks the administrative costs, which are presented in the following table for the past five years. Between 2008 and 2012, the average annual expense associated with the administration of the impact fee program was approximately $178,000. During the same time period, the County collected an average of $1.1 million of impact fees per year. This suggests that the administrative cost is approximately 15 percent of the collections. As such, the 2.5-percent fee that the County is collecting represents a conservative approach and will continue to be so until the impact fee revenues reach to approximately $7 million per year.
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 H-2 Impact Fee Update Study
Table H-1 Administrative Expense
Source: Indian River County TOA conducted research to understand how other jurisdictions address this issue. The following is a summary of the information obtained:
Brevard County’s impact fee ordinances indicate different administrative fee percentages for each impact fee program area, which are used to limit the amount taken out of the collected fees for administrative costs, and are not charged in addition to the adopted fees. The ordinances include the following general language: “The Board of County Commissioners shall be entitled to, but not more than, X% of the funds collected pursuant to this division, to compensate for the administrative expense of collecting and administrating this impact fee program. All remaining funds collected from impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to, and expansion of, the county’s infrastructure programs.” The allowed percentage is 2% in the case of solid waste impact fee, 5% in the case of library impact fee, and 8% in the case of correctional facilities, fire rescue, EMS, and roads impact fees. In the case of educational facilities impact fee, the interlocal agreement between the County and the School District reads, “The County is entitled to retain up to, but not more than, 2.5% of the amount of educational facilities impact fees collected for administration of the ordinance. In calculating the amount of administrative fee, the County shall include those expenditures that are reasonably associated with the
Expense 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Personnel $50,635 $76,088 $96,007 $88,567 $86,121 $397,417General & Administrative $6,212 $7,456 $9,285 $9,083 $8,467 $40,503Other Professional Services $29,466 $0 $2,100 $14,003 $101,610 $147,179Interdepartmental Charges $54,597 $51,721 $56,357 $59,697 $74,689 $297,062Supplies, Equipment & Other $722 $2,015 $1,495 $773 $1,813 $6,817Total $141,632 $137,280 $165,243 $172,123 $272,699 $888,977
Annual Impact Fee Collections $2,396,539 $596,338 $618,892 $759,760 $1,102,670 $5,474,199% Administrative Expense 6% 23% 27% 23% 25% 16%
$177,795$1,094,840
16%
Average Annual Administrative ExpenseAverage Annual Impact Fee Collections% Administrative Expense
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 H-3 Impact Fee Update Study
administration of the program. These expenditures may include but are not limited to, compensation and benefits for personnel involved in the administration of the ordinance; supplies and expenses related to administration of the ordinance; costs associated with consulting services for establishment and periodic updates of the ordinance; and those attorneys fees that may be necessary for administration and enforcement of the ordinance. The County acknowledges that it administers other impact fee programs not related to public educational facilities and pledges to consolidate its administrative efforts in order to cost effectively administer all impact fee programs. When shared administrative costs cannot be isolated by specific impact fee program, the County shall prorate those costs based on amount of revenue collected with each program.”
Collier County does not collect an additional percentage but uses a portion of impact fee revenues to offset the related administrative costs. The County keeps track of these costs and distributes them among impact fee accounts for different program areas. In the case of educationa facilities impact fee, Collier County’s interlocal agreement requires that the School District pays the County $6.25 per $1,000 of collections (0.625 percent). This amount is not added to the impact fee, but rather, is taken out of the gross collections.
Osceola County’s Impact Fee Ordinance the following language: “Actual administrative costs for the county will be determined and will be adopted by resolution and will be reviewed annually. The administrative fee will be determined by comparing actual program expenditures to actual collections for the completed fiscal year immediately preceding the calculation. Cost will be allocated to each type of impact fee based on the best estimate by the impact fee coordinator of time spent on each type. This fee will be in addition to the impact fee.” In addition, Osceola County’s interlocal agreement states that “To reimburse the County, Kissimmee, and St. Cloud for cost of collecting impact fees, each may charge an administrative fee in addition to the Impact Fee, not to exceed the actual cost of collection.”
Indian River County | Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County September 2014 H-4 Impact Fee Update Study
Volusia County collects a 3-percent administrative fee in addition to the adopted impact fee.
Given these findings and the State requirements, Indian River County’s administrative fee of 2.5% is found to be a conservative amount and is consistent with practices of other communities in Florida.
Appendix I Master Fee Schedules:
Full Calculated Fee Rates
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$2
6676
.2%
$75
$135
80.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$648
50.7
%$2
47$2
9017
.du
$170
$287
68.8
%$7
5$1
4694
.7%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$7
0044
.9%
$278
$314
12.
du$1
84$3
2073
.9%
$75
$163
117.
3%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$781
49.0
%$3
01$3
4815
.du
$100
$162
62.0
%$5
7$8
345
.6%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
9739
.3%
$176
$181
2.du
$123
$183
48.8
%$7
5$9
324
.0%
$149
$470
215.
4%$3
49$4
4627
.8%
$182
$197
8.
room
$99
$121
22.2
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$312
36.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$1
31-1
8.ro
om$9
9$1
1213
.1%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$2
8825
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$121
-24.
bed
$107
$171
59.8
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$442
41.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
CLF)
bed
$107
$171
59.8
%$6
2$0
-100
.0%
$312
$442
41.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$212
14.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$5
47-5
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$229
-23.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$3
0966
.1%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$797
-37.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$3
3411
.1,
000
sf$2
12$4
1595
.8%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$1,0
71-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$341
$449
31.
1,00
0 sf
$174
$425
144.
3%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
91$1
,095
-8.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$4
5963
.1,
000
sf$1
53$1
8621
.6%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$480
-54.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$2
01-1
8.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$158
95.1
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$408
-26.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$1
7131
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$93
69.1
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$240
-36.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$1
0114
.1,
000
sf$4
2$5
223
.8%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
34-5
3.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$56
-17.
1,00
0 sf
$8$1
137
.5%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$2
9-2
7.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13
$12
-7.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$26
-38.
1%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$67
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$6
8$2
8-5
8.1,
000
sf$7
5$1
2972
.0%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$5
12$3
31-3
5.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$120
$139
15.
acre
$165
$289
75.2
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
30$7
44-3
4.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$312
17.
acre
$21
$37
76.2
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$145
$96
-33.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
4$4
017
.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$441
41.3
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$1
,138
-25.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$5
03$4
77-5
.or
w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$188
$356
89.4
%$3
9$0
-100
.0%
$921
$917
-0.4
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
03$3
8527
.1,
000
sf$1
86$2
7447
.3%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$9
12$7
06-2
2.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$300
$296
-1.
1,00
0 sf
$800
$1,2
6357
.9%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$3,2
55-1
7.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
89$1
,365
5.1,
000
sf$8
63$1
,658
92.1
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$4
,273
1.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
89$1
,792
29.
1,00
0 sf
$222
$382
72.1
%$4
24$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
87$9
84-9
.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$357
$413
15.
1,00
0 sf
$70
$279
298.
6%$2
0$0
-100
.0%
$134
$720
437.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
07$3
0218
2.se
rvic
e ba
y$2
06$1
62-2
1.4%
$77
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,009
$418
-58.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$3
32$1
75-4
7.Pu
mps
1,00
0 sf
$463
$1,0
8613
4.6%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$2,7
9923
.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$746
$1,1
7457
.1,
000
sf$3
5$4
322
.9%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$1
70$1
10-3
5.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$56
$46
-17.
hole
$267
$201
-24.
7%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$5
18-6
0.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$217
-49.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$5
7512
2.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$1,4
8316
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$417
$622
49.
acre
$17
$37
117.
6%$8
5$0
-100
.0%
$81
$96
18.5
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$4
048
.co
urt
$253
$589
132.
8%$1
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
41$1
,517
22.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$6
3655
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$35
105.
9%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$91
11.0
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$3
840
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$302
55.7
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$7
78-2
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$326
4.1,
000
sf$1
88$3
2874
.5%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$8
45-8
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$302
$354
17.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$259
75.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$238
$280
17.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$6
6743
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$153
$175
14.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$166
50.9
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$427
-43.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$1
791.
1,00
0 sf
$171
$255
49.1
%$8
3$0
-100
.0%
$838
$658
-21.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
75$2
760.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$473
165.
7%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$1
,219
-0.3
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
87$5
1178
.1,
000
sf$5
8$9
563
.8%
$33
$0-1
00.0
%$2
85$2
45-1
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$94
$103
9.sc
reen
$925
$1,1
1420
.4%
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,535
$2,8
71-3
6.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,4
90$1
,204
-19.
5)st
uden
t$1
0$1
110
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$2
9-5
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$12
-29.
stud
ent
$10
$13
30.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$34
-51.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$1
4-1
7.st
uden
t$1
3$1
515
.4%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$9
0$3
8-5
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$16
-23.
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$11
$19
72.7
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$78
$48
-38.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
8$2
011
.1,
000
sf$6
9$1
1769
.6%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$3
39$3
02-1
0.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
Ad
du$1
,302
$1,7
8837
.3%
$2,9
74$3
,406
14.5
%$1
,756
$6,0
7724
6.1%
$183
$342
86.9
%du
$1,4
63$1
,947
33.1
%$4
,483
$4,2
48-5
.2%
$1,7
56$6
,077
246.
1%$2
29$3
7262
.4%
du$1
,587
$2,1
6436
.4%
$5,0
31$5
,004
-0.5
%$1
,756
$6,0
7724
6.1%
$249
$404
62.2
%ry
Uni
tdu
$884
$1,1
1125
.7%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.9
%$5
00$2
,387
377.
4%$1
17$1
9365
.0%
dow
n)du
$942
$1,0
8615
.3%
$1,7
45$1
,550
-11.
2%$6
23$3
,665
488.
3%$1
09$1
9881
.7%
GRO
UP:
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,8
04$2
,156
-23.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$8
6$7
2-1
6.3%
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,5
16$1
,524
0.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$54
$55
1.9%
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$432
$494
14.4
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
0$3
930
.0%
acili
ty (A
CLF)
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$620
$555
-10.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$3
6$4
011
.1%
10,0
00 s
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$9,6
02-2
8.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$273
-29.
8%gr
eate
r tha
n 10
,000
sf
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$13,
996
4.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$397
2.1%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
634
$10,
511
-1.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
26$3
260.
0%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,02
0$1
3,82
06.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$3
76$4
119.
3%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
,798
$4,2
5712
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$139
$135
-2.9
%en
t Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,7
98$3
,164
13.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$1
039.
6%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
18$1
,473
11.8
%n/
an/
an/
a$5
4$5
1-5
.6%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
28$1
,372
11.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$4
3$4
2-2
.3%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$862
$483
-44.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$2
4$1
4-4
1.7%
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$655
-46.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$4
3$2
0-5
3.5%
al1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
,404
$2,6
8111
.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$86
$87
1.2%
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
82$6
,006
11.6
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
85$1
944.
9%ac
ren/
an/
an/
a$6
90$7
6911
.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$28
$25
-10.
7%
1,00
0 sf
gla
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,1
63$6
,360
101.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
55$2
2746
.5%
on w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,5
87$5
,082
-9.0
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
83$1
82-0
.5%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
108
$8,2
94-1
7.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$297
$249
-16.
2%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
2,15
2$2
0,64
3-6
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$741
$710
-4.2
%e-
Thru
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34,
781
$45,
464
30.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,070
$1,3
9130
.0%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
179
$9,0
35-1
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$340
$284
-16.
5%dy
Sho
p1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$7
,830
$6,5
19-1
6.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$207
$206
-0.5
%se
rvic
e ba
yn/
an/
an/
a$1
4,58
9$4
,909
-66.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$4
13$1
48-6
4.2%
with
Gas
Pum
ps1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
5,43
0$2
3,25
2-8
.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$750
$748
-0.3
%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
,373
$1,3
67-0
.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$48
$41
-14.
6%
hole
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$17,
515
55.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
42$4
6937
.1%
lub/
Danc
e St
udio
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$12,
967
19.8
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
31$4
1224
.5%
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$718
$859
19.6
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
4$2
712
.5%
cour
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
2,18
0$1
5,23
625
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$361
$471
30.5
%bo
at b
erth
n/a
n/a
n/a
$973
$1,4
5449
.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$29
$42
44.8
%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
199
$15,
858
11.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$4
04$4
439.
7%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
7,92
5$2
6,02
745
.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$492
$701
42.5
%m
plex
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$9,6
32$1
0,76
011
.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$258
$292
13.2
%be
dn/
an/
an/
a$3
89$2
,109
442.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
9$8
017
5.9%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$8,8
47$7
,960
-10.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$2
57$2
24-1
2.8%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$5
,551
4.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$173
$178
2.9%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$1
5,47
134
0.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$139
$459
230.
2%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
,588
$2,5
64-0
.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$79
$79
0.0%
nee
scre
enn/
an/
an/
a$2
2,74
3$1
5,76
8-3
0.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$780
$565
-27.
6%va
te, K
-5)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$364
144.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$7
$11
57.1
%e,
6-9
)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
49$5
0123
6.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$7$1
511
4.3%
9-12
)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$5
38$5
27-2
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$15
-11.
8%eg
e (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$6
53$9
8550
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$20
$27
35.0
%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$9
83$7
21-2
6.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$40
$33
-17.
5%
ed)
Adm
inist
rativ
e Fe
e (2
.5%
)Pa
rks &
Rec
reat
ion
Tran
spor
tatio
nEd
ucat
iona
l Fac
ilitie
s*La
nd U
seUn
it
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$2
6676
.2%
$75
$135
80.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$648
50.7
%$2
47$2
9017
.du
$170
$287
68.8
%$7
5$1
4694
.7%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$7
0044
.9%
$278
$314
12.
du$1
84$3
2073
.9%
$75
$163
117.
3%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$781
49.0
%$3
01$3
4815
.du
$100
$162
62.0
%$5
7$8
345
.6%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
9739
.3%
$176
$181
2.du
$123
$183
48.8
%$7
5$9
324
.0%
$149
$470
215.
4%$3
49$4
4627
.8%
$182
$197
8.
room
$99
$121
22.2
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$312
36.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$1
31-1
8.ro
om$9
9$1
1213
.1%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$2
8825
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$121
-24.
bed
$107
$171
59.8
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$442
41.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
CLF)
bed
$107
$171
59.8
%$6
2$0
-100
.0%
$312
$442
41.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$212
14.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$5
47-5
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$229
-23.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$3
0966
.1%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$797
-37.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$3
3411
.1,
000
sf$2
12$4
1595
.8%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$1,0
71-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$341
$449
31.
1,00
0 sf
$174
$425
144.
3%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
91$1
,095
-8.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$4
5963
.1,
000
sf$1
53$1
8621
.6%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$480
-54.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$2
01-1
8.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$158
95.1
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$408
-26.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$1
7131
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$93
69.1
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$240
-36.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$1
0114
.1,
000
sf$4
2$5
223
.8%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
34-5
3.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$56
-17.
1,00
0 sf
$8$1
137
.5%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$2
9-2
7.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13
$12
-7.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$26
-38.
1%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$67
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$6
8$2
8-5
8.1,
000
sf$7
5$1
2972
.0%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$5
12$3
31-3
5.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$120
$139
15.
acre
$165
$289
75.2
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
30$7
44-3
4.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$312
17.
acre
$21
$37
76.2
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$145
$96
-33.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
4$4
017
.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$441
41.3
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$1
,138
-25.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$5
03$4
77-5
.or
w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$188
$356
89.4
%$3
9$0
-100
.0%
$921
$917
-0.4
%n/
an/
an/
a$3
03$3
8527
.1,
000
sf$1
86$2
7447
.3%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$9
12$7
06-2
2.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$300
$296
-1.
1,00
0 sf
$800
$1,2
6357
.9%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$3,2
55-1
7.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
89$1
,365
5.1,
000
sf$8
63$1
,658
92.1
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$4
,273
1.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
89$1
,792
29.
1,00
0 sf
$222
$382
72.1
%$4
24$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
87$9
84-9
.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$357
$413
15.
1,00
0 sf
$70
$279
298.
6%$2
0$0
-100
.0%
$134
$720
437.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
07$3
0218
2.se
rvic
e ba
y$2
06$1
62-2
1.4%
$77
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,009
$418
-58.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$3
32$1
75-4
7.Pu
mps
1,00
0 sf
$463
$1,0
8613
4.6%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$2,7
9923
.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$746
$1,1
7457
.1,
000
sf$3
5$4
322
.9%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$1
70$1
10-3
5.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$56
$46
-17.
hole
$267
$201
-24.
7%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$5
18-6
0.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$217
-49.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$5
7512
2.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$1,4
8316
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$417
$622
49.
acre
$17
$37
117.
6%$8
5$0
-100
.0%
$81
$96
18.5
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$4
048
.co
urt
$253
$589
132.
8%$1
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
41$1
,517
22.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$6
3655
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$35
105.
9%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$91
11.0
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$3
840
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$302
55.7
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$7
78-2
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$326
4.1,
000
sf$1
88$3
2874
.5%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$8
45-8
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$302
$354
17.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$259
75.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$238
$280
17.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$6
6743
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$153
$175
14.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$166
50.9
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$427
-43.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$1
791.
1,00
0 sf
$171
$255
49.1
%$8
3$0
-100
.0%
$838
$658
-21.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
75$2
760.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$473
165.
7%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$1
,219
-0.3
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
87$5
1178
.1,
000
sf$5
8$9
563
.8%
$33
$0-1
00.0
%$2
85$2
45-1
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$94
$103
9.sc
reen
$925
$1,1
1420
.4%
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,535
$2,8
71-3
6.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,4
90$1
,204
-19.
5)st
uden
t$1
0$1
110
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$2
9-5
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$12
-29.
stud
ent
$10
$13
30.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$34
-51.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$1
4-1
7.st
uden
t$1
3$1
515
.4%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$9
0$3
8-5
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$16
-23.
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$11
$19
72.7
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$78
$48
-38.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
8$2
011
.1,
000
sf$6
9$1
1769
.6%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$3
39$3
02-1
0.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
,756
$6,0
7724
6.1%
$116
$230
98.3
%$5
8$1
1598
.3%
$5,9
90$1
1,8
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sf
du$1
,756
$6,0
7724
6.1%
$149
$250
67.8
%$7
5$1
2566
.7%
$7,6
75$1
2,8
- 2,
500
sf o
r lar
ger
du$1
,756
$6,0
7724
6.1%
$162
$270
66.7
%$8
1$1
3566
.7%
$8,3
37$1
3,9
Mul
ti-Fa
mily
/Acc
esso
ry U
nit
du$5
00$2
,387
377.
4%$7
3$1
2774
.0%
$37
$64
73.0
%$3
,777
$6,5
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (t
ied
dow
n)du
$623
$3,6
6548
8.3%
$65
$132
103.
1%$3
2$6
610
6.3%
$3,3
43$6
,8TR
ANSI
ENT,
ASS
ISTE
D, G
ROUP
:Ho
tel
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$66
$54
-18.
2%$3
3$2
7-1
8.2%
$3,4
12$2
,8M
otel
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$41
$41
0.0%
$20
$20
0.0%
$2,0
86$2
,1Nu
rsin
g Ho
me
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$26
23.8
%$1
1$1
318
.2%
$1,0
88$1
,3As
sist
ed C
are
Livi
ng F
acili
ty (A
CLF)
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25
$27
8.0%
$13
$14
7.7%
$1,3
11$1
,3O
FFIC
E &
FIN
ANCI
AL:
Med
ical
Offi
ce/C
linic
10,
000
sf o
r les
s1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
06$2
12-3
0.7%
$153
$106
-30.
7%$1
5,74
8$1
0,9
Med
ical
Offi
ce/C
linic
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sf1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
06$3
091.
0%$1
53$1
540.
7%$1
5,74
8$1
5,8
Bank
/Sav
ings
Wal
k-In
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$255
$249
-2.4
%$1
28$1
24-3
.1%
$13,
142
$12,
8Ba
nk/S
avin
gs D
rive
-In1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
96$3
166.
8%$1
48$1
586.
8%$1
5,22
7$1
6,2
Gene
ral O
ffice
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$107
$102
-4.7
%$5
3$5
1-3
.8%
$5,5
01$5
,2Re
sear
ch &
Dev
elop
men
t Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$73
$78
6.8%
$37
$39
5.4%
$3,7
68$4
,0IN
DUST
RIAL
:M
anuf
actu
ring
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$41
$38
-7.3
%$2
1$1
9-9
.5%
$2,1
34$1
,9W
areh
ousi
ng1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
3$3
2-3
.0%
$17
$16
-5.9
%$1
,723
$1,6
Min
i-War
ehou
se1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
9$1
1-4
2.1%
$9$5
-44.
4%$9
70$5
High
-Cub
e (A
utom
ated
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
3$1
6-5
1.5%
$17
$8-5
2.9%
$1,7
23$8
Gene
ral L
ight
Indu
stri
al1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$6
7$6
6-1
.5%
$33
$33
0.0%
$3,4
47$3
,3Co
ncre
te P
lant
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$143
$147
2.8%
$72
$74
2.8%
$7,3
70$7
,5Sa
nd M
inin
gac
ren/
an/
an/
a$2
2$1
9-1
3.6%
$11
$9-1
8.2%
$1,1
36$9
RETA
IL:
Reta
il1,
000
sfgl
an/
an/
an/
a$1
15$1
6846
.1%
$57
$84
47.4
%$5
,917
$8,6
Gaso
line/
Serv
ice
Stat
ion
with
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.n/
an/
an/
a$1
41$1
35-4
.3%
$70
$67
-4.3
%$7
,249
$6,9
New
/Use
d Au
to S
ales
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$232
$191
-17.
7%$1
16$9
6-1
7.2%
$11,
972
$9,8
Rest
aura
nt1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$5
70$5
31-6
.8%
$285
$265
-7.0
%$2
9,34
9$2
7,3
Fast
Foo
d Re
st. w
/Dri
ve-T
hru
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$832
$1,0
6427
.9%
$416
$532
27.9
%$4
2,83
8$5
4,7
Supe
rmar
ket
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$216
-18.
5%$1
33$1
08-1
8.8%
$13,
667
$11,
1Au
tom
obile
Rep
air/
Body
Sho
p1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
63$1
56-4
.3%
$82
$78
-4.9
%$8
,406
$8,0
Self-
Serv
ice
Car W
ash
serv
ice
bay
n/a
n/a
n/a
$324
$113
-65.
1%$1
62$5
7-6
4.8%
$16,
699
$5,8
Conv
enie
nce
Mar
ket w
ith G
as P
umps
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$587
$566
-3.6
%$2
93$2
83-3
.4%
$30,
213
$29,
1Fu
rnitu
re S
tore
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$37
$31
-16.
2%$1
9$1
6-1
5.8%
$1,9
26$1
,6RE
CREA
TIO
NAL
:Go
lf Co
urse
hole
n/a
n/a
n/a
$266
$369
38.7
%$1
33$1
8539
.1%
$13,
688
$19,
0Ra
cque
t Clu
b/He
alth
Clu
b/Da
nce
Stud
io1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
58$3
1321
.3%
$129
$156
20.9
%$1
3,27
5$1
6,1
Coun
ty P
ark
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$19
$21
10.5
%$9
$10
11.1
%$9
56$1
,0Te
nnis
Cou
rtco
urt
n/a
n/a
n/a
$282
$360
27.7
%$1
41$1
8027
.7%
$14,
523
$18,
5M
arin
abo
at b
erth
n/a
n/a
n/a
$23
$32
39.1
%$1
1$1
645
.5%
$1,1
78$1
,6GO
VERN
MEN
TAL:
Post
Offi
ce1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
18$3
458.
5%$1
59$1
738.
8%$1
6,38
3$1
7,7
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$551
41.6
%$1
94$2
7642
.3%
$20,
011
$28,
3Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
02$2
2611
.9%
$101
$113
11.9
%$1
0,41
5$1
1,6
Jail
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$20
$59
195.
0%$1
0$3
020
0.0%
$1,0
54$3
,0M
ISCE
LLAN
EOUS
:Da
y Ca
re C
ente
r1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
03$1
75-1
3.8%
$101
$87
-13.
9%$1
0,42
9$8
,9Ho
spita
l1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
34$1
350.
7%$6
7$6
70.
0%$6
,877
$6,9
Vete
rina
ry C
linic
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$106
$353
233.
0%$5
3$1
7723
4.0%
$5,4
76$1
8,2
Chur
ch1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$6
1$6
0-1
.6%
$31
$30
-3.2
%$3
,150
$3,0
Mov
ie T
heat
er w
/Mat
inee
scre
enn/
an/
an/
a$5
98$4
19-2
9.9%
$299
$210
-29.
8%$3
0,77
8$2
1,5
Elem
enta
ry S
choo
l (Pr
ivat
e, K
-5)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5$8
60.0
%$3
$433
.3%
$266
$4M
iddl
e Sc
hool
(Pri
vate
, 6-9
)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$5
$11
120.
0%$3
$610
0.0%
$266
$5Hi
gh S
choo
l (Pr
ivat
e, 9
-12)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14
$12
-14.
3%$7
$6-1
4.3%
$696
$6Un
iver
sity
/Jun
ior C
olle
ge (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
5$2
140
.0%
$8$1
137
.5%
$796
$1,1
Fire
Sta
tion
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$30
$23
-23.
3%$1
5$1
1-2
6.7%
$1,5
30$1
,1
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Tota
l (Al
l Fee
Land
Use
Unit
City
Adm
in F
ee (2
.0%
)Co
unty
Adm
in. F
ee (1
.0%
)Ed
ucat
iona
l Fac
ilitie
s*
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$2
6676
.2%
$75
$135
80.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$648
50.7
%$2
,974
$3,4
0614
.du
$170
$287
68.8
%$7
5$1
4694
.7%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$7
0044
.9%
$4,4
83$4
,248
-5.
du$1
84$3
2073
.9%
$75
$163
117.
3%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$781
49.0
%$5
,031
$5,0
04-0
.du
$100
$162
62.0
%$5
7$8
345
.6%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
9739
.3%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.
du$1
23$1
8348
.8%
$75
$93
24.0
%$1
49$4
7021
5.4%
$349
$446
27.8
%$1
,745
$1,5
50-1
1.
room
$99
$121
22.2
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$312
36.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,804
$2,1
56-2
3.ro
om$9
9$1
1213
.1%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$2
8825
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,5
16$1
,524
0.be
d$1
07$1
7159
.8%
$33
$0-1
00.0
%$3
12$4
4241
.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$432
$494
14.
CLF)
bed
$107
$171
59.8
%$6
2$0
-100
.0%
$312
$442
41.7
%n/
an/
an/
a$6
20$5
55-1
0.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$212
14.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$5
47-5
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$9,6
02-2
8.ha
n 10
,000
sf
1,00
0 sf
$186
$309
66.1
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$7
97-3
7.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$13,
996
4.1,
000
sf$2
12$4
1595
.8%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$1,0
71-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
634
$10,
511
-1.
1,00
0 sf
$174
$425
144.
3%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
91$1
,095
-8.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
3,02
0$1
3,82
06.
1,00
0 sf
$153
$186
21.6
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
50$4
80-5
4.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,7
98$4
,257
12.
er1,
000
sf$8
1$1
5895
.1%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$5
55$4
08-2
6.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,7
98$3
,164
13.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$93
69.1
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$240
-36.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,318
$1,4
7311
.1,
000
sf$4
2$5
223
.8%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
34-5
3.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
28$1
,372
11.
1,00
0 sf
$8$1
137
.5%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$2
9-2
7.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$862
$483
-44.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$26
-38.
1%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$67
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$655
-46.
1,00
0 sf
$75
$129
72.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$512
$331
-35.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,404
$2,6
8111
.ac
re$1
65$2
8975
.2%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,130
$744
-34.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$5
,382
$6,0
0611
.ac
re$2
1$3
776
.2%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
45$9
6-3
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$690
$769
11.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$441
41.3
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$1
,138
-25.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$3
,163
$6,3
6010
1.or
w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$188
$356
89.4
%$3
9$0
-100
.0%
$921
$917
-0.4
%n/
an/
an/
a$5
,587
$5,0
82-9
.1,
000
sf$1
86$2
7447
.3%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$9
12$7
06-2
2.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
108
$8,2
94-1
7.1,
000
sf$8
00$1
,263
57.9
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$3,9
23$3
,255
-17.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$2
2,15
2$2
0,64
3-6
.1,
000
sf$8
63$1
,658
92.1
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$4
,273
1.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34,
781
$45,
464
30.
1,00
0 sf
$222
$382
72.1
%$4
24$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
87$9
84-9
.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
179
$9,0
35-1
9.1,
000
sf$7
0$2
7929
8.6%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$7
2043
7.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$7,8
30$6
,519
-16.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$162
-21.
4%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$4
18-5
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
589
$4,9
09-6
6.Pu
mps
1,00
0 sf
$463
$1,0
8613
4.6%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$2,7
9923
.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25,
430
$23,
252
-8.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$43
22.9
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$110
-35.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,373
$1,3
67-0
.
hole
$267
$201
-24.
7%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$5
18-6
0.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$17,
515
55.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$5
7512
2.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$1,4
8316
.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$12,
967
19.
acre
$17
$37
117.
6%$8
5$0
-100
.0%
$81
$96
18.5
%n/
an/
an/
a$7
18$8
5919
.co
urt
$253
$589
132.
8%$1
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
41$1
,517
22.2
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
2,18
0$1
5,23
625
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$35
105.
9%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$91
11.0
%n/
an/
an/
a$9
73$1
,454
49.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$302
55.7
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$7
78-2
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
199
$15,
858
11.
1,00
0 sf
$188
$328
74.5
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$919
$845
-8.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7,92
5$2
6,02
745
.1,
000
sf$1
48$2
5975
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%n/
an/
an/
an/
an/
an/
a$9
,632
$10,
760
11.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$6
6743
.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$2,1
0944
2.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$166
50.9
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$427
-43.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$8
,847
$7,9
60-1
0.1,
000
sf$1
71$2
5549
.1%
$83
$0-1
00.0
%$8
38$6
58-2
1.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$5
,551
4.1,
000
sf$1
78$4
7316
5.7%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,223
$1,2
19-0
.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$1
5,47
134
0.1,
000
sf$5
8$9
563
.8%
$33
$0-1
00.0
%$2
85$2
45-1
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,5
88$2
,564
-0.
scre
en$9
25$1
,114
20.4
%$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$4,5
35$2
,871
-36.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
2,74
3$1
5,76
8-3
0.5)
stud
ent
$10
$11
10.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$29
-58.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
49$3
6414
4.st
uden
t$1
0$1
330
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$3
4-5
1.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$501
236.
stud
ent
$13
$15
15.4
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$90
$38
-57.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$5
38$5
27-2
.0
or fe
wer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
t$1
1$1
972
.7%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$7
8$4
8-3
8.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$653
$985
50.
1,00
0 sf
$69
$117
69.6
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$339
$302
-10.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$9
83$7
21-2
6.ng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
Libr
arie
sTr
ansp
orta
tion
Publ
ic Bu
ildin
gsd
Use
Unit
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ties
Solid
Was
te F
acili
ties
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Fu
ll Ca
lcul
ated
Fee
; Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Full
Calcu
late
dPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
11$2
2410
1.8%
$56
$112
100.
0%$5
,736
$11,
555
101.
4% -
1,50
0 to
2,4
99 s
fdu
$143
$244
70.6
%$7
2$1
2269
.4%
$7,3
88$1
2,56
370
.0%
- 2,
500
sf o
r lar
ger
du$1
56$2
6368
.6%
$78
$132
69.2
%$8
,027
$13,
566
69.0
%22
0M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
tdu
$70
$124
77.1
%$3
5$6
277
.1%
$3,5
96$6
,375
77.3
%24
0M
obile
Hom
e/RV
(tie
d do
wn)
du$6
1$1
2810
9.8%
$31
$64
106.
5%$3
,156
$6,5
9910
9.1%
TRAN
SIEN
T, A
SSIS
TED,
GRO
UP:
310
Hote
lro
om$6
3$5
2-1
7.5%
$32
$26
-18.
8%$3
,248
$2,6
67-1
7.9%
320
Mot
elro
om$3
7$3
82.
7%$1
9$1
90.
0%$1
,921
$1,9
813.
1%62
0Nu
rsin
g Ho
me
bed
$18
$22
22.2
%$9
$11
22.2
%$9
11$1
,140
25.1
%25
2As
sist
ed C
are
Livi
ng F
acili
ty (A
CLF)
bed
$22
$23
4.5%
$11
$12
9.1%
$1,1
34$1
,203
6.1%
OFF
ICE
& F
INAN
CIAL
:M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$300
$207
-31.
0%$1
50$1
04-3
0.7%
$15,
440
$10,
672
-30.
9%M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic g
reat
er th
an 1
0,00
0 sf
1,00
0 sf
$300
$302
0.7%
$150
$151
0.7%
$15,
440
$15,
555
0.7%
911
Bank
/Sav
ings
Wal
k-In
1,00
0 sf
$248
$240
-3.2
%$1
24$1
20-3
.2%
$12,
790
$12,
357
-3.4
%91
2Ba
nk/S
avin
gs D
rive
-In1,
000
sf$2
90$3
075.
9%$1
45$1
535.
5%$1
4,93
8$1
5,80
05.
8%71
0Ge
nera
l Offi
ce1,
000
sf$1
02$9
8-3
.9%
$51
$49
-3.9
%$5
,248
$5,0
70-3
.4%
760
Rese
arch
& D
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r1,
000
sf$7
1$7
55.
6%$3
5$3
75.
7%$3
,634
$3,8
425.
7%IN
DUST
RIAL
:14
0M
anuf
actu
ring
1,00
0 sf
$40
$36
-10.
0%$2
0$1
8-1
0.0%
$2,0
44$1
,860
-9.0
%15
0W
areh
ousi
ng1,
000
sf$3
2$3
1-3
.1%
$16
$16
0.0%
$1,6
53$1
,605
-2.9
%15
1M
ini-W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$19
$10
-47.
4%$9
$5-4
4.4%
$957
$538
-43.
8%15
2Hi
gh-C
ube
(Aut
omat
ed) W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$32
$15
-53.
1%$1
6$7
-56.
3%$1
,653
$770
-53.
4%11
0Ge
nera
l Lig
ht In
dust
rial
1,00
0 sf
$65
$63
-3.1
%$3
2$3
1-3
.1%
$3,3
24$3
,235
-2.7
%n/
aCo
ncre
te P
lant
acre
$138
$141
2.2%
$69
$70
1.4%
$7,0
97$7
,250
2.2%
n/a
Sand
Min
ing
acre
$21
$18
-14.
3%$1
1$9
-18.
2%$1
,101
$929
-15.
6%RE
TAIL
:82
0Re
tail
1,00
0 sf
gla
$105
$159
51.4
%$5
2$7
951
.9%
$5,3
99$8
,177
51.5
%94
4/ 9
46Ga
solin
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
n w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$135
$127
-5.9
%$6
7$6
4-4
.5%
$6,9
37$6
,546
-5.6
%84
1Ne
w/U
sed
Auto
Sal
es1,
000
sf$2
26$1
85-1
8.1%
$113
$93
-17.
7%$1
1,66
3$9
,552
-18.
1%93
2Re
stau
rant
1,00
0 sf
$544
$503
-7.5
%$2
72$2
52-7
.4%
$28,
021
$25,
916
-7.5
%93
4Fa
st F
ood
Rest
. w/D
rive
-Thr
u1,
000
sf$8
04$1
,028
27.9
%$4
02$5
1427
.9%
$41,
407
$52,
937
27.8
%85
0Su
perm
arke
t1,
000
sf$2
58$2
08-1
9.4%
$129
$104
-19.
4%$1
3,29
9$1
0,71
3-1
9.4%
942
Auto
mob
ile R
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
1,00
0 sf
$161
$150
-6.8
%$8
1$7
5-7
.4%
$8,2
96$7
,743
-6.7
%94
7Se
lf-Se
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
y$3
18$1
10-6
5.4%
$159
$55
-65.
4%$1
6,35
8$5
,654
-65.
4%85
3Co
nven
ienc
e M
arke
t with
Gas
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$5
72$5
43-5
.1%
$286
$271
-5.2
%$2
9,44
5$2
7,95
1-5
.1%
890
Furn
iture
Sto
re1,
000
sf$3
6$3
0-1
6.7%
$18
$15
-16.
7%$1
,868
$1,5
65-1
6.2%
RECR
EATI
ON
AL:
430
Golf
Cour
seho
le$2
57$3
6542
.0%
$129
$182
41.1
%$1
3,24
6$1
8,78
141
.8%
492
Racq
uet C
lub/
Heal
th C
lub/
Danc
e St
udio
1,00
0 sf
$249
$301
20.9
%$1
25$1
5020
.0%
$12,
845
$15,
476
20.5
%41
2Co
unty
Par
kac
re$1
8$2
011
.1%
$9$1
011
.1%
$928
$1,0
2210
.1%
491
Tenn
is C
ourt
cour
t$2
74$3
4726
.6%
$137
$173
26.3
%$1
4,10
3$1
7,86
226
.7%
420
Mar
ina
boat
ber
th$2
2$3
245
.5%
$11
$16
45.5
%$1
,150
$1,6
2841
.6%
GOVE
RNM
ENTA
L:73
2Po
st O
ffice
1,00
0 sf
$312
$339
8.7%
$156
$169
8.3%
$16,
062
$17,
446
8.6%
590
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
$383
$544
42.0
%$1
91$2
7242
.4%
$19,
700
$28,
016
42.2
%73
3Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sf$1
97$2
2011
.7%
$99
$110
11.1
%$1
0,17
0$1
1,34
911
.6%
571
Jail
bed
$17
$56
229.
4%$9
$28
211.
1%$8
97$2
,860
218.
8%M
ISCE
LLAN
EOUS
:56
5Da
y Ca
re C
ente
r1,
000
sf$1
99$1
71-1
4.1%
$99
$86
-13.
1%$1
0,24
6$8
,810
-14.
0%61
0Ho
spita
l1,
000
sf$1
28$1
290.
8%$6
4$6
51.
6%$6
,593
$6,6
581.
0%64
0Ve
teri
nary
Clin
ic1,
000
sf$1
01$3
4323
9.6%
$50
$172
244.
0%$5
,181
$17,
678
241.
2%56
0Ch
urch
1,00
0 sf
$59
$58
-1.7
%$3
0$2
9-3
.3%
$3,0
53$2
,991
-2.0
%44
4M
ovie
The
ater
w/M
atin
eesc
reen
$568
$395
-30.
5%$2
84$1
98-3
0.3%
$29,
243
$20,
346
-30.
4%52
0El
emen
tary
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
K-5
)st
uden
t$5
$860
.0%
$2$4
100.
0%$2
48$4
1667
.7%
522
Mid
dle
Scho
ol (P
riva
te, 6
-9)
stud
ent
$5$1
112
0.0%
$2$5
150.
0%$2
48$5
6412
7.4%
530
High
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
9-1
2)st
uden
t$1
3$1
2-7
.7%
$7$6
-14.
3%$6
74$5
98-1
1.3%
540/
550
Univ
ersi
ty/J
unio
r Col
lege
(7,5
00 o
r few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$15
$21
40.0
%$8
$11
37.5
%$7
78$1
,084
39.3
%n/
aFi
reSt
atio
n1,
000
sf$3
0$2
3-2
3.3%
$15
$11
-26.
7%$1
,530
$1,1
74-2
3.3%
720
210
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
City
Adm
in F
ee (2
.0%
)Co
unty
Adm
in. F
ee (1
.0%
)To
tal (
All F
ees)
ITE
LUC
Land
Use
Unit
Appendix J Master Fee Schedules:
Affordable Growth Fee Rates
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$622
44.7
%$2
47$3
2-8
7.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$6
7239
.1%
$278
$35
-87.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$750
43.1
%$3
01$3
8-8
7.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
8133
.7%
$176
$20
-88.
du$1
23$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
49$4
7021
5.4%
$349
$428
22.6
%$1
82$2
2-8
7.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$162
-29.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$0
-100
.ro
om$9
9$0
-100
.0%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$1
50-3
4.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$0-1
00.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$230
-26.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$0
-100
.CL
F)be
d$1
07$0
-100
.0%
$62
$0-1
00.0
%$3
12$2
30-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$172
$0-1
00.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$2
84-7
7.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$0-1
00.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$414
-67.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$557
-61.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$3
41$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
74$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,191
$569
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$250
-76.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$0
-100
.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$212
-61.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$125
-66.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$7
0-7
5.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$1
5-6
2.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13
$0-1
00.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$0-1
00.0
%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$35
-87.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$6
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$5
12$1
72-6
6.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$120
$0-1
00.
acre
$165
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
30$3
87-6
5.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$0-1
00.
acre
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$145
$50
-65.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$3
4$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$5
92-6
1.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$503
$0-1
00.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$4
77-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$303
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$367
-59.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
00$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$8
00$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$1,6
93-5
6.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
89$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$8
63$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,227
$2,2
22-4
7.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
89$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$2
22$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,087
$512
-52.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$3
57$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$7
0$0
-100
.0%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$3
7417
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$107
$0-1
00.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$0-1
00.0
%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$2
17-7
8.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$332
$0-1
00.
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$4
63$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$1,4
55-3
5.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$746
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$57
-66.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$5
6$0
-100
.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$2
69-7
9.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$0-1
00.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$771
-39.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$4
17$0
-100
.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$5
0-3
8.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$27
$0-1
00.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$789
-36.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$0
-100
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$0-1
00.0
%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$47
-42.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$4
05-6
3.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$919
$439
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$3
02$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
48$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%n/
an/
an/
an/
an/
an/
a$2
38$0
-100
.be
dn/
an/
an/
a$1
6$0
-100
.0%
$466
$347
-25.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
53$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$222
-70.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
71$0
-100
.0%
$83
$0-1
00.0
%$8
38$3
42-5
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$275
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$6
34-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$287
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$127
-55.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$0
-100
.sc
reen
$925
$0-1
00.0
%$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$4,5
35$1
,493
-67.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,490
$0-1
00.
5)st
uden
t$1
0$0
-100
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$1
5-7
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$0-1
00.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$18
-74.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$0
-100
.st
uden
t$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$9
0$2
0-7
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$0-1
00.
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$11
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$78
$25
-67.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$6
9$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$3
39$1
57-5
3.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
Publ
ic Bu
ildin
gsd
Use
Unit
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ties
Solid
Was
te F
acili
ties
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
Ado
du$1
,302
$1,6
4526
.3%
$2,9
74$3
,406
14.5
%$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$183
$212
15.8
%du
$1,4
63$1
,791
22.4
%$4
,483
$4,2
48-5
.2%
$1,7
56$1
,702
-3.1
%$2
29$2
415.
2%du
$1,5
87$1
,991
25.5
%$5
,031
$5,0
04-0
.5%
$1,7
56$1
,702
-3.1
%$2
49$2
708.
4%or
y Un
itdu
$884
$1,0
2215
.6%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.9
%$5
00$6
6833
.7%
$117
$138
17.9
%d
dow
n)du
$942
$999
6.1%
$1,7
45$1
,550
-11.
2%$6
23$1
,026
64.7
%$1
09$1
188.
3% G
ROUP
:ro
omn/
an/
an/
a$2
,804
$970
-65.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$8
6$3
3-6
1.6%
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,5
16$6
86-5
4.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$54
$25
-53.
7%be
dn/
an/
an/
a$4
32$2
22-4
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$30
$18
-40.
0%ac
ility
(ACL
F)be
dn/
an/
an/
a$6
20$2
50-5
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$36
$18
-50.
0%
10,
000
sf o
r les
s1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,41
1$4
,321
-67.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
89$1
23-6
8.4%
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sf1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,41
1$6
,298
-53.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$3
89$1
79-5
4.0%
n1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
0,63
4$4
,730
-55.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$3
26$1
47-5
4.9%
n1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,02
0$6
,219
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$3
76$1
85-5
0.8%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,7
98$1
,916
-49.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
39$6
1-5
6.1%
men
t Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,7
98$1
,424
-49.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$4
7-5
0.0%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
18$6
63-4
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$54
$23
-57.
4%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$617
-49.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$4
3$1
9-5
5.8%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$862
$217
-74.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
4$6
-75.
0%d)
War
ehou
se1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$295
-76.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$4
3$9
-79.
1%al
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,4
04$1
,206
-49.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$8
6$3
9-5
4.7%
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
82$2
,703
-49.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
85$8
8-5
2.4%
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$690
$346
-49.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$2
8$1
1-6
0.7%
1,00
0 sf
gla
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,1
63$2
,862
-9.5
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
55$1
03-3
3.5%
ion
with
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.n/
an/
an/
a$5
,587
$2,2
87-5
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$183
$82
-55.
2%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
0,10
8$3
,732
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
97$1
13-6
2.0%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$22,
152
$9,2
89-5
8.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$741
$321
-56.
7%ve
-Thr
u1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
4,78
1$2
0,45
9-4
1.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,0
70$6
28-4
1.3%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
179
$4,0
66-6
3.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$340
$129
-62.
1%od
y Sh
op1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$7
,830
$2,9
34-6
2.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$207
$93
-55.
1%h
serv
ice
bay
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
589
$2,2
09-8
4.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$413
$67
-83.
8%w
ith G
as P
umps
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25,
430
$10,
463
-58.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$7
50$3
38-5
4.9%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
73$6
15-5
5.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$48
$18
-62.
5%
hole
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$7,8
82-2
9.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$342
$211
-38.
3%Cl
ub/D
ance
Stu
dio
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$5,8
35-4
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$331
$186
-43.
8%ac
ren/
an/
an/
a$7
18$3
87-4
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$24
$12
-50.
0%co
urt
n/a
n/a
n/a
$12,
180
$6,8
56-4
3.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$361
$213
-41.
0%bo
at b
erth
n/a
n/a
n/a
$973
$654
-32.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
9$1
9-3
4.5%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
199
$7,1
36-4
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$404
$200
-50.
5%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
7,92
5$1
1,71
2-3
4.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$492
$316
-35.
8%om
plex
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$9,6
32$4
,842
-49.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
58$1
31-4
9.2%
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$949
144.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$2
9$3
831
.0%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$8,8
47$3
,582
-59.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
57$1
01-6
0.7%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$2
,498
-52.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
73$8
0-5
3.8%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$6
,962
98.3
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
39$2
0748
.9%
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,5
88$1
,154
-55.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$7
9$3
6-5
4.4%
inee
scre
enn/
an/
an/
a$2
2,74
3$7
,096
-68.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$7
80$2
56-6
7.2%
riva
te, K
-5)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$164
10.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$7
$5-2
8.6%
te, 6
-9)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$225
51.0
%n/
an/
an/
a$7
$70.
0%9-
12)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$538
$237
-55.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$7
-58.
8%le
ge (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$6
53$4
43-3
2.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$20
$12
-40.
0%1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$9
83$3
24-6
7.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$40
$16
-60.
0%/
Adm
inist
rativ
e Fe
e (2
.5%
)
ed)
Park
s & R
ecre
atio
nTr
ansp
orta
tion
Educ
atio
nal F
acili
ties*
Land
Use
Unit
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$622
44.7
%$2
47$3
2-8
7.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$6
7239
.1%
$278
$35
-87.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$750
43.1
%$3
01$3
8-8
7.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
8133
.7%
$176
$20
-88.
du$1
23$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
49$4
7021
5.4%
$349
$428
22.6
%$1
82$2
2-8
7.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$162
-29.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$0
-100
.ro
om$9
9$0
-100
.0%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$1
50-3
4.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$0-1
00.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$230
-26.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$0
-100
.CL
F)be
d$1
07$0
-100
.0%
$62
$0-1
00.0
%$3
12$2
30-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$172
$0-1
00.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$2
84-7
7.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$0-1
00.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$414
-67.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$557
-61.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$3
41$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
74$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,191
$569
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$250
-76.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$0
-100
.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$212
-61.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$125
-66.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$7
0-7
5.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$1
5-6
2.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13
$0-1
00.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$0-1
00.0
%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$35
-87.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$6
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$5
12$1
72-6
6.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$120
$0-1
00.
acre
$165
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
30$3
87-6
5.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$0-1
00.
acre
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$145
$50
-65.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$3
4$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$5
92-6
1.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$503
$0-1
00.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$4
77-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$303
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$367
-59.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
00$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$8
00$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$1,6
93-5
6.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
89$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$8
63$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,227
$2,2
22-4
7.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
89$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$2
22$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,087
$512
-52.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$3
57$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$7
0$0
-100
.0%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$3
7417
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$107
$0-1
00.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$0-1
00.0
%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$2
17-7
8.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$332
$0-1
00.
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$4
63$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$1,4
55-3
5.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$746
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$57
-66.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$5
6$0
-100
.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$2
69-7
9.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$0-1
00.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$771
-39.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$4
17$0
-100
.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$5
0-3
8.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$27
$0-1
00.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$789
-36.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$0
-100
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$0-1
00.0
%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$47
-42.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$4
05-6
3.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$919
$439
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$3
02$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
48$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%n/
an/
an/
an/
an/
an/
a$2
38$0
-100
.be
dn/
an/
an/
a$1
6$0
-100
.0%
$466
$347
-25.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
53$0
-100
.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$222
-70.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$1
71$0
-100
.0%
$83
$0-1
00.0
%$8
38$3
42-5
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$275
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$6
34-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$287
$0-1
00.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$127
-55.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$0
-100
.sc
reen
$925
$0-1
00.0
%$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$4,5
35$1
,493
-67.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,490
$0-1
00.
5)st
uden
t$1
0$0
-100
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$1
5-7
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$0-1
00.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$18
-74.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$0
-100
.st
uden
t$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$9
0$2
0-7
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$0-1
00.
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$11
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$78
$25
-67.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
8$0
-100
.1,
000
sf$6
9$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$3
39$1
57-5
3.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
leGr
owth
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$116
$129
11.2
%$5
8$6
410
.3%
$5,9
90$6
,6 -
1,50
0 to
2,4
99 s
fdu
$1,7
56$1
,702
-3.1
%$1
49$1
48-0
.7%
$75
$74
-1.3
%$7
,675
$7,6
- 2,
500
sf o
r lar
ger
du$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$162
$166
2.5%
$81
$83
2.5%
$8,3
37$8
,5M
ulti-
Fam
ily/A
cces
sory
Uni
tdu
$500
$668
33.7
%$7
3$8
516
.4%
$37
$42
13.5
%$3
,777
$4,3
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (t
ied
dow
n)du
$623
$1,0
2664
.7%
$65
$70
7.7%
$32
$35
9.4%
$3,3
43$3
,6TR
ANSI
ENT,
ASS
ISTE
D, G
ROUP
:Ho
tel
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$66
$23
-65.
2%$3
3$1
1-6
6.7%
$3,4
12$1
,1M
otel
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$41
$17
-58.
5%$2
0$8
-60.
0%$2
,086
$8Nu
rsin
g Ho
me
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$21
$9-5
7.1%
$11
$5-5
4.5%
$1,0
88$4
Assi
sted
Car
e Li
ving
Fac
ility
(ACL
F)be
dn/
an/
an/
a$2
5$1
0-6
0.0%
$13
$5-6
1.5%
$1,3
11$4
OFF
ICE
& F
INAN
CIAL
:M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$306
$92
-69.
9%$1
53$4
6-6
9.9%
$15,
748
$4,7
Med
ical
Offi
ce/C
linic
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sf1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
06$1
34-5
6.2%
$153
$67
-56.
2%$1
5,74
8$6
,9Ba
nk/S
avin
gs W
alk-
In1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
55$1
06-5
8.4%
$128
$53
-58.
6%$1
3,14
2$5
,4Ba
nk/S
avin
gs D
rive
-In1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
96$1
36-5
4.1%
$148
$68
-54.
1%$1
5,22
7$6
,9Ge
nera
l Offi
ce1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
07$4
3-5
9.8%
$53
$22
-58.
5%$5
,501
$2,2
Rese
arch
& D
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$7
3$3
3-5
4.8%
$37
$16
-56.
8%$3
,768
$1,6
INDU
STRI
AL:
Man
ufac
turi
ng1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$4
1$1
6-6
1.0%
$21
$8-6
1.9%
$2,1
34$8
War
ehou
sing
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$33
$14
-57.
6%$1
7$7
-58.
8%$1
,723
$7M
ini-W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$19
$5-7
3.7%
$9$2
-77.
8%$9
70$2
High
-Cub
e (A
utom
ated
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
3$7
-78.
8%$1
7$3
-82.
4%$1
,723
$3Ge
nera
l Lig
ht In
dust
rial
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$67
$28
-58.
2%$3
3$1
4-5
7.6%
$3,4
47$1
,4Co
ncre
te P
lant
acre
n/a
n/a
n/a
$143
$62
-56.
6%$7
2$3
1-5
6.9%
$7,3
70$3
,1Sa
nd M
inin
gac
ren/
an/
an/
a$2
2$8
-63.
6%$1
1$4
-63.
6%$1
,136
$4RE
TAIL
:Re
tail
1,00
0 sf
gla
n/a
n/a
n/a
$115
$69
-40.
0%$5
7$3
5-3
8.6%
$5,9
17$3
,5Ga
solin
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
n w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
n/a
n/a
n/a
$141
$55
-61.
0%$7
0$2
8-6
0.0%
$7,2
49$2
,8Ne
w/U
sed
Auto
Sal
es1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
32$8
2-6
4.7%
$116
$41
-64.
7%$1
1,97
2$4
,2Re
stau
rant
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$570
$220
-61.
4%$2
85$1
10-6
1.4%
$29,
349
$11,
3Fa
st F
ood
Rest
. w/D
rive
-Thr
u1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$8
32$4
54-4
5.4%
$416
$227
-45.
4%$4
2,83
8$2
3,3
Supe
rmar
ket
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$92
-65.
3%$1
33$4
6-6
5.4%
$13,
667
$4,7
Auto
mob
ile R
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$163
$66
-59.
5%$8
2$3
3-5
9.8%
$8,4
06$3
,4Se
lf-Se
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
yn/
an/
an/
a$3
24$4
9-8
4.9%
$162
$24
-85.
2%$1
6,69
9$2
,4Co
nven
ienc
e M
arke
t with
Gas
Pum
ps1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$5
87$2
38-5
9.5%
$293
$119
-59.
4%$3
0,21
3$1
2,2
Furn
iture
Sto
re1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
7$1
3-6
4.9%
$19
$7-6
3.2%
$1,9
26$6
RECR
EATI
ON
AL:
Golf
Cour
seho
len/
an/
an/
a$2
66$1
63-3
8.7%
$133
$82
-38.
3%$1
3,68
8$8
,3Ra
cque
t Clu
b/He
alth
Clu
b/Da
nce
Stud
io1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
58$1
32-4
8.8%
$129
$66
-48.
8%$1
3,27
5$6
,8Co
unty
Par
kac
ren/
an/
an/
a$1
9$9
-52.
6%$9
$4-5
5.6%
$956
$4Te
nnis
Cou
rtco
urt
n/a
n/a
n/a
$282
$153
-45.
7%$1
41$7
6-4
6.1%
$14,
523
$7,8
Mar
ina
boat
ber
thn/
an/
an/
a$2
3$1
4-3
9.1%
$11
$7-3
6.4%
$1,1
78$7
GOVE
RNM
ENTA
L:Po
st O
ffice
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$318
$151
-52.
5%$1
59$7
5-5
2.8%
$16,
383
$7,7
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$243
-37.
5%$1
94$1
22-3
7.1%
$20,
011
$12,
5Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
02$9
7-5
2.0%
$101
$48
-52.
5%$1
0,41
5$4
,9Ja
ilbe
dn/
an/
an/
a$2
0$2
630
.0%
$10
$13
30.0
%$1
,054
$1,3
MIS
CELL
ANEO
US:
Day
Care
Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$203
$76
-62.
6%$1
01$3
8-6
2.4%
$10,
429
$3,9
Hosp
ital
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$134
$57
-57.
5%$6
7$2
8-5
8.2%
$6,8
77$2
,9Ve
teri
nary
Clin
ic1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
06$1
5243
.4%
$53
$76
43.4
%$5
,476
$7,8
Chur
ch1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$6
1$2
6-5
7.4%
$31
$13
-58.
1%$3
,150
$1,3
Mov
ie T
heat
er w
/Mat
inee
scre
enn/
an/
an/
a$5
98$1
72-7
1.2%
$299
$86
-71.
2%$3
0,77
8$8
,8El
emen
tary
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
K-5
)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$5
$4-2
0.0%
$3$2
-33.
3%$2
66$1
Mid
dle
Scho
ol (P
riva
te, 6
-9)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5$5
0.0%
$3$2
-33.
3%$2
66$2
High
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
9-1
2)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
4$5
-64.
3%$7
$3-5
7.1%
$696
$2Un
iver
sity
/Jun
ior C
olle
ge (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
5$9
-40.
0%$8
$5-3
7.5%
$796
$4Fi
re S
tatio
n1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
0$1
0-6
6.7%
$15
$5-6
6.7%
$1,5
30$4
Tota
l (Al
l Fee
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Educ
atio
nal F
acili
ties*
City
Adm
in F
ee (2
.0%
)Co
unty
Adm
in. F
ee (1
.0%
)La
nd U
seUn
it
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$6
8727
5.4%
$430
$622
44.7
%$2
,974
$3,4
0614
.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$739
258.
7%$4
83$6
7239
.1%
$4,4
83$4
,248
-5.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$8
2627
0.4%
$524
$750
43.1
%$5
,031
$5,0
04-0
.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$418
245.
5%$2
85$3
8133
.7%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.
du$1
23$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
49$4
7021
5.4%
$349
$428
22.6
%$1
,745
$1,5
50-1
1.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$162
-29.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,804
$970
-65.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$150
-34.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,516
$686
-54.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$230
-26.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$4
32$2
22-4
8.CL
F)be
d$1
07$0
-100
.0%
$62
$0-1
00.0
%$3
12$2
30-2
6.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$620
$250
-59.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$2
84-7
7.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$4,3
21-6
7.ha
n 10
,000
sf
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$4
14-6
7.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$6,2
98-5
3.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$557
-61.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
0,63
4$4
,730
-55.
1,00
0 sf
$174
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
91$5
69-5
2.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
020
$6,2
19-5
2.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$250
-76.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$3
,798
$1,9
16-4
9.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$212
-61.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,798
$1,4
24-4
9.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$125
-66.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,318
$663
-49.
1,00
0 sf
$42
$0-1
00.0
%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$70
-75.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$617
-49.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$1
5-6
2.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$862
$217
-74.
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$42
$0-1
00.0
%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$35
-87.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$295
-76.
1,00
0 sf
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$512
$172
-66.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,404
$1,2
06-4
9.ac
re$1
65$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,130
$387
-65.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$5
,382
$2,7
03-4
9.ac
re$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
45$5
0-6
5.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$690
$346
-49.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$5
92-6
1.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,1
63$2
,862
-9.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$4
77-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,5
87$2
,287
-59.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$367
-59.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
0,10
8$3
,732
-63.
1,00
0 sf
$800
$0-1
00.0
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$3,9
23$1
,693
-56.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
2,15
2$9
,289
-58.
1,00
0 sf
$863
$0-1
00.0
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$2
,222
-47.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$3
4,78
1$2
0,45
9-4
1.1,
000
sf$2
22$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,087
$512
-52.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
1,17
9$4
,066
-63.
1,00
0 sf
$70
$0-1
00.0
%$2
0$0
-100
.0%
$134
$374
179.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$7
,830
$2,9
34-6
2.se
rvic
e ba
y$2
06$0
-100
.0%
$77
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,009
$217
-78.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
4,58
9$2
,209
-84.
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$4
63$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$1,4
55-3
5.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25,
430
$10,
463
-58.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$57
-66.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,373
$615
-55.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$2
69-7
9.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$7,8
82-2
9.ce
Stu
dio
1,00
0 sf
$259
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
70$7
71-3
9.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$5,8
35-4
6.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$5
0-3
8.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$718
$387
-46.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$789
-36.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
2,18
0$6
,856
-43.
boat
ber
th$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$45
$0-1
00.0
%$8
2$4
7-4
2.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$973
$654
-32.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$4
05-6
3.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
199
$7,1
36-4
9.1,
000
sf$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$4
39-5
2.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17,
925
$11,
712
-34.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$9,6
32$4
,842
-49.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$3
47-2
5.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$949
144.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$222
-70.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$8
,847
$3,5
82-5
9.1,
000
sf$1
71$0
-100
.0%
$83
$0-1
00.0
%$8
38$3
42-5
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$2
,498
-52.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$6
34-4
8.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$6
,962
98.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$127
-55.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,588
$1,1
54-5
5.sc
reen
$925
$0-1
00.0
%$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$4,5
35$1
,493
-67.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
2,74
3$7
,096
-68.
5)st
uden
t$1
0$0
-100
.0%
$12
$0-1
00.0
%$7
0$1
5-7
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$164
10.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$18
-74.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
49$2
2551
.st
uden
t$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$9
0$2
0-7
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$538
$237
-55.
0 or
few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$11
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$78
$25
-67.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$6
53$4
43-3
2.1,
000
sf$6
9$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$3
39$1
57-5
3.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$983
$324
-67.
ngle
Fam
ily (d
etac
hed)
rate
sho
uld
also
be
used
for "
Sing
le F
amily
Atta
ched
/Tow
nhou
se" r
esid
entia
l lan
d us
e.
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Libr
arie
sTr
ansp
orta
tion
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– Af
ford
able
Gro
wth
Fee
; Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Affo
rdab
le
Grow
thPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
11$1
2815
.3%
$56
$64
14.3
%$5
,736
$6,6
0915
.2%
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sf
du$1
43$1
472.
8%$7
2$7
42.
8%$7
,388
$7,5
822.
6% -
2,50
0 sf
or l
arge
rdu
$156
$166
6.4%
$78
$83
6.4%
$8,0
27$8
,531
6.3%
220
Mul
ti-Fa
mily
/Acc
esso
ry U
nit
du$7
0$8
420
.0%
$35
$42
20.0
%$3
,596
$4,3
3520
.6%
240
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (t
ied
dow
n)du
$61
$69
13.1
%$3
1$3
512
.9%
$3,1
56$3
,578
13.4
%TR
ANSI
ENT,
ASS
ISTE
D, G
ROUP
:31
0Ho
tel
room
$63
$23
-63.
5%$3
2$1
1-6
5.6%
$3,2
48$1
,166
-64.
1%32
0M
otel
room
$37
$17
-54.
1%$1
9$8
-57.
9%$1
,921
$861
-55.
2%62
0Nu
rsin
g Ho
me
bed
$18
$9-5
0.0%
$9$5
-44.
4%$9
11$4
66-4
8.8%
252
Assi
sted
Car
e Li
ving
Fac
ility
(ACL
F)be
d$2
2$1
0-5
4.5%
$11
$5-5
4.5%
$1,1
34$4
95-5
6.3%
OFF
ICE
& F
INAN
CIAL
:M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$300
$92
-69.
3%$1
50$4
6-6
9.3%
$15,
440
$4,7
43-6
9.3%
Med
ical
Offi
ce/C
linic
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sf1,
000
sf$3
00$1
34-5
5.3%
$150
$67
-55.
3%$1
5,44
0$6
,913
-55.
2%91
1Ba
nk/S
avin
gs W
alk-
In1,
000
sf$2
48$1
06-5
7.3%
$124
$53
-57.
3%$1
2,79
0$5
,446
-57.
4%91
2Ba
nk/S
avin
gs D
rive
-In1,
000
sf$2
90$1
36-5
3.1%
$145
$68
-53.
1%$1
4,93
8$6
,992
-53.
2%71
0Ge
nera
l Offi
ce1,
000
sf$1
02$4
3-5
7.8%
$51
$22
-56.
9%$5
,248
$2,2
31-5
7.5%
760
Rese
arch
& D
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r1,
000
sf$7
1$3
3-5
3.5%
$35
$16
-54.
3%$3
,634
$1,6
85-5
3.6%
INDU
STRI
AL:
140
Man
ufac
turi
ng1,
000
sf$4
0$1
6-6
0.0%
$20
$8-6
0.0%
$2,0
44$8
12-6
0.3%
150
War
ehou
sing
1,00
0 sf
$32
$14
-56.
3%$1
6$7
-56.
3%$1
,653
$708
-57.
2%15
1M
ini-W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$19
$5-7
3.7%
$9$2
-77.
8%$9
57$2
39-7
5.0%
152
High
-Cub
e (A
utom
ated
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sf$3
2$7
-78.
1%$1
6$3
-81.
3%$1
,653
$340
-79.
4%11
0Ge
nera
l Lig
ht In
dust
rial
1,00
0 sf
$65
$28
-56.
9%$3
2$1
4-5
6.3%
$3,3
24$1
,420
-57.
3%n/
aCo
ncre
te P
lant
acre
$138
$62
-55.
1%$6
9$3
1-5
5.1%
$7,0
97$3
,183
-55.
2%n/
aSa
nd M
inin
gac
re$2
1$8
-61.
9%$1
1$4
-63.
6%$1
,101
$408
-62.
9%RE
TAIL
:82
0Re
tail
1,00
0 sf
gla
$105
$69
-34.
3%$5
2$3
5-3
2.7%
$5,3
99$3
,558
-34.
1%94
4/ 9
46Ga
solin
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
n w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$135
$55
-59.
3%$6
7$2
8-5
8.2%
$6,9
37$2
,847
-59.
0%84
1Ne
w/U
sed
Auto
Sal
es1,
000
sf$2
26$8
2-6
3.7%
$113
$41
-63.
7%$1
1,66
3$4
,222
-63.
8%93
2Re
stau
rant
1,00
0 sf
$544
$220
-59.
6%$2
72$1
10-5
9.6%
$28,
021
$11,
312
-59.
6%93
4Fa
st F
ood
Rest
. w/D
rive
-Thr
u1,
000
sf$8
04$4
54-4
3.5%
$402
$227
-43.
5%$4
1,40
7$2
3,36
2-4
3.6%
850
Supe
rmar
ket
1,00
0 sf
$258
$92
-64.
3%$1
29$4
6-6
4.3%
$13,
299
$4,7
16-6
4.5%
942
Auto
mob
ile R
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
1,00
0 sf
$161
$66
-59.
0%$8
1$3
3-5
9.3%
$8,2
96$3
,407
-58.
9%94
7Se
lf-Se
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
y$3
18$4
9-8
4.6%
$159
$24
-84.
9%$1
6,35
8$2
,499
-84.
7%85
3Co
nven
ienc
e M
arke
t with
Gas
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$5
72$2
38-5
8.4%
$286
$119
-58.
4%$2
9,44
5$1
2,27
5-5
8.3%
890
Furn
iture
Sto
re1,
000
sf$3
6$1
3-6
3.9%
$18
$7-6
1.1%
$1,8
68$6
92-6
3.0%
RECR
EATI
ON
AL:
430
Golf
Cour
seho
le$2
57$1
63-3
6.6%
$129
$82
-36.
4%$1
3,24
6$8
,396
-36.
6%49
2Ra
cque
t Clu
b/He
alth
Clu
b/Da
nce
Stud
io1,
000
sf$2
49$1
32-4
7.0%
$125
$66
-47.
2%$1
2,84
5$6
,804
-47.
0%41
2Co
unty
Par
kac
re$1
8$9
-50.
0%$9
$4-5
5.6%
$928
$450
-51.
5%49
1Te
nnis
Cou
rtco
urt
$274
$153
-44.
2%$1
37$7
6-4
4.5%
$14,
103
$7,8
74-4
4.2%
420
Mar
ina
boat
ber
th$2
2$1
4-3
6.4%
$11
$7-3
6.4%
$1,1
50$7
22-3
7.2%
GOVE
RNM
ENTA
L:73
2Po
st O
ffice
1,00
0 sf
$312
$151
-51.
6%$1
56$7
5-5
1.9%
$16,
062
$7,7
67-5
1.6%
590
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
$383
$243
-36.
6%$1
91$1
22-3
6.1%
$19,
700
$12,
516
-36.
5%73
3Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sf$1
97$9
7-5
0.8%
$99
$48
-51.
5%$1
0,17
0$4
,987
-51.
0%57
1Ja
ilbe
d$1
7$2
652
.9%
$9$1
344
.4%
$897
$1,3
3548
.8%
MIS
CELL
ANEO
US:
565
Day
Care
Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
$199
$76
-61.
8%$9
9$3
8-6
1.6%
$10,
246
$3,9
18-6
1.8%
610
Hosp
ital
1,00
0 sf
$128
$57
-55.
5%$6
4$2
8-5
6.3%
$6,5
93$2
,925
-55.
6%64
0Ve
teri
nary
Clin
ic1,
000
sf$1
01$1
5250
.5%
$50
$76
52.0
%$5
,181
$7,8
2451
.0%
560
Chur
ch1,
000
sf$5
9$2
6-5
5.9%
$30
$13
-56.
7%$3
,053
$1,3
20-5
6.8%
444
Mov
ie T
heat
er w
/Mat
inee
scre
en$5
68$1
72-6
9.7%
$284
$86
-69.
7%$2
9,24
3$8
,847
-69.
7%52
0El
emen
tary
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
K-5
)st
uden
t$5
$4-2
0.0%
$2$2
0.0%
$248
$185
-25.
4%52
2M
iddl
e Sc
hool
(Pri
vate
, 6-9
)st
uden
t$5
$50.
0%$2
$20.
0%$2
48$2
500.
8%53
0Hi
gh S
choo
l (Pr
ivat
e, 9
-12)
stud
ent
$13
$5-6
1.5%
$7$3
-57.
1%$6
74$2
65-6
0.7%
540/
550
Univ
ersi
ty/J
unio
r Col
lege
(7,5
00 o
r few
er s
tude
nts)
stud
ent
$15
$9-4
0.0%
$8$5
-37.
5%$7
78$4
82-3
8.0%
n/a
Fire
Sta
tion
1,00
0 sf
$30
$10
-66.
7%$1
5$5
-66.
7%$1
,530
$496
-67.
6%*F
orEd
ucat
iona
lFac
ilitie
sIm
pact
Fee
the
Sing
leFa
mily
(det
ache
d)ra
tesh
ould
also
beus
edfo
r"Si
ngle
Fam
ilyAt
tach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
"res
iden
tiall
and
use
720
210
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Tota
l (Al
l Fee
s)IT
E LU
CLa
nd U
seUn
itCi
ty A
dmin
Fee
(2.0
%)
Coun
ty A
dmin
. Fee
(1.0
%)
Appendix K Master Fee Schedules:
Staff Recommended Fee Rates
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$3
4488
.0%
$430
$0-1
00.0
%$2
47$2
9017
.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$370
79.6
%$4
83$0
-100
.0%
$278
$314
12.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$4
1385
.2%
$524
$0-1
00.0
%$3
01$3
4815
.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$209
72.7
%$2
85$0
-100
.0%
$176
$181
2.du
$123
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$149
$235
57.7
%$3
49$0
-100
.0%
$182
$197
8.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$81
-64.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$1
31-1
8.ro
om$9
9$0
-100
.0%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$7
5-6
7.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$121
-24.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$115
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
CLF)
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$6
2$0
-100
.0%
$312
$115
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$1
42-8
8.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$229
-23.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$207
-83.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$3
3411
.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$279
-80.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
41$4
4931
.1,
000
sf$1
74$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,191
$285
-76.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$4
5963
.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$125
-88.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$2
01-1
8.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$106
-80.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$1
7131
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$63
-83.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$1
0114
.1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$3
5-8
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$56
-17.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$8
-80.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$1
3$1
2-7
.ou
se1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
8-9
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$28
-58.
1,00
0 sf
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$512
$86
-83.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
20$1
3915
.ac
re$1
65$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,130
$194
-82.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
65$3
1217
.ac
re$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
45$2
5-8
2.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34
$40
17.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$2
96-8
0.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$503
$477
-5.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$2
39-7
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$303
$385
27.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$184
-79.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
00$2
96-1
.1,
000
sf$8
00$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$847
-78.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,289
$1,3
655.
1,00
0 sf
$863
$0-1
00.0
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$1
,111
-73.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,389
$1,7
9229
.1,
000
sf$2
22$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,087
$256
-76.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$3
57$4
1315
.1,
000
sf$7
0$0
-100
.0%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$1
8739
.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$107
$302
182.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$0-1
00.0
%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$1
09-8
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$332
$175
-47.
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$4
63$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$728
-67.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$7
46$1
,174
57.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$29
-82.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$5
6$4
6-1
7.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$1
35-8
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$217
-49.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$386
-69.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$4
17$6
2249
.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$2
5-6
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$27
$40
48.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$395
-68.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$6
3655
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$0-1
00.0
%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$24
-70.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$3
840
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$2
03-8
1.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$326
4.1,
000
sf$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$2
20-7
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$302
$354
17.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$238
$280
17.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$1
74-6
2.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$153
$175
14.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$111
-85.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$1
791.
1,00
0 sf
$171
$0-1
00.0
%$8
3$0
-100
.0%
$838
$171
-79.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$2
75$2
760.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$3
17-7
4.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$287
$511
78.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$64
-77.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$1
039.
scre
en$9
25$0
-100
.0%
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,535
$747
-83.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,490
$1,2
04-1
9.5)
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$8-8
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$12
-29.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$9-8
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$14
-17.
stud
ent
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$90
$10
-88.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$2
1$1
6-2
3.0
or fe
wer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
t$1
1$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$7
8$1
3-8
3.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$18
$20
11.
1,00
0 sf
$69
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$339
$79
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
an/
an/
an
ngle
Fam
ily (d
etac
hed)
rate
sho
uld
also
be
used
for "
Sing
le F
amily
Atta
ched
/Tow
nhou
se" r
esid
entia
l lan
d us
e.
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
Publ
ic Bu
ildin
gsd
Use
Unit
Corr
ectio
nal F
acili
ties
Solid
Was
te F
acili
ties
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
Uni
ncor
pora
ted
Coun
ty
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Ra
500
sf$1
,302
$1,2
34-5
.2%
$2,9
74$3
,406
14.5
%$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$183
$184
0.5%
$7,5
99 s
f$1
,463
$1,3
43-8
.2%
$4,4
83$4
,248
-5.2
%$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$229
$210
-8.3
%$9
,3ar
ger
$1,5
87$1
,493
-5.9
%$5
,031
$5,0
04-0
.5%
$1,7
56$1
,702
-3.1
%$2
49$2
36-5
.2%
$10,
1/A
cces
sory
Uni
t$8
84$7
67-1
3.2%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.9
%$5
00$6
6833
.7%
$117
$120
2.6%
$4,8
/RV
(tied
dow
n)$9
42$7
49-2
0.5%
$1,7
45$1
,550
-11.
2%$6
23$1
,026
64.7
%$1
09$1
00-8
.3%
$4,4
SSIS
TED,
GRO
UP:
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,8
04$9
70-6
5.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$86
$34
-60.
5%$3
,5n/
an/
an/
a$1
,516
$686
-54.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$5
4$2
6-5
1.9%
$2,2
en/
an/
an/
a$4
32$2
22-4
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$30
$19
-36.
7%$1
,2Li
ving
Fac
ility
(ACL
F)n/
an/
an/
a$6
20$2
50-5
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$36
$20
-44.
4%$1
,4AN
CIAL
:e/
Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$4,3
21-6
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$125
-67.
9%$1
5,9
e/Cl
inic
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,41
1$6
,298
-53.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$3
89$1
82-5
3.2%
$15,
9W
alk-
Inn/
an/
an/
a$1
0,63
4$4
,730
-55.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$3
26$1
52-5
3.4%
$13,
3Dr
ive-
Inn/
an/
an/
a$1
3,02
0$6
,219
-52.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$3
76$1
90-4
9.5%
$15,
4e
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,7
98$1
,916
-49.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
39$6
3-5
4.7%
$5,6
evel
opm
ent C
ente
rn/
an/
an/
a$2
,798
$1,4
24-4
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$94
$48
-48.
9%$3
,8
gn/
an/
an/
a$1
,318
$663
-49.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$5
4$2
4-5
5.6%
$2,2
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
28$6
17-4
9.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$43
$20
-53.
5%$1
,7us
en/
an/
an/
a$8
62$2
17-7
4.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$24
$6-7
5.0%
$9ut
omat
ed) W
areh
ouse
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
28$2
95-7
6.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$43
$9-7
9.1%
$1,7
Indu
stri
aln/
an/
an/
a$2
,404
$1,2
06-4
9.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$86
$41
-52.
3%$3
,5t
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
82$2
,703
-49.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
85$9
1-5
0.8%
$7,5
n/a
n/a
n/a
$690
$346
-49.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$2
8$1
2-5
7.1%
$1,1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,1
63$2
,862
-9.5
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
55$1
07-3
1.0%
$6,3
vice
Sta
tion
with
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,5
87$2
,287
-59.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
83$8
6-5
3.0%
$7,4
to S
ales
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
108
$3,7
32-6
3.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$297
$115
-61.
3%$1
2,1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$22,
152
$9,2
89-5
8.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$741
$334
-54.
9%$3
0,3
t. w
/Dri
ve-T
hru
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34,
781
$20,
459
-41.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,070
$645
-39.
7%$4
3,8
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
179
$4,0
66-6
3.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$340
$132
-61.
2%$1
3,9
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
n/a
n/a
n/a
$7,8
30$2
,934
-62.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
07$9
6-5
3.6%
$8,4
ar W
ash
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
589
$2,2
09-8
4.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$413
$68
-83.
5%$1
6,9
Mar
ket w
ith G
as P
umps
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25,
430
$10,
463
-58.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$7
50$3
49-5
3.5%
$30,
7e
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,3
73$6
15-5
5.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$48
$19
-60.
4%$1
,9L:
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$7,8
82-2
9.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$342
$213
-37.
7%$1
4,0
/Hea
lth C
lub/
Danc
e St
udio
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$5,8
35-4
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$331
$192
-42.
0%$1
3,5
n/a
n/a
n/a
$718
$387
-46.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
4$1
3-4
5.8%
$9n/
an/
an/
a$1
2,18
0$6
,856
-43.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$3
61$2
19-3
9.3%
$14,
8n/
an/
an/
a$9
73$6
54-3
2.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$29
$19
-34.
5%$1
,1TA
L:n/
an/
an/
a$1
4,19
9$7
,136
-49.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$4
04$2
03-4
9.8%
$16,
5n/
an/
an/
a$1
7,92
5$1
1,71
2-3
4.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$492
$319
-35.
2%$2
0,1
Offi
ce C
ompl
exn/
an/
an/
a$9
,632
$4,8
42-4
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$258
$138
-46.
5%$1
0,5
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$949
144.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$2
9$3
831
.0%
$1,1
OUS
:te
rn/
an/
an/
a$8
,847
$3,5
82-5
9.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$257
$103
-59.
9%$1
0,5
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$2
,498
-52.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
73$8
3-5
2.0%
$7,0
nic
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$6
,962
98.3
%n/
an/
an/
a$1
39$2
1252
.5%
$5,7
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,5
88$1
,154
-55.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$7
9$3
7-5
3.2%
$3,2
r w/M
atin
een/
an/
an/
a$2
2,74
3$7
,096
-68.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$7
80$2
67-6
5.8%
$31,
9ho
ol (P
riva
te, K
-5)
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$164
10.1
%n/
an/
an/
a$7
$5-2
8.6%
$2l (
Priv
ate,
6-9
)n/
an/
an/
a$1
49$2
2551
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$7$7
0.0%
$2Pr
ivat
e, 9
-12)
n/a
n/a
n/a
$538
$237
-55.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
7$7
-58.
8%$7
nior
Col
lege
(7,5
00 o
r few
er s
tude
nts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
$653
$443
-32.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$2
0$1
3-3
5.0%
$8n/
an/
an/
a$9
83$3
24-6
7.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$40
$14
-65.
0%$1
,6
Adm
inist
rativ
e Fe
e (2
.5%
)
(det
ache
d)
Park
s & R
ecre
atio
nTr
ansp
orta
tion
Educ
atio
nal F
acili
ties*
Land
Use
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$3
4488
.0%
$430
$0-1
00.0
%$2
47$2
9017
.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$370
79.6
%$4
83$0
-100
.0%
$278
$314
12.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$4
1385
.2%
$524
$0-1
00.0
%$3
01$3
4815
.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$209
72.7
%$2
85$0
-100
.0%
$176
$181
2.du
$123
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$149
$235
57.7
%$3
49$0
-100
.0%
$182
$197
8.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$81
-64.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$1
60$1
31-1
8.ro
om$9
9$0
-100
.0%
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
29$7
5-6
7.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$160
$121
-24.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$115
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
CLF)
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$6
2$0
-100
.0%
$312
$115
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$1
72$1
857.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$1
42-8
8.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$299
$229
-23.
han
10,0
00 s
f1,
000
sf$1
86$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,275
$207
-83.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
99$3
3411
.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$279
-80.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
41$4
4931
.1,
000
sf$1
74$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,191
$285
-76.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
80$4
5963
.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$125
-88.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$2
46$2
01-1
8.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$106
-80.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
30$1
7131
.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$63
-83.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$8
8$1
0114
.1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$3
5-8
7.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$56
-17.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$8
-80.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$1
3$1
2-7
.ou
se1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
8-9
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$68
$28
-58.
1,00
0 sf
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$512
$86
-83.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
20$1
3915
.ac
re$1
65$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,130
$194
-82.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$2
65$3
1217
.ac
re$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$213
$0-1
00.0
%$1
45$2
5-8
2.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34
$40
17.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$2
96-8
0.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$503
$477
-5.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$2
39-7
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$303
$385
27.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$184
-79.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$3
00$2
96-1
.1,
000
sf$8
00$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$3
,923
$847
-78.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,289
$1,3
655.
1,00
0 sf
$863
$0-1
00.0
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$4,2
27$1
,111
-73.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,389
$1,7
9229
.1,
000
sf$2
22$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,087
$256
-76.
4%n/
an/
an/
a$3
57$4
1315
.1,
000
sf$7
0$0
-100
.0%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$1
8739
.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$107
$302
182.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$0-1
00.0
%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$1
09-8
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$332
$175
-47.
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$4
63$0
-100
.0%
$424
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,270
$728
-67.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$7
46$1
,174
57.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$29
-82.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$5
6$4
6-1
7.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$1
35-8
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$429
$217
-49.
ce S
tudi
o1,
000
sf$2
59$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,270
$386
-69.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$4
17$6
2249
.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$2
5-6
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$27
$40
48.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$395
-68.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$4
08$6
3655
.bo
at b
erth
$17
$0-1
00.0
%$4
5$0
-100
.0%
$82
$24
-70.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$2
7$3
840
.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$2
03-8
1.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$312
$326
4.1,
000
sf$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$2
20-7
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$302
$354
17.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$238
$280
17.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$1
74-6
2.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$153
$175
14.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$111
-85.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$1
77$1
791.
1,00
0 sf
$171
$0-1
00.0
%$8
3$0
-100
.0%
$838
$171
-79.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$2
75$2
760.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$3
17-7
4.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$287
$511
78.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$64
-77.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$9
4$1
039.
scre
en$9
25$0
-100
.0%
$188
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,535
$747
-83.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,490
$1,2
04-1
9.5)
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$8-8
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$12
-29.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$9-8
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17
$14
-17.
stud
ent
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$90
$10
-88.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$2
1$1
6-2
3.0
or fe
wer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
t$1
1$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$7
8$1
3-8
3.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$18
$20
11.
1,00
0 sf
$69
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$339
$79
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
an/
an/
an
ngle
Fam
ily (d
etac
hed)
rate
sho
uld
also
be
used
for "
Sing
le F
amily
Atta
ched
/Tow
nhou
se" r
esid
entia
l lan
d us
e.
Libr
arie
sEm
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
City
of F
ells
mer
e, T
own
of O
rchi
d, C
ity o
f Seb
astia
n, C
ity o
f Ver
o Be
ach
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
f
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$116
$115
-0.9
%$5
8$5
7-1
.7%
$5,9
90$5
,91
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sf
du$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$149
$133
-10.
7%$7
5$6
6-1
2.0%
$7,6
75$6
,83
- 2,
500
sf o
r lar
ger
du$1
,756
$1,7
02-3
.1%
$162
$149
-8.0
%$8
1$7
5-7
.4%
$8,3
37$7
,69
Mul
ti-Fa
mily
/Acc
esso
ry U
nit
du$5
00$6
6833
.7%
$73
$76
4.1%
$37
$38
2.7%
$3,7
77$3
,91
Mob
ile H
ome/
RV (t
ied
dow
n)du
$623
$1,0
2664
.7%
$65
$60
-7.7
%$3
2$3
0-6
.3%
$3,3
43$3
,09
TRAN
SIEN
T, A
SSIS
TED,
GRO
UP:
Hote
lro
omn/
an/
an/
a$6
6$2
4-6
3.6%
$33
$12
-63.
6%$3
,412
$1,2
1M
otel
room
n/a
n/a
n/a
$41
$18
-56.
1%$2
0$9
-55.
0%$2
,086
$90
Nurs
ing
Hom
ebe
dn/
an/
an/
a$2
1$1
0-5
2.4%
$11
$5-5
4.5%
$1,0
88$5
3As
sist
ed C
are
Livi
ng F
acili
ty (A
CLF)
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25
$11
-56.
0%$1
3$6
-53.
8%$1
,311
$56
OFF
ICE
& F
INAN
CIAL
:M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$306
$94
-69.
3%$1
53$4
7-6
9.3%
$15,
748
$4,8
3M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic g
reat
er th
an 1
0,00
0 sf
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$306
$137
-55.
2%$1
53$6
8-5
5.6%
$15,
748
$7,0
4Ba
nk/S
avin
gs W
alk-
In1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
55$1
09-5
7.3%
$128
$55
-57.
0%$1
3,14
2$5
,62
Bank
/Sav
ings
Dri
ve-In
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$296
$139
-53.
0%$1
48$7
0-5
2.7%
$15,
227
$7,1
7Ge
nera
l Offi
ce1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
07$4
5-5
7.9%
$53
$22
-58.
5%$5
,501
$2,3
0Re
sear
ch &
Dev
elop
men
t Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$73
$34
-53.
4%$3
7$1
7-5
4.1%
$3,7
68$1
,75
INDU
STRI
AL:
Man
ufac
turi
ng1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$4
1$1
7-5
8.5%
$21
$8-6
1.9%
$2,1
34$8
5W
areh
ousi
ng1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
3$1
4-5
7.6%
$17
$7-5
8.8%
$1,7
23$7
2M
ini-W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$19
$5-7
3.7%
$9$2
-77.
8%$9
70$2
4Hi
gh-C
ube
(Aut
omat
ed) W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$33
$7-7
8.8%
$17
$3-8
2.4%
$1,7
23$3
5Ge
nera
l Lig
ht In
dust
rial
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$67
$29
-56.
7%$3
3$1
4-5
7.6%
$3,4
47$1
,47
Conc
rete
Pla
ntac
ren/
an/
an/
a$1
43$6
4-5
5.2%
$72
$32
-55.
6%$7
,370
$3,3
0Sa
nd M
inin
gac
ren/
an/
an/
a$2
2$8
-63.
6%$1
1$4
-63.
6%$1
,136
$42
RETA
IL:
Reta
il1,
000
sfgl
an/
an/
an/
a$1
15$7
3-3
6.5%
$57
$36
-36.
8%$5
,917
$3,7
4Ga
solin
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
n w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
n/a
n/a
n/a
$141
$58
-58.
9%$7
0$2
9-5
8.6%
$7,2
49$2
,99
New
/Use
d Au
to S
ales
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$232
$84
-63.
8%$1
16$4
2-6
3.8%
$11,
972
$4,3
3Re
stau
rant
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$570
$230
-59.
6%$2
85$1
15-5
9.6%
$29,
349
$11,
84Fa
st F
ood
Rest
. w/D
rive
-Thr
u1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$8
32$4
67-4
3.9%
$416
$234
-43.
8%$4
2,83
8$2
4,06
Supe
rmar
ket
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$265
$95
-64.
2%$1
33$4
7-6
4.7%
$13,
667
$4,8
7Au
tom
obile
Rep
air/
Body
Sho
p1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
63$6
8-5
8.3%
$82
$34
-58.
5%$8
,406
$3,5
2Se
lf-Se
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
yn/
an/
an/
a$3
24$5
0-8
4.6%
$162
$25
-84.
6%$1
6,69
9$2
,56
Conv
enie
nce
Mar
ket w
ith G
as P
umps
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$587
$247
-57.
9%$2
93$1
24-5
7.7%
$30,
213
$12,
73Fu
rnitu
re S
tore
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$37
$14
-62.
2%$1
9$7
-63.
2%$1
,926
$71
RECR
EATI
ON
AL:
Golf
Cour
seho
len/
an/
an/
a$2
66$1
65-3
8.0%
$133
$82
-38.
3%$1
3,68
8$8
,48
Racq
uet C
lub/
Heal
th C
lub/
Danc
e St
udio
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$258
$137
-46.
9%$1
29$6
8-4
7.3%
$13,
275
$7,0
4Co
unty
Par
kac
ren/
an/
an/
a$1
9$9
-52.
6%$9
$5-4
4.4%
$956
$46
Tenn
is C
ourt
cour
tn/
an/
an/
a$2
82$1
58-4
4.0%
$141
$79
-44.
0%$1
4,52
3$8
,12
Mar
ina
boat
ber
thn/
an/
an/
a$2
3$1
4-3
9.1%
$11
$7-3
6.4%
$1,1
78$7
3GO
VERN
MEN
TAL:
Post
Offi
ce1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
18$1
53-5
1.9%
$159
$77
-51.
6%$1
6,38
3$7
,89
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$246
-36.
8%$1
94$1
23-3
6.6%
$20,
011
$12,
65Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$2
02$1
02-4
9.5%
$101
$51
-49.
5%$1
0,41
5$5
,27
Jail
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$20
$26
30.0
%$1
0$1
330
.0%
$1,0
54$1
,33
MIS
CELL
ANEO
US:
Day
Care
Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$203
$77
-62.
1%$1
01$3
9-6
1.4%
$10,
429
$3,9
8Ho
spita
l1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
34$5
9-5
6.0%
$67
$29
-56.
7%$6
,877
$3,0
3Ve
teri
nary
Clin
ic1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$1
06$1
5647
.2%
$53
$78
47.2
%$5
,476
$8,0
2Ch
urch
1,00
0 sf
n/a
n/a
n/a
$61
$26
-57.
4%$3
1$1
3-5
8.1%
$3,1
50$1
,36
Mov
ie T
heat
er w
/Mat
inee
scre
enn/
an/
an/
a$5
98$1
81-6
9.7%
$299
$90
-69.
9%$3
0,77
8$9
,31
Elem
enta
ry S
choo
l (Pr
ivat
e, K
-5)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5$4
-20.
0%$3
$2-3
3.3%
$266
$19
Mid
dle
Scho
ol (P
riva
te, 6
-9)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5$5
0.0%
$3$2
-33.
3%$2
66$2
5Hi
gh S
choo
l (Pr
ivat
e, 9
-12)
stud
ent
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14
$5-6
4.3%
$7$3
-57.
1%$6
96$2
7Un
iver
sity
/Jun
ior C
olle
ge (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
tn/
an/
an/
a$1
5$1
0-3
3.3%
$8$5
-37.
5%$7
96$4
9Fi
re S
tatio
n1,
000
sfn/
an/
an/
a$3
0$8
-73.
3%$1
5$4
-73.
3%$1
,530
$41
Tota
l (Al
l Fee
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Educ
atio
nal F
acili
ties*
City
Adm
in F
ee (2
.0%
)Co
unty
Adm
in. F
ee (1
.0%
)La
nd U
seUn
it
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
du$1
51$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
83$3
4488
.0%
$430
$0-1
00.0
%$2
,974
$3,4
0614
.du
$170
$0-1
00.0
%$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$206
$370
79.6
%$4
83$0
-100
.0%
$4,4
83$4
,248
-5.
du$1
84$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$2
23$4
1385
.2%
$524
$0-1
00.0
%$5
,031
$5,0
04-0
.du
$100
$0-1
00.0
%$5
7$0
-100
.0%
$121
$209
72.7
%$2
85$0
-100
.0%
$2,4
28$2
,742
12.
du$1
23$0
-100
.0%
$75
$0-1
00.0
%$1
49$2
3557
.7%
$349
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,745
$1,5
50-1
1.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$81
-64.
6%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,804
$970
-65.
room
$99
$0-1
00.0
%$2
1$0
-100
.0%
$229
$75
-67.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,516
$686
-54.
bed
$107
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$312
$115
-63.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$4
32$2
22-4
8.CL
F)be
d$1
07$0
-100
.0%
$62
$0-1
00.0
%$3
12$1
15-6
3.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$620
$250
-59.
f or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$1
42-8
8.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$4,3
21-6
7.ha
n 10
,000
sf
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
75$2
07-8
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
411
$6,2
98-5
3.1,
000
sf$2
12$0
-100
.0%
$118
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,454
$279
-80.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
0,63
4$4
,730
-55.
1,00
0 sf
$174
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
91$2
85-7
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$13,
020
$6,2
19-5
2.1,
000
sf$1
53$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,050
$125
-88.
1%n/
an/
an/
a$3
,798
$1,9
16-4
9.er
1,00
0 sf
$81
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$555
$106
-80.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,798
$1,4
24-4
9.
1,00
0 sf
$55
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$375
$63
-83.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,318
$663
-49.
1,00
0 sf
$42
$0-1
00.0
%$4
7$0
-100
.0%
$288
$35
-87.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,228
$617
-49.
1,00
0 sf
$8$0
-100
.0%
$19
$0-1
00.0
%$4
0$8
-80.
0%n/
an/
an/
a$8
62$2
17-7
4.ou
se1,
000
sf$4
2$0
-100
.0%
$47
$0-1
00.0
%$2
88$1
8-9
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,2
28$2
95-7
6.1,
000
sf$7
5$0
-100
.0%
$236
$0-1
00.0
%$5
12$8
6-8
3.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,4
04$1
,206
-49.
acre
$165
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
30$1
94-8
2.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
82$2
,703
-49.
acre
$21
$0-1
00.0
%$2
13$0
-100
.0%
$145
$25
-82.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$6
90$3
46-4
9.
1,00
0 sf
gla
$312
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$1,5
31$2
96-8
0.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,1
63$2
,862
-9.
or w
/o C
ar W
ash
fuel
pos
.$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$39
$0-1
00.0
%$9
21$2
39-7
4.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,5
87$2
,287
-59.
1,00
0 sf
$186
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$912
$184
-79.
8%n/
an/
an/
a$1
0,10
8$3
,732
-63.
1,00
0 sf
$800
$0-1
00.0
%$3
30$0
-100
.0%
$3,9
23$8
47-7
8.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$22,
152
$9,2
89-5
8.1,
000
sf$8
63$0
-100
.0%
$330
$0-1
00.0
%$4
,227
$1,1
11-7
3.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$34,
781
$20,
459
-41.
1,00
0 sf
$222
$0-1
00.0
%$4
24$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
87$2
56-7
6.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
179
$4,0
66-6
3.1,
000
sf$7
0$0
-100
.0%
$20
$0-1
00.0
%$1
34$1
8739
.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$7,8
30$2
,934
-62.
serv
ice
bay
$206
$0-1
00.0
%$7
7$0
-100
.0%
$1,0
09$1
09-8
9.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
589
$2,2
09-8
4.Pu
mps
1,00
0 sf
$463
$0-1
00.0
%$4
24$0
-100
.0%
$2,2
70$7
28-6
7.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25,
430
$10,
463
-58.
1,00
0 sf
$35
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$170
$29
-82.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$1
,373
$615
-55.
hole
$267
$0-1
00.0
%$3
8$0
-100
.0%
$1,3
07$1
35-8
9.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11,
248
$7,8
82-2
9.ce
Stu
dio
1,00
0 sf
$259
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
70$3
86-6
9.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$10,
824
$5,8
35-4
6.ac
re$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$85
$0-1
00.0
%$8
1$2
5-6
9.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$718
$387
-46.
cour
t$2
53$0
-100
.0%
$18
$0-1
00.0
%$1
,241
$395
-68.
2%n/
an/
an/
a$1
2,18
0$6
,856
-43.
boat
ber
th$1
7$0
-100
.0%
$45
$0-1
00.0
%$8
2$2
4-7
0.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$973
$654
-32.
1,00
0 sf
$194
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$1,1
07$2
03-8
1.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$14,
199
$7,1
36-4
9.1,
000
sf$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$94
$0-1
00.0
%$9
19$2
20-7
6.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$17,
925
$11,
712
-34.
1,00
0 sf
$148
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$9,6
32$4
,842
-49.
bed
n/a
n/a
n/a
$16
$0-1
00.0
%$4
66$1
74-6
2.7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$389
$949
144.
1,00
0 sf
$110
$0-1
00.0
%$2
36$0
-100
.0%
$755
$111
-85.
3%n/
an/
an/
a$8
,847
$3,5
82-5
9.1,
000
sf$1
71$0
-100
.0%
$83
$0-1
00.0
%$8
38$1
71-7
9.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,3
09$2
,498
-52.
1,00
0 sf
$178
$0-1
00.0
%$1
18$0
-100
.0%
$1,2
23$3
17-7
4.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,5
11$6
,962
98.
1,00
0 sf
$58
$0-1
00.0
%$3
3$0
-100
.0%
$285
$64
-77.
5%n/
an/
an/
a$2
,588
$1,1
54-5
5.sc
reen
$925
$0-1
00.0
%$1
88$0
-100
.0%
$4,5
35$7
47-8
3.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$22,
743
$7,0
96-6
8.5)
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$8-8
8.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$164
10.
stud
ent
$10
$0-1
00.0
%$1
2$0
-100
.0%
$70
$9-8
7.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$149
$225
51.
stud
ent
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$1
3$0
-100
.0%
$90
$10
-88.
9%n/
an/
an/
a$5
38$2
37-5
5.0
or fe
wer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
t$1
1$0
-100
.0%
$13
$0-1
00.0
%$7
8$1
3-8
3.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
$653
$443
-32.
1,00
0 sf
$69
$0-1
00.0
%$9
4$0
-100
.0%
$339
$79
-76.
7%n/
an/
an/
a$9
83$3
24-6
7.ng
le F
amily
(det
ache
d) ra
te s
houl
d al
so b
e us
ed fo
r "Si
ngle
Fam
ily A
ttach
ed/T
ownh
ouse
" res
iden
tial l
and
use.
d Us
eUn
itCo
rrec
tiona
l Fac
ilitie
sSo
lid W
aste
Fac
ilitie
sPu
blic
Build
ings
Libr
arie
sTr
ansp
orta
tion
Mas
ter F
ee S
ched
ule
– St
aff R
ecom
men
ded
Fee;
Tow
n of
Indi
an R
iver
Sho
res
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
2009
Adop
ted
Rate
Staf
fPe
rcen
t Ch
ange
RESI
DEN
TIAL
:
- Le
ss th
an 1
,500
sf
du$1
11$1
09-1
.8%
$56
$55
-1.8
%$5
,736
$5,6
16-2
.1%
- 1,
500
to 2
,499
sf
du$1
43$1
26-1
1.9%
$72
$63
-12.
5%$7
,388
$6,5
09-1
1.9%
- 2,
500
sf o
r lar
ger
du$1
56$1
42-9
.0%
$78
$71
-9.0
%$8
,027
$7,3
32-8
.7%
220
Mul
ti-Fa
mily
/Acc
esso
ry U
nit
du$7
0$7
22.
9%$3
5$3
62.
9%$3
,596
$3,7
273.
7%24
0M
obile
Hom
e/RV
(tie
d do
wn)
du$6
1$5
6-8
.2%
$31
$28
-9.7
%$3
,156
$2,8
95-8
.3%
TRAN
SIEN
T, A
SSIS
TED,
GRO
UP:
310
Hote
lro
om$6
3$2
1-6
6.7%
$32
$11
-65.
6%$3
,248
$1,0
83-6
6.7%
320
Mot
elro
om$3
7$1
5-5
9.5%
$19
$8-5
7.9%
$1,9
21$7
84-5
9.2%
620
Nurs
ing
Hom
ebe
d$1
8$7
-61.
1%$9
$3-6
6.7%
$911
$347
-61.
9%25
2As
sist
ed C
are
Livi
ng F
acili
ty (A
CLF)
bed
$22
$7-6
8.2%
$11
$4-6
3.6%
$1,1
34$3
76-6
6.8%
OFF
ICE
& F
INAN
CIAL
:M
edic
al O
ffice
/Clin
ic 1
0,00
0 sf
or l
ess
1,00
0 sf
$300
$89
-70.
3%$1
50$4
5-7
0.0%
$15,
440
$4,5
97-7
0.2%
Med
ical
Offi
ce/C
linic
gre
ater
than
10,
000
sf1,
000
sf$3
00$1
30-5
6.7%
$150
$65
-56.
7%$1
5,44
0$6
,700
-56.
6%91
1Ba
nk/S
avin
gs W
alk-
In1,
000
sf$2
48$1
00-5
9.7%
$124
$50
-59.
7%$1
2,79
0$5
,159
-59.
7%91
2Ba
nk/S
avin
gs D
rive
-In1,
000
sf$2
90$1
30-5
5.2%
$145
$65
-55.
2%$1
4,93
8$6
,699
-55.
2%71
0Ge
nera
l Offi
ce1,
000
sf$1
02$4
1-5
9.8%
$51
$20
-60.
8%$5
,248
$2,1
02-5
9.9%
760
Rese
arch
& D
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r1,
000
sf$7
1$3
1-5
6.3%
$35
$15
-57.
1%$3
,634
$1,5
76-5
6.6%
INDU
STRI
AL:
140
Man
ufac
turi
ng1,
000
sf$4
0$1
5-6
2.5%
$20
$7-6
5.0%
$2,0
44$7
48-6
3.4%
150
War
ehou
sing
1,00
0 sf
$32
$13
-59.
4%$1
6$7
-56.
3%$1
,653
$672
-59.
3%15
1M
ini-W
areh
ouse
1,00
0 sf
$19
$5-7
3.7%
$9$2
-77.
8%$9
57$2
32-7
5.8%
152
High
-Cub
e (A
utom
ated
) War
ehou
se1,
000
sf$3
2$6
-81.
3%$1
6$3
-81.
3%$1
,653
$322
-80.
5%11
0Ge
nera
l Lig
ht In
dust
rial
1,00
0 sf
$65
$26
-60.
0%$3
2$1
3-5
9.4%
$3,3
24$1
,331
-60.
0%n/
aCo
ncre
te P
lant
acre
$138
$58
-58.
0%$6
9$2
9-5
8.0%
$7,0
97$2
,984
-58.
0%n/
aSa
nd M
inin
gac
re$2
1$7
-66.
7%$1
1$4
-63.
6%$1
,101
$382
-65.
3%RE
TAIL
:82
0Re
tail
1,00
0 sf
gla
$105
$63
-40.
0%$5
2$3
2-3
8.5%
$5,3
99$3
,253
-39.
7%94
4/ 9
46Ga
solin
e/Se
rvic
e St
atio
n w
ith o
r w/o
Car
Was
hfu
el p
os.
$135
$51
-62.
2%$6
7$2
5-6
2.7%
$6,9
37$2
,602
-62.
5%84
1Ne
w/U
sed
Auto
Sal
es1,
000
sf$2
26$7
8-6
5.5%
$113
$39
-65.
5%$1
1,66
3$4
,033
-65.
4%93
2Re
stau
rant
1,00
0 sf
$544
$203
-62.
7%$2
72$1
01-6
2.9%
$28,
021
$10,
440
-62.
7%93
4Fa
st F
ood
Rest
. w/D
rive
-Thr
u1,
000
sf$8
04$4
31-4
6.4%
$402
$216
-46.
3%$4
1,40
7$2
2,21
7-4
6.3%
850
Supe
rmar
ket
1,00
0 sf
$258
$86
-66.
7%$1
29$4
3-6
6.7%
$13,
299
$4,4
51-6
6.5%
942
Auto
mob
ile R
epai
r/Bo
dy S
hop
1,00
0 sf
$161
$62
-61.
5%$8
1$3
1-6
1.7%
$8,2
96$3
,214
-61.
3%94
7Se
lf-Se
rvic
e Ca
r Was
hse
rvic
e ba
y$3
18$4
6-8
5.5%
$159
$23
-85.
5%$1
6,35
8$2
,387
-85.
4%85
3Co
nven
ienc
e M
arke
t with
Gas
Pum
ps1,
000
sf$5
72$2
24-6
0.8%
$286
$112
-60.
8%$2
9,44
5$1
1,52
7-6
0.9%
890
Furn
iture
Sto
re1,
000
sf$3
6$1
3-6
3.9%
$18
$6-6
6.7%
$1,8
68$6
63-6
4.5%
RECR
EATI
ON
AL:
430
Golf
Cour
seho
le$2
57$1
60-3
7.7%
$129
$80
-38.
0%$1
3,24
6$8
,257
-37.
7%49
2Ra
cque
t Clu
b/He
alth
Clu
b/Da
nce
Stud
io1,
000
sf$2
49$1
24-5
0.2%
$125
$62
-50.
4%$1
2,84
5$6
,407
-50.
1%41
2Co
unty
Par
kac
re$1
8$8
-55.
6%$9
$4-5
5.6%
$928
$424
-54.
3%49
1Te
nnis
Cou
rtco
urt
$274
$145
-47.
1%$1
37$7
3-4
6.7%
$14,
103
$7,4
69-4
7.0%
420
Mar
ina
boat
ber
th$2
2$1
4-3
6.4%
$11
$7-3
6.4%
$1,1
50$6
99-3
9.2%
GOVE
RNM
ENTA
L:73
2Po
st O
ffice
1,00
0 sf
$312
$147
-52.
9%$1
56$7
3-5
3.2%
$16,
062
$7,5
59-5
2.9%
590
Libr
ary
1,00
0 sf
$383
$239
-37.
6%$1
91$1
19-3
7.7%
$19,
700
$12,
290
-37.
6%73
3Go
vern
men
t Offi
ce C
ompl
ex1,
000
sf$1
97$9
7-5
0.8%
$99
$48
-51.
5%$1
0,17
0$4
,987
-51.
0%57
1Ja
ilbe
d$1
7$2
229
.4%
$9$1
122
.2%
$897
$1,1
5628
.9%
MIS
CELL
ANEO
US:
565
Day
Care
Cen
ter
1,00
0 sf
$199
$74
-62.
8%$9
9$3
7-6
2.6%
$10,
246
$3,8
04-6
2.9%
610
Hosp
ital
1,00
0 sf
$128
$53
-58.
6%$6
4$2
7-5
7.8%
$6,5
93$2
,749
-58.
3%64
0Ve
teri
nary
Clin
ic1,
000
sf$1
01$1
4644
.6%
$50
$73
46.0
%$5
,181
$7,4
9844
.7%
560
Chur
ch1,
000
sf$5
9$2
4-5
9.3%
$30
$12
-60.
0%$3
,053
$1,2
54-5
8.9%
444
Mov
ie T
heat
er w
/Mat
inee
scre
en$5
68$1
57-7
2.4%
$284
$78
-72.
5%$2
9,24
3$8
,078
-72.
4%52
0El
emen
tary
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
K-5
)st
uden
t$5
$3-4
0.0%
$2$2
0.0%
$248
$177
-28.
6%52
2M
iddl
e Sc
hool
(Pri
vate
, 6-9
)st
uden
t$5
$50.
0%$2
$20.
0%$2
48$2
41-2
.8%
530
High
Sch
ool (
Priv
ate,
9-1
2)st
uden
t$1
3$5
-61.
5%$7
$2-7
1.4%
$674
$254
-62.
3%54
0/55
0Un
iver
sity
/Jun
ior C
olle
ge (7
,500
or f
ewer
stu
dent
s)st
uden
t$1
5$9
-40.
0%$8
$5-3
7.5%
$778
$470
-39.
6%n/
aFi
reSt
atio
n1,
000
sf$3
0$8
-73.
3%$1
5$4
-73.
3%$1
,530
$415
-72.
9%
720
210
Sing
le F
amily
(det
ache
d)
Tota
l (Al
l Fee
s)IT
E LU
CLa
nd U
seUn
itCi
ty A
dmin
Fee
(2.0
%)
Coun
ty A
dmin
. Fee
(1.0
%)