Indian River County Impact Fee Study Final Report - irccdd.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Residential Functional Population It is generally assumed that people spend one-half to two-thirds of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of IRC functional population for fees using a 24-hour versus 11- hour approach, an analysis of IRC population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that, in the case of 24-hour days, people, on average, spend 15.6 hours, or 65 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 35 percent away from home. In the case of 11-hour days, people spend 3.8 hours, or 35 percent of their time, at their place of residence and the remaining 65 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Appendix A, Tables A-9 through A-11, and resulting percentages are displayed in Tables II-9 and II-10. Nonresidential Functional Population Developing estimates of functional residents for nonresidential land uses is more complicated than developing estimates of functional residents for residential land uses, given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used internationally. 1 This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips times 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips times occupants per vehicle minus employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker hours per day times five days in a work week). • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors times number of hours per day times relevant days in week such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by considering time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table II-9 shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential uses/categories in IRC for the year 2004 based on a 24 hours per day, 7 days per week analysis. 1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992). Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County May 2005 II-8 Impact Fee Study
Table II-9 24-Hour/7-Day General Functional Population Coefficients Journey- One-Way to-Work Daily Visitors Visitor Days Functional ITE Hours Trips Per Trips Per Occupants Occupants Per Hours Per Population Land-Use Category Code In-Place Employee Employee Per Trip Per Trip Employee Per Trip Week Coefficients (1) Residential 0.650 Natural Resources N/A 9.00 3.02 1.51 1.32 1.38 0.09 1.00 5 0.271 Construction 110 9.00 3.02 1.51 1.32 1.38 0.09 1.00 5 0.271 Manufacturing 140 9.00 2.13 1.07 1.32 1.38 0.06 1.00 5 0.270 TCU, Warehousing 110 9.00 3.02 1.51 1.32 1.38 0.09 1.00 5 0.271 Wholesale Trade 150 9.00 3.89 1.95 1.32 1.38 0.12 1.00 5 0.271 Retail Trade (2) 820 9.00 67.30 33.65 1.24 1.73 16.49 1.50 7 1.406 FIRE 710 9.00 3.32 1.66 1.24 1.73 0.81 1.00 5 0.292 Services 710 9.00 3.32 1.66 1.24 1.73 0.81 1.00 5 0.292 Government Services 730 9.00 11.95 5.98 1.24 1.73 2.93 1.00 7 0.497 Trips per employee based on Trip Generation Seventh Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2004) as follows: ITE Code 110 at 3.02 weekday trips per employee, page 90. ITE Code 140 at 2.13 weekday trips per employee, page 161. ITE Code 150 at 3.89 weekday trips per employee, page 190. ITE Code 710 at 3.32 weekday trips per employee, page 1151. ITE Code 730 at 11.95 weekday trips per employee, page 1200. ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from page 1451. Retail - Trips per Employee Determination Assumed Weighted Retail Scale Center Size Trip Rate Share Trips Neighborhood < 50k sq.ft. 25,000 110.32 40.0% 44.13 Community 50k - 250k sq.ft. 150,000 58.93 30.0% 17.68 Regional 250k - 500k sq.ft. 375,000 42.76 20.0% 8.55 Super Reg. 500k-1000k sq.ft. 750,000 33.55 10.0% 3.35 Sum of Weighted Trips/1k sq.ft. 73.71 One-Way Trips/1k sq.ft. 36.86 Square Feet/Retail Employee (2) 913 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 1.0953 Trips per employee 67.30 Journey-to-Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) (see http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/index/shtml) as follows: 1.32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip Daily Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows: 1.38 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip 1.73 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip (1) The equation to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land-use categories except residential includes the following: [(Employee Hours x Days per Week) + (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trip x Days per Week)] (24 Hours per Day x 7 Days per Week) (2) Square feet per retail employee from Energy Information Administration (2002) from Table B-1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey 1999 Similar to Table II-9 above, the following table provides the general functional population coefficients for nonresidential uses/categories in IRC for the year 2004 based on an 11 hours per day, 5 days per week analysis. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County May 2005 II-9 Impact Fee Study
Page 2 and 3: (This page left blank intentionally
Page 4 and 5: Credit Component...................
Page 6 and 7: Tables Proposed Parks and Recreatio
Page 8 and 9: Table VI-5 Comparison of IRC Curren
Page 10 and 11: Maps Map III-1 Correctional Facilit
Page 12 and 13: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Ap
Page 14 and 15: o A non-charter county may adopt co
Page 16 and 17: • Most communities make the effec
Page 18 and 19: • Reasonable administrative costs
Page 20 and 21: • The BCC may establish a policy
Page 22 and 23: Table I-2 Current and Recommended S
Page 24 and 25: Table I-4 Historical and Projected
Page 26 and 27: (This space intentionally left blan
Page 28 and 29: Table II-1 IRC Population Estimates
Page 30 and 31: Table II-4 Unincorporated County Ar
Page 32 and 33: Table II-8 Unincorporated County Ar
Page 36 and 37: Table II-10 11-Hour/5-Day General F
Page 38 and 39: Table II-12 Countywide Excluding In
Page 40 and 41: Table II-14 Countywide Functional P
Page 42 and 43: Table II-16 Functional Residents fo
Page 44 and 45: Table II-19 Assumptions for Nonresi
Page 48 and 49: Table III-1 Land & Buildings Invent
Page 50 and 51: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. I
Page 52 and 53: Table III-3 Level of Service Compar
Page 54 and 55: Table III-6 Equipment Cost Equipmen
Page 56 and 57: Table III-9 Historical Capital Expe
Page 58 and 59: Existing Deficiencies As discussed
Page 60 and 61: Table III-13 (continued) Impact Fee
Page 62 and 63: Table III-15 Annual Impact Fee Reve
Page 66 and 67: • The SWDD also operates five cus
Page 70 and 71: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. I
Page 72 and 73: Demand Component Based on the LOS s
Page 74 and 75: Table IV-4 Proposed Capital Expendi
Page 76 and 77: As mentioned previously, future cap
Page 78 and 79: Table IV-7 Historical Revenue Sourc
Page 80 and 81: The following table provides a summ
Page 82 and 83: Existing Deficiencies As presented
Page 84 and 85:
Table IV-13 Proposed Solid Waste Im
Page 86 and 87:
Estimated Revenues As presented in
Page 88 and 89:
Table V-1 Summary of Public Buildin
Page 90 and 91:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. I
Page 92 and 93:
Services provided by County-owned a
Page 94 and 95:
Table V-6 Public Building Replaceme
Page 96 and 97:
Table V-8 summarizes the capital ex
Page 98 and 99:
The vacant land value as a percenta
Page 100 and 101:
Table V-12 Proposed Public Building
Page 102 and 103:
Table V-13 2025 Demand and Cost For
Page 104 and 105:
guideline in planning future infras
Page 106 and 107:
(This space intentionally left blan
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
In addition to the available materi
Page 112 and 113:
Table VI-5 compares the County’s
Page 114 and 115:
Table VI-8 Building Unit Costs (1)
Page 116 and 117:
Library Materials and Equipment The
Page 118 and 119:
Table VI-13 Library Materials and E
Page 120 and 121:
It should be noted that it is the C
Page 122 and 123:
Table VI-17 Total Credit per Reside
Page 124 and 125:
Table VI-19 Persons per Housing Uni
Page 126 and 127:
(1) Source: Section II, Table II-1
Page 128 and 129:
As presented in Table VI-21, the pr
Page 130 and 131:
Table VII-1 Land & Buildings Invent
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Table VII-3 Capital Equipment Repla
Page 136 and 137:
Table VII-5 Current Level of Servic
Page 138 and 139:
Table VII-7 Station Equipment Costs
Page 140 and 141:
Table VII-10 Six-Year Historical Ca
Page 142 and 143:
Table VII-12 Percent of Past Proper
Page 144 and 145:
Table VII-14 Proposed Fire/EMS Impa
Page 146 and 147:
Table VII-15 2025 Demand and Cost F
Page 148 and 149:
guideline in planning future infras
Page 150 and 151:
Table VIII-1 Land and Building Inve
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
unincorporated county area. The cur
Page 156 and 157:
Table VIII-6 Equipment Cost Equipme
Page 158 and 159:
Table VIII-8 Historical Capital Exp
Page 160 and 161:
Table VIII-10 Vacant Land Value Per
Page 162 and 163:
Table VIII-12 Net Impact Cost Impac
Page 164 and 165:
Table VIII-13 (continued) Proposed
Page 166 and 167:
Table VIII-15 Annual Impact Fee Rev
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Cost Component Cost per Student Sta
Page 176 and 177:
Total Impact Cost per Student Stati
Page 178 and 179:
fees is given only for revenue used
Page 180 and 181:
Table IX-5 2-Mill Revenue Credit Ca
Page 182 and 183:
Table IX-7 Net Impact Cost per Stud
Page 184 and 185:
Table IX-10 2025 Demand and Cost Fo
Page 186 and 187:
As presented in Table IX-10, the pr
Page 188 and 189:
Page 191:
Table X-1 (Continued) Parks & Recre
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Table X-2 Parks & Recreation Facili
Page 198 and 199:
was calculated using historical exp
Page 200 and 201:
Table X-7 Regional Parks Equipment/
Page 202 and 203:
Table X-9 Programmed Capital Costs
Page 204 and 205:
Table X-11 Historical Capital Expen
Page 206 and 207:
Table X-13 Vacant Land Value Percen
Page 208 and 209:
Table X-15 Net Impact Cost per Resi
Page 210 and 211:
Table X-18 2025 Demand and Cost For
Page 212 and 213:
For impact fee purposes, revenue pr
Page 214 and 215:
(This page left blank intentionally
Page 216 and 217:
Table A-3 24-Hour Baseline - Uninco
Page 218 and 219:
Table A-7 24-Hour Functional Popula
Page 220 and 221:
The resulting percentages from Tabl
Page 222 and 223:
Table A-14 IRC Weighted Average Sea
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Table C-1 Proposed Solid Waste Impa
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Table D-2 IRC School District Inven
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Table F-2 Inventory of Available Im
Page 244 and 245:
Table F-2 Inventory of Available Im
Page 246 and 247:
Table F-3-2 Comparison of Standards
Page 248 and 249:
County SF per Capita Table F-3-4 Co
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Table G-2 Solid Waste - Residential
Page 260 and 261:
Table G-4 Library Facilities - Resi
Page 262 and 263:
Table G-6 Law Enforcement - Residen
Page 264 and 265:
Table G-8 Park and Recreation Facil
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Presentation Overview 1 2 3 4 5 6 B
Page 270 and 271:
Background • BCC initiated study
Page 272 and 273:
Decision Points Decision Points Enc
Page 274 and 275:
Basic Impact Fee Formula Impact Fee
Page 276 and 277:
Distribution of Impact Fees Transpo
Page 278 and 279:
2 Legal Requirements
Page 280 and 281:
Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fe
Page 282 and 283:
Authority in IRC • Non-charter co
Page 284 and 285:
Defendable Methodology • Study th
Page 286 and 287:
Revenue Credits • Ensure proporti
Page 288 and 289:
Administration • Must be easy to
Page 290 and 291:
Effective Date • May be effective
Page 292 and 293:
Applicability • Creates a measura
Page 294 and 295:
Decision Point Will each city enter
Page 296 and 297:
Imposition & Collection • As earl
Page 298 and 299:
Use of Impact Fee Revenue • Must
Page 300 and 301:
Decision Point The consultant recom
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Decision Points The consultant reco
Page 308 and 309:
4 LOS Standards
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Impact Fee Comparisons • Single F
Page 314 and 315:
5 Funding Sources (see Table 4)
Page 316 and 317:
Decision Point Does the BCC want to
Page 318:
Next Steps • Finalize Data Collec
show all

Indian River County Impact Fee Study Final Report - irccdd.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?