INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT …DCA Identification Number 10-CIE1 Dear Mr. Eubanks:...

November 10,2010

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1801 27th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 772-226-1237 I 772-978-1806 fax

www. ircgov. com

Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Plan Processing Team Attn: Mr. Ray Eubanks 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

RE: Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Annual Update; Indian River County Ordinance 2010-024 (Adopted November 2, 2010); DCA Identification Number 10-CIE1

Dear Mr. Eubanks:

Pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1)(f), F.S., Subsection 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C., the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, on November 2, 2010, conducted a public hearing, notice of which was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with state requirements, at which time the following ordinance modifying the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element was adopted:

CPTA 2010090039-65910 Ordinance 2010-024: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

That ordinance was adopted as the County's required annual update to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE), an exempt amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and includes the following modifications:

1. All tables, charts, graphs and associated text were updated.

2. Appendix A, "Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements", was revised. a. A number of projects have had their time frames extended. None of the changes will

impact concurrency reservations. b. Planned revenue sources are anticipated in years 4 and 5 of the Five Year Schedule of

Capital Improvements. These planned revenues are reflected in the schedule.

Letter to Ray Eubanks from Robert M. Keating November 10, 2010 Page2 of4

c. The summary of revenues and expenditures at the end of Appendix A was revised and shows that, in fact, the County's Capital Improvements Program is financially feasible over a 5 year period.

3. Due to the depressed housing and financial markets, the County's Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program is no longer necessary to maintain the County's adopted transportation level of service. This program has, therefore, been removed from the CIE. Although this program has been removed from the CIE, the projects from the program remain in the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.

A summary of de minimis impact records has not been included in the CIE. This is because the County currently counts building permits for exempt residential units within its concurrency management system, subtracting the capacity that they utilize from available capacity within the concurrency management system.

Enclosed, for DCA's compliance review, please find the following documents pertaining to the aforesaid amendment:

• Three copies of the staff report from the November 2, 2010 Public Hearing for the adopted amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, including supporting documents (1 hard copy of each and 2 CD's with the documents saved as Portable Document Format (PDF)).

• Three copies of the executed ordinance, with a clean copy ofthe updated CIE attached (1 hard copy of each and 2 CD's with the documents saved as a PDF).

• Three copies of a strike through and underline version of the CIE which shows specific changes to that document (1 hard copy and 2 CD's with the document saved as a PDF).

• Three copies of a DCA Courtesy Information list, which lists the names and contact information for those from the public that spoke at the adoption hearing and desire to receive courtesy information regarding the Department of Community Affairs Notice oflntent for the Comprehensive Plan amendment.

One copy of each of the above referenced documents have been sent to the following agencies (pursuant to Rule (9J-11.009(6), F.A.C. (Rule 9J-11.011(5)(a)3., F.A.C.):

• The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; • The Florida Department of Environmental Protection; • The Florida Department of Transportation; • The St. Johns River Water Management District;

2

Letter to Ray Eubanks from Robert M. Keating November 10, 2010 of4

• The Florida Department of State; • The Florida Department of Education; • The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and • The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The enclosed plan amendment meets all applicable state and regional requirements. Consistent with Rule 91-11.011(5), F.A.C., DCA should publish the required Notice of Intent, pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., in the Indian River Press Journal. Since the County maintains a website and is therefore required, pursuant to section 163.3184(8)( c)2., F.S., to post a copy of the state's Notice oflntent on the website within five days after the receipt ofthe mailed copy ofthe agency's notice item, we request that DCA provide an electronic version ofthis notice bye-mailing it to Bill Schutt ([email protected]).

Should you need additional documentation, or should you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact:

Sincerely,

Bill Schutt, AICP Senior Economic Development Planner Indian River County Community Development Department 180127thStreet Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365 Telephone: (772) 226-1243 Facsimile: (772) 978-1806 E-mail: [email protected]

Robert M. Keating, AI Community Developm

Enclosures

cc: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Stan Boling, AICP, Planning Director Sasan Rohani, AICP, Long Range Planning Chief Bill Schutt, AICP, Senior Economic Development Planner Jim Quinn, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (w/enclosure) Terry L. Hess, AI CP, Planning Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (w/enclosure) Gerry O'Reilly, Florida Department of Transportation (w/enclosure) Wendy Evans, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (w/enclosure)

3

Letter to Ray Eubanks from Robert M. Keating November 10, 2010 Page4 of4

Mary Ann Poole, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (w/enclosure) Susan Harp, Florida Department of State (w/enclosure) Jeff Cole, St. Johns River Water Management District (w/enclosure) Tracy D. Suber, Florida Department of Education (w/enclosure) Mark Satterlee, Director, St Lucie Cotmty (w/enclosure) Nicki Van Vonno, Director, Martin Cotmty (w/enclosure) Robin Sobrina, Director, Brevard Cotmty (w/enclosure) Dave Tomek, Director, Oscelola Cotmty (w/enclosure) Timothy McGarry, Growth Management Director, City ofVero Beach (w/enclosure) Rebecca Grohall, Growth Management Director, City of Sebastian (w/enclosure) Jason R. Ntmemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere (w/enclosure) Richard Jefferson, Town Manager, Indian River Shores (w/enclosure) Richard Dunlop, Mayor Town of Orchid (w/enclosure)

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\CIE\20 1 0\DCA Transmittal Package\Compliance Review LETTER to DCA.doc

4

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S: 4 Chief, Long-Range Planning

FROM: Bill Schutt, AICP ·~ $;-1 Senior Economic Development Planner, Long Range Planning

DATE: October 26, 2010

Public Hearing (Legislative)

RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2010090039-65910

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of COtmty Commissioners at its regular meeting ofNovember 2, 2010.

BACKGROUND

On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires.

While state law allows local governments to amend their comprehensive plans twice a year, there is no requirement that local governments do so, except for the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the plan is different from the other plan elements. Unlike the other elements, the CIE must be amended every year. This is required both by plan policy and by state regulations.

I

During the 2005 session, the legislature made various changes to state growth management rules, and some of the changes relate to Capital Improvements Element requirements. One of the changes brought about by enactment of Senate Bill360 (SB 360) was the establishment of separate processes for CIE amendments, different from the normal comprehensive plan amendment process.

Under the SB 360 provisions, corrections and modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, or acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedication may be adopted by ordinance without formally amending the CIE. Regular yearly updates and changes that eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any facility within the capital improvements plan must be made via comprehensive plan amendments. Unlike the standard comprehensive plan amendment process, however, amendments to the CIE require only one public hearing.

In addition to altering the process for making amendments to the CIE, SB 360 established a requirement for demonstrating CIE financial feasibility to the state. Specifically, SB 360 required that, by December I, 2007, all communities in the State were to annually adopt an amended CIE and prove to the state that the CIE is "financially feasible". To demonstrate financial feasibility, a community must use acceptable professional methods.

In 2007, the financial feasibility deadline was extended to December I, 2008 by House Bill (HB) 7203. Referred to as a "glitch package", HB 7203 corrected several implementation issues with SB 360.

The financial feasibility deadline was yet again extended in 2009. As part of a new SB 360, referred to as the "Community Renewal Act", the Florida Legislature extended the financial feasibility deadline to December 1, 2011. The "Community Renewal Act" covered a range of issues to encourage development and redevelopment within the state.

Even though the deadline for having a financially feasible capital improvements plan was extended, the County must still prepare an annual update of its Capital Improvements Element and submit that update to the state. Consistent with state requirements, County staff has prepared the annual update of the County's existing Capital Improvements Element. A copy of the draft updated CIE is attached.

Because this CIE update is a complete update of the capital improvements element in which all tables, charts, graphs and associated text were updated, strike t!J£eughs and underlines are limited to the text and tables of the CIE. Adding strike through and underlines to the charts, graphs, and entire appendices would have made the length of the document excessive and the resulting document confusing.

2

ANALYSIS

In revising the capital improvements element (CIE), staff used much the same methodology as it employed in preparing the original element. This involved coordinating with the budget and finance departments to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as well as projected future revenue and expenditure amounts. Also, each county department was contacted to determine the status of its capital improvements program. For each department, information on completed projects, proposed projects, costs, revenues, prioritization, and other factors was collected. Projects were then reviewed by the budget department and revised as necessary to ensure financial feasibility. Based upon these data, planning staff revised the various tables and the text of the CIE. The result of these changes is an accurate and up-to-date capital improvements program with revisions having been made in the CIE generally to demonstrate internal consistency and financial feasibility.

Proposed Changes to the Capital Improvements Element

• Capital Improvements Program

Appendix A of the CIE (attachment three) is the County's proposed Capital Improvements Program (CIP). It lists all programmed capital improvements for fiscal years 20 I 0/11 through 2014/15. Each project within the list was selected based upon need and the County's financial ability to fund it. As shown within the CIP, the total cost for all of the projects for the next five fiscal years is $270,395,311. This is $35,429,179less than the previous year's five year CIP of $305,824,490.

As structured, the CIP is arranged into nine separate categories, with dedicated funding sources listed after each project. The nine separate categories are: conservation and aquifer recharge, emergency services, general services, law enforcement and corrections, recreation and open space, sanitary sewer and potable water, solid waste, stormwater management, and transportation.

Listed in Appendix A of the CIE, the conservation capital projects focus on improvements to conservation lands and include funds programmed for environmental land acquisition. Planned improvements for acquired conservation lands include access improvements, stabilization/preservation ofhistoric structures, and acquisition of conservation easements. The total expenditure amount for projects within this category for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15 is $1,525,000, representing 0.74% of the overall CIP.

Emergency services capital projects proposed for the next five fiscal years total $9,237,882 and represent 4.51% ofthe overall CIP. Proposed projects within this category include an expansion of the existing 800 Mhz radio system, acquisition of four Med Units and one fire engine, replacement of one emergency services station, and construction of two new emergency services stations. Funding for these improvements comes from the one cent local option sales tax, impact fees, and emergency services district millage.

3

Capital improvement projects related to recreation and open space include improvements to existing recreation areas and the construction of a new recreation area in the west county. All of the recreation and open space projects identified in Appendix A will be paid for with one-cent local option sales tax revenue, grant funds, and impact fees. The expenditures planned for projects within this category for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15 total $14,929,300, representing 7.29% of the overall CIP.

General services capital improvement projects listed within Appendix A represent 2.21% of the overall CIP for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15, and total $4,529,508. General Services projects include improvements such as the expansion of the County's fiber optic network and the construction of new courtroom facilities. These projects will be funded through the use of various sources, including: one cent local option sales tax revenue and court facility surcharges.

Planned law enforcement and corrections capital improvement projects include construction of an evidence addition. This improvement will be funded by impact fees and one cent local option sales tax revenue. Not included in this year's CIP, but requested by the Sheriff, is a new administration building. The requested new building has not been included in this year's CIP because there is an ongoing space needs study for this building, and there are not adequate funds currently available to cover its cost. The total amount of expenditures planned for projects within this category for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15 is $2,458,960, representing 1.20% of the overall CIP.

Within the next five years, potable water and sanitary sewer capital improvement projects are planned throughout the entire unincorporated county as well as within those municipalities served by county utilities. Major projects planned for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15 include potable water line and wastewater line extensions in the north and south county and the addition of a South County Brine Disposal site. The potable water and wastewater projects will be funded through capacity charges and user fees. The sanitary sewer and potable water category accounts for 9.86% of the overall CIP, or $20,198,533, during the five year CIP time period.

Solid Waste capital improvement activities involve improvements to citizen convenience centers, and expansion and closure of segments of the landfill. These improvements total $20,739,802 during the five year CIP time period and account for 10.13% of the overall CIP. The projects will be funded primarily by assessments and user fees.

Capital improvement projects related to stormwater management include construction of canal treatment systems in the north and south relief canals. The stormwater management projects identified in Appendix A will be paid for with one-cent local option sales tax revenue, grant funds, and Municipal Service Taxing Unit funds. The expenditures planned for projects within this category for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15 total $10,419,000, representing 5.09% of the overall CIP.

Transportation capital improvements include intersection improvements, road widenings, and related projects throughout the county. Generally, capital improvements to county maintained roads are

4

funded by traffic impact fees and a portion of the CoWlty's one cent local option sales tax revenue. Some expenditures for roads are also funded by the State of Florida, developers, and other local governments. The transportation category expenditures represent over half (68.92%) of the entire five year CIP and total $186,357,326, an amoWltwhich is $13,078,8611ess than last year's five year transportation CIP of$199,436,187. This amoWlt reflects lower transportation revenues as well as a diminished need for road projects due to the downturn in the housing and financial markets.

Project Modifications

With the ongoing depressed housing market, challenges in the national and global financial markets, and the reduction in building permit activity, coWlty revenue again decreased and is expected to remain lower than projected in the prior year's Capital Improvements Program (Fiscal Years 2009/10 through 20 13/14). As a result of the decrease in projected revenue and the associated decrease in projected demand for public facilities, the overall Capital Improvements Program has been scaled back. Consequently, a number of projects within the 2009/10 through 2013/14 CIP have had their time frame extended.

None of the changes will impact development project concurrency reservations. Because of the depressed housing market, problems with the financial markets, and limited construction activity, it is anticipated that the capacity associated with most of these projects will not be needed Wltillater dates.

Two of the transportation projects that have had their construction dates extended involve improvements to roadways that are over capacity according to the CoWlty's concurrency management system. Listed in Table 6.10, these deficient links are C.R. 510 between 58th Avenue and U.S. Highway I and AlA from 17th Street to the south city limits of the City ofVero Beach. While the transportation projects designed to improve these deficient links are being rescheduled to later years of the CIP, there are several factors that are expected to increase available capacity in the short term. One such factor is that concurrency certificates for some development projects with vested trips will expire soon. At that time, the reserved trips reflected by those projects will be removed from the concurrency management system. Another factor is that recent traffic counts indicate that traffic volumes are continuing to decrease on most roadways. These new traffic coWlts will soon be reflected in the CoWlty's concurrency management system. At that time, the increased capacity and decreased demand will have the effect of increasing the available capacity on CoWlty roadways and will likely further decrease the need for scheduling, financing, and constructing transportation projects in the CoWlty's CIP.

By extending the time frame of transportation projects, the COWlty can utilize its limited resources to complete priority concurrency related projects within the overall capital improvements program. In effect, the COWlty needs to delay some projects so that other projects will remain fundable with a diminishing county budget. By funding only necessary projects, the County is also maintaining a financially feasible capital improvements element.

5

CR 510, 61st Drive to Indian River, four lanes (1.6 miles)

17th Street/AlA Intersection

*Peak hour, directional trips

Financial Feasibility

2120W Street, Indian River Boulevard to S.R. 1,960.00 1,202.30 757.70

Overall, the CIP includes a sununary of revenues and expenditures. The revenue and expenditure summary is included to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the CIP. In this case, the County has included this information to meet the State requirement to demonstrate the CIE' s financial feasibility, even though the deadline for demonstrating financial feasibility is not until December 20 II. That summary is included on pages 86 - 88 of the CIP and shows that, in fact, the County's Capital Improvements Program is financially feasible over a 5 year period.

Between Fiscal Years 2010/11 and 2014/15, total available capital project revenues and total expenditures will equal approximately $270,395,311.

• Existing Conditions and Analysis Sections

In addition to the changes made to Appendix A, all of the data in the existing conditions and analysis sections of the CIE have been updated to reflect current conditions. These data include past revenue and expenditure figures for county operations as well as projected revenue and expenditure figures for county operations.

• Concurrency Management Section

State law requires that communities maintain a record of building permits issued to owners of parcels/lots that are exempt from concurrency (those lots that existed prior to implementation of concurrency). Within Indian River County, these records are maintained as part if its concurrency management system. As permits are issued for exempt parcels/lots, the county enters the information on those lots into the concurrency management system and subtracts the public facility

6

capacity that they utilize from available capacities within the concurrency management system.

• Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program

The Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program is a list of transportation projects for which a specific start date and a specific completion date are listed. As .allowed by state law, the County considers the additional capacity which these roadway improvement projects will produce as available now for development projects where the first building permit for the development project will be issued no later than three years after the specified start date of the roadway project. In this draft amended CIE, there is no priority transportation capital improvements program. As explained below, a priority transportation capital improvements program is no longer needed.

Of the four projects previously listed in the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program, two of those projects were removed because they will be under construction within the next six months. Those projects are: Oslo Road from 27th Avenue to 43'd Avenue, and Oslo Road from 43'd Avenue to 58th A venue. The other two projects were removed from the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program because the road capacity that those projects would add to the transportation system is no longer needed to maintain the current Level of Service ofE +20. Those projects and the available peak hour, directional trip capacity of the associated roadways are listed in Table 2. All of the roadways listed in that table currently have sufficient available peak hour, directional trip capacity to accommodate already approved developments.

directional trips

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the comprehensive plan may be amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to section 163.3177(2).F.S.

The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are

7

important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this amendment request is the following policy:

• Future Land Use Policy 14.3

The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with the county's comprehensive plan is future land use element policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment request. These criteria are:

• • • •

a mistake in the approved plan; an oversight in the approved plan; a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or a swap or a reconfiguration ofland uses at separate sites .

In this case, the proposed amendment to the CIE meets the third criterion of policy 14.3 of the future land use element. Since the CIE was last revised, some capital improvements have been completed; others have been added; revenue projections have changed, and priorities have been modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment.

• Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.10, and 1.11

Capital improvements element policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.10 and 1.11 require the County to maintain and implement a capital improvements program which is evaluated and updated periodically. These policies also describe how the county will evaluate and prioritize capital improvements. By updating the capital improvements program in accordance with these requirements, the proposed amendment is consistent with these policies.

• Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.9

Capital improvements element policy 1.9 states that the county shall include all capital expenditures in excess of$25,000 in its schedule of improvements. With the draft amended CIE, the threshold is proposed to be increased from $25,000 to $100,000. This change makes the County's threshold consistent with how many other communities throughout the state define a capital improvement. The higher value also accounts for increased costs of capital facilities and better reflects the types of projects and items that have a longer life span. Accordingly, the proposed amendment identifies all capital expenditures in excess of $100,000. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the revised capital improvements element Policy 1.9.

While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the proposed amendment for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

8

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) by adopting the attached ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS

l.) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application 2.) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Adoption Ordinance 3.) CIE

Approved Agenda Item Indian River Co. Approved Date Admin.

By: ______________________ __ Legal {0·2..8-( Budget

For: Dept. RiskMgr. '

F:\CommunityDevelopment\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Arnendments\CIE\2010\BCC Adoption Item- 2010 CIE Update. doc

9

APPLICATION FORM \~ 20 (1 ?( COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (CPTA) .z_.,"0-\~ ~ ?.lq

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY "::.> S£, "*" <;r ~ ,pof;;l•P :?oro

Planning Division accepts Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment applica ]ns-1mJi;lf#tiil,lllp the months of January and July of each year (except that Capital Impro ~ents Eiemep1~r !/f Amendments may be initiated by the County once anytime during the yea 8\ accordance -~

with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3187(1)(t)). Each application must be c · .. ~et,e ~w,!l!1P .. t '\ submitted and must include all required attachments. An incomplete applicatJ ~ be processed and will be returned to the applicant.

Assigned Project Number: CPTA- ilbl D Of?JD3f- (p 57 to Capital Improvements Element Amendment

Current Owner/ Applicant Agent Name: Indian River County Board of County Community Development

Commissioners Department Staff Complete Mailing 1801 27m Street, Vero Beach, FL Same Address: 32960-3365 Phone # (including area (772) 226- 1243 Same code) Fax# (including area code) (772) 978 - 1806 Same E-Mail: Contact Person: Bill Schutt

Signature of Owner or Agent: __ ]=';;;;·o~O;._~==::_!_ ____________ _ Please attach the following items to this application. Do not ignore any of the following items. Indicate "NI A" if an item is not applicable.

I. What is the proposed amendment's citation in the Comprehensive Plan? Include the element or sub-element, page number, and if applicable, the objective and policy number(s).

Capita/Improvements Element- various changes to entire element for annual update.

2. What is the exact language proposed to be added and/or deleted from the plan?

Numerous changes for annual update.

3. What is the purpose of the request?

Annual update.

4. What is the justification for the request?

Change in conditions.

5. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with all applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. NA

6. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities and services. NA

7. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's environmental impacts. NA

8. Provide a check, money order or cash in the amount of $NA , made payable to Indian River County. THE APPLICANT MUST ATTEND A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH LONG-RANGE PLANNING SECTION STAFF PRIOR TO APPLYING.

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Arnendments\CIE\2010\CPTA FORM.doc

Attachment 1

ORDINANCE NO. 2010-__

AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River

County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and

WHEREAS, F.S. 163.3177(3)(b)l requires an annual review and update of the

County's Capital Improvements Element; and

WHEREAS, F.S. 163.3187(l)(f) allows the County, by ordinance, to amend its

capital improvements element once per year outside of the standard twice a year

amendment limitation threshold and do so through only one adoption public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County

advertised for a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an Ordinance Amending the

Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to F.S.

163.3184(15)(b)(l) and (c); and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held

an Adoption Public Hearing on November 2, 2010, at which parties in interest and

citizens were heard;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County

Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:

SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal

The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and remaining reviewing agenc1es.

SECTION 2. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan

Amended Capital Improvements Element; (Exhibit A)

I of3 Attachment 2

ORDINANCE NO. 2010- __

SECTION 3. Financial Feasibility

The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element is financially feasible.

SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions

All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 5. Severability

It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that, if any provision of this ordinance or these Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining proVISIOnS.

SECTION 6. Effective Date

The effective date of this ordinance and, therefore, this plan amendment shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendments in compliance with Section 163.3184(l)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, these amendments may nevertheless be made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming their effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.

This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the 18th day of October, 2010, for a public hearing held on the 2nd day ofNovember, 2010, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote:

Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman Bob Solari, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler, Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner

2 of3

ORDINANCE NO. 2010- __

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

BY:. ______________________ __ ________________ , Chairman

ATTEST BY: _________ __ Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk

This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: ______ _

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPian Amendments\CIE\2010\0rdinance- CIE 2010.doc

3 of3

Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Chapter 6 Capital Improvements Element Indian River County Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

Attachment 3

Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 2 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................. 2 Expenditures .......................................................................................................................... 19 Existing Outstanding Debt... .................................................................................................. 23 Local Policies and Practices .................................................................................................. 24

Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Analysis of the Timing and Location of Capital Improvements ............................................ 28 Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................. 36 Fiscal Assessment .................................................................................................................. 38 Fiscal Assessment Surmnary ................................................................................................. 44

Concurrency Management Plan .................................................................................................... 44 Project Applicability ............................................................................................................. .45 Service Standards ................................................................................................................. .45 Demand .................................................................................................................................. 46 A vail ability of Capacity ........................................................................................................ .48 Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 51 Monitoring System ................................................................................................................ 51 Applicability .......................................................................................................................... 53

Goal, Objectives and Policies ....................................................................................................... 54

Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring ............................................................................... 63

Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 63

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures ..................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A: FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................... 68

APPE,VD!XB: PRIORITY TRANSPORTAT!Ol>i CAPFTAL !},/PROVEMENT5; PROGRAM. ...... 89

APPENDIX Gil.: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................................ 90

APPENDIX !)C: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT(i SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX ED: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE ............................................................................................................... 95

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ i

Comprehensive Plan

List of Figures

~ 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Title Ad Valorem Tax Revenue Enterprise Fund Revenue User Fees and Charges Special Assessment Revenue Impact Fee Revenue Local Discretionary Sales Surtax Tourist Development Tax Local Option Fuel Tax Franchise Fee/Tax Revenue Half-Cent Local Government Sales Tax County Revenue Sharing Constitutional Fuel Tax Funds County Fuel Tax Alcoholic Beverage License Tax Mobile Home License Tax Distribution of Revenue by Category General Expenditures by Function

Capital Improvements Element

Page 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 9

6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 Future Capital Improvements Expenditures

11 14 14 15 16 16 17 19 21 38

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November----> 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ ii

Comprehensive Plan

List of Tables

Table 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10

6.11

6.12

6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16

6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22


Title Indian River County Sources of Funds (FY 07 /08) Optional Tourist Taxes on Transient Rental Facilities Local Fuel Tax Rates Indian River General Revenues by Source Indian River County Expenditures by Function Indian River County Existing Long Term Debt Overall General Revenue Projection Summary Earmarked Projected Revenue by Comprehensive Plan Element Indian River County Tax Base and Millage Projections Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects with Deficient Links Concurrency Links Report for Removed Priority Transportation Projects Future Capital Improvement Expenditures for Indian River County Indian River County General Expenditures Projection Summary Projected Expenditures for Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Indian River County Overall Operating Cost Projections Indian River County Estimated Ability to Raise Bonds Without Public Vote Indian River County Bond Schedule Service Level Measures for Concurrency Related Facilities Monitoring System Design Monitoring System Tasks Capital Improvements Element Implementation Matrix Capital Improvements Element Evaluation Matrix

Page 2 8 10 18 19 23 30 31 32

33

35

36 39 39 40 41

42 46 52 53 64 66

Community Development Department Indian River County

iii Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_


Introduction

The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) summarizes the needed capital facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements and describes the financial means by which these facilities are to be funded. This element demonstrates the economic feasibility of the entire comprehensive plan and prioritizes the funding of all the public facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements based on the level of need and the availability of funds.

For purposes of this element, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building, or major equipment) that costs at least $25,000100,000 and which is required to maintain adopted level-ofservice standards or to meet objectives identified in the county's comprehensive plan.

Included in the CIE are an existing conditions section, an analysis section, a concurrency management section, a goals, objectives, and policies section, and an implementation section. Financial resources and existing local policies and practices are discussed in the existing conditions section. The fiscal condition of both the county and its comprehensive plan, as well as other issues concerning capital improvement projects, are assessed in the analysis section of this element. The administrative framework for maintaining public facility service levels is addressed in the concurrency management section, while the county's overall capital improvements strategy is discussed in the goals, objectives and policies section. Finally, a 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, as well as monitoring and evaluation programs, can be found in the implementation section of this element.

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

Indian River County 1

I


Existing Conditions

Financial Resources

One of the chief functions of the Capital Improvements Element is to inventory the major sources of revenue available to the county. These revenue sources determine the county's capability to fund needed capital improvements. Table 6.1 lists the county's local, state, and federal revenue sources and indicates the amount of revenue collected from each source during FY 2008/09. Table 6.1 also shows the percentage distribution of total revenue received by Indian River County for each of the revenue sources.

Table 6.1: Indian River Connty Revenne Sonrces (FY 200+~082)

I ,' <: ' :::; - - < ~~~k~ ' StateSources ~ '--~ Amount %ofTotal Amount %of Total ($1,000) Revenue ($1,000) Revenue

I Various $12.859

5.48~6,.89-% Local Government $7.00~8 2.99%£:-~

Grants ~ Half-Cent Sales Tax %

I Total S12.859

5 .48o/ofr..&9% County Revenue $2558~ 1.09%-l-:-%

Federal ~ Sharing %

I Constitutional Fuel $1.:57:5~ 0.67%9-:eQ

Tax %

I $690$Hil 0.29o/~

County Fuel Tax %

I Alcoholic Beverage t\Q$49 0.02%~

License Tax %

I Pari-Mutuel Tax li111$44+ 0.19o/oQ..,...l.+

%

I Mobile Home $108$Wf 0.05?/o(h(M.

License Tax %

I Various Grants $8633~ 3.68%B:-@

g %

I Total State $2l.061Q9,6 8. 98 o/o-W-:-9

1)9 9%

I I I I

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

Amount %of Total ($1,000) Revenue

$2.1,397$ 40.26o/~ Ad Valorem Taxes 99,!Q+

$41.531$ 17. 7 J %-l-6-:·.§..9% Enterprise Funds 44#7+

User Fees and $16.853$ 7.19o/~

Charges lS,fr/9

Special Assessments $487~ 0.21%~

$2054~ 0. 8 8 ~-ObQ2.% Impact Fees 'ill

Local Discretionary $13 023$ ~_,55o/~

Sales Surtax -l+,'7M

Tourist Development $1 294$-l, 0.55%~

~ Tax

Local Option Fuel Tax

Franchise Tax

Interest Income

Other

Total Local

Total All Sources

$3 200$;!, 1.36%·±-:·H% 00

$9 670$9, 4.12o/~ 44:>

$9 7881» 4.l7%6-:G6%

6ilU $8.278$-+. - 3 .53 o/o£.:.9J..%

85.53%8k++%

$234.495 IOO.OO'Y0-1-00%

~


Comprehensive Plan

Local Sources

Local sources consist of revenues that are levied, collected and disbursed at the local level solely at the discretion of Indian River County. These local sources are shown in table 6.1, and are described in further detail below.

• Ad Valorem Taxes (Property Taxes)

Ad Valorem taxes are taxes levied on the assessed value (net of any exemptions) of real and personal property. This tax is commonly referred to as "property tax." Ad valorem taxes are generally assessed in mills; that is, thousandths of a dollar of assessed value. The state mandated millage cap is I 0 mills per local government, excluding voted millages. In FY 2001ll/0&.2, Indian River County applied an aggregate millage rate of 5.1726 5.1628. +he Beard of County Cemmissioners'According to County policy±es, allow revenue frem ad valorem taxes temay be used for both operating and capital project expenditures.

Table 6.1 shows that, in FY 200+8/0&9, Indian River County collected approximately $99,827,00094,397,000 in ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes represented 37.0640.26% of all revenues collected by Indian River County in FY 200+810+9.

Figure 6.1 displays the ad valorem tax revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. GvefDuring that time period, ad valorem tax revenue increased ~34.60%.

Community Development Department


Figure 6.1: Ad Valorem Tax Revenue

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

13 Revenue (in thousands)

Source: Indian River County Finance Department

Figure 6.2: Enterprise Fund Reserve

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I!J Revenue (in thousands)


Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ Indian River County

3


• Enterprise Funds

Within governmental entities, various departments often exist that provide goods and services to the public in a manner similar to the private sector. Such departments, classed under the general title "enterprise funds," must raise revenues from outside the government sector. Enterprise departments assess a fee to the customer using the goods or services provided by that department. In Indian River County, the Utility System, Solid Waste Disposal District, Golf Course, and Building Division are enterprises.

Table 6.1 shows that enterprise fund revenue represented ~17.71% of Indian River County's total source of funds for FY 200-7~0&2. Figure 6.2 displays the enterprise fund revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. GverDuring that time period, enterprise fund revenue increased ~2.68%.

• User Fees and Charges

User fees and charges represent revenue received by the county for providing various general services. User fees and charges are necessary because taxes alone cannot totally keep up with the increasing costs of services. This category includes fees collected by the Tax Collector's Office, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser's Office, the Sheriffs Department, and the Recreation and Parks Department. This category also includes other miscellaneous user fees charged by the county for general services not financed by other fund sources. In FY 200-7~0&2, user fees and charges represented~ 7.19% of all funds collected by Indian River County.

Figure 6.3 displays user fees and charges collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. GverDuring that time

Figure 6.3: User Fees and Charges

$20,000 .---f,.-;;;}1 $18,000 1------"" $16,000 1\014,28''1 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007

l!l Revenue (in thousands)


2008 2009

period, revenue from user fees and charges has-varied, but overall increased~ 17.99%.

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_


Comprehensive Plan

• Special Assessments

Special assessments are compulsory payments levied on real property for specific benefits generated by public investments or services; the assessment levied must fairly reflect the actual costs of the improvements. County revenues which fall under the general category of special assessments consist of street paving assessments, street lighting district assessments, as well as assessments for water, sewer, and drainage improvements. Expenditures of special assessment revenue are restricted to public improvement projects that directly benefit the property owner or payee. For example, street paving assessment revenues must be spent on paving streets that directly benefit the payer of the assessment.

Special Assessment funds represented 0.291% of county funds for FY 2001§/0&.2 as shown in table 6.1. Figure 6.4 displays the revenue collected by Indian River County through special assessments over the last six fiscal years.

• Impact Fees

An impact fee is a one time charge, fee, or assessment levied as a condition efissuanee of subdivision or site plan approval, issuanee ef a building permit issuance, appreval ef a certificate of occupancy issuance, or other development or construction approval when any pertiea ef the revenues collected isare intended to fund any pertiea ef the costs of capital improvements for



Figure 6.4: Special Assessments Revenue

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$-

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

li!l Revenue (in thousands)


Figure 6.5: Impact Fee Revenue

$40,000 ~---r==l----------

$35,000 +----$30,000 j---

$25,000 +----$20,000 +----$15,000 ~~~

$10,000

$5,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007

lil Revenue (in thousands)


any public

2008 2009

facilities.

Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ Indian River County

5


Since 1986, Indian River County has levied traffic impact fees on new development projects. In June of 2005, Indian River County began to levy 8 new impact fees. At the same time, the County increased the existing traffic impact fee rates. The nine e\lffeHt impact fees include: traffic, emergency services, parks and recreation, public schools, solid waste, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings.

On March 3. 2009. the Board of Com1ty Conm1issioners considered several alternatives to reduce impact fees for the purpose of stimulating economic development in the county. After discussion. the Board decided to suspend collection of five of the county's nine impact fees for six months. The five suspended impact fees are: emergency services. correctional facilities. public buildings. law enforcement. and solid waste. On September 22.2009 and again on March 16.2010 the Board of Countv Conrmissioners voted to further extend the suspension of the five impact fees. The cunent suspension of impact fees will expire on March 3 I. 2011.

Figure 6.5 shows the substantial increase in impact fee revenues related to the addition of the eight new impact fees and the increase in traffic impact fee rates. In FY 2003/04, traffic impact fees represented 5.17% of funds collected by Indian River County. In contrast, traffic impact fees and the eight additional impact fees represented 14.31% of funds collected by Indian River County for FY 2004/05. Since FY 2004/05, impact fee funds have dramatically declined with the slowing economy and the suspension of five of the impact fees.

• Local Discretionary Sales Surtax

Pursuant to s. 212.055. F.S. blocal governments are authorized to levy numerous types oflocal discretionary sales surtaxes. pmsl!ant to s. 212.055, f.S. Under the provisions of s. 212.054, F.S., the local discretionary sales surtaxes apply to all transactions subject to the state tax imposed on sales, services, rentals, admissions, and other authorized transactions. The surtax is computed by multiplying the rate imposed by the county where the sale occurs by the amount of the taxable sale. This sales tax can be levied on most transactions under $5,000.

Under this category, Indian River County is eligible to impose a Local Goverrunent Infrastructure Surtax of either 0.5% or


Figure 6.6: Local Discretionary Sales Surtax

$18,000

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

li!l Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ 6


1.0% and a School Capital Outlay Surtax of up to 0.5%. Currently, Indian River County imposes only the 1.0% Infrastructure Surtax.

According to state law, t+he Local Government Infrastructure Surtax must be enacted by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. This surtax, which may be imposed for a maximum period of fifteen years, was initialed by Indian River County in April, 1989, and was renewed by voters in November, 2002. Generally, the proceeds must be expended to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure; to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources; and to finance the closure of local government-owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or are required to close by order of the Department of Environmental Protection.

Table 6.1 shows that local sales surtax revenue represented 5.®55% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 2001)V0&2. Figure 6.6 displays the Local Discretionary Sales Surtax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. This local revenue source increased by ~ 1.35% over that period.

Distribution of surtax proceeds is based on the specifics of an interlocal agreement or through a formula based on population. In Indian River County, Local Infrastructure Surtax revenue is distributed to county government and municipal governments through a formula based on population.

Currently. =I1wenty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax. Within Indian River County's region, Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties do not levy the surtax, while Martin County levies a 0.5% infrastructure surtax. Okeechobee County is eligible to levy the infrastructure surtax, but instead levies a Small County Surtax of 1%, which is another local discretionary sales surtax.

• Tourist Development Tax

Any county in the state may, subject to a vole of the citizenry, impose a Tourist Development Tax. The transient rental trade is the primary base for the levy of the tourist tax. Any lodging agreement for six months or less is subject to the tax.

Generally, the tourist tax levy is one or two


$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$-

Figure 6.7: Tourist Development Tax Revenue

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ill Revenue (in thousands)


Supplement#_; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ Indian River County

7


percent. Counties, however, may set an additional one percent above the original tax through an extraordinary vote of the governing board or by referendum. Currently, Indian River County imposes the original two percent tourist tax as well as an additional one percent tax. Sixty Florida counties out of sixty-seven total counties currently levy a tourist tax. Of those sixty counties, fortythreewe counties, including Indian River County, impose an additional one percent tourist tax.

Table 6.2 displays the tourist taxes imposed in counties that are geographically proximate to Indian River County. Compared to neighboring counties, Indian River County imposes a similar level of tourist taxes. Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Counties have the highest tourist tax levy ofthe six counties listed (5.0%). Indian River County and Martin County each have a tourist tax rate of 4.00%. Okeechobee County has the lowest tourist tax levy.

Brevard 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Indian River 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 4.00%

Martin 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 4.00%

Okeechobee 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 3.00%

Palm Beach 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%

St. Lucie 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Shading indicates those counties eligible to impose a particular tax

Source: on Intergovernmental Relations, Government Handbook. AHg~~s! ;!9990ctober 20 l 0.

The Local Option Tourist Tax can be used for the following purposes:

(1) . Acquire, construct, operate, and promote one or more publicly owned and operated convention centers, such as sports stadiums, coliseums, or auditoriums within the district that the tax is imposed;

(2) Promote and advertise tourism nationally, internationally, and in the State ofFlorida;

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_



(3) Fund convention bureaus and other tourist information bureaus as county agencies or by contract with the Chamber of Commerce or similar associations in the county;

( 4) Finance beach development and restoration as well as shoreline protection and restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access;

( 5) Construct, improve, maintain, and promote museums, zoos, fishing piers, or nature centers which are publicly owned and operated either by the county or a not-for-profit organization which opens the facilities to the public (applicable to those counties with a population less than 500,000);

( 6) Pledge the revenues to secure and liquidate revenue bonds issued by the county, subject to certain limitations.

Figure 6. 7 shows the Tourist Development Tax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. GvefDuring that time period, tourist tax revenue received by Indian River County fluctuated based on market conditions, but had an overall increase of~l9.59%.

• Local Option Fuel Tax

Local governments are authorized to levy up to twelve cents of local option fuel taxes in the form ofthree separate levies. These levies are:

Jo. a one to six cent local option fuel tax; a one to five cent local option fuel tax; and a ninth cent fuel tax.

Indian River County currently imposes the full six cents of the one to six cent fuel tax. This tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. The one to six cent fuel tax may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the governing body or voter approval in a county-wide

$3,300

$3,200

$3,100

$3,000

$2,900

$2,800

Figure 6.8: Local Option Fuel Tax Revenue

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



2009

referendum. Generally, the proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.

Table 6.1 shows that local option fuel tax revenue represented -l-±3-1.36% of all funds collected by Indian River County for FY 200F/0&_2. Figure 6.8 shows that local option fuel tax revenue for the county has decreased overall by ~3. 73% from what it was in Fiscal Year 20m:±. Even though local

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November___, 20IO, Ordinance 2010-_



option fuel tax revenues were less in fiscal year 200&2 than what they were in fiscal year 2003::1:, the county received a significant increase in local option fuel tax revenue in fiscal years 20042_ through 2007. This was largely associated with the building boom.

All sixty-seven Florida counties levy a portion of the original local option fuel tax. Sixty-five counties levy the full $0.06, while the remaining two counties levy a portion of the tax.

Table 6.3 shows the local fuel taxes levied in Indian River County and in other counties in the region. Saint Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties levy the highest fuel taxes at $0.12 per gallon. Those four counties impose both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax. While Indian River County is eligible to levy the Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax either by extraordinary vote of the Board of County Commissioners or by voter approval in a countywide referendum, emit does not currently levy eitherthe tax. Forty nineAt this time, fifty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy the NinthCent Fuel Tax. while twentv-four of the sixty-seven Florida com1ties impose at least a portion of the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax.

Brevard $0.06 $0.06

Indian River $0.06 $0.06

Martin $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Okeechobee $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Palm Beach $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

St. Lucie $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Intergovernmental Financial

As shovtn in taele 6.3, fellf emmties in the region, Martin County, Okeeehoeee Coanty, Palm Beaeh Ceanty, and St. Lueie County, levy the entire One to Five Cent Loeal Option Fuel tall. This seeond loeal Oj'ltion fuel talc is a one to five eent levy UfJOn every net gallon of motor fuel sold in a eeunty. Indian River County ean levy this seeond tal( through an ordinanee adoj'lted ey a majority ph1s one vote of the Board of Com1ty Commissioners or ey voter <lflflFOYal in a eount)".vide referendum, eut does not eurrently levy the talL Twenty one of the siJcty sevea Florida eounties im.pose at least a portion of the One to Five Cent Loeal Oj'Jtion Fuel Tall.

Community Development Department Supplement#_; Adopted November___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_


Comprehensive Plan

• Franchise Fee/Tax

Counties and municipalities may exercise their home rule authority to impose a fee upon a utility for the grant of a franchise and the privilege of the utility using the local government's rights-of-way to conduct the utility's business. Franchise fees are typically levied through a franchise agreement negotiated between the local government and the utility provider. Indian River County receives franchise revenue from electric, water, sewer, garbage, and cable television franchises.

Table 6.1 shows that franchise fee revenue represented :k3+4.l2% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 2001jl/0&2.. Figure 6.9 shows that over the last six fiscal years franchise fee revenue collected by Indian River County increased 51.7743.90%.

• Other Miscellaneous Revenue


Figure 6.9: Franchise Fee/Tax Revenue

$10,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Included in this category are various administrative fees, licenses and permits, fines, interest income, rental income, private contributions, and other miscellaneous revenues. This source of revenue for Indian River County represented ~3.53% of ail funds collected in FY 2001jl/0&2..

• Borrowing

As needed, t+he county uses borrowing as a financing vehicle to raise money for public purposes that are beyond the realm of current cash reserves, operating revenue and reasonable taxation. Currently, B.Qorrowing money to pay for capital improvements can be done through either short-term or longterm financing. Short term financing is usually accomplished by the use of bond pools, notes, private placements with banks, and the public placement of Voted General Obligation debt. Long term financing is usually achieved through the issuance of bonds sold on the public market.

Tile eeuntyAccording to slate law, local governments may sell bonds for capital improvements without a referendum of the voters if the pledge used for the bond is anon-ad valorem revenue source. Conversely, any bond issue pledging ad valorem taxes requires approval through a voter referendum.




General Obligation Bonds are bonds that are secured by the full faith and credit of the county. These bonds are secured by a pledge of the issuer's ad valorem taxing power. According to state law, the amount of ad valorem taxes necessary to pay the debt service on general obligation bonds is not subject to the constitutional property tax millage limits. Such bonds constitute debts of the issuer and require approval through a voter referendum prior to issuance.

Revenue bonds are bonds payable from a specific source of revenue, where the full faith and credit of the issuer is not pledged to repay the bonds. Because revenue bonds are payable from identified sources of revenue, bond holders may not compel taxation or legislative appropriation of funds for payment of debt service. Pledged revenues may be derived from operation of financed projects, grants, or other specified non-ad valorem taxes. A public referendum is not required prior to issuance or validation of such obligations.

In the past, the county has issued revenue bonds to finance improvements to its sanitary sewer, potable water, and golf course facilities. In addition. R):evenue bonds have been issued by the Housing Authority to lle!p-finance the provision of more low-income housing units in the county. Also, revenue bonds have been issued to finance the cost of construction of various capital improvement projects. Deposits from bond revenues are put into the respective bond fund accounts for these projects, whereby funds are specifically designated for a particular project, and user charges are used to pay offthe debt.

Special assessment bonds are bonds issued to pay for capital improvements that impact specific areas or groups of property owners. Proceeds from the assessments levied against benefiting property owners are used to pay off the bond debt. The issuance of these bonds does not need to be approved by voter referendum.

Revenue bonds and special assessment bonds are similar in nature, except that special assessment bond debt is paid-offby assessments levied against benefiting property owners and not from ongoing user charges. The county has issued special assessment bonds for solid waste disposal.

The issuance of tax anticipation or bond anticipation notes is an example of a short-term (less than five years) method of financing. Notes usually have higher interest rates than bonds and have shorter maturity dates than bonds. Tax anticipation notes are issued in advance of a new fiscal year to cover gaps in the budget before property taxes are received, while bond anticipation notes are issued in anticipation of the receipt by the county of proceeds from the sale of corresponding future bond issues. The county currently has no outstanding tax or bond anticipation notes.

• Additional Optional Local Revenue Sources

Use of additional revenue sources may occasionally be necessary, depending on priorities mandated by the Board of County Commissioners and the availability of existing revenue sources. Indian River

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ 12


County has two options to increase local revenues. These are to implement new taxes that are permitted by state regulation and/or to increase existing taxes and fees that are imposed by the county. Additional local revenue sources available to Indian River County include the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax, and the Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax.

Both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax are taxes on the purchase of fuel. With the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, a one cent per gallon tax on motor fuel and special fuel can be levied on fuel purchases in the county. Revenue from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax may be shared with municipalities, but counties are not required by law to share the proceeds. Authorized uses for revenue collected from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax include paying the costs and expenses of establishing, operating, and maintaining a transportation system and related facilities. Additional uses include funding the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads.

The One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax is a one to five cents tax that can be levied upon every gallon of motor fuel sold in Indian River County. Revenues from this fuel tax must be shared among all eligible jurisdictions in the county as a result of an interlocal agreement or by an historical transportation expenditures formula. Authorized uses for revenue collected from the One to Five Cent Fuel Tax include transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

A Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax is a levy of up to 1% on any lodging agreement for six months or less, within Indian River County. Revenue from this tax may be used to pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a professional sports franchise facility.

State Sources

Revenue classified as state sources may be generated locally but collected by the state and returned to the county. For example, state sources may originate from state general revenues and be shared by the state according to state revenue allocation formulas. Table 6.1 displays the state revenue sources applicable to Indian River County. These sources are described in further detail below.

• Local Govermnent Half-Cent Sales Tax

The Local Govermnent Half Cent Sales Tax Program allocates 8.814% of net sales tax proceeds remitted by sales tax dealers in a county to a special account administered by the Department of Revenue; this account is the Local Govermnent Half Cent Sales Tax Clearing Trust Fund. These funds are then earmarked for distribution to the governing body of the county and each municipality within the county. Distribution of these monies within the county is determined by a formula that uses a weighting factor based on the population of the incorporated and unincorporated areas and multiplies this factor by 8.814% of the sales tax proceeds received for the county. In FY 200+V0&2.,

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#___; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_ 13


Indian River County received $7,588,QQQ$7.000.000 through the half-cent sales tax. As shown in table 6.1, that amount represented ~2. 99% of all funds collected by Indian River County during the 2007jl/082. fiscal year.

Figure 6.1 0 displays the funds made available to Indian River County through the half-cent local government sales tax over the last six fiscal years. Over those six fiscal years, Indian River County's half-cent sales tax revenue ffidecreased ~7.46%.

Occasionally, governments can receive supplemental distributions by meeting special eligibility criteria; however, in no case can the total supplemental and ordinary distribution exceed the maximum per capita amount allowed by law. Governments are allowed wide latitude in using the half cent sales tax. For counties, the law provides only that half cent sales tax revenue be used for countywide tax relief or countywide programs.

• County Revenue Sharing

The current structure of the county revenue sharing program consists of two revenue sources. These sources include 2. 90% of net cigarette tax collections and 2.044% of sales and use tax collections. Proceeds are collected by the state and then distributed to eligible counties based on an allocation formula. There are no use restrictions on the distributed revenue; however, there arc some statutory limitations regarding these funds being used as a pledge for indebtedness.

To receive distribution proceeds through the county revenue sharing program, counties must meet the following criteria:


Figure 6.10: Half Cent Sales Tax Revenue

$10,000

$9,000

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

11!1 Revenue (in thousands)


Figure 6.11: County Revenue Sharing

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1!11 Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

14


(I) That law enforcement officers and firefighters are certified and meet state requirements;

(2) That certification of taxable value for a property tax levy is made in a timely and correct manner to the Department of Revenue;

(3) That the county's most recent financial reports have been sent to the Department of Banking and Finance, and post audits of these statements and accounts have been provided.

Table 6.1 shows that county revenue sharing funds represented -h%1.09% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 200+l!J0&2. Figure 6.11 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county revenue sharing proceeds received by Indian River County varied over time, but overall ifldecreased by~11.61%.

• Constitutional Fuel Tax

Constitutional fuel tax is defined as an excise or license tax of two cents per gallon imposed upon the first sale or first removal from storage (after importation into Florida) of motor fuel. Revenues from this levy become state funds at the time of collection by the refiner, importer or wholesaler.

FIGURE 6.12: Constitutional Fuel Tax Revenue

$1,800

$1,750

$1,700

$1,650

$1,600

$1,550

$1,500

In its current form, the constitutional fuel $1,450 tax is a state-shared revenue source for 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

counties only. Applying a distribution formula, the state allocates proceeds to 1!!1 Revenue (in ti1ousands)

counties to the extent necessary to comply with all obligations to or for the benefit of Source: Indian River County Finance Department

holders ofbonds, revenue certificates, and tax anticipation certificates or any refunds secured by any portion of the tax proceeds. After complying with the necessary debt service obligations, the state distributes a county's surplus funds to its governing body.

Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the constitutional fuel tax levy represented \Mi90.67% of total revenue received by Indian River County in FY 200+l!J0%2. Figure 6.12 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, constitutional fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County ifldecreased -h%5.35%.

• County Fuel Tax

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

15


The county fuel tax is levied on motor fuel at the rate of one cent per net gallon. The legislative intent of this tax is to reduce a county's reliance on ad valorem taxes. Funds received from this tax can be used by a county for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.

Table 6.1 shows that funds received through the county fuel tax levy represented ~0.29% of all revenue collected by Indian River County in FY 200-7lY0&2.. Figure 6.13 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County decreased ()A.J7.01 %.

• Alcoholic Beverage License Tax

Alcoholic beverage license taxes are levied on manufacturers, distributors, vendors, and sales agencies of alcoholic beverages in Florida. The tax is administered, collected, enforced, and distributed to local

Figure 6.13: County Fuel Tax $800

$780

$760

$740

$720

$700

$680

$660

$640 2004 2005 2006

llll Revenue (in thousands)

2007


2008 2009

governments by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco within the Department ofBusiness and Professional Regulation.

Twenty-four percent of the license taxes imposed on the sale of beer, wine and liquor collected within a county is returned to the county Tax Collector. The remaining funds are used to operate the division and contribute to the operation of the Office of the Secretary of Business Regulation.

Table 6.1 shows that the county received approximately $49,000$50.000 from this tax in FY 200-7.li/0&2., 0.02% of all revenue received by Indian River County. Figure 6.14 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, alcoholic beverage license tax revenue received by Indian River County fluctuated, but overall remained about the same.


Figure 6.14: Alcoholic Beverage License Tax

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1!!1 Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

16


• Pari-Mutuel Tax

Revenue generated through license fees and taxes related to Pari-Mutuel betting is deposited into the Pari-Mutuel wagering trust fund. According to Florida Statutes, a guaranteed entitlement of $29,915,500 is deducted from the trust fund for equal distributions among Florida's sixty-seven counties, providing each county's general revenue fund with $446,500. Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the Pari-Mutuel tax represented Q...I.;1.0.19% of revenues received by Indian River County in FY 2001_[/082.. Uses for this revenue are determined by the Board of County Commissioners.

• Mobile Home License Tax

An annual license tax is levied on all mobile homes and park trailers, and on all travel trailers and fifth-wheel trailers exceeding thirty-five feet in body length. The license taxes, ranging from $20 to $80 depending on body length, are collected in lieu of ad valorem taxes. The taxes are collected by the county tax collectors and remitted to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

From each license, two deductions are made. The first is a deduction of $1.50 by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles with proceeds deposited into the State General Revenue Fund. The second is a deduction of $1.00 with proceeds deposited into the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Trust Fund. The remaining balance is deposited into the License Tax Collection Trust Fund for distribution to units of local government. A county government is eligible to receive proceeds from this tax if taxable mobile home units are located in its unincorporated area. An authorized use of the proceeds is not specified in the current law.

Table 6.1 shows that funds received through

Figure 6.15: Mobile Home License Tax Revenue

$160 or:-::-:-,--------------,

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

!iii Revenue (in thousands)


the mobile home license tax represented {),{)40.05% of all revenue received by Indian River County in FY 2001Jl/OS2.. Figure 6.15 shows that, over the last s*five fiscal years, mobile home license tax revenue received by Indian River County remained the same.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement #___j Adopted November___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

17


• Various Grants

Table 6.1 shows that funds received in the form of state grants represented 6,W5.48% of funds received by the county in FY 200+Jll0&2. State grant funds received by the county in FY 200+Jll0&2 originated from the State ofFloridaDepartment of Community Affairs, the Florida Housing Finance Agency, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the State of Florida Department of State Division of Library Services, the State of Florida Department of Transportation, the State of PloriEla Commission for the Transportation DisaElvantageEl, the State of PloriEla Department of Management Setviees, the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. the State of Florida Department of Revenue, the Department of Health, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Federal Sources

Federal funds are either granted directly to local governments or passed through state agencies for administration and monitoring. These grants are usually distributed on a competitive basis rather than by formula allocations, thereby making projections of future revenues difficult. For the purpose of revenue projections, these sources will be assumed to remain constant.

During FY 200+Jl/0&.2., the county received approximately $18,56+,000$12,859.000 in federal funds. These funds represented &&95.48% of all funds received by Indian River County in FY 200+l\10&.2..

Overall Revenue Sources

As mandated by state statute, the financial resources of the county are categorized according to the state Chart of Accounts. These categories include taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, interest, and miscellaneous revenues. Table 6.4 identif1es the total amount of historic revenue generated from these sources for fiscal years 2002/2003 through 2007/08.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

18


$119,91!,619 9G4;>9Q ~ 8,678,!11 ~ 18,186,926 $218,188,168 2008109 $95.675 370 $1033.394 lli:!87.093 $54 729.505 $1 508.786 $14 545 961 $218,980.109

Source: 'Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 200&2

Figure 6.16 displays the distribution of revenue by the same categories listed in table 6.4 for each of the last six fiscal years.

Figure 6.16: Distribution of General Revenues By Category

2004 43.69%

2007

44.98%

22.50%

• Taxes

23.51%

0 Charges for Ser..ices

Expenditures

2005 34.64%

22.78%

2008 43.78%

g Licenses & Permits

• Fines & Forfeitures

2006 39.50% 0.43%

22.55%

2009

o lntergo-emmental Rewnue

~ Miscellaneous Re-enues

In the previous sub-section, the various revenue and income sources currently utilized by Indian River County were reviewed. This sub-section of the Capital Improvements Element identifies how those monies are allocated to meet the county's needs. Table 6.5 presents the county's overall general expenditures by category for fiscal years 200;c;?)200;!1 through 200+£/0&2.


19


Court Related $6,210,614 $5,630,734 $5,915,727 $6,649,724 $6,940,682 .$.6 .• 6.~Q.,8.J.Q

Debt Service $3,727,534 $3,495,500 $4,406,090 $8,126,643 $7,873,176 iB.Q@ • .7.~8

TOTAL 187 745 266$-1-4-l-, 205 503 543$-1-49,- $257 655 618 S332.037 .467 $300 843 J82 - m,448 $293,118,373 $277,:l99,:l13 $212,:l17,19§ .$.239 •. ~.&.U.62

Source: Indian River County Comprehensive Annual FmancJal Report, 200&2

Table 6.5 shows expenditures in nine categories. Depending on the county's activities in any given fiscal year, the level of expenditures may fluctuate for certain categories. Figure 6.17 displays the percentage distribution oflndian River County's general expenditures over the last six fiscal years.

General Government

A major classification of services provided by Indian River County, the general government expenditure category, includes activities undertaken by the legislative and administrative branches of the county government. Departments such as the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator, Personnel, and Purchasing fall into this category as do all Constitutional Officers, except the Sheriff. As shown in table 6.5, $27,701,150$25.801,688 was spent on general government services in FY 2007-.S./0&2. Between fiscal years 200:6;2/0:;:!: and 2007-W0&2, general government expenditures inereased decreased by -14461!. 05%. General government services represented ~ 10.78% of all county expenses in FY 2007-W0&2. The significant increase in general government expenditures in Fiscal Years 2005/06 and 2006/07 was due to the construction of new public buildings, including the construction of the new county administration building and the expansion of the jail.

Public Safety

The Sheriff's Department, Fire Services, Advanced Life Support, Emergency Management, and the Medical Examiner fall under the category of Public Safety. As shown in table 6.5, the county, in FY 2007-W0&2, spent $74 ,038,252$74.813,!64 for public safety services. Between fiscal years 20061107-.S. and 2007-W0&2, public safety expenditures increased by -hMI.05%. Since FY 200:6;2/0~, public safety expenditures have increased by ~34.09%. Public safety represented 30.554 0.17% of all county expenses in FY 2007-W0&2.

Physical Environment

This classification encompasses the county's water and waste water utilities, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), the Soil Conservation District, and the Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition Fund. Table 6.5 shows that $33,806,207$54.243.069 was spent on these activities in FY 2007-W0&2. Between fiscal years 20061/0+.S. and 2007-.S./0&2, physical environment expenditures decreased by ~37.30%. Since FY200:6;2/0~, physical environment expenditures have increased by &-h&%22.40%. Physical environment services represented ~22.6% of all county expenses in FY 2007-.S./0&2.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010·_

20


Transportation

Departments under this category include Road and Bridge, County Engineering, Secondary Roads Construction, and Traffic Engineering. These departments are responsible for designing, constructing, overseeing, and maintaining the county's roads and drainage systems. As shown in table 6.5, the county spent $53,489,116$40,84L272 on transportation facilities in FY 200-1-li/0&2.. Since FY 200:;?;;)/031, transportation expenditures have increased by 165.8477.28%. Transportation expenses represented n.w:21. 93% of all county expenses in FY 200-7.!1/0&2..

Economic Environment

Included in this category are the costs of providing services which develop and improve the economic condition of the community and its citizens. Veteran Services, the Housing Authority, and the Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce undertake this function. Table 6.5 shows that those agencies spent $4,5-79,574$653,547 on economic enviromnent services in FY 200-7.!1/0&2.. Between fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08, economic enviromnent expenditures increased by 372.99%. Since FY 2002/03, economic enviromnent expenditures have increased by 684.38%. Economic enviromnent expenses represented 1.89% of all county expenses in FY 2007/08.

Figure 6.17: General Government Expenditures by Function

2007

8.4%

2004

1%

0.3%

B General Go\19mment

Ill Transportation

13 Culture/Recreation

2005

26.3% 10.9%

24.6% 2008

1111 Public Safety

• Economic Em.ironment

ID Court Related

Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

2006 26.0%

2.3% 7.8% 4.8% 0.4%

31.3%

3.

o Physical Em.ironment

B Human Serlices

!:i Debt Ser\ice

2009

21


Human Services

Human Services cover the cost of providing services for the care, treatment, and control of human illness, injury or disabilities, and for the welfare of the community as a whole and its individuals. The Health Department, Welfare, Medicaid, and Children's Services fall into this category. Table 6.5 shows that the county spent $12,819,575$8,62 L 7 60 on human services in FY 2007Jil0&2. Between fiscal years 200611071 and 2007li/0&.2, human services expenditures decreased by &9731.68%. Since FY 200:6l/O~, human services expenditures have increased by lhh-9419.79%. Human services represented ~3.60% of all county expenses in FY 2007li/0&2..

Culture/Recreation

All costs associated with providing and maintaining cultural and recreational facilities and activities for the benefit of citizens and visitors fit into this category. County libraries, parks, recreation operations, and the golf course are included here. As shown in table 6.5, the county spent $21,299,783$19,624.278 on these services in FY 2007JY0&2.. Between fiscal years 200e7/07li and 2007li/0&.2, cultural/recreation expenditures decreased by .J4.4.718.49%. Since FY 200:61'0~, cultural/recreation expenditures have deereased increased by &41 0.07%. Culture/recreation expenses represented &798.20% of all county expenses in FY 2007li/0&.2.

Court Related

All costs of operating the judicial branch of Indian River County Government are classified here. This category includes the County Court, Circuit Court, State Attorney's Office and Public Defender. As shown in table 6.5, expenditures from this category totaled $8,940,882$6,620,830 in FY 2007Ji/0&2.. Between fiscal years 200e7/07li and 2007li/0&.2, Court Related expenditures ffidecreased by ~4.61 %. Beginning in FY 199711998, the State of Florida mandated that the county begin recording Court Related costs as a separate expenditure item. Court Related costs represented ;&..8.82. 77% of all county expenses in FY 2007li/0&2..

Debt Service

Debt service consists of interest and payments made by the county on its debt. This figure includes principal retirement, interest and other miscellaneous debt service. As table 6.5 indicates, total county debt service expenditures were $7,873,178$8.068,758 in FY 2007li/0&2.. Between fiscal years 200e1107li and 2007JY0&2, debt service expenditures Eleincreased by ~2.48%. Since FY 200:61'0~, debt service expenditures have increased by 74.-+6116.46%. Debt service expenses represented ~3.3 7% of all county expenses in FY 2007li/0&.2.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement #_; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 201 0-_

22

I


Existing Outstanding Debt

At the end of FY 200&2/WlQ, Indian River County's outstanding debt, comprised of revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, stood at $117,510,0001 08,8!5,000. This is shown in table 6.6. In 1993, the county took advantage of lower interest rates and refunded any debt that had reasonable future economic savings. Enterprise Funds support ~8.73% of the overall debt (Utility Dept 44.1745.81%; and Golf Course -l+.-742.92%), leaving $57,160,00055.790,000 in bonds paid from general governmental funds. In November 2001, Indian River County issued the remaining $11,000,000 of the $26,000,000 Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds originally approved by voters in 1992. Also in 200 I, the County issued $16,810,000 in Spring Training Facility Bonds to finance the acquisition and expansion of the Dodgertown spring training facility (now known as the Vero Beach Sports Complex). Two bonds were refinanced in 2003 to take advantage of lower interest rates: the 1993 Series Refunded Recreational Revenue Bonds and the 1995 Series Environmental Lands Acquisition Bonds. Those bonds have since been paid off. In 2004, Indian River County voters approved the issuance of up to an additional $50,000,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds. As a result, Indian River County issued $48,600,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds in 2006. Finally, the county refinanced its 1996 Series Water and Sewer Bonds in 2005 and the majority of its 1993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds in2009. The County kept a portion of the !993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds with a maturity of 20 II because it was more cost efficient than rollingJhe entire amount into the 2009 Water and Sewer Bonds.

Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds:

$3,Q3Q,QQQ1 555.0 AAAIFGIC Water & Sewer 1993 A Series $47,190,000 Q!)

5.76% 2011 (Insured) Revenues

$~1l0021.92 3.94% 2022 AAAIFGIC Water & Sewer

2005 Series $27,675,000 5.000 (Insured) Revenues

Recreation Revenue Bonds

2001 Series Spring AAAIFGIC State Funds, Y2 Cent $16,810,000 $1;!,89S,QQQlUJ. 4.87% 2031

Training Facility 0.000

(Insured) Sales Tax, Tourist Tax


23


Golf Course Net 2003 Series Income, Fronton Refunding

$6,455,000 3.65% 2016 AAA/AMAC Revenue and Recreational $l,s8>,GGG.1175.o (Insured) Subordinate Lien on Revenue 00 One Half Cent Sales

Tax

Voted G.O. Bonds

Environmental AAA/FSA

Lands Acquisition $11,000,000 $§,9§§,QQQ5,21 0.0 3.89% 2016 (Insured) General Obligation 2001 Series 00

Em4F6nntenttd AAA/.AMAG

Lands Ae!J_uisition $7,8QQ,QQQ $!,21Q,QQQ ~ :wHl ~

GeReFal OBligatieR lOOJ 8eFies

Environmental AAAIMBIA

Lands Acquisition $48,600,000 $H,04S,00038,27 4.22% 2021 General Obligation 2006 Series 0.000

(Insured)

Total Bonds Outstanding $117,§!0,QQQI08.

815.0ilJl

County Budget 20G91Q/.Wll.

Local Policies and Practices

As part of the capital improvements planning process, it is important to do an inventory of current Indian River County policies and practices that guide the timing, location, expansion, or increase in capacity of capital facilities. These policies and practices relate to the county's existing level-ofservice standards, impact fee programs, comprehensive plan, and enterprise fund accounts.

Existing Level-of-Service Standards

Level-of-service (LOS) standards are indicators of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level-of-service standards indicate the capacity per unit of demand of each public facility.

Level-of-service standards can affect the timing and location of development by guiding development to areas where facilities may have excess capacity. Indian River County has level-of-service standards for capital facilities as follows:

~ · Correctional Facilities (Countywide)


24


• 4.5 beds per I ,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Fire/EMS (Countywide, excluding Indian River Shores) • .089 Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Law Enforcement (Unincorporated County) • 2.09 officers per I ,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Libraries (Countywide) • 580 building square feet per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal

population

Potable Water (County Service Area) • 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit

Public Buildings (Countywide) • 1.99 building square feet per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Parks/Recreation (Unincorporated County) • 6.61 acres per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Sanitary Sewer (County Service Area) • 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit

Schools (School Service Area): • 1 00 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school

type (elementary, middle, and high).

Solid Waste (Countywide) • 2.2 tons per capita per year or 3.67 cubic yards per capita for permanent plus weighted

peak seasonal population per year

Stormwater Management • New drainage systems shall mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design rainfall

event • Minimum road crown elevation for existing roads shall be raised during

resurfacing/rebuilding to the flood elevation resulting from the 2 year/24 hour storm event on local roads


25


• The center two lanes of rebuilt roads must be at or above flood levels resulting from a 10 year/24 hour storm event on Arterial and Collector roads

• All drainage basins will meet the following level-of-service standards: • By 2000 - 2 year/24 hour storm event • By 2005 - 5 year/24 hour storm event • By 2010 - 10 year/24 hour storm event

Transportation (Roadways)

• Level-of-Service "D" during peak hour, peak season, and peak direction conditions on all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways, with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service "E" plus20%: • 27th Ave - South County Line to SR 60 • 43'd Ave- Oslo Road to 16th Street For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service "B" is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C" is adopted for urban areas.

Transit • One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes

Level-of-service standards are discussed in further detail in each individual Comprehensive Plan Element.

Capital Improvements Program

A capital improvements program (CIP) is a program for capital expenditures to be incurred each year over a fixed period of years to meet anticipated capital needs. In Indian River County, the CIP identifies the projects that the county plans to undertake in the next five years and presents an estimate of the costs and the resources needed to finance the projects. Revenue sources within the first year of the CIP reflect current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenue collection. Within the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with "committed" revenue sources. "Committed" revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through "planned" revenue sources. "Planned" revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents of local option gas tax.

The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) itself consolidates the capital improvements needs of all elements of the Comprehensive Plan into an overall five-year Capital Improvements Schedule. The overall program lists the needs, costs, time frames, priorities, and the necessary financial resources to


26


implement the identified capital improvement projects in the various elements of the plan in the next fiVe years.

Impact Fees/Capacity Charges

Impact fees are charges to developers for off-site improvements that must be provided by the local government to serve new development. This financing technique is one strategy that the county uses for implementing the CIE. Currently, the county has nine impact fees in place; these are traffic impact fees, which became effective in 1986, and eight additional impact fees which became effective in June of2005. Those eight impact fees are assessed for the following service delivery categories: solid waste, public schools, fire/ems, parks and recreation, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings.

In October 1999, the county's water and sewer impact fees were reclassified as capacity charges. A capacity charge is a fee charged to the direct beneficiaries of water and sewer improvements in order to fund the capital cost incurred by the water and wastewater utility to provide capacity to serve new utility customers.

Enterprise Funds

Enterprise funds are used to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises, when the intent of the governing body is that the full costs of providing the service to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. Currently, the county operates its solid waste services, golf course facility, building department services, and utility services as enterprise funds.

As a tool for affecting the timing and location of development, user charges may be designated to vary with the quantity and location of the service provided. Thus, charges could be greater for providing services further from urban areas, and less for distances closer to urban areas. In this way, user charges could affect the economics of development locating further away from urban areas.

Analysis

The analysis section of this element assesses the county's historic and projected revenue and expenditure patterns to determine the county's fiscal ability to provide adequate capital improvements. These capital improvements have been identified in other comprehensive plan elements and are needed to meet the demands of existing and future development.

As part of this analysis, revenue and expenditure projections are identified and analyzed, and a fiscal assessment of needs (costs) versus projected available revenue is included.


27


Analysis of the Timing and Location of Capital Improvements

Objectives and polices from the Future Land Use Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Public School Facilities Element, and the Transportation Element, as well as policies followed by the Sheriffs office and County departments such as Emergency Management, Corrections, Libraries, and Solid Waste, have the most direct effect on the timing and location of capital improvements. Through planning for future improvements to the transportation system, the Transportation Element directly affects the development potential of property. Also affecting the development potential of property are the water and sewer connection requirements and the availability of public school capacity. Within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the assignment of land use density and intensity, as well as the urban service area regulations, affect the timing and location of capital improvements.

Consistent with the FLUE and urban service area requirements in the county's comprehensive plan, the county provides public facilities and services to promote compact development by emphasizing infill development in urban areas and maximizing the efficiency of existing facilities and services in under utilized areas. The FLUE also limits urban sprawl and ensures that adequate facilities will be present to accommodate future growth. Maximizing the use of existing facilities and controlling urban sprawl will contribute to a cost-effective and efficient service delivery system.

Using the county's official Future Land Use Map and Future Thoroughfare Plan Map, as well as the county's water and wastewater connection matrix, in planning for future locations of facilities provides for efficient and orderly expansion of public facilities, provides for efficient growth in desired areas, discourages growth in undesirable areas, and protects environmentally sensitive lands. Consistent with that policy, development orders are issued only after a determination that adequate public facilities and services will be available to meet the demand of the new development.

Overall, the objectives of the FLUE, Transportation Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, and the Public School Facilities Element are furthered by the extension of facilities and services in a logical and efficient manner. This is accomplished by implementing and enforcing the adopted Capital Improvements Element and its corresponding Schedule of Capital Improvements. Successful and efficient implementation of those items ensures that facilities and services will be in place concurrent with future development.

If a capital improvements project is not included in the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements and the improvement is required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards, future development will be prohibited until the necessary facilities are in place. This, in effect, indirectly controls the timing and location of future development and, in turn, furthers the implementation of the Future Land Use Element and Transportation Element objectives.


28


Appendix A constitutes the county's five year schedule of capital improvements. This CIP is important to ensure that improvements to existing facilities and construction of new facilities are completed as needed. By implementing the five year schedule of capital improvements, the county will ensure that appropriate areas will be served by needed facilities, thus maintaining adopted levels of service.

Besides implementing the components of this element, the county coordinates with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the various state agencies, such as the Florida Department of Transportation, when those agencies program facility or service improvements within Indian River County. The continuation of this coordination will ensure that the plans of state agencies and the SJR WMD will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the timing and location of capital improvements as identified in the CIE.

Projected Revenues

In order to develop a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements, projected revenues over the five-year CIP time period have been calculated. These revenues are then compared to anticipated expenditures on capital improvements. For the first three years of the plan, only committed and available revenue sources are utilized. In developing revenue estimates for this process, historic revenue trends, current and anticipated economic conditions, population and growth trends, legislative changes, and any other factors that may impact future revenue streams were considered. This analysis is far more complex than projecting prior trends into the future. This is evident in the forecasted revenues shown in this section.

'M1ile the During the past five years. there has been hlstorieal Elata show a salida gradual iRdecrease in most revenue sources in the most reeent five year period, _Eostimates going forward show a decrease in most revenue sources for the firstnext couple years followed by moderate increases. This is consistent with an antieipateElthe cunent economic recession slowdown in the near future followed by an anticipated moderate recovery thereafter.

Many of the revenue sources identified in the CIP have unique characteristics. For example, sales taxes react differently than gas taxes to similar circumstances. The analysis accounts for such differences. Because gas taxes are levied on a per gallon basis rather than a percentage basis like the sales tax, gas taxes do not increase as a result of rising prices the way sales taxes do. Further, gas taxes do not typically decline as significantly as sales taxes during economic slowdowns. Property taxes, impact fees, user fees, interest earnings, and other revenues have additional behavioral characteristics that were considered in estimating future receipts. All such estimates were developed with the use of professionally accepted methodologies. To ensure a financially balanced CIP (see Appendix A), scheduled expenditures were constrained by projected revenues.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 20IO, Ordinance 2010-_

29


As part of this capital improvements element, the county's general revenues have been projected for fiscal years 2 0991 01-W 11 through 2 0 1 ~/ 14 ~. This section addresses general revenues and earmarked projected revenues as well as the county's tax base and millage rate projections.

• Overall Projected Revenues

Table 6.7 summarizes the county's projected overall revenues for fiscal years 209910/191 through 201~/14~. These revenues include the county's general governmental funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds. As table 6. 7 shows, general revenue collected by the county is projected to decrease slightly everin the next few-fiscal years and increase by only 'h\}}3.22% by fiscal year 201~/14~. Overall, Ggeneral revenue is projected to increase from $320,680,892 278,508.044 inFY 209910/191 to $330,339,507287,466.627 in FY 201~/14~.

Licenses & Permits

Intergovernment

Cbargcs for Sen>ices

Fines & Forfeitures

Interest & Misc.

Otber Sources

TOTAL

18.692 000

60.009 228 60 009 000

18.494.670 J 8.495 000

Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

61 509 000

• Earmarked Projected Revenues

21.805 000 \06.936.2:56

96.309.686

63.047 000 64.623.000 309 197.228

I 608-DOO

!9 431.000 19 917Jl00

Earmarked revenues are revenues that are restricted in terms of use. Such revenues may be found in the Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, and Solid Waste Sub-Element.

Table 6.8 provides a summary of earmarked revenue projections by applicable comprehensive plan element for fiscal years 209910/IGl through 201~1/14~. As shown in table 6.8, projected transportation revenues are broken down by their sources. Earmarked projected transportation


30


revenues are expected to increase by ~30.66% over the next five fiscal years, from $20,532,33719,025.710 in FY 20109/Hll to $28,077,000?4.859.880 in FY 201~/142.

Although transportation revenues are expected to increase from FY Q91 0/Hll to FY I :;:[/142, it is important to note that FY G91.Q/Hll transportation revenue is $34,258,36435.764,991less than FY 2004/05 transportation revenue. This reflects the substantial decrease in traffic impact fee revenue from the housing boom years to the present. Part of the transportation revenue increase for fiscal year 2012-;J./1:;:[ and fiscal year 201:;:[/142 is from a planned 6 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline (Local Option Gas Tax). In fiscal year 2013/14, the proposed additional6 cent per gallon gas tax plus the county's current 6 cent per gallon gas tax (total of 12 cents per gallon) will be bonded to produce a sigoificant revenue increase in FY 20 B:!/142.

For potable water and sanitary sewer, earmarked revenue is expected to increase by ,9;'7.69% over the next five fiscal years, from $41,3€)8,77927,333.363 in FY 20Q9lQ/Hll to $41,769,00029,434.000 in FY 201 ~/142. Over the next five years, earmarked revenue for solid waste is expected to increase by ,9&7.69% from $10,8€i9,50410.713.852 in FY 20G91.Q/Hll to $10,976,00011538,000 in FY 201:;:[/142.

2019111 3314000 1550.000 682.000 1 650.000 12.000.000 280 000 19.476 000 27 333.000 10.714 000

·~ ·I

201-l-1/1 689.000 280 000 20.438 196 28.016 000 10.982 000 2-J

201;!-J./1 6.237 971 280 000 24.003 971 28.716 000 11.257 000

"' 201J:!fl

4;: 6 300 000 1,598.000 12 923 000 280 000 24.859 880 29 434 000 11.538 000

of Management

• Tax Base, Assessment Ratio, Millage Rate

Table 6.9 summarizes the county's tax base projections which are categorized by fund through FY 20B:!:/142. Overall, the countywide ad valorem tax base is the same as the general fund category identified in table 6.9.


31

Comprehensive Plan

Source: Indian River County Office and Budget.


0.07179, 9'/Q

Q_.06999-:-

As shown in table 6.9, the county has a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and an emergency services district, each with a separate millage.

Changes to the Capital Improvements Program

With the ongoing depressed housing market, challenges in the national and global financial markets, and the reduction in building permit activity, county revenue again decreased and is expected to remain lower than projected in the prior year's Capital Improvements Program (Fiscal Years 200&2/®lQ through 20 12,;3/1 "1). As a result of the decrease in projected revenue and the associated decrease in projected demand for public facilities, the overall Capital Improvements Program has been scaled back. Consequently, a number of projects within the 200&.2/091 0 through 20 l:tol/1 "1 CIP have either had their eosts modified, have l3een deferred, or ha-ve had their time frame extended.

None of the changes will impact development project concurrency reservations, and only a few chaRges to the tranSfJertatien seetien ef the CIP direetly illlj3aet e8j'laeities within the eeullty' s eeneurreney management system. Because of the devmtt~rn in thedepressed housing market, problems with the financial markets, and limited construction activity, it is anticipated that the capacity associated with most of these projects will not be needed until later dates.

The Sfleeifie eeneurreney related prejeets removed from the transportation seetion of the CIP are detailed in Tal3le 6.10 and inelt~de roadvcay segments only en 27th Ave!l<!e. Per these prejeets, funds ·.vere to eeme from the ee<l!lty's gas taJl, optional sales talE and impaet fues. Even thot~gh these prej eets are l3eing deleted, portions of27th Aveffile \viii stilll3e l3t~ilt with the Oslo Road illlj3rovement prejeets.

Ofthe prejeets l3eing deleted from last year's CIP and shoWR in Tal3le 6.1 0, none have had their added eapaeity relied <!JlOn fur vesting de'lelopment prejeets fur eonel!ffeney. On links that are assoeiated


32


vvith the deleted prejeets listed in Table 6.1Q, the available capacity ranges from 13 .4 5 available peak hellr, directional trips to almost 600 a-vailable peak hear, directional trips.

'Nhlle the Cellllty' s c\lffent Cenc\lffency Linlcs Report shews that eKisting available capacity en 271h Avenue is minimal, Two ofthe transportation projects that have had their constmction dates extended OW'!'efrtlv have deficient lillks in involve improvements to roadwavs that are over capacity according to the County's concurrency management system. The Sjlecific concurrency related Jlrojects that have deficiefrt links a-re !Listed in Table 6.10. these deficient links are C.R. 510 between 58'h Avenue and U.S. Highway I and AlA from 17'11 Street to the south city limits ofthe City ofVero Beach. Even the11gh these Jlrejects ha-ve Eleficiefrt links. tWhile the transportation projects designed to improve these deficient links will be addressed threHgh the transjlortatien imjlreveme!l.ts scheooled to be censtrHeteEI or to have construction commenced vvithin the ne)[t fuvi vea-rs are being rescheduled to later years of the CIP. there are several factors that are expected to increase available capacity in the short tenn. One such factor is that concurrency certificates for . Farther. it is el[jJOCteEl that the available capa-city vvill seen increase due to a number effaeters. With the depressedhe11sing ma-rket, there a-re some development projects that previet~sly hadwith-trips vested trips will fer concurrency, bHt bee&Hse of expir~ soon. eenAt that time. the currene:,· certificates will new have er will seen have their reserved trips reflected by those projects will be removed from the concurrency management system. AlseAnother factor is that recent, traffic counts cenooeted by the Ce11nty this year-indicate that a further reduction in traffic volumes are continuing to decrease on most roadways. These new traffic counts will als&soon be &dEled tereflected in the County's concurrency management system. At that time, Beth-the increased capacity and decreased demand will add &Eiditionalhave the effect of increasing the available capacity back to on County roadways and will likely further decrease the need for scheduling, financing, and constructing transportation projects in the County's CIP.

By deleting extending the time frame of the-transportation projects as shewn, the county can utilize its limited resources to complete priority concurrency related projects within the overall capital improvements program. In effect, the county needs to delete delay some projects so that other projects will remain fundable with a diminishing county budget. By funding only necessary projects, the County is also maintaining a financially feasible capital improvements element.


33


*Peak hour. directional1Tins

*Peak hear, aireetieHal trips ** Capasity for these !iRks retleets the aaeptea level ef serviee staaeara ef E 129

Seveml neneenelfiTeney relatecl Jlrejeets ·Nitllin the varie<ts ether CIP eategeries have also either hacl their eests meclifiecl, have lleen clefurrecl, or have hacl their timeframe eJctenclecl. These prejeets inel<tcle: frrehie Smith Fish Ho<tse (Conservation ancl AEt<~ifur R~eharge eategof)0, 800 MHz Raclie Expansion (Emergeney Serviees eategef)'), l'lew Cemtroem Faeilities (General Serviees eategery), Oslo Boat Ran1J3 ancl Parking (Parks ancl Rilereatien eategory), ancl several eenvenienee eenter expansions (Solicl Waste eategef)0.

• Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program (Appenclix B)

The Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program (AppencliK B) is a list of transportation projects for which a specific start date and a specific completion date are listed. As allowed by state law, the County considers the additional capacity vJlieh theseto be produced by these roadway improvement projects will JlrSEI<tee as being available now for concurrency purposes. As such, a development projects impacting a deficient link can proceed despite the deficient link where theQ


34


roadway improvement project for the deficient link will be under construction no later than three years after issuance of the first building permit for the development project.

Because of lower demand on area roadways from the depressed housing market and the pending expiration of concurrency certificates for previously approved developments, the Priority Transpmiation Capital Improvements Program is no longer needed. Within the Therefore. this CIE no longer includes a Plioritv Transpmiation Capital Improvements Program.

Of the four projects previously listed in the Prioritv Transportation Capital Improvements Pro!.!tam. two Priority Transportation Capital ImproveHlellis Program, seven proj sets have been removed. Three of those projects were removed because they are O\iffernlywill be under construction or are now eompletedwithin the next six months. Those projects are: CR 512, from Sebastian Middle School to I 95; State Road 60, from West of I 95 to 82"" ,\vea~o~e (started militias reloeatioll); and 113!111-l-7'" Street, from 500' vfest of 14llt f,vefllole to west ofU.S. 1 Oslo Road fi·om 27'11 Avenue to 43'd Avenue. and Oslo Road fi·om 43'd Avenue to 581

h Avenue. The other fum-two projects were removed from the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program because they!he road capacity that those projects would add to the transpmiation system is no longer needed to maintain the current Level of Service ofE + 20. have had their eoastruetioa Elates moveElo~o~t to beyoaEl three years. Those projeets are: CR510, from CR512 to 75'" Court; CR 510, from 75llt Comito 61" Drive; CR 510, from 61 51

Drive to mdian River; ana 43.a Avea~o~e, from 12llt Street to Oslo Road. ill all eases, the added roaEl eapaeity from these projects is no longer necessary to maiataia eoaelolffSHey for previo~o~sly approved development projeets.

The four remaining proj eets within the Priority Transportatioa Capital Improvemerns Program have had their eoastructioa start dates modified. While eoastmetioa OH 4 3m Avenue, from 18!11 Street to ~!It Street, will start approllimately siJE moaths sooner thaH amieipated, eoastmetioa oa the three remaffiiag proj eets ·.vii! start approximately 1 to 1 \~ years later than previously amieipated. TheQse projects and their available peak hour, directional trip capacity of the associated roadwavs are listed in Table 6.ll.All of the transportation projeetsroadways listed in thethat table cunentlv have sufficient available peak hour, directional trip capacity to accommodate already approved developments.

f,Jtering the start date of eonstruetion, therefore, Eloes aot impact already approveEI developmerns.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

35


Needs Assessment

Based on public facility requirements identified in the other comprehensive plan elements, this needs assessment identifies the capital improvements required to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet proposed levels of service for existing and new development. For purposes of the CIE, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building or major equipment) that costs at least $25,000100.000 and may be paid for in phases.

Table 6.12 identifies capital improvement needs through fiscal year 201~/142 for conservation & aquifer recharge, emergency services, general services, Jaw enforcement & corrections, recreation and open space, stormwater management, sanitary sewer and potable water, solid waste, transportation, and public schools. Appendix A provides a detailed Jist of projects associated with each of the comprehensive plan elements as well as those projects associated with individual department capital improvements programs. Not included in Appendix A are projects associated with the Public School Facilities Element. Those projects are found in Appendix &C. Detailed capital improvement schedules, which list each improvement project, are provided in each applicable Comprehensive Plan Element or within individual master plans for the respective governmental service.

Conservation & Aquifer Recharge

Emergency Services

General Services

Law Enforcement & Corrections

Recreation & Open Space

Sanitary Sewer & Potable Water

Solid Waste

Stormwater Management

Transportation

Total

$1.350.000

$3.426.177

$558.960

$4.069,300

$6.681.988


$2,050.000 $3,485.000

$1.077.337 $4 497.450

Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

$3.000.000

$2.825.000 $2.500.000

$5.028.758

Indian River County

36

Comprehensive Plan

Facilities*

*The School District facilities.


the fiscal responsibility for capital improvement expenditures for public school

Figure 6.18 graphically displays the projected capital improvements expenditures for the county during the next five fiscal years. As indicated, the sum of the total projected costs for each of the elements for the five year period is $305,824,490270.395.311.

Within the first fiscal year, projects are funded from current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenues. For the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with "committed" revenue sources. "Committed" revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through "planned" revenue sources. "Planned" revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents oflocal option gas tax.

Some public facilities, such as public education and health systems, are provided countywide, anEI the comtty itself Eloes notbut are not ln!wthe fiscal responsibility for these systemsof the County. The County, however, is required by State Statutes to provide some funds to the Indian River County Health Department (IRCHD). Consistent with State law, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services appoints the management of the IRCHD, maintains the financial records, and prepares its own financial report separate from the county.

In the Future Land Use and Introductory Elements of the county's comprehensive plan, there is an analysis and description of public schools and health centers. Based on generallocational criteria for public schools and health centers, it is assumed that any new facilities which may be constructed in the county by 201:t±/142 will be located within existing infrastructure service areas or designated expansion areas. Therefore, these systems may be considered to be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure.


37


Figure 6.18: Future Capital Improvement Expenditures

$50,000,000 '

$40,000,000 ..

$30,000,000 J

$20,000,000 ..

$1 0,000,000 ··,

$0.

FY2010/11

!ill Conservation & Aquifer Recharge

B Law Enforcement & Corrections

• Solid Waste

Fiscal Assessment

FY2011/12 FY2012/13

r.i!l Emergency Services

Ia Recreation & Open Space

Em Stormwater Management

FY2013/14 FY2014/15

D General Services

• Sanitary Sewer & Potable Water

lbJ Transportation

This section examines the county's ability to fund the capital improvements listed in table 6.12, with the exception of public school facilities, and assesses whether sufficient revenue will be available within the existing budget framework utilized by the county to fund the needed improvements at the time that those improvements will be required. For public school facilities listed in table 6.12, +!he School District oflndian River County is responsible for funding the capital improvements for publie sehssl faeilities listed in table 6.12. The School District's adopted "Summary of Capital Improvement~ Program" (Appendix ±:>C) and "Summary of Estimated Revenue" (Appendix BD) provide a detailed review of the financial feasibility of the School District's Five Year Capital Plan.

Theis assessment process consists of projecting future revenue receipts sfrevem~es and comparing these-those receipts againstto anticipated expenditures. tJsiBg With this process, it is possible to quantifY annual revenue surpluses and shortfalls, providing a basis for examining opportunities for financing the needed capital improvements. The expenditure estimates include the operating costs.

Projected Expenditures

Table 6.13 shows the county's projected expenditures for fiscal years 20®1 0/Hll through 201J:!:/14}. By frscal year 20B±f142, the county is projected to have annual expenditures totaling


38


$330,339,507287.466,627. In FY 201W14l, the category projected to have the largest expenditures is the Enterprise Fuads/OtherPublic Safely category. For the five-year period beginning in fiscal year 2009101101 and ending in fiscal year 201Wl4l, the county's expenditures are projected to increase by~29.95%.

~----~ Physical Environment

Transportation

Economic Enviromnent

Human Services

CultureJRecreation

Debt Service

Ii:Et8Fj3Fise funds Other

"""' TQ.I&

~~T;OT~'~bri.fu~~~~~~~~;.rt,~~d~B~oo~g~ot.~~~--1J~~~~--L1~~~~_j~~~~~--~ Eannarked Projected Expenditures

Table 6.14 identifies the projected expenditures for the water, sewer, and solid waste enterprise fimds for fiscal years 2009! 01101 through 20 I W14l. These expenditures include operating expenses and other expenses for each year.

A±lAccording to law, all revenues from capacity charges must be spent on infrastructure improvements that benefits the payer of the capacity charge. Therefore, the ameunt ef revenues and expenditures amounts increases and decreases with development. For thisthat reason, projecting capacity charge revenues and expenditures is difficult. This system, however, ensures that new development will not reduce levels of service below county minimums.

20109/IGl

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#___; Adopted November__, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

39


2010111-1-2 $27.333,000 $4G,§41,GGG $10,714,000 $1G,e§;l,GGG

201+2/1;13 $?8,0 16,000 $4G,94e,GGG $10,982,000 $1G,'7§9,GGG 201;13/1"14

$28,716.000 $H,3§§,GGG $11,257.000 $1G,8e'7,GGG 20134/14~

$29,434,000 $H,'I89,G99 $11.538.000 $1 9,9'18,999 Source. Indian RIVer County Office of Management and Budget.

In FY 201 ~/142,, the projected expenses for potable water and sanitary sewer services are expected to be $41,769,00029,434,000. That is an increase of »17.69% from the 20109/1 01projected expenses of$41,368,77927,333,363. Table 6.14 shows that, in FY 201~/142,, the projected expenses for solid waste services are expected to be $10,976,00011,538,000. That is an increase of ,987.69% from the 201091101 projected figure of$10,869,50410,713.852.

Operating Cost Projections

Table 6.15 provides projections of overall operating costs for the county for fiscal years 2009101101 through 201~1142,. In fiscal year 201~/142,, the county is projected to incur approximately $264,872,395189.485,892 in operating costs. Based on the figures shown in table 6.15, the county's operating costs are projected to increase .J.&J-±.7.46% between 201091101 and 20B:!/142_.

Projected Debt Capacity

Debt Financing, which involves borrowing money using the county's assets as collateral, is one way that the county has provided for its capital facility needs. The primary rationale for providing capital facilities through indebtedness is that it spreads the cost of a facility over its useful life and thus is paid for by those who will use the facility.

Table 6.16 provides a summary of the county's estimated ability to raise bonds revenue without a public vote. +he That table identifies the county's bonding capacity is iEleatified for I 0, 20, and 30 years. As table 6.16 indicates, the county's available bonding capacity for the nexta-I 0 years issue is


40


$152,000,000160.100,000, with an aElElitional pot_effiial-while its bonding capacity offor a 30 year issue is $293,000,000323,100,000.

Half Cent Sales Tax

Gas Taxes

Tourist Tax

First Guaranteed Entitlement

Second Guaranteed Entitlement

Sub-Total

Possible Pledge Sources

Franchise Fees

Road Impact Fees

·• Debt Service Obligations

$93,700,000

In table 6.17. +the county's debt service obligations for current and anticipated bond issues are sununarized in tahle 6.17. Debt service is payment of principal and interest on obligations resulting from the issuance of bonds. As table 6.17 indicates, the county's major anticipated outstanding debts are for water and sewer revenue bonds, environmentally sensitive land acquisition bonds, recreational revenue bonds, and spring training facility revenue bonds.


41



42


T Interest $781,000 - $745,212 $473,450 $381,850 Principal $2,100,000 - $3,890,000 $1,930,000 $840,000 Total $2,881,000 - $4,635,212 $2,403,450 $1,221,850

2018 Balance $13,520,000 - $11,480,000 $8,685,000 $6,615,000 Interest $676,000 - $550,713 $376,950 $337,750

I Principal $2,205,000 - $4,085,000 $2,025,000 $890,000 Total $2,881,000 - $4,635,713 $2,401,950 $1,227,750


I Principal $2,315,000 - $4,290,000 $2,130,000 $930,000 Total $2,880,750 $4,636,462 $2,405,700 $1,221,025


I Principal $2,430,000 - $3,105,000 $2,220,000 $980,000 Total $2,880,000 - $3,236,963 $2,406,750 $1,222,200

2021 Balance $6,570,000 - $0 $2,310,000 $3,815,000 Interest $328,500 - $92,400 $190,750

I Principal $2,550,000 - $2,310,000 $305,000 Total $2,878,500 - $2,402,400 $495,750

2022 Balance $4,020,000 - $0 $3,510,000 Interest $201,000 - $175,500

I Principal $2,680,000 - $320,000 Total $2,881,000 - $495,500

2023 Balance $1,340,000 - $3,190,000 Interest $67,000 - $159,500

I Principal $1,340,000 - $340,000 Total $1,407,000 $499,500

2024 Balance $0 - $2,850,000 Interest - $142,500

I Principal - $355,000 Total - $497,500

2025 Balance $2,495,000

Interest $124,750

I Principal $375,000

Total - $499,750 2026 Balance - $2,120,000

Interest - $106,000

I Principal $390,000

Total $496,000

2027 Balance $1,730,000

Interest $86,500

I Principal - $410,000

112028

Total $496,500

Balance - $1,320,000


43


I Interest -Principal -Total -

2029 Balance -Interest -

I Principal

Total -2030 Balance -

Interest -Principal -I

112031

Total -Balance -

Fiscal Assessment Summary

This section provides an analysis of the county's revenues and expenditures for its capital improvement needs for the five-year period beginning in FY 20()910/Wl and ending in FY 201 Wl42_. While Appendix A details all of the capital improvement projects for the next five fiscal years for each individual comprehensive plan element by cost, timeframe, and revenue source(s), Table 6.7 provides general revenue projections for the county through fiscal year 201Wl42_. As shown in Table 6.7, the County will generate $1,572,981,6971.354.835.802 in revenues from general funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds from fiscal year 20G91Qilgl to fiscal year 201Wl42_. Sources of these funds include sales taxes, property taxes, grants, impact fees, and other revenues. Portions of the money needed for the capital improvements listed within Appendix A will come from the $1,572,981,6971.354,835.802.

Overall, the county will have enough revenue to cover the costs associated with the five year capital improvements program. The 1oeta1 estimated eest ef For all projects contained within the County's Capital Improvements project list, the total estimated cost is $305,824,4 90204.821.4 75 for the next five fiscal years. This is .J.9M 15.12% of the overall general fund revenues for the same time period.

Concurrency Management Plan

To ensure that level-of-service standards are maintained, it is necessary to have a system in place whieh that provides the criteria for measuring facility capacity, assessing development demand on applicable facilities, and monitoring service levels for applicable facilities. ThisThat system will set the parameters for issuing development orders consistent with level-of-service standards.

While this concurrency management plan sets policies and establishes a process, the specific application of this system is through the county's land development regulations. As per state requirements, these regulations define the details of the concurrency management system and establish its administrative requirements.


44

$66,000

$430,000

$496,000

$890,000

$44,500

$455,000

$499,500

$435,000

$21,750

$435,000

$456,750

$0


The major purpose of the concurrency management system is to detail the specifics of implementing the county's level-of-service standards. For that reason, the concurrency management system must apply to all development activity in the county. The system must then identify the applicable standards for each facility, the geographic scope of each facility, and the method of monitoring facility capacity changes. Most importantly, this system must specify when facilities are considered available.

Project Applicability

All development orders issued by the county must comply with the concurrency management plan and meet level-of-service standards. Development orders are county approvals for construction and/or land development activity. Specifically, development orders consist of the following: comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, site plan approvals, preliminary plat approvals, development of regional impact (DRl) approvals, planned development preliminary approvals, and building permit approvals for single-family homes located in subdivisions which were approved after February 13, 1990, the original adoption date of the county's comprehensive plan.

According to Section 163 .3180( 6), F .S., the impact from the construction of a single family home on an existing lot may constitute a de minimus impact on public facilities. State law allows such de minimus projects to be exempt from the concurrency requirement. Indian River County shall "flPPyapplies the single family de minimus allowance to single family building permits in subdivisions platted before February 13, 1990. CWTently, all emmty maintained reads are SJ3erating llelew ilie adej3ted level sf serviee and have additienal eapaeity te aeeemmedate future grevith.

Service Standards

Level-of-service standards for concurrency related facilities are established in this plan for the following facilities: sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, stormwater management, recreation, public schools, and transportation. These are explained in detail in the applicable comprehensive plan elements.

For each facility, level-of-service is a measure of the relationship between demand for the service and the capacity of the facility. Capacity, however, is mea~ured differently for each type of facility. Table 6.18 identifies both the capacity and demand measures for each public facility. These measures are addressed in detail, and existing capacities are identified in the applicable Comprehensive Plan Elements.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 201 0-_

45


Tmnsportation Roadway Volume of cars Peak Season/Peak

Affected Roadways accommodated over time Direction/Peak Hour Trips

Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant Treatment design Capacity Generation Rate (GPD) Service Area (GPD)

Potable Water Treatment Plant Treatment Design Capacity Generation Rate (GPD) Service Area (GPD)

Solid Waste Landfill Volume in active cell (cubic Generation Rate (tons per Entire County yards) capita per year)

Recreation Parks Acres of park land Acres of parks per thousand Entire County population

Stormwater Management Drainage

Volume of water Volume of stormwater

Basin conveyances outfalling for design storm

Service Area

Concurrency requires that each facility within the geographic scope of a proposed project's impact area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's demand. If that capacity is not available, the project cannot be approved. The principal function of the concurrency management system then is to provide a mechanism whereby demand and capacity measures can be compared on a project by project basis.

Table 6.18 provides the criteria for establishing a demand to capacity comparison for a proposed project. While most of the characteristics are self-explanatory, one needs clarification; this is the geographic scope for the traffic public facility category. For concurrency purposes, affected roaev<ays roadways arewill be those roadways impacted by a project's traffic. fdl prejeets, rRegardless of size, all projects impact the roadway on which the project fronts. In addition, other roadways further removed from the project are usuallv impacted. For concurrency purposes, two lane roadways which are assigned 8 or more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips and fom or more lane roadways that are assigned 15 or more peale hour/peak season/peak direction project trips are considered impacted roadwaysthat gain 5% or more of the prejeet's traffie or 50 or more of the prejeet's genemtee trips, whiehever is less are inelueee.

Level of serviee staneards f.Eor transportation concurrency related facilities. level-ot:service standards are t&applyied to all impacted roadways.requests for eevelopment oreers ane permits. Those !Levelof-service standards are measlli'ements basee on peak hom trips ane basee on volume ranges or average travel speee for the peak hom range from A to F and are associated with peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips.

Demand


46


Demand is an important component of the concurrency management system. Essentially, demand is a measure of facility use. When compared to facility capacity, demand can indicate the level-of-service for the facility.

As depicted in Table 6.18, demand can be measured quantitatively for each public facility category. While the demand function for each facility consists of applying a rate to the number of facility users, estimation of total demand is more complex. For concurrency management purposes, demand can be divided into three types: existing, committed, and projected. Each must be considered separately for purposes of concurrency management.

Existing Demand

Existing demand is simply the current level of use for a facility. For a roadway, it is the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips; for a school, it is the number of full-time enrolled students; for water and wastewater treatment plants, it is the existing flow volume measured in gallons per day. These figures are included within applicable plan elements.

Existing demand then reflects the use of a facility by the current population. When compared to capacity, existing demand can show if the facility has unused capacity or if it is functioning over capacity.

Existing demand, however, is not static. As population increases and dwelling units come on-line, existing demand increases. These increases in existing demand can be identified through facility use measurements. For example, regular traffic counts done on roads or treatment plant flow records are examples of facility use measurements indicating existing demand levels. As existing demand levels for facilities are updated, committed demand levels must be reduced if projects representing committed demand have come on-line.

Committed Demand

Committed demand is a measure of the impact that approved development projects with reserved capacity will have on facilities. When added to existing demand for a facility, the committed demand for that facility will produce a more accurate estimate of unused capacity. This estimate of unused capacity represents the amount of capacity that can realistically be allocated to new projects.

Committed demand must be determined by identifying all projects for which capacity has been reserved through issuance of initial concurrency certificates which are still valid. Then the specific facilities that will be impacted by these projects with reserved capacities must be determined; these facilities will be roadways and the landfill, and they may be treatment plants, drainage conveyances, and recreation facilities. Finally, the total demand on each facility attributable to committed demand will be determined.


47


Applicable elements of the plan identify the rates to be applied to each project to determine facility demand. Traffic volumes, for example, can be derived by applying a trip rate to the size of the project. Sanitary sewer and potable water both have rates of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. Other public facility rates are discussed fully in their applicable Comprehensive Plan Element.

Like existing demand, committed demand must be determined on a facility by facility basis. For example, both existing demand and committed demand must be determined for each major roadway, each school, each treatment plant, each major drainage conveyance, and the active cell in the landfill. Also, like existing demand, committed demand estimates must be modified as projects are completed; committed demand estimates must also be modified as new development orders are approved and old development orders are terminated.

Projected Demand

The third type of demand is projected demand. This consists of two types. One is noncommitted/non-reserved, single-family lot demand for all subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990, while the other is new project demand.

Non-committed/non-reserved single-family lot projected demand relates to the facility impacts associated with construction on single-family lots in subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990 and construction on single-family unplatted lots and acreage. Since this type of construction will impact facilities, the demand anticipated from this type of activity must be considered in facility expansion plans. For this reason, it is necessary to maintain an accurate inventory of unbuilt, platted lots and consider the impacts of construction on these lots.

The second type of projected demand is new project demand. For each new project, demand estimates must be made on a facility by facility basis. Only if sufficient available capacity exists for each facility to be impacted can the project be approved and a development order issued. Upon issuance of a development order, the estimated impacts on each facility would be considered as committed demand.

Availability of Capacity

Facility capacity can be assessed two different ways. First, facility capacity can be determined by facilities that are existing and available; examples would be existing treatment plants and existing roadways with a set number oflanes. The second manner for assessing facility capacity is to consider both existing, in-the-ground facilities as well as facility expansions or new facilities which are programmed but not yet existing.


48


According to Chapter 9J-5.0055(3), Minimum Requirements For Concurrency, Florida Administrative Code, the capacity of existing, in-the-ground facilities will be considered in all cases. Programmed facilities will be considered in assessing capacity for each public facility category when the following conditions are met:

~ For sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste and drainage facilities:

1. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the necessary facilities and services are in place and available to serve the new development; or

· 2. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place and available to serve new development at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(a), F.S.]

For parks and recreation facilities:

1. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are in place or under actual construction; or

2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired . by the local government, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed; and

a. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or

b. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or

c. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant


49


to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(b), F.S.]

Transportation supply (capacity). Transportation supply shall be determined on a segment by segment basis. For concurrency purposes, all segments on the county's thoroughfare plan shall be considered. Capacity for segments will be based either on FDOT's generalized capacity tables or individual segment capacity studies approved by the public works director pursuant to the criteria specified in Chapter 952, Traffic. Transportation supply for each segment is:

I. The segment's existing peak hour, peak season, peak direction capacity; or

2. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is proposed and if:

a. At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are in place or under construction; or

b. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the facility expansion needed to serve the new development is included in the county's adopted five-year schedule of capital improvements and is scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. In order to apply this provision to a facility expansion project, the Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies:

1. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion (fer IRElioo River County, this is ineluEleEl in poliey 5.11 of this element ana within AppenElilt B of this element).

u. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements (for Indian River County, this is included in Policy 1.2 of this Element); or


50


3. The segment's new roadway capacity if, A!!t the time a development order or permit is issued, the facility is the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the facility to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent; or

4. The segment's new roadway capacity if, A£!t the time a development order or permit is issued, the facility is guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a building permit or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(c), F.S.]

5. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is the subject of a proportionate fair-share agreement. In such case, the segment capacity increase reflected in the proportionate fair share agreement shall be available only to the party or parties to the proportionate fair share agreement.

For school facilities:

A residential development order or permit shall be issued only if the needed capacity for the particular service area is available in one or more contiguous service areas as defined in Section 163.3180(13)(c), F.S.

Regulation

No development order shall be issued for any project where the project's demand in conjunction with existing demand and committed demand will exceed the capacity of a facility at the service level established in this plan. Level-of-service analysis will be undertaken during the review of each project for which development order approval is required.

Monitoring System

To effectively implement the concurrency requirement, it is necessary to maintain an estimate of available capacity for each public facility subject to level-of-service requirements. By maintaining an accurate and current available capacity estimate for each facility, projected demand from development applications can be compared to the available capacity for the facility to determine if the project can be approved. The purpose of the monitoring program is to maintain a current estimate of available capacity for each facility.


51


With the exception of public schools, the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan is maintained by the county's planning division. Effective July 1, 2008, the School District initiated and now maintains the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan for public schools. Using a network computer system and data base management software, records were developed and are maintained for each specific facility.

Based upon information in the specific comprehensive plan elements, total capacity figures for each applicable facility are maintained in data base files established for each public facility category. Capacity figures are modified as facilities are expanded or as criteria specified in the availability of capacity section are met, thereby allowing a programmed expansion to be considered for capacity determination purposes. Through contact with other county departments, planning staff are able to modif'y capacity estimates as soon as facility characteristics are changed.

Table 6.19 depicts the general structure of the monitoring system data base file for each public facility category. This table shows that available capacity for each specific facility is a function of total capacity less existing demand and less committed demand. The demand section of this concurrency management plan identifies the methodology for assessing demand.

Peak season/ peak Annual count (average) Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing Traffic Roadways direction/ peak hour (peak season/peak approved Development Demand) - (Committed

(LOS D) direction/peak hour) Orders (DO) Demand)

Sanitary Treatment Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Sewer Plants Design flows Existing flows

approved DO's Demand)- (Committed Demand)

Treatment Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Potable Water Plants

Design flows Existing flows approved DO's

Demand)- (Committed Demand)

Active cell design Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Solid Waste Landfill Active cell volume used Demand)- (Committed capacity approved DO's Demand)

(Acres per thousand per

(Total Capacity)- (Existing Recreation Parks Park Acreage population) X (existing

population) X (projected Demand)- (Committed

population) population for approved

Demand) DO"s)

Drainage Volume ofstormwater (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Drainage Volume Existing flows allowed to outfall for Demand)- (Committed conveyances approved DO's Demand)

Public Permanent Student Annual Enrollment Students estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Education Schools(K-12) Stations (FISH) Count (FTE) approved residential Demand)- (Committed Development Orders) Demand)

To implement the monitoring system, the following actions shown in table 6.20 will be necessary.


52

Comprehensive Plan

Do quarterly traffic counts for thoroughfare plan roads to determine existing demand

Compile quarterly ridership statistics for all fixed routes

IdentifY existing flows for each water and sewer treatment plant

Estimate Landfill (active cell) volume used

Estimate population and apply park standard to determine park existing demand

Estimate existing flows for drainage conveyances

Enter data received from other departments into computer

Do annual student counts (FTE) for public schools to determine existing demand

Add estimated demand for new projects to committed demand total upon issuance of DO

Maintain records of units/projects receiving a certificate of occupancy, maintain demand estimates from those units/projects, subtract estimated demand for those units/projects for committed demand once existing demand is updated

Applicability


Engineering Annually

MPO Annually

Utilities Annually

Utilities Annually

Planning Annually


Planning Ongoing

School District Annually

Planning Ongoing

Planning Ongoing

The concurrency management plan monitoring system has applicability to more than just level-ofservice measurement. It also provides the basis for assessing facility expansion needs and therefore capital improvements programming. By maintaining an accurate and up-to-date estimate of available capacity, the need for facility expansion can be recognized before all capacity is used. By incorporating the monitoring system into the capital improvements programming process, capital budgets can be prepared based on reliable information and valid estimates of need.


53


Goal, Objectives and Policies

Goal

It is the goal oflndian River County to provide needed capital improvements through the use of sound fiscal decision making.

Objectives and Policies

Objective 1: Construction of Capital Facilities

By 20142., the county will have completed those capital improvements schedule projects that replace obsolete or worn-out facilities, eliminate existing deficiencies or accommodate desired future growth.

Policy 1.1: The county shall maintain a five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to Section 163 .3177(3)(b) F. S. evaluate and update that program every year to reflect existing and future public facility needs of the county. This capital improvement program will ensure that the plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained.

Policy 1.2: The county and the School District shall undertake only those capital improvements included within this element's adopted capital improvements program. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b) F.S., the Capital hnprovements Element will be reviewed every year. Consistent with Section 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code, if any facility identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements is delayed or deferred in construction, or is eliminated from the capital improvements program, and this delay, defer, or elimination will cause the level-of-service to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level of service standard for the facility, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required to adjust the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The annual update of the capital improvement element shall be done with a single public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the ordinance amending the Capital hnprovements Element shall be transmitted to DCA.

Policy 1.3: The county shall evaluate and prioritize its capital improvement projects based on following criteria. These criteria are ranked in order of importance.

> Preservation of the health and safety of the public by eliminating public hazards; > Compliance with all mandates and prior commitments; > Elimination of existing deficiencies; > Maintenance of adopted level-of-service standards; > Provision of infrastructure concurrent with the impact of new development; > Protection of prior infrastructure investments; > Consistency with the county plan and plans of other agencies; > Accommodation of new development and redevelopment facility demands;


54


> Consistency with plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction;

> Promotion of compact development by discouraging growth outside of urban service areas;

> Demonstration of linkages between projected growth and facility location; > Utilization of the economies of scale and timing of other improvements; > Reduction of operating costs; > Adjustment for unseen opportunities, situations, and disasters.

Policy 1.4: The county shall implement the policies of the Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Solid Waste sub-elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Since these are enterprise account funded elements, capital expenditures identified in these elements shall be funded principally from revenues derived from the applicable systems.

Policy 1.5: The county shall prioritize and implement the programs identified in the Transportation, Recreation and Open Space, Storm water Management, Conservation, and Future Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 1.6: The county shall not eliminate or reallocate budgeted appropriations for road improvement projects required to meet the adopted level-of-service standards unless the applicable projects will be constructed by other means and remain concurrent with the county's Schedule of Capital Improvements.

Policy 1. 7: The county shall continue to allocate funds for the replacement and the renewal of infrastructure in an amount which will minimize the operating costs of the infrastructure and maximize the life of the infrastructure.

Policy 1.8: The county shall manage its long-term general obligation debt in such a manner that the ratio of the debt service millage to the countywide operating millage does not exceed 20%.

Policy 1.9: The county hereby defines a capital improvement as an improvement with a cost that exceeds $25,000100.000:

Policy 1.10: The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall contain a mix of capital expenditures, including projects to eliminate existing deficiencies, to upgrade and replace existing facilities, and to construct new facilities.

Policy 1.11 : The county shall maintain a procedure in its annual budget review requiring each county department to include in its annual budget request applicable expenditures as identified in the capital improvements program of the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Element as well as department's capital improvements.


55


Policy 1.12: The county shall-hereby adopts the 2010-2011 through 2014- 2015 Indian River Countv School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan "Scheel Distriet eflndian River Cetlfl!y Five Year Capital Imprevement SeheEffile" frem the Seheel District's adepted Five Year Capital Plan pursuant te Sectien 163.3177(3)(a)(5) F.S. The Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work PlanCapital Imprevemeffi Schedule withll be evaluated and updated annually to reflect existing and future public school facility needs of the county. This will ensure that the Indian River Countv School District Five-Year Facilities Work PlanSeheel Distriet' s Five Year Capital Plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools is achieved and maintained.

Objective 2: Development in Coastal High Hazard Areas

Through 2030, development in coastal high hazard areas will not increase beyond the density or intensity levels indicated on the current Future Land Use Map.

Policy 2.1: The coastal high hazard area is defined as the area of the county designated as evacuation zones for a category one hurricane.

Policy 2.2: The county shall not increase land use density and intensity, in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that reflected in the county's current Future Land Use Map.

Policy 2.3: The county shall make appropriations for infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas only to maintain the adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 2.4: The county shall ensure that the replacement of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area will be limited to maintaining the adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 2.5: The county shall require that all developments and all single-family units in coastal high hazard areas fully pay the cost for required infrastructure improvements through impact fees, capacity charges, developer dedications, assessments, and contributions.

Policy 2.6: The county shall not use public funds to subsidize increased density or intensity of urban development in coastal high hazard areas; however, public beach, shoreline access, resource restoration, or similar projects may be constructed.

Objective 3: Maintenance of Established Level-of-Service Standards

Through 203 0, adopted levels-of-service will be maintained for all concurrency facilities.


56


Policy 3.1: The county hereby adopts the concurrency management system as described within this element. The county shall maintain Land Development Regulation (LDR) Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System, which implements the plan's concurrency management system. In accordance with the concurrency management system of this plan and LDR Ch. 910, the county will not approve any development project where the impacts of such a project would lower the existing level-of-service on any facility below that facility's adopted minimum level-of-service standard.

Policy 3.2: The county shall approve development only in accordance with the utility connection matrix identified in the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-Elements.

Policy 3.3: The county shall, concurrent with the impact of new development, provide the infrastructure necessary to maintain the levels-of-service identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Where development is proposed and is consistent with all applicable regulations but one or more public facilities is/are operating at an inadequate service level, the applicant may at his expense make facility improvements to increase facility capacity when such improvements are consistent with county plans and receive county approval.

Policy 3 .4: The county shall make land use decisions based on the planned availability offacilities to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 3.5: The county hereby adopts Concurrency Management level-of-service standards for public facilities that are established in the other Comprehensive Plan Elements and which are stated below:

~ Stormwater Management:

The county hereby adopts the following level-of-service standard for all new drainage systems within the unincorporated county:

~ New development requiring major site plan approval or subdivision platting shall construct a complete drainage system to mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design rainfall event using the soil conservation service type 2 modified rainfall curves.

Post development runoff for any drainage basin shall not exceed pre-development runoff unless a maximum discharge rate has been adopted and the discharge does not exceed that rate. If a maximum discharge rate has not been adopted for a basin, post development discharge may not exceed pre-development discharge.

By 201G2, all existing roadways in the county shall be improved to meet the following level-ofservice standards:


57


Minimum road crown elevation for ex1stmg roads shall be raised during resurfacing/rebuilding to the flood elevation resulting from the 2 year/24 hour storm event on local streets.

>- The center two lanes of rebuilt roads must be at or above flood levels resulting from a I 0 year 24 hour storm event on Arterial and Collector roads.

>- All drainage basins will meet the following level of service standards: By 2007 5-Y ear/24 Hour Storm Event By 2010 I 0-Y ear/24 Hour Storm Event

The county hereby adopts the following water quality level-of-service standard: >- As a minimum, retention of the first one inch of rainfall is required prior to offsite

discharge. An additional 50% treatment is required for all direct discharge into the Sebastian River and into the Indian River Lagoon due to its designation as an outstanding Florida water, as required by state law.

>- Potable Water

The following level-of-service standard is adopted for the county's potable water facilities, and shall be utilized for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development:

>- Countywide level-of-service standard of250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit.

>- Solid Waste

The following level-of-service standard is adopted for solid waste facilities in the county, and shall be used as the basis for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development:

>- Countywide level-of-service standard of 2.2 tons or 3.67 cubic yards per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population per year.

>- Sanitarv Sewer

The following level-of-service standard is adopted for the county's sanitary sewer facilities, and shall be utilized for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development:

>- Countywide level-of-service standard of250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit with a peak monthly flow factor of 1.25.

>- Recreation & Open Space


58


The county adopts the following recreation level-of-service standard: ' )> County wide level-of-service standard of 6.61 recreation acres/! ,000 permanent plus

weighted peak seasonal population.

)> Transportation

The county adopts traffic circulation level-of-service standards as follows: )> Level-of-Service "D" during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions, on all

TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways, with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service "E" plus 20%.

• •

27th Ave- South County Line to SR 60 43'd Ave- Oslo Road to 161

h Street

For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service "B" is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C" is adopted for urban areas.

Policy 3.6: The county hereby adopts level-of-service standards for selected public facilities as follows:

)> Correctional Facilities

The county adopts the following correctional facilities level-of-service standard: )> County wide level-of-service standard of 4.5 beds/ I ,000 permanent plus weighted

peak seasonal population

)> Fire/EMS

The county adopts the following Fire/EMS level-of-service standard: :)> County wide (excluding Indian River Shores) level-of-service standard of .089

Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

)> Law Enforcement

The county adopts the following Law Enforcement level-of-service standard: )> Unincorporated County level-of-service standard of2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent

plus weighted peak seasonal population


59


} Libraries

The county adopts the following Libraries level-of-service standards: } County wide level-of-service standard of 580 building square feet per 1,000

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population );. County wide level-of-service standard of 3,200 library material items per I ,000

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population );. County wide level-of-service standard of 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus

weighted peak seasonal population );. County wide level-of-service standard of0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

);. Public Buildings

The county adopts the following Public Buildings level-of-service standard: );. County wide level-of-service standard of 1.99 building square feet per capita for

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population.

);. Schools

The county adopts the following Schools level-of-service standard:

Schools (School Service Areas):

);. I 00 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school type (elementary, middle, and high).

);. Transit

The County adopts the following transit level-of-service standard: );. One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes.

Objective 4: Future Development's Share of Capital Costs

Through 2030, new developments will bear a proportionate share of the cost required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 4.1: The county shall use impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, developer dedications and contributions, to pay for infrastructure improvements and services needed to satisfy future needs while maintaining adopted level-of-service standards.


60


Policy 4.2: The county shall conduct research to identifY new sources of revenue for funding capital improvement projects.

Objective 5: Local Government's Ability to Provide Required Services and Facilities

Through 2030, the county will ensure that it is able to fund and provide required services and facilities.

Policy 5.1: The county shall not approve land use amendment requests unless those requests are consistent with the concurrency management system requirements of this element.

Policy 5.2: In the event that the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for development orders, the county shall schedule capital improvements to serve developments in the following order of priority: ~ Single-family units in existing platted subdivisions or on existing legal, buildable parcels ~ Affordable housing projects ~ New development orders permitting redevelopment ~ New development orders permitting new developments where the applicant funds the

infrastructure expansion in exchange for future reimbursement ~ New development orders permitting new developments without developer participation

Policy 5.3: The county shall extend facilities and services to serve areas only within the existing Urban Service Area or as allowed by Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 5.4: The county shall coordinate with other local, state, and federal agencies as well as private entities to create an efficient capital improvements schedule that provides the following general benefits while minimizing the financial burden of providing facilities and services: ~ Reduction of overall capital and operating expenditures by the development of multi-use

facilities; ~ More efficient land use patterns and phasing; ~ Reduction of overlapping, duplicating, and administrative procedures; ~ Implementation of adopted physical, social, and economic goals and policies in a least-cost

manner; ~ Better coordination of public capital investment with private capital expenditures.

Policy 5.5: The county shall continue utilizing enterprise funds for the provision of Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, and Solid Waste facilities. The debt for enterprise funds is to be paid by user fees, capacity charges, and other appropriate sources.

Community Development Department Indian River County Supplement #_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 201 0-_

61


Policy 5.6: The county shall finance the capital cost of non-enterprise fund supported public facilities (e.g., roads, stormwater management, and parks) from current revenue, bond issues, impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, and other appropriate sources.

Policy 5.7: The county shall use general obligation bonds and other sources to raise the funding required to provide those public facilities that cannot be constructed with user fees, revenue bonds, impact fees, capacity charges, or other dedicated revenue sources.

Policy 5.8: Developments, which require public facility infrastructure improvements that will be fmanced by county debt, shall have their development orders conditioned on the issuance of the county debt or the substitution of a comparable amount of non-debt revenue.

Policy 5.9: Pursuant to state law, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance and not deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan when the amendment relates to corrections, updates, or modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or the date of construction of any facility except transportation facilities enumerated in the Schedule of Capital Improvements. For transportation facilities, a delay in construction of a facility which causes the level-of-service of that facility to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level-of-service standard for the roadway will require a comprehensive plan amendment.

Policy 5.10: The county shall ensure that all capital improvements identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan are completed according to schedule. The only acceptable delays will be those which are subject to one of the following: ~ Projects providing capacity equal to, or greater than, the delayed project are accelerated within

or added to the Schedule of Capital Improvements; ~ Modification of development orders issued conditionally or subject to the concurrent

availability of public facility capacity provided by the delayed project. Such modification shall restrict the allowable amount and schedule of development to that which can be served by the capacity of public facilities according to the revised schedule; or

~ Amendment of the plan to reduce the adopted standard for the level-of-service for public facilities until the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled to be completed.

Peliey 5.11: The eelffi!y herel3y aaeJ3!S ApJ3eREiiK B as the Celffi!y' s Prierity TFaRsj3ertatieR Caj'Jital ImprevemeR!s Sehedule. This sehedllie prevides the prejeet Eleserij'ltieR, estimated Elate ef eemmeReemeR! efaetual eeRstruetieR, estimated date efeempletieR, aad estimated eest fer J3rejeets that will increase reaaway Caj'Jaeity en J3Fierity faeilities.


62


Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring

Implementation

An important part of any plan is its implementation. Implementation involves execution of the plan's policies. It involves taking actions and achieving results.

For the Capital Improvements Element, implementation involves various activities. While some of these actions will be ongoing, others are activities that will be taken by certain points in time. For each policy in this element, table 6.21 identifies the type of action required, the responsible entity for taking the action, the timing, and whether or not the policy necessitates a capital expenditure.

To implement the Capital Improvements Element, several different types of actions must be taken. These include: development of mechanisms for funding new facilities, adoption ofland development regulations and ordinances, execution of interlocal agreements, coordination, and preparation of studies and evaluation and monitoring reports.

Overall, the Capital Improvements Element implementation responsibility will rest with the Office of Management and Budget. Besides its responsibilities as identified in table 6.20, the planning department has the additional responsibility of ensuring that other entities discharge their responsibilities. This will entail notifYing other applicable departments of capital expenditures to be included in their budgets, notifYing other departments and groups of actions that must be taken, and assisting other departments and agencies in their plan implementation responsibilities.

As part of the Capital Improvements Element, the county has developed a Concurrency Management Plan, which ensures the maintenance of the adopted level-of-service standards. Through the Concurrency Management Plan, the county will measure facility capacity, assess development demand, and maintain a Capital Improvements Program which ensures that the level-of-service standards are maintained.


63


,'t;,.............. <::~~~~!/· ······;,,~· .·. ,n<r.:c· ~ ... ::-..· ... V·~F'\,/i: . ' ·.· ,, . ·> ;:./>•::.:, .•.•• : .; .·:·• ·····;:"''II <·.· .... · ............. · ·~ ,.··· .... · .... : .. ~.·.·········· ..

/".;.:.· . i.'. • •;• ''· ,:• ... .., Cj(;;~

u Maintain the CIP OMBIPD 2010-2014 No

1.2 Follow the CIP PD 2010-2014 No

1.3 Prioritize capital improvement projects OMBIPD/SD Ongoing No

1.4 Implement recommendations Appropriate County

2010-2014 Yes Departments/SO

1.5 Prioritize and implement programs Appropriate County

2010-2014 Yes Departments/SO

L6 Maintain previous commitments BCCIPWD/SD Ongoing No

L7 Replacement and renewal of infrastructure Appropriate County

Ongoing No Departments/SO

L8 Budget Management OMB/SD Ongoing No

L9 Define capital improvement PD/OMB Ongoing No

LIO Capital Budget Management OMB/SD Ongoing No

Lll Capital Improvements Management OMB/SD Ongoing No

2.1 Define costal high hazard area DCA Ongoing No

2.2 Maintain density and intensity levels of current FLU Map PD Ongoing No

2.3 Budget management Appropriate County

Ongoing Yes Departments

2.4 Maintain LOS standards Appropriate County


2.5 Funding mechanisms BCC/Private Developers Ongoing No

2.6 Infrastructure replacement strategy Appropriate County

Ongoing No Departments

3.1 Maintain concurrency management system PD Ongoing No

3.2 Follow connection matrix of Comprehensive Plan Sub- Appropriate County

Ongoing No Elements Departments

3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards PD Ongoing No

3.4 Land use decisions BCC Ongoing No

3.5 Adopt LOS standards County Ongoing No

4.1 Impose regulations Appropriate County


4.2 Conduct research OMBIPD Ongoing No


64


•.. ...... . .. ······••••··••••··.····· .c>···:c•·······;· ~~~:··.·:• .;·:· ... ••• ·;·· \i:~ft?'F/ .J;pfAci(P~ /"''" ''"' ···:' :'~'

.... •::•: :::> ~2: ·~.;:;;.~

4.3 Work with municipalities BCC/SD/Other Local

Ongoing NP Governments in IRC

5.1 Approve land use changes only if infrastructure can

BCC Ongoing NP support land use change

5.2 Prioritize capital improvements BCC/SD/Appropriate Ongoing NP County Departments

5.3 Extension of facilities and services BCC/Appropriate County

Ongoing Np Departments

Appropriate County 5.4 Create an efficient capital improvements schedule Departments/Other Ongoing Np

Government Agencies

5.5 Utilize enterprise funds OMB Ongoing NP

5.6 Finance non-enterprise fund supported projects OMB Ongoing NP

5.7 Fund the construction of public facilities OMB/SD Ongoing Yes

5.8 Permitting Requirements BCC/Appropriate County Ongoing NP Departments

5.9 Amending the Schedule of Capital Improvements BCC/OMBIPD/SD Ongoing NP

5.10 Complete the Schedule of Capital Improvements 2014 NP

5.11 Adopt a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements

BCCIPWD/MPO Ongoing NP Schedule

BCC =Board of County Commissioners DCA= Department of Community Affairs FOOT = Florida Department ofTransportation MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization O:MB = Office of Management and Budget PD = Planning Department PWD =Public Works Department SD = School District

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures

To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation; it must also provide a mechanism for assessing tbe plan's effectiveness. Generally, a plan's effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which tbe plan's objectives have been met. Since objectives are structured, as much as possible, to be measurable and to have specific timefrarnes, tbe plan's objectives are tbe benchmarks used as a basis to evaluate tbe plan.

Table 6.22 identifies each oftbe objectives oftbe Capital Improvements Element. It also identifies tbe measures to be used to evaluate progress in achieving tbese objectives. Most oftbese measures are quantitative, such as adopting land development requirements, which ensure the maintenance of


65


the level-of-service standards, adopting a capacity monitoring system and others. Besides the measures, table 6.22 also identifies timeframes associated with meeting the objectives.

The Planning Department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Capital Improvement Element. This will involve collection of data and compilation of information regarding facility capacity, expansion, and new development permitted. This will be done on a regular basis. As part of the county's Concurrency Management System, the Planning Department will continually monitor the facility capacity to ensure that level-of-service standards will be maintained.

Existing deficiencies in county services and/or obsolete or worn-out facilities 20142

2 Land use density and intensity in Coastal High Hazard Area 2030

3 Level-of-service provided for county services 2030

4 Existence of appropriate Land Development Regulations 2030

5 Completion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements 2030

While monitoring will occur on a continual basis, formal evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will occur annually. The formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire Comprehensive Plan will occur every ten years (dependent upon the schedule adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Capital Improvements Element objectives should be modified or expanded based on revisions to state statutes and changing conditions not identified and addressed as part of the annual CIE update. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element not otherwise addressed in the yearly update of the Capital Improvements Element.

As discussed in the above paragraphs, the evaluation and monitoring procedures identified for the Capital Improvements Element are basically the same for the entire Comprehensive Plan. These procedures are currently being used to prepare the formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used by the county in subsequent Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. Included in those procedures are the format requirements listed in 91-5.005-(l)(a)(e), F.A.C.

The monitoring and evaluation of this plan is critical to ensure that the policies are effective in achieving the plan's goals and objectives. Each individual element of the plan contains provisions and measures to be used in the review of the element. Each element contains an Implementation and Evaluation Matrix and monitoring procedures, which are currently being used to prepare the current Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used to prepare future Evaluation and Appraisal Reports.


66


In addition, a great portion of the plan monitoring will be in conjunction with the concurrency management system which is designed to ensure that approved level-of-service standards are maintained and that sufficient capacity exists in the various services and facilities. Other evaluation of the plan or plan elements is likely to occur in the day to day application of the mandated regulations, which will result in plan amendments.

The formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report required by law is currently providing and in subsequent versions will provide a complete review of the plan and be conducted in compliance with the public participation procedures adopted for the development of this plan.

As part of the monitoring system, all appropriate baseline data is currently being updated and will be updated. Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process is and will also be used to determine whether the objectives should be modified or expanded. In this way the monitoring and evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan Elements not only provides a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it also provides a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element.

Community Development Department Indian River Couuty 67 Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_


APPENDIX A: FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

==;;;;;=="""""'""'"""""''""""'="'"'""'""'==--I"'n"'d"'i"a"n River Connty Five Year Schedule of Improvements ''",~~'"''"'"·"-

Community Development Department Indian River County 68 Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_


800 MHz Radio

Dist.

Dist.



I Annual Balance I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I



$ - $ -Evidence Addition $ 558,960 $ 700,000 $ - $ 1,258,960 ~ional Sales Tax

$ - $ -Evidence Addition $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ 1,200,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Total Expenditures $ 558,960 $ 1 900,000 $ - $ 2~960



$ - $ -State Road 510 Fishing Pier $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ 1,400,000 Optional Sales Tax

$ -Land for Future Parks $ 1,575,000 $ 1,575,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 5,500,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -West County Regional Park $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -North County Regional Park Restroom $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Gifford Park Restroom/Concession Bld_g $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -16th Street Ballfields Restroom $ - $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Round Island Riverside Rpl Boardwalk $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ 80,000 Grant

$ - $ -North County Regional Park Lazy River $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Kiwanis Hobart Park Restroom $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Fairgrounds Campground $ 30,293 $ 200,000 $ - $ 230,293 hnpact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Fairgrounds Campground $ 40,000 $ - $ 40,000 Optional Sales Tax Total Expenditures $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 14,929,300



I Total Revenue I $ 9,928,533 I $ 1,600,000 I $ 2,285,000 I $ 2,600,000 I $ 3,785,000 I $ 20,198,533 I

~ 'i-''i'cF:riiZ'Ii'fzi~~ ~ Mise Water Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Impact Fees Mise Sewer Improvements $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875 000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -77th West of Kings (Tuscannv Lakes) $ 112,237 $ 112,237 $ - $ 224,474 Impact Fees

$ - $ -12WM 17th St. SW from 27th Av to 43rd Av $ - $ - $ 610,000 $ 610,000 Impact Fees

Design FM and WM on 4th St from 82nd to 98th $ - $ -Ave and on 98th from 4th to 8th $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Convert North County Brine Line to Reuse Main $ 85,000 $ - $ 85,000 Impact Fees

12" WM on 27th Ave from 13th st SW to 17th St $ - $ -SW (Madera Isles & Echo Lake $ - $ - $ 341,000 $ 341,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -South County Brine Disposal $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Hydromentia Pilot $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 Grant Funding

58th Av 65th St to 69th St & along 61st and 69th $ -St $ 50,000 $ 500,000 $ 450,000 $ 232,000 $ 1,232,000 Impact Fees

Svce Transmission Lines Oslo Pk, Villages of VB $ - $ - $ -Gardens $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Impact Fees

Install Wells and Piping at North County RO $ - $ - $ -Plant $ 1,948,293 $ - $ 1,948,293 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Install Well No.7 st S. Co. RO Plant $ - $ 640,050 $ 574,358 $ 1,214,408 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -12" W.M. along 66th Av. from 16th to 20th St. $ 229,418 $ - $ 229,418 Impact Fees

16" WM from Kings Tank to College Ln. and $ - $ - $ -Loop to Club ofVero $ 115,450 $ - $ !15,450 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Insta\16" FM along 16th St west of 43rd Ave $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 Impact Fees

Insta1124" WM along 77th Stfrom 66th Ave to $ - $ -70th Ave then North to CR 510 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Imoact Fees N. Reg. Reuse Sto. & Repump Facility with $ - $ - $ -Transmission Mains to Barrier Island $ 1,512,490 $ - $ 1,512,490 Impact Fees



Brine line on 77th to CR5IO,Bridge conversion & $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ Assessments & User Fees



Roseland Citizens Convenience Center Expansion $ - $ -and bnprovements $ - $ 1,920,000 $ - $ 1,920,000 Assessments & User Fees Gifford Citizens Convenience Center Expansion $ - $ -and Improvements $ - $ 1,430,000 $ - $ 1,430,000 Assessments & User Fees Oslo Citizens Convenience Center Expansion and $ - $ - $ -Imorovements $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000 Assessments & User Fees Transfer Tractorffransfer Trailers and Roll-off Truck/Containers $ - $ 400,000 $ 280,000 $ 320,000 $ 667,802 $ 1,667 802 Assessments & User Fees

Design, Permitting & Construction of Class I Landfill- Co Disposal (former 33 Acres for $ - $ - $ -C&D) $ 6,450,000 $ - $ 6,450,000 Assessments & User Fees

$ - $ - $ -Retrofit of MRF $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 Assessments & User Fees

Partial Closure of Cell I, C&D Landfill, Seg-1, $ - $ - $ -See:-2 and the Infill $ - $ 6,400,000 $ 6,400,000 Assessments & User Fees Total Expenditures $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802



PC North- North Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ -System) $ - $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC North- North Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

PC South- South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ -Svstem) $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 300,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 IRC Utility Dept

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

$ - $ - $ -Rockridge Surge Protection Project $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Grant

$ - $ - $ -Rockridge Surge Protection Proiect $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 QQ!:ional Sales Tax Funds Vero Lake Estates Phase II and ill $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 MSTU Assessments

$ - $ -Vera Lake Estates Phase II and III $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Grant

Total Expenditures $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000



Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000

Grant $ 8,095,502 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 2,339,000 $ 15,134,502 Traffic Impact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497

Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,311 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,311

Traffic Impact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Developer Contributions $ 106,952 $ 106,952

Optional Sales Tax $ 18,618,648 $ 3,360,000 $ 3,444,000 $ 3,530,240 $ 3,618,440 $ 32,571,328 $ -

Payback from FDOTM Optional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ 14,823,571 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Old Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ 1,140,009 $ - $ -

Developer Funded Construction $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,600,000

Total Revenue $ 78,143,562 $ 13,522,000 $ 15,735,196 $ 18,620,111 $ 60,336,457 $ 186,357,326



Grant

Gas Tax


Comprehensive Plan

26th Street, 74th Avenue to 82nd Avenue, two lanes

26th Street, 74th Avenue to 82nd Avenue, two lanes





43rd Avenue, 49th Street to 53rd Street, three



Avenue to 58th Avenue, Four



$ - $ - $ - $ -Water and Sewer Cash Forward $ 8,528,533 $ 8,528,533 Solid Waste Assessments & User Fees $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 MSTU Assessments $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000

$ - $ - $ -IRC Utilities Deoartment $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Gas Tax $ 10,297,507 $ 2,232,000 $ 2,255,000 $ 6,237,971 $ 6,237,971 $ 27,260,449

$ - $ - $ -Bonds Proceeds - Gas Tax $ - $ 44,805,166 $ 44,805,166

$ - $ - $ - $ -Payback from FOOT-Gas Tax $ 7,865,009 $ 7,865,009 Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000 Traffic Impact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497 Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,3ll $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,3ll Traffic Impact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532

$ - $ - $ - $ -Developer Contributions $ 106,952 $ 106,952

$ - $ -Develooer Funded Construction $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,600,000

$ -Payback from FOOT- Optional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ 14,823,571

$ - $ - $ - $ -Old Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ 1,140,009

TOTAL $ 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311



Total Revenues All Categories $ 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311 Total Expenditures All Catee:ories $ 71,592,309 $ 39,232,424 $ 48,492,450 $ 50,780,758 $ 60,297,370 $ 270,395,311 Difference $36,117,731 -$15,333,719 -$19,227,254 -$13,608,647 $12,051,889 $0


- 00, 00 =

J, i ..

;., s l l -~ = = ~ 0 "' u - .. = .. .. s ~ ..

;>

= 0 .. .. "'" :0 s

= .... -;; -·a "' u

. I 0 .... 0 .... .. " = " = :0 .. 0 0

J J .... ; 0

~ .... ,., :g .I - .. = .. '"-" s s

; ~ ~ t: ~ .'1 " 0 frz ~ ~'0 - .. =-.. Q. s o = ,_'0 .. o< iS:

J J ~ ~ 1 -~1 ..

. <! ~ .. "' ~=

= .. ·- "

..., = s .. .. SJaafeJ:d = " Q.

=-s AJIIHO:) s "' 0 Q.

0

uri: u


APPENDIX GB: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has adopted its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This plan prioritizes roadway improvements through a 20 year planning horizon. The table below lists these prioritized roadway improvements. Because the LRTP prioritizes long range roadway projects through 2030, or contains projects funded entirely by non-county sources, it includes some projects that are not in Appendix A, the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.

2030 Roadwav Imurovement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transnortation Element) On Street From To Base Road Tvoe Future Road Tvne Total Cost

1-95 S. County Line N. County Line 4 Lane Freeway 6 Lane Freeway $109,919,000

~ SR60 98th Ave 1-95 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $2,543,842

SIS Total $112,462,842

SR60 1-95 82ndAve 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,119,445

SR60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $1,864,758 ~ ... US I S. County Line Oslo Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $12,064,823 ~ 0 ~ US I Aviation Blvd Old Dixie Hwy (N) 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $44,372,047 ~ - US I Roseland Rd ~- County Line 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $5,255,518 .fl

"' Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 Per Year) $10,000,000

Other State Roads Total $81,676,591

4th St 98th Ave 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $16,262,035

12th St 90th Ave 82ndAve 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,781,786 ~

12th St 43rdAve 27th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $2,854,618 ... ~

~ 13th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $4,041,388 .e;.

13th St SW 43rd Ave 34th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $1,560,899 c = 0 13th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,359,684 u

13th St SW 27th Ave 20th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $1,922,225




2030 Roadway Improvement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transoortation Element) .,

On Street From To Base Road Tvoe Future Road Tyne Total Cost 26th St 66th Ave 43rd Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $13,006,154 26th St 82ndAve 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,850,481 Aviation Blvd 43rd Ave U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,537,828 27th Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9,560,909 27th Ave OsloRd S.R. 60 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,330,699 43rd Ave S County Line OsloRd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $12,974,563 43rdAve Oslo Rd 8th St 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8,311,058 53rd St 82ndAve 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $9,599,620

58th Ave S County

Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $11,850,325 Line/Koblegard Rd

66th Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $8,562,423 66th Ave OsloRd 4th St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,887,466 66th Ave 4th St SR60 2 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided $8,853,565

66th Ave SR60 C.R. 510 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,173,489

82ndAve S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $7,302,941

82ndAve 26th St C.R. 510 00 2 Lane Undivided $28,174,165

Laconia St C.R. 510 C.R.512 00 2 Lane Undivided $2,679,879

Aviation Blvd Ext U.S. I Indian River Blvd 00 4 Lane Divided $14,387,771

C.R. 510 C.R. 512 U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,369,280

C.R. 510 U.S. I ICWW 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,718,539

C.R. 512 Fellsmere City Limits l-95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,192,929

C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $13,317,0!0

C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $6,674,370

8th St 82ndAve 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,955,196

Indian River Blvd Royal Palm 37th St 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,678,255

Oslo Rd 1-95 58th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,484,669

Roseland Rd C.R. 512 U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,847,897

Schumann Dr C.R. 510 Barber St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,974,335 ----



2030 Roadway Improvement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transoortation Element) On Street From To Base Road Ty~e Future Road Ty[!e Total Cost

Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 Per Year) $!0,000,000j

County Roads Total $381,057,970

~ Barber St Schumann Dr U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $3,621,587 Barber St C.R. 512 Schumann Dr 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $7,596,306 £

u City Roads Total $11,217,893

Total $576,415,2% Source: Indian River County :MPO

F,\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\USERS\LONG RANGE\COMPPIAN AMENDMENTS\CIE\2010\2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT· DRAFT IQ.26-10- REDLINED COPY.DOC



APPENDIX DC: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE·

Summary of Capital Improvement Program

Proiect New Construction

NeW _ConstructiOn and Additions Fellsmere Cafe. Exp'ah & Osrm Addn

Sebastian River HS Addni"on

Storm Grove Middle School

SupporfServices Complex

Tffiffic-lmprovement Projects

SubtOtal' New Construction and Additions

_SubtOtal New Construction

Comprehensive Needs ModernizatiOns.& Replacements Dodgertown Cafeteria & HVAC Replacement

Do"dgertOWirSchiJol HVAC

Osceola Ma'gn'et Replacement

VBHS- FreShman Leaming:ctr Ren·ov.

Vero BeaCh El Replacement

Vera· Beach Hi_gh School-Restoration

Wabasso School Renovation

.Subtotal Modernizations & Reolacements

Subtotal Compreh~·nsive _N_~~s

other Items Capital Mai_n'ten~n·c.e

CapitalMaintilnance (buyback)

Capital MaiJltc:mance/HIIh & Life Safety

1-NAQ Repair ar'ld Replace


Prtorto FY2011. FY FY FY FY FY Total 2011 FY2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

9;000,000 o . ··· •s.,M.o,ooo ~.000,000 11,noo,ooo 11,000,000

45,048,476 45,048,476

11,000,000 8;000,000 5,000,000 s,ooo;ooo 820,000 0 .820,000 820,000

80,868,476 66,048,478 14,820,000 14,820,000

80,888,476 88,048,476 14;~2§;~-~b-': 14,820,000

'

1,512,500 1,512,500 ',· ' •. ,

2,750,000 2,75o,ooo 2,750,000

20,000)000 0 2o,noo,ooo 20,000,000

1,150,000 1,150,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

20,174,852 5,174,852 •15,000,000 15,000,000

54,217,750 54,217,750

1,885,041 1,885,043 . . ( ,.

105,690,145 66,948,145 'ls,v:si.M9 1'8,75tr,troo 20,000,000.

10.5,690,145 66,940,145 ;#~;zW~9Q~: 18;750,000 20,000,000

I I I --1 11.001,010 I 15.631.180 17.170.8.50 1,474,170 3.474.170 3,474,170 1,474,170 1.474.170 21,984,256 15,084,256 6,900,000 1 ,500,000 900,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000

1,800,000 1,800,000

Indian Rjver County Public Schools Ill

Indian River County 93 Supplement#_; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

Comprehensive Plan

Proiec.t Total


Priorto FY2011-~ FY 2011 .FY20.15 20.11

•<''" '

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Subtotal Capital Maintenance 56,787.~861 32,5.16A36 2~,27~,850. 4,974,170 4,374,170 4,874,170 4,974,170 5,074,170 Relocatables I I Relocatable leasing 24,239,158 19,464,158 4,775,000 775,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Relocatable Renova.ticin 1,476,450 1,476,450

Subtotal Relocatibles 25,715,608 20,940,608 4;775,000 775,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Educational Technology I Disrrlct Te·chnotogy 10;833,802 7,483,802 3,350,000 1,350,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

Subtotal Educational T~hnoloav 10,833,802 7,483,802 3,350,000 1,350,'000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Furniture & Equipment . I F,F&E Buyback 5,802,962 4,302,962 1,500,@0 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 School Bus.es.Nehicles 13,200,330 7,725,330 ' .5,475,000 325,000 1,500,000 650,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Subtotal Filmiture & Eauipment 19,003,292 12;028;292 6;975,000 625,000 1,800,000 950,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Reserves and Contingencies I other Projects DistriCtWide 18,866,409 4,126,172 14,740,237 1,557,403 1,470,949 3,023,591 4,035,969 4,652:32S

Subtotal Re'serves'.8.i1d,Contingencies 18,866,409 4,126,172 14;740;237. 1;557;403 1,470,~49 3,023,591 4,035,969 4,652,325

Subtotal otherlfl!flls 131,208,397 77,095,310 54,.11{{0~7.\ 9,281,573 9,145,119 10,347,761 12,310,139 13;026,495

Total Projects 1.07,68M87 42,851,573 29,145,119 10,347,761 12,310,139 13,026,495

Jnaian·Rrver9ounty PUblic Schools IV



APPENDIX ED: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010-2011 Work Plan

EducatjCXlal Distfict Techndogy $1,350,000 $500,000 $506,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,350,000

Local Expenditure Totals-; $20,685,847 $22,066,479 $22,554,665 $24,282,929 $24,528,282 $114,128;202

Revenue

1.50 Mill R~vehUf:' Source 'Schedule ofEstirnated'Capilal Outlay Revenue-from each curr_ent.ly apprpved.sourc_ewhlch is estimated to be available for expenditures_ on the projects_ included in the tentatiVe district facilities work program. Alf'amounts are NET all:er considering:carryover balances, interest earned, new COP's, 1011.14-a:nd 1011.15 loans, etc. DistriCts cannot use 1.5-Mill fUnds fOr salaries except for those ·explicitly a:SSOciEited with maintenance/repair projects. (1011.71 (5), F.S.)

PECO -Reve·nue Source

The,ffgure in the rON designated "PECO Mainrenance" will be subtracted from funds-availi:lble-for new construction because:PECO maintenance dollars cannot be used for new-constructiOI'l.

·co & DS Revenue source Revenue' from Capital Outlay and Debt Service funds.

Fair Share·Revenue-.Source

Page 4 of fs 91912010 10:17:30 AM



INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010- 2011 Work Plan

All legally binding commitmenls·.fa- proportionate fair-share mitigation fa- impacts on public school facilities-must be included in the 5-year district wa-k program.

Nothing reported for this section.

Sales· Surtax· Referendum

Specific infami:ltipn 8._b·out:any referendum for a 1-cen.tOr' %-c-ent surtax referer'ldum'r;lurin!;;J"Itle,_·previOUs·year.

Did the school dlstricfhold.a surtax referendum during tha-past fiscal year 2009- 2010.? No

Additional Revenue Source

My a,dditional revenue sources

Page5of18 9/9/201010:17:30 AM



INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010-2011 Work Plan

Revenue from Bonds pledging proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 fi'~"Jm 1 .cent or 1/2 cent_Sates Surtax

Total Fund BalanCe Carried Forward $12,452,000 so so $0 $0 $12,452,000

General Capital O!Jtlay Obligated Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so Balance Carried Forward From Totat Fund Balance Carr'1ed Forward

Special Facilities Construction Account $0 ~0 $0 $0 '$0 •• One Cent.- 1/2 Cent Sales-Surtax Debt $0 $Q so $0 $0 $0 Service FrOm Total Fund Balance Carried FOrward

c·apital Ou_Uay Projects Funds-Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ·so Carried Forward From Total Fund Balaric·ecairie:d Forward

RAN PROCEEDS $5,000,000 so so $0 $0 $5,000,000

Subtotal $32,589,986 $20,139,293 $141,577 $144,801 $144,801 $53,16D,458

Total Revenue Summary

Project Schedules

C~padty Pr:oject ~ehedules A schedule.·of capital ouflay_projects_necessary to ensure'JIJe,allailability of satisfactay classroomsoJor:the projected student ·enrollment fn K~12 pro.grams.

Page6of18 91912010 10:17:30 AM

Community Development Department Indian River County 97 Supplement#__; Adopted November_, 2010, Ordinance 2010-_

ORDINANCE NO. 20TO - 024

A TRUE COPY CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE J.K. BARTON, CLERK


WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River

Coun!y Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and

WHEREAS, F.S. 163.3177(3)(b)1 requires an annual review and update of the

County's Capital Improvements Element; and

WHEREAS, F.S. 163.3187(1)(t) allows the County, by ordinance, to amend its

capital improvements element once per year outside of the standard twice a year

amendment limitation threshold and do so through only one adoption public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County

advertised for a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an Ordinance Amending the

Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to F.S.

163.3184(15)(b)(l) and (c); and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held

an Adoption Public Hearing on November 2, 2010, at which parties in interest and

citizens were heard;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County

Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:

SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal

The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and remaining reviewing agencies.

SECTION 2. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan

Amended Capital Improvements Element; (Exhibit A)

1 of3

ORDINANCE NO. 20ro--- 024

SECTION 3. Financial Feasibility

The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element is financially feasible.

SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions

All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 5. Severability

It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that, if any provision of this ordinance or these Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

SECTION 6. Effective Date

The effective date of this ordinance and, therefore, this plan amendment shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendments in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, these amendments may nevertheless be made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming their effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning ~d Management, Plan Processing Team.

This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the 18th day of October, 2010, for a public hearing held on the 2nd day of November~ 2010, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Davis , seconded by Commissioner Fl esc her , and adopted by the following vote:

Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman Bob Solari, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler, Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner

2 of3

Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye

<JRDINA.NCEN0.-2Uru-~ ··024

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

t

BY: .b cQ3 ~==~~~==~==-=~~~~--

Peter D. O'Bryan ,C

This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: ___ _

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

A an S. Polackwich, ounty/Atto~ ~ { /

OVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Arnendments\CIE\2010\0rdinance- CIE 2010.doc

DATE I I - 3 - I 0


Chapter 6 Capital Improvements Element Indian River County Community Development Department Supplement #___; Adopted November ___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-____

Attachment 3

Comprehensive Plan

Community Development Department Supplement #___; Adopted November ___, 2010, Ordinance 2010-___


Indian River County i

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................... 2 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................ 2 Expenditures ......................................................................................................................... 19 Existing Outstanding Debt.................................................................................................... 23 Local Policies and Practices ................................................................................................. 24

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Analysis of the Timing and Location of Capital Improvements........................................... 28 Needs Assessment................................................................................................................. 36 Fiscal Assessment ................................................................................................................. 38 Fiscal Assessment Summary................................................................................................. 44

Concurrency Management Plan ................................................................................................... 44 Project Applicability ............................................................................................................. 45 Service Standards.................................................................................................................. 45 Demand ................................................................................................................................. 47 Availability of Capacity........................................................................................................ 48 Regulation............................................................................................................................. 51 Monitoring System ............................................................................................................... 51 Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 53

Goal, Objectives and Policies....................................................................................................... 54

Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring............................................................................... 62

Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 62

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures .................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A: FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS............................... 68

APPENDIX B: PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ...... 87

APPENDIX CB: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN........................................................ 88

APPENDIX DC: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE ................................................................................................... 91

APPENDIX ED: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE .............................................................................................................. 93

Comprehensive Plan



Indian River County ii

List of Figures Figure Title Page 6.1 Ad Valorem Tax Revenue 3 6.2 Enterprise Fund Revenue 3 6.3 User Fees and Charges 4 6.4 Special Assessment Revenue 5 6.5 Impact Fee Revenue 5 6.6 Local Discretionary Sales Surtax 6 6.7 Tourist Development Tax 7 6.8 Local Option Fuel Tax 9 6.9 Franchise Fee/Tax Revenue 11 6.10 Half-Cent Local Government Sales Tax 14 6.11 County Revenue Sharing 14 6.12 Constitutional Fuel Tax Funds 15 6.13 County Fuel Tax 16 6.14 Alcoholic Beverage License Tax 16 6.15 Mobile Home License Tax 17 6.16 Distribution of Revenue by Category 19 6.17 General Expenditures by Function 21 6.18 Future Capital Improvements Expenditures 38

Comprehensive Plan



Indian River County iii

List of Tables Table Title Page 6.1 Indian River County Sources of Funds (FY 07/08) 2 6.2 Optional Tourist Taxes on Transient Rental Facilities 8 6.3 Local Fuel Tax Rates 10 6.4 Indian River General Revenues by Source 18 6.5 Indian River County Expenditures by Function 19 6.6 Indian River County Existing Long Term Debt 23 6.7 Overall General Revenue Projection Summary 30 6.8 Earmarked Projected Revenue by Comprehensive Plan Element 31 6.9 Indian River County Tax Base and Millage Projections 32 6.10 Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects with Deficient Links 33 6.11 Concurrency Links Report for Removed Priority Transportation Projects 35 6.12 Future Capital Improvement Expenditures for Indian River County 36 6.13 Indian River County General Expenditures Projection Summary 39 6.14 Projected Expenditures for Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste 39 6.15 Indian River County Overall Operating Cost Projections 40 6.16 Indian River County Estimated Ability to Raise Bonds Without 41

Public Vote 6.17 Indian River County Bond Schedule 42 6.18 Service Level Measures for Concurrency Related Facilities 46 6.19 Monitoring System Design 52 6.20 Monitoring System Tasks 53 6.21 Capital Improvements Element Implementation Matrix 64 6.22 Capital Improvements Element Evaluation Matrix 66

Comprehensive Plan




Introduction The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) summarizes the needed capital facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements and describes the financial means by which these facilities are to be funded. This element demonstrates the economic feasibility of the entire comprehensive plan and prioritizes the funding of all the public facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements based on the level of need and the availability of funds. For purposes of this element, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building, or major equipment) that costs at least $25,000100,000 and which is required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards or to meet objectives identified in the county’s comprehensive plan. Included in the CIE are an existing conditions section, an analysis section, a concurrency management section, a goals, objectives, and policies section, and an implementation section. Financial resources and existing local policies and practices are discussed in the existing conditions section. The fiscal condition of both the county and its comprehensive plan, as well as other issues concerning capital improvement projects, are assessed in the analysis section of this element. The administrative framework for maintaining public facility service levels is addressed in the concurrency management section, while the county’s overall capital improvements strategy is discussed in the goals, objectives and policies section. Finally, a 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, as well as monitoring and evaluation programs, can be found in the implementation section of this element.

Comprehensive Plan




Existing Conditions

Financial Resources


Table 6.1: Indian River County Revenue Sources (FY 20078/089)

Federal Sources

State Sources

Local Sources

Amount ($1,000)

% of Total Revenue

Amount ($1,000)

% of Total Revenue

Amount ($1,000)

% of Total Revenue

Various Grants

$12,859$18,567 5.48%6.89%

Local Government

Half-Cent Sales Tax

$7,000$7,588 2.99%2.82%

Ad Valorem Taxes

$94,397$99,827 40.26%37.06%

Total

Federal $12,859$18,567 5.48%6.89%

County Revenue

Sharing $2,558$2,850 1.09%1.06

%

Enterprise Funds $41,531$

44,677 17.71%16.59%

Constitutional Fuel

Tax $1,575$1,618 0.67%0.60

%

User Fees and

Charges $16,853$

18,679 7.19%6.93%

County Fuel Tax $690$710 0.29%0.26

%

Special Assessments $487$552 0.21%0.20%

Alcoholic Beverage

License Tax $50$49 0.02%0.02

%

Impact Fees $2,054$5,

432 0.88%2.02%

Pari-Mutuel Tax $447$447 0.19%0.17

%

Local Discretionary

Sales Surtax $13,023$

13,714 5.55%5.09%

Mobile Home License Tax

$108$107 0.05%0.04%

Tourist Development

Tax $1,294$1,

585 0.55%0.59%

Various Grants $8,633$16,24

0 3.68%6.03

%

Local Option Fuel

Tax $3,200$3,

043 1.36%1.13%

Total State $21,061$29,6

09 8.98%10.9

9%

Franchise Tax $9,670$9,

443 4.12%3.51%

Interest Income

$9,788$16,321 4.17%6.06%

Other

$8,278$7,901 3.53%2.93%

Total Local

$200,575$221,174 85.53%82.11%

Total All Sources

$234,495$269,350 100.00%100%

Comprehensive Plan




Local Sources Local sources consist of revenues that are levied, collected and disbursed at the local level solely at the discretion of Indian River County. These local sources are shown in table 6.1, and are described in further detail below.


Ad Valorem taxes are taxes levied on the assessed value (net of any exemptions) of real and personal property. This tax is commonly referred to as “property tax.” Ad valorem taxes are generally assessed in mills; that is, thousandths of a dollar of assessed value. The state mandated millage cap is 10 mills per local government, excluding voted millages. In FY 20078/089, Indian River County applied an aggregate millage rate of 5.1726 5.1628. The Board of County Commissioners'According to County policyies, allow revenue from ad valorem taxes tomay be used for both operating and capital project expenditures. Table 6.1 shows that, in FY 20078/089, Indian River County collected approximately $99,827,00094,397,000 in ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes represented 37.0640.26% of all revenues collected by Indian River County in FY 20078/079. Figure 6.1 displays the ad valorem tax revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. OverDuring that time period, ad valorem tax revenue increased 59.2734.60%.



$70,134$74,179

$84,914

$99,687 $99,827$94,397

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Revenue (in thousands)



$40,447

$50,238 $49,824$46,114 $44,677

$41,531

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan





Within governmental entities, various departments often exist that provide goods and services to the public in a manner similar to the private sector. Such departments, classed under the general title “enterprise funds,” must raise revenues from outside the government sector. Enterprise departments assess a fee to the customer using the goods or services provided by that department. In Indian River County, the Utility System, Solid Waste Disposal District, Golf Course, and Building Division are enterprises. Table 6.1 shows that enterprise fund revenue represented 16.5917.71% of Indian River County’s total source of funds for FY 20078/089. Figure 6.2 displays the enterprise fund revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. OverDuring that time period, enterprise fund revenue increased 20.932.68%.

• User Fees and Charges User fees and charges represent revenue received by the county for providing various general services. User fees and charges are necessary because taxes alone cannot totally keep up with the increasing costs of services. This category includes fees collected by the Tax Collector’s Office, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department, and the Recreation and Parks Department. This category also includes other miscellaneous user fees charged by the county for general services not financed by other fund sources. In FY 20078/089, user fees and charges represented 6.937.19% of all funds collected by Indian River County. Figure 6.3 displays user fees and charges collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. OverDuring that time period, revenue from user fees and charges has varied, but overall increased 36.5117.99%.



$14,283

$18,152 $18,205$18,998 $18,679

$16,853

$-$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan





Special assessments are compulsory payments levied on real property for specific benefits generated by public investments or services; the assessment levied must fairly reflect the actual costs of the improvements. County revenues which fall under the general category of special assessments consist of street paving assessments, street lighting district assessments, as well as assessments for water, sewer, and drainage improvements. Expenditures of special assessment revenue are restricted to public improvement projects that directly benefit the property owner or payee. For example, street paving assessment revenues must be spent on paving streets that directly benefit the payer of the assessment. Special Assessment funds represented 0.201% of county funds for FY 20078/089 as shown in table 6.1. Figure 6.4 displays the revenue collected by Indian River County through special assessments over the last six fiscal years.

• Impact Fees An impact fee is a one time charge, fee, or assessment levied as a condition of issuance of subdivision or site plan approval, issuance of a building permit issuance, approval of a certificate of occupancy issuance, or other development or construction approval when any portion of the revenues collected isare intended to fund any portion of the costs of capital improvements for any public facilities.



$345$392 $377

$494

$552

$487

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009




$10,410

$36,297

$24,634

$7,007$5,432

$2,054

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan




Since 1986, Indian River County has levied traffic impact fees on new development projects. In June of 2005, Indian River County began to levy 8 new impact fees. At the same time, the County increased the existing traffic impact fee rates. The nine current impact fees include: traffic, emergency services, parks and recreation, public schools, solid waste, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings. On March 3, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners considered several alternatives to reduce impact fees for the purpose of stimulating economic development in the county. After discussion, the Board decided to suspend collection of five of the county’s nine impact fees for six months. The five suspended impact fees are: emergency services, correctional facilities, public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste. On September 22, 2009 and again on March 16, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners voted to further extend the suspension of the five impact fees. The current suspension of impact fees will expire on March 31, 2011. Figure 6.5 shows the substantial increase in impact fee revenues related to the addition of the eight new impact fees and the increase in traffic impact fee rates. In FY 2003/04, traffic impact fees represented 5.17% of funds collected by Indian River County. In contrast, traffic impact fees and the eight additional impact fees represented 14.31% of funds collected by Indian River County for FY 2004/05. Since FY 2004/05, impact fee funds have dramatically declined with the slowing economy and the suspension of five of the impact fees. • Local Discretionary Sales Surtax Pursuant to s. 212.055, F.S, Llocal governments are authorized to levy numerous types of local discretionary sales surtaxes. pursuant to s. 212.055, F.S. Under the provisions of s. 212.054, F.S., the local discretionary sales surtaxes apply to all transactions subject to the state tax imposed on sales, services, rentals, admissions, and other authorized transactions. The surtax is computed by multiplying the rate imposed by the county where the sale occurs by the amount of the taxable sale. This sales tax can be levied on most transactions under $5,000. Under this category, Indian River County is eligible to impose a Local Government



$12,850

$15,583 $15,736$14,550

$13,714$13,023

$-

$2,000$4,000

$6,000

$8,000$10,000

$12,000

$14,000$16,000

$18,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan




Infrastructure Surtax of either 0.5% or 1.0% and a School Capital Outlay Surtax of up to 0.5%. Currently, Indian River County imposes only the 1.0% Infrastructure Surtax. According to state law, tThe Local Government Infrastructure Surtax must be enacted by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. This surtax, which may be imposed for a maximum period of fifteen years, was initiated by Indian River County in April, 1989, and was renewed by voters in November, 2002. Generally, the proceeds must be expended to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure; to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources; and to finance the closure of local government-owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or are required to close by order of the Department of Environmental Protection. Table 6.1 shows that local sales surtax revenue represented 5.0955% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.6 displays the Local Discretionary Sales Surtax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. This local revenue source increased by 17.431.35% over that period. Distribution of surtax proceeds is based on the specifics of an interlocal agreement or through a formula based on population. In Indian River County, Local Infrastructure Surtax revenue is distributed to county government and municipal governments through a formula based on population. Currently, Ttwenty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax. Within Indian River County’s region, Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties do not levy the surtax, while Martin County levies a 0.5% infrastructure surtax. Okeechobee County is eligible to levy the infrastructure surtax, but instead levies a Small County Surtax of 1%, which is another local discretionary sales surtax.

• Tourist Development Tax Any county in the state may, subject to a vote of the citizenry, impose a Tourist Development Tax. The transient rental trade is the primary base for the levy of the tourist tax. Any lodging agreement for six months or less is subject to the tax. Source: Indian River County Finance Department


$1,082

$1,676

$1,517$1,449

$1,585

$1,294

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan




Generally, the tourist tax levy is one or two percent. Counties, however, may set an additional one percent above the original tax through an extraordinary vote of the governing board or by referendum. Currently, Indian River County imposes the original two percent tourist tax as well as an additional one percent tax. Sixty Florida counties out of sixty-seven total counties currently levy a tourist tax. Of those sixty counties, forty-threewo counties, including Indian River County, impose an additional one percent tourist tax. Table 6.2 displays the tourist taxes imposed in counties that are geographically proximate to Indian River County. Compared to neighboring counties, Indian River County imposes a similar level of tourist taxes. Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Counties have the highest tourist tax levy of the six counties listed (5.0%). Indian River County and Martin County each have a tourist tax rate of 4.00%. Okeechobee County has the lowest tourist tax levy.

Table 6.2: Optional Tourist Taxes on Transient Rental Facilities

County

Original Tourist

Tax

Additional

Tax

Professional

Sports Franchise

Facility Tax

Additional

Professional Sports

Franchise Tax

Maximum Potential % Levy

Total %

Levy

Brevard

2.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

5.00%

5.00%

Indian River

2.00%

1.00%

1.00%

----------

5.00%

4.00%

Martin

2.00%

1.00%

1.00%

----------

5.00%

4.00%

Okeechobee

2.00%

1.00%

----------

----------

5.00%

3.00%

Palm Beach

2.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

5.00%

5.00%

St. Lucie

2.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

5.00%

5.00%


Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Local Government Financial Information Handbook. August 2009October 2010. The Local Option Tourist Tax can be used for the following purposes: (1) Acquire, construct, operate, and promote one or more publicly owned and operated

convention centers, such as sports stadiums, coliseums, or auditoriums within the district that the tax is imposed;

(2) Promote and advertise tourism nationally, internationally, and in the State of Florida;

Comprehensive Plan





(4) Finance beach development and restoration as well as shoreline protection and

restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access; (5) Construct, improve, maintain, and promote museums, zoos, fishing piers, or nature centers

which are publicly owned and operated either by the county or a not-for-profit organization which opens the facilities to the public (applicable to those counties with a population less than 500,000);

(6) Pledge the revenues to secure and liquidate revenue bonds issued by the county,

subject to certain limitations. Figure 6.7 shows the Tourist Development Tax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. OverDuring that time period, tourist tax revenue received by Indian River County fluctuated based on market conditions, but had an overall increase of 23.1519.59%. • Local Option Fuel Tax Local governments are authorized to levy up to twelve cents of local option fuel taxes in the form of three separate levies. These levies are:

a one to six cent local option fuel tax;

a one to five cent local option fuel tax; and

a ninth cent fuel tax. Indian River County currently imposes the full six cents of the one to six cent fuel tax. This tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. The one to six cent fuel tax may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the governing body or voter approval in a county-wide referendum. Generally, the proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. Table 6.1 shows that local option fuel tax revenue represented 1.131.36% of all funds collected by Indian River County for FY 20087/089. Figure 6.8 shows that local option fuel tax revenue for the county has decreased overall by .523.73% from what it was in Fiscal Year 20034. Even though



$3,324$3,367

$3,319$3,290

$3,043

$3,200

$2,800

$2,900

$3,000

$3,100

$3,200

$3,300

$3,400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan




local option fuel tax revenues were less in fiscal year 20089 than what they were in fiscal year 20034, the county received a significant increase in local option fuel tax revenue in fiscal years 20045 through 2007. This was largely associated with the building boom. All sixty-seven Florida counties levy a portion of the original local option fuel tax. Sixty-five counties levy the full $0.06, while the remaining two counties levy a portion of the tax. Table 6.3 shows the local fuel taxes levied in Indian River County and in other counties in the region. Saint Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties levy the highest fuel taxes at $0.12 per gallon. Those four counties impose both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax. While Indian River County is eligible to levy the Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax either by extraordinary vote of the Board of County Commissioners or by voter approval in a countywide referendum, butit does not currently levy eitherthe tax. Forty-nineAt this time, fifty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy the Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax, while twenty-four of the sixty-seven Florida counties impose at least a portion of the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax.

Table 6.3: Local Fuel Tax Rates

County

One to Six Cent

Local Option Fuel Tax

One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel

Tax

Ninth Cent Fuel Tax

Total Local Fuel Tax

Brevard

$0.06

--------

--------

$0.06

Indian River

$0.06

--------

--------

$0.06

Martin

$0.06

$0.05

$0.01

$0.12

Okeechobee

$0.06

$0.05

$0.01

$0.12

Palm Beach

$0.06

$0.05

$0.01

$0.12

St. Lucie

$0.06

$0.05

$0.01

$0.12

Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Local Government Financial Information Handbook. August 2009 October 2010. As shown in table 6.3, four counties in the region, Martin County, Okeechobee County, Palm Beach County, and St. Lucie County, levy the entire One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel tax. This second local option fuel tax is a one to five cent levy upon every net gallon of motor fuel sold in a county. Indian River County can levy this second tax through an ordinance adopted by a majority plus one vote of the Board of County Commissioners or by voter approval in a countywide referendum, but does not currently levy the tax. Twenty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties impose at least a portion of the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax.

Comprehensive Plan




• Franchise Fee/Tax Counties and municipalities may exercise their home rule authority to impose a fee upon a utility for the grant of a franchise and the privilege of the utility using the local government’s rights-of-way to conduct the utility’s business. Franchise fees are typically levied through a franchise agreement negotiated between the local government and the utility provider. Indian River County receives franchise revenue from electric, water, sewer, garbage, and cable television franchises. Table 6.1 shows that franchise fee revenue represented 3.514.12% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.9 shows that over the last six fiscal years franchise fee revenue collected by Indian River County increased 51.7743.90%.

• Other Miscellaneous Revenue Included in this category are various administrative fees, licenses and permits, fines, interest income, rental income, private contributions, and other miscellaneous revenues. This source of revenue for Indian River County represented 2.933.53% of all funds collected in FY 20078/089.

• Borrowing As needed, tThe county uses borrowing as a financing vehicle to raise money for public purposes that are beyond the realm of current cash reserves, operating revenue and reasonable taxation. Currently, Bborrowing money to pay for capital improvements can be done through either short-term or long-term financing. Short term financing is usually accomplished by the use of bond pools, notes, private placements with banks, and the public placement of Voted General Obligation debt. Long term financing is usually achieved through the issuance of bonds sold on the public market. The countyAccording to state law, local governments may sell bonds for capital improvements without a referendum of the voters if the pledge used for the bond is a non-ad valorem revenue source. Conversely, any bond issue pledging ad valorem taxes requires approval through a voter referendum.



$6,720

$7,941

$9,318$9,733 $9,443 $9,670

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan




General Obligation Bonds are bonds that are secured by the full faith and credit of the county. These bonds are secured by a pledge of the issuer's ad valorem taxing power. According to state law, the amount of ad valorem taxes necessary to pay the debt service on general obligation bonds is not subject to the constitutional property tax millage limits. Such bonds constitute debts of the issuer and require approval through a voter referendum prior to issuance. Revenue bonds are bonds payable from a specific source of revenue, where the full faith and credit of the issuer is not pledged to repay the bonds. Because revenue bonds are payable from identified sources of revenue, bond holders may not compel taxation or legislative appropriation of funds for payment of debt service. Pledged revenues may be derived from operation of financed projects, grants, or other specified non-ad valorem taxes. A public referendum is not required prior to issuance or validation of such obligations. In the past, the county has issued revenue bonds to finance improvements to its sanitary sewer, potable water, and golf course facilities. In addition, Rrevenue bonds have been issued by the Housing Authority to help finance the provision of more low-income housing units in the county. Also, revenue bonds have been issued to finance the cost of construction of various capital improvement projects. Deposits from bond revenues are put into the respective bond fund accounts for these projects, whereby funds are specifically designated for a particular project, and user charges are used to pay off the debt. Special assessment bonds are bonds issued to pay for capital improvements that impact specific areas or groups of property owners. Proceeds from the assessments levied against benefiting property owners are used to pay off the bond debt. The issuance of these bonds does not need to be approved by voter referendum. Revenue bonds and special assessment bonds are similar in nature, except that special assessment bond debt is paid-off by assessments levied against benefiting property owners and not from ongoing user charges. The county has issued special assessment bonds for solid waste disposal. The issuance of tax anticipation or bond anticipation notes is an example of a short-term (less than five years) method of financing. Notes usually have higher interest rates than bonds and have shorter maturity dates than bonds. Tax anticipation notes are issued in advance of a new fiscal year to cover gaps in the budget before property taxes are received, while bond anticipation notes are issued in anticipation of the receipt by the county of proceeds from the sale of corresponding future bond issues. The county currently has no outstanding tax or bond anticipation notes.


Comprehensive Plan




Use of additional revenue sources may occasionally be necessary, depending on priorities mandated by the Board of County Commissioners and the availability of existing revenue sources. Indian River County has two options to increase local revenues. These are to implement new taxes that are permitted by state regulation and/or to increase existing taxes and fees that are imposed by the county. Additional local revenue sources available to Indian River County include the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax, and the Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax. Both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax are taxes on the purchase of fuel. With the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, a one cent per gallon tax on motor fuel and special fuel can be levied on fuel purchases in the county. Revenue from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax may be shared with municipalities, but counties are not required by law to share the proceeds. Authorized uses for revenue collected from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax include paying the costs and expenses of establishing, operating, and maintaining a transportation system and related facilities. Additional uses include funding the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads. The One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax is a one to five cents tax that can be levied upon every gallon of motor fuel sold in Indian River County. Revenues from this fuel tax must be shared among all eligible jurisdictions in the county as a result of an interlocal agreement or by an historical transportation expenditures formula. Authorized uses for revenue collected from the One to Five Cent Fuel Tax include transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. A Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax is a levy of up to 1% on any lodging agreement for six months or less, within Indian River County. Revenue from this tax may be used to pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a professional sports franchise facility.

State Sources Revenue classified as state sources may be generated locally but collected by the state and returned to the county. For example, state sources may originate from state general revenues and be shared by the state according to state revenue allocation formulas. Table 6.1 displays the state revenue sources applicable to Indian River County. These sources are described in further detail below.

• Local Government Half-Cent Sales Tax

The Local Government Half Cent Sales Tax Program allocates 8.814% of net sales tax proceeds remitted by sales tax dealers in a county to a special account administered by the Department of Revenue; this account is the Local Government Half Cent Sales Tax Clearing Trust Fund. These funds are then earmarked for distribution to the governing body of the county and each municipality

Comprehensive Plan


14


Indian River County

within the county. Distribution of these monies within the county is determined by a formula that uses a weighting factor based on the population of the incorporated and unincorporated areas and multiplies this factor by 8.814% of the sales tax proceeds received for the county. In FY 20078/089, Indian River County received $7,588,000$7,000,000 through the half-cent sales tax. As shown in table 6.1, that amount represented 2.822.99% of all funds collected by Indian River County during the 20078/089 fiscal year. Figure 6.10 displays the funds made available to Indian River County through the half-cent local government sales tax over the last six fiscal years. Over those six fiscal years, Indian River County’s half-cent sales tax revenue indecreased 8.377.46%. Occasionally, governments can receive supplemental distributions by meeting special eligibility criteria; however, in no case can the total supplemental and ordinary distribution exceed the maximum per capita amount allowed by law. Governments are allowed wide latitude in using the half cent sales tax. For counties, the law provides only that half cent sales tax revenue be used for countywide tax relief or countywide programs.

• County Revenue Sharing The current structure of the county revenue sharing program consists of two revenue sources. These sources include 2.90% of net cigarette tax collections and 2.044% of sales and use tax collections. Proceeds are collected by the state and then distributed to eligible counties based on an allocation formula. There are no use restrictions on the distributed revenue; however, there are some statutory limitations regarding these funds being used as a pledge for indebtedness.



$7,564

$8,747 $8,777$8,123

$7,588$7,000

$-$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000

$10,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Figure 6.11: County Revenue Sharing

$2,894 $2,835$3,118 $3,084

$2,850$2,558

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan


15


Indian River County

To receive distribution proceeds through the county revenue sharing program, counties must meet the following criteria: (1) That law enforcement officers and firefighters are certified and meet state requirements; (2) That certification of taxable value for a property tax levy is made in a timely and correct

manner to the Department of Revenue; (3) That the county’s most recent financial reports have been sent to the Department of Banking

and Finance, and post audits of these statements and accounts have been provided. Table 6.1 shows that county revenue sharing funds represented 1.061.09% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.11 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county revenue sharing proceeds received by Indian River County varied over time, but overall indecreased by 16.2311.61%.


Constitutional fuel tax is defined as an excise or license tax of two cents per gallon imposed upon the first sale or first removal from storage (after importation into Florida) of motor fuel. Revenues from this levy become state funds at the time of collection by the refiner, importer or wholesaler. In its current form, the constitutional fuel tax is a state-shared revenue source for counties only. Applying a distribution formula, the state allocates proceeds to counties to the extent necessary to comply with all obligations to or for the benefit of holders of bonds, revenue certificates, and tax anticipation certificates or any refunds secured by any portion of the tax proceeds. After complying with the necessary debt service obligations, the state distributes a county’s surplus funds to its governing body. Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the constitutional fuel tax levy represented 0.600.67% of total revenue received by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.12 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, constitutional fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County indecreased 1.065.35%.



$1,664

$1,763

$1,729$1,716

$1,618

$1,575

$1,450

$1,500

$1,550

$1,600

$1,650

$1,700

$1,750

$1,800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan


16


Indian River County

• County Fuel Tax

The county fuel tax is levied on motor fuel at the rate of one cent per net gallon. The legislative intent of this tax is to reduce a county’s reliance on ad valorem taxes. Funds received from this tax can be used by a county for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Table 6.1 shows that funds received through the county fuel tax levy represented 0.260.29% of all revenue collected by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.13 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County decreased 0.427.01%.

• Alcoholic Beverage

License Tax Alcoholic beverage license taxes are levied on manufacturers, distributors, vendors, and sales agencies of alcoholic beverages in Florida. The tax is administered, collected, enforced, and distributed to local governments by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Twenty-four percent of the license taxes imposed on the sale of beer, wine and liquor collected within a county is returned to the county Tax Collector. The remaining funds are used to operate the division and contribute to the operation of the Office of the Secretary of Business Regulation. Table 6.1 shows that the county received approximately $49,000$50,000 from this tax in FY 20078/089, 0.02% of all revenue received by Indian River County. Figure 6.14 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, alcoholic beverage license tax revenue


Figure 6.13: County Fuel Tax

$742

$779 $780

$757

$710

$690

$640

$660

$680

$700

$720

$740

$760

$780

$800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009




$50 $51

$44

$54$49 $50

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan


17


Indian River County

received by Indian River County fluctuated, but overall remained about the same.

• Pari-Mutuel Tax Revenue generated through license fees and taxes related to Pari-Mutuel betting is deposited into the Pari-Mutuel wagering trust fund. According to Florida Statutes, a guaranteed entitlement of $29,915,500 is deducted from the trust fund for equal distributions among Florida’s sixty-seven counties, providing each county’s general revenue fund with $446,500. Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the Pari-Mutuel tax represented 0.170.19% of revenues received by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Uses for this revenue are determined by the Board of County Commissioners. • Mobile Home License Tax An annual license tax is levied on all mobile homes and park trailers, and on all travel trailers and fifth-wheel trailers exceeding thirty-five feet in body length. The license taxes, ranging from $20 to $80 depending on body length, are collected in lieu of ad valorem taxes. The taxes are collected by the county tax collectors and remitted to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. From each license, two deductions are made. The first is a deduction of $1.50 by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles with proceeds deposited into the State General Revenue Fund. The second is a deduction of $1.00 with proceeds deposited into the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Trust Fund. The remaining balance is deposited into the License Tax Collection Trust Fund for distribution to units of local government. A county government is eligible to receive proceeds from this tax if taxable mobile home units are located in its unincorporated area. An authorized use of the proceeds is not specified in the current law. Table 6.1 shows that funds received through the mobile home license tax represented 0.040.05% of all revenue received by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Figure 6.15 shows that, over the last sixfive fiscal years, mobile home license tax revenue received by Indian River County remained the same.



$143

$101 $105 $105 $105 $105

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Comprehensive Plan


18


Indian River County

• Various Grants Table 6.1 shows that funds received in the form of state grants represented 6.035.48% of funds received by the county in FY 20078/089. State grant funds received by the county in FY 20078/089 originated from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Housing Finance Agency, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the State of Florida Department of State Division of Library Services, the State of Florida Department of Transportation, the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, the State of Florida Department of Management Services, the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the State of Florida Department of Revenue, the Department of Health, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Federal Sources Federal funds are either granted directly to local governments or passed through state agencies for administration and monitoring. These grants are usually distributed on a competitive basis rather than by formula allocations, thereby making projections of future revenues difficult. For the purpose of revenue projections, these sources will be assumed to remain constant. During FY 20078/089, the county received approximately $18,567,000$12,859,000 in federal funds. These funds represented 6.895.48% of all funds received by Indian River County in FY 20078/089. Overall Revenue Sources As mandated by state statute, the financial resources of the county are categorized according to the state Chart of Accounts. These categories include taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, interest, and miscellaneous revenues. Table 6.4 identifies the total amount of historic revenue generated from these sources for fiscal years 2002/2003 through 2007/08.

Table 6.4: Indian River County General Revenues By Source

Fiscal Year

Taxes

Licenses &

Permits

Intergovernmental

Revenue

Charges for

Services

Fines &

Forfeitures

Miscellaneous Revenues

Totals

2002/03 $95,675,370 $86,120,084

$1,033,394 $567,403

$51,487,093 $35,213,140

$54,729,505 $13,683,108

$1,508,786 $1,584,737

$14,545,961 $9,703,817

$218,980,109 $146,872,289

2003/04 $104,012,925 $95,675,370

$1,354,282 $1,033,394

$82,604,757 $26,588,303

$68,389,360 $14,282,587

$1,715,875 $1,508,786

$42,170,294 $14,545,961

$300,247,493 $153,634,401

2004/05 $116,088,548 $104,012,925

$1,274,638 $1,354,282

$66,278,020 $35,973,818

$68,028,618 $18,151,546

$2,069,593 $1,715,875

$40,182,777 $42,170,294

$293,922,194 $203,378,740

2005/06 $130,158,069 $116,088,548

$896,612 $1,274,638

$64,054,273 $38,261,489

$65,111,301 $18,204,600

$2,403,093 $2,069,593

$26,773,753 $40,182,777

$289,397,101 $216,081,645

2006/07 $119,915,640$130,158,069

$9,904,590$896,612

$60,086,565$54,252,074

$63,355,209$18,997,529

$2,137,413$2,403,093

$18,486,026$26,773,753

$273,885,443 $233,481,130

Comprehensive Plan


19


Indian River County

2007/08 $113,689,399$119,915,640

$12,433,598$9,904,590

$39,249,261$49,065,955

$58,384,013$18,678,544

$1,792,517$2,137,413

$8,946,401$18,486,026

$234,495,189 $218,188,168

2008/09 $95,675,370 $1,033,394 $51,487,093 $54,729,505 $1,508,786 $14,545,961 $218,980,109 Source: Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 20089


Expenditures

In the previous sub-section, the various revenue and income sources currently utilized by Indian River County were reviewed. This sub-section of the Capital Improvements Element identifies how those monies are allocated to meet the county’s needs. Table 6.5 presents the county’s overall general expenditures by category for fiscal years 20023/20034 through 20078/089.

Table 6.5: Indian River County General Government Expenditures By Function Fiscal Year 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 General Government $29,005,917

$26,473,300 $30,565,484 $26,797,183

$60,435,102 $56,232,514

$63,231,330 $59,527,672

$30,711,818 $27,701,150 $25,801,688

Public Safety $55,792,130 $57,161,390 $66,984,420 $73,275,110 $74,038,252 $74,813,164

Physical Environment $44,317,270 $3,305,670

53,990,669 $4,573,196

$54,445,121 $9,498,973

$82,894,477 $35,044,820

$86,515,929 $33,806,207 $54,243,069

Transportation $23,038,234 $22,369,128 $31,966,926 $55,039,978 $53,489,116 $40,841,272

Economic Environment $627,914 $712,517 $1,054,239 $968,227 $4,579,574 $653,547

Human Services $7,197,342 $7,279,582 $12,470,222 $13,862,463 $12,619,575 $8,621,760

Culture/Recreation $17,828,311 $15,022,196

$24,298,539 $21,359,218

$19,977,771 $16,919,464

$27,989,515 $24,904,678

$24,075,260 $21,299,763 $19,624,278


Taxes Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental RevenueCharges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues

200534.64%

27.51%14.05%

22.78%0.57%

0.45%

200639.50%

22.55%

0.70%

13.67%

23.15%

0.43%

2007

44.98%

0.31%

22.13%

22.50%

9.25%

0.83%

200843.78%

3.62%

21.94%

0.78%

6.75%

23.13%

200948.48%

24.90%

16.74%

5.30%

3.82%0.76%

200443.69%

24.99%23.51%

0.47%

6.64%

0.69%

Comprehensive Plan


20


Indian River County

Court Related $6,210,614 $5,630,734 $5,915,727 $6,649,724 $6,940,682 $6,620,830

Debt Service $3,727,534 $3,495,500 $4,406,090 $8,126,643 $7,873,176 $8,068,758

TOTAL 187,745,266$141,394,934

205,503,543$149,378,448

$257,655,618 $205,448,575

$332,037,467 $277,399,315

$300,843,382 $242,347,495 $239,288,366

Source: Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 20089 Table 6.5 shows expenditures in nine categories. Depending on the county’s activities in any given fiscal year, the level of expenditures may fluctuate for certain categories. Figure 6.17 displays the percentage distribution of Indian River County’s general expenditures over the last six fiscal years.

General Government A major classification of services provided by Indian River County, the general government expenditure category, includes activities undertaken by the legislative and administrative branches of the county government. Departments such as the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator, Personnel, and Purchasing fall into this category as do all Constitutional Officers, except the Sheriff. As shown in table 6.5, $27,701,150 $25,801,688 was spent on general government services in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20023/034 and 20078/089, general government expenditures increased decreased by 16.4611.05%. General government services represented 11.4310.78% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089. The significant increase in general government expenditures in Fiscal Years 2005/06 and 2006/07 was due to the construction of new public buildings, including the construction of the new county administration building and the expansion of the jail. Public Safety The Sheriff’s Department, Fire Services, Advanced Life Support, Emergency Management, and the Medical Examiner fall under the category of Public Safety. As shown in table 6.5, the county, in FY 20078/089, spent $74,038,252$74,813,164 for public safety services. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, public safety expenditures increased by 1.041.05%. Since FY 20023/034, public safety expenditures have increased by 55.6634.09%. Public safety represented 30.5540.17% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089.

Physical Environment This classification encompasses the county’s water and waste water utilities, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), the Soil Conservation District, and the Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition Fund. Table 6.5 shows that $33,806,207$54,243,069 was spent on these activities in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, physical environment expenditures decreased by 3.5337.30%. Since FY20023/034, physical environment expenditures have increased by 81.8822.40%. Physical environment services represented 13.9522.6% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089.

Comprehensive Plan


21


Indian River County

Transportation Departments under this category include Road and Bridge, County Engineering, Secondary Roads Construction, and Traffic Engineering. These departments are responsible for designing, constructing, overseeing, and maintaining the county’s roads and drainage systems. As shown in table 6.5, the county spent $53,489,116$40,841,272 on transportation facilities in FY 20078/089. Since FY 20023/034, transportation expenditures have increased by 165.8477.28%. Transportation expenses represented 22.0721.93% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089.

Economic Environment Included in this category are the costs of providing services which develop and improve the economic condition of the community and its citizens. Veteran Services, the Housing Authority, and the Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce undertake this function. Table 6.5 shows that those agencies spent $4,579,574$653,547 on economic environment services in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08, economic environment expenditures increased by 372.99%. Since FY 2002/03, economic environment expenditures have increased by 684.38%. Economic environment expenses represented 1.89% of all county expenses in FY 2007/08. Human Services


General Government Public Safety Physical EnvironmentTransportation Economic Environment Human ServicesCulture/Recreation Court Related Debt Service

2004

15.4%

29.7%

23.6%

12.3%

2.0% 3.3% 9.5% 3.8%0.3%

2005

27.8%

26.3%

11.8%

0.3%

14.9%3.5%

10.9%

2.7%1.7%

2006

23.5%

26.0%

21.1%

12.4%

0.4%1.7%

4.8%2.3% 7.8%

2007

19.0%

16.6%

22.1%

4.2%

0.3%

2.4%

2.0% 8.4%

25.0% 200824.6%28.8%

10.2%

17.8%

2.6%

4.2% 1.5%8.0%

2.3%

200931.3%

22.7%10.8%

2.8% 8.2%17.1%

3.4%

0.3%3.603%

Comprehensive Plan


22


Indian River County

Human Services cover the cost of providing services for the care, treatment, and control of human illness, injury or disabilities, and for the welfare of the community as a whole and its individuals. The Health Department, Welfare, Medicaid, and Children’s Services fall into this category. Table 6.5 shows that the county spent $12,619,575$8,621,760 on human services in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, human services expenditures decreased by 8.9731.68%. Since FY 20023/034, human services expenditures have increased by 92.9419.79%. Human services represented 5.213.60% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089. Culture/Recreation All costs associated with providing and maintaining cultural and recreational facilities and activities for the benefit of citizens and visitors fit into this category. County libraries, parks, recreation operations, and the golf course are included here. As shown in table 6.5, the county spent $21,299,763$19,624,278 on these services in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, cultural/recreation expenditures decreased by 14.4718.49%. Since FY 20023/034, cultural/recreation expenditures have decreased increased by 8.410.07%. Culture/recreation expenses represented 8.798.20% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089. Court Related All costs of operating the judicial branch of Indian River County Government are classified here. This category includes the County Court, Circuit Court, State Attorney’s Office and Public Defender. As shown in table 6.5, expenditures from this category totaled $6,940,682$6,620,830 in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, Court Related expenditures indecreased by 4.384.61%. Beginning in FY 1997/1998, the State of Florida mandated that the county begin recording Court Related costs as a separate expenditure item. Court Related costs represented 2.862.77% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089. Debt Service Debt service consists of interest and payments made by the county on its debt. This figure includes principal retirement, interest and other miscellaneous debt service. As table 6.5 indicates, total county debt service expenditures were $7,873,176$8,068,758 in FY 20078/089. Between fiscal years 20067/078 and 20078/089, debt service expenditures deincreased by 3.122.48%. Since FY 20023/034, debt service expenditures have increased by 74.16116.46%. Debt service expenses represented 3.253.37% of all county expenses in FY 20078/089.

Comprehensive Plan


23


Indian River County

Existing Outstanding Debt At the end of FY 20089/0910, Indian River County’s outstanding debt, comprised of revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, stood at $117,510,000108,815,000. This is shown in table 6.6. In 1993, the county took advantage of lower interest rates and refunded any debt that had reasonable future economic savings. Enterprise Funds support 57.948.73% of the overall debt (Utility Dept 44.1745.81%; and Golf Course 13.742.92%), leaving $57,160,00055,790,000 in bonds paid from general governmental funds. In November 2001, Indian River County issued the remaining $11,000,000 of the $26,000,000 Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds originally approved by voters in 1992. Also in 2001, the County issued $16,810,000 in Spring Training Facility Bonds to finance the acquisition and expansion of the Dodgertown spring training facility (now known as the Vero Beach Sports Complex). Two bonds were refinanced in 2003 to take advantage of lower interest rates: the 1993 Series Refunded Recreational Revenue Bonds and the 1995 Series Environmental Lands Acquisition Bonds. Those bonds have since been paid off. In 2004, Indian River County voters approved the issuance of up to an additional $50,000,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds. As a result, Indian River County issued $48,600,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds in 2006. Finally, the county refinanced its 1996 Series Water and Sewer Bonds in 2005 and the majority of its 1993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds in 2009. The County kept a portion of the 1993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds with a maturity of 2011 because it was more cost efficient than rolling the entire amount into the 2009 Water and Sewer Bonds.

Table 6.6: Indian River County Existing Long Term Debt

Initial Amount

Amount

Remaining @09/30/082010

Average Interest

Rate

Final Maturity

Bond Rating

Security Pledge Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds:

1993 A Series

$47,190,000 $3,030,0001,555,0

00

5.76%

2011

AAA/FGIC

(Insured)

Water & Sewer Revenues

2005 Series $27,675,000

$23,320,00021,92

5,000

3.94%

2022

AAA/FGIC

(Insured)

Water & Sewer Revenues

2009 Series $26,370,000 $26,370,000 3.68% 2024 AA+/AA Water & Sewer Revenues


2001 Series Spring Training Facility

$16,810,000

$12,895,00012,310,000

4.87%

2031

AAA/FGIC

(Insured)

State Funds, ½ Cent Sales Tax, Tourist Tax

Comprehensive Plan


24


Indian River County

Table 6.6: Indian River County Existing Long Term Debt

Initial Amount

Amount

Remaining @09/30/082010

Average Interest

Rate

Final Maturity

Bond Rating

Security Pledge

2003 Series Refunding Recreational Revenue

$6,455,000

$3,685,0003,175,000

3.65%

2016

AAA/AMAC

(Insured)

Golf Course Net Income, Fronton Revenue and Subordinate Lien on One Half Cent Sales Tax

Voted G.O. Bonds Environmental Lands Acquisition 2001 Series

$11,000,000

$5,955,0005,210,000

3.89%

2016

AAA/FSA (Insured)

General Obligation

Environmental Lands Acquisition 2003 Series

$7,800,000

$1,210,000

2.05%

2010

AAA/AMAC

(Insured)

General Obligation


$48,600,000

$41,045,00038,270,000

4.22% 2021 AAA/MBIA (Insured) General Obligation

Total Bonds Outstanding

$117,510,000108,815,000

Source: Indian River County Budget 200910/1011.

Local Policies and Practices As part of the capital improvements planning process, it is important to do an inventory of current Indian River County policies and practices that guide the timing, location, expansion, or increase in capacity of capital facilities. These policies and practices relate to the county's existing level-of-service standards, impact fee programs, comprehensive plan, and enterprise fund accounts. Existing Level-of-Service Standards Level-of-service (LOS) standards are indicators of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level-of-service standards indicate the capacity per unit of demand of each public facility. Level-of-service standards can affect the timing and location of development by guiding development to areas where facilities may have excess capacity. Indian River County has level-of-service standards for capital facilities as follows:

Correctional Facilities (Countywide)

Comprehensive Plan


25


Indian River County

• 4.5 beds per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Fire/EMS (Countywide, excluding Indian River Shores) • .089 Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Law Enforcement (Unincorporated County) • 2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Libraries (Countywide)

• 580 building square feet per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal

population


Public Buildings (Countywide)

• 1.99 building square feet per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population


Sanitary Sewer (County Service Area)

• 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit

Schools (School Service Area): • 100 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school







Comprehensive Plan


26


Indian River County




• Level-of-Service “D” during peak hour, peak season, and peak direction conditions on

all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways, with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service “E” plus 20%: • 27th Ave – South County Line to SR 60 • 43rd Ave - Oslo Road to 16th Street

For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service “B” is adopted for rural areas, and level of service “C” is adopted for urban areas.

Transit

• One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes Level-of-service standards are discussed in further detail in each individual Comprehensive Plan Element. Capital Improvements Program A capital improvements program (CIP) is a program for capital expenditures to be incurred each year over a fixed period of years to meet anticipated capital needs. In Indian River County, the CIP identifies the projects that the county plans to undertake in the next five years and presents an estimate of the costs and the resources needed to finance the projects. Revenue sources within the first year of the CIP reflect current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenue collection. Within the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with “committed” revenue sources. “Committed” revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through “planned” revenue sources. “Planned” revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents of local option gas tax. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) itself consolidates the capital improvements needs of all elements of the Comprehensive Plan into an overall five-year Capital Improvements Schedule. The overall program lists the needs, costs, timeframes, priorities, and the necessary financial resources to

Comprehensive Plan


27


Indian River County

implement the identified capital improvement projects in the various elements of the plan in the next five years. Impact Fees/Capacity Charges Impact fees are charges to developers for off-site improvements that must be provided by the local government to serve new development. This financing technique is one strategy that the county uses for implementing the CIE. Currently, the county has nine impact fees in place; these are traffic impact fees, which became effective in 1986, and eight additional impact fees which became effective in June of 2005. Those eight impact fees are assessed for the following service delivery categories: solid waste, public schools, fire/ems, parks and recreation, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings. In October 1999, the county’s water and sewer impact fees were reclassified as capacity charges. A capacity charge is a fee charged to the direct beneficiaries of water and sewer improvements in order to fund the capital cost incurred by the water and wastewater utility to provide capacity to serve new utility customers. Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds are used to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises, when the intent of the governing body is that the full costs of providing the service to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. Currently, the county operates its solid waste services, golf course facility, building department services, and utility services as enterprise funds. As a tool for affecting the timing and location of development, user charges may be designated to vary with the quantity and location of the service provided. Thus, charges could be greater for providing services further from urban areas, and less for distances closer to urban areas. In this way, user charges could affect the economics of development locating further away from urban areas. Analysis The analysis section of this element assesses the county's historic and projected revenue and expenditure patterns to determine the county’s fiscal ability to provide adequate capital improvements. These capital improvements have been identified in other comprehensive plan elements and are needed to meet the demands of existing and future development. As part of this analysis, revenue and expenditure projections are identified and analyzed, and a fiscal assessment of needs (costs) versus projected available revenue is included.

Comprehensive Plan


28


Indian River County

Analysis of the Timing and Location of Capital Improvements Objectives and polices from the Future Land Use Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Public School Facilities Element, and the Transportation Element, as well as policies followed by the Sheriff’s office and County departments such as Emergency Management, Corrections, Libraries, and Solid Waste, have the most direct effect on the timing and location of capital improvements. Through planning for future improvements to the transportation system, the Transportation Element directly affects the development potential of property. Also affecting the development potential of property are the water and sewer connection requirements and the availability of public school capacity. Within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the assignment of land use density and intensity, as well as the urban service area regulations, affect the timing and location of capital improvements. Consistent with the FLUE and urban service area requirements in the county’s comprehensive plan, the county provides public facilities and services to promote compact development by emphasizing infill development in urban areas and maximizing the efficiency of existing facilities and services in under utilized areas. The FLUE also limits urban sprawl and ensures that adequate facilities will be present to accommodate future growth. Maximizing the use of existing facilities and controlling urban sprawl will contribute to a cost-effective and efficient service delivery system. Using the county’s official Future Land Use Map and Future Thoroughfare Plan Map, as well as the county’s water and wastewater connection matrix, in planning for future locations of facilities provides for efficient and orderly expansion of public facilities, provides for efficient growth in desired areas, discourages growth in undesirable areas, and protects environmentally sensitive lands. Consistent with that policy, development orders are issued only after a determination that adequate public facilities and services will be available to meet the demand of the new development. Overall, the objectives of the FLUE, Transportation Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, and the Public School Facilities Element are furthered by the extension of facilities and services in a logical and efficient manner. This is accomplished by implementing and enforcing the adopted Capital Improvements Element and its corresponding Schedule of Capital Improvements. Successful and efficient implementation of those items ensures that facilities and services will be in place concurrent with future development. If a capital improvements project is not included in the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements and the improvement is required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards, future development will be prohibited until the necessary facilities are in place. This, in effect, indirectly controls the timing and location of future development and, in turn, furthers the implementation of the Future Land Use Element and Transportation Element objectives.

Comprehensive Plan


29


Indian River County

Appendix A constitutes the county’s five year schedule of capital improvements. This CIP is important to ensure that improvements to existing facilities and construction of new facilities are completed as needed. By implementing the five year schedule of capital improvements, the county will ensure that appropriate areas will be served by needed facilities, thus maintaining adopted levels of service. Besides implementing the components of this element, the county coordinates with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the various state agencies, such as the Florida Department of Transportation, when those agencies program facility or service improvements within Indian River County. The continuation of this coordination will ensure that the plans of state agencies and the SJRWMD will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the timing and location of capital improvements as identified in the CIE. Projected Revenues In order to develop a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements, projected revenues over the five-year CIP time period have been calculated. These revenues are then compared to anticipated expenditures on capital improvements. For the first three years of the plan, only committed and available revenue sources are utilized. In developing revenue estimates for this process, historic revenue trends, current and anticipated economic conditions, population and growth trends, legislative changes, and any other factors that may impact future revenue streams were considered. This analysis is far more complex than projecting prior trends into the future. This is evident in the forecasted revenues shown in this section. While the During the past five years, there has been historical data show a solida gradual indecrease in most revenue sources in the most recent five-year period,. Eestimates going forward show a decrease in most revenue sources for the firstnext couple years followed by moderate increases. This is consistent with an anticipatedthe current economic recession slowdown in the near future followed by an anticipated moderate recovery thereafter. Many of the revenue sources identified in the CIP have unique characteristics. For example, sales taxes react differently than gas taxes to similar circumstances. The analysis accounts for such differences. Because gas taxes are levied on a per gallon basis rather than a percentage basis like the sales tax, gas taxes do not increase as a result of rising prices the way sales taxes do. Further, gas taxes do not typically decline as significantly as sales taxes during economic slowdowns. Property taxes, impact fees, user fees, interest earnings, and other revenues have additional behavioral characteristics that were considered in estimating future receipts. All such estimates were developed with the use of professionally accepted methodologies. To ensure a financially balanced CIP (see Appendix A), scheduled expenditures were constrained by projected revenues.

Comprehensive Plan


30


Indian River County

As part of this capital improvements element, the county's general revenues have been projected for fiscal years 200910/1011 through 20134/145. This section addresses general revenues and earmarked projected revenues as well as the county's tax base and millage rate projections.

• Overall Projected Revenues Table 6.7 summarizes the county's projected overall revenues for fiscal years 200910/101 through 20134/145. These revenues include the county's general governmental funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds. As table 6.7 shows, general revenue collected by the county is projected to decrease slightly overin the next few fiscal years and increase by only 3.013.22% by fiscal year 20134/145. Overall, Ggeneral revenue is projected to increase from $320,680,692 278,508,044 in FY 200910/101 to $330,339,507287,466,627 in FY 20134/145.

Table 6.7: Overall General Revenue Projection Summary

FY 200910/1011 20101/112 20112/123 20123/134 20134/145 TOTAL

Taxes

96,290,805 $107,466,450

100,034,202 $100,034,202

100,034,000 $100,034,000

105,392,971 $105,211,000

108,028,000 $154,026,137

509,779,978 $566,771,789

Licenses & Permits

20,754,256 $23,278,151

20,754,000 $21,416,000

21,273,000 $21,416,000

21,805,000 $21,951,000

22,350,000 $22,500,000

106,936,256 $110,561,151

Intergovern-ment

18,691,686 $17,169,945

18,692,000 $15,796,000

19,159,000 $23,546,000

19,638,000 $24,135,000

20,129,000 $24,738,000

96,309,686 $105,384,945

Charges for Services

60,009,228 $79,890,835

60,009,000 $77,126,877

61,509,000 $82,001,239

63,047,000 $89,401,400

64,623,000 $100,283,000

309,197,228 $428,703,351

Fines & Forfeitures

312,000 $358,000 312,000 $329,000

320,000 $329,000

328,000 $337,000

336,000 $345,000

1,608,000 $1,698,000

Interest & Misc.

18,494,670 $26,130,217

18,495,000 $24,040,000

18,957,000 $24,040,000

19,431,000 $24,641,000

19,917,000 $25,257,000

95,294,670 $124,108,217

Other Sources

63,955,399 $66,387,094

32,653,315 $46,414,474

43,795,823 $53,248,311

43,221,820 $66,513,995

52,083,627 $3,190,370

235,709,984 $235,754,244

TOTAL

278,508,044 $320,680,692

250,949,517 $285,156,553

265,047,823 $304,614,550

272,863,791 $332,190,395

287,466,627 $330,339,507

1,354,835,802 $1,572,981,697


• Earmarked Projected Revenues Earmarked revenues are revenues that are restricted in terms of use. Such revenues may be found in the Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, and Solid Waste Sub-Element. Table 6.8 provides a summary of earmarked revenue projections by applicable comprehensive plan element for fiscal years 200910/101 through 20134/145. As shown in table 6.8, projected transportation revenues are broken down by their sources. Earmarked projected transportation

Comprehensive Plan


31


Indian River County

revenues are expected to increase by 36.7530.66% over the next five fiscal years, from $20,532,33719,025,710 in FY 20109/101 to $28,077,00024,859,880 in FY 20134/145. Although transportation revenues are expected to increase from FY 0910/101 to FY 134/145, it is important to note that FY 0910/101 transportation revenue is $34,258,36435,764,991 less than FY 2004/05 transportation revenue. This reflects the substantial decrease in traffic impact fee revenue from the housing boom years to the present. Part of the transportation revenue increase for fiscal year 20123/134 and fiscal year 20134/145 is from a planned 6 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline (Local Option Gas Tax). In fiscal year 2013/14, the proposed additional 6 cent per gallon gas tax plus the county’s current 6 cent per gallon gas tax (total of 12 cents per gallon) will be bonded to produce a significant revenue increase in FY 20134/145. For potable water and sanitary sewer, earmarked revenue is expected to increase by .977.69% over the next five fiscal years, from $41,368,77927,333,363 in FY 200910/101 to $41,769,00029,434,000 in FY 20134/145. Over the next five years, earmarked revenue for solid waste is expected to increase by .987.69% from $10,869,50410,713,852 in FY 200910/101 to $10,976,00011538,000 in FY 20134/145.

Table 6.8: Earmarked Projected Revenue by Comprehensive Plan Element

Transportation Fiscal Year

Local

Option Gas Tax

Constitutional

Gas Tax

County Gas Tax

Traffic

Impact Fee

1 cent

optional sales tax

Interest on Gas Tax

Total

Potable Water & Sanitary Sewer

Solid Waste

200910/

101 3,313,710

$3,012,000 1,550,000

$1,514,477 682,000 $667,860

1,200,000 $1,600,000

12,000,000 $13,323,000

280,000 $415,000

19,025,710 $20,532,337

27,333,363 $41,368,779

10,713,852 $10,869,504

20101/1

12 3,314,000

$2,952,000 1,550,000

$1,484,000 682,000 $655,000

1,650,000 $2,200,000

12,000,000 $12,657,000

280,000 $500,000

19,476,000 $20,448,000

27,333,000 $40,541,000

10,714,000 $10,652,000

20112/1

23 3,347,000

$2,982,000 1,566,000

$1,499,000 689,000 $662,000

2,256,196 $3,500,000

12,300,000 $12,657,000

280,000 $500,000

20,438,196 $21,800,000

28,016,000 $40,946,000

10,982,000 $10,759,000

20123/134 6,237,971

$5,658,000 1,582,000

$1,514,000 696,000 $669,000

2,600,000 $5,000,000

12,608,000 $12,657,000

280,000 $500,000

24,003,971 $25,998,000

28,716,000 $41,355,000

11,257,000 $10,867,000

20134/145

6,300,000 $5,715,000

1,598,000 $1,529,000

703,000 $676,000

3,055,880 $7,000,000

12,923,000 $12,657,000

280,000 $500,000

24,859,880 $28,077,000

29,434,000 $41,769,000

11,538,000 $10,976,000



Table 6.9 summarizes the county's tax base projections which are categorized by fund through FY 20134/145. Overall, the countywide ad valorem tax base is the same as the general fund category identified in table 6.9.

Comprehensive Plan


32


Indian River County

Table 6.9: Indian River County Tax Base and Millage Projections

General Fund

M.S.T.U.

Emergency Services District

Environmental Land

Acquisition Fiscal Year

Tax Base Millage

Tax Base

Millage

Tax Base

Millage

Tax Base

Millage

20109/1

01 $14,147,906,804 $15,917,623,940

3.08923.0892

$7,820,732,737 $9,038,817,998

1.07331.0774

$11,640,087,880 $13,391,098,415

1.71481.7148

$14,147,906,804 $15,917,623,940

0.06810.0725

20101/112

$13,016,074,260 $14,644,214,025

3.08923.0892

$7,195,074,118 $8,315,712,558

1.07331.0774

$10,708,880,850 $12,319,810,542

1.71481.7148

$13,016,074,260 $14,644,214,025

0.07350.0783

20112/123

$13,016,074,260 $14,644,214,025

3.08923.0892

$7,195,074,118 $8,315,712,558

1.07331.0774

$10,708,880,850 $12,319,810,542

1.71481.7148

$13,016,074,260 $14,644,214,025

0.07350.0783

20123/134

$13,341,476,117 $15,010,319,376

3.08923.0892

$7,374,950,971 $8,523,605,372

1.07331.0774

$10,976,602,871 $12,627,805,806

1.71481.7148

$13,341,476,117 $15,010,319,376

0.07170.0763

20134/145

$13,675,013,020 $15,385,577,360

3.08923.0892

$7,559,324,745 $8,736,695,506

1.07331.0774

$11,251,017,943 $12,943,500,951

1.71481.7148

$13,675,013,020 $15,385,577,360

0.06990.0744


As shown in table 6.9, the county has a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and an emergency services district, each with a separate millage. Changes to the Capital Improvements Program With the ongoing depressed housing market, challenges in the national and global financial markets, and the reduction in building permit activity, county revenue again decreased and is expected to remain lower than projected in the prior year’s Capital Improvements Program (Fiscal Years 20089/0910 through 20123/134). As a result of the decrease in projected revenue and the associated decrease in projected demand for public facilities, the overall Capital Improvements Program has been scaled back. Consequently, a number of projects within the 20089/0910 through 20123/134 CIP have either had their costs modified, have been deferred, or have had their time frame extended. None of the changes will impact development project concurrency reservations, and only a few changes to the transportation section of the CIP directly impact capacities within the county’s concurrency management system. Because of the downturn in thedepressed housing market, problems with the financial markets, and limited construction activity, it is anticipated that the capacity associated with most of these projects will not be needed until later dates. The specific concurrency related projects removed from the transportation section of the CIP are detailed in Table 6.10 and include roadway segments only on 27th Avenue. For these projects, funds were to come from the county’s gas tax, optional sales tax and impact fees. Even though these projects are being deleted, portions of 27th Avenue will still be built with the Oslo Road improvement projects. Of the projects being deleted from last year’s CIP and shown in Table 6.10, none have had their added capacity relied upon for vesting development projects for concurrency. On links that are

Comprehensive Plan


33


Indian River County

associated with the deleted projects listed in Table 6.10, the available capacity ranges from 13.45 available peak hour, directional trips to almost 600 available peak hour, directional trips. While the County’s current Concurrency Links Report shows that existing available capacity on 27th Avenue is minimal, Two of the transportation projects that have had their construction dates extended currently have deficient links in involve improvements to roadways that are over capacity according to the County’s concurrency management system. The specific concurrency related projects that have deficient links are lListed in Table 6.10, these deficient links are C.R. 510 between 58th Avenue and U.S. Highway 1 and A1A from 17th Street to the south city limits of the City of Vero Beach. Even though these projects have deficient links, tWhile the transportation projects designed to improve these deficient links will be addressed through the transportation improvements scheduled to be constructed or to have construction commenced within the next few years are being rescheduled to later years of the CIP, there are several factors that are expected to increase available capacity in the short term. One such factor is that concurrency certificates for . Further, it is expected that the available capacity will soon increase due to a number of factors. With the depressed housing market, there are some development projects that previously hadwith trips vested trips will for concurrency, but because of expiringe soon. conAt that time, the currency certificates will now have or will soon have their reserved trips reflected by those projects will be removed from the concurrency management system. AlsoAnother factor is that recent, traffic counts conducted by the County this year indicate that a further reduction in traffic volumes are continuing to decrease on most roadways. These new traffic counts will also soon be added toreflected in the County’s concurrency management system. At that time, Both the increased capacity and decreased demand will add additionalhave the effect of increasing the available capacity back toon County roadways and will likely further decrease the need for scheduling, financing, and constructing transportation projects in the County’s CIP. By deleting extending the time frame of the transportation projects as shown, the county can utilize its limited resources to complete priority concurrency related projects within the overall capital improvements program. In effect, the county needs to delete delay some projects so that other projects will remain fundable with a diminishing county budget. By funding only necessary projects, the County is also maintaining a financially feasible capital improvements element.

Table 6.10: Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects with deficient links Transportation Project With Deficient Link

Link # Link Description Capacity* Total Demand*

Available*

1830E C.R. 510, 58th Avenue to U.S. 1 810.00 707.26 102.74 1830W C.R. 510, 58th Avenue to U.S. 1 810.00 874.76 -64.76 1840E C.R. 510, U.S. 1 to S.R. A1A 2,049.00 715.66 1,333.34

CR 510, 61st Drive to Indian River, four lanes (1.6 miles)

1840W C.R. 510, U.S. 1 to S.R. A1A 2,049.00 775.48 1,273.52 1020N S.R. A1A, Southern Vero Beach City Limits

to 17th Street 930.00 1,081.37 -151.37

1020S S.R. A1A, Southern Vero Beach City Limits to 17th Street

930.00 1,058.13 -128.13

17th Street/A1A Intersection

1030N S.R. A1A, 17th Street to S.R. 60 924.00 707.00 217.00

Comprehensive Plan


34


Indian River County

Table 6.10: Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects with deficient links Transportation Project With Deficient Link


Available*

1030S S.R. A1A, 17th Street to S.R. 60 924.00 832.00 92.00 2120E 17th Street, Indian River Boulevard to S.R.

A1A 1,960.00 1,017.77 942.23

2120W 17th Street, Indian River Boulevard to S.R. A1A

1,960.00 1,202.30 757.70


Table 6.10: Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects Removed from the 5 Year CIP Transportation Project Removed from CIP


Available*

2420N 27th Avenue, Oslo Rd. to 4th Street 1,268.00 691.76 376.24 2420S 27th Avenue, Oslo Rd. to 4th Street 1,268.00 926.04 341.96 2430N 27th Avenue, 4th Street to 8th Street 1,032.00 580.36 451.64 2430S 27th Avenue, 4th Street to 8th Street 1,032.00 958.48 73.52 2440N 27th Avenue, 8th Street to 12th Street 1,032.00 532.56 499.44

27th Avenue, 12th Street to 5th St. SW, four lanes (2 miles)**

2440S 27th Avenue, 8th Street to 12th Street 1,032.00 916.24 115.76 2450N 27th Avenue, 12th Street to S. VB City Limits 1,032.00 887.86 144.14 2450S 27th Avenue, 12th Street to S. VB City Limits 1,032.00 887.07 144.93 2460N 27th Avenue, S. VB City Limits to 16th Street 1,032.00 883.17 148.83 2460S 27th Avenue, S. VB City Limits to 16th Street 1,032.00 884.41 147.59 2470N 27th Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,032.00 454.29 577.71

27th Avenue- 12th Street to SR 60**

2470S 27th Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,032.00 769.87 262.13 2410N 27th Avenue, S. County Line to Oslo Road 1,268.00 835.43 232.57 2410S 27th Avenue, S. County Line to Oslo Road 1,268.00 1,254.55 13.45 2420N 27th Avenue, Oslo Rd. to 4th Street 1,268.00 691.76 376.24

27th Ave, 5th ST SW to 13th St SW (four lanes (2 miles)**

2420S 27th Avenue, Oslo Rd. to 4th Street 1,268.00 926.04 341.96 *Peak hour, directional trips ** Capacity for these links reflects the adopted level of service standard of E+20

Several nonconcurrency related projects within the various other CIP categories have also either had their costs modified, have been deferred, or have had their timeframe extended. These projects include: Archie Smith Fish House (Conservation and Aquifer Recharge category), 800 MHz Radio Expansion (Emergency Services category), New Courtroom Facilities (General Services category), Oslo Boat Ramp and Parking (Parks and Recreation category), and several convenience center expansions (Solid Waste category).

• Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program (Appendix B)

The Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program (Appendix B) is a list of transportation projects for which a specific start date and a specific completion date are listed. As allowed by state law, the County considers the additional capacity which theseto be produced by these roadway improvement projects will produce as being available now for concurrency purposes. As such, a development projects impacting a deficient link can proceed despite the deficient link where thea

Comprehensive Plan


35


Indian River County

roadway improvement project for the deficient link will be under construction no later than three years after issuance of the first building permit for the development project. Because of lower demand on area roadways from the depressed housing market and the pending expiration of concurrency certificates for previously approved developments, the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program is no longer needed. Within the Therefore, this CIE no longer includes a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program. Of the four projects previously listed in the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program, two Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program, seven projects have been removed. Three of those projects were removed because they are currentlywill be under construction or are now completedwithin the next six months. Those projects are: CR 512, from Sebastian Middle School to I-95; State Road 60, from West of I-95 to 82nd Avenue (started utilities relocation); and 16th/17th Street, from 500’ west of 14th Avenue to west of U.S. 1 Oslo Road from 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, and Oslo Road from 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue. The other four two projects were removed from the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program because theythe road capacity that those projects would add to the transportation system is no longer needed to maintain the current Level of Service of E +20. have had their construction dates moved out to beyond three years. Those projects are: CR510, from CR512 to 75th Court; CR 510, from 75th Court to 61st Drive; CR 510, from 61st Drive to Indian River; and 43rd Avenue, from 12th Street to Oslo Road. In all cases, the added road capacity from these projects is no longer necessary to maintain concurrency for previously approved development projects. The four remaining projects within the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program have had their construction start dates modified. While construction on 43rd Avenue, from 18th Street to 26th Street, will start approximately six months sooner than anticipated, construction on the three remaining projects will start approximately 1 to 1 ½ years later than previously anticipated. Theose projects and their available peak hour, directional trip capacity of the associated roadways are listed in Table 6.11.All of the transportation projectsroadways listed in thethat table currently have sufficient available peak hour, directional trip capacity to accommodate already approved developments. Altering the start date of construction, therefore, does not impact already approved developments.

Table 6.11: Concurrency Links Report for Removed Priority Transportation Projects with Construction Start Date Extended

Transportation Project Description Listed in CIP

Link # Link Description Capacity with Project*

Total Demand*

Available*

2925N 43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 16th Street 1,960.001,071.00 535.11555.95 1,424.89515.05 2925S 43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 16th Street 1,960.001,071.00 775.62728.95 1,184.38342.05 2930N 43rd Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,960.001,071.00 591.97665.40 1,368.03405.60

43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 18th Street, four lanes (1 mile)

2930S 43rd Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,960.001,071.00 820.25704.56 1,139.75366.44 2935N 43rd Avenue, S.R. 60 to 26th Street 1,796.001,796.00 462.93532.73 1,333.071,263.27 43rd Avenue,18th Street to 26th Street,

four lanes 2935S 43rd Avenue, S.R. 60 to 26th Street 1,796.001,796.00 608.91525.31 1,187.091,270.69

Comprehensive Plan


36


Indian River County

*Peak hour, directional trips Needs Assessment Based on public facility requirements identified in the other comprehensive plan elements, this needs assessment identifies the capital improvements required to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet proposed levels of service for existing and new development. For purposes of the CIE, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building or major equipment) that costs at least $25,000100,000 and may be paid for in phases. Table 6.12 identifies capital improvement needs through fiscal year 20134/145 for conservation & aquifer recharge, emergency services, general services, law enforcement & corrections, recreation and open space, stormwater management, sanitary sewer and potable water, solid waste, transportation, and public schools. Appendix A provides a detailed list of projects associated with each of the comprehensive plan elements as well as those projects associated with individual department capital improvements programs. Not included in Appendix A are projects associated with the Public School Facilities Element. Those projects are found in Appendix DC. Detailed capital improvement schedules, which list each improvement project, are provided in each applicable Comprehensive Plan Element or within individual master plans for the respective governmental service.

Table 6.12: Future Capital Improvement Expenditures for Indian River County &

Indian River County School District Element or Category

200910/101

20101/112

20112/123 20123/134 20134/145


$1,350,000 $925,000

$75,000 $400,000

$ - $100,000 $100,000 $0

$ - $0

Emergency Services $3,426,177

$5,386,705 $2,361,705 $0 $450,000 $ 0 $3,000,000 $2,200,000

$ - $0

General Services

$189,508 $300,000 $60,000 $0

$4,160,000 $4,100,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0


$558,960 $1,483,060 $1,900,000 $0

$ - $0

$ - $4,320,400

$ - $740,800


$4,069,300 $4,193,545

$2,050,000 $2,205,000

$3,485,000 $4,975,000

$2,825,000 $4,375,000

$2,500,000 $1,575,000

Sanitary Sewer & Potable Water

$6,681,988 $11,128,277

$1,077,337 $3,246,877

$4,497,450 $3,394,239

$5,028,758 $3,305,400

$2,913,000 $1,925,000

Solid Waste

$9,075,000 $6,882,000

$1,830,000 $380,000

$2,200,000 $1,480,000

$6,967,000 $2,045,000

$667,802 $6,722,000

Stormwater Management $969,000

$1,050,000 $500,000 $650,000

$950,000 $8,300,000

$3,000,000 $10,050,000

$5,000,000 $8,550,000

Transportation

$45,272,376 $46,287,000

$29,378,382 $31,604,843

$32,750,000 $29,458,888

$29,800,000 $46,800,262

$49,156,568 $45,285,194

Comprehensive Plan


37


Indian River County

Table 6.12: Future Capital Improvement Expenditures for Indian River County &

Indian River County School District Element or Category

200910/101

20101/112

20112/123 20123/134 20134/145

Total

$71,592,309 $77,635,587

$39,232,424 $38,486,720

$48,492,450 $51,808,127

$50,780,758 $73,096,062

$60,297,370 $64,797,994

Public School Facilities*

$42,851,573 $34,281,614

$29,145,119 $9,862,021

$10,347,761 $28,962,000

$12,310,139 $9,466,996

$13,026,495 $27,472,089

*The School District of Indian River County has the fiscal responsibility for capital improvement expenditures for public school facilities. Figure 6.18 graphically displays the projected capital improvements expenditures for the county during the next five fiscal years. As indicated, the sum of the total projected costs for each of the elements for the five year period is $305,824,490270,395,311. Within the first fiscal year, projects are funded from current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenues. For the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with “committed” revenue sources. “Committed” revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through “planned” revenue sources. “Planned” revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents of local option gas tax. Some public facilities, such as public education and health systems, are provided countywide, and the county itself does notbut are not havethe fiscal responsibility for these systemsof the County. The County, however, is required by State Statutes to provide some funds to the Indian River County Health Department (IRCHD). Consistent with State law, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services appoints the management of the IRCHD, maintains the financial records, and prepares its own financial report separate from the county. In the Future Land Use and Introductory Elements of the county’s comprehensive plan, there is an analysis and description of public schools and health centers. Based on general locational criteria for public schools and health centers, it is assumed that any new facilities which may be constructed in the county by 20134/145 will be located within existing infrastructure service areas or designated expansion areas. Therefore, these systems may be considered to be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure.

Comprehensive Plan


38


Indian River County


$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15

Conservation & Aquifer Recharge Emergency Services General Services

Law Enforcement & Corrections Recreation & Open Space Sanitary Sewer & Potable Water

Solid Waste Stormwater Management Transportation

Fiscal Assessment This section examines the county's ability to fund the capital improvements listed in table 6.12, with the exception of public school facilities, and assesses whether sufficient revenue will be available within the existing budget framework utilized by the county to fund the needed improvements at the time that those improvements will be required. For public school facilities listed in table 6.12, Tthe School District of Indian River County is responsible for funding the capital improvements for public school facilities listed in table 6.12. The School District’s adopted “Summary of Capital Improvements Program” (Appendix DC) and “Summary of Estimated Revenue” (Appendix ED) provide a detailed review of the financial feasibility of the School District’s Five Year Capital Plan. Theis assessment process consists of projecting future revenue receipts of revenues and comparing these those receipts againstto anticipated expenditures. UsingWith this process, it is possible to quantify annual revenue surpluses and shortfalls, providing a basis for examining opportunities for financing the needed capital improvements. The expenditure estimates include the operating costs. Projected Expenditures Table 6.13 shows the county's projected expenditures for fiscal years 200910/101 through 20134/145. By fiscal year 20134/145, the county is projected to have annual expenditures totaling

Comprehensive Plan


39


Indian River County

$330,339,507287,466,627. In FY 20134/145, the category projected to have the largest expenditures is the Enterprise Funds/OtherPublic Safety category. For the five-year period beginning in fiscal year 200910/101 and ending in fiscal year 20134/145, the county's expenditures are projected to increase by 3.0129.95%.

Table 6.13: Indian River County Overall General Expenditures Projection Summary

FY 200910/101 20101/112 20112/123 20123/134 20134/145

General Gov’t. Services

16,980,605 $26,242,373

17,271,000 $26,332,000

21,801,000 $31,090,000

18,142,000 $27,665,000

18,594,000 $28,357,000

Public Safety

72,041,547 $72,529,735

74,019,705 $66,645,000

71,952,000 $68,311,000

76,290,000 $76,539,400

75,122,000 $72,509,800


68,145,494 $2,238,838

54,803,337 $1,318,000

59,966,450 $8,675,000

69,014,758 $10,332,000

63,562,802 $8,839,000

Transportation

57,843,301 $48,216,910

42,263,382 $33,563,843

45,957,000 $31,466,888

43,337,000 $48,858,262

63,031,568 $47,394,194

Economic Environment 499,847 $499,543 512,000 $507,000

525,000 $520,000

538,000 $533,000 551,000 $546,000

Human Services

7,597,176 $7,000,722

7,787,000 $7,106,000

7,982,000 $7,284,000

8,182,000 $7,466,000

8,387,000 $7,653,000

Culture/Recreation

17,785,732 $26,052,173

16,109,000 $24,392,000

17,895,000 $27,717,000

17,595,000 $27,686,000

17,639,000 $25,469,000

Debt Service

7,024,509 $1,242,233

6,829,093 $1,238,833

6,830,373 $1,238,423

6,823,033 $1,236,333

6,813,257 $1,237,513

Enterprise Funds Other

30,589,833 $99,473,523

31,355,000 $86,311,877

32,139,000 $89,626,239

32,942,000 $92,221,400

33,766,000 $97,690,000

Other TOTAL

278,508,044 $37,184,642

250,949,517 $37,742,000

265,047,823 $38,686,000

272,863,791 $39,653,000

287,466,627 $40,644,000

TOTAL $320,680,692 $285,156,553 $304,614,550 $332,190,395 $330,339,507 Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

• Earmarked Projected Expenditures

Table 6.14 identifies the projected expenditures for the water, sewer, and solid waste enterprise funds for fiscal years 200910/101 through 20134/145. These expenditures include operating expenses and other expenses for each year. AllAccording to law, all revenues from capacity charges must be spent on infrastructure improvements that benefits the payer of the capacity charge. Therefore, the amount of revenues and expenditures amounts increases and decreases with development. For thisthat reason, projecting capacity charge revenues and expenditures is difficult. This system, however, ensures that new development will not reduce levels of service below county minimums.

Table 6.14: Projected Expenses for Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste

Fiscal Year

Potable Water & Sanitary Sewer

Solid Waste

20109/101 $27,333,363 $41,368,779 $10,713,852 $10,869,504

$27,333,000 $40,541,000 $10,714,000 $10,652,000

Comprehensive Plan


40


Indian River County

20101/112

20112/123 $28,016,000 $40,946,000 $10,982,000 $10,759,000 20123/134

$28,716,000 $41,355,000 $11,257,000 $10,867,000 20134/145

$29,434,000 $41,769,000 $11,538,000 $10,976,000 Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

In FY 20134/145, the projected expenses for potable water and sanitary sewer services are expected to be $41,769,00029,434,000. That is an increase of .977.69% from the 20109/101 projected expenses of $41,368,77927,333,363. Table 6.14 shows that, in FY 20134/145, the projected expenses for solid waste services are expected to be $10,976,00011,538,000. That is an increase of .987.69% from the 20109/101 projected figure of $10,869,50410,713,852. Operating Cost Projections Table 6.15 provides projections of overall operating costs for the county for fiscal years 200910/101 through 20134/145. In fiscal year 20134/145, the county is projected to incur approximately $264,872,395189,485,892 in operating costs. Based on the figures shown in table 6.15, the county's operating costs are projected to increase 18.317.46% between 20109/101 and 20134/145.

Table 6.15: Indian River County Overall Operating Cost Projections Fiscal Year Total Operating Costs 200910/101 $176,325,902 $223,870,740

20101/112 $230,937,606 $212,554,710

20112/123 $71,402,801 $218,994,662 20123/134 $152,510,296 $224,791,733 20134/145 $189,485,892 $233,544,513

Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget Projected Debt Capacity Debt Financing, which involves borrowing money using the county's assets as collateral, is one way that the county has provided for its capital facility needs. The primary rationale for providing capital facilities through indebtedness is that it spreads the cost of a facility over its useful life and thus is paid for by those who will use the facility. Table 6.16 provides a summary of the county's estimated ability to raise bonds revenue without a public vote. TheThat table identifies the county's bonding capacity is identified for 10, 20, and 30 years. As table 6.16 indicates, the county's available bonding capacity for the nexta 10 years issue is

Comprehensive Plan


41


Indian River County

$152,000,000160,100,000, with an additional pot entialwhile its bonding capacity offor a 30 year issue is $293,000,000323,100,000.

Table 6.16: Indian River County Estimated Ability to Raise Bonds Without A Public Vote

Pledge Sources

Ten Years (Bond Interest Rate @

2.952.54%)

Twenty Years (Bond Interest Rate @

3.993.80%)

Thirty Years (Bond Interest Rate @

4.374.11%) Half Cent Sales Tax

$47,300,000 $44,800,000

$80,300,000 $76,300,000

$102,800,000 $92,500,000

Gas Taxes

$49,800,000 $45,900,000

$78,900,000 $73,100,000

$97,300,000 $85,800,000

Tourist Tax $9,500,000 $9,300,000

$15,000,000 $14,800,000

$18,500,000 $17,400,000

First Guaranteed Entitlement $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $3,500,000 $3,300,000 Second Guaranteed Entitlement $3,700,000 $3,600,000 $5,900,000 $5,800,000 $7,300,000 $6,800,000 Sub-Total

$112,100,000 $105,400,000

$182,900,000 $172,800,000

$229,400,000 $205,800,000

Possible Pledge Sources Franchise Fees

$40,100,000 $38,300,000

$63,500,000 $60,900,000

$78,300,000 $71,600,000

Road Impact Fees $7,900,000 $8,300,000

$12,500,000 $13,300,000

$15,400,000 $15,600,000

Sub-Total

$48,000,000 $46,600,000

$76,000,000 $74,200,000

$93,700,000 $87,200,000

TOTAL

$160,100,000 $152,000,000

$258,900,000 $247,000,000

$323,100,000 $293,000,000

*Rates are comparable term AAA rated municipal bond yields as of 9/21/10. Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

• Debt Service Obligations

In table 6.17, Tthe county's debt service obligations for current and anticipated bond issues are summarized in table 6.17. Debt service is payment of principal and interest on obligations resulting from the issuance of bonds. As table 6.17 indicates, the county's major anticipated outstanding debts are for water and sewer revenue bonds, environmentally sensitive land acquisition bonds, recreational revenue bonds, and spring training facility revenue bonds.

Comprehensive Plan


42


Indian River County

Table 6.17: Indian River County Bond Schedule

FY Ending

Water & Sewer

Revenue Refunding

Bonds

Water & Sewer

Revenue Refunding

Bonds

Recreational Revenue

Refunding Bonds

Environmentally Sensitive Land

Acquisition

Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition

Environmentally Sensitive Land

Acquisition

Water & Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds

Spring Training Facility Revenue Bonds

1993 A Series

5.755% $47,190,000

2009 Series 3.68%

$26,370,000

2003 Series 3.65%

$6,455,000

2001 Series 3.89%

$11,000,000

2003 Series 2.05%

$7,800,000

2006 Series 4.22%

$48,600,000

2005 Series 3.94%

$27,675,000

2001 Series 4.87%

$16,810,000 Interest $1,745,350 $148,638 $266,492 $71,400 $1,945,463 $1,053,150 $664,633 Principal $1,395,000 $490,000 $720,000 $1,170,000 $2,670,000 $1,350,000 $560,000 Total $3,140,350 $638,638 $986,492 $1,241,400 $4,615,463 $2,403,150 $1,224,633

2009 Balance $3,030,000 $26,370,000 $3,685,000 $5,955,000 $1,210,000 $41,045,000 $23,320,000 $12,895,000 Interest $1,668,625 $1,331,610 $135,164 $240,573 $36,300 $1,838,662 $1,012,650 $642,233 Principal $1,475,000 $0 $510,000 $745,000 $1,210,000 $2,775,000 $1,395,000 $585,000 Total $3,143,625 $1,331,610 $645,164 $985,573 $1,246,300 $4,613,662 $2,407,650 $1,227,233

2010 Balance $1,555,000 $26,370,000 $3,175,000 $5,210,000 $0 $38,270,000 $21,925,000 $12,310,000 Interest $1,587,500 $1,268,200 $119,864 $213,007 $1,727,663 $970,800 $618,833 Principal $1,555,000 $0 $520,000 $780,000 $2,885,000 $1,435,000 $605,000 Total $3,142,500 $1,268,200 $639,864 $993,007 $4,612,663 $2,405,800 $1,223,833

2011 Balance $0 $26,370,000 $2,655,000 $4,430,000 $35,385,000 $20,490,000 $11,705,000 Interest $1,268,200 $102,964 $183,368 $1,612,262 $925,250 $593,423 Principal $1,610,000 $535,000 $810,000 $3,000,000 $1,480,000 $630,000 Total $2,878,200 $637,964 $993,368 $4,612,262 $2,405,250 $1,223,423

2012 Balance $24,760,000 $2,120,000 $3,620,000 $32,385,000 $19,010,000 $11,075,000 Interest $1,203,800 $83,169 $151,777 $1,492,263 $877,150 $566,333 Principal $1,675,000 $555,000 $845,000 $3,120,000 $1,530,000 $655,000 Total $2,878,800 $638,169 $996,777 $4,612,263 $2,407,150 $1,221,333

2013 Balance $23,085,000 $1,565,000 $2,775,000 $29,265,000 $17,480,000 $10,420,000 Interest $1,136,800 $62,356 $117,978 $1,367,462 $800,650 $537,513 Principal $1,745,000 $580,000 $885,000 $3,255,000 $1,605,000 $685,000 Total $2,881,800 $642,356 $1,002,978 $4,622,462 $2,405,650 $1,222,513

2014 Balance $21,340,000 $985,000 $1,890,000 $26,010,000 $15,875,000 $9,735,000 Interest $1,067,000 $39,881 $80,807 $1,204,713 $736,450 $501,550 Principal $1,815,000 $600,000 $925,000 $3,390,000 $1,670,000 $725,000 Total $2,882,000 $639,881 $1,005,807 $4,594,713 $2,406,450 $1,226,550

2015 Balance $19,525,000 $385,000 $965,000 $22,620,000 $14,205,000 $9,010,000 Interest $976,250 $15,881 $41,495 $1,035,212 $652,950 $463,488 Principal $1,905,000 $385,000 $965,000 $3,545,000 $1,750,000 $760,000 Total $2,881,250 $400,881 $1,006,495 $4,580,212 $2,402,950 $1,223,488

2016 Balance $17,620,000 $0 $0 $19,075,000 $12,455,000 $8,250,000 Interest $881,000 $893,413 $565,450 $423,588 Principal $2,000,000 $3,705,000 $1,840,000 $795,000 Total $2,881,000 $4,598,413 $2,405,450 $1,218,588

2017 Balance $15,620,000 $15,370,000 $10,615,000 $7,455,000

Comprehensive Plan


43


Indian River County

Interest $781,000 $745,212 $473,450 $381,850 Principal $2,100,000 $3,890,000 $1,930,000 $840,000 Total $2,881,000 $4,635,212 $2,403,450 $1,221,850

2018 Balance $13,520,000 $11,480,000 $8,685,000 $6,615,000 Interest $676,000 $550,713 $376,950 $337,750 Principal $2,205,000 $4,085,000 $2,025,000 $890,000 Total $2,881,000 $4,635,713 $2,401,950 $1,227,750



2021 Balance $6,570,000 $0 $2,310,000 $3,815,000 Interest $328,500 $92,400 $190,750 Principal $2,550,000 $2,310,000 $305,000 Total $2,878,500 $2,402,400 $495,750

2022 Balance $4,020,000 $0 $3,510,000 Interest $201,000 $175,500 Principal $2,680,000 $320,000 Total $2,881,000 $495,500

2023 Balance $1,340,000 $3,190,000 Interest $67,000 $159,500 Principal $1,340,000 $340,000 Total $1,407,000 $499,500

2024 Balance $0 $2,850,000 Interest $142,500 Principal $355,000 Total $497,500

2025 Balance $2,495,000 Interest $124,750 Principal $375,000 Total $499,750


2027 Balance $1,730,000 Interest $86,500 Principal $410,000

2028

Total $496,500

Comprehensive Plan


44


Indian River County

Balance $1,320,000 Interest $66,000 Principal $430,000 Total $496,000

2029 Balance $890,000 Interest $44,500 Principal $455,000 Total $499,500

2030 Balance $435,000 Interest $21,750 Principal $435,000 Total $456,750

2031 Balance $0

Fiscal Assessment Summary This section provides an analysis of the county's revenues and expenditures for its capital improvement needs for the five-year period beginning in FY 200910/101 and ending in FY 20134/145. While Appendix A details all of the capital improvement projects for the next five fiscal years for each individual comprehensive plan element by cost, timeframe, and revenue source(s), Table 6.7 provides general revenue projections for the county through fiscal year 20134/145. As shown in Table 6.7, the County will generate $1,572,981,6971,354,835,802 in revenues from general funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds from fiscal year 200910/101 to fiscal year 20134/145. Sources of these funds include sales taxes, property taxes, grants, impact fees, and other revenues. Portions of the money needed for the capital improvements listed within Appendix A will come from the $1,572,981,6971,354,835,802. Overall, the county will have enough revenue to cover the costs associated with the five year capital improvements program. The total estimated cost of For all projects contained within the County’s Capital Improvements project list, the total estimated cost is $305,824,490204,821,475 for the next five fiscal years. This is 19.4415.12% of the overall general fund revenues for the same time period. Concurrency Management Plan

To ensure that level-of-service standards are maintained, it is necessary to have a system in place which that provides the criteria for measuring facility capacity, assessing development demand on applicable facilities, and monitoring service levels for applicable facilities. ThisThat system will set the parameters for issuing development orders consistent with level-of-service standards. While this concurrency management plan sets policies and establishes a process, the specific application of this system is through the county's land development regulations. As per state

Comprehensive Plan


45


Indian River County

requirements, these regulations define the details of the concurrency management system and establish its administrative requirements. The major purpose of the concurrency management system is to detail the specifics of implementing the county's level-of-service standards. For that reason, the concurrency management system must apply to all development activity in the county. The system must then identify the applicable standards for each facility, the geographic scope of each facility, and the method of monitoring facility capacity changes. Most importantly, this system must specify when facilities are considered available. Project Applicability All development orders issued by the county must comply with the concurrency management plan and meet level-of-service standards. Development orders are county approvals for construction and/or land development activity. Specifically, development orders consist of the following: comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, site plan approvals, preliminary plat approvals, development of regional impact (DRI) approvals, planned development preliminary approvals, and building permit approvals for single-family homes located in subdivisions which were approved after February 13, 1990, the original adoption date of the county’s comprehensive plan. According to Section 163.3180(6), F.S., the impact from the construction of a single family home on an existing lot may constitute a de minimus impact on public facilities. State law allows such de minimus projects to be exempt from the concurrency requirement. Indian River County shall applyapplies the single family de minimus allowance to single family building permits in subdivisions platted before February 13, 1990. Currently, all county maintained roads are operating below the adopted level of service and have additional capacity to accommodate future growth. Service Standards Level-of-service standards for concurrency related facilities are established in this plan for the following facilities: sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, stormwater management, recreation, public schools, and transportation. These are explained in detail in the applicable comprehensive plan elements. For each facility, level-of-service is a measure of the relationship between demand for the service and the capacity of the facility. Capacity, however, is measured differently for each type of facility. Table 6.18 identifies both the capacity and demand measures for each public facility. These measures are addressed in detail, and existing capacities are identified in the applicable Comprehensive Plan Elements.

Comprehensive Plan


46


Indian River County

Table 6.18: Service Level Measures for Concurrency Related Facilities

Public Facility Category

Specific Facility

Capacity Measure

Demand Measure

Geographic Scope

Transportation

Roadway

Volume of cars accommodated over time

Peak Season/Peak Direction/Peak Hour Trips

Affected Roadways

Sanitary Sewer

Treatment Plant

Treatment design Capacity (GPD)

Generation Rate (GPD)

Service Area

Potable Water

Treatment Plant

Treatment Design Capacity (GPD)

Generation Rate (GPD)

Service Area

Solid Waste

Landfill

Volume in active cell (cubic yards)

Generation Rate (tons per capita per year)

Entire County

Recreation

Parks

Acres of park land

Acres of parks per thousand population

Entire County

Stormwater Management

Drainage conveyances

Volume of water

Volume of stormwater outfalling for design storm

Basin

Education*

Public Schools (K-12)

Number of Children accommodated over time

Enrolled Students/ Future Student Generation Service Area

*Limited to participating Schools owned and operated by the Indian River County School District

Concurrency requires that each facility within the geographic scope of a proposed project’s impact area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's demand. If that capacity is not available, the project cannot be approved. The principal function of the concurrency management system then is to provide a mechanism whereby demand and capacity measures can be compared on a project by project basis. Table 6.18 provides the criteria for establishing a demand to capacity comparison for a proposed project. While most of the characteristics are self-explanatory, one needs clarification; this is the geographic scope for the traffic public facility category. For concurrency purposes, affected roadways roadways arewill be those roadways impacted by a project's traffic. All projects, rRegardless of size, all projects impact the roadway on which the project fronts. In addition, other roadways further removed from the project are usually impacted. For concurrency purposes, two lane roadways which are assigned 8 or more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips and four or more lane roadways that are assigned 15 or more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips are considered impacted roadwaysthat gain 5% or more of the project’s traffic or 50 or more of the project’s generated trips, whichever is less are included. Level-of-service standards fFor transportation concurrency related facilities, level-of-service standards are to applyied to all impacted roadways.requests for development orders and permits. Those lLevel-of-service standards are measurements based on peak-hour trips and based on volume ranges or average travel speed for the peak hour range from A to F and are associated with peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips.

Comprehensive Plan


47


Indian River County

Demand

Demand is an important component of the concurrency management system. Essentially, demand is a measure of facility use. When compared to facility capacity, demand can indicate the level-of-service for the facility. As depicted in Table 6.18, demand can be measured quantitatively for each public facility category. While the demand function for each facility consists of applying a rate to the number of facility users, estimation of total demand is more complex. For concurrency management purposes, demand can be divided into three types: existing, committed, and projected. Each must be considered separately for purposes of concurrency management. Existing Demand Existing demand is simply the current level of use for a facility. For a roadway, it is the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips; for a school, it is the number of full-time enrolled students; for water and wastewater treatment plants, it is the existing flow volume measured in gallons per day. These figures are included within applicable plan elements. Existing demand then reflects the use of a facility by the current population. When compared to capacity, existing demand can show if the facility has unused capacity or if it is functioning over capacity. Existing demand, however, is not static. As population increases and dwelling units come on-line, existing demand increases. These increases in existing demand can be identified through facility use measurements. For example, regular traffic counts done on roads or treatment plant flow records are examples of facility use measurements indicating existing demand levels. As existing demand levels for facilities are updated, committed demand levels must be reduced if projects representing committed demand have come on-line.

Committed Demand Committed demand is a measure of the impact that approved development projects with reserved capacity will have on facilities. When added to existing demand for a facility, the committed demand for that facility will produce a more accurate estimate of unused capacity. This estimate of unused capacity represents the amount of capacity that can realistically be allocated to new projects. Committed demand must be determined by identifying all projects for which capacity has been reserved through issuance of initial concurrency certificates which are still valid. Then the specific facilities that will be impacted by these projects with reserved capacities must be determined; these facilities will be roadways and the landfill, and they may be treatment plants, drainage conveyances,

Comprehensive Plan


48


Indian River County

and recreation facilities. Finally, the total demand on each facility attributable to committed demand will be determined. Applicable elements of the plan identify the rates to be applied to each project to determine facility demand. Traffic volumes, for example, can be derived by applying a trip rate to the size of the project. Sanitary sewer and potable water both have rates of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. Other public facility rates are discussed fully in their applicable Comprehensive Plan Element. Like existing demand, committed demand must be determined on a facility by facility basis. For example, both existing demand and committed demand must be determined for each major roadway, each school, each treatment plant, each major drainage conveyance, and the active cell in the landfill. Also, like existing demand, committed demand estimates must be modified as projects are completed; committed demand estimates must also be modified as new development orders are approved and old development orders are terminated.

Projected Demand The third type of demand is projected demand. This consists of two types. One is non-committed/non-reserved, single-family lot demand for all subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990, while the other is new project demand. Non-committed/non-reserved single-family lot projected demand relates to the facility impacts associated with construction on single-family lots in subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990 and construction on single-family unplatted lots and acreage. Since this type of construction will impact facilities, the demand anticipated from this type of activity must be considered in facility expansion plans. For this reason, it is necessary to maintain an accurate inventory of unbuilt, platted lots and consider the impacts of construction on these lots. The second type of projected demand is new project demand. For each new project, demand estimates must be made on a facility by facility basis. Only if sufficient available capacity exists for each facility to be impacted can the project be approved and a development order issued. Upon issuance of a development order, the estimated impacts on each facility would be considered as committed demand. Availability of Capacity Facility capacity can be assessed two different ways. First, facility capacity can be determined by facilities that are existing and available; examples would be existing treatment plants and existing roadways with a set number of lanes. The second manner for assessing facility capacity is to consider

Comprehensive Plan


49


Indian River County

both existing, in-the-ground facilities as well as facility expansions or new facilities which are programmed but not yet existing. According to Chapter 9J-5.0055(3), Minimum Requirements For Concurrency, Florida Administrative Code, the capacity of existing, in-the-ground facilities will be considered in all cases. Programmed facilities will be considered in assessing capacity for each public facility category when the following conditions are met:

For sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste and drainage facilities:


2. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and

services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place and available to serve new development at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(a), F.S.]


1. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and

services are in place or under actual construction; or 2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the

issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired by the local government, or funds in the amount of the developer’s fair share are committed; and

a. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the

necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or

b. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities

and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the

necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate

Comprehensive Plan


50


Indian River County

of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or c. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities

and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant

to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(b), F.S.]

Transportation supply (capacity). Transportation supply shall be determined on a segment by

segment basis. For concurrency purposes, all segments on the county's thoroughfare plan shall be considered. Capacity for segments will be based either on FDOT's generalized capacity tables or individual segment capacity studies approved by the public works director pursuant to the criteria specified in Chapter 952, Traffic. Transportation supply for each segment is:

1. The segment's existing peak hour, peak season, peak direction capacity; or

2. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is proposed and

if:


b. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the

facility expansion needed to serve the new development is included in the county’s adopted five-year schedule of capital improvements and is scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of the project’s first building permit or its functional equivalent. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. In order to apply this provision to a facility expansion project, the Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies:

i. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the

estimated date of project completion (for Indian River County, this is included in policy 5.11 of this element and within Appendix B of this element).

ii. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer, or

delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which

Comprehensive Plan


51


Indian River County

is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements (for Indian River County, this is included in Policy 1.2 of this Element); or

3. The segment’s new roadway capacity if, Aat the time a development order or permit is

issued, the facility is the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the facility to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of the project’s first building permit or its functional equivalent; or

4. The segment’s new roadway capacity if, Aat the time a development order or permit is

issued, the facility is guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a building permit or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(c), F.S.]

5. The segment’s new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is the

subject of a proportionate fair-share agreement. In such case, the segment capacity increase reflected in the proportionate fair share agreement shall be available only to the party or parties to the proportionate fair share agreement.



Regulation No development order shall be issued for any project where the project's demand in conjunction with existing demand and committed demand will exceed the capacity of a facility at the service level established in this plan. Level-of-service analysis will be undertaken during the review of each project for which development order approval is required. Monitoring System To effectively implement the concurrency requirement, it is necessary to maintain an estimate of available capacity for each public facility subject to level-of-service requirements. By maintaining an accurate and current available capacity estimate for each facility, projected demand from development applications can be compared to the available capacity for the facility to determine if the

Comprehensive Plan


52


Indian River County

project can be approved. The purpose of the monitoring program is to maintain a current estimate of available capacity for each facility. With the exception of public schools, the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan is maintained by the county’s planning division. Effective July 1, 2008, the School District initiated and now maintains the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan for public schools. Using a network computer system and data base management software, records were developed and are maintained for each specific facility. Based upon information in the specific comprehensive plan elements, total capacity figures for each applicable facility are maintained in data base files established for each public facility category. Capacity figures are modified as facilities are expanded or as criteria specified in the availability of capacity section are met, thereby allowing a programmed expansion to be considered for capacity determination purposes. Through contact with other county departments, planning staff are able to modify capacity estimates as soon as facility characteristics are changed. Table 6.19 depicts the general structure of the monitoring system data base file for each public facility category. This table shows that available capacity for each specific facility is a function of total capacity less existing demand and less committed demand. The demand section of this concurrency management plan identifies the methodology for assessing demand.

Table 6.19: Monitoring System Design

Public Facility

Category

Specific Facilities

Total Capacity

Existing Demand

Committed Demand

Available Capacity

Traffic

Roadways

Peak season/ peak direction/ peak hour (LOS D)

Annual count (average) (peak season/peak direction/peak hour)

Volume estimated from approved Development Orders (DO)

(Total Capacity) - (Existing Demand) - (Committed Demand)

Sanitary Sewer

Treatment Plants Design flows Existing flows Volume estimated from

approved DO’s


Potable Water

Treatment Plants

Design flows

Existing flows

Volume estimated from approved DO’s


Solid Waste

Landfill

Active cell design capacity

Active cell volume used

Volume estimated from approved DO’s


Recreation Parks Park Acreage (Acres per thousand population) X (existing population)

(Acres per thousand population) X (projected population for approved DO’s)


Drainage

Drainage conveyances

Volume

Existing flows

Volume of stormwater allowed to outfall for approved DO’s


Comprehensive Plan


53


Indian River County

Table 6.19: Monitoring System Design

Public Facility

Category

Specific Facilities

Total Capacity

Existing Demand

Committed Demand

Available Capacity

Education

Public Schools(K-12)

Permanent Student Stations (FISH)

Annual Enrollment Count (FTE)

Students estimated from approved residential Development Orders)



Table 6.20: Monitoring System Tasks

Action

Responsible Department

Timing Do quarterly traffic counts for thoroughfare plan roads to determine existing demand

Engineering

Annually


MPO

Annually

Identify existing flows for each water and sewer treatment plant

Utilities

Annually


Utilities

Annually


Planning

Annually


Engineering

Annually


Planning

Ongoing


School District

Annually


Planning

Ongoing


Planning

Ongoing

Applicability The concurrency management plan monitoring system has applicability to more than just level-of-service measurement. It also provides the basis for assessing facility expansion needs and therefore capital improvements programming. By maintaining an accurate and up-to-date estimate of available capacity, the need for facility expansion can be recognized before all capacity is used. By incorporating the monitoring system into the capital improvements programming process, capital budgets can be prepared based on reliable information and valid estimates of need.

Comprehensive Plan


54


Indian River County


Goal

It is the goal of Indian River County to provide needed capital improvements through the use of sound fiscal decision making.

Objectives and Policies Objective 1: Construction of Capital Facilities By 20145, the county will have completed those capital improvements schedule projects that replace obsolete or worn-out facilities, eliminate existing deficiencies or accommodate desired future growth. Policy 1.1: The county shall maintain a five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b) F.S. evaluate and update that program every year to reflect existing and future public facility needs of the county. This capital improvement program will ensure that the plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained. Policy 1.2: The county and the School District shall undertake only those capital improvements included within this element’s adopted capital improvements program. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b) F.S., the Capital Improvements Element will be reviewed every year. Consistent with Section 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code, if any facility identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements is delayed or deferred in construction, or is eliminated from the capital improvements program, and this delay, defer, or elimination will cause the level-of-service to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level of service standard for the facility, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required to adjust the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The annual update of the capital improvement element shall be done with a single public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the ordinance amending the Capital Improvements Element shall be transmitted to DCA. Policy 1.3: The county shall evaluate and prioritize its capital improvement projects based on following criteria. These criteria are ranked in order of importance.

Preservation of the health and safety of the public by eliminating public hazards; Compliance with all mandates and prior commitments; Elimination of existing deficiencies; Maintenance of adopted level-of-service standards; Provision of infrastructure concurrent with the impact of new development; Protection of prior infrastructure investments; Consistency with the county plan and plans of other agencies; Accommodation of new development and redevelopment facility demands;

Comprehensive Plan


55


Indian River County

Consistency with plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction;

Promotion of compact development by discouraging growth outside of urban service areas;

Demonstration of linkages between projected growth and facility location; Utilization of the economies of scale and timing of other improvements; Reduction of operating costs; Adjustment for unseen opportunities, situations, and disasters.

Policy 1.4: The county shall implement the policies of the Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Solid Waste sub-elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Since these are enterprise account funded elements, capital expenditures identified in these elements shall be funded principally from revenues derived from the applicable systems. Policy 1.5: The county shall prioritize and implement the programs identified in the Transportation, Recreation and Open Space, Stormwater Management, Conservation, and Future Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.6: The county shall not eliminate or reallocate budgeted appropriations for road improvement projects required to meet the adopted level-of-service standards unless the applicable projects will be constructed by other means and remain concurrent with the county’s Schedule of Capital Improvements. Policy 1.7: The county shall continue to allocate funds for the replacement and the renewal of infrastructure in an amount which will minimize the operating costs of the infrastructure and maximize the life of the infrastructure. Policy 1.8: The county shall manage its long-term general obligation debt in such a manner that the ratio of the debt service millage to the countywide operating millage does not exceed 20%. Policy 1.9: The county hereby defines a capital improvement as an improvement with a cost that exceeds $25,000100,000. Policy 1.10: The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall contain a mix of capital expenditures, including projects to eliminate existing deficiencies, to upgrade and replace existing facilities, and to construct new facilities. Policy 1.11: The county shall maintain a procedure in its annual budget review requiring each county department to include in its annual budget request applicable expenditures as identified in the capital improvements program of the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Element as well as department’s capital improvements.

Comprehensive Plan


56


Indian River County

Policy 1.12: The county shall hereby adopts the 2010 – 2011 through 2014 - 2015 Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan “School District of Indian River County Five-Year Capital Improvement Schedule” from the School District’s adopted Five Year Capital Plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(a)(5) F.S. The Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work PlanCapital Improvement Schedule withll be evaluated and updated annually to reflect existing and future public school facility needs of the county. This will ensure that the Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work PlanSchool District’s Five-Year Capital Plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools is achieved and maintained. Objective 2: Development in Coastal High Hazard Areas Through 2030, development in coastal high hazard areas will not increase beyond the density or intensity levels indicated on the current Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.1: The coastal high hazard area is defined as the area of the county designated as evacuation zones for a category one hurricane. Policy 2.2: The county shall not increase land use density and intensity, in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that reflected in the county’s current Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.3: The county shall make appropriations for infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas only to maintain the adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 2.4: The county shall ensure that the replacement of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area will be limited to maintaining the adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 2.5: The county shall require that all developments and all single-family units in coastal high hazard areas fully pay the cost for required infrastructure improvements through impact fees, capacity charges, developer dedications, assessments, and contributions. Policy 2.6: The county shall not use public funds to subsidize increased density or intensity of urban development in coastal high hazard areas; however, public beach, shoreline access, resource restoration, or similar projects may be constructed. Objective 3: Maintenance of Established Level-of-Service Standards Through 2030, adopted levels-of-service will be maintained for all concurrency facilities. Policy 3.1: The county hereby adopts the concurrency management system as described within this element. The county shall maintain Land Development Regulation (LDR) Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System, which implements the plan’s concurrency management system. In

Comprehensive Plan


57


Indian River County

accordance with the concurrency management system of this plan and LDR Ch. 910, the county will not approve any development project where the impacts of such a project would lower the existing level-of-service on any facility below that facility’s adopted minimum level-of-service standard. Policy 3.2: The county shall approve development only in accordance with the utility connection matrix identified in the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-Elements. Policy 3.3: The county shall, concurrent with the impact of new development, provide the infrastructure necessary to maintain the levels-of-service identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Where development is proposed and is consistent with all applicable regulations but one or more public facilities is/are operating at an inadequate service level, the applicant may at his expense make facility improvements to increase facility capacity when such improvements are consistent with county plans and receive county approval. Policy 3.4: The county shall make land use decisions based on the planned availability of facilities to maintain adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 3.5: The county hereby adopts Concurrency Management level-of-service standards for public facilities that are established in the other Comprehensive Plan Elements and which are stated below:

Stormwater Management:


New development requiring major site plan approval or subdivision platting shall construct a complete drainage system to mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design rainfall event using the soil conservation service type 2 modified rainfall curves.


By 20105, all existing roadways in the county shall be improved to meet the following level-of-service standards:

Minimum road crown elevation for existing roads shall be raised during resurfacing/rebuilding to the flood elevation resulting from the 2 year/24 hour storm event on local streets.

The center two lanes of rebuilt roads must be at or above flood levels resulting from a

10 year 24 hour storm event on Arterial and Collector roads.

Comprehensive Plan


58


Indian River County

All drainage basins will meet the following level of service standards: By 2007 5-Year/24 Hour Storm Event By 2010 10-Year/24 Hour Storm Event

The county hereby adopts the following water quality level-of-service standard:

As a minimum, retention of the first one inch of rainfall is required prior to offsite discharge. An additional 50% treatment is required for all direct discharge into the Sebastian River and into the Indian River Lagoon due to its designation as an outstanding Florida water, as required by state law.

Potable Water


Countywide level-of-service standard of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit.

Solid Waste The following level-of-service standard is adopted for solid waste facilities in the county, and shall be used as the basis for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development:

Countywide level-of-service standard of 2.2 tons or 3.67 cubic yards per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population per year.

Sanitary Sewer


Countywide level-of-service standard of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit with a peak monthly flow factor of 1.25.


The county adopts the following recreation level-of-service standard:

County wide level-of-service standard of 6.61 recreation acres/1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population.

Transportation

Comprehensive Plan


59


Indian River County

The county adopts traffic circulation level-of-service standards as follows:

Level-of-Service “D” during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions, on all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways, with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service “E” plus 20%.

• 27th Ave – South County Line to SR 60 • 43rd Ave – Oslo Road to 16th Street

For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service “B” is adopted for rural areas, and level of service “C” is adopted for urban areas. Policy 3.6: The county hereby adopts level-of-service standards for selected public facilities as follows:

Correctional Facilities The county adopts the following correctional facilities level-of-service standard:

County wide level-of-service standard of 4.5 beds/1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Fire/EMS

The county adopts the following Fire/EMS level-of-service standard:

County wide (excluding Indian River Shores) level-of-service standard of .089 Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Law Enforcement

The county adopts the following Law Enforcement level-of-service standard:

Unincorporated County level-of-service standard of 2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Libraries

The county adopts the following Libraries level-of-service standards:

County wide level-of-service standard of 580 building square feet per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

County wide level-of-service standard of 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Comprehensive Plan


60


Indian River County

County wide level-of-service standard of 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

County wide level-of-service standard of 0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Public Buildings

The county adopts the following Public Buildings level-of-service standard:

County wide level-of-service standard of 1.99 building square feet per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population.

Schools

The county adopts the following Schools level-of-service standard: Schools (School Service Areas):

100 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school type (elementary, middle, and high).

Transit

The County adopts the following transit level-of-service standard:

One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes. Objective 4: Future Development's Share of Capital Costs Through 2030, new developments will bear a proportionate share of the cost required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 4.1: The county shall use impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, developer dedications and contributions, to pay for infrastructure improvements and services needed to satisfy future needs while maintaining adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 4.2: The county shall conduct research to identify new sources of revenue for funding capital improvement projects. Objective 5: Local Government’s Ability to Provide Required Services and Facilities

Comprehensive Plan


61


Indian River County

Through 2030, the county will ensure that it is able to fund and provide required services and facilities. Policy 5.1: The county shall not approve land use amendment requests unless those requests are consistent with the concurrency management system requirements of this element. Policy 5.2: In the event that the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for development orders, the county shall schedule capital improvements to serve developments in the following order of priority:

Single-family units in existing platted subdivisions or on existing legal, buildable parcels Affordable housing projects New development orders permitting redevelopment New development orders permitting new developments where the applicant funds the

infrastructure expansion in exchange for future reimbursement New development orders permitting new developments without developer participation

Policy 5.3: The county shall extend facilities and services to serve areas only within the existing Urban Service Area or as allowed by Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 5.4: The county shall coordinate with other local, state, and federal agencies as well as private entities to create an efficient capital improvements schedule that provides the following general benefits while minimizing the financial burden of providing facilities and services:

Reduction of overall capital and operating expenditures by the development of multi-use facilities;

More efficient land use patterns and phasing; Reduction of overlapping, duplicating, and administrative procedures; Implementation of adopted physical, social, and economic goals and policies in a least-cost

manner; Better coordination of public capital investment with private capital expenditures.

Policy 5.5: The county shall continue utilizing enterprise funds for the provision of Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, and Solid Waste facilities. The debt for enterprise funds is to be paid by user fees, capacity charges, and other appropriate sources. Policy 5.6: The county shall finance the capital cost of non-enterprise fund supported public facilities (e.g., roads, stormwater management, and parks) from current revenue, bond issues, impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, and other appropriate sources. Policy 5.7: The county shall use general obligation bonds and other sources to raise the funding required to provide those public facilities that cannot be constructed with user fees, revenue bonds, impact fees, capacity charges, or other dedicated revenue sources.

Comprehensive Plan


62


Indian River County

Policy 5.8: Developments, which require public facility infrastructure improvements that will be financed by county debt, shall have their development orders conditioned on the issuance of the county debt or the substitution of a comparable amount of non-debt revenue. Policy 5.9: Pursuant to state law, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance and not deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan when the amendment relates to corrections, updates, or modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or the date of construction of any facility except transportation facilities enumerated in the Schedule of Capital Improvements. For transportation facilities, a delay in construction of a facility which causes the level-of-service of that facility to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level-of-service standard for the roadway will require a comprehensive plan amendment. Policy 5.10: The county shall ensure that all capital improvements identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan are completed according to schedule. The only acceptable delays will be those which are subject to one of the following:

Projects providing capacity equal to, or greater than, the delayed project are accelerated within or added to the Schedule of Capital Improvements;

Modification of development orders issued conditionally or subject to the concurrent availability of public facility capacity provided by the delayed project. Such modification shall restrict the allowable amount and schedule of development to that which can be served by the capacity of public facilities according to the revised schedule; or

Amendment of the plan to reduce the adopted standard for the level-of-service for public facilities until the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled to be completed.

Policy 5.11: The county hereby adopts Appendix B as the County’s Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Schedule. This schedule provides the project description, estimated date of commencement of actual construction, estimated date of completion, and estimated cost for projects that will increase roadway capacity on priority facilities. Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring Implementation

An important part of any plan is its implementation. Implementation involves execution of the plan's policies. It involves taking actions and achieving results.

Comprehensive Plan


63


Indian River County

For the Capital Improvements Element, implementation involves various activities. While some of these actions will be ongoing, others are activities that will be taken by certain points in time. For each policy in this element, table 6.21 identifies the type of action required, the responsible entity for taking the action, the timing, and whether or not the policy necessitates a capital expenditure. To implement the Capital Improvements Element, several different types of actions must be taken. These include: development of mechanisms for funding new facilities, adoption of land development regulations and ordinances, execution of interlocal agreements, coordination, and preparation of studies and evaluation and monitoring reports. Overall, the Capital Improvements Element implementation responsibility will rest with the Office of Management and Budget. Besides its responsibilities as identified in table 6.20, the planning department has the additional responsibility of ensuring that other entities discharge their responsibilities. This will entail notifying other applicable departments of capital expenditures to be included in their budgets, notifying other departments and groups of actions that must be taken, and assisting other departments and agencies in their plan implementation responsibilities. As part of the Capital Improvements Element, the county has developed a Concurrency Management Plan, which ensures the maintenance of the adopted level-of-service standards. Through the Concurrency Management Plan, the county will measure facility capacity, assess development demand, and maintain a Capital Improvements Program which ensures that the level-of-service standards are maintained.

Comprehensive Plan


64


Indian River County

Table 6.21: Capital Improvement Element Implementation Matrix Policy

Type of Action

Responsibility

Timing

Capital Expenditure

1.1

Maintain the CIP

OMB/PD

2010-2014

No

1.2

Follow the CIP

PD 2010-2014

No

1.3

Prioritize capital improvement projects

OMB/PD/SD

Ongoing

No

1.4

Implement recommendations

Appropriate County

Departments/SD

2010-2014

Yes

1.5

Prioritize and implement programs

Appropriate County

Departments/SD

2010-2014

Yes

1.6

Maintain previous commitments

BCC/PWD/SD

Ongoing

No

1.7

Replacement and renewal of infrastructure

Appropriate County

Departments/SD

Ongoing

No

1.8

Budget Management

OMB/SD

Ongoing

No

1.9

Define capital improvement

PD/OMB

Ongoing

No

1.10

Capital Budget Management

OMB/SD

Ongoing

No

1.11

Capital Improvements Management

OMB/SD

Ongoing

No

2.1

Define costal high hazard area

DCA

Ongoing

No

2.2

Maintain density and intensity levels of current FLU Map

PD

Ongoing

No

2.3

Budget management

Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

Yes

2.4

Maintain LOS standards

Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

Yes

2.5

Funding mechanisms

BCC/Private Developers

Ongoing

No

2.6

Infrastructure replacement strategy

Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

No

3.1

Maintain concurrency management system

PD

Ongoing

No

3.2

Follow connection matrix of Comprehensive Plan Sub-Elements

Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

No

3.3

Maintain adopted LOS standards

PD

Ongoing

No

3.4

Land use decisions

BCC

Ongoing

No

3.5

Adopt LOS standards

BCC/SD/Appropriate County Departments Ongoing No

4.1

Impose regulations

Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

Yes

Comprehensive Plan


65


Indian River County

Table 6.21: Capital Improvement Element Implementation Matrix Policy

Type of Action

Responsibility

Timing

Capital Expenditure

4.2

Conduct research

OMB/PD

Ongoing

No

4.3

Work with municipalities

BCC/SD/Other Local Governments in IRC

Ongoing

No

5.1

Approve land use changes only if infrastructure can support land use change

BCC

Ongoing

No

5.2

Prioritize capital improvements

BCC/SD/Appropriate County Departments

Ongoing

No

5.3

Extension of facilities and services

BCC/Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

No

5.4

Create an efficient capital improvements schedule

Appropriate County Departments/Other

Government Agencies

Ongoing

No

5.5

Utilize enterprise funds

OMB

Ongoing

No

5.6

Finance non-enterprise fund supported projects

OMB

Ongoing

No

5.7

Fund the construction of public facilities

OMB/SD

Ongoing

Yes

5.8

Permitting Requirements

BCC/Appropriate County

Departments

Ongoing

No

5.9

Amending the Schedule of Capital Improvements

BCC/OMB/PD/SD

Ongoing

No

5.10

Complete the Schedule of Capital Improvements BCC/SD/Appropriate

C D2014

No

5.11

Adopt a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Schedule

BCC/PWD/MPO

Ongoing

No

BCC = Board of County Commissioners DCA = Department of Community Affairs FDOT = Florida Department of Transportation MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization OMB = Office of Management and Budget PD = Planning Department PWD = Public Works Department SD = School District

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation; it must also provide a mechanism for assessing the plan's effectiveness. Generally, a plan's effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which the plan's objectives have been met. Since objectives are structured, as much as possible, to be measurable and to have specific timeframes, the plan's objectives are the benchmarks used as a basis to evaluate the plan. Table 6.22 identifies each of the objectives of the Capital Improvements Element. It also identifies the measures to be used to evaluate progress in achieving these objectives. Most of these measures

Comprehensive Plan


66


Indian River County

are quantitative, such as adopting land development requirements, which ensure the maintenance of the level-of-service standards, adopting a capacity monitoring system and others. Besides the measures, table 6.22 also identifies timeframes associated with meeting the objectives. The Planning Department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Capital Improvement Element. This will involve collection of data and compilation of information regarding facility capacity, expansion, and new development permitted. This will be done on a regular basis. As part of the county's Concurrency Management System, the Planning Department will continually monitor the facility capacity to ensure that level-of-service standards will be maintained.

Table 6.22: Capital Improvements Element Evaluation Matrix Objective

Measure

Timeframe

1

Existing deficiencies in county services and/or obsolete or worn-out facilities

20145

2

Land use density and intensity in Coastal High Hazard Area

2030

3

Level-of-service provided for county services

2030

4

Existence of appropriate Land Development Regulations

2030

5

Completion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements 2030

While monitoring will occur on a continual basis, formal evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will occur annually. The formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire Comprehensive Plan will occur every ten years (dependent upon the schedule adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Capital Improvements Element objectives should be modified or expanded based on revisions to state statutes and changing conditions not identified and addressed as part of the annual CIE update. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element not otherwise addressed in the yearly update of the Capital Improvements Element. As discussed in the above paragraphs, the evaluation and monitoring procedures identified for the Capital Improvements Element are basically the same for the entire Comprehensive Plan. These procedures are currently being used to prepare the formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used by the county in subsequent Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. Included in those procedures are the format requirements listed in 9J-5.005-(1)(a)(e), F.A.C. The monitoring and evaluation of this plan is critical to ensure that the policies are effective in achieving the plan's goals and objectives. Each individual element of the plan contains provisions and measures to be used in the review of the element. Each element contains an Implementation and

Comprehensive Plan




Evaluation Matrix and monitoring procedures, which are currently being used to prepare the current Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used to prepare future Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. In addition, a great portion of the plan monitoring will be in conjunction with the concurrency management system which is designed to ensure that approved level-of-service standards are maintained and that sufficient capacity exists in the various services and facilities. Other evaluation of the plan or plan elements is likely to occur in the day to day application of the mandated regulations, which will result in plan amendments. The formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report required by law is currently providing and in subsequent versions will provide a complete review of the plan and be conducted in compliance with the public participation procedures adopted for the development of this plan. As part of the monitoring system, all appropriate baseline data is currently being updated and will be updated. Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process is and will also be used to determine whether the objectives should be modified or expanded. In this way the monitoring and evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan Elements not only provides a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it also provides a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element.

Comprehensive Plan





Indian River County Five Year Schedule of Improvements

Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Env. Land Bonds $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 Park Impact Fees $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 Grant $ 1,025,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 1,125,000 Total Revenue $ 1,350,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 1,525,000 Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source Archie Smith Fish House $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,000 Env. Land Bonds South Prong Preserve $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds NAWCA Grant - Pressley Conserv. Easement $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds NAWCA Grant - Pressley Conserv. Easement $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Grant NSCA Addition Fencing $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Env. Land Bonds CFHP Cypress Cottage Restoration $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds Ansin Tract Boardwalk/Pier $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 Env. Land Bonds Cypress Bend Community Preserve $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds ORCA South Link Pavilion $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds ORCA Diamond Tract Boardwalk/Pier $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Env. Land Bonds Flinn Tract - Access $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 Park Impact Fees Flinn Tract - Access $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 125,000 Grant

Total Expenditures $ 1,350,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 1,525,000 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $1,350,000 $75,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $1,525,000 Total Expenditures $1,350,000 $75,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $1,525,000 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Services Revenue Sources FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total

Comprehensive Plan




Emergency Services Dist. $ 1,226,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 800,000 $ - $ 4,837,882 Optional Sales Tax $ 2,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,200,000 Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 Total Revenue $ 3,426,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 9,237,882 Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source Emergency Svcs. Station 9 - Replace $ 88,332 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 88,332 Emergency Services Dist. Emergency Svcs. Station 13 - Addition $ 1,137,845 $ 1,486,705 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,624,550 Emergency Services Dist. 800 MHz Radio Expansion $ 2,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,200,000 Optional Sales Tax Emergency Svcs. Station 14 - Addition $ - $ - $ - $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 Impact Fees Two Med Units and One Fire Engine $ - $ 875,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 875,000 Emergency Services Dist. Two Med Units $ - $ - $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 450,000 Emergency Services Dist. One Quiint (Fire Apparatus) $ - $ - $ - $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Emergency Services Dist. Total Expenditures $ 3,426,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 9,237,882 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 3,426,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $9,237,882 Total Expenditures $ 3,426,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 9,237,882 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Services Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Optional Sales Tax $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 3,910,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 4,279,508 Court Facility Surcharge $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 Total Revenue $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 4,160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 4,529,508 Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source Expansion of Fiber Optic Network $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 429,508 Optional Sales Tax New Courtroom Facilities $ - $ - $ 1,850,000 $ - $ - $ 1,850,000 Optional Sales Tax New Courtroom Facilities $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 Court Facility Surcharge Displaced Courtroom $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 Optional Sales Tax Total Expenditures $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 4,160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 4,529,508 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total

Comprehensive Plan




Total Revenue $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 4,160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 4,529,508 Total Expenditures $ 189,508 $ 60,000 $ 4,160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 4,529,508 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Law Enforcement Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Impact Fees $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $1,200,000 Optional Sales Tax $ 558,960 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $1,258,960 Total Revenue $ 558,960 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ - $2,458,960 Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source

Evidence Addition $ 558,960 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,258,960 Optional Sales Tax

Evidence Addition $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 Impact Fees

Total Expenditures $ 558,960 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,458,960 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total

Total Revenue $ 558,960 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,458,960

Total Expenditures $ 558,960 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,458,960

Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Parks and Recreation Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total FBIP $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Grant $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 Optional Sales Tax $ 1,883,545 $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ - $ 3,283,545 Impact Fees $ 1,985,755 $ 2,050,000 $ 2,005,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 11,365,755 Total Revenue $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 14,929,300

Comprehensive Plan




Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source Oslo Boat Ramp and Parking $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 FBIP Oslo Boat Ramp and Parking $ 298,643 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 298,643 Impact Fees S. County Regional Park improvements $ 81,819 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 81,819 Impact Fees South County Recreation Multi Purpose Facility $ 1,843,545 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,843,545 Optional Sales Tax South County Recreation Multi Purpose Facility $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 Impact Fees Fairgrounds Building Enclosure $ - $ - $ 630,000 $ - $ - $ 630,000 Impact Fees State Road 510 Fishing Pier $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 Optional Sales Tax Land for Future Parks $ 1,575,000 $ 1,575,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,175,000 $ - $ 5,500,000 Impact Fees West County Regional Park $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Impact Fees North County Regional Park Restroom $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 Impact Fees Gifford Park Restroom/Concession Bldg $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 200,000 Impact Fees 16th Street Ballfields Restroom $ - $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 125,000 Impact Fees Round Island Riverside Rpl Boardwalk $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 Grant North County Regional Park Lazy River $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Impact Fees Kiwanis Hobart Park Restroom $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 Impact Fees Fairgrounds Campground $ 30,293 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 230,293 Impact Fees Fairgrounds Campground $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 Optional Sales Tax Total Expenditures $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 14,929,300 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $14,929,300 Total Expenditures $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $14,929,300 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Cash Forward $ 8,528,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,528,533 Impact Fees $ 1,200,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 10,900,000 User Fees $ - $ - $ 285,000 $ - $ 285,000 $ 570,000 Grant Funding $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Total Revenue $ 9,928,533 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 3,785,000 $ 20,198,533

Comprehensive Plan




Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source

Misc Water Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Impact Fees Misc Sewer Improvements $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 Impact Fees 77th West of Kings (Tuscanny Lakes) $ 112,237 $ 112,237 $ - $ - $ - $ 224,474 Impact Fees 12WM 17th St. SW from 27th Av to 43rd Av $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 610,000 $ 610,000 Impact Fees

Design FM and WM on 4th St from 82nd to 98th Ave and on 98th from 4th to 8th $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Impact Fees Convert North County Brine Line to Reuse Main $ 85,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000 Impact Fees

12" WM on 27th Ave from 13th st SW to 17th St SW (Madera Isles & Echo Lake $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 341,000 $ 341,000 Impact Fees South County Brine Disposal $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 Impact Fees Hydromentia Pilot $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Grant Funding

58th Av 65th St to 69th St & along 61st and 69th St $ 50,000 $ 500,000 $ 450,000 $ 232,000 $ - $ 1,232,000 Impact Fees

Svce Transmission Lines Oslo Pk, Villages of VB Gardens $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 Impact Fees

Install Wells and Piping at North County RO Plant $ 1,948,293 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,948,293 Impact Fees Install Well No.7 st S. Co. RO Plant $ - $ - $ 640,050 $ 574,358 $ - $ 1,214,408 Impact Fees 12" W.M. along 66th Av. from 16th to 20th St. $ 229,418 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 229,418 Impact Fees

16" WM from Kings Tank to College Ln. and Loop to Club of Vero $ 115,450 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,450 Impact Fees Install 6" FM along 16th St west of 43rd Ave $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 Impact Fees

Install 24" WM along 77th St from 66th Ave to 70th Ave then North to CR 510 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Impact Fees N. Reg. Reuse Sto. & Repump Facility with Transmission Mains to Barrier Island $ 1,512,490 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,512,490 Impact Fees

Brine line on 77th to CR510,Bridge conversion & 16" line to A1A $ 984,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 984,000 Impact Fees

Construct 12" WM along 53rd St. E/O RR, Lat H Canal $ 745,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 745,000 Impact Fees Construct 20"WM on 66th Av 45th to 77th St $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,052,000 $ 2,052,000 Impact Fees

Construct 20" WM on 66th Av from 20th St. to 45th St. $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 500,000 Impact Fees Verona Trace Developer's Agreement $ 40,100 $ 40,100 $ - $ - $ - $ 80,200 Impact Fees

Comprehensive Plan




Madera Isle/Echo Lake Dev Agreement $ - $ - $ 97,400 $ 97,400 $ - $ 194,800 Impact Fees Upgrade Dataflow System w/Auto Valves $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Impact Fees

Inst. FM Stub-out at 66th Av. & 16th St. Rangeline Canal $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 Impact Fees Vac Truck $ - $ - $ 285,000 $ - $ 285,000 $ 570,000 User Fees Total Expenditures $ 6,681,988 $ 1,077,337 $ 4,497,450 $ 5,028,758 $ 2,913,000 $ 20,198,533 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 9,928,533 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 3,785,000 $ 20,198,533 Total Expenditures $ 6,681,988 $ 1,077,337 $ 4,497,450 $ 5,028,758 $ 2,913,000 $ 20,198,533 Annual Balance $3,246,545 $522,663 -$2,212,450 -$2,428,758 $872,000 $0 Solid Waste Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Assessments & User Fees $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802

Total Revenue $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 Expenditures FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source

Citizen Convenience Center Improvement Projects

Winter Beach Citizens Convenience Center Phase I Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ 247,000 $ - $ 247,000 Assessments & User Fees

Roseland Citizens Convenience Center Expansion and Improvements $ - $ - $ 1,920,000 $ - $ - $ 1,920,000 Assessments & User Fees

Gifford Citizens Convenience Center Expansion and Improvements $ - $ 1,430,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,430,000 Assessments & User Fees

Oslo Citizens Convenience Center Expansion and Improvements $ 2,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,500,000 Assessments & User Fees

Transfer Tractor/Transfer Trailers and Roll-off Truck/Containers $ - $ 400,000 $ 280,000 $ 320,000 $ 667,802 $ 1,667,802 Assessments & User Fees

Design, Permitting & Construction of Class I Landfill - Co Disposal (former 33 Acres for C&D) $ 6,450,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,450,000 Assessments & User Fees Retrofit of MRF $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 125,000 Assessments & User Fees

Comprehensive Plan




Partial Closure of Cell I, C&D Landfill, Seg-1, Seg-2 and the Infill $ - $ - $ - $ 6,400,000 $ - $ 6,400,000 Assessments & User Fees

Total Expenditures $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 Total Expenditures $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stormwater Management Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Optional Sales Tax Funds $ - $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 900,000 $ 400,000 $ 2,300,000 Grant $ 969,000 $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 7,469,000 MSTU Assessments $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 IRC Utility Dept $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 Total Revenue $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000

0 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Revenue Source Egret Marsh Regional Stormwater Park $ 969,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 969,000 Grant

PC North - North Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber System) $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC North - North Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber System) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber System) $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 800,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber System) $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 IRC Utility Dept

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber System) $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

Comprehensive Plan




Rockridge Surge Protection Project $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 Grant Rockridge Surge Protection Project $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds Vero Lake Estates Phase II and III $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 MSTU Assessments Vero Lake Estates Phase II and III $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Grant Total Expenditures $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000 Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000 Total Expenditures $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000 Annual Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transportation Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Gas Tax $ 10,297,507 $ 2,232,000 $ 2,255,000 $ 6,237,971 $ 6,237,971 $ 27,260,449

Bond Proceeds-Gas Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,805,166 $ 44,805,166

Payback from FDOT-Gas Tax $ 7,865,009 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,865,009

Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000 Grant $ 8,095,502 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 2,339,000 $ 15,134,502 Traffic Impact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497 Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,311 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,311 Traffic Impact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532

Developer Contributions $ 106,952 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 106,952

Optional Sales Tax $ 18,618,648 $ 3,360,000 $ 3,444,000 $ 3,530,240 $ 3,618,440 $ 32,571,328 Payback from FDOT- Optional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ - $ 14,823,571

Old Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,140,009

Developer Funded Construction $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ 4,600,000

Total Revenue $ 78,143,562 $ 13,522,000 $ 15,735,196 $ 18,620,111 $ 60,336,457 $ 186,357,326 Expenses FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Gas Tax $ 8,089,641 $ 11,850,525 $ 13,812,706 $ 18,381,957 $ 27,996,194 $ 80,131,023 Grant $ 8,095,502 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 2,339,000 $ 15,134,502

Comprehensive Plan




Traffic Impact Fees- District I $ 783,954 $ 139,500 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,318,043 $ - $ 3,341,497 Traffic Impact Fees- District II $ 9,339,300 $ 5,858,637 $ 2,100,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 1,341,374 $ 23,089,311

Traffic Impact Fees- District III $ 6,241,756 $ 2,935,700 $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,280,000 $ 10,807,456

Old Impact Fees II $ 1,140,009 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,140,009


Optional Sales Tax $ 10,875,262 $ 4,594,020 $ 12,137,294 $ 4,200,000 $ 16,200,000 $ 48,006,576


Total Expenses $ 45,272,376 $ 29,378,382 $ 32,750,000 $ 29,800,000 $ 49,156,568 $ 186,357,326 Expenses FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Grand Total Revenue Source 12th Street/27th Avenue $ - $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 550,000 Impact Fees II

Design & Engineering $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 500,000

16th Street, 66th Avenue to 74th Avenue, two lanes (1 mile) $ 110,012 $ - $ - $ 110,012 Gas Tax

16th Street, 66th Avenue to 74th Avenue, two lanes (1 mile) $ 289,472 $ - $ - $ 289,472 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 399,484 $ 399,484

17th Street/A1A Intersection $ 1,140,009 $ - $ - $ 1,140,009 Old Impact Fees II 17th Street/A1A Intersection $ 101,500 $ 101,500 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Construction $ 941,509 $ 941,509

20th Avenue SW, 17th Street SW to 25th Street SW, two lanes (1 mile) $ 383,635 $ - $ - $ 383,635 Gas Tax

Comprehensive Plan




20th Avenue SW, 17th Street SW to 25th Street SW, two lanes (1 mile) $ - Impact Fees III


26th Street, 43rd Avenue to 66th Avenue, four/five lanes (2 mile) $ 375,687 $ 100,000 $ - $ 475,687 Impact Fees II

Design & Engineering $ 375,687 $ 100,000 $ 475,687 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ -

26th Street, 43rd Avenue to US #1, four/five lanes (2 miles) $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 Impact Fees II

26th Street, 43rd Avenue to US #1, four/five lanes (2 miles) $ 5,190,000 $ - $ - $ 5,190,000 Grant

26th Street, 43rd Avenue to US #1, four/five lanes (2 miles) $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Right-of-Way $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Construction $ 5,040,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 11,040,000

26th Street, 74th Avenue to 82nd Avenue, two lanes $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Developer Funded Construction

26th Street, 74th Avenue to 82nd Avenue, two lanes $ 849,919 $ - $ - $ 849,919 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ -

Construction $ 1,449,919 $ 1,449,919

27th Avenue-13th St SW-25th St SW $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Impact Fees III Design & Engineering $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Right-of-Way $ -

Comprehensive Plan




Construction $ -

27th Avenue-5th St SW-13th St SW $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Impact Fees III Design & Engineering $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ -

27th Avenue-5th St SW-12th $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Impact Fees III

Design & Engineering $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ -

43rd Ave. 3-lane and Bridge Replacements 5th Street and 43rd Avenue over S. Relief Canal $ 1,085,272 $ - $ - $ 1,085,272 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 1,085,272 $ 1,085,272

43rd Avenue, 49th Street to 53rd Street, three lanes (.5 miles) $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 Developer Funded Construction

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000

43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 18th Street, four lanes (1 mile) $ 20,000 $ 258,637 $ 500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,341,374 $ 4,120,011 Impact Fees II

43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 18th Street, four lanes (1 mile) $ 319,745 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 4,319,745 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ 20,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 320,000 Right-of-Way $ 528,382 $ 450,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,378,382 Construction $ 3,000,000 $ 3,741,374 $ 6,741,374

43rd Avenue,12th Street to Oslo Road, four lanes (2.5 miles) $ - $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax

43rd Avenue,12th Street to Oslo Road, four lanes (2.5 miles) $ 20,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,720,000 Impact Fees III

Comprehensive Plan




Design & Engineering $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Right-of-Way $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 700,000 Construction $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000

43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 18th Street to 26th Street - 4 lanes $ 3,967,100 $ 1,500,000 $ 5,467,100 Impact Fees II

43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 18th Street to 26th Street - 4 lanes $ - $ 5,994,663 $ 5,994,663 Gas Tax

43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 18th Street to 26th Street - 4 lanes $ 1,500,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 3,105,337 $ 6,705,337 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 467,100 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 667,100 Right-of-Way $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Construction $ 3,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 12,500,000

45th Street Beautification $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 200,000 Gas Tax


47th Street-East of US 1 $ 106,952 $ 106,952 Developer Contributions

Construction $ 106,952 $ 106,952

53rd Street – 58th Avenue to IR Blvd, add four lanes $ 2,476,513 $ - $ - $ 2,476,513 Impact Fees II

53rd Street – 58th Avenue to IR Blvd, add four lanes $ 3,200,000 $ - $ - $ 3,200,000 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 5,176,513 $ 5,176,513

58th Avenue / SR 60 Intersection $ 300,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 2,150,000 $ - $ 4,900,000 Impact Fees II 58th Avenue / SR 60 Intersection $ - $ - $ 2,100,000 $ 7,796,194 $ 9,896,194 Gas Tax 58th Avenue / SR 60 Intersection $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Optional Sales Tax 58th Avenue / SR 60 Intersection $ 300,000 $ - $ 1,200,000 $ 2,339,000 $ 3,839,000 Grant

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000 Right-of-Way $ 1,000,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 4,600,000

Comprehensive Plan




Construction $ 600,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 15,135,194 $ 18,735,194

58th Avenue 49th-65th St - 4 lanes-58th Ave26th to 53rd $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Developer Funded Construction

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000

66th Ave 4th-12th St $ 2,201,606 $ - $ - $ 2,201,606 Impact Fees III 66th Ave 4th-12th St $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Right-of-Way $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Construction $ 1,951,606 $ 1,951,606

66th Ave, 12th to SR60 $ 600,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 Impact Fees II 66th Ave, 12th to SR60 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 Gas Tax 66th Ave, 12th to SR60 $ - Grant 67th Ave, 12th to SR60 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 Right-of-Way $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Construction $ 1,900,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 3,700,000

66th Avenue - 77th Street to Barber St., four lanes (2.25 miles) & Side Streets $ 100,000 $ - $ 1,100,000 $ 1,200,000 Impact Fees I

66th Avenue - 77th Street to Barber St., four lanes (2.25 miles) & Side Streets $ 2,400,000 $ 100,000 $ 618,043 $ 3,118,043 Gas Tax

66th Avenue - 77th Street to Barber St., four lanes (2.25 miles) & Side Streets $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Grant

66th Avenue - 77th Street to Barber St., four lanes (2.25 miles) & Side Streets $ 7,831,957 $ 7,831,957 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 Right-of-Way $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Construction $ 1,900,000 $ 10,850,000 $ 12,750,000

Comprehensive Plan




66th Avenue, 41st Street to 77th Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Impact Fees II

Design & Engineering $ - Right-of-Way $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Construction $ -

66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges $ - $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax 66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 Grant 66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 Impact Fees II 66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 8,000,000 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000 Right-of-Way $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Construction $ 4,900,000 $ 4,900,000 $ 9,800,000

82nd Avenue Over Lateral “D” Canal and 4th Street/82nd Ave. Intersection Widening $ 1,509,843 $ 1,509,843 Optional Sales Tax

82nd Avenue Over Lateral “D” Canal and 4th Street/82nd Ave. Intersection Widening $ 380,000 $ 380,000 Gas Tax


CR 510 - 61st Drive to Indian River, four lanes $ 617,358 $ 130,780 $ 400,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 8,948,138 Gas Tax

CR 510 - 61st Drive to Indian River, four lanes (1.6 miles) $ 189,325 $ 139,500 $ - $ - $ 328,825 Impact Fees I $ 129,720 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,129,720 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Right-of-Way $ 706,683 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 500,000 $ 4,306,683 Construction $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000

Comprehensive Plan




CR 510, 75th Court to 61st Drive, four lanes (1.5 miles) $ 531,727 $ 700,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,700,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 10,031,727 Gas Tax $ 494,629 $ 494,629 Impact Fees I

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Right-of-Way $ 1,026,356 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 3,426,356 Construction $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 7,000,000

CR 510, CR 512 to 75th Court, four lanes (4.5 miles) $ - $ 1,318,043 $ 1,318,043 Impact Fees I

CR 510, CR 512 to 75th Court, four lanes (4.5 miles) $ 731,597 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 7,081,957 $ 8,000,000 $ 16,713,554 Gas Tax $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 8,000,000 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 365,799 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 565,799 Right-of-Way $ 365,799 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,965,799 Construction $ 9,500,000 $ 13,000,000 $ 22,500,000

Indian River Drive Sidewalk- North $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000 Grant Indian River Drive Sidwealk- North $ 219,959 $ 219,959 Gas Tax


12th Street Sidewalk-43rd to 27th Ave $ 172,351 $ 172,351 Grant $ - Optional Sales Tax


Misc. Intersection Improvements $ 300,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,700,000 Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 300,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,300,000

Misc. Right of Way Acquisition $ 243,934 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,243,934 Gas Tax Misc. Right of Way Acquisition $ 483,450 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,483,450 Optional Sales Tax

Comprehensive Plan




Right-of-Way $ 727,384 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 4,727,384

Old Dixie Hwy/SRC - included in 3 lane $ 2,050,000 $ - $ - $ 2,050,000 Impact Fees III Old Dixie Hwy/SRC - included in 3 lane $ - $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 1,950,000 $ 1,950,000

Oslo Road, 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, four lanes (1 mile) $ 1,470,150 $ - $ - $ 1,470,150 Impact Fees III

Oslo Road, 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, four lanes (1 mile) $ 1,100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 2,600,000 Gas Tax

Design & Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 2,470,150 $ 1,400,000 $ 3,870,150

Oslo Road, 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue, four lanes (1 mile) $ 500,000 $ 2,835,700 $ - $ 3,335,700 Impact Fees III

Oslo Road, 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue, four lanes (1 mile) $ 1,164,300 $ - $ 1,164,300 Optional Sales Tax


8th Street Sidewalk (US1 to 6th Avenue) $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax 8th Street Sidewalk (US1 to 6th Avenue) $ 105,300 $ - $ - $ 105,300 Grant


8th Street Sidewalk (18th Ct to Old Dixie Hwy) $ 129,720 $ - $ - $ 129,720 Optional Sales Tax 8th Street Sidewalk (18th Ct to Old Dixie Hwy) $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 Grant

Design & Engineering $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 219,720 $ 219,720

Comprehensive Plan




Indian River Blvd Sidewalk (12th Street to 17th Street) $ - $ - $ - Optional Sales Tax

Indian River Blvd Sidewalk (12th Street to 17th Street) $ 430,235 $ - $ - $ 430,235 Grant

Design & Engineering $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Right-of-Way $ - Construction $ 380,235 $ 380,235

Old Dixie Sidewalk- 38th lane to 65th street $ 1,497,616 $ 1,497,616 Grant Construction $ 1,497,616 $ 1,497,616

Traffic controllers $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 Gas Tax Traffic Fiber Optic $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 520,000 Gas Tax Traffic Fiber Optic $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 Optional Sales Tax

IR Lagoon-Misc Paving Projects $ 277,505 $ 277,505 Optional Sales Tax

Construction $ 277,505 $ 277,505

Design & Engineering $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Traffic Controllers & Fiber Optic $ 320,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,520,000 Total Transportation $ 320,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,520,000

Design & Engineering $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0

Traffic Controllers & Fiber Optic $ 320,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Total Transportation $ 320,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000

Comprehensive Plan




Comparison of Expenditures to Revenue FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Total Revenue $ 78,143,562 $ 13,522,000 $ 15,735,196 $ 18,620,111 $ 60,336,457 $ 186,357,326 Total Expenditures $ 45,272,376 $ 29,378,382 $ 32,750,000 $ 29,800,000 $ 49,156,568 $ 186,357,326 Annual Balance $32,871,186 -$15,856,382 -$17,014,804 -$11,179,889 $11,179,889 $0 Revenue and Expenditure Summary Revenue Source FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total

Env. Land Bonds $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000

Grant $ 10,289,502 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,580,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 6,839,000 $ 24,008,502 Emergency Services Dist. $ 1,226,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 800,000 $ - $ 4,837,882 Optional Sales Tax $ 23,450,661 $ 4,520,000 $ 9,354,000 $ 4,490,240 $ 4,078,440 $ 45,893,341

Impact Fees (Emergency Services, General Servics, Law Enforcement, Parks & Rec.) $ 2,010,755 $ 3,325,000 $ 2,005,000 $ 5,025,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 14,865,755

Court Facility Surcharge $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000

FBIP $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000

Water and Sewer User Fees $ - $ - $ 285,000 $ - $ 285,000 $ 570,000

Water and Sewer Impact Fees $ 1,200,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 10,900,000

Water and Sewer Cash Forward $ 8,528,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,528,533

Solid Waste Assessments & User Fees $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 MSTU Assessments $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000

IRC Utilities Department $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000

Gas Tax $ 10,297,507 $ 2,232,000 $ 2,255,000 $ 6,237,971 $ 6,237,971 $ 27,260,449

Bonds Proceeds - Gas Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,805,166 $ 44,805,166

Payback from FDOT-Gas Tax $ 7,865,009 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,865,009

Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000 Traffic Impact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497 Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,311 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,311 Traffic Impact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532

Comprehensive Plan






Payback from FDOT- Optional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ - $ 14,823,571

Old Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,140,009

TOTAL $ 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311 Expenditures by Category FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Total Conservation and Aquifer Recharge $1,350,000 $75,000 $ - $100,000 $ - $ 1,525,000 Emergency Services $3,426,177 $2,361,705 $450,000 $3,000,000 $ - $9,237,882 General Services $189,508 $60,000 $4,160,000 $60,000 $60,000 $ 4,529,508

Law Enforcement $558,960 $1,900,000 $ - $ - $ - $2,458,960

Parks and Recreation $4,069,300 $2,050,000 $3,485,000 $2,825,000 $2,500,000 $ 14,929,300 Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water $6,681,988 $1,077,337 $4,497,450 $5,028,758 $2,913,000 $20,198,533 Solid Waste $9,075,000 $1,830,000 $2,200,000 $6,967,000 $667,802 $20,739,802 Stormwater Management $969,000 $500,000 $950,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,419,000 Transportation $45,272,376 $29,378,382 $32,750,000 $29,800,000 $49,156,568 $186,357,326 Total $71,592,309 $39,232,424 $48,492,450 $50,780,758 $60,297,370 $ 270,395,311 Total Revenues All Categories $ 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311 Total Expenditures All Categories $ 71,592,309 $ 39,232,424 $ 48,492,450 $ 50,780,758 $ 60,297,370 $ 270,395,311 Difference $36,117,731 -$15,333,719 -$19,227,254 -$13,608,647 $12,051,889 $0

Comprehensive Plan




APPENDIX B: PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

Priority Transportation Capital Improvements

Facility

From

To

Improvement Type

Estimated Begin Date Estimated Completion Date

Estimated Cost

43rd Ave 18th St 26th St Widening from 2 to 4 lanes (1 mile) July-10 Jan-12 $18,200,000

43rd Ave 12th St 18th St Widening from 2 to 4 lanes (1 mile) Oct-11 April-13 $8,441,374

Oslo Rd 27th Ave 43rd Ave Widening from 2 to 4/5 lanes August-10 March-11 $7,900,000 Cou

nty

Proj

ects

Oslo Rd 43rd Ave 58th Ave Widening from 2 to 4/5 lanes August -10 March-11 $6,100,000

Comprehensive Plan




APPENDIX CB: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has adopted its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This plan prioritizes roadway improvements through a 20 year planning horizon. The table below lists these prioritized roadway improvements. Because the LRTP prioritizes long range roadway projects through 2030, or contains projects funded entirely by non-county sources, it includes some projects that are not in Appendix A, the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.

2030 Roadway Improvement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transportation Element) On Street From To Base Road Type Future Road Type Total Cost

I-95 S. County Line N. County Line 4 Lane Freeway 6 Lane Freeway $109,919,000

SR 60 98th Ave I-95 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $2,543,842SIS

SIS Total $112,462,842

SR 60 I-95 82nd Ave 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,119,445SR 60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $1,864,758US 1 S. County Line Oslo Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $12,064,823US 1 Aviation Blvd Old Dixie Hwy (N) 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $44,372,047US 1 Roseland Rd N. County Line 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $5,255,518

Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 Per Year) $10,000,000

Stat

e R

oads

Other State Roads Total $81,676,5914th St 98th Ave 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $16,262,03512th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,781,78612th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $2,854,61813th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $4,041,38813th St SW 43rd Ave 34th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $1,560,89913th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,359,68413th St SW 27th Ave 20th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $1,922,225

Cou

nty

Roa

ds


Comprehensive Plan





26th St 66th Ave 43rd Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $13,006,15426th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,850,481Aviation Blvd 43rd Ave U.S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,537,82827th Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9,560,90927th Ave Oslo Rd S.R. 60 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,330,69943rd Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $12,974,56343rd Ave Oslo Rd 8th St 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8,311,05853rd St 82nd Ave 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $9,599,620

58th Ave S County Line/Koblegard Rd Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $11,850,325

66th Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $8,562,42366th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,887,46666th Ave 4th St SR 60 2 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided $8,853,56566th Ave SR 60 C.R. 510 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,173,48982nd Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $7,302,94182nd Ave 26th St C.R. 510 00 2 Lane Undivided $28,174,165Laconia St C.R. 510 C.R.512 00 2 Lane Undivided $2,679,879Aviation Blvd Ext U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 00 4 Lane Divided $14,387,771

C.R. 510 C.R. 512 U.S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,369,280C.R. 510 U.S. 1 ICWW 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,718,539C.R. 512 Fellsmere City Limits I-95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,192,929C.R. 512 I-95 C.R. 510 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $13,317,010C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $6,674,3708th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,955,196Indian River Blvd Royal Palm 37th St 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,678,255Oslo Rd I-95 58th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,484,669Roseland Rd C.R. 512 U.S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,847,897

Comprehensive Plan





Schumann Dr C.R. 510 Barber St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,974,335


County Roads Total $381,057,970Barber St Schumann Dr U.S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $3,621,587Barber St C.R. 512 Schumann Dr 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $7,596,306

City

Rds

City Roads Total $11,217,893

Total $576,415,296 Source: Indian River County MPO

F:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\USERS\LONG RANGE\COMPPLAN AMENDMENTS\CIE\2010\2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT - DRAFT 10-26-10 - REDLINED COPY.DOC

Comprehensive Plan




APPENDIX DC: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE

Comprehensive Plan




Comprehensive Plan




APPENDIX ED: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE

Comprehensive Plan





Chapter 6 Capital Improvements Element Indian River County Community Development Department Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024


TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii

List ofTables ................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... I

Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 2 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................. 2 Expenditures .......................................................................................................................... 19 Existing Outstanding Debt. .................................................................................................... 22 Local Policies and Practices .................................................................................................. 24

Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Analysis ofthe Timing and Location of Capital Improvements ............................................ 27 Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................. 34 Fiscal Assessment .................................................................................................................. 36 Fiscal Assessment Summary ................................................................................................. 42

Concurrency Management Plan .................................................................................................... 42 Project Applicability .............................................................................................................. 43 Service Standards .................................................................................................................. 43 Demand .................................................................................................................................. 44 Availability of Capacity ......................................................................................................... 46 Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 49 Monitoring System ................................................................................................................ 49 Applicability .......................................................................................................................... 51

Goal, Objectives and Policies ....................................................................................................... 52

Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring ............................................................................... 61

Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 61

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures ..................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A: FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................... 66

APPENDIX B: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................................... 87

APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 90

APPENDIX D: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE ............................................................................................................... 92

Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024

Comprehensive Plan

List of Figures

Title Ad Valorem Tax Revenue Enterprise Fund Revenue User Fees and Charges Special Assessment Revenue Impact Fee Revenue Local Discretionary Sales Surtax Tourist Development Tax Local Option Fuel Tax Franchise Fee/Tax Revenue Half-Cent Local Government Sales Tax County Revenue Sharing Constitutional Fuel Tax Funds County Fuel Tax Alcoholic Beverage License Tax Mobile Home License Tax Distribution of Revenue by Category General Expenditures by Function


Page 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 9

Figure 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 Future Capital Improvements Expenditures

11 13 14 15 15 16 17 19 21 36



List of Tables

Table Title Page 6.1 Indian River County Sources of Funds (FY 07 /08) 2 6.2 Optional Tourist Taxes on Transient Rental Facilities 8 6.3 Local Fuel Tax Rates 10 6.4 Indian River General Revenues by Source 18 6.5 Indian River County Expenditures by Function 19 6.6 Indian River County Existing Long Term Debt 23 6.7 Overall General Revenue Projection Summary 30 6.8 Earmarked Projected Revenue by Comprehensive Plan Element 31 6.9 Indian River County Tax Base and Millage Projections 31 6.10 Concurrency Links Report for Transportation Projects

with Deficient Links 33 6.11 Concurrency Links Report for Removed Priority Transportation

Projects 34 6.12 Future Capital Improvement Expenditures for Indian River

County 35 6.13 Indian River County General Expenditures Projection Summary 37 6.14 Projected Expenditures for Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste 37 6.15 Indian River County Overall Operating Cost Projections 38 6.16 Indian River County Estimated Ability to Raise Bonds Without 39

Public Vote 6.17 Indian River County Bond Schedule 40 6.18 Service Level Measures for Concurrency Related Facilities 44 6.19 Monitoring System Design 50 6.20 Monitoring System Tasks 51 6.21 Capital Improvements Element Implementation Matrix 62 6.22 Capital Improvements Element Evaluation Matrix 64



Introduction

The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) summarizes the needed capital facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements and describes the financial means by which these facilities are to be funded. This element demonstrates the economic feasibility of the entire comprehensive plan and prioritizes the funding of all the public facilities identified in the other comprehensive plan elements based on the level of need and the availability of funds.

For purposes of this element, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building, or major equipment) that costs at least $100,000 and which is required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards or to meet objectives identified in the county's comprehensive plan.

Included in the CIE are an existing conditions section, an analysis section, a concurrency management section, a goals, objectives, and policies section, and an implementation section. Financial resources and existing local policies and practices are discussed in the existing conditions section. The fiscal condition of both the county and its comprehensive plan, as well as other issues concerning capital improvement projects, are assessed in the analysis section of this element. The administrative framework for maintaining public facility service levels is addressed in the concurrency management section, while the county's overall capital improvements strategy is discussed in the goals, objectives and policies section. Finally, a 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, as well as monitoring and evaluation programs, can be found in the implementation section ofthis element.


1


Existing Conditions

Financial Resources


Table 6.1: Indian River County Revenue Sources (FY 2008/09) ... . ''ii ' ·: ;: .. : ', .; : ,. >

I t(';;'"·'';.)l;· ' ;·;' ..• •'' ,:; •... ,, •. " ..... ·· .:•···-.•· • '· .,.:; y.i· .. · , .. ;.·; ,c/i · • , . Fede~a1So1J~I!-~S / ···•·• •>> State Sources ;·~. -, -~C ·~~ >. '•" '' :.; ':'..;".•

Amount %ofTotal Amount %of Total Amount %of Total ($1,000) Revenue ($1,000) Revenue ($1,000) Revenue

Various $12,859 5.48% Local Government $7,000 2.99% Ad Valorem Taxes $94,397 40.26% Grants Half-Cent Sales Tax

Total $12,859 5.48% County Revenue $2,558 1.09% Enterprise Funds $41,531 17.71% Federal Sharing

Constitutional Fuel $1,575 0.67% User Fees and $16,853 7.19% Tax Charges

County Fuel Tax $690 0.29% Special Assessments $487 0.21%

Alcoholic Beverage $50 0.02% Impact Fees $2,054 0.88% License Tax

Pari-Mutuel Tax $447 0.19% Local Discretionary $13,023 5.55% Sales Surtax

Mobile Home $108 0.05% Tourist Development $1,294 0.55% License Tax Tax

Various Grants $8,633 3.68% Local Option Fuel $3,200 1.36% Tax

Total State $21,061 8.98% Franchise Tax $9,670 4.12%

Interest Income $9,788 4.17%

Other $8,278 3.53%

Total Local $200,575 85.53%

Total All Sources $234,495 100.00%


2

Comprehensive Plan

Local Sources

Local sources consist of revenues that are levied, collected and disbursed at the local level solely at the discretion of Indian River County. These local sources are shown in table 6.1, and are described in further detail below.


Ad Valorem taxes are taxes levied on the assessed value (net of any exemptions) of real and personal property. This tax is commonly referred to as "property tax." Ad valorem taxes are generally assessed in mills; that is, thousandths of a dollar of assessed value. The state mandated millage cap is 1 0 mills per local government, excluding voted millages. In FY 2008/09, Indian River County applied an aggregate millage rate of 5.1628. According to County policy, ad valorem taxes may be used for both operating and capital project expenditures.

Table 6.1 shows that, in FY 2008/09, Indian River County collected approximately $94,397,000 in ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes represented 40.26% of all revenues collected by Indian River County in FY 2008/09.

Figure 6.1 displays the ad valorem tax revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. During that time period, ad valorem tax revenue increased 34.60%.

Community Development Department Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024



$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

l!!l Revenue (in thousands)



$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

l!!l Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County

3



Within governmental entities, various departments often exist that provide goods and services to the public in a manner similar to the private sector. Such departments, classed under the general title "enterprise funds," must raise revenues from outside the government sector. Enterprise departments assess a fee to the customer using the goods or services provided by that department. In Indian River County, the Utility System, Solid Waste Disposal District, Golf Course, and Building Division are enterprises.

Table 6.1 shows that enterprise fund revenue represented 17.71% of Indian River County's total source of funds for FY 2008/09. Figure 6.2 displays the enterprise fund revenue collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. During that time period, enterprise fund revenue increased 2.68%.

• User Fees and Charges

User fees and charges represent revenue received by the county for providing various general services. User fees and charges are necessary because taxes alone cannot totally keep up with the increasing costs of services. This category includes fees collected by the Tax Collector's Office, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser's Office, the Sheriffs Department, and the Recreation and Parks Department. This category also includes other miscellaneous user fees charged by the county for general services not financed by other fund sources. In FY 2008/09, user fees and charges represented 7.19% of all funds collected by Indian River County.

Figure 6.3 displays user fees and charges collected by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. During that time period,


$20,000 $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000

$8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007

Iii Revenue (in thousands)


2008 2009

revenue from user fees and charges varied, but overall increased 17.99%.

Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024 4

Comprehensive Plan


Special assessments are compulsory payments levied on real property for specific benefits generated by public investments or services; the assessment levied must fairly reflect the actual costs of the improvements. County revenues which fall under the general category of special assessments consist of street paving assessments, street lighting district assessments, as well as assessments for water, sewer, and drainage improvements. Expenditures of special assessment revenue are restricted to public improvement projects that directly benefit the property owner or payee. For example, street paving assessment revenues must be spent on paving streets that directly benefit the payer of the assessment.

Special Assessment funds represented 0.21% of county funds for FY 2008/09 as shown in table 6.1. Figure 6.4 displays the revenue collected by Indian River County through special assessments over the last six fiscal years.

• Impact Fees

An impact fee is a one time charge, fee, or assessment levied as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval, building peimit issuance, certificate of occupancy issuance, or other development or construction approval when the revenues collected are intended to fund the costs of capital improvements for any public facilities.



$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$-

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

11111 Revenue (in thousands}


$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$-


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Since 1986, Indian River County has levied traffic impact fees on new development projects. In June of 2005, Indian River County began to levy 8 new impact fees. At the same time, the County


5


increased the existing traffic impact fee rates. The nine impact fees include: traffic, emergency services, parks and recreation, public schools, solid waste, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings.

On March 3, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners considered several alternatives to reduce impact fees for the purpose of stimulating economic development in the county. After discussion, the Board decided to suspend collection of five of the county's nine impact fees for six months. The five suspended impact fees are: emergency services, correctional facilities, public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste. On September 22, 2009 and again on March 16, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners voted to further extend the suspension of the five impact fees. The current suspension of impact fees will expire on March 31, 2011.

Figure 6.5 shows the substantial increase in impact fee revenues related to the addition of the eight new impact fees and the increase in traffic impact fee rates. In FY 2003/04, traffic impact fees represented 5.17% of funds collected by Indian River County. In contrast, traffic impact fees and the eight additional impact fees represented 14.31% of funds collected by Indian River County for FY 2004/05. Since FY 2004/05, impact fee funds have dramatically declined with the slowing economy and the suspension of five of the impact fees.

• Local Discretionary Sales Surtax

Pursuant to s. 212.055, F.S, local governments are authorized to levy numerous types oflocal discretionary sales surtaxes. Under the provisions of s. 212.054, F.S., the local discretionary sales surtaxes apply to all transactions subject to the state tax imposed on sales, services, rentals, admissions, and other authorized transactions. The surtax is computed by multiplying the rate imposed by the county where the sale occurs by the amount of the taxable sale. This sales tax can be levied on most transactions under $5,000.


$18,000 r--r===r-::-::~.,---------,

$16,000 +-----L

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Under this category, Indian River County 111 Revenue (in thousands)

is eligible to impose a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax of either 0.5% or

Source: Indian River County Finance Department 1.0% and a School Capital Outlay Surtax of up to 0.5%. Currently, Indian River County imposes only the 1.0% Infrastructure Surtax.


6


According to state law, the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax must be enacted by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. This surtax, which may be imposed for a maximum period of fifteen years, was initiated by Indian River County in April, 1989, and was renewed by voters in November, 2002. Generally, the proceeds must be expended to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure; to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources; and to finance the closure of local government-owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or are required to close by order of the Department of Environmental Protection.

Table 6.1 shows that local sales surtax revenue represented 5.55% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.6 displays the Local Discretionary Sales Surtax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. This local revenue source increased by 1.35% over that period.

Distribution of surtax proceeds is based on the specifics of an interlocal agreement or through a formula based on population. In Indian River County, Local Infrastructure Surtax revenue is distributed to county government and municipal governments through a formula based on population.

Currently, twenty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy a Local Government Infrastructure Surtax. Within Indian River County's region, Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties do not levy the surtax, while Martin County levies a 0.5% infrastructure surtax. Okeechobee County is eligible to levy the infrastructure surtax, but instead levies a Small County Surtax of 1%, which is another local discretionary sales surtax.

• Tourist Development Tax

Any county in the state may, subject to a vote of the citizenry, impose a Tourist Development Tax. The transient rental trade is the primary base for the levy of the tourist tax. Any lodging agreement for six months or less is subject to the tax.

Generally, the tourist tax levy is one or two percent. Counties, however, may set an additional one percent above the original tax through an extraordinary vote of the governing board or by referendum. Currently, Indian River County imposes the original two percent tourist tax as well as an additional one percent tax.



$1,800

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ll!il Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County

7


Sixty Florida counties out of sixty-seven total counties currently levy a tourist tax. Of those sixty counties, forty-three counties, including Indian River County, impose an additional one percent tourist tax.

Table 6.2 displays the tourist taxes imposed in counties that are geographically proximate to Indian River County. Compared to neighboring counties, Indian River County imposes a similar level of tourist taxes. Brevard, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Counties have the highest tourist tax levy of the six counties listed (5.0%). Indian River County and Martin County each have a tourist tax rate of 4.00%. Okeechobee County has the lowest tourist tax levy.

Breva,rd 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Indian River 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 4.00%

Martin 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% ---------- 5.00% 4.00%

Okeechobee 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 3.00%

Palm Beach 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%

St. Lucie 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 5.00% 5.00%


Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Local Government Financial Information Handbook. October 2010.

The Local Option Tourist Tax can be used for the following purposes:

(1) Acquire, construct, operate, and promote one or more publicly owned and operated ·· convention centers, such as sports stadiums, coliseums, or auditoriums within the district that the tax is imposed;

(2) Promote and advertise tourism nationally, internationally, and in the State ofFlorida;



8


( 4) Finance beach development and restoration as well as shoreline protection and restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access;

(5) Construct, improve, maintain, and promote museums, zoos, fishing piers, or nature centers which are publicly owned and operated either by the county or a not-for-profit organization which opens the facilities to the public (applicable to those counties with a population less than 500,000);

(6) Pledge the revenues to secure and liquidate revenue bonds issued by the county, subject to certain limitations.

Figure 6.7 shows the Tourist Development Tax revenue received by Indian River County over the last six fiscal years. During that time period, tourist tax revenue received by Indian River County fluctuated based on market conditions, but had an overall increase of 19.59%.

• Local Option Fuel Tax

Local governments are authorized to levy up to twelve cents of local option fuel taxes in the form ofthree separate levies. These levies are:

~ a one to six cent local option fuel tax; a one to five cent local option fuel tax; and a ninth cent fuel tax.

Indian River County currently imposes the full six cents of the one to six cent fuel tax. This tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. The one to six cent fuel tax may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the governing body or voter approval in a county-wide

$3,300

$3,200

$3,100

$3,000

$2,900

$2,800


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



2009

referendum. Generally, the proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.

Table 6.1 shows that local option fuel tax revenue represented 1.36% of all funds collected by Indian River County for FY 2008/09. Figure 6.8 shows that local option fuel tax revenue for the county has decreased overall by 3. 73% from what it was in Fiscal Year 2004. Even though local option fuel tax revenues were less in fiscal year 2009 than what they were in fiscal year 2004, the county received a significant increase in local option fuel tax revenue in fiscal years 2005 through 2007. This was largely associated with the building boom.


9


All sixty-seven Florida counties levy a portion of the original local option fuel tax. Sixty-five counties levy the full $0.06, while the remaining two counties levy a portion of the tax.

Table 6.3 shows the local fuel taxes levied in Indian River County and in other counties in the region. Saint Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties levy the highest fuel taxes at $0.12 per gallon. Those four counties impose both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax. While Indian River County is eligible to levy the Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax either by extraordinary vote of the Board of County Commissioners or by voter approval in a countywide referendum, it does not currently levy either tax. At this time, fifty-one of the sixty-seven Florida counties levy the Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax, while twenty-four of the sixty-seven Florida counties impose at least a portion of the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax.

Brevard $0.06 $0.06

Indian River $0.06 $0.06

Martin $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Okeechobee $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Palm Beach $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

St. Lucie $0.06 $0.05 $0.01 $0.12

Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Local Government Financial Information Handbook. October 2010.

• Franchise Fee/Tax

Counties and municipalities may exercise their home rule authority to impose a fee upon a utility for the grant of a franchise and the privilege of the utility using the local government's rights-of-way to conduct the utility's business. Franchise fees are typically levied through a franchise agreement negotiated between the local government and the utility provider. Indian River County receives franchise revenue from electric, water, sewer, garbage, and cable television franchises.



Table 6.1 shows that franchise fee revenue represented 4.12% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.9 shows that over the last six fiscal years franchise fee revenue collected by Indian River County increased 43.90%.

• Other Miscellaneous Revenue

Included in this category are various administrative fees, licenses and permits, fines, interest income, rental income, private contributions, and other miscellaneous revenues. This source of revenue for Indian River County represented 3.53% of all funds collected in FY 2008/09.

• Borrowing

As needed, the county uses borrowing as a financing vehicle to raise money for public purposes that are beyond the realm of current cash reserves, operating revenue and reasonable taxation. Currently, borrowing money to pay for capital improvements can be


$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1m Revenue (in thousands)


done through either short-term or long-term financing. Short term financing is usually accomplished by the use of bond pools, notes, private placements with banks, and the public placement ofVoted General Obligation debt. Long term financing is usually achieved through the issuance ofbonds sold on the public market.

According to state law, local governments may sell bonds for capital improvements without a referendum of the voters if the pledge used for the bond is a non-ad valorem revenue source. Conversely, any bond issue pledging ad valorem taxes requires approval through a voter referendum.

General Obligation Bonds are bonds that are secured by the full faith and credit of the county. These bonds are secured by a pledge of the issuer's ad valorem taxing power. According to state law, the amount of ad valorem taxes necessary to pay the debt service on general obligation bonds is not subject to the constitutional property tax millage limits. Such bonds constitute debts of the issuer and require approval through a voter referendum prior to issuance.

Revenue bonds are bonds payable from a specific source of revenue, where the full faith and credit of the issuer is not pledged to repay the bonds. Because revenue bonds are payable from identified sources of revenue, bond holders may not compel taxation or legislative appropriation of funds for


11


payment of debt service. Pledged revenues may be derived from operation of financed projects, grants, or other specified non-ad valorem taxes. A public referendum is not required prior to issuance or validation of such obligations.

In the past, the county has issued revenue bonds to finance improvements to its sanitary sewer, potable water, and golf course facilities. In addition, revenue bonds have been issued by the Housing Authority to finance the provision of more low-income housing units in the county. Also, revenue bonds have been issued to finance the cost of construction of various capital improvement projects. Deposits from bond revenues are put into the respective bond fund accounts for these projects, whereby funds are specifically designated for a particular project, and user charges are used to pay off the debt.

Special assessment bonds are bonds issued to pay for capital improvements that impact specific areas or groups of property owners. Proceeds from the assessments levied against benefiting property owners are used to pay off the bond debt. The issuance of these bonds does not need to be approved by voter referendum.

Revenue bonds and special assessment bonds are similar in nature, except that special assessment bond debt is paid-offby assessments levied against benefiting property owners and not from ongoing user charges. The county has issued special assessment bonds for solid waste disposal.

The issuance of tax anticipation or bond anticipation notes is an example of a short-term (less than five years) method of financing. Notes usually have higher interest rates than bonds and have shorter m~turity dates than bonds. Tax anticipation notes are issued in advance of a new fiscal year to cover gaps in the budget before property taxes are received, while bond anticipation notes are issued in anticipation of the receipt by the county of proceeds from the sale of corresponding future bond issues. The county currently has no outstanding tax or bond anticipation notes.


Use of additional revenue sources may occasionally be necessary, depending on priorities mandated by the Board of County Commissioners and the availability of existing revenue sources. Indian River County has two options to increase local revenues. These are to implement new taxes that are permitted by state regulation and/or to increase existing taxes and fees that are imposed by the county. Additional local revenue sources available to Indian River County include the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax, and the Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax.

Both the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax and the One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax are taxes on the purchase of fuel. With the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax, a one cent per gallon tax on motor fuel and special fuel can be levied on fuel purchases in the county. Revenue from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax may be shared with municipalities, but counties are not required by law to share the proceeds. Authorized



uses for revenue collected from the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax include paying the costs and expenses of establishing, operating, and maintaining a transportation system and related facilities. Additional uses include funding the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads.

The One to Five Cent Local Option Fuel Tax is a one to five cents tax that can be levied upon every gallon of motor fuel sold in Indian River County. Revenues from this fuel tax must be shared among all eligible jurisdictions in the county as a result of an interlocal agreement or by an historical transportation expenditures formula. Authorized uses for revenue collected from the One to Five Cent Fuel Tax include transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

A Professional Sports Franchise Facility Tax is a levy of up to 1% on any lodging agreement for six months or less. Revenue from this tax may be used to pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the, construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a professional sports franchise facility.

State Sources

Revenue classified as state sources may be generated locally but collected by the state and returned to the county. For example, state sources may originate from state general revenues and be shared by the state according to state revenue allocation formulas. Table 6.1 displays the state revenue sources applicable to Indian River County. These sources are described in further detail below.

• Local Government Half-Cent Sales Tax

The Local Government Half Cent Sales Tax Program allocates 8.814% of net sales tax proceeds remitted by sales tax dealers in a county to a special account administered by the Department of Revenue; this account is the Local Government Half Cent Sales Tax Clearing Trust Fund. These funds are then earmarked for distribution to the governing body of the county and each municipality within the county. Distribution of these monies within the county is determined by a formula that uses a weighting factor based on the population of the incorporated and unincorporated areas and multiplies this factor by 8.814% of the sales tax proceeds received for the county. In FY 2008/09, Indian River County received $7,000,000 through the half-



$10,000

$9,000 t===:::;L $8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1m Revenue (in thousands)


Indian River County

13


cent sales tax. As shown in table 6.1, that amount represented 2.99% of all funds collected by Indian River County during the 2008/09 fiscal year.

Figure 6.10 displays the funds made available to Indian River County through the half-cent local government sales tax over the last six fiscal years. Over those six fiscal years, Indian River County's half-cent sales tax revenue decreased 7 .46%.

Occasionally, governments can receive supplemental distributions by meeting special eligibility criteria; however, in no case can the total supplemental and ordinary distribution exceed the maximum per capita amount allowed by law. Governments are allowed wide latitude in using the half cent sales tax. For counties, the law provides only that half cent sales tax revenue be used for countywide tax relief or countywide programs.

• County Revenue Sharing

The current structure of the county revenue sharing program consists of two revenue sources. These sources include 2.90% of net cigarette tax collections and 2.044% of sales and use tax Figure 6.11: County Revenue Sharing collections. Proceeds are collected by the state and then distributed to eligible counties based on an allocation formula. There are no use restrictions on the distributed revenue; however, there are some statutory limitations regarding these funds being used as a pledge for indebtedness.

To receive distribution proceeds through the county revenue sharing program, counties must meet the following criteria:

(1) That law enforcement officers and firefighters are certified and meet state requirements;

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



(2) That certification of taxable value for a property tax levy is made in a timely and correct manner to the Department of Revenue;

(3) That the county's most recent financial reports have been sent to the Department of Banking and Finance, and post audits of these statements and accounts have been provided.


14


Table 6.1 shows that county revenue sharing funds represented 1.09% of all funds collected by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.11 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county revenue sharing proceeds received by Indian River County varied over time, but overall decreased by 11.61%.


Constitutional fuel tax is defined as an excise or license tax of two cents per gallon imposed upon the first sale or first removal from storage (after importation into Florida) of motor fuel. Revenues from this levy become state funds at the time of collection by the refiner, importer or wholesaler.

In its current form, the constitutional fuel tax is a state-shared revenue source for counties only. Applying a distribution formula, the state allocates proceeds to counties to the extent necessary to comply with all obligations to or for the benefit of holders of bonds, revenue certificates, and tax anticipation certificates or any refunds secured by any portion of the tax proceeds. After complying with the necessary debt service obligations, the state distributes a county's surplus funds to its governing body.

Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the constitutional fuel tax levy represented 0.67% of total revenue received by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.12 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, constitutional fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County decreased 5.35%.

• County Fuel Tax

The county fuel tax is levied on motor fuel at the rate of one cent per net gallon. The



$1,800

$1,750

$1,700

$1,650

$1,600

$1,550

$1,500

$1,450

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



$800

$780

$760

$740

$720

$700

$680

$660

$640

Figure 6.13: County Fuel Tax

2009

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Indian River County

15


legislative intent of this tax is to reduce a county's reliance on ad valorem taxes. Funds received from this tax can be used by a county for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.

Table 6.1 shows that funds received through the county fuel tax levy represented 0.29% of all revenue collected by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.13 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, county fuel tax revenue received by Indian River County decreased 7.01 %.

• Alcoholic Beverage License Tax

Alcoholic beverage license taxes are levied on manufacturers, distributors, vendors, and sales agencies of alcoholic beverages in Florida. The tax is administered, collected, enforced, and distributed to local governments by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

Twenty-four percent of the license taxes imposed on the sale of beer, wine and liquor collected within a county is returned to the county Tax Collector. The remaining funds are used to operate the division and contribute to the operation of the Office of the Secretary of Business Regulation.


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Table 6.1 shows that the county received approximately $50,000 from this tax in FY 2008/09, 0.02% of all revenue received by Indian River County. Figure 6.14 shows that, over the last six fiscal years, alcoholic beverage license tax revenue received by Indian River County fluctuated, but overall remained about the same.

• Pari-Mutuel Tax

Revenue generated through license fees and taxes related to Pari-Mutuel betting is deposited into the Pari-Mutuel wagering trust fund. According to Florida Statutes, a guaranteed entitlement of $29,915,500 is deducted from the trust fund for equal distributions among Florida's sixty-seven counties, providing each county's general revenue fund with $446,500. Table 6.1 shows that revenue received from the Pari-Mutuel tax represented 0.19% of revenues received by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Uses for this revenue are determined by the Board of County Commissioners.


16


• Mobile Home License Tax

An annual license tax is levied on all mobile homes and park trailers, and on all travel trailers and fifth-wheel trailers exceeding thirty-five feet in body length. The license taxes, ranging from $20 to $80 depending on body length, are collected in lieu of ad valorem taxes. The taxes are collected by the county tax collectors and remitted to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

From each license, two deductions are made. The first is a deduction of $1.50 by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles with proceeds deposited into the State General Revenue Fund. The second is a deduction of $1.00 with proceeds deposited into the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Trust Fund. The remaining balance is deposited into the License Tax Collection Trust Fund for distribution to units of local government. A county government is eligible to receive proceeds from this tax if taxable mobile home units are located in its unincorporated area. An authorized use of the proceeds is not specified in the current law.

Table 6.1 shows that funds received through

$160

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$-


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

mil Revenue (in thousands)


the mobile home license tax represented 0.05% of all revenue received by Indian River County in FY 2008/09. Figure 6.15 shows that, over the last five fiscal years, mobile home license tax revenue

received by Indian River County remained the same.

• Various Grants

Table 6.1 shows that funds received in the form of state grants represented 5.48% of funds received by the county in FY 2008/09. State grant funds received by the county in FY 2008/09 originated from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Housing Finance Agency, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the State of Florida Department of State Division of Library Services, the State of Florida Department of Transportation, the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the State of Florida Department of Revenue, the Department of Health, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services.


17


Federal Sources

Federal funds are either granted directly to local governments or passed through state agencies for administration and monitoring. These grants are usually distributed on a competitive basis rather than by formula allocations, thereby making projections of future revenues difficult. For the purpose of revenue projections, these sources will be assumed to remain constant.

During FY 2008/09, the county received approximately $12,859,000 in federal funds. These funds represented 5.48% of all funds received by Indian River County in FY 2008/09.

Overall Revenue Sources

As mandated by state statute, the financial resources of the county are categorized according to the state Chart of Accounts. These categories include taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, interest, and miscellaneous revenues. Table 6.4 identifies the total amount of historic revenue generated from these sources for fiscal years 2002/2003 through 2007/08.

~.?b; ,' , •·. •.•·•. . ·' ' ·''· ····.·........ • •. t',.:J:.~•··•·•·.·· ···• Table 6.4: Indian River County General ~.evenues By; Source, .'·•· ,.,. ,;,.: ,,•''

2003/04 $95,675,370 $1,033,394 $51,487,093 $54,729,505 $1,508,786 $14,545,961 $218,980,109 2004/05 $104,012,925 $1,354,282 $82,604,757 $68,389,360 $1,715,875 $42,170,294 $300,247,493 2005/06 $116,088,548 $1,274,638 $66,278,020 $68,028,618 $2,069,593 $40,182,777 $293,922,194 2006/07 $130,158,069 $896,612 $64,054,273 $65,111,301 $2,403,093 $26,773,753 $289,397,101 2007/08 $119,915,640 $9,904,590 $60,086,565 $63,355,209 $2,137,413 $18,486,026 $273,885,443 2008/09 $113,689,399 $12,433,598 $39,249,261 $58,384,013 $1,792,517 $8,946,401 $234,495,189

Source: Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2009 & Indian River County Finance Department



18

6.



2004 43.69%

0.47%

23.51%

2007

44.98%

0.31%

22.50%

•Taxes

13 Charges for Sen.ices

Expenditures

2005 34.64%

22.78%

2008 43.78%

EJ Licenses & Permits

• Fines & Forfeitures

2006 39.50% 0.43%

22.55%

2009

o lntergm.emmental Re\.enue

s Miscellaneous Re\.enues

In the previous sub-section, the various revenue and income sources currently utilized by Indian River County were reviewed. This sub-section of the Capital Improvements Element identifies how those monies are allocated to meet the county's needs. Table 6.5 presents the county's overall general expenditures by category for fiscal years 2003/2004 through 2008/09 .

..•• ~.~~r~;~.s~!.i~~t~n~i"~t·<:~~·~ti:t;~~~f~IQ~f~l'~~;~~!i~*e~n~#~t~~·~~:r#~~~t~~~";;;•··.··,c ··~~i::f~~. ·;: .... ;,:.;~.·· .... ·;i·.:·~:;.·J;l:i:::m~:A •::Fi§ciii'Year . • • . < > I > . '2003104 ; . 2004/05C·t > '': c~·,:\2005/0om :1l''f!''/ 2006/0'tX ; i'; •·. 2oinios;• :;:;;; ···'..i200Sl09i; General Government $29,005,917 $30,565,484

$60,435,102 $63,231,330 $30,711,818 $25,801,688

P.ublic Safety $55,792,130 $57,161,390 $66,984,420 $73,275,110 $74,038,252 $74,813,164

Physical Environment $44,317,270 53,990,669 $54,445,121 $86,515,929 $54,243,069 $82,894,477

Transportation $23,038,234 $22,369,128 $31,966,926 $55,039,978 $53,489,116 $40,841,272

Economic Environment $627,914 $712,517 $1,054,239 $968,227 $4,579,574 $653,547

Human Services $7,197,342 $7,279,582 $12,470,222 $13,862,463 $12,619,575 $8,621,760

Culture/Recreation $17,828,311 $24,298,539 $19,977,771 $24,075,260 $19,624,278 $27,989,515

Court Related $6,210,614 $5,630,734 $5,915,727 $6,649,724 $6,940,682 $6,620,830

Debt Service $3,727,534 $3,495,500 $4,406,090 $8,126,643 $7,873,176 $8,068,758

TOTAL 187,745,266 205,503,543 $257,655,618 $332,037,467 $300,843,382 $239,288,366

Source: Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2009


19


Table 6.5 shows expenditures in nine categories. Depending on the county's activities in any given fiscal year, the level of expenditures may fluctuate for certain categories. Figure 6.17 displays the percentage distribution of Indian River County's general expenditures over the last six fiscal years.

General Government

A major classification of services provided by Indian River County, the general government expenditure category, includes activities undertaken by the legislative and administrative branches of the county government. Departments such as the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator, Personnel, and Purchasing fall into this category as do all Constitutional Officers, except the Sheriff. As shown in table 6.5,$25,801,688 was spent on general government services in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2003/04 and 2008/09, general government expenditures decreased by 11.05%. General government services represented 10.78% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09. The significant increase in general government expenditures in Fiscal Years 2005/06 and 2006/07 was due to the construction of new public buildings, including the construction of the new county administration building and the expansion of the jail.

Public Safety

The Sheriffs Department, Fire Services, Advanced Life Support, Emergency Management, and the Medical Examiner fall under the category of Public Safety. As shown in table 6.5, the county, in FY 2008/09, spent $74,813,164 for public safety services. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, public safety expenditures increased by 1.05%. Since FY 2003/04, public safety expenditures have increased by 34.09%. Public safety represented 40.17% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.


This classification encompasses the county's water and waste water utilities, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), the Soil Conservation District, and the Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition Fund. Table 6.5 shows that $54,243,069was spent on these activities in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, physical environment expenditures decreased by 37.30%. Since FY2003/04, physical environment expenditures have increased by 22.40%. Physical environment services represented 22.6% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Transportation

Departments under this category include Road and Bridge, County Engineering, Secondary Roads Construction, and Traffic Engineering. These departments are responsible for designing, constructing, overseeing, and maintaining the county's roads and drainage systems. As shown in


20


table 6.5, the county spent $40,841,272 on transportation facilities in FY 2008/09. Since FY 2003/04, transportation expenditures have increased by 77.28%. Transportation expenses represented 21.93% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Economic Environment

Included in this category are the costs of providing services which develop and improve the economic condition of the community and its citizens. Veteran Services, the Housing Authority, and the Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce undertake this function. Table 6.5 shows that those agencies spent $653,547 on economic environment services in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08, economic environment expenditures increased by 372.99%. Since FY 2002/03, economic environment expenditures have increased by 684.38%. Economic environment expenses represented 1.89% of all county expenses in FY 2007/08.


2007

8.4%

2004

22.1%

0.3%

23.6%

12.3%

0.3%

25.0%

G General Government

mil Transportation

E3 Culture/Recreation

Human Services

27.8%

2

2005

26.3% 10.9%

0.3%

3.5%

11.8%

24.6% 2008

111 Public Safety

111 Economic En\tironment

1111 Court Related

2006 26.0%

1.

2.3%7.8% 4.8%

31.3%

10.8%

3.4

o Physical En\tironment

ll!1 Human Ser\tices

~Debt Ser\tice

21.1%

12.4%

0.4%

2009

Human Services cover the cost of providing services for the care, treatment, and control of human illness, injury or disabilities, and for the welfare of the community as a whole and its individuals. The


21


Health Department, Welfare, Medicaid, and Children's Services fall into this category. Table 6.5 shows that the county spent $8,621,760 on human services in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, human services expenditures decreased by 31.68%. Since FY 2003/04, human services expenditures have increased by 19.79%. Human services represented 3.60% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Culture/Recreation

All costs associated with providing and maintaining cultural and recreational facilities and activities for the benefit of citizens and visitors fit into this category. County libraries, parks, recreation operations, and the golf course are included here. As shown in table 6.5, the county spent $19,624,278 on these services in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, cultural/recreation expenditures decreased by 18.49%. Since FY 2003/04, cultural/recreation expenditures have increased by 10.07%. Culture/recreation expenses represented 8.20% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Court Related

All costs of operating the judicial branch of Indian River County Government are classified here. This category includes the County Court, Circuit Court, State Attorney's Office and Public Defender. As shown in table 6.5, expenditures from this category totaled $6,620,830 in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, Court Related expenditures decreased by 4.61 %. Beginning in FY 199711998, the State of Florida mandated that the county begin recording Court Related costs as a separate expenditure item. Court Related costs represented 2. 77% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Debt Service

Debt service consists of interest and payments made by the county on its debt. This figure includes principal retirement, interest and other miscellaneous debt service. As table 6.5 indicates, total county debt service expenditures were $8,068,758 in FY 2008/09. Between fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09, debt service expenditures increased by 2.48%. Since FY 2003/04, debt service expenditures have increased by 116.46%. Debt service expenses represented 3.37% of all county expenses in FY 2008/09.

Existing Outstanding Debt

At the end ofFY 2009/10, Indian River County's outstanding debt, comprised of revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, stood at $108,815,000. This is shown in table 6.6. In 1993, the county took advantage oflower interest rates and refunded any debt that had reasonable future economic savings.


22


Enterprise Funds support 48.73% of the overall debt (Utility Dept 45.81 %; and Golf Course 2.92% ), leaving $55,790,000 in bonds paid from general governmental funds. In November 2001, Indian River County issued the remaining $11,000,000 of the $26,000,000 Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds originally approved by voters in 1992. Also in 2001, the County issued $16,810,000 in Spring Training Facility Bonds to finance the acquisition and expansion of the Dodgertown spring training facility (now known as the Vero Beach Sports Complex). Two bonds were refinanced in 2003 to take advantage of lower interest rates: the 1993 Series Refunded Recreational Revenue Bonds and the 1995 Series Environmental Lands Acquisition Bonds. Those bonds have since been paid off. In 2004, Indian River County voters approved the issuance of up to an additional $50,000,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds. As a result, Indian River County issued $48,600,000 in Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition general obligation bonds in 2006. Finally, the county refinanced its 1996 Series Water and Sewer Bonds in 2005 and the majority of its 1993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds in 2009. The County kept a portion of the 1993 Series A Water and Sewer Bonds with a maturity of 2011 because it was more cost efficient than rolling the entire amount into the 2009 Water and Sewer Bonds.

Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds:

1993 A Series $47,190,000 5.76% 2011 AAA/FGIC Water & Sewer

$1,555,000 (Insured) Revenues

3.94% 2022 AAA/FGIC Water & Sewer

2005 Series $27,675,000 $21,925,000 (Insured) Revenues

Water & Sewer 2009 Series $26,370,000 $26,370,000 3.68% 2024 AA+/AA Revenues


2001 Series Spring AAA/FGIC State Funds, Y, Cent $16,810,000 4.87% 2031

Training Facility $12,310,000 (Insured) Sales Tax, Tourist Tax

Golf Course Net 2003 Series Income, Fronton Refunding

$6,455,000 3.65% 2016 AAA/AMAC Revenue and

Recreational $3,175,000 (Insured) Subordinate Lien on Revenue One Half Cent Sales

Tax

Voted G.O. Bonds

Environmental AAA/FSA

Lands Acquisition $11,000,000 3.89% 2016 (Insured)

General Obligation 2001 Series $5,210,000


23



Total Bonds Outstanding

$48,600,000 $38,270,000

$108,815,000

Source: Indian River County Budget 2010/11.

Local Policies and Practices

4.22% 2021 AAAIMBIA (Insured)

General Obligation

As part of the capital improvements planning process, it is important to do an inventory of current Indian River County policies and practices that guide the timing, location, expansion, or increase in capacity of capital facilities. These policies and practices relate to the county's existing level-ofservice standards, impact fee programs, comprehensive plan, and enterprise fund accounts.

Existing Level-of-Service Standards

Level-of-service (LOS) standards are indicators of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level-of-service standards indicate the capacity per unit of demand of each public facility.

Level-of-service standards can affect the timing and location of development by guiding development to areas where facilities may have excess capacity. Indian River County has level-of-service standards for capital facilities as follows:

~ Correctional Facilities (Countywide) • 4.5 beds per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

·Fire/EMS (Countywide, excluding Indian River Shores) • .089 Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Law Enforcement (Unincorporated County) • 2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

Libraries (Countywide) • 580 building square feet per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population • 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population


24


• 0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population


Public Buildings (Countywide) • 1.99 building square feet per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population


Sanitary Sewer (County Service Area) • 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit

Schools (School Service Area): • 1 00 percent ofFlorida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school










• Level-of-Service "D" during peak hour, peak season, and peak direction conditions on all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways,


25


with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service "E" plus 20%: • 2th Ave- South County Line to SR 60 • 43rd Ave- Oslo Road to 16th Street For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service "B" is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C" is adopted for urban areas.

Transit • One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes

Level-of-service standards are discussed in further detail in each individual Comprehensive Plan Element.

Capital Improvements Program

A capital improvements program (CIP) is a program for capital expenditures to be incurred each year over a fixed period of years to meet anticipated capital needs. In Indian River County, the CIP identifies the projects that the county plans to undertake in the next five years and presents an estimate of the costs and the resources needed to finance the projects. Revenue sources within the first year of the CIP reflect current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenue collection. Within the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with "committed" revenue sources. "Committed" revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through "planned" revenue sources. "Planned" revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents of local option gas tax.

The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) itself consolidates the capital improvements needs of all elements of the Comprehensive Plan into an overall five-year Capital Improvements Schedule. The overall program lists the needs, costs, timeframes, priorities, and the necessary financial resources to implement the identified capital improvement projects in the various elements of the plan in the next five years.

Impact Fees/Capacity Charges

Impact fees are charges to developers for off-site improvements that must be provided by the local government to serve new development. This financing technique is one strategy that the county uses for implementing the CIE. Currently, the county has nine impact fees in place; these are traffic impact fees, which became effective in 1986, and eight additional impact fees which became effective in June of 2005. Those eight impact fees are assessed for the following service delivery categories: solid waste, public schools, fire/ems, parks and recreation, correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, and public buildings.


26


In October 1999, the county's water and sewer impact fees were reclassified as capacity charges. A capacity charge is a fee charged to the direct beneficiaries of water and sewer improvements in order to fund the capital cost incurred by the water and wastewater utility to provide capacity to serve new utility customers.

Enterprise Funds

Enterprise funds are used to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises, when the intent of the governing body is that the full costs of providing the service to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. Currently, the county operates its solid waste services, golf course facility, building department services, and utility services as enterprise funds.

As a tool for affecting the timing and location of development, user charges may be designated to vary with the quantity and location of the service provided. Thus, charges could be greater for providing services further from urban areas, and less for distances closer to urban areas. In this way, user charges could affect the economics of development locating further away from urban areas.

Analysis

The analysis section of this element assesses the county's historic and projected revenue and expenditure patterns to determine the county's fiscal ability to provide adequate capital improvements. These capital improvements have been identified in other comprehensive plan elements and are needed to meet the demands of existing and future development.

As part of this analysis, revenue and expenditure projections are identified and analyzed, and a fiscal assessment of needs (costs) versus projected available revenue is included.

Analysis of the Timing and Location of Capital Improvements

Objectives and polices from the Future Land Use Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Public School Facilities Element, and the Transportation Element, as well as policies followed by the Sheriffs office and County departments such as Emergency Management, Corrections, Libraries, and Solid Waste, have the most direct effect on the timing and location of capital improvements. Through planning for future improvements to the transportation system, the Transportation Element directly affects the development potential of property. Also affecting the development potential of property are the water and sewer connection requirements and the availability of public school capacity. Within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the assignment of land use density and intensity, as well as the urban service area regulations, affect the timing and location of capital improvements.


27


Consistent with the FLUE and urban service area requirements in the county's comprehensive plan, the county provides public facilities and services to promote compact development by emphasizing infill development in urban areas and maximizing the efficiency of existing facilities and services in under utilized areas. The FLUE also limits urban sprawl and ensures that adequate facilities will be present to accommodate future growth. Maximizing the use of existing facilities and controlling urban sprawl will contribute to a cost-effective and efficient service delivery system.

Using the county's official Future Land Use Map and Future Thoroughfare Plan Map, as well as the county's water and wastewater connection matrix, in planning for future locations of facilities provides for efficient and orderly expansion of public facilities, provides for efficient growth in desired areas, discourages growth in undesirable areas, and protects environmentally sensitive lands. Consistent with that policy, development orders are issued only after a determination that adequate public facilities and services will be available to meet the demand of the new development.

Overall, the objectives of the FLUE, Transportation Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, and the Public School Facilities Element are furthered by the extension of facilities and services in a logical and efficient manner. This is accomplished by implementing and enforcing the adopted Capital Improvements Element and its corresponding Schedule of Capital Improvements. Successful and efficient implementation ofthose items ensures that facilities and services will be in place concurrent with future development.

If a capital improvements project is not included in the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements and the improvement is required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards, future development will be prohibited until the necessary facilities are in place. This, in effect, indirectly controls the timing and location of future development and, in turn, furthers the implementation of the Future Land Use Element and Transportation Element objectives.

Appendix A constitutes the county's five year schedule of capital improvements. This CIP is important to ensure that improvements to existing facilities and construction of new facilities are completed as needed. By implementing the five year schedule of capital improvements, the county will ensure that appropriate areas will be served by needed facilities, thus maintaining adopted levels of service.

Besides implementing the components of this element, the county coordinates with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the various state agencies, such as the Florida Department of Transportation, when those agencies program facility or service improvements within Indian River County. The continuation of this coordination will ensure that the plans of state agencies and the SJRWMD will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the timing and location of capital improvements as identified in the CIE.


28


Projected Revenues

In order to develop a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements, projected revenues over the five-year CIP time period have been calculated. These revenues are then compared to anticipated expenditures on capital improvements. For the first three years of the plan, only committed and available revenue sources are utilized. In developing revenue estimates for this process, historic revenue trends, current and anticipated economic conditions, population and growth trends, legislative changes, and any other factors that may impact future revenue streams were considered. This analysis is far more complex than projecting prior trends into the future. This is evident in the forecasted revenues shown in this section.

During the past five years, there has been a gradual decrease in most revenue sources. Estimates going forward show a decrease in most revenue sources for the next couple years followed by moderate increases. This is consistent with the current economic recession followed by an anticipated moderate recovery thereafter.

Many of the revenue sources identified in the CIP have unique characteristics. For example, sales taxes react differently than gas taxes to similar circumstances. The analysis accounts for such differences. Because gas taxes are levied on a per gallon basis rather than a percentage basis like the sales tax, gas taxes do not increase as a result of rising prices the way sales taxes do. Further, gas taxes do not typically decline as significantly as sales taxes during economic slowdowns. Property taxes, impact fees, user fees, interest earnings, and other revenues have additional behavioral characteristics that were considered in estimating future receipts. All such estimates were developed with the use of professionally accepted methodologies. To ensure a financially balanced CIP (see Appendix A), scheduled expenditures were constrained by projected revenues.

As part of this capital improvements element, the county's general revenues have been projected for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15. This section addresses general revenues and earmarked projected revenues as well as the county's tax base and millage rate projections.

• Overall Projected Revenues

Table 6.7 summarizes the county's projected revenue for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15. These revenues include the county's general governmental funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds. As table 6.7 shows, general revenue collected by the county is projected to decrease slightly in the next fiscal year and increase by only 3.22% by fiscal year 2014115. Overall, general revenue is projected to increase from $278,508,044 in FY 2010111 to $287,466,627 in FY 2014/15.


29


Taxes 96,290,805 100,034,202 100,034,000 105,392,971 108,028,000 509,779,978

Licenses & Permits 20,754,256 20,754,000 21,273,000 21,805,000 22,350,000 106,936,256

Intergovern-ment 18,691,686 18,692,000 19,159,000 19,638,000 20,129,000 96,309,686

Charges for Services 60,009,228 60,009,000 61,509,000 63,047,000 64,623,000 309,197,228

Fines & Forfeitures 312,000 312,000 320,000 328,000 336,000 1,608,000

Interest & Misc. 18,494,670 18,495,000 18,957,000 19,431,000 19,917,000 95,294,670

Other Sources 63,955,399 32,653,315 43,795,823 43,221,820 52,083,627 235,709,984

TOTAL 278,508,044 250,949,517 265,047,823 272,863,791 287,466,627 1,354,835,802 Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

• Earmarked Projected Revenues

Earmarked revenues are revenues that are restricted in terms of use. Such revenues may be found in the Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, and Solid Waste Sub-Element.

Table 6.8 provides a summary of earmarked revenue projections by applicable comprehensive plan element for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15. As shown in table 6.8, projected transportation revenues are broken down by their sources. Earmarked projected transportation revenues are expected to increase by 30.66% over the next five fiscal years, from $19,025,710 in FY 2010/11 to $24,859,880 in FY 2014115.

Although transportation revenues are expected to increase from FY 10/11 to FY 14115, it is important to note that FY 10/11 transportation revenue is $35,764,991 less than FY 2004/05 transportation revenue. This reflects the substantial decrease in traffic impact fee revenue from the housing boom years to the present. Part of the transportation revenue increase for fiscal year 2013/14 and fiscal year 2014115 is from a planned 6 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline (Local Option Gas Tax). In fiscal year 2013/14, the proposed additional6 cent per gallon gas tax plus the county's current 6 cent per gallon gas tax (total of 12 cents per gallon) will be bonded to produce a significant revenue increase in FY 2014115.


30


For potable water and sanitary sewer, earmarked revenue is expected to increase by 7.69% over the next five fiscal years, from $27,333,363 in FY 2010111 to $29,434,000 in FY 2014115. Over the next five years, earmarked revenue for solid waste is expected to increase by 7.69% from $10,713,852 in FY 2010111 to $11,538,000 in FY 2014115.

2010111 3,313,710 1,550,000 682,000 1,200,000 12,000,000 280,000 19,025,710 27,333,363 10,713,852

2011112 3,314,000 1,550,000 682,000 1,650,000 12,000,000 280,000 19,476,000 27,333,000 10,714,000

2012113 3,347,000 1,566,000 689,000 2,256,196 12,300,000 280,000 20,438,196 28,016,000 10,982,000

2013114 6,237,971 1,582,000 696,000 2,600,000 12,608,000 280,000 24,003,971 28,716,000 11,257,000

2014115 6,300,000 1,598,000 703,000 3,055,880 12,923,000 280,000 24,859,880 29,434,000 11,538,000



Table 6.9 summarizes the county's tax base projections which are categorized by fund through FY 2014115. Overall, the countywide ad valorem tax base is the same as the general fund category identified in table 6.9 .

.. ·· Tahi¢•6.9: IJ:lc)ian River Oo1lntyT~*l(Qase anoMillage:£ro]ecti~n~···. ··: -· - .... ' --·· ,_ ·· _ .. c·- ··- ... -. - . - ,-- .- · ··-. - . "-·- .,- ---::-~ - ,,_ --- - .. • .'·- .-·; . ~ •. --~ -. " ;;,-•. _-- .- - - _ .• o- .,.,- : •.

2010/11 $14,147,906,804 3.0892 $7,820,732,737 1.0733 $11,640,087,880 1.7148 $14,147,906,804 0.0681

2011/12 $13,016,074,260 3.0892 $7,195,074,118 1.0733 $10,708,880,850 1.7148 $13,016,074,260 0.0735

2012113 $13,016,074,260 3.0892 $7,195,074,118 1.0733 $10,708,880,850 1.7148 $13,016,074,260 0.0735

2013114 $13,341,476,117 3.0892 $7,374,950,971 1.0733 $10,976,602,871 1.7148 $13,341,476,117 0.0717

2014/15 $13,675,013,020 3.0892 $7,559,324,745 1.0733 $11,251,017,943 1.7148 $13,675,013,020 0.0699


As shown in table 6.9, the county has a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and an emergency services district, each with a separate millage.


31


Changes to the Capital Improvements Program

With the ongoing depressed housing market, challenges in the national and global financial markets, and the reduction in building permit activity, county revenue again decreased and is expected to remain lower than projected in the prior year's Capital Improvements Program (Fiscal Years 2009/10 through 2013/14). As a result of the decrease in projected revenue and the associated decrease in projected demand for public facilities, the overall Capital Improvements Program has been scaled back. Consequently, a number of projects within the 2009/10 through 2013/14 CIP have had their time frame extended.

None of the changes will impact development project concurrency reservations. Because of the depressed housing market, problems with the financial markets, and limited construction activity, it is anticipated that the capacity associated with most of these projects will not be needed until later dates.

Two of the transportation projects that have had their construction dates extended involve improvements to roadways that are over capacity according to the County's concurrency management system. Listed in Table 6.10, these deficient links are C.R. 510 between 581

h Avenue and U.S. Highway 1 and AlA from 1 ih Street to the south city limits of the City ofVero Beach. While the transportation projects designed to improve these deficient links are being rescheduled to later years of the CIP, there are several factors that are expected to increase available capacity in the short term. One such factor is that concurrency certificates for some development projects with vested trips will expire soon. At that time, the reserved trips reflected by those projects will be removed from the concurrency management system. Another factor is that recent traffic counts indicate that traffic volumes are continuing to decrease on most roadways. These new traffic counts will soon be reflected in the County's concurrency management system. At that time, the increased capacity and decreased demand will have the effect of increasing the available capacity on County roadways and will likely further decrease the need for scheduling, financing, and constructing transportation projects in the County's CIP.

By extending the time frame of transportation projects, the county can utilize its limited resources to complete priority concurrency related projects within the overall capital improvements program. In effect, the county needs to delay some projects so that other projects will remain fundable with a diminishing county budget. By funding only necessary projects, the County is also maintaining a financially feasible capital improvements element.

'.l]r~llsport~tfori Project········ WitliDeficierit.Link ·. · · ·

CR 510, 61 st Drive to Indian River, four lanes (1.6 miles)

17' Street/AlA Intersection

C.R. 510, 581 Avenue to U.S. 1 C.R. 510, U.S. 1 to S.R. AlA C.R. 510, U.S. 1 to S.R. AlA S.R. AlA, Southern Vera Beach Ci Limits


810.00 810.00 -64.76 2,049.00 1,333.34 2,049.00 1,273.52 930.00 -151.37

Indian River County

32

Comprehensive Plan

TJ"an~portati~llJ?tpJect With DefiCient Link···•· .....

1020S

1030N 1030S 2120E

2120W


S.R. AlA, Southern Vera Beach City Limits to 1 71

h Street S.R. AlA, 171 Street to S.R. 60

1 i Street, Indian River Boulevard to S.R. AlA 1 i Street, Indian River Boulevard to S.R. AlA


930.00 1,058.13 -128.13

924.00 707.00 217.00 924.00 832.00 92.00 1,960.00 1,017.77 942.23

1,960.00 1,202.30 757.70

• Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program

The Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program is a list of transportation projects for which a specific start date and a specific completion date are listed. As allowed by state law, the County considers the additional capacity to be produced by these roadway improvement projects as being available now for concurrency purposes. As such, a development project impacting a deficient link can proceed despite the deficient link where a roadway improvement project for the deficient link will be under construction no later than three years after issuance of the first building permit for the development project.

Because of lower demand on area roadways from the depressed housing market and the pending expiration of concurrency certificates for previously approved developments, the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program is no longer needed. Therefore, this CIE no longer includes a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program.

Of the four projects previously listed in the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program, two of those projects were removed because they will be under construction within the next six months. Those projects are: Oslo Road from 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, and Oslo Road from 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue. The other two projects were removed from the Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program because the road capacity that those projects would add to the transportation system is no longer needed to maintain the current Level of Service ofE +20. Those projects and the available peak hour, directional trip capacity of the associated roadways are listed in Table 6.11. All of the roadways listed in that table currently have sufficient available peak hour, directional trip capacity to accommodate already approved developments.


33


Tabl(l6.H: Concurren~Y. Lillks Rep~rtfor·Removed Priori.tyf;r:tansp()rtati()n Pi"()je~ts .·. ) ··.

43rd Avenue, 12th Street to 18th Street, 2925N 43'd Avenue, 12"' Street to 16th Street 1,071.00 555.95 515.05 four lanes (1 mile) 2925S 43'd Avenue, 12th Street to 16th Street 1,071.00 728.95 342.05

43rd Avenue, 18th Street to 26th Street, four lanes


Needs Assessment

2930N 43'd Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,071.00 665.40 405.60 2930S 43'd Avenue, 16th Street to S.R. 60 1,071.00 704.56 366.44 2935N 43'd Avenue, S.R. 60 to 26th Street 1,796.00 532.73 1,263.27 2935S 43'd Avenue, S.R. 60 to 26th Street 1,796.00 525.31 1,270.69

Based on public facility requirements identified in the other comprehensive plan elements, this needs assessment identifies the capital improvements required to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet proposed levels of service for existing and new development. For purposes of the CIE, a capital improvement is a substantial facility (land, building or major equipment) that costs at least $100,000 and may be paid for in phases.

Table 6.12 identifies capital improvement needs through fiscal year 2014/15 for conservation & aquifer recharge, emergency services, general services, law enforcement & corrections, recreation and open space, stormwater management, sanitary sewer and potable water, solid waste, transportation, and public schools. Appendix A provides a detailed list of projects associated with each of the comprehensive plan elements as well as those projects associated with individual department capital improvements programs. Not included in Appendix A are projects associated with the Public School Facilities Element. Those projects are found in Appendix C. Detailed capital improvement schedules, which list each improvement project, are provided in each applicable Comprehensive Plan Element or within individual master plans for the respective governmental service.


Emergency Services

General Services



Sanit Sewer &

$1,350,000

$3,426,177

$189,508

$558,960

$4,069,300

$6,681,988


$75,000

$2,361,705

$60,000

$1,900,000

$2,050,000

$1,077,337

Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024

$ $ $100,000

$ $450,000 $3,000,000

$4,160,000 $60,000 $60,000

$ $ $

$3,485,000 $2,825,000 $2,500,000

$4,497,450 $5,028,758 $2,913,000

Indian River County

34


El~~e~t~rq~t~~->~; ;•1 .: •..•.... d6j();.i1:·••··•····.········· 1,. •...... ;ioii/i2.· :·: 1:···· .• · •. ·.·~t~rd}ij·! ;.;c·.i'·.:.··.':%9~~1:!~·.~···~·••i•'.·:r•:%~~~/t,:~1.·'.i··~

Potable Water

Solid Waste $9,075,000 $1,830,000 $2,200,000 $6,967,000 $667,802

Stormwater Management $969,000 $500,000 $950,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000

Transportation $45,272,376 $29,378,382 $32,750,000 $29,800,000 $49,156,568

Total $71,592,309 $39,232,424 $48,492,450 $50,780,758 $60,297,370

Public School $42,851,573 $29,145,119 $10,347,761 $12,310,139 $13,026,495

Facilities*

*The School District oflndian River County has the fiscal responsibility for capital improvement expenditures for public school facilities.

Figure 6.18 graphically displays the projected capital improvements expenditures for the county during the next five fiscal years. As indicated, the sum of the total projected costs for each of the elements for the five year period is $270,395,311.

Within the first fiscal year, projects are funded from current fund balances as well as anticipated annual revenues. For the first three years of the CIP, projects are funded entirely with "committed" revenue sources. "Committed" revenue sources are revenue sources that currently exist. Projects in years four and five of the CIP are funded partially through "planned" revenue sources. "Planned" revenue sources are sources available to the County that have not been utilized. In this case, the one planned revenue source programmed in the CIP is the imposition of an additional six cents of local option gas tax.

Some public facilities, such as public education and health systems, are provided countywide, but are not the fiscal responsibility of the County. The County, however, is required by State Statutes to provide some funds to the Indian River County Health Department (IRCHD). Consistent with State law, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services appoints the management of the IRCHD, maintains the financial records, and prepares its own financial report separate from the county.

In the Future Land Use and Introductory Elements of the county's comprehensive plan, there is an analysis and description of public schools and health centers. Based on generallocational criteria for public schools and health centers, it is assumed that any new facilities which may be constructed in the county by 2014115 will be located within existing infrastructure service areas or designated expansion areas. Therefore, these systems may be considered to be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure.


35



$50,000,000 .

$40,000,000 .

$30,000,000 '

$20,000,000

$10,000,000 .

$0

FY2010/11

fim Conservation & Aquifer Recharge

• Law Enforcement & Corrections

• Solid Waste

Fiscal Assessment

FY2011/12 FY2012/13

!'.il Emergency Services

Ia Recreation & Open Space

D Stormwater Management

FY2013/14 FY2014/15

D General Services

• Sanitary Sewer & Potable Water

IB Transportation

This section examines the county's ability to fund the capital improvements listed in table 6.12, with the exception of public school facilities, and assesses whether sufficient revenue will be available within the existing budget framework utilized by the county to fund the needed improvements at the time that those improvements will be required. For public school facilities listed in table 6.12, the School District of Indian River County is responsible for funding the capital improvements. The School District's adopted "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" (Appendix C) and "Summary ofEstimated Revenue" (Appendix D) provide a detailed review of the financial feasibility ofthe School District's Five Year Capital Plan.

This assessment process consists of projecting future revenue receipts and comparing those receipts to anticipated expenditures. With this process, it is possible to quantify annual revenue surpluses and shortfalls, providing a basis for examining opportunities for financing the needed capital improvements. The expenditure estimates include the operating costs.

Projected Expenditures

Table 6.13 shows the county's projected expenditures for fiscal years 2010111 through 2014/15. By fiscal year 2014/15, the county is projected to have annual expenditures totaling $287,466,627. InFY


36


2014/15, the category projected to have the largest expenditures is the Public Safety category. For the five-year period beginning in fiscal year 2010/11 and ending in fiscal year 2014/15, the county's expenditures are projected to increase by 29.95%.

General Gov't. Services 16,980,605 17,271,000 21,801,000 18,142,000 18,594,000

Public Safety 72,041,547 74,019,705 71,952,000 76,290,000 75,122,000

Physical Environment 68,145,494 54,803,337 59,966,450 69,014,758 63,562,802

Transportation 57,843,301 42,263,382 45,957,000 43,337,000 63,031,568

Economic Environment 499,847 512,000 525,000 538,000 551,000

Human Services 7,597,176 7,787,000 7,982,000 8,182,000 8,387,000

Culture/Recreation 17,785,732 16,109,000 17,895,000 17,595,000 17,639,000

Debt Service 7,024,509 6,829,093 6,830,373 6,823,033 6,813,257

Other 30,589,833 31,355,000 32,139,000 32,942,000 33,766,000

TOTAL 278,508,044 250,949,517 265,047,823 272,863,791 287,466,627 Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

Earmarked Projected Expenditures

Table 6.14 identifies the projected expenditures for the water, sewer, and solid waste enterprise funds for fiscal years 2010/11 through 2014/15. These expenditures include operating expenses and other expenses for each year.

According to law, all revenues from capacity charges must be spent on infrastructure improvements that benefit the payer of the capacity charge. Therefore, the revenue and expenditure amounts increase and decrease with development. For that reason, projecting capacity charge revenues and expenditures is difficult. This system, however, ensures that new development will not reduce levels of service below county minimums.

2010111 $27,333,363 $10,713,852

2011/12 $27,333,000 $10,714,000

2012/13 $28,016,000 $10,982,000


37


2013/14 $28,716,000 $11,257,000

2014/15 $29,434,000 $11,538,000


In FY 2014115, the projected expenses for potable water and sanitary sewer services are expected to be $29,434,000. That is an increase of7.69% from the 2010/11 projected expenses of$27,333,363. Table 6.14 shows that, in FY 2014115, the projected expenses for solid waste services are expected to be $11,538,000. That is an increase of7.69% from the 2010111 projected figure of$10,713,852.

Operating Cost Projections

Table 6.15 provides projections of overall operating costs for the county for fiscal years 2010111 through 2014115. In fiscal year 2014115, the county is projected to incur approximately $189,485,892 in operating costs. Based on the figures shown in table 6.15, the county's operating costs are projected to increase 7.46% between 2010111 and 2014/15.

2010/11 $176,325,902

2011112 $230,937,606

2012/13 $71,402,80 I 2013/14 $152,510,296 2014/15 $189,485,892

Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget

Projected Debt Capacity

Debt Financing, which involves borrowing money using the county's assets as collateral, is one way that the county has provided for its capital facility needs. The primary rationale for providing capital facilities through indebtedness is that it spreads the cost of a facility over its useful life and thus is paid for by those who will use the facility.

Table 6.16 provides a summary of the county's estimated ability to raise bond revenue without a public vote. That table identifies the county's bonding capacity for 10, 20, and 30 years. As table 6.16 indicates, the county's available bonding capacity for a 10 year issue is $160,100,000, while its bonding capacity for a 30 year issue is $323,100,000.


38


Half Cent Sales Tax $47,300,000 $80,300,000 $102,800,000

Gas Taxes $49,800,000 $78,900,000 $97,300,000

Tourist Tax $9,500,000 $15,000,000 $18,500,000

First Guaranteed Entitlement $1,800,000 $2,800,000 $3,500,000

Second Guaranteed Entitlement $3,700,000 $5,900,000 $7,300,000

Sub-Total $112,100,000 $182,900,000 $229,400,000

Possible Pledge Sources

Franchise Fees $40,100,000 $63,500,000 $78,300,000

Road Impact Fees $7,900,000 $12,500,000 $15,400,000

Sub-Total $48,000,000 $76,000,000 $93,700,000

TOTAL $160,100,000 $258,900,000 $323,100,000 *Rates are comparable term AAA rated municipal bond yields as of9/21!10. Source: Indian River County Office of Management and Budget.

• Debt Service Obligations

In table 6.17, the county's debt service obligations for current and anticipated bond issues are summarized. Debt service is payment of principal and interest on obligations resulting from the issuance of bonds. As table 6.17 indicates, the county's major anticipated outstanding debts are for water and sewer revenue bonds, environmentally sensitive land acquisition bonds, recreational revenue bonds, and spring training facility revenue bonds.


39



40


Balance $15,620,000 $15,370,000 $10,615,000 $7,455,000 Interest $781,000 $745,212 $473,450 $381,850 Principal $2,100,000 $3,890,000 $1,930,000 $840,000 Total $2,881,000 $4,635,212 $2,403,450 $1,221,850




2021 Balance $6,570,000 $0 $2,310,000 $3,815,000 Interest $328,500 $92,400 $190,750 Principal $2,550,000 $2,310,000 $305,000 Total $2,878,500 $2,402,400 $495,750

2022 Balance $4,020,000 $0 $3,510,000 Interest $201,000 $175,500 Principal $2,680,000 $320,000 Total $2,881,000 $495,500

2023 Balance $1,340,000 $3,190,000 Interest $67,000 $159,500 Principal $1,340,000 $340,000 Total $1,407,000 $499,500

2024 Balance $0 $2,850,000 Interest $142,500 Principal $355,000 Total $497,500



2027 Balance $1,730,000 2028 Interest $86,500

Principal $410,000 Total $496,500

Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted. November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024

41


Balance

Interest

Principal

Total

2029 Balance

Interest

Principal

Total

2030 Balance

Interest

Principal

Total

2031 Balance

Fiscal Assessment Summary

This section provides an analysis of the county's revenues and expenditures for its capital improvement needs for the five-year period beginning in FY 2010111 and ending in FY 2014115. While Appendix A details all of the capital improvement projects for the next five fiscal years for each individual comprehensive plan element by cost, timeframe, and revenue source(s), Table 6.7 provides general revenue projections for the county through fiscal year 2014/15. As shown in Table 6.7, the County will generate $1,354,835,802 in revenues from general funds, enterprise funds, and internal funds from fiscal year 2010111 to fiscal year 2014115. Sources ofthese funds include sales taxes, property taxes, grants, impact fees, and other revenues. Portions of the money needed for the capital improvements listed within Appendix A will come from the $1,354,835,802.

Overall, the county will have enough revenue to cover the costs associated with the five year capital improvements program. For all projects contained within the County's Capital Improvements project list, the total estimated cost is $204,821,4 7 5 for the next five fiscal years. This is 15.12% of the overall general fund revenues for the same time period.

Concurrency Management Plan

To ensure that level-of-service standards are maintained, it is necessary to have a system in place that provides the criteria for measuring facility capacity, assessing development demand on applicable facilities, and monitoring service levels for applicable facilities. That system will set the parameters for issuing development orders consistent with level-of-service standards.

While this concurrency management plan sets policies and establishes a process, the specific application of this system is through the county's land development regulations. As per state requirements, these regulations define the details of the concurrency management system and establish its administrative requirements.


42

$1,320,000

$66,000

$430,000

$496,000

$890,000

$44,500

$455,000

$499,500

$435,000

$21,750

$435,000

$456,750

$0


The major purpose of the concurrency management system is to detail the specifics of implementing the county's level-of-service standards. For that reason, the concurrency management system must apply to all development activity in the county. The system must then identify the applicable standards for each facility, the geographic scope of each facility, and the method of monitoring facility capacity changes. Most importantly, this system must specify when facilities are considered available.

Project Applicability

All development orders issued by the county must comply with the concurrency management plan and meet level-of-service standards. Development orders are county approvals for construction and/or land development activity. Specifically, development orders consist ofthe following: comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, site plan approvals, preliminary plat approvals, development of regional impact (DRI) approvals, planned development preliminary approvals, and building permit approvals for single-family homes located in subdivisions which were approved after February 13, 1990, the original adoption date of the county's comprehensive plan.

According to Section 163 .3180( 6), F .S., the impact from the construction of a single family home on an existing lot may constitute a de minimus impact on public facilities. State law allows such de minimus projects to be exempt from the concurrency requirement. Indian River County applies the single family de minim us allowance to single family building permits in subdivisions platted before February 13, 1990.

Service Standards

Level-of-service standards for concurrency related facilities are established in this plan for the following facilities: sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, stormwater management, recreation, public schools, and transportation. These are explained in detail in the applicable comprehensive plan elements.

For each facility, level-of-service is a measure of the relationship between demand for the service and the capacity of the facility. Capacity, however, is measured differently for each type of facility. Table 6.18 identifies both the capacity and demand measures for each public facility. These measures are addressed in detail, and existing capacities are identified in the applicable Comprehensive Plan Elements.


43


·· .. ··•.•· ..... ····•• .. · .. ,':. · .... >·. /I:~We §;t~.~;~et±~~~·~~¥~r~~~~:9.~~~~:t~r;;~.~.~sM#r~P.~~;f~.~l~i~9;;\l.t.~~~~itt~~;: < • •• :;;;;!';\<:,"' ::m:t::i\· l .• ••··~u~li~f~~w~c~t~~<>I"Y· • .. 1.···. s~~di~cf~clliM{i •. 'W .. r····~···· ·16~~~~r~;;i';y"l····•·•<~· .... !, .. ;·~~-~~~.:~::'·{ .·:,;;:iJ~~{;~r~s~·{~~~f::·;·

Transportation Roadway Volume of cars Peak Season/Peak Affected Roadways accommodated over time Direction/Peak Hour Trips

Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant Treatment design Capacity

Generation Rate (GPD) Service Area (GPD)

Potable Water Treatment Plant Treatment Design Capacity

Generation Rate (GPD) Service Area (GPD)

Solid Waste Landfill Volume in active cell (cubic Generation Rate (tons per

Entire County yards) capita per year)

Recreation Parks Acres of park land Acres of parks per thousand

Entire County population

Stormwater Management Drainage

Volume of water Volume of stormwater

Basin conveyances outfalling for design storm

Education* Public Schools (K- Number of Children Enrolled Students/ Future Service Area

12) accommodated over time Student Generation

*Limited to participating Schools owned and operated by the Indian River County School District

Concurrency requires that each facility within the geographic scope of a proposed project's impact

area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's demand. If that capacity is not available,

the project cannot be approved. The principal function of the concurrency management system then is

to provide a mechanism whereby demand and capacity measures can be compared on a project by

project basis.

Table 6.18 provides the criteria for establishing a demand to capacity comparison for a proposed

project. While most of the characteristics are self-explanatory, one needs clarification; this is the

geographic scope for the traffic public facility category. For concurrency purposes, affected roadways

are those roadways impacted by a project's traffic. Regardless of size, all projects impact the roadway

on which the project fronts. In addition, other roadways further removed from the project are usually

impacted. For concurrency purposes, two lane roadways which are assigned 8 or more peak

hour/peak season/peak direction project trips and four or more lane roadways that are assigned 15 or

more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips are considered impacted roadways.

For transportation concurrency related facilities, level-of-service standards are applied to all impacted

roadways. Those level-of-service standards range from A to F and are associated with peak hour/peak

season/peak direction trips.

Demand

Demand is an important component of the concurrency management system. Essentially, demand is a

measure of facility use. When compared to facility capacity, demand can indicate the level-of-service

for the facility.

Comm~nity Development Department Indian River County

Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024 44


As depicted in Table 6.18, demand can be measured quantitatively for each public facility category. While the demand function for each facility consists of applying a rate to the number of facility users, estimation of total demand is more complex. For concurrency management purposes, demand can be divided into three types: existing, committed, and projected. Each must be considered separately for purposes of concurrency management.

Existing Demand

Existing demand is simply the current level of use for a facility. For a roadway, it is the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips; for a school, it is the number of full-time enrolled students; for water and wastewater treatment plants, it is the existing flow volume measured in gallons per day. These figures are included within applicable plan elements.

Existing demand then reflects the use of a facility by the current population. When compared to capacity, existing demand can show if the facility has unused capacity or if it is functioning over capacity.

Existing demand, however, is not static. As population increases and dwelling units come on-line, existing demand increases. These increases in existing demand can be identified through facility use measurements. For example, regular traffic counts done on roads or treatment plant flow records are examples of facility use measurements indicating existing demand levels. As existing demand levels for facilities are updated, committed demand levels must be reduced if projects representing committed demand have come on-line.

Committed Demand

Committed demand is a measure of the impact that approved development projects with reserved capacity will have on facilities. When added to existing demand for a facility, the committed demand for that facility will produce a more accurate estimate of unused capacity. This estimate of unused capacity represents the amount of capacity that can realistically be allocated to new projects.

Committed demand must be determined by identifying all projects for which capacity has been reserved through issuance of initial concurrency certificates which are still valid. Then the specific facilities that will be impacted by these projects with reserved capacities must be determined; these facilities will be roadways and the landfill, and they may be treatment plants, drainage conveyances, and recreation facilities. Finally, the total demand on each facility attributable to committed demand will be determined.

Applicable elements of the plan identify the rates to be applied to each project to determine facility demand. Traffic volumes, for example, can be derived by applying a trip rate to the size of the


45


project. Sanitary sewer and potable water both have rates of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. Other public facility rates are discussed fully in their applicable Comprehensive Plan Element.

Like existing demand, committed demand must be determined on a facility by facility basis. For example, both existing demand and committed demand must be determined for each major roadway, each school, each treatment plant, each major drainage conveyance, and the active cell in the landfill. Also, like existing demand, committed demand estimates must be modified as projects are completed; committed demand estimates must also be modified as new development orders are approved and old development orders are terminated.

Projected Demand

The third type of demand is projected demand. This consists of two types. One is noncommitted/non-reserved, single-family lot demand for all subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990, while the other is new project demand.

Non-committed/non-reserved single-family lot projected demand relates to the facility impacts associated with construction on single-family lots in subdivisions platted after February 13, 1990 and construction on single-family unplatted lots and acreage. Since this type of construction will impact facilities, the demand anticipated from this type of activity must be considered in facility expansion plans. For this reason, it is necessary to maintain an accurate inventory of unbuilt, platted lots and consider the impacts of construction on these lots.

The second type of projected demand is new project demand. For each new project, demand estimates must be made on a facility by facility basis. Only if sufficient available capacity exists for each facility to be impacted can the project be approved and a development order issued. Upon issuance of a development order, the estimated impacts on each facility would be considered as committed demand.

Availability of Capacity

Facility capacity can be assessed two different ways. First, facility capacity can be determined by facilities that are existing and available; examples would be existing treatment plants and existing roadways with a set number oflanes. The second manner for assessing facility capacity is to consider both existing, in-the-ground facilities as well as facility expansions or new facilities which are programmed but not yet existing.

According to Chapter 91-5.0055(3), Minimum Requirements For Concurrency, Florida Administrative Code, the capacity of existing, in-the-ground facilities will be considered in all cases.


46


Programmed facilities will be considered in assessing capacity for each public facility category when the following conditions are met:

~ For sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste and drainage facilities:


2. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place and available to serve new development at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(a), F.S.]


1. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are in place or under actual construction; or

2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired by the local government, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed; and

a. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or

b. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or

c. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not


47


more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. [Section 163.3180(2)(b), F.S.]

Transportation supply (capacity). Transportation supply shall be determined on a segment by segment basis. For concurrency purposes, all segments on the county's thoroughfare plan shall be considered. Capacity for segments will be based either on FDOT's generalized capacity tables or individual segment capacity studies approved by the public works director pursuant to the criteria specified in Chapter 952, Traffic. Transportation supply for each segment is:

1. The segment's existing peak hour, peak season, peak direction capacity; or

2. The segment's new roadway capacity iffacility expansion for the segment is proposed and if:


b. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the facility expansion needed to serve the new development is included in the county's adopted five-year schedule of capital improvements and is scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. In order to apply this provision to a facility expansion project, the Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies:

1. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion.

n. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements (for Indian River County, this is included in Policy 1.2 of this Element); or

3. The segment's new roadway capacity if, at the time a development order or permit is issued, the facility is the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the facility to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent; or


48


4. The segment's new roadway capacity if, at the time a development order or permit is issued, the facility is guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, F .S ., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a building permit or its functional equivalent. [Section 163 .3180(2)( c), F .S.]

5. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is the subject of a proportionate fair-share agreement. In such case, the segment capacity increase reflected in the proportionate fair share agreement shall be available only to the party or parties to the proportionate fair share agreement.



Regulation

No development order shall be issued for any project where the project's demand in conjunction with existing demand and committed demand will exceed the capacity of a facility at the service level established in this plan. Level-of-service analysis will be undertaken during the review of each project for which development order approval is required.

Monitoring System

To effectively implement the concurrency requirement, it is necessary to maintain an estimate of available capacity for each public facility subject to level-of-service requirements. By maintaining an accurate and current available capacity estimate for each facility, projected demand from development applications can be compared to the available capacity for the facility to determine if the project can be approved. The purpose of the monitoring program is to maintain a current estimate of available capacity for each facility.

With the exception of public schools, the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan is maintained by the county's planning division. Effective July 1, 2008, the School District initiated and now maintains the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan for public schools. Using a network computer system and data base management software, records were developed and are maintained for each specific facility.


49


Based upon information in the specific comprehensive plan elements, total capacity figures for each applicable facility are maintained in data base files established for each public facility category. Capacity figures are modified as facilities are expanded or as criteria specified in the availability of capacity section are met, thereby allowing a programmed expansion to be considered for capacity determination purposes. Through contact with other county departments, planning staff are able to modify capacity estimates as soon as facility characteristics are changed.

Table 6.19 depicts the general structure of the monitoring system data base file for each public facility category. This table shows that available capacity for each specific facility is a function of total capacity less existing demand and less committed demand. The demand section of this concurrency management plan identifies the methodology for assessing demand.

Peak season/ peak Annual count (average) Volume estimated from (Total Capacity) - (Existing Traffic Roadways direction/ peak hour (peak season/peak approved Development Demand) -(Committed

(LOS D) direction/peak hour) Orders (DO) Demand)

Sanitary Treatment Volume estimated from (Total Capacity) - (Existing

Design flows Existing flows Demand)- (Committed Sewer Plants approved DO's

Demand)

Treatment Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Potable Water Plants

Design flows Existing flows approved DO's

Demand) - (Committed Demand)

Active cell design Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Solid Waste Landfill Active cell volume used Demand)- (Committed capacity approved DO's

Demand)

(Acres per thousand (Acres per thousand

(Total Capacity)- (Existing Recreation Parks Park Acreage population) X (existing

population) X (projected Demand)- (Committed

population) population for approved

Demand) DO's)

Drainage Volume of stormwater (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Drainage Volume Existing flows allowed to outfall for Demand)- (Committed conveyances

approved DO's Demand)

Public Permanent Student Annual Enrollment Students estimated from (Total Capacity)- (Existing

Education Schools(K-12) Stations (FISH) Count (FTE) approved residential Demand)- (Committed Development Orders) Demand)



50

Comprehensive Plan

Do quarterly traffic counts for thoroughfare plan roads to determine existing demand


IdentifY existing flows for each water and sewer treatment plant








Applicability



MPO Annually

Utilities Annually

Utilities Annually

Planning Annually


Planning Ongoing

School District Annually

Planning Ongoing

Planning Ongoing

The concurrency management plan monitoring system has applicability to more than just level-ofservice measurement. It also provides the basis for assessing facility expansion needs and therefore capital improvements programming. By maintaining an accurate and up-to-date estimate of available capacity, the need for facility expansion can be recognized before all capacity is used. By incorporating the monitoring system into the capital improvements programming process, capital budgets can be prepared based on reliable information and valid estimates of need.


51



Goal

It is the goal oflndian River County to provide needed capital improvements through the use of sound fiscal decision making.

Objectives and Policies

Objective 1: Construction of Capital Facilities

By 2015, the county will have completed those capital improvements schedule projects that replace obsolete or worn-out facilities, eliminate existing deficiencies or accommodate desired future growth.

Policy 1.1: The county shall maintain a five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to Section 163 .31 77 (3 )(b) F. S. evaluate and update that program every year to reflect existing and future public facility needs of the county. This capital improvement program will ensure that the plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained.

Policy 1.2: The county and the School District shall undertake only those capital improvements included within this element's adopted capital improvements program. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b) F.S., the Capital Improvements Element will be reviewed every year. Consistent with Section 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code, if any facility identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements is delayed or deferred in construction, or is eliminated from the capital improvements program, and this delay, defer, or elimination will cause the level-of-service to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level of service standard for the facility, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required to adjust the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The annual update of the capital improvement element shall be done with a single public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the ordinance amending the Capital Improvements Element shall be transmitted to DCA.

Policy 1.3: The county shall evaluate and prioritize its capital improvement projects based on following criteria. These criteria are ranked in order of importance.

);> Preservation ofthe health and safety of the public by eliminating public hazards; );> Compliance with all mandates and prior commitments; );> Elimination of existing deficiencies; );> Maintenance of adopted level-of-service standards; );> Provision of infrastructure concurrent with the impact of new development; );> Protection of prior infrastructure investments; );> Consistency with the county plan and plans of other agencies; );> Accommodation of new development and redevelopment facility demands;


52


~ Consistency with plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction;

· ~ Promotion of compact development by discouraging growth outside of urban service areas;

~ Demonstration of linkages between projected growth and facility location; ~ Utilization of the economies of scale and timing of other improvements; ~ Reduction of operating costs; ~ Adjustment for unseen opportunities, situations, and disasters.

Policy 1.4: The county shall implement the policies of the Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Solid Waste sub-elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Since these are enterprise account funded elements, capital expenditures identified in these elements shall be funded principally from revenues derived from the applicable systems.

Policy 1.5: The county shall prioritize and implement the programs identified in the Transportation, Recreation and Open Space, Stormwater Management, Conservation, and Future Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 1.6: The county shall not eliminate or reallocate budgeted appropriations for road improvement projects required to meet the adopted level-of-service standards unless the applicable projects will be constructed by other means and remain concurrent with the county's Schedule of Capital Improvements.

Policy 1.7: The county shall continue to allocate funds for the replacement and the renewal of infrastructure in an amount which will minimize the operating costs of the infrastructure and maximize the life of the infrastructure.

Policy 1.8: The county shall manage its long-term general obligation debt in such a manner that the ratio of the debt service millage to the countywide operating millage does not exceed 20%.

Policy 1.9: The county hereby defines a capital improvement as an improvement with a cost that exceeds $100,000.

Policy 1.10: The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall contain a mix of capital expenditures, including projects to eliminate existing deficiencies, to upgrade and replace existing facilities, and to construct new facilities.

Policy 1.11: The county shall maintain a procedure in its annual budget review requiring each county department to include in its annual budget request applicable expenditures as identified in the capital improvements program of the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Element as well as department's capital improvements.


53


Policy 1.12: The county hereby adopts the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan. The Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan will be evaluated and updated annually to reflect existing and future public school facility needs of the county. This will ensure that the Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools is achieved and maintained.

Objective 2: Development in Coastal High Hazard Areas

Through 2030, development in coastal high hazard areas will not increase beyond the density or intensity levels indicated on the current Future Land Use Map.

Policy 2.1: The coastal high hazard area is defined as the area of the county designated as evacuation zones for a category one hurricane.

Policy 2.2: The county shall not increase land use density and intensity, in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that reflected in the county's current Future Land Use Map.

Policy 2.3: The county shall make appropriations for infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas only to maintain the adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 2.4: The county shall ensure that the replacement of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area will be limited to maintaining the adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 2.5: The county shall require that all developments and all single-family units in coastal high hazard areas fully pay the cost for required infrastructure improvements through impact fees, capacity charges, developer dedications, assessments, and contributions.

Policy 2.6: The county shall not use public funds to subsidize increased density or intensity of urban development in coastal high hazard areas; however, public beach, shoreline access, resource restoration, or similar projects may be constructed.

Objective 3: Maintenance of Established Level-of-Service Standards

Through 2030, adopted levels-of-service will be maintained for all concurrency facilities.

Policy 3.1: The county hereby adopts the concurrency management system as described within this element. The county shall maintain Land Development Regulation (LDR) Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System, which implements the plan's concurrency management system. In accordance with the concurrency management system of this plan and LDR Ch. 910, the county will not approve


54


any development project where the impacts of such a project would lower the existing level-of-service on any facility below that facility's adopted minimum level-of-service standard.

Policy 3.2: The county shall approve development only in accordance with the utility connection matrix identified in the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-Elements.

Policy 3.3: The county shall, concurrent with the impact of new development, provide the infrastructure necessary to maintain the levels-of-service identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Where development is proposed and is consistent with all applicable regulations but one or more public facilities is/are operating at an inadequate service level, the applicant may at his expense make facility improvements to increase facility capacity when such improvements are consistent with county plans and receive county approval.

Policy 3.4: The county shall make land use decisions based on the planned availability offacilities to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 3. 5: The county hereby adopts Concurrency Management level-of-service standards for public facilities that are established in the other Comprehensive Plan Elements and which are stated below:

~ Stormwater Management:


~ New development requiring major site plan approval or subdivision platting shall construct a complete drainage system to mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design rainfall event using the soil conservation service type 2 modified rainfall curves.


By 2015, all existing roadways in the county shall be improved to meet the following level-of-service standards:

~ Minimum road crown elevation for existing roads shall be raised during resurfacing/rebuilding to the flood elevation resulting from the 2 year/24 hour storm event on local streets.

The center two lanes of rebuilt roads must be at or above flood levels resulting from a 10 year 24 hour storm event on Arterial and Collector roads.


55


All drainage basins will meet the following level of service standards: By 2007 5-Y ear/24 Hour Storm Event By 2010 10-Y ear/24 Hour Storm Event

The county hereby adopts the following water quality level-of-service standard: ~ As a minimum, retention of the first one inch of rainfall is required prior to offsite

discharge. An additional 50% treatment is required for all direct discharge into the Sebastian River and into the Indian River Lagoon due to its designation as an outstanding Florida water, as required by state law.

~ Potable Water


~ Countywide level-of-service standard of250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit.

~ Solid Waste

The following level-of-service standard is adopted for solid waste facilities in the county, and shall be used as the basis for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development:

~ Countywide level-of-service standard of2.2 tons or 3.67 cubic yards per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population per year.

~ Sanitary Sewer


~ Countywide level-of-service standard of250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit with a peak monthly flow factor of 1.25.

~ Recreation & Open Space

Th_e county adopts the following recreation level-of-service standard: ~ County wide level-of-service standard of 6.61 recreation acres/1 ,000 permanent plus

weighted peak seasonal population.


56


~ Transportation

The county adopts traffic circulation level-of-service standards as follows: ~ Level-of-Service "D" during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions, on all

TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial, and collector roadways, with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service "E" plus 20%.

• •

2ih Ave- South County Line to SR 60 43rd Ave- Oslo Road to 16th Street

For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service "B" is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C" is adopted for urban areas.

Policy 3.6: The county hereby adopts level-of-service standards for selected public facilities as follows:

~ Correctional Facilities

The county adopts the following correctional facilities level-of-service standard: ~ County wide level-of-service standard of 4.5 beds/1,000 permanent plus weighted

peak seasonal population

~ Fire/EMS

The county adopts the following Fire/EMS level-of-service standard: ~ County wide (excluding Indian River Shores) level-of-service standard of .089

Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

~ Law Enforcement

The county adopts the following Law Enforcement level-of-service standard: ~ Unincorporated County level-of-service standard of2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent

plus weighted peak seasonal population

~ Libraries

The county adopts the following Libraries level-of-service standards: ~ County wide level-of-service standard of 580 building square feet per 1,000

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population


57


>- County wide level-of-service standard of 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

>- County wide level-of-service standard of 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

>- County wide level-of-service standard of0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population

~ Public Buildings

The county adopts the following Public Buildings level-of-service standard: >- County wide level-of-service standard of 1.99 building square feet per capita for

permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population.

~ Schools

The county adopts the following Schools level-of-service standard:

Schools (School Service Areas):

~ 100 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school type (elementary, middle, and high).

~ llransit

The County adopts the following transit level-of-service standard: >- One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes.

Objective 4: Future Development's Share of Capital Costs

Through 2030, new developments will bear a proportionate share of the cost required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 4.1: llhe county shall use impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, developer dedications and contributions, to pay for infrastructure improvements and services needed to satisfy future needs while maintaining adopted level-of-service standards.

Policy 4.2: llhe county shall conduct research to identify new sources of revenue for funding capital improvement projects.


58


Objective 5: Local Government's Ability to Provide Required Services and Facilities

Through 2030, the county will ensure that it is able to fund and provide required services and facilities.

Policy 5.1: The county shall not approve land use amendment requests unless those requests are consistent with the concurrency management system requirements of this element.

Policy 5.2: In the event that the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for development orders, the county shall schedule capital improvements to serve developments in the following order of priority: ~ Single-family units in existing platted subdivisions or on existing legal, buildable parcels ~ Affordable housing projects ~ New development orders permitting redevelopment ~ New development orders permitting new developments where the applicant funds the

infrastructure expansion in exchange for future reimbursement ~ New development orders permitting new developments without developer participation

Policy 5.3: The county shall extend facilities and services to serve areas only within the existing Urban Service Area or as allowed by Policy 5.7 ofthe Potable Water Sub-Element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 5.4: The county shall coordinate with other local, state, and federal agencies as well as private entities to create an efficient capital improvements schedule that provides the following general benefits while minimizing the financial burden of providing facilities and services: ~ Reduction of overall capital and operating expenditures by the development of multi-use

facilities; ~ More efficient land use patterns and phasing; ~ Reduction of overlapping, duplicating, and administrative procedures; ~ Implementation of adopted physical, social, and economic goals and policies in a least-cost

manner; ~ Better coordination of public capital investment with private capital expenditures.

Policy 5.5: The county shall continue utilizing enterprise funds for the provision of Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, and Solid Waste facilities. The debt for enterprise funds is to be paid by user fees, capacity charges, and other appropriate sources.

Policy 5.6: The county shall finance the capital cost of non-enterprise fund supported public facilities (e.g., roads, stormwater management, and parks) from current revenue, bond issues, impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, and other appropriate sources.


59


Policy 5.7: The county shall use general obligation bonds and other sources to raise the funding required to provide those public facilities that cannot be constructed with user fees, revenue bonds, impact fees, capacity charges, or other dedicated revenue sources.

Policy 5.8: Developments, which require public facility infrastructure improvements that will be financed by county debt, shall have their development orders conditioned on the issuance of the county debt or the substitution of a comparable amount of non-debt revenue.

Policy 5.9: Pursuant to state law, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance and not deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan when the amendment relates to corrections, updates, or modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or the date of construction of any facility except transportation facilities enumerated in the Schedule of Capital Improvements. For transportation facilities, a delay in construction of a facility which causes the level-of-service of that facility to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level-of-service standard for the roadway will require a comprehensive plan amendment.

Policy 5.10: The county shall ensure that all capital improvements identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan are completed according to schedule. The only acceptable delays will be those which are subject to one of the following: );;> Projects providing capacity equal to, or greater than, the delayed project are accelerated within

or added to the Schedule of Capital Improvements; );;> Modification of development orders issued conditionally or subject to the concurrent

availability of public facility capacity provided by the delayed project. Such modification shall restrict the allowable amount and schedule of development to that which can be served

- by the capacity of public facilities according to the revised schedule; or );;> Amendment of the plan to reduce the adopted standard for the level-of-service for public

facilities until the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled to be completed.


60


Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring

Implementation

An important part of any plan is its implementation. Implementation involves execution ofthe plan's policies. It involves taking actions and achieving results.

For the Capital Improvements Element, implementation involves various activities. While some of these actions will be ongoing, others are activities that will be taken by certain points in time. For each policy in this element, table 6.21 identifies the type of action required, the responsible entity for taking the action, the timing, and whether or not the policy necessitates a capital expenditure.

To implement the Capital Improvements Element, several different types of actions must be taken. These include: development of mechanisms for funding new facilities, adoption ofland development regulations and ordinances, execution of interlocal agreements, coordination, and preparation of studies and evaluation and monitoring reports.

Overall, the Capital Improvements Element implementation responsibility will rest with the Office of Management and Budget. Besides its responsibilities as identified in table 6.20, the planning department has the additional responsibility of ensuring that other entities discharge their responsibilities. This will entail notifying other applicable departments of capital expenditures to be included in their budgets, notifying other departments and groups of actions that must be taken, and assisting other departments and agencies in their plan implementation responsibilities.

As part of the Capital Improvements Element, the county has developed a Concurrency Management Plan, which ensures the maintenance of the adopted level-of-service standards. Through the Concurrency Management Plan, the county will measure facility capacity, assess development demand, and maintain a Capital Improvements Program which ensures that the level-of-service standards are maintained.


61

Comprehensive Plan

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.1

4.2

Maintain the CIP

Follow the CIP

Prioritize capital improvement projects

Implement recommendations

Prioritize and implement programs

Maintain previous commitments

Replacement and renewal of infrastructure

Budget Management

Define capital improvement

Capital Budget Management

Capital Improvements Management

Define costal high hazard area

Maintain density and intensity levels of current FLU Map

Budget management

Maintain LOS standards

Funding mechanisms

Infrastructure replacement strategy

Maintain concurrency management system

Follow connection matrix of Comprehensive Plan SubElements

Maintain adopted LOS standards

Land use decisions

Adopt LOS standards

Impose regulations

Conduct research



OMB/PD 2010-2014 No

PD 2010-2014 No

OMB/PD/SD Ongoing No

Appropriate County 2010-2014

Departments/SO Yes

Appropriate County 2010-2014

Departments/SO Yes

BCC/PWD/SD Ongoing No

Appropriate County Ongoing

Departments/SO No

OMB/SD Ongoing No

PD/OMB Ongoing No

OMB/SD Ongoing No

OMB/SD Ongoing No

DCA Ongoing No

PD Ongoing No


Departments Yes


Departments Yes

BCC/Private Developers Ongoing No


Departments No

PD Ongoing No


Departments No

PO Ongoing No

BCC Ongoing No BCC/SD/ Appropriate

Ongoing County Departments

No


Departments Yes

OMB/PD Ongoing No

Indian River County

62

Comprehensive Plan

4.3

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

Work with municipalities

Approve land use changes only if infrastructure can support land use change

Prioritize capital improvements

Extension of facilities and services

Create an efficient capital improvements schedule

Utilize enterprise funds

Finance non-enterprise fund supported projects

Fund the construction of public facilities

Permitting Requirements

Amending the Schedule of Capital Improvements

Complete the Schedule of Capital Improvements

Adopt a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Schedule

BCC =Board of County Commissioners FDOT =Florida Department of Transportation OMB =Office of Management and Budget PWD =Public Works Department

Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures


BCC/SD/Other Local Ongoing No Governments in IRC

BCC Ongoing No

BCC/SD/ Appropriate Ongoing No County Departments

BCC/Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments

Appropriate County Departments/Other Ongoing No

Government Agencies

OMB Ongoing No

OMB Ongoing No

OMB/SD Ongoing Yes

BCC/Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments

BCC/OMB/PD/SD Ongoing No

BCC/SD/ Appropriate 2014 No

BCC/PWD/MPO Ongoing No

DCA= Department of Community Affairs MPO =Metropolitan Planning Organization PD = Planning Department SD = School District

To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation; it must also provide a mechanism for assessing the plan's effectiveness. Generally, a plan's effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which the plan's objectives have been met. Since objectives are structured, as much as possible, to be measurable and to have specific timeframes, the plan's objectives are the benchmarks used as a basis to evaluate the plan.

Table 6.22 identifies each ofthe objectives of the Capital Improvements Element. It also identifies the measures to be used to evaluate progress in achieving these objectives. Most of these measures are qua.rititative, such as adopting land development requirements, which ensure the maintenance of


63


the level-of-service standards, adopting a capacity monitoring system and others. Besides the measures, table 6.22 also identifies timeframes associated with meeting the objectives.

The Planning Department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Capital Improvement Element. This will involve collection of data and compilation of information regarding facility capacity, expansion, and new development permitted. This will be done on a regular basis. As part of the county's Concurrency Management System, the Planning Department will continually monitor the facility capacity to ensure that level-of-service standards will be maintained .

. ····,;·· .. '';('.·!;:·;:.' .. '.··

; ·JilP~~#~ ,. Existing deficiencies in county services and/or obsolete or worn-out facilities 2015

2 Land use density and intensity in Coastal High Hazard Area 2030

3 Level-of-service provided for county services 2030

4 Existence of appropriate Land Development Regulations 2030

5 Completion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements 2030

While monitoring will occur on a continual basis, formal evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will occur annually. The formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire Comprehensive Plan will occur every ten years (dependent upon the schedule adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Capital Improvements Element objectives should be modified or expanded based on revisions to state statutes and changing conditions not identified and addressed as part of the annual CIE update. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element not otherwise addressed in the yearly update of the Capital Improvements Element.

As discussed in the above paragraphs, the evaluation and monitoring procedures identified for the Capital Improvements Element are basically the same for the entire Comprehensive Plan. These procedures are currently being used to prepare the formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used by the county in subsequent Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. Included in those procedures are the format requirements listed in 91-5.005-(l)(a)(e), F.A.C.

The monitoring and evaluation of this plan is critical to ensure that the policies are effective in achieving the plan's goals and objectives. Each individual element of the plan contains provisions and measures to be used in the review of the element. Each element contains an Implementation and Evaluation Matrix and monitoring procedures, which are currently being used to prepare the current Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used to prepare future Evaluation and Appraisal Reports.


64


In addition, a great portion of the plan monitoring will be in conjunction with the concurrency management system which is designed to ensure that approved level-of-service standards are maintained and that sufficient capacity exists in the various services and facilities. Other evaluation of the plan or plan elements is likely to occur in the day to day application of the mandated regulations, which will result in plan amendments.

The formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report required by law is currently providing and in subsequent versions will provide a complete review of the plan and be conducted in compliance with the public participation procedures adopted for the development of this plan.

As part of the monitoring system, all appropriate baseline data is currently being updated and will be updated. Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process is and will also be used to determine whether the objectives should be modified or expanded. In this way the monitoring and evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan Elements not only provides a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it also provides a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element.

Community Development Department Indian River County 65 Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024



__________________ ,;::I.;;;;n..;;:dian River County Five Year Schedule oflmprovements

Env. Land Bonds

Park Imoact Fees $

Grant $ $ $

Total Revenue $

:,:•:\; 11171 I •1'. l~iii?.~i:t WJ'!!WJ.)¥l~oi2i13~i~~:ifa ~l(i~F:vJ2oi'37l!fll!:~~;' ,.,.,, .n; ''''''"'''''-''"''''"' I''''''"'"C''.ii:iti'~Y '!'oit,/l':·l::'i<IU 1~/}:l'::

$ - $ - $ -Archie Smith Fish House $ 45,000 $ - $ 45,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -South Prong Preserve $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -NA WCA Grant - Pressley Conserv. Easement $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -NA WCA Grant - Pressley Conserv. Easement $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 Grant

$ - $ - $ -NSCA Addition Fencing $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -CFHP Cypress Cottage Restoration $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -Ansin Tract Boardwalk/Pier $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -Cypress Bend Community Preserve $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -ORCA South Link Pavilion $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ - $ -ORCA Diamond Tract Boardwalk/Pier $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 Env. Land Bonds

$ - $ -Flinn Tract - Access $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ 100,000 Park Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Flinn Tract - Access $ 25,000 $ 100,000 $ 125,000 Grant

$ - $ -Total Expenditures $ 1,350,000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,525,000



Services Dist.

Sales Tax

$ $

Total Revenue $

$ r;~'1i?£;~o12/n'~!.£\~~ 11if£tr~:zurazt"llll! :~l~f~if:Yi!211'1~f1'Siii1!•

- $ - $ -Emergency Svcs. Station 9 - Replace $ 88,332 $ - $ 88,332 Emergency Services Dist.

$ - $ -Emergency Svcs. Station 13 -Addition $ 1,137,845 $ 1,486,705 $ - $ 2,624,550 Emergency Services Dist.

$ - $ $ 800 MHz Radio Expansion $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 Optional Sales Tax

$ - $ $ -Emergency Svcs. Station 14- Addition $ $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ Two Med Units and One Fire Engine $ - $ 875,000 $ - $ 875,000 Emergency Services Dist.

$ - $ Two Med Units $ - $ 450,000 $ - $ 450,000 Emergency Services Dist.

$ - $ - $ One Quiint (Fire Apparatus) $ - $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Emergency Services Dist.

$ -Total Expenditures $ 3,426,177 $ 2,361,705 $ 450,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 9,237,882



·I Annual Balance . I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I

$ $

$ $

$ $



$ - $ -Evidence Addition $ 558,960 $ 700,000 $ - $ 1,258,960 Optional Sales Tax

$ - $ -Evidence Addition $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ 1,200,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Total Expenditures $ 558,960 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ 2,458,960

Total Revenue



$ - $ -State Road 5 10 Fishing Pier $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ 1,400,000 Optional Sales Tax

$ -Land for Future Parks $ 1,575,000 $ 1,575,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 5,500,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -West County Regional Park $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -North County Regional Park Restroom $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Gifford Park Restroom/Concession Bldg $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -16th Street Ballfields Restroom $ - $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Round Island Riverside Rpl Boardwalk $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ 80,000 Grant

$ - $ -North County Regional Park Lazy River $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Kiwanis Hobart Park Restroom $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Fair~rrounds Camp~rround $ 30,293 $ 200,000 $ - $ 230,293 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -Fairgrounds Campground $ 40,000 $ - $ 40,000 Optional Sales Tax

Total Exoenditures $ 4,069,300 $ 2,050,000 $ 3,485,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 14,929,300



I Total Revenue I $ 9,928,533 I $ 1,600,000 I $ 2,285,000 I $ 2,600,000 I $ 3,785,000 I $ 20,198,533 I

~:~EX'P'ena~tnres::~,~:~:~~~~r~~)~~~:~{;~;~%~il~t~?~~:~JfH~~I1~~~§~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~t':?!,~}i!~:81 >~7ii!:!:'i~l'i:"J.<W~'2011111'1,1llf'.'I:'£Yi :,:;:;;::;(:F,£J2Qff/12T:[?#iJlc !iil1itf!tYi:2o112713i~i'il i:i11~ 1':.l:F;Y::zot3tr.:t%i~'' ~~~~F\\:zol4115i't11~;: ~·~~tff~¥:!I~Xbfiil?~·~1~i~f0~~,:

Mise Water Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Impact Fees

Mise Sewer Improvements $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 Impact Fees $ $

77th West of Kings (Tuscanny Lakes) $ 112,237 $ 112,237 $ - $ 224,474 Impact Fees $ $ -

12WM 17th St. SW from 27th Av to 43rd Av $ $ $ 610,000 $ 610,000 Impact Fees

Design FM and WM on 4th St from 82nd to 98th $ $ -Ave and on 98th from 4th to 8th $ - $ $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ $ -Convert North County Brine Line to Reuse Main $ 85,000 $ - $ 85,000 Impact Fees

12" WM on 27th Ave from 13th st SW to 17th St $ - $ SW _{Madera Isles & Echo Lake $ $ - $ 341,000 $ 341,000 Impact Fees

$ $ -South County Brine Disposal $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Impact Fees

$ - $ - $ -H_ydromentia Pilot $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 Grant Funding

58th Av 65th St to 69th St & along 61st and 69th $ St $ 50,000 $ 500,000 $ 450,000 $ 232,000 $ 1,232,000 Impact Fees

Svce Transmission Lines Oslo Pk, Villages of VB $ $ - $ Gardens $ $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Impact Fees

Install Wells and Piping at North County RO $ - $ - $ -Plant $ 1,948,293 $ $ 1,948,293 Impact Fees

$ - $ Install Well No.7 st S. Co. RO Plant $ - $ 640,050 $ 574,358 $ 1,214,408 Impact Fees

$ $ $ -12" W.M. along 66th Av. from 16th to 20th St. $ 229,418 $ - $ 229,418 Impact Fees

16" WM from Kings Tank to College Ln. and $ - $ - $ -Loop to Club ofVero $ 115,450 $ - $ 115,450 Impact Fees

$ - $ -Install6" FM along 16th St west of 43rd Ave $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 Impact Fees

Install24" WM along 77th St from 66th Ave to $ $ -70th Ave then North to CR 510 $ $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Impact Fees

N. Reg. Reuse Sto. & Repump Facility with $ - $ $ -Transmission Mains to Barrier Island $ 1,512,490 $ $ 1,512,490 Impact Fees



Brine line on 77th to CR510,Bridge conversion & $ - $ - $ 16" line to AlA $ 984,000 $ - I $

Construct 12" WM along 53rd St. E/0 RR, LatH $ - $ - $ Canal $ 745.000 $ - I $

$ - $ Construct 20"WM on 66th Av 45th to 77th St $ - I $

Construct 20" WM on 66th Av from 20th St. to $ 45th St. $ -

Verona Trace Developer's Agreement $ 40,100 $ 40.100 $

Madera Isle/Echo Lake Dev Agreement I $ - $ $ - $

w/Auto Valves I $ 200,000

$ - $ - I I $ $ 35,000

$

Fees



Roseland Citizens Convenience Center Expansion $ - $ -and Improvements $ - $ 1,920,000 $ - $ 1,920,000 Assessments & User Fees

Gifford Citizens Convenience Center Expansion $ - $ -and Improvements $ - $ 1,430,000 $ - $ 1,430,000 Assessments & User Fees

Oslo Citizens Convenience Center Expansion and $ - $ - $ -Improvements $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000 Assessments & User Fees

Transfer Tractorffransfer Trailers and Roll-off Truck/Containers $ - $ 400,000 $ 280,000 $ 320,000 $ 667,802 $ 1,667,802 Assessments & User Fees

Design, Permitting & Construction of Class I Landfill -Co Disposal (former 33 Acres for $ - $ - $ -C&D) $ 6,450,000 $ - $ 6,450,000 Assessments & User Fees

$ - $ - $ -Retrofit of MRF $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 Assessments & User Fees

Partial Closure of Cell I, C&D Landfill, Seg-1, $ - $ - $ -Seg-2 and the Infill $ - $ 6,400,000 $ 6,400,000 Assessments & User Fees

Total Exoenditures $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802

$ Stormwater Park $



PC North - North Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ -

I System) $ - $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC North- North Relief Canal Treatment System !

(Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ -System) $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 800,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 IRC Utility Dept

PC South - South Relief Canal Treatment System (Canal Screening System and Algal Turf Scrubber $ - $ -System) $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grant

$ - $ - $ -Rockridge Surge Protection Project $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Grant

$ - $ - $ -Rockridge Surge Protection Project $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Optional Sales Tax Funds

Vero Lake Estates Phase 11 and liT $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ !00,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 MSTU Assessments $ - $ -

Vero Lake Estates Phase II and lli $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Grant

Total Expenditures $ 969,000 $ 500,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,419,000 i

$ $ $ $

from FDOT-Gas Tax $ 7



Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000 Grant $ 8,095,502 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 2,339,000 $ 15,134,502 Traffic Impact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497 Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,311 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,311 Traffic Imoact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532

$ - $ - $ - $ -Develooer Contributions $ 106,952 $ 106,952 Optional Sales Tax $ 18,618,648 $ 3,360,000 $ 3,444,000 $ 3,530,240 $ 3,618,440 $ 32,571,328

$ -Payback from FDOT- Optional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ 14,823,571

$ - $ - $ - $ -Old Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ 1,140,009

$ - $ -Develooer Funded Construction $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,600,000 Total Revenue $ 78,143,562 $ 13,522,000 $ 15,735,196 $ 18,620,111 $ 60,336,457 $ 186,357,326


Comprehensive Plan

16th Street, 66th Avenue to 74th Avenue, two lanes

16th Street, 66th Avenue to 74th Avenue, two lanes


$

Adopted November 2, 2010, Ordinance 2010-024


$



Construction

43rd Avenue, 49th Street to 53rd Street, three lanes $ $


Comprehensive Plan

lanes

43rd Avenue/SR 60- 18th Street to 26th Street- 4 lanes

43rd Avenue/SR 60- 18th Street to 26th Street- 4 lanes




Comprehensive Plan

66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles), Includes side streets & side street bridges

66th Avenue,SR 60 to 41st Street, four lanes (4.0-miles ), Includes side streets & side street bridges



Street/82nd Ave. Intersection m;"a";""





82nd Avenue Over Lateral "D" Canal and 4th



12th Street Sidewalk-43rd to 27th Ave

$

$



$ - $ - $ - $ -Water and Sewer Cash Forward $ 8,528,533 $ 8,528,533 Solid Waste Assessments & User Fees $ 9,075,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,967,000 $ 667,802 $ 20,739,802 MSTU Assessments $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000

$ - $ - $ -IRC Utilities Department $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Gas Tax $ 10,297,507 $ 2,232,000 $ 2,255,000 $ 6,237,971 $ 6,237,971 $ 27,260,449

$ - $ - $ -Bonds Proceeds - Gas Tax $ - $ 44,805,166 $ 44,805,166

$ - $ - $ - $ -Payback from FOOT-Gas Tax $ 7,865,009 $ 7,865,009 Interest $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 1,400,000

Traffic Imoact Fees District I $ 741,497 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 2,991,497

Traffic Impact Fees District II $ 17,764,311 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 22,864,311

Traffic Impact Fees District III $ 8,582,456 $ 350,000 $ 556,196 $ 600,000 $ 705,880 $ 10,794,532 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Developer Contributions $ 106,952 $ 106,952 $ - $ -

Developer Funded Construction $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,600,000 $ -

Pavback from FOOT- Ootional Sales Tax $ 4,051,671 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,771,900 $ 14,823,571 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Old Traffic Imoact Fees $ 1,140,009 $ 1,140,009

TOTAL $ ... 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311



Total Revenues All Categories $ 107,710,040 $ 23,898,705 $ 29,265,196 $ 37,172,111 $ 72,349,259 $ 270,395,311 Total Expenditures All Catee;ories $ 71,592,309 $ 39,232,424 $ 48,492,450 $ 50,780,758 $ 60,297,370 $ 270,395,311 Difference $36,117,731 -$15,333,719 -$19,227,254 -$13,608,647 $12,051,889 $0



APPENDIX B: 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has adopted its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This plan prioritizes roadway improvements through a 20 year planning horizon. The table below lists these prioritized roadway improvements. Because the LRTP prioritizes long range roadway projects through 2030, or contains projects funded entirely by non-county sources, it includes some projects that are not in Appendix A, the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.

2030 Roadway lm:Qrovement Plan {Table 4.9.3 of the Trans:Qortation Element) On Street From To Base Road Tvoe Future Road Tyue Total Cost

I-95 S. County Line N. County Line 4 Lane Freeway 6 Lane Freeway $109,919,000 rF.J

SR60 98th Ave I-95 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $2,543,842 -rF.J

SIS Total $112,462,842

SR60 I-95 82nd Ave 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,119,4451

SR60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $1,864,758 1

"' "0 US I S. County Line Oslo Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $12,064,823 0: Q

~ US I Aviation Blvd Old Dixie Hwy (N) 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $44,372,047 ~ .... us 1 Roseland Rd N. County Line 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $5,255,518 0: ....

rF.J Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 Per Year) $10,000,000

Other State Roads Total $81,676,591

4th St 98th Ave 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $16,262,035

12th St 90th Ave 82ndAve 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,781,786

"' 12th St 43rdAve 27th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $2,854,618 "0 0: Q

$4,041,388 ~ 13th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided ;>, .... 13th St SW 43rdAve 34th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $1,560,899 = = Q 13th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,359,684 u





2030 Roadway Improvement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transportation Element) On Street From To Base Road Ty[!e Future Road Ty[!e Total Cost 26th St 66th Ave 43rdAve 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $13,006,I54 26th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,850,48I Aviation Blvd 43rdAve U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,537,828 27th Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9,560,909 27th Ave OsloRd S.R. 60 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,330,699 43rdAve S County Line OsloRd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $I2,974,563 43rdAve OsloRd 8th St 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8,3Il,058 53rd St 82ndAve 66th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $9,599,620

58th Ave S County

OsloRd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $1I,850,325 Line/Koblegard Rd

66th Ave S County Line OsloRd 00 2 Lane Undivided $8,562,423 66th Ave OsloRd 4th St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,887,466 66th Ave 4th St SR60 2 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided $8,853,565 66th Ave SR60 C.R. 5IO 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,173,489 82ndAve S County Line OsloRd 00 2 Lane Undivided $7,302,941 82nd Ave 26th St C.R. 510 00 2 Lane Undivided $28,I74,I65 Laconia St C.R. 510 C.R.5I2 00 2 Lane Undivided $2,679,879 Aviation Blvd Ext U.S. I Indian River Blvd 00 4 Lane Divided $14,387,77I C.R. 510 C.R. 512 U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,369,280 C.R. 510 U.S. I ICWW 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,718,539 C.R. 512 Fellsmere City Limits I-95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $I9,192,929 C.R. 512 I-95 C.R. 5IO 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $13,3I7,010 C.R. 512 C.R. 5IO Roseland Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $6,674,370 8th St 82ndAve 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3,955,196 Indian River Blvd Royal Palm 37th St 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,678,255 OsloRd I-95 58th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $I9,484,669 Roseland Rd C.R. 5I2 U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $I2,847,897 Schumann Dr C.R. 510 Barber St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,974,335

-



2030 Roadwav Improvement Plan (Table 4.9.3 of the Transportation Element) On Street l,_.,rom l:ro IBase Road Ty[!e IFuture Road Ty[!e Total Cost


County Roads Total $381,057,970 Cll Barber St !schumann Dr lu.s. 1 I 2 Lane Undivided I 2 Lane Divided $3,621,587 "0 ~ Barber St lc.R. 512 !schumann Dr I 2 Lane Undivided I 2 Lane Divided $7,596,306 0 a City Roads Total $11,217,893

Total $576,415,296 Source: Indian River County MPO

F:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\USERS\LONG RANGE\COMPPLAN AMENDMENTS\CIE\20I0\20IO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT- DRAFT 10-26-10 CLEAN.DOC



APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE

Summary of Capital Improvement Program

Project

New Construction New Construction and Additions

Fellsmere Cafe. Expan & asrm Addn

Sebastian River HS Addttion

Storm Grove Middle School

SupporfServices Complex

Traffic Improvement Projects

Subtotal New .Construction and Additions

Subtotal New Ccmstruction

Comprehensive Needs Modernizations & Replacements

Dodgertown ·cafeteria & HVAC Replacement

DodgertoiNn School HVAC

Osceola Magnet Replacement

VBHS Freshman Learning ctr Renov,

liero Beach El Replacemeni

Vero Beach Hi!tl School Restoration

Wabasso School Renovation

.Subtotal Modernizations & Replacements

Subtotal Comprehensive Needs

other Items Capital Maintenance Gapital Maintenance (buyback)

Gapital Maintenani:e/Hith & Life Safety

HVACRepair arid Replace


Total

9,000,000

13,000,000

45,048,476

13,000,000

820;000

80,868,476

80,868,476

3,512,500

2,750,000

20,000,000

3,150,000

20,174,852

54,217,750

1,885,043

105,690,145

105,690,145

33,003,030

21,984;256

1,800,000

Prior to FY2011- FY 2011 FY201~' 2011

0 9,000,000 9,000,000

13,000,000

45,048,476

8,000,000 5,0oo,ooo 5,000,000

0 820,000 820,000

66,0.48;476 14,820,000 14,820,000

66,048,476 14,82o.ooo 1 14;82o,ooo

3,512,500

2,750,0.()0 2,750,000

0 20,000,()0Q

2,150,000 1.ooo,b0o 1,000,000

5,174,852 15,000,000 15,000,000

54,217,750

1,885,043

66,940,145 ~8.7&0,000 18,750,000

66,940,145 38;75MO~ 18,750,000

I I I I

15,632,180

15,084,256

1,800,000

17,370,8~0 3,474;170

6.,909,000 1,500,000

FY 2012

20,000,000

20,000,000

20,000,000

3,474,170

900,000

Indian River County Public Schools


FY 2013

3,474,170

1,400,000

FY 2014

3,474,170

1,500,000

FY 2015

3,474,170

1,600,000

Ill

Comprehensive Plan

Relocatables

Relocatable le~sing

Relocatable Renovation

Subtotal Relocatables Educational Technology

District Technology

Subtotal Educational Technolo~ Furniture & Equipment F,F&E Buyback

School BusesNehicles

Subtotal Furniture & Equipment Reserves and Contingencies

Other Projects District Wide~

Subtotal Reserves and C.ontin encies

Subtotal otherHems

Total Projects

Total Prior to

2011


FY2011· FY20t5

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

ss, 787;286 1 32,516,436 24,270,850 4;974,170 4,374,170 4,874,170

24,239,1581 19,464,158 1,476,450 1,476,450

4,775,000 775,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

25.715,6081 20.940.608 4.775.000 775.000 1.000.000 1.000.000

1 10,833,802 7,483,802 3,350,000 1,350,000 500,000 500,000 10,833,802 7,483;802 3,350,000 1,350,000 500,000 500,000

I 5,802,962 4,302,962 1,500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

13;200,330 7,725,330 5,475,000 325,000 1,500,000 650,000 19,003,292 12,028,292 6,975,000 625;000 1,800,000 950,000

I 18,866,409[ 4,126,172 14,740,237 1,557,403 1,470,949 3,023,591 18,866,409 4,.126,172 14;740,23[ 1,557,403 1,470,949 3,023,591

131,206,397 77,095,310 54;111,087' 9,281,573 9,145,119 10,347,761

I 107;681;0~7 42,851,573 29,145,119 10,347,761

FY 2014 4,974,170

1,000,000

1.000.000 ~ .

500,000

500,000

300,000

1,500,000

1,800,000

4,035,969

4,035,96.9

12,310,139

12,310,139

FY 2015 5,074,170

1,000,000

1.000.000 . ~ . ~

500,000

500,000

300,000

1,500,000.

1,800,000

4,652,325

4,652,325

13;026,495

13,026;495

Indian River C()Uilty Public Schools IV



APPENDIX D: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010 • 2011 Work Plan

Edu~ational District Technology $1,350,000 $500,00.0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,350,000

Local Expenditure Totals: $20, 685;847 $22,066,479 $22,564,665 $24;282,929 $24,528,282 $114;128;202

Revenue

1.50 Mill Revenue Source

Schedule ofEstimated Capital Outlay Revenue·from each currently approved source which is estimated to be available for expenditures on the projects included in the tentative districtfacilitieswork program. All amounts are NET after considering carryover balances, interest earned, new COP's, 1011.14 and 1011.15 loans. etc. Districts cannot use 1.~Mill funds for salaries except for those explicitly associated with maintenance/repair projects. (1 011.71 (5). F.S.)

1.50 1.50

$25,501,561 $27,561,085 $131,980,814

370 $21;858,481 $23,623,787 $'112,354,983

$3,643,080 $3,826;706 $3;937;298 $1

PECO Revenue Source

The figure in the row designated "PECO Maintenance" will be subtracted from funds available.for new construction because PECO maintenance dollars cannot be used for new construction. · · ·

CO & OS Revenue Source

Revenue fi'om Capita:! Outlay and Debt Service funds.

Fair Share. Revenue Source

Page 4of18 91912010 10:17:30 AM



INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 201 0 - 2011 Work Plan

All legally binding commitments for proportionate fair-share mitigation for impacts on public school facilities must be included in the 5-year district work program.

Nothing reported for this section.

Sales Surtax Referendum

Specific information about any referendum for a 1-cent or Y,.-cerit surtax referendum during the previous year.

Old tho school district hold a surtax referendum during the past fiscal year 2009-20107 No

Additional Revenue Source

My additional revenue sources

$0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$30~000 $30,000 $30,000

$0 $0 $0

$0 $9

$20,000;000 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0 so

$0 $0 $0

$0

Private donations $0

Cir not~feir- $0

$109;293 $114,801 $114,801 $558,458

Page 5 of 18 9/91201010:17:30 AM


Comprehensive Plan

IND.IAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Revenue from Bonds pledging proceeds from 1 cent or 1/2 cent $ales Surtax

Total. Fund Balance Carried Forward

General Capital Outlay Obligated'Fund Balance.Carried. Forward From Total Fund Balance Carried Forward

special Facilities Construction.Account

One Cent -1i2 Cent Sales Surtax Debt Service From Total Fund Balance Carried Forward

Capital Outlay Projects Funds Balance Carried Forward From Total Fund Balance Carried Forward

RAN PROCEEDS

Subtotal

Total ReVenue Summary

PECO and 1.5 Mill Main! and.Other 1.5 Mill Expenditures

PECO Maintenance Revenue

PECO New Construction Revenue

Other/Additional

Project Schedules

Capacity Project Schedules

$0

$12,452,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$5,000,000

$32,589,986


2010 • 2011 Work Plan

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $12,452,000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 :io $5,900,000

$20,139,293 $141,577 S144,1io1 $144,801 $53,160;458

($22,066,479)

$472,019

$0

$20, 139,293

$20,207;998

A schedule ofcapital outlay projects necessary to ensure the availability of satisfactory classrooms· for the projected student.enrOIIment in K-12 programs.

Page 6 of18 9/9/2010 10:17:30 AM


COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITIZEN COURTESY INFORMATION LIST

Local Government: Indian River County

Hearing Date: __ 1""""1"--'/0=2"--"/1=0 __

Type of Hearing: Board of County Commissioners Adoption Public Hearing

DCA Amendment Number: \0 ~~IE!

Amendment Identification:


PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY By providing your name and address you will receive information concerning the date of publication of the Notice of Intent by the Department of Community Affairs

NAME ADDRESS, CITY, TELEPHONE TYPE OF STATE, ZIP NUMBER COMMENT

Written Spoken Please ClcarJv Print Your Name and Address Information comment comment Be!m.v

_/en {}ill£.,__ J ve f'IJLA d r YV' J 1_ I G 93 L---/:. 0 ;3 {))0 ,s~; .2 r- o? c, 5-b?

OL4e/c JV--A rv ;;t;N'~/ ?tt?<-LJ i3~f FC:.

.f'fAA[v ~~\ 3 .4-y s I v--3 't 0 £, IA.Ji/l..v .!lrl y 1,1>/, :.rx-r--- do v y...

v. ~I s~~o.

;2, 1).:Jofi!J6t:J ~ (j~--5Cf7#e,i, S C.V / )o --l) ~03 L-Vt/!,20 !JIP~Lll, I 17: 32f 6k

f?()J/~Kj) /4 ::J,{: JS_L P.i.S)("/ "52: 7/ '-} 2, ~~ v /1 tf/'J/;1 6.~<P7£ag_ )I J ¥'); 2.

fet,y t,MM/il 111P /))J5~(ji/~C::U/

t/ v /.; .3:J'l68" ~ 7 <;--- '2.S't79

Page 1

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITIZEN COURTESY INFORMATION LIST

NAME ADDRESS, CITY, TELEPHONE TYPE OF STATE, ZIP NUMBER COMMENT

Written Spoken Please Clearlv Print Your Name and Address Information comment comment Below

Page 2

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT …DCA Identification Number 10-CIE1 Dear Mr. Eubanks:...

Documents

Transcript of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT …DCA Identification Number 10-CIE1 Dear Mr. Eubanks:...