The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOCC Informal Workshop Packet 04-28-2009 • AGENDA Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:30 P.M. INFORMAL WORKSHOP 1. CALL TO ORDER -COMMISSIONER LEWIS, CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. UPDATE: ECONOMIC STIMULUS (Faye Outlaw and Marie Gouin) 3. DISCUSSION ON IMPACT FEE STUDY (Mike Brillhart and Dan McIntyre) 4. WESTERN LANDS (Mark Satterlee) 5. UPDATE: JOINT PLANNING & INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND FT. PIERCE (Mark Satterlee and Dan McIntyre) 6. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone wiUr a disability requiring acx:ommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forly~ight (48) hours prior to the meeting. a Agenda Item 2 i - • f ~ n `v To: Commissioner Paula Lewis Chair `,r j' i,~ St. Lucie County BOCC From: Chief Deputy Garry R. it n Date: March 19, 2009 Re: St. Lucie County Jail Medical Wing Expansion ' I apologize for having to leave the local stimulus meeting held on March 17, 2009. It is my understanding that after I left the meeting that the subject of the jail medical expansion was discussed by staff and the board. The recommendation was made to utilize the money set aside for the jail expansion for other projects. At this time, I respectfully request, on behalf of the Sheriff's Office, that the Board reconsider the funding for the jail medical expansion. The reasons for this request are as follows. The jail medical expansion is something that is drastically needed for the safety and security of both inmates and staff at the St. Lucie County j ail. Currently, the medical unit is inadequate because it was designed based on a jail with a population of 700 inmates. The current population of the jail is approximately 1,390. Furthermore, with the addition of the beds as designed, the need to send inmates in need of medical attention to the local hospital will be greatly reduced. As you know, St. Lucie County is responsible for medical bills for inmates that are moved from the jail to the hospital for medical treatment. At times the jail medical, which has 12 inmate singular housing units, has a population in excess of 30 prisoners in the unit. The Sheriff's Office has worked with a design group and has design plans ready to - move forward with this project. We strongly recommend that the Board include thle' jail medical expansion in phase one of the local stimulus package and begin ~y r ~ , ; ; i . t preparation to expand the jail medical unit has soon as possible. Should you have any questions with regards to this request, please feel free to contact me. is ~ 4:"A.. ~ wa cc: Mrs. Faye Outlaw, Co. Administrator ~'`~!!!=,r~. ~ ~ ~ r > F x.95, , , w. ST LUCIE COUNTY BOCC IMPACT FEE BALANCES Proj Balance 9/3012009 Parks Impact Fees Parks A (12,124) Parks B 458,536 Projected FY 10 Debt Service Payment (312,261) Parks B Balance 146,275 Total Parks Impact Fees 134,151 Road Impact Fees Area Included Zone 1 367,316 Ft. Pierce, Unincorporated Zone 2 966,931 Ft. Pierce, Unincorporated Zone 3 186,644 Ft. Pierce, PSL and Unincorporated Zone 4 6,538,276 PSL and Unincorporated Zone 5 204,369 Unincorporated Zone 6 25,015 Ft. Pierce Zone 7 456,967 Ft. Pierce, Unincorporated Total Road Impact Fees 8,745,518 NOTE: Debt Service paid from Parks B Impact Fees for South County Regional Stadium & Soccer Field (approx. $178,400 annually) through FY 2023 and Fairground ($133,292 annually) through FY 2017. Amount available based on budgeted projects. Road Impact Fee balance is projected to be used for Kings Hwy Intersections & Midway Road Widening (25th Street to Turnpike). 4 ST LUCIE COUNTY BOCC IMPACT FEE BALANCES Proj Balance 9130/2009 'ublic Building Impact Fees Correctional Facilities (772,958) * Other Public Buildings (162,372) total Public Building Impact Fees (935,330) _ibrary Impact Fees Library A 179,857 Library B 1,828,963 total Library Impact Fees 2,008,820 _aw Enforcement Impact Fees 790,482 COTES: Half-cent Sales Tax is pledged for this debt. There is sales tax revenue available to fund this payment. * There is money in the Court Facilities Fund to cover this shortfall. Amount available based on budgeted projects. Okeechobee County . t~_.~ e { I ~ g 1 po i i a ~ a s 7 A a G24 Canal Grlbn Rd Sn 7 w klsal Hofdin Rd N J A r n Header Cana ~ v ~ $ ~ = 2 2 0 ~ ~ ~ Ren a Line Rd ~ H 1 ~ s , ~ ~ smm~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n 0 N G A Kobl and Rd ~ 1 M"" r1iC ~ Gg` _ ; JohnsWn Rd Y4 L b~ ~ ~ JMnston Rd 'a ~ P6 Emerson R c Seminole Rd A J J Kin s H _ Kin s H - v N Ta br Oai Rd i Jenkins Rd gd _ m EE _ q E ~ ~ e 1 m ,y n _ e a T u+ p ~ 1 3 _ 3 M ; _ w,w~ I ,.gym ae B o w~r°' `I - ~ ~I~ - _ 'i / y~ ~ ,'-~`~~i Cn ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ - y ~ ~ a (p~ r. W D p1 a i ~ ~ ~ ~ n i' ~ ~ s ~ i~t r m y ~ - ~ Okeechobee County ,a _ t - ! ~ ~ t Of=. M Q w- 3 , ~ ~ 7 - ° a ~ _ ~ J - - _ - m ~ ~ ~ O ~ C 7 ~ uu.re re f ! i - 5R M ~ ~ i m ~ s m ,,i ~ ~ a t ~e ~ t~ ~ ~ a'~ ~ /l(' Q' S Joob ~ ~,i ~ ~ ~ V T ~ VJ ~d„._.. Q ~ 0 in k ~ ~ Jse Qf <p /r H N ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ / a ~ ~ c~' A tV~ /'TF O T1 1 T 'A~ V/ O t Agenda Item 3 v~ _ , _ _ _ GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ~ (Administration) • ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Growth Management Direcl+ FROM: Michael Brillhart, Capital Improvements Managerdyl~ DATE: April 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Status Report on the Proposed Impact Fee Update: Technical Analysis Being Performed by Dr. James C. Nicholas At its October 16, 2008 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested Dr. Nicholas to prepare an impact fee update using a "consumption" based methodology as a comparison to the new "improvements" based impact fee methodology that was presented to Planning Commissioners. Currently, the impact fee rates adopted by the County are based upon a "consumption" (needs) methodology first used in 1985. The improvements based analysis was prepared by Dr. Nicholas in consideration of Chapter 163.3177(3), F.S. as it relates to mandatory annual Capital Improvement Element (CIE) updates and outstanding impact fee issues with the City of Port St. Lucie. This methodology relies primarily upon capital projects and accompanying data adopted within the County's 5-year CIE needed to ensure adequate public facilities and adopted level of service standards. The improvements based methodology and analysis is referenced in the attached draft Exhibit A "Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Improvements Driven Road, Public Buildings, and Park & Recreation Impact Fees" dated September 15, 2008 while the consumption based methodology is shown in the attached draft Exhibit B "Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees" dated March 30, 2009. On October 16, 2008 staff had recommended approval of Ordinance 08-017 to the Planning & Zoning Commission adopting the "improvements" based methodology and impact fee update. However, the Commission recommended a continuation of this item until their April 16, 2009 meeting in order for Dr. Nicholas to complete the updated consumption based analysis for methodology comparison. Based upon discussion at the April 16, 2009 meeting, Planning & Zoning Commissioners continued this item until June 18th to allow for additional input from the general public and other interested parties. Dr. Nicholas has advised staff that a "consumption" based analysis has been historically used in Florida and is easier to maintain and update than an "improvements" based methodology. Dr. Nicholas will be present at the Board's April 28th informal meeting to discuss both reports. Pending final review and recommendation by the Planning ~ Zoning Commission in consideration of the two separate impact fee methodologies, staff is seeking further direction from the Board of County Commissioners regarding the impact fee update. Agenda Request item Number III - C Meeting Date: April 16, 2009 Consent [ ] ~ Regular [ ] ~ ~ Public Hearing [ X ] Leg. [ ] Quasi-JD [ ] To: Planning and Zoning Commission Pres nted B~ Submitted By: ~ Growth Management Department k tterlee, AICP Growth Management Director SUBJECT: Impact Fee Methodology Update BACKGROUND: In consideration of new growth management requirements relating to Capital Improvements Element (CIE) updates that were adopted through Senate Bill 360 by the State in 2005 and ongoing impact fee issues with the City of Port St. Lucie, Dr. James C. Nicholas was requested to prepare an impact fee update using an "improvements' based methodology. This update is referenced in the attached Exhibit A document entitled Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Improvements Driven Roads, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees" dated September 15, 2008. Currently, impact fees are assessed in St. Lucie County based upon a `consumption" based methodology that has been used since 1985. Dr. Nicholas has also prepared an updated consumption based methodology as shown in Exhibit B entitled "Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees". These two methodologies are presented as comparison documents for review and comment. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: At its October 16, 20008 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed draft Ordinance No. OS-017 pertaining to the adoption of an `improvements" based impact fee update and recommended a continuation of this item until the April 2009 meeting and requested that a "consumption" based methodology be prepared as well for comparison with the °improvements' based methodology. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that this item be continued until the May 2009 Planning 8~ Zoning Commission meeting. Pla~and Zoning: APPROVED 0 DENIED OTHER Form No. 07-28 { GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT • (Adminlstratlon) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning 8~ Zoning Commissioners THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Growth Management Director FROM: Michael Brillhart, Capital Improvements Manager DATE: April 3, 2009 SUBJECT: Status Report on the Proposed Impact Fee Update: Technical Analysis Being Performed by Dr. James C. Nicholas At its October 16, 2008 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested Dr. Nicholas to prepare an impact fee update using a "consumption" based methodology as a comparison to the new "improvements" based methodology impact fee update that that was presented to Planning Commissioners. Beginning in 1985, the impact fee rates adopted by the County are based upon a "consumption" methodology. An "improvements" based analysis was prepared by Dr. Nicholas at the request of the Boarc! of County Commissioners in consideration of changes to the State's Growth Management regulations pertaining to annual Capital Improvement Element Updates, as referenced in the 2005 Senate Bill 380 legislation, and outstanding impact fee issues with the City of Port St. Lucie. The Improvements based methodology is referenced in the attached draft Exhibit A "Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Improvements Driven Road, Public Buildings, and Park & Recreation Impact Fees'" dated September 15, 2008 and was previously reviewed by Planning Commissioners on October 18, 2008. At that meeting, it was requested that a "consumption" based methodology, as referenced in the attached draft Exhibit B "Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public Buildings, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees" be prepared and compared with the data and rates calculated in the "improvements" based methodology. Both draft copies are attached and presented for your review. At the October 16, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff had recommended approval for the "improvements" based update technical methodology prepared by Dr. Nicholas and referenced in Exhibit A that would have been adopted by the Board. of County Commissioners through Ordinance 08-017. The Commission recommended a continuation of this item until the April meeting in order to compare both methodologies. At this time, staff has removed Ordinance No. OS-017 from further consideration. In consideration of the two separate and distinct impact fee methodologies and analysis, staff is seeking further direction from the Board of County Commissioners regarding the use of eiEher impact fee methodology update. It is anticipated that the Board of County Commissioners will provide staff with further direction at its informal monthly meeting on April 28, 2009. As such, staff is still in the process of reviewing the recently submitted °consumption" based analysis (Exhibit B) and is recommending that this item be continued until the May 21, 2009 Planning ~ Zoning Commission meeting. Attachment 1 IIVIPACT FEE RATES COMPARISON • Current 2008 Impact Fee Rates (consumption based) for a Single Family Home: Roads Parks Public Buildings Fire/EMS Law Enforcement Libra Schools Total $2,324 515 392 525 194 205 5,447 9,602 • Proposed 2009 "Improvements" Based Impact Fee Rates for a Single Family Home: Roads Parks Public Buildings FireJEMS Law Enforcement Li_ •bKarv Schools Total $3,380 61 S 724 525 194 205 5,447 11,090 Change between proposed and current = + 15.5% • Proposed 2009 "Consumption" Based Impact Fee Rates for a Single Family Home: Roads Parks Public Buildings Fire/EMS Law Enforcement Lfbr~ Schools Total $4,826 1,470 317 525 194 205 5,447 12,984 Change between proposed and current = + 35% Ezhibit A Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Improvements Driven Road, Public Buildings, and Park Recreation Impact Fees Prepared for the Board of County Commissioners of S# Lucie County By James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. September 15, 2008 Table of ~Co~.tents . I . Impact Fees , 2 . A. Impact Fees in Florida 2 ~Im act Fee Pro ram 6 B. ~ St Lucie County p g C. County Population Growth 11 D. Employment Growth 13 E. Land Development 15 1I. Roads ..:.........:....,.......17 lll. Public Buildings 30 IV. Parks & Recreation 36 V. Summary 40 2008 Impact Fee Update ~ " 1 1 . I. Im act Fees p A. .impact Fees in Florida While there is recently adopted impact fee legislation in`Florida,l there,is no general enabling act that sets standards for the preparation and use of,impact fees,: Rather, impact fees evolved through Florida's courts starting in the late 1960's and ultimately wexe recognized as being within a local government's home rule authority. This method of evolution was perhaps the only option since Florida cities and eoun6es were exploring new issues of governance and government finance since the adoption of the new ~constitutian in 1968. This revised Constitu- tion granted local governments broad home rule authority ~ while iequiririg, authorization by general law forlocal government imposition of taxes. Thus the ~ difference between police power actions, which' fell under home ,lure authority, and taxes, .which required, .general enabling legislation, .was of ,critical importance. ~ The body of law that came .out of this evolutionary process, clearly established, that:, • Impact•Fees are permissible as exercise of the police powers; . • Impact fees cannot exceed a pro rata share of the cost of expanding facilities required to serve new~development; ' • Impact fees cannot be:imposed or structured to provide a "windfall" to existing resi- ' dents; and • impact fees must satisfy the dual rational. nexus between the need for facility improve- . ments and new development. ' The Florida Supreme;Gourt, beginning with Contrac#ors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v City Of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976), dealt first with the conditions under Vvhich impact fees may be utilized and alien with rile amounts that may be charged as impact fees. In Dunedin the Florida. Supreme Court wrote: ~ ' Raising expansion capital by setting connection charges, which do notexceed' a 'pro rata share of reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is permissible where expansion is rea- sonably required, if.u~e of the money collected is limited to meeting the costs of.expansion.. Users `who benefit .especially, not from the maintenance of the system, but by. thg~ exten- sion of the system should bear~the cost,of that extension." (citations omitted The Dunedin court also makes clear that such charges, now known as impact fees, are not i See 163.31801, Florida Statutes. 2008 Impact Fee Update _ 2 _ unlimited. Extending their rationale: [T]he cost of new facilities should be borne by new users to the extent new use requires new facilities, but only to that extent, When new facilities must be built in any event, looking only to new users for necessary capital gives old users a windfall at the expense of new users. New users can only be held responsible for the costs attributable to new use and not for other costs, especially any charge that would yield a "windfall" to the existing community. . Dunedin was a case involving a municipally owned water and sewer utility. It fell to Hollywood Inc. v Broward County, 431 So.2d b06 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983) to deal with the application of the Dunedin logic to parks, a facility that~the F1Qrida cities'of Gulf Breeie, Maitland and Hollywood had tried unsuccessfully to fund with development cliarges: ' In Hollywood Inc.' the court wrote: ~ ' . [Wre discern the general legal_principle that reasonable dedic.~tion.or, impact fee require- ments are.perrnissible so .long as.they offset needs sufficiently attributable to.the subdiyi- . . sion and so long as the funds collected are sufFiciently earmarked for the substantial benefit of the subdivision residents. In.order to satisfy these requirements, the local gov- ernment must demonstrate .a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the need for additional capital facilities aztd the growth in population generated by the subdivision. . In addition, the government must show a reasona>le ~coniiection, or rational nexus, be-' ~ , tween the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruingto the subdivision.' . In order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinance must specifically, eam~ark the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents. The Hollywood Inc. Court provides the principles of the Dual Rational Nexus Test. Specifi- cally, that: ' • The local government must demonstrate a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth generated by the de- veloprnenf being charged the impact fees, and • The government must specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring ' capital facilities to benefit the development charged the im~act'fees. ' The paramount issue with respect to impact fees is. nexus. ~ There must be a nexus2 between new development and the need to expand infrastructure. This demonstration is to be accomplished in the consultant's report. The second crucial issue is the identification of a pro rata share of the cost of expanding that infrastructure. This .too is _ to be accomplished in the consultant's report. . ~ ~ . During the' 200b session, an act was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor that dealt with impact fees (163.31891 Florida Statutes). The only portions of this act that deal with the calculation of impact fees are the requirements that calculation of impact fees z In Nollan v California Coastal Commission (107 S. Ct. 3141, 1987), Justice Scalia character ized a nexus as "essential." 2008 Impact Fee Update - 3 - be based on the most recent and localized data. The general criteria for impact fees in Florida are: t ` ~ Impact fees adopted must be. based upon the establishment of a nexus between new development and the need to expand infrastructure; . . • . The calculation of impact fees must use the most recent and localized data; and The resulting impact fees may be no more than•a pro rata share of the reasonably an- ticipated cost of expanding that infrastructure. In Florida there are twd general types of impact -fee methodologies; consumption based and • improvements based. . Consumption Based. T`he,consumption based (also known as "standards based") me- thodology calculates impact fees based on the value of public infrastructure consumed per unit of land use. The value Hof the public infrastructure is usually developed by cal- culating the replacement cost of the existing public capital infrastructure. This re- placement value is then related to a facility based standard such as fire stations per 1000 population, acres of parks per 1000 population, library or other building square footage .per 1000 population, etc. The major advantage of the consumption based approach is the flexibility provided to the local government in meeting the need. for infrastructure improvements. Specifi- cally, agovernment that uses a consumption based impact fee can develop its capital improvement program to include projects that directly respond to where growth and the need for the• public infrastructure occurs. The capital improvement program.list of im- provements•is reviewed annually and that list can c'liange as growth patterns change, re- s~lting in new project priorities: Generally, these changes occur in•the out years of the capital improvement program. Finally, it.sHould be noted that ordinances that imple- ' merit consumption based impact fees generally include a provision that ties the need for and benefit of impact fees to projects that must be included in the local government's capital improvements .program and comprehensive plan capital improvements element. An exampie of a consumption based calculation would be: • Average cost of roads per lane-Hole is $1,500,000 . • bevel of service for roads per lane-mile is 7,500 vehicles per day • Road cost per vehicle per lane-mile is $200 • Lane-miles per vehicle per day is 15 and mad cost per vehicle is $3,000 • Vehicles per dwelling is 2, so road. cost per dwelling in $6,000. 2008 Impact Fee Update _ 4 _ These calculations are doing without reference to any specific road or improvement. Improvements Based. The improvements based {also known as "needs based") meth- odology charges new development based on a specific set of capital improvement pro- jects.as setout in a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This approach is usually based on a long-range master plan that includes a list ~of future projects that are determined to be necessary to accommodate existing and future growth'at the adopted level of service. Under the needs based approach, an analysis is made of the impact of any existing deft- . ciencies aid an adjustment is made to account for deficiencies existing at the beginning of the planning period to assure that the cost of correcting. those deficiencies is not shifted to new development. However, generally, no adjustment is made for excess ca- pacity built as part of the improvements list that is available at the~end of the planning ..period; since the improvements driven approach did nat .charge for the existing excess capacity that is available at the start of the planning period and that is consumed by new development. The implicit or explicit assumption is that there may be excess capacity ' in'every infrastructure system, and, ~as long as the amount or proportion of excess ca- pacify at the end of the planning period is reasonably similar to what was there at the 'beginning, there is: no need to make adjustments for excess capacity:, 'The advantage of the improvements based methodology is that this method provides a direct tie to the local govemrrlent's corriprehensive plan with the adoption of a list of planned capital improvements as part of those comprehensive plans.' In the improve- ments based methodology, the list of capital improvements used in the calculation of the cost~component is usually the list of improvements included in the five year or long- er capital improvement program. This methodology gives the` development community assurance that the impact fees they pay'are being spent on the specific improvements that were used to calculate the impact fee. When the local government changes the list of capital improvements, the resulting impact fee should be recalculated using the new lis't~of capital improvements.` Finally, similar to ordinances for consumption based im- pact fees, improvements based impact fee ordinances also include provisions that tie the need for and benefit of impact fees to `projects included in the Iocal'governments capital improveiilents program and comprehensive plan,capital improvements element. ' ~ An example of ari improvements based calculation would be: • Road improvements needed over 5 years to accommodate anticipated develop- ment, ? Road improvement 1 ~ $ 5,000,000 ? ; ..Road improvement 2 $25,000,000 ? Road improvement 3 $25,000,000 ? Road improvement 4 $ 5,000.000 Total improvements. ~ $60,000,000 • New .development over 5 years,10,000 homes • Improvernent'costpey home, $6,000. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 5 - This simplified improvements example came out with the same answer as .the simpli- feed consumption example. In a perfect world this would be the case. However, it is very common for there to be different answers resulting from the two approaches. Both the improvements and consumption based methodologies are commonly used and have been judicially reviewed in Florida. Dunedin's water and sewer chazges were improvements based while. Broward's parks fee;Palm Beagh County's roads fees, and St Johns County's school fees were all consumption based. Either can provide a viable basis for impact fees that meet the standards of nexus and proportionality recognized. in Florida. B. $t Lucie County Impact Fee Program. St. Lucie County was one of the first counties in Florida to adopt impact fees. In 1986 the County adopted road impact fees while park & recreation, public buildings, law enforcement, fire protection, public libraries and public education impact fees followed later. These impact fees all followed the consumption'based approach. The county's road fee began with the specification of a quantitative level of service, 7,500 vehicles per lane-mile pdr day. 'I'lte generalized cost of providing a unit of road, expressed as a cost per lane-mile was used to project the cost of maintaining the adopted level of service. The advantage of the County's cansumption based approach has been the flexibility given to the County to meet road .improvement needs as they became identified. St Lucie County has expressed a desire fo move from the general consumption approach to impact fees to the more specif c improvements approach. Many other. local governments are moving in the same direction, especially since the concurrently requirements of 20051egislation have become effective.3 In order to.~hift'to an improvements based system of impact fees, a set of specific improvements must be,developed and then used to calculate the cost of providing infrastructure to new development..,, . St Lucie County has implemented a system of countywide development impact fees. These fees are; • ~ Roads, • Parks and recreation, • Public buildings, . • Law enforcement {sheriff), • Fire protection and EMS, • Public libraries, and • Public education. At present all of these impact fees are consumption based. The County's direction is to develop s This legislation, simply referred to as SB 360, requires concurrent for roads and schools, with the effective date of the road requirement being December 2006. 2008 Impact Fee Update _ 6 _ improvements based impact fees for roads, parks, and public buildings. This report will setout the improvements basis for such impact fees. The existing impact fees as of October i, 2008 are•shown in Table II-I ~ . . TABLE II-1 a EXISTING IMPACT FEES (1012008) ` ST LUCIE COUNTY MAINLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Ub Pub11c -Fuel Law - Roads TOTAL ~'Y Buildln s EMS ' RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil $5 447 514 $205 ~ $391 $52B $194 $2 324 S9 600 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $1 572 $337 $184 $256 $106 $125 $1 162 $3 742 Multi-Famil 1 8 2 Sto $2,787 $458 $133 >~50 $i06 $174 $1,693 X5,701 Mulll-Famil 3 + Stories $2 787 $458 $133 $350 $106 $174 85 $4 893 • HoteUMotel -Room ~ $0 -$331 $0 253 $245 $130 $2 201 $3159 Bed & Breakfast -Room $0 $331 $0' $253 $246 $130 $1,069 $2,029 All Other Residen0al . $5447. $514. ~ $205 $391. ~ $526 $194 $1 658 8 935 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 F.T': ~ GeneralOfflee $0 $0 0 ' $440 $310 $298 $1,421 $2,469 Medical Office $0 $0 0 $703 $310. . $186 $6,357 $7 557 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT':... . Under 100 000 FT' $0 . $0 $0 $494 $487 $697 $3 017 54 69B 100,000-499 999 FT' $0 • $0 0 $568 $487 804 $2 858 $4,717 500 000 ~ Over. $0 $o $0 ~ $414 $487 $688 $2 798 $4 388 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 $71 $1,610 •$697 7,987. $10,365 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $0 $0 $0 $62 $71 $38 $467 $637 Truck Temtinal ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 $125 $70 $71 $942 $1 08 Generallndustrial - $0 $0 $0 $100 $70 ~ ~ $56 $521 $746 INSTITUTIONAL: ~ ' - ~ ' School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $563 $468 $242 $1,283 $2 556 School Mlddie/H h Per 1,000 FT° $0 SO ~ $0 $2 490 $467 5160 $1 270 $4388 - Da Care Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $Q $303 $467 $153 $4,211 $5,134 Fraternal 0 .Per 1 000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $0 $467 $72 '$970 $1 549 Hos tai Per 1,000 FT= SO $0 $0 $469 $467 $72 $1,786 $2 795. Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $507 $1,160 $72 $398 $2,136 Libra Per 1 000 FT2 $0 $0 $0 $709 $467' $73 $2,876 $4,125 RECREATIONAL: • Park Public Pet Acre $0 $0 0 $71 s44 $73 $242 $429 Recreation FacYlt Per 1 000 FT2 $0 $0 $0 $90 $44 $73 $330 $536 Golf Course Per Acre $0 0 $0 Ei83 $44 $73 $536 $836 Mov1e TheaUes er Seat $0 $0 ~ $6 $eo - $487 $73 $46 '$686 2008 Impact Fee Update - ~ - TABLE li-1b EXISTING IMPACT FEES(10/2008} 3T LUCIE COUNTY NORTH ISLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Library Public Fire/EMS Law Roads TOTAL Buildln s RESIDENTIAL: 5 le Famii ~ $5 447 $514. $205 ~ $391 $526 $194 $2,148. 9 424 Mobile Home/Rac. VehiGe $1 572 $337 184 $256 5106 $125 "$1,114 $3,695 Mufti-Famil 1 8 2 St $2 787 $458 $i33 $350 $106 $174 $1 858. $5,866 Multi-FamN 3+Stoties $2787 5456 $133 $350 $108 $174 $1,156 .$5163 Hotel/Motel -Room $0 $331 $0 $253 $245 $130 : $3 591 $4,5.50 Bed 8 Breakfast -Room $0 $331 $0 $253 248 $130 $1 851. $2,811 Atl Other Residential $5 447 $514 $205 ~ $391 ;w526 5194 52,765 $10,041 .OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT':' General Office $0 $0 $0 440 $310 $298 $560 $1,608 Meth al Office ~ $0 $0 $0 $703 $310 $186 $2 506 $3 705 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': Under 100 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $494 $487 $697 $1 692. .'°$3 371 • 100,000-499 999 FT? $0 $0 $0 5588 $487 $804 $1 393 $3,252 500000 8 Over $0 $0 $0 $414 ~ 5487 $688 $1 203 $2 793 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 $71 $1 610 $697 $2 899 • : $5 278 INDUSTRIAL.PER 1 000 FT': , .Warehouse $0 $0 $0 ' S62 $71 $38 $100 '$270 Truck Terminal $0 $0 $0 x'$125 $70 $71: • $203 ~ $468 Generallndustrial $0 $0 $0 $100 $70 S56 •$111. .$337 • INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per i 000 FTC $0 $0 $583 $468 $242. • $s52 $1,825 School MkidleMl h Per 1 000 FT' : $0 $0 $0 $2 490 $467 $160 530 $3 648 D Can: Per 1 000 FT' $0 SO $0 5303 $467 $153 1,817 ' $Z 740 Fraternal .Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $0 $467 $72 $417 '$957 Hos 'ta! Per 1,000 FT' $0 SO $0 $469 5467 ~;72 $768 $1 777 Nuref Home Per 1000 FT' $0 0 $0 $507 $1 160 $72 5170 $1 908 - I:i Per 1 000 FT= $0 $0 0 $709 $467 $73: $1 238 $2,487 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $0 $0 $0 $71 $44 $73 $105 $293 Recreation Facgi Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 l60 $90 $44 $73 $144 $350 Golf Course Per Acre 0 $0 $0 $183 $44 $73 $231 $531 ' Movie 7heaUes er Seat $0 $0 SO $80 $487 $73 $19 $659 - 2008 Impact Fee Update _ g _ TABLE II-7 c EXISTING IMPACT FEES 10/2008) ST LUCIE COUNTY FT PIERCE ISLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Libra Public Fira/EMS Law Roads TOTAL ry t3uildin s RESIDENTIAL: • Sin le Fami1 $5 447 ~ $514 $205 391 $826 $194 $1 823 $9,099 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $1 572 $337 $184 $256 $106 $125 $666 $3 236 Muitl-Famil 1 & 2 Sto $2 787 $458 $133 $350 $106 $174 $i 482 $5 490 MultrFamil 3 + Stories $2 787 ~ $458 $133 $350 $106 $174 $607 $4,615 Hotel/Motel -Room $0 $331 $0 $253 $245 $130 $2118 $3,075 • Bed & Breakfast -Room $0 331 $0 $253 $246 $130 $1 026 $1 988 • All Other Resklential $5 447 $514 $205 $391 $526 • $194 $1 627 $8904 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT': General Office ~ $0 $0 $0 •$440 310 $298 271 $1319 Medical Office $0 $0 $0 ~ ~ $703 $310 $186 $.1 216 $2415 RETAIL PE~21 000 FT': Under i 00 000 FT' $0 0 $0 '$494 $487 $697 ••$820 $2,499 100 000-499 989 FT= 0 $0 $0 $568 $487 $804 675 $2,534 500 000 & Over $0 $0 ' $0 $414 $487 $688 $565 $2175 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 $71 $1 B10 $697 2 818 $5,195 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 F1'': Warehouse $0 .$0 $0 $62 $71 $36 $50 ' $220 Truck Terminal $0 $0 $0 $125 $70 $71 98 $383 General Industrial $0 $0 $0 $100 $70 $58' $55 $281 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1 000 F'f= $0 $0 $0 $563 $468 3242 $112 $1 386 Sch. Mlddle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 $0 $4 $2,490 $467 $160 $265 $3,383 D Care Per 1000 FT' $0 $0 $0 3 $467 $153 $882 $1 805 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT' 0 $0 $0 $0 $467 S72 $203 $742 Hos ita! Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $469 $467 $72 $155 ~ ~$1 164 Nursin Home Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $507 $1 160 $72 $83 $1.822 Libra Per 1 000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $T09 $467 $73 ' $803 $1,852 RECREATIONAL: ~ • • Park Publk: Per Acre $0 $0 $0 • $71 $44 $73 $51 ~ $238 Recreatbn Facili Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $90 $44 $73 69 $275 Goff Course Per Acre ` $0 SO $0 $183 $44 $73 $112 $412 Movie Theatres er Seat $0 $0 $0 $80 $48T $73 $3 $643 2008 Impact Fee Update - 9 - • 1, - TABLE II-1d EXISTING IMPACT FEES 10/2008) , ST LUCfE COUNTY • SOUTHfSLAND:, - LAND USE ~ Schools Parks Library Public Flre/EMS Law Roads TOTAL 8ulldin s RESIDENTIAL: SIn le Famil $5,447 $514 $205 91 $526 $194 $2,321 $9 598 MobNe Home/Rec. Vetdcie $1 572 $33T $.184. .256 $106 5125 6836 S3 417 Multi-Famll 1 $ 2 Sto x2,787 $458 $133 -$350 $106 $174 $1 888 $5 896 . Multi-Fatal 3 + Stories $2 787 ;458 $133 -$350 $106 $174 $775 $4,782 HoteUMotel -Room $0 $331 $0 $253 $245 $130 $2,722 $3,681 - Bed $ Breakfast -Room $0 $331 $253 5246 $130 $1,321 $2 281 All Other Residential 55,447 $514 $205 $391 $528 $194 $2 075 $9 351 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT: - GenefalOffice $0 $0 $0 ;440 $310 $298 $490 51539 Medical Office 50 $0 - 50• ~ $703 5310 ~ $186. $2192 53 392 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT=: Under 100 000 FT' $0 $0 - $0 $494 $487 $697 '$1,480 53159 ' 100 000-499,999 FT' S0 $0 $0 5568 $487 $804 $1 219 $3 078 500 000 & Over $0 50 $0 $414 $487 $688 S1 053 $2 643 - GASOLINE SERVICES: - Seroice Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 571 $1,610 $697 $5,076 $7,455 INDUSTRIALPER 1000 FT': - Warehouse 50 50 $0 $62 571 $36 $88 $258 Truck Terminal $0 50. 50 $125. $70- $7i $177 $442 Generallndustrial $0 $0 5700 $70 $56 S98 $324 - INSTITUTIONAL: Scholl - Elem, Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 .$563 ,$468 242 $479, ;1,752 Scholl Middle/Hi h Per 1 000 FT' 0 $0 $0 $2 490 $467 $160 $478 -$3 596 D Care Per 1,000 FT' S0 SO $0 5303 ' $467 $i53 $1 592 $2515 Fraternal O .Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $0 5467 $72 $366 5906 Hos ital Per 1000 FT' S0 $0 $469 $467 $72 ;672 $1681 • Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT' S0 $U .50 ;507 $1 160 $72 $149 51,887 Libra Per 1,000 FTz $0 .50 $0 $709 $467 $73 1064 $2 333 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 50 $0 50 $71 544 573 $92 $279 Recreation FacN Per 1,000 FT= $0 S0. $0 $90 544 573 $124 $330 Golf Course Per Acre • $0 50 $0 $183 544 73 $203 5503 Movie Theatres er Seat 50 50 $0 $80 5487 573 517 $657 2008 Impact Fee Update - 10 - This program was designed to assess a portion of the cost of infrastructure on the development creating the need for infrastructure improvements. The roads, park & recreation, public building and law enforcement impact fee receipts were shared between the county and the City of Port St Lucie. The City of Port St Lucie has subsequently adopted its. own impact fees and the existing distribution of impact fees is: ~ . . TABLE it-2 . DISTRIBUTION •OF IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS FEE DISTRIBUTION IMPACT FEE' SCHOOL FIRE Adman SLC PSL DISTRICT DISTRICT Law Enforcement 4% 96% Educational Facilities 4% 96% Road 4% 96% • Public Buildin s 4°~ 96% Parks & Recreation 4% 96°!0 Libra 4°~ Fire/EMS 496 9&% C. . Counfy Population Growth. In order to develop equitable impact fees it is first necessary to identify demographic parame- ters for the county. Table II-2 sets out the historic and projected growth of St Lucie County. The City of Port St Lucie has been a very significant part of the growth bf the county. In 1980 -TABLE tl-3 POPULATION ANiD DWELLING UNITS • ST LUCIE COUNTY 1980 - 21)15 Po ulstion Dweilin s • 1980 87182 40 915 • 1981 93,705 ' 1982 99 705 1983 ~ 104 673 1984 109,833 1985 114,738 1986 119 960 1987 126105 1988 132,416 1989 139 655 2008 Impact Fee Update - 11 - TABLE 11-3 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY 1980 - 2015 ~ Po ulation Dwetiin s . 1990. .,150171 73,843 ~ . 1991.. 155 368. • .1992 159,302 1993 163,831 1994 167,833 1995 172,212 1996 .176,272 1997• ~ . ';184,338 1998 184,242 1999 188,327 2000 192,65 ~ 91,262 2001 198,211 95,384 2002 .205 340 100,536 _ 2003 211898 105,688 . 2004 ..226,216 111,354 . 2005. .240,039 117,020 2006 , . 259 315 125,519 . 2007 271,961 131,640 2008' 281,843 .136,423 2009" 291, 724 141,206 2010" 298,841 144,651 2011' 308 315 149,237 . 2012' 317,789 153,823 013`. 327,264 158,409 2014* 336,738 162,995 2015* 346,212 167,581 SOURCE: Florida Office of Economic and .Demographic Research. Port St Lucie constituted 17% of total county population. By 2000 this percentage had risen to 4b% and by 2007; it was 57% of the total county population. Between 1.980 and 2007 54% of total county population growth occurred within the City- of Port St Lucie., .It follows that 54% of the demand ,for countywide infrastructure improvements has been from the City of .Port St • Lucie. It is anticipated .that "the. percentage of total county growth from Port St Lucie will remain at approximately 5 5 ~ • . ~ , 2008 Impact Fee Update - 12 - Employment Growth . Population growth by in-migration has been the dominant factor within St Lucie County for the recent past and is projected to continue that,dominance in the foreseeable future. Population growth stimulates employment first in demand for homes'and then in demand for suppoxting services. As demand and the labor force~reach threshold size, industrial activities will begin to • occur both as import substitution and as export activities. YABLE il-4 • EMPLOYMENT ' ST LUC[E COUNTY. 1998 - 2012 • EMPLOYMENT Growth Naw Participation Jobs Rate ' 1998 49,286 • 26.75% 1999 4'9,274 -0:02% -12 ~ 26.16% 2000 51,134 3.77% 1,860 26.54°k 2001 ~ 51,961 1.62% 827 26.21 2002 54;971 ' 5.79% 3,010 26.77°k 2003 58;117 5:72% 3,146 27.43°!0 2004 63'765 9.72% 5,648 28.19% 2005 67 211 5.40% 3 445 28.00% 2006' 72 608 8.03% 5,397 ~ 28.00% 2007' 75 375 3.81 % 2,767 28.00% 200$' 78;142 3.67% 2,767• ~ 28.00% 2009" 80;909 .3.54% 2,767 28.00% 2010* " 83,675 3.42% 2,767 28.00% 2011 * 86,328 3.17% 2,653 28.00% 2012' 88,981 3.07%_ 2,653 28.00°k * Projected SOURCE: US Department of Labor, as provided by the Florida Agency for Workforce innovation, http:l/www.labormarketinfo.com/. Table II-5 shows the growth in employment by industry: The largest number of new jobs is expected to be .iri construction with 5,828 a This is closely. followed by health care with 5,613. The greatest~rate•of growth is for transportation and warehousing at 18%~per.year. The trend for employment is projected at 4.8°/d per year. The projected growth ofpopulation is 4.6%, indicating that the St Lucie County economy is evolving, most likely by import substitution. The data would suggest that distributional functions (warehousing) will increasingly be performed within the county as the county population and market reach critical minimum a These projections accept that the current reduced state of the construction industry is temporary. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 13 - economic thresholds for such activities. This would also appear to be the case for financial, administrative, and managerial services. Since these projections were made the nation, the state and St Lucie County have entered an economic "respite." Such ups-and-downs are normal and experience from the past suggests that the down period tends to be counteracted by the following period of recovery. The employment growth shown in Table II-5 is fora 15 year period; from 1998 to the present and then projected to 2012. Attempting to project the precise timing bf economic cycles has eluded all that have attempted it: Table II~7 aild employment data are relying ion the underlying~trend rather than attempting to set outprecise forecasts. While employment data are themselves interesting, they are included herein' in order to project the demand for non-residential development. TABLE It-5 GROWTH OF EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY ST LUCIE COUNTY 1998 - 209 2 INDUSTRY ~ ~ NEW RATE OF • JOBS GROWTH A riculture forest fishi and huntin 3 292 -7.9% Minin ~ 20 4.6% Construction ~ ~ 5,828 9.6% • Manufacturin 665 2.0% Wholesale trade 3,355 10.2% Retail trade ~ ~ 4,727 ~ ~ 4.1 Trans ortation and warehousin 1,962 18.0% . Igfotmation ~ ~ .301 -2.9% Finance and insurance., ~ 1,830 6.4% Real estate and rental and leasiri 671 • 5.7% Professlanal and technical services 1,792 .6.4% Man me t of com n es & enter rises 12 . =1.1 . Administrative and waste services 4 223 11.3% Educational services ~ 387 ~ 9.5% Health care and social assistance 5,613 5.5% Arts entertainment, and recreation 415 5.5% Accommodation and food services 2,115 3.6% Other services• exce ublic admin. ~ ` 566 2.7% Unclassified ~ 0 0.0% Other 811 5.4% Federal 222 3.2% stare 507 2.7% Local 4 665 4.2% Total, all Industries 37,042 4.8% SOURCE: US Department of Labor, as provided by the Florida • Agency , for Workforce Innovation, http://www.labormarketinfo.com/. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 14 - Land Development . Table II-6 shows the projected. demand for non-residential floor space by general land use type. This demand is.projepted; using the ratio: of employees per.~1,000 square feet of.floor area calculated by allocati}~g.historic .employment data to the number of square, feet of heated floor area by type o~ building as contained in the records: of the St Lucie County Property Appraiser. The ratios calculated for St Lucie County are: LAND USE TYPE FT' PER EMPLOYEE Commercial/Retail 653.60: Office 291..5$ ~ . HoteUMotel 861.84 Industrial 1,107.42 • institutional ~ 868.24 TABLE II-6 'DEMAND FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE ST LUCiE COUNTY 2007 - 2012 Reta[I Office Hotel/ Industrlai Instltu- Total Motel tional 2007 ~ 10,263,499 4,311 118 1,624,307 14 445,919 14,11'9,074' 44,763,917 . 2008 10,675,575. •4,478 847 1,672 717 14,844,392 '14,739,851 46,411,382 2009 11,104,558 .4 653,787 1,722,570 15,259,229 15,389;866 48,130,010 2010 11,551,153 4,836,272 1,773,909 15,691 111 16.070;568 49 923,012 2011 12,016,095 5 026,654 .1,826,777 16,140;749 16,783 477 51,793,753 2012 12,500,153 7,944 816 1,881 222 16 608 8$6 17 530,197 56.465,274 Chan a 2,236 653 3,633,698 256,915 2;162,968 3 411,124 11,701,357 In addition to accommodating. 22,183 new residences, St Lucie County will need to accommo- date up to 11,701,357 additional square feet ofnon-residential development. Table II-7 summarizes the magnitude of development projected for the county: 2008 Impact Fee Update ~ - 15 - TABLE II-7 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT . $T LUCIE COUNTY 2007 2012 Coun • Po ulafion ~ - ; : 45 828 . 4wellin s : 22~ 183 . Non-Residential: Retail ~ ~ ~ .2,236,653 ; : . Office 3,633 698 . Hotei/Motel 256,915 Industrial 2,162,968 ~ , Institutional 3,411,124 Total 11,701 357" The projections shown in Table II-7 are based on approximately SS% of all county growth will occur either within or proximate to the City of Port St Lucie. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 16 - III. Roads The need for road improvements is one of the most important and most expensive facing a growing community. St Lucie County has prepared a Capital improvement Program (CIP) showing the roads that will need improvement in order to accommodate the anticipated growth. This program, is summarized in Table III-1.. The expansion projects are identified by geographic zone, 1 through 4. Zones 3 and 4 are the Port St Lucie area. The quantity of development to be accommodated was set out above in Table II-7. The number of vehicular;trigs associated with a new unit of $evelopment is shown in Table III- 2. Also in Table III-2~ are average trip lengths. The trip gener` ation rates are a combination of trip rates prepared for St. Lucie County by Kimley-Horn and Associates and the Institute of Transportation Engineering,, Trip Generation, 7`~ edition; 2003: Trip lengths. are from the National Household Transportation Survey and then adjusted to, St Lucie County condi- . tions. The trip rates have been adjusted to correct for double counting and for multi- purpose or pass-by trips. , 2008 Impact Fee Update - 1 ~ - r ~ t O O (D O O O p p p O N p O O Q1 O O 00 Of it ~ di fl9 ~ W Of fA ~ t/! 00 O ~O O ~N ~ 8 fq b9 CO 4A fA ~ O` ~ t0 N ~ ~ S P Q O {N~~ OOD ti r N N V O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N r OO ~ V S _ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r Z H! ' ~p W 4°4 ~~Vpp 1°A ~ °W ~ 6°9 C O ~ O 4~') ~ pO ~ ~ aOD °M M ~ ~ C t0 S S °O f` oO OD M O ~ ~ .M-_ N m 3 O to O to V7: t0 M N O MO P d W ~ ~ ~ ~ N M 69 YYYlII N ~ ~ W N ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ O oo O O O pp pp O O O O pp tq O pp O ti p~ O° ~j ~ f9 N ~ M W V! fA N9 69 h !H 19 to ~ iq to 00 ^ S S p~pp O . 3 ~ ~ ~°A M $ S tp O . d- n ~O~}} O ~O~pp Q ' v O. ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ b9 G9 ~ aE p C9 ry~ S g~~ O w O~ O~ O S O S ;~°9 00 O H S°~ ~p N. 41 ~ O tOp S 8 O °Op N O CO S O 1A .O-• ~A M O O? 4. ~ N_ r ~ N f9 ~ W ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ W N ~ e- QQ ~ ~ r $ $ oS g rn ~ a~i. o o° o . o S ~ n ~ g p• ~ 8 S ~ io Q C o 0 0 0 ~c w~ o ui o t~ M~~ o o ~ O O O N N I~ N O OD P M fp N S M r. . ~ O p O S ro off in a N o N ~ S ~ a$ M ao ~ a~ u~ ~ ~ r- M F.• eA Fn WOZ J' a~ 0 0 0 o rn ti o 0 0 0~ o~ w ~ g. m Q Q ~ u ers w w vi o d• `8 0~ S S o in w m ttM~ O fV' ~O ~(j QQ ~^OQ ~ ~ f ~ .O ~ O Z V H ~ f9 ~fA O - - p ~ ~ t~NOp ~ N. 'O ~ 0 = ~ m ~ ~°y N ~ W ~ ~ IA ~ ~ in ~ fem. Z J 0 vi M Q ~ ~y ~ g°S.os.~ss so $ $gosgg~WOQ^~ W ~ O O C O pO pp O C OO O In lyj O pO O pp ppp pNp . ~ O i°O. N N iA O O S ~ O O ll~ (Y ^ 11~ In ~ aOD O U1 O ' LL. 11~~ iff rr 0p ~ e~ ~ NN Q C . ~ !rA fA ~ N h h y ~ to H ~ N ~ Vi to r ~ M ~ a V c Q r r r r r r r r r M M M l~ ~ ~ d ' N c ~ y ~ ~ c c ~ •v~i ~ ~ o d r h rn c 0. > ~ . c H ~ c m ~ c F~ s3 F°- ~ ~ c ~ c F° ° ? m s~ W ~ g W 'o O? c c c~ O ~ ~ c c ~~~pp c c ~ a L~ .v m 3~ i~ O ~ ~ C SS_~ 'p_ C ~ ~ m ~ p~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~t7pi ~ N ~ m ~ ~ S ~ ~ 'C J . ~ ~ ~ ~ l~0 L d a ~ ~ c '4c c o ,c .g .g m: a w [cq~ ~ y a c W c ~ ' ' f, C C C 5C ~ SZ Y O SC 5Z SZ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J J J ~ N O N N ~ ~ t~A IA Y ii~ uO~~ 1~ f~1 ~Vp H! ~ ~ OO7 d ~ ~ ~ Z C O ~p p l4 0 tp ~ 6~9 (A 6~9 H ~ .C . QQ a is ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Wf ~ Vg w ~ ~ ~ . N 1A ~ ~ S ~ M M Ob N O ~ N ~ ~ ~ N 3 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a o ~ ~ ~ p • N ~ O~ O O r 'C ~ a o o $ ~ Q ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ $ $ g ~ n ~ o0 0 ~ Z ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ W N ~ ~n ~n °g g g °o_ ~ io ' ' s d N 1+f ~ Oo ~cb~ ~~~~g~i ~ ~ a16o ~D.N ° ~ g N ' . m00 0?~' ~ m ~ $ o S 25 ~ c , Q~C~ e e C J w ~ oa.y ~ ~ N S~ o a o ~ ~ ~~~~~5$ ~ ~~y Sy1 O ~ l+1 t0 CV N' r ' N 1A ~N r^ 69 r N ~ 1A V! fR fN oa. F" ~ ~ ~ ~ V C d V V~ d i d if E ~ E c ,c ad ` o m Y Q ~ N IO O N ~ (A ~ $ ~ ~ Y c ~ O tp G 3 O V s N ~ y~~ ~ ~ J ,as c tow Td' E c~~ E _ ~ ~ m Y N a ~ ~ C) ~ Q. c ~ ~ 6j tV N ~ E / ~ W C ~ lY_0 ~ N ~ y fi F 3bbb ~ E wN ~ owa ~ ~ f Y ~ a~i ~ IiJ r-. d~~~~ 3~ H F ~ Z N . + , • ~ Table Ill-2 • TRlP GENERATION RATES~AND TRIP LENGTHS • , ST LUCIE.GOUNTY. • D.wefi- Re- Of- HO Instltu-. - - - ings• tail fice tell Industrial tional Motel Tri Generation Rates er Da Total 5.24 ~ 47.97 11.10 7.50 2.58 9.20 Ad'usted 2.62 23.99' . 5.55 3.75 1.29 4.60 • Net of. Pass-B - 2.62 10.79 2.50 3.19 0.97 1:84 Tri Len the - Total 7.57 2.43 4.33 3.64 8:83. 3.03 Ne' hborhood Streets 1.14 0.36 0.65 0.55 1.32 0:45 On Arterial and Collector Roads 6.44 2.06 3.68 3.10 ~ .7.50 2.57 $OURC~S: _(1) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation., .7th Edition, 2003. (2) Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Highlights of the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey," Page 10. (3); St Lucie County, Road Impact Fee Schedules. The net trip gerieratior~ rate times the trip length will equal Vehiculaz-Miles of Travel per day, which will be used to apportion improvement costs. The calculation of VMT for the average residence is: Average Residential Trip, Rate 5.24 per day Trip Rate at 50% . 2.62 per day Trip Length - 7.57 miles VMT per Day 19.84. Multiplying the travel parameters in Table III-2 times the growth parameters in Table II-7 yields net additional vehicular miles of travel on St Lucie County roads to 2012. These calculations yield new additional vehicular miles of travel attributable to new development of 491,5$9 per day. Table 1i1-3 NEW Vt~HICULAR MILES OF TRAVEL ST LUCIE COUNTY 2007-2011 • Dwell- Retali Office Notel/Motel Industrial Institutional ins FT= FT' Rooms FT' FTR New Develop- ment 22,183 2,236,653 3,633,698 257 2,162 968 3,411,124 New VMT 374,010 49 823 33,373 2,535 15,693 16,155 Total New VMT ~ 491 589 Table III-4 summarizes the improvement costs and expresses those costs per-VMT. How- ever, note should be taken of that fact that travel from existing households has. been auto- nomously increasing over time, The National Household Transportation Survey found that travel per household has been increasing at 1.68% per year (Bureau of Transportation 2008 Impact Pee Update _ 20 _ • Statistics, "2001 NHTS Summary of Travel Trends," page 9). It is unlikely that this his- • tonic rate will continue in light of the precipitously higher costs of driving. Nevertheless, all indications are that travel per household will continue to increase, albeit at a lesser rate. This analysis will increase autonomous household travel at 1 % per year: This means that 4.06% of the growth improvement Cdsts shown in Table III-1 are attributable to existing development. This adjustment is made in Table III-4. The net cost per vehicular mile of travel per day is $97.01. This -cost can be multiplied by VMT per unit of development to arrive at a net road cost per unit of development. This is shown in Table III-5. • TABLE II!-4 • • ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-COST PER VMT . Total Total Im rovement Cost - $232;245 637 Existin Deficien - $123,655,952 Revenues ~ ~ $120,590,139 Net Growth Cost ~ ~ . $49,706,433 Assi ned to Existin Develo menu $2,018 281 Net Ca aci Cost Attributable to Growth - $47.688,153 New VMT 499 589 er VMT - • ~ $97.01 NOTE: Growth Costs are not a simple subtraction from total costs. Some of the anticipated funding is committed td ezisfing deficiencies and some is committed to new capacity. The Details are in Table 111-1.- . ~ • 2008 Impact Fee Update - 21 - . ~ • . TABLE IIl-5 ROAD IMP120VEMENTS IMPACT FEE ~ ' ST LUCIE COUNTY - MAINIANb D USE TYPE (UNIT) ~ TRIP RATE firlp NEW VMT Updated Ler1 th~ TRIPS Fee ESiDEN71AL: • Sin le Famil ~ 9.20 7.57 100.0°6 34.84 $3,380 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 4.60 7.57 100.0°r6 17.42 $1 690 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 6.70 7.57 100.0% 25.37 $2,462 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 3.50 •7.57 100.0°k 13.26 $1 286 Hotel/Motel -Room 10.10 6.44 85.0°~ 27.64 $2,681 Bed 8i Breakfast -Room 4.90 6.44 100.0°~ 15.77 $1,530 All Other Residential 6.70 7.57 100.096 25,37 $2 462 FFICE AND FINANCIAL PER'! 000 FT2: General Office 11.10 7.21 50.0% 20.01 $1941 Medical Office 54.60 3.64 33.3% 33.11 $3,212 ETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 61.50 2.43 50.0% 37.33 $3,621 100,000-499,999 FTC 37.95 3.64 60.09/0 41.47 $4,022 500,000 8c OVer 26.25 4.85 70.0% 44.62 $4,328 ASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 168.56 1.21 37.5% 38.37 $3,722 NDU3TRIAL PER 1 000 FT=: Warehouse 2.44 8.83 75.0°~ 8.08 $784 Track Terminal 4.93 8.83 75.0% 16.31 $1,582 General Industrial 2.72 8.83 75.0% 8.99 $872 NSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 12.03 4.53 50.0°~ ~ ~ 13.63 $1 322 School - Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 11.92 4.53 50.0°~ 13.50 $1 310 . Da Care Per 1 000 FT2 79.26 1.21 25.0% 12.03 $1,167 Fraternal O .Per 1,000 FT2 9.11 8.58 50.0°k 19.54 $1 895 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 16.78 7.21 50.0% 30.25 $2934 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 5.92 50.0% 5.51 $534 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 54.00 5.92 25.0% 39.96 $3,877 ECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 8.58 50.0% 4.89 $474 Recreation Faciti all Per 1 000 FT2 3.i0 8.58 50.0% .6.65 $645 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 8.58 50.09'° 10.81 $1,049 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 2.14 50.0% 0.94 $91 SOURCES: Trip Generation Rates -Kimley-Horn 8~ Associates, 1989, and Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. Kimley-Horn ~ Associates, 1989, US Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Transporta#ion Study," p. 16 8~ 46, and US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "NPTS Databook," October 2001, p. 4-35. 2008 Impact Fee Update ~ - 22' - The data presented in Table III-1 provide a convenient opportunity to update the road impact fees applicable to Hutchinson Island. Several studies have shown that travel parameters for new development on Hutchinson Island are different from those of the mainland. For that reason St Lucie County has maintained, three separate impact fee schedules for the island; one for North Island, one for. South Island and one for Ft Pierce Island. Following are updated road impact fee schedules for.the three island zones that apply the cost per VMT to'the unique travel characteristics of the island's zones. 2008 Impact Fee Update " 23 TABLE III-6 ' ' ROADS IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE . ST LUCIE COUNTY -NORTH ISLAND LAND USE TYpE (UNIT) - TRIP TRIP % NEW Updated RATE LENGTH TRIPS VMT Fee RESIDENTIAL: • • ~ Sin le'Famif ~ 5.20 10.69 100.0% 27.80 $2,697 ' Mobile HomelRec. Vehicle 2.70 10.69 100.0% 14.44 $1,400 ,.Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Ste 2.80 10.69 100.0% ~ 14:97 $1,452 .'Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 4.50 10.69 100.0% 24.06 -.$2,334 ' ~ ~ • ' HoteUMotei -Room 10.10 9.07 85.0% 38,9.4. $3,778 Bed ~ Breakfast -Room 5.20 9.07 100.0% -23.59 $2,288 All Other Residential 6.70 10.fi9 100.0% 35.82 $3,475 .:OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: ' General Office 11.10 2.45 50.0°~ :6.81 $661 Medical Office 54.60 1.24 33.3% 11:.27 _ $1,093 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT2: ~ Under 100 000 FT261.50 0.76 50.0% 11.71 • $1,136 ' 100,000-499,999 FT2 37.95 1.14 60.0% .13.01 $1,262 500,000 & Over 26.25 1.52 70.0% 14.00 $1,358 GASOLENE SERVICES: , Service Station Per Position 168..56 0.38 37.5°~. 12.04 $1,168 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: _ Warehouse 2.44 3.29 75.0% 3,01 • ; $292 Truck Terminal 4.93 3.29 75.0% 6.07 $589 General Industrial 2.72 3.29 75.0% 3.35 _ $325 INSTITUTIONAL': School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 12.03 1.69 ,.50.0% 5.07 $492 School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 11.92 1.69 50.0% 5.02 $487 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 79.26 0.45 •25.0°~ :4.48 $434 ' Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 9.11 3.19 50.0% 7:27 $705 Hos ita! Per 1.000 FT2 16.78 2.68. 50.0% •11.26 $.1,092 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 2.20 50.0°~ ~ 2.05. ° $199 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 54.00 2.20 25.0% 14.87 $1,443 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre . 2.28 '.4:16 .50.0% 2.37. $230 Recreation Facilit ail Per 1,000 FT2 3.10 3.61 50.0°~ ~~.80 $272 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 3.19 50.U% 402 $390 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.80 50.0°~ 0.35 $34 2008 Impact Fee Update - 24 - TABLE III.7 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ST LUC{E COUNTY -FORT PIERCE ISLAND LAND USE TYPE (UNIT} TRIP TRIP % NEW VMT Updated ' RATE LENGTH TRIPS Fee RESIDENTIAL: ~ ' Sin le Famii 7.50 8.54 100.0% • 32:04 $3;108 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle • 4.60 8.54 100.0% 19.65 $1,906 • Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 3.50 8.54 100.0% ~ '14.95 $1,450 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 6.70 ~ 8.54 100:0° 28.62 $2,777 HoteUMotel -Room ~ ~ 10.10 7.26 85.0°~ 31'.17 $3,024 Bed & Breakfast= Room 4.90 7.26 100.0% 17.79 $1,726 AIi Other Residential ~ 6.70 8.54 100.U% .28.62. $2,777 ' OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 7 000 FT2: General Office ~ 11.10 1.87 b0:0%~ 5.20 $505 Medical Office 54.60 0.95 33.3% 8:61 $835 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 61.50 0.87 50.0°~ 13.44 $1,304 1 00 000-499 999 FT2 ~ 37.95 1.17 60.0% ~ 13.27 $1,287 500,000 8~ Over • ~ 26.25 1.36 70.0% . 12.49 $1,212 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service $tatlon Per Position 168.56 0.57 37.5% • ~ 18.03 ~ $1,749 • INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: ' Warehouse _ 2.44 2.12 75.0% :1.94 $188 Truck Terminal 4.93 2.12 75.0% 3.91 $380 ~Generallndustriai. 2.72 2.12 75.0% 2:16 $209 IN$TiTUTIONAl.:. ~ ' School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 12.03 0.54 50.0% 1.64 ~ $159 School =Middle/Hi h Per 1',000 i="f2 11.92 1.27 50:0°k 3.78 $367 Da Care Per 1 000•FT2 ' 79.26 0.34 25.0% 3.37 $327 Fraterna O .Per 1,000 FT2. 9.11. 2.40 50.0°k 5.47 $531 Hos ital 'Per 1,000. FT2 16.78 0.87 50:0°k 3.63 $352 '~Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 1.66 50.0% 1.54 $150 Libra P.er 1,000 FT2 54.00 1.66 25.0% 11.19 $1,086 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 2.40 50.0°k 1.37 ~ $133 Recreation Facili a{I Per 1 000 FT2 3.10 2.40 50.0% ° 1..86 $181 Golf Course Per Acre ~ ' ~ 5.04 2.40 50.0% 3.03.. $294 ' Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.54 50.0% 0.23 ~ $23 2(}08 Impact Fee Update - 25 TABLE fll-T ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ST LUCIE COUNTY -SOUTH ISLAND LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) TRIP TRIP % NEW VMT Updated RATE LENGTH TRIPS Fee RESIDENTIAL' Sin le Famil 7.50 8.02 100.0% 30.08 $2 918 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 4.60 8.02 100.0% 18.45 $1,789 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 3.50 8:02 100.Q% 14.04 $1,362 Multi-Famll 3 + Stories 6.70 8.02 100.0% _26.87 $2,606 Hotel/Motel -Room 10.10 6.88 85.0% 29.52 $2 864 Bed & Breakfast -Room 4.90 6,88 100.0°~ 16.8 $1,635 All Other Residential 6.70 8.02 • 100.0% 26.87 $2,606 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: General Office 11.10 2.15 50.0% 5.96 $578 Medical Office 54.60 1.08. ~ 33.3% 9.86 $957 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100 000 FT2 61.50 0.67 50.0% 10.25 $994 100,000-499,999 FT2 37.95 1.00 60.0% 11.38 $1,104 500000&Over 26.25 1.33 70.0°~ 12.25 $1,188 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 168.56 0.67 37.5% 29.07 $2,044 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: . Warehouse •2.44 2.87 75.0% 2.63. $255 Truck Terminal . 4.93 2.87 75.0% 5.31 $515 Generallridustrial 2.72 2.87 75.0% .2.93 $284 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 12.03 1.47 50.0% 4.44 $430 School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 11.92 1.47 ~ 50.0% X4.40 $426 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 79.26 0.40 25.0°~ 3.92 $380 Fraternal Or ..Per 1,000 FT2 ~ 9.11 2..79 50.0%~ 6.36 $617 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 16.78 2.35 ~ 50.0% `9.85 $955 Nursin Home Per 1 000 FT2 3.72 .1.93 50.0% 1.79 $174 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 - 54'.00 •1:93 25.0°~ 13.01 $1,262 RECREATIONAL: Park Public ~ Rer Acre 2.28 3.64 50.0°~ 2.07 $201 Recreation Facilii all Per 1,000 FT2 3.10 3.16 ~ 50.0°~ 2.45 $238 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 2.79 50.0% 3.52 $341 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.54 50.0% 0.23 $23 2008 Impact Fee Update - 26 - ~Q QQ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ o o p o ~ e o o ~ o i~ v 01 M ~ h !O O K ap d O OO O ~ r OD t0 e ~ 1l2 `ot 1~ (Q 1A to N 00 (i~ ~ ~ N ~ Of O) 00 ~ ~ ti t0 (V ~ N R N N ~ ~ e- ~ i 1 ~ ~ m r ~ ~ A s ~ ~ ~ V! ~ dNi ~ h i9 b9 NN3 ' S ~ N ~ r 69 IR ~ d1 Vl IN fA to M! ~ . ae ~ ae a° ~ ee ae ~ ae . a° ae a° a~ o aE ~ ae ~ a~ Iq CD r Q f~ 1~ tLtypp M O tipp N Oi IA ~p iC pdp C7U1 V ~ ~ O p ~ ~ ~ f0 ~ W ~ M N 01 O 1~7 ti ~~p 11D d' i'7... ~ 1D O~ ~ ~ O/ M . r- 1 N N N O ~ a ~ ~ O ~ ~ N N ti ~ ~ fA i~A ~ fA n X01 ~ w ' ~ ~ fA ~ Ml ~ YN9 ~ ~ ~ N W ~ C N P tp t0 t~ o ~ Cf ~ N fD r D m ~ N 0- Q M ~ d! to V! . ~ NN ww N ~ ~ ~ , xx ~ p ~ U! ~ w ~ W ~ W N N o 1 _ C iC 1~~ 0~~, Obi. Nt~Dy, 1f~~ O da~pp ~1NNf ~ ~ 1~ ~ p~p d Obi O ~ •a~- W ~ ~ N N N O ~ N N ~ N /+5 ~ ~ ~ Ol Gl ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ` ~ ~ e- a- r 0~] ~~pp ~p ~~pp ~p t~ N ~~(N.jf 0 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ M n N Q CD O ~ N C? ~ V/ ~ V! m A to ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1A Q V ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ a"d ~ °i loa . ~ 17i ~ 1°'0, ~ ~ g w w la• i~4 ~ ~ ~f ~ t~ N c~ N ~ ~ O J x~x W K it? vs V! ~W 'Vi M Vf w ~ V? ~ W O h d0 ~ ~ ~ 'd O, r' M a N ~ ~ ~ ~ V sF N ~ V !h ~ N d' ~ 1~f ~D tD ~c~0 M M ^ N ~ N ~ N ~ .~2 ~ 49 f9 t9 fA fA W M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y9 ~ 4~~ ~ ~ ~ ~jpp~ Ep ~j 1~ • ~ C d ~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ N 1~A ~ 00 1~ O! ~ to tli f~ O r~ O ~Myy ~ cp N QMp MO, N N ~ fR M! ~ 1A W ~ ~ h /A fA W .iNA W ~ K O O ~ . a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o i ~S c 8 3 ~ ~ way $°'~S ~ ~ to ~ E a ~ ~ $ ~ to m ~ ~ w 's S m f~ N 8 8 m ~ W ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ a $ ~ z vii ~ ~ ~ ~ ° w ~ ~ o ~ c v m~LL~~~~ m,~a ~go ?3~rY m~-g gr~ ~ Q - a~~~ ~i LL c 9 p 0 ~ w u r ~ o i ~ ~ ~ i m a p c~ ~ ~ ~ o~ u°~ ~ ~ z 3 ~ c7 z Ji `Vi' o u. cv vi~~° {p 'N? f0 to O_7 ~ Cp M . i t0 ~'9 V ~ n ~r~ R~' ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ C N pN O ~ ~ ~r~yyE fel ~ - G ~ t N a0 a00 ~ ~ tp t0 N ~ - 2 V t0 . ~ ~ W ~ ~ w ~ in • W ~ N °O W ~ ~ a~i ~ o ago a r~i N LL, d~' R ~ cc co ai .ao ~ r o g ~ - ~Q~ ~ ~ _~O ~ a ~ ®p W ~ ' , ro ~ V Z c ° M ~ ~ ~ r' ~ D J w w n1 us w H~ C7 ~ ~ ~ . G1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c amo n va c~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u'~ ui w o. S C .u . Z 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V W ° v a - ~ E ~ p v ~ ~ ~ ~g z ~ a ~ c~ ~ ~y J ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ C 1 ~ . Table III-9 contrasts the updated St Lucie County road fee with other counties in Florida. TABLE III-9 EXISTING ROAfI) IMPACT FEES IN FLORIDA COUNTIES Coun RoadlTrans Wakulla ~ ~ $521.79 . Monroe ~ $633A0 Lev ~ $1046.00 Seminole ~ $1,060.75 Gilchrist $1,071.43 ' Miami/Dade $1 275.00 Nassau * $1,429.51 FI8 ler $1,438.10 Hillsborou h * $1 548.00 Pinellas $1,923.00 Alachua " $2,010.00 Volusia ~ $2 044.00 St Lucie' $2,186.00 Lake $2,189.00 Santa Rosa $2,237.00 Hend $2,490.00 Sumter * $2,582.00 Martin * $2 891.00 Glades 3,326.00 Oran a $3,398.00 Hernando $3,627.00 St. Johns $3,708.00 Brevard $4 353.00 Desoto $4,750.00 Palm Beach *$4,822.00 Citrus $4,852.54 Charlotte $5,080.00 . IC~dian River * $5 202.00 . Pasco " $5,313.00 Marion ~ $5,462.00 Polk $5,884.00 Osceola ~ $6,877.00 Manatee $7 013.00 Sarasota $8 515.00 Collier ~ $8,884.00 Lee $8 976.00 Mean $3 625.67 Median $3 08.50 St Lucle U dated ~ $3,380.02 * In revision ~ ~ . 2008 Impact Fee Update ~ ~ - 29 IV - ~ Public Buildings Table IV-1 shows the proposed capacity enhancements to countywide public buildings. Portions (8.5%) of the public building improvements are existing deficiencies. The re- mainder will accommodate new development with adequate public buildings. The new development that will be accommodated was shown above in Table II-7. Table N-2 summarizes the growth accommodating improvements shown in Table N-1 and calculates a cost per new person. ~St Lucie County has issued bonds to fund the Court House, Clerk of the Courts building, . and Jail improvements. These facilities are designed to serve the: future as well as the existing population of St Lucie County. Therefore a portion of future debt service pay- ments are factored into.the public buildings impact fees. The future debt service payments . have been discounted back to present value at a. irate of 4.5%. This is in recognition of the lower present value of fitture payments. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 30 - i ~ OO ~ O O ~ ~ MV ~ O tp 8 O tC tC 07 l~ r l1Y O ~ O O r O C9 ti ~ ~ r.' U ~ r C7 tAO ~ M~ r . 41 69 69 ~ Z r Op O P O ~G O r ~ O 00 O O r ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ r r O ~fp} ~ ~ ~ O r0'1 ~ O C~ t~ <C ICl ~ 'Er9 6M9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o. ~ .6 • .a ~p ~'O' O' 'O O O d 0 0 O O Q m ~ ~ 69 to 69 69 69 69 6N ~ 69 69 a ~ LL W ~ O W • V.~ u' E Q- ~ W r ~ ~ . N `o ~n u W > N ~ ~ ~ ~ M ' ~ ~ ~ d 4 a' 'ma'r O ~O ~ 069 M ~ O C M 00 ccepp C O r ~ O. M r- ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ O M 1 ~ ~ ~ y WQN A ~ 6r96M9~ as c'o ~ ti . ~ ~ ' ~ J ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ N 01 ~ ~ N d ~ H 60A 609 ~ ~ o~D o r ~Op~ N Z C C r O ~ N ~ i7 dl O ~ j I/! V O ~ M e 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m O w. U r 0 0 f~ O !O O ~ O ~ p m ~A d O 0~0_ O Off-- pS O ~ V ~ l0 r pp 11) ~ O 8 ~ - O. M M ~ O C7 I~ 0 O Of O 6~N 609 b9 H ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ r- . d'f ~j 3~1 c E_ L O 8 ~ ~ m N ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ 0 F' U a'°i ~ c ~j ~ ~ ,a? ~ ~ o ~ n'~m m~ ~ w a' oe H ~ « o ~ ca ~ ~ . ~ ~ a w m g~ m~ c~~ W ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ a r ~ ~ c w ~ ~ ~ a o ~a a'a ~ ~ ~ U 3~ U a~awu° ~ ~ ~ z v ~ ~ c~i~ z $ TABLE IV-2 GROWTH COST OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS . Total Im rovement Cost $40,942,096 ~ ° Total Antici ated Revenue ~ $6,515,215 A lied to Deficien ~ $0 . A lied to Growth ~ $6,515,215 Deficit $34,426,881 Existin Deficien . ; $3,468 987 Growth Cost $37 473,109 Net GrowtFi Cost $31,699,798 Po ulation Growth 45,$28 Cost er Ca ita ~ $691.71 The per capita cost for additional public buildings is $691.71. Almost 50% of this cost is attributable to the need for expansion of the jail. This cost is spread over both the residen- ' tial and non-residential sectors by means of functional population. Because impact fees are land development regulations, the requirement to -pay impact fees is tied to a~ land use approval. Thus it is necessary to identify the relationship between land development and public buildings. The St Lucie County population that is sexved by public iuildings in- cludespeople in their homes, employees at work, customers at places of business, and drivers on the roads. To a great extent, these are the same people but in different locations. _ That is why the. total growth cost is ~di.videci by the new population. But the total per capita ' cost is allocated between the residential and non-residential sectors based on their time spent at various uses of land. The total population of St Lucie County is 281,843. This-is also the functional population. .The residents are assigned individual land uses based on the total number of people present 'at various land uses and the amount of time that they spend there. The function populations by land use for St Lucie Count are shown in Table IV-3. ~ ~ ' ' 2008 Impact Fee Update _ 32 . Table IV-3 FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ST LUCIE COUNTY Total ~ Hours Days per Functional LAND USES ~ Per- Employees per Week Population sons ••Visitor• • Sin le Famlf 2.617 ~ 1.047 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle ~ 1.714 ~ 0,688 Multi-Famil 1• &'2 Sto 2:334 0.9~ Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 2.334 0.934 Hotei/Motet ;Room. 1.750 0.700 Bed & Breakfast -Room ~ 1.750 ~ 0.700 All Other Residential 2.617 1.047 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: ~ • General Office 7.32 3.00 ~ 0.50. 6.00 0.92 MedicalOfffce 30.03 ~ 4.00 1.00 ~ 5'.00 1.73 RETA}L PER~1 000 FT2: Under 100 000 FT2. 36.90 3.75 0.08 .7.00 1.36 100 000-499,999 FT2' 24.67 '3.50 • ~ 0.45 7.00 1;56 500 000 & Over ~ . • .18.38. ~ 2.75 ~ ~ 0.50 7.00: 1.24 GASOLINE SERVICES:. • Service Station Per Position . - 84.28 , 0.05 0.08 7.00 0.30 lNDUSTRlAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse .1.34 0:50 0.50 5.00. 0.13 Truck Terminal ~ 2.71 1.25 0.25 5.00 0.31 Generallndustrial 1.49 0.80 1.00 5.00 0.21 INSTITUTIONAL: • School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 9,02 0.60 5.00 5.00 1.40 School -Middle/High Per 1,000 FT2 ~ 8.94 0:65 5.00 5.00 1.39 Dd Ca're Per 1,000 FT2 59.45 ' 0.08 0.50 5.00 0.90 Fraternal O .Per 1,000 FT2 5:47 2.00 2.00 6.00 0.82 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 10.07 3.10 0.25 7.00 1.11 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 2.23 3.00 2.00 7.00 0.94 Libra Per 1000 FT2 32.40 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.41 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.39 0.10 3.00 7.00 0.32 Recreation Facilit Per 1,000 FT2 3.26 0.10 3.00 7.00 0.43 Galf Course Per Acre ~ 5.29 0.20 3.00 7.00 0.70 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.84 0.04 2.00 7.00 0.16 . 2008 Impact Fee Update - 33 - . An updated public buildings improvements impact fee is shaven in Table IV-4. TABLE IV-4 ' " ~ PUBLIC BUILDINGS IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE ST LUCIE COUNTY LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) ~ Occupancy 2088 Revised $in le Famil • Fee . Fee Chan e . 1.05 $391 $724 85.2% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 0.69. $256 ~ $474 85 2% .Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sfo 0.93 •$350 $646 84.5°k Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.93 $350 $646 84,5% Hotel/Motel -Room 0.70 $253 $484 91.4% Bed 8 Breakfast -Room 0.70 $2$3 $484 91.4°~ All Other Residential ~ 1.05 $391 $724 85.2% OFFICE~AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Genera! Office 0.92 ~ $440 $638 45.0% Medical Office 1.73 $703 $1,195 69.9% RETAIL PER 1 000 F~'2: Under 100,000 FT2 1.36 $494 ~ $941 90.5%. 100,000-499,999 FT2 1.56 $568. $1,082 ~ 90.4% 500,000 & Over 1.24 $414 $859 107.5% GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 0,30 $71 $206 189.8% INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse 0.13 $62 $91 46.8% Truck Terminal 0.31 $125 $213 70.7%. Generallndustrial 0.21 $100 $146 .46.0% INSTITUTIONAL: ' School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 1.40 $563 $966 71.5% School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 1.39 $2,490 $960 -fi1.4% Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 0.90 $303 $625 106.2% Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 0.82 $0 $0 0.0% Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 1.11 $469 $765 63.1 °k ~ . Nursin Home Per 1 000 FT2 0.94 $507 $647 27.7% Libra Per 1,000 FT2 1.41 $709 $973 37.3°~ RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 0.32 $71 $221 211.8°~ Recreation Facili Per 1,000 FT2 0.43 $90 $296 228.7% Golf Course Per Acre 0.70 $183 $486 165.8% Movie Theatres er Seat 0.16 $80 $113 ~ 41.0% The updated public buildings impact fee for a single family home is contrasted with other existing public buildings impact fees. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 34 - ~ ~ • Table IV-5 EXISTING PUBLIC BUILDING IMPACT FEES Count Public'Bid ~ • Palm Beach * $148.00 _ Indian River' $206.00 Nassau * . - $231.49 Hernando - $302.00 Sarasota $303.00 Wakulla . $317.OU` • St Lucie * $368.00 • Gilchrist $369.89 • St. -Jo ns ~ ~ $378.00 Martin ` $436:00 - • ~ Citrus ~ $678.94. Charlotte $780.00 Collier $807.00 Desoto ~ $971:00 Avers a $492,94 . Median $373.95 St Lucie Revised $724. * In.revisio~ • 2008 Impact Fee Update - 35 - V. P r ~ • a ks & Recreation Table V-1'shows the park & recreational improvements program from 2008 to 2012. Many of the proposed improvements are repairs, renovations and replacements and such expenditures are. considered to be existing deficiencies. Items shown in the Net Crrowth Cost column are those that are eligible impact fee improvements. The expansions of the Fairgrounds and the South County Regional Stadium have been funded by bond proceeds.:These facilities will serve the future as well as the existing population. Therefore future debt service on these bonds has been included, discounted back to present value at 4.5%. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 36 - 0 0 "p o 0 o n n ,c o n o 0 0 0 0 o ao ~ ~+i vi W S S 69 S tff `N M ~ !9 ~N 69 S 69 69 ppS S 69 w pO 01 Q~ ~ O S ~ G~~ O ~ O O S~~~ G7 V ~ g ~ ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ n c+f ~ n ti ~.r 69 69 N by (h 69 fA 69 Z 69 H ~ 69 ~ ~ N O op O op O pO n ~Np O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ N fA 69 O 00 fR ~ O 1q~~ ~ .!A ~ f~9 S /A f/i 00 00 fR tH ~ 0000 . H O 609 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ 1fW ' ~O o ~ N H . ty ~ p . W ~ ~ . ~ ~ 609 to W ~ ~ O d09 ~ 00 ~ ~ H ~ Opp O ~ ~ S ~ N ~ LL O ~ 1A O lL O t0 . ~ tp S ~ ~ E ZS v? ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ £ ~ ~ , a- a- ~ 069 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~ ~ ~ ° 6°' 6°, c °en 069 6°9 0~ w 609 ~ $ o v9 69 69 0 0 L C ~ S ti L G N M r ~ W N ~ d ~ 69 . Z 0Op O pOp O S pOp O n t~ O N 609 0Op W O p Op O O O O O O M ~ t p S O S ~l! O ~ (N+f 0~p~ t S /h O O p~~~ S W~ ~ M x O IA In O~ ~ O N O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ H ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ b9 ~ ~ 1 i9 H dpf fcI~! O N N p p T p p r yO~.) ~ b09 S S pS ~ $ g ~ O g C 609 N 609 i09 !0// 609 OM OW ~ 00 069 d09 1O~ ~Oy ' Z O ~ ~ N S ~ S ~ ~ N M Uf W O N ~ ~ V 69 69 69 ~i ~ Y v, 69 H w m ~ ' O o S 0 p o n pp n o p 0 0 p o g oS ago ~ N ~ C' ~ O S O O S O S M~ ~ O~ S O O S Op p O .O{ N ~ O V O O Q O ~ 00 S N ~ O ~ O O O O to O S N O v~ O N n ~ 1~ G N 6s ~n N69 g ~ o $ ~ ~ a a9 ~ $ ~ w S w en ui w N w v? ~ w Z Q ° o o d C ~ G w a 0. ~ v m ~ N a w ° ~ ~ $ -c ~ ~ E $ n ~N C~7 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ 3 O o W ~ o- O q~q Ii ~ 7 O ~ u~i ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c L ~ ~ a N o a £ n ~ N a ~ m ~ n. m ~ a ~ c3v ~ g' ~ g E ~ o~ 9 ~ ~ ~p• ~ c~E c~ L N W d N~ o~ m ~ c~ ; 7 ~ ~e e~ E a Q ~ ~ Y d U~ a U g, N~ m~ ~ fA w U ~ U ~ F ca U 010. a a ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ t°~ c~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 7 c c b N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ O~ C~c ~>~9 ~p ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 p ~ ~ tJ5 c ~ ~ LL y a ~ ~i [D to O O (n cA H S p1 H1 U' ~ ~ N The items shown in Table V-1 are summarized in Table V-2. The per capita cost for growth accommodating park and recreation improvements is $234.83. This datum is used TABLE V-2 GROWTH COST PARKS $ RECREATION Totai Im rovement Cost $14,344,123 Total Antics ated,Revenue ~ ~ $2,599,295 lied to Defcien ~ ' $1 550,945 A qed to Growth $1,048,350 Deficif ~ $11,740 828 Existin DeftCienc ~ $2,530,000 GrowtFi Cost $11,810123 Net Growth Cost $10,761,773 . New Po ulation 45,828 Growth Cost er Ca ita $234,gg to calculate an updated park~and recreation impact fee, shown`in Table V-3. TABLE V-3 PARK 8 RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE REST•OF ST LUCIE COUNTY Exist- Revised ~ % Occupancy ing Fee Chang Fee e LAND USE TYPE . UNIT Sin le Famil 2.617. , . $514 $615 19.56% Mobiie Home_ /Rec. ''$337 Vehicle 1.714 $402 19.43°/a Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 2.334 $458 $548 19.67% Multi-Famif 1 & 2 Sto 2.334 $458 $548 19.6790 Hotel/Motel -Room 1.750 $331 $411 24.15% Bed & Breakfast -Room 1.750 $331 ~ $411 24.x5% All Other Residential 2.617 $514 $615 19.56% The updated park and recreation impact fee for St Lucie County is contrasted with other park and recreation impact fees in Table V-S. TABLE V-5 . PARK IMPACT Fff$ FLORIDA COUNTIES County Parks • Wakulla $53 2008 Impact Fee Update _ 38 - i TABLE V-5 PARK IMPACT FEES FLORIDA COUNTIES Count Parks , . Hernando ~ ~ $113 Lake $222 Alachua ~ $252 Fla ler ` ' ~ $268 Monroe $340 Hillsborou h * ~ $354 Glades ~ $366 Desoto $370 St Lucie * $484 Manatee. ~ $457 . assau' $520 Vpiusia $629 Citrus ' $723 St. Johns $753 Pasco $892 . MiamilDade $1,173 , - , Paim Beach * ~ $1,248 Lee $1,479 Indian River * ~ ~ $1,507 Charlotte . ' . $1.,660 Martin * . $2,345 Sarasota ~ ~ $2 348 .Collier ~ ~ $3 299 Mean ~ $904 ' Median ' '$525 ` St Lucie U dated $615' ' * In revision • 2008 Impact Fee Update - 39 - VI. Summa Table VI-la through VI-le summarize the updated improvements driven impact fees and add in those other impact fees that aze riot being changed at.this~time to get a picture of all~impact fees to be imposed by St Lucie County. Following the five updated and recommended~fee schedules;'Tables VI-2a and VI-2b show the percentage changes in impact fees by area of St Lucie County. Lastly,~Table VI-3 contrasts the total impact fees recommended with impact fees presently in existence in other Florida counties. 2008 Impact Fee Update - 40 - ' . Table VI-1 a RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES MAINLAND • Roads Public parks School Library Fire! Law Totat LAND USE Bulldin s EM3 RESIDENTIAL: S IeFamil ~ $3,360 ,.:$724. $615 $5,447 $205 $528 $194 $11,090 Mobile Nome/Rec. Vehicle $1,690. $474. $402. . $1 572. $184 5106 $125. $4,554 Multi-Famil .1 & 2 Slo $2,462. $646 $548 $2 787 $133 $106 $1.74 $6,855 .Multi-Famil .3'+ Stories. $1,286 $646 $548 $2,787. $133 $106 . $174. $5,880 IioteUMotel -Room $?,681. $484 $411 $0 $245 $13 .$3,951 Bed & Breakfast -Room $1,530 $484 $411 $0 $0 248 $130 $2,801 All OtherReskiential $2,462 $724 $Bi5 $5447 $205 $52S $1g4 $10,171 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT': General Office $1,941 $1338 $0 $0 $0 $310 $298 $3,187 MedfcalOfflce $3,212 $1,195 $0 $0 $0 5310 $186 x,903 _ RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': Under 100,000 FT= $3,621 $941 $0 $0 $0 $487 $697 $5,747 100 000-499 998 FT2 $4,022 $1.082 $0 $0 $0 $487 $804 $6,395 500 000 & Over $4,328 $859 $0 $0 $0 $487 $688 $6,363 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $3,722 $206 $0 ~ $0 $0 $1 610 $697 $6,236 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $784 $9i $0 $0 $0 $71 $36 $982 • Truck Terminal $1,562 $213 $0 $0 $0 $70 $71 $1.~ Generallndustrlai $872 $146 $0 $0 $0 $70 $56 $1,144 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FTC $1,322 $966 $0 $0 $0 $468 $242 $2,998 School - Mlddle/Hi h Per 1,000 FTz $1,310 . $960 $0 $0 $0 $46T $160 $2,898 Da Care Per 1 000 FT' $1,167 $6'15 $0 $0 $0 $467 $153 $2,412 Fraternal O .Per 1000 F7' $1,895 $0 SO $p $0 $487 $72 $2,435 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT' $2,934 $765 $0 $0 $0 $467 $72 $4,239 lUursin Home Per 1 000 FTC $534 $647 $0 $0 $0 $1,160 $72 $2,413 Libra Per 1,000 FT' $3,877 $973 $0 $0 $0 $467 $73 15,390 RECREATIONAL: • Park Public Per Acre $474 $221 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $812 Recreation Faclli all Per 1,000 FT° $645 $298 $0 $0 - $0 ' 4 $73 51,057 Golf Course Per Acre $1,049 $486 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $1,652 Movie Theatres r Seat $91 $113 $0 $p $0 $487 $73 $764 2008 Impact Fee Update - 41 - Table V!-1 b ~ - RECOMMENDED 1NiPACT FEES NORTH ISLAND Publlc Firs LAND USE Roads Parks School Library EMS Law. ..,Total Bulldin s RES}DENTIAL: ' Sin le Famll $2,697 $724 $615 •$5,447 $205 .$526 $194 $10,407 "Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle ;1,400 $474 $402 $1,572 $184 $106 $725 -$4,264 Multi-Faml 1 & 2 Sto $1,452 $846 $548 $2,787 $133 $106 $174 $5,$46 Multi-Farttt 3 + Stories $2,334 " $646 $548 $2,787 $133 $106 $174 $6,728 HoteUMotel -Room $3,778 $484 $411 $0 $0 $245 $130: $5,048 Bed 8 Breakfast -Room $2,288 $484 $4i 1 _ $0 $0 $246 $130 $3,559 AA Other Residential $3,475 - $724 $615 $5,447 $205 ~ $528 $194 $11,185 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT': General Office $661 5638 $0 $0 $0 $310 • $298 $1;907 Medical Office $1,093 $1,195 $0 $0. $0 $310 .$186 .$2,785 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT: UrMer 100,000 FTz $1,136 $941 $0 $0 $0 $487 $697 $3,262 100 000-499 999 FT' $1,262 $1,082 $0 $0 $0 $487 $804 ' .$3,634 500 000 ~ Over $1,358 $859 $0 $0 $0 $487 $688 $3,392 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $1,168 $206 $0 $0 $0 $1,810 $697 $3,681 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT=: Warehouse $292 $91 $0 $0 $0 $71 $36 $490 Truck Terminal $589 $213 $0 $0 $0 $70 $71 $943 Generallndustrial $325 $146 9i0 $0 $0 $70 $56' $597 INSTITUTIONAL; - School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT' $492 $966 $0 ~ $0 $0 $4118 ' $242 $2,168 School - Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 F7' $487 $960 $0 $0 $0 $467 $160 $2,075 Da Care Per 1 000 FT' - $434 $625 $0 $0 $0 .$467 ..$153 $1,679 Fraternal .Per 1,000 FT' $705 $0 $0 $0, $0 $467 $72 $1,244 Hos ital Per 1 000 FT' $1,092 $765 $0 $0 $0 $487 572. $2,396 Nursl Home Per 1,000 F1'' ~ $199 $847 $0 $0 $0 $1,160 $72 $2,078 Ltbra Per 1 000 FT' $1,443 $973 $0 $0 $0 $467 ~ $73 ~ $2,956 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $230 $221 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $568 Recreation Facifit all Per 1,000 FT' $272 $296 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 ..$684 Golf Coursi3 Per Acre $390 $486 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $993 - Movie Theatres er Seat $34 $113 $0 $0 $0 5487 $73 $707 2008 Impact Fee Update - 42 - Table VI-1 c RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES FT PIERCE IS~,AND Roads Pubtic Parks School Library Fire! Law Total LAND USE Buildln s EMS RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Fami1 ~ $3,108 $724 $615 $5,447. $205 $526 $194 .$10,818 Mobile HomeiRec: Vehide 51,906 $474 $402 $1,572 $184 $106 $125 $4,770 MuitrFamil 1 8 2 Sto $1,4;~ $6.46 $548 $2,787 $133. $106 $17.4. .$5,844 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $2,777 $646 $548 $2.787 $133 $108. $174 $7,171 HoteUMotel ~ Room' $3,024 $484 $411 $0 $0 $245 $130 $4,294 .Bed & Breakfast • Room $1,726 $484 $411 $0 $0 ;246 $130. $2,997 All Other Residential $2,777 $724 $615 , 55,447 $205 $528 $194 •$10,486 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT': GeneralOflice $505 $838 $0 $0 $0 $310 $298 51,751 MedicalOfflce 5835 $1,195 $0 $0 $0 $310 $186 $2,526 . RETAIL PER 1000 FT': Under 100 000 FT= $1,304 $941 $0 $0 $0 $487 $697 , $3,429 100,000-499,999 FT' 51,287 $1,082 $0 $0 $0 $487 $804 $3,680 500 000 & Over $1;212 $853 $0 $0 $0 $487 $888 $3,246 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $1,749 $206 $0 $0 $0 $1,610 $897 ~ . $4,263 'INDUSTRIAL PER 1000 FT°: Warehouse 5188 $91 $0. $0 $0 $71 $36 $386 Truck Terminal 5380 $213 30 $0 $0 $70 $71 $734 Generallndustrial $209 $146 $0 $0 $0 $70 $56 $481 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT' $159 $986 $0 $0 •$0 $468 $242 $1,834 School- MiddleM' h Per 1,000 FT= $387 $960 $0 SO $0 $467 $160 $1,955 _ Da Care Per 1000 FT= $327 $825 $0 $0 $0 $467 $153. $1,572 Fraternal O .Per 1,000 FT: ~ $531 $0 $0 $0 $D $487 $72 , $1.070 Hos ite! Per 1000 FT' $352 $785 $0 $0 $0 .$467 $72 $1,656 Nursin Home Per 1000 FTC $150 $847 $0 $0 $0 $1,180• $72 $2,029 Libra Per 1 000 FT= $1,086 $973 $0 $0 $0 ' $467 573 $2,599 . RECREATIONAL:. Park Public Per Acre $133 $221 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $471 Recreation Facllit ail Per 1 000 FT= ~ $181 $298 $0 910 $0 $44 $73 $593 Golf Course Per Acre $486 $0 $0 $0 . $44 $73 $897 • ..Movie Theatres er Seat $23 $113 $0 SO $0 $487 $73 $696 2008 Impact Fee Update - 43 - Table VI-1 d RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES . SOUTH ISLAND LAND USE Roads Public parks School Library EMS law Total Buildtn s RESIDENTfAL: • • Si a Famil $2,918 $724 $815 $5,447 $205 $526 $194 $10,627 Mobile HomelRec. Vehicle $1,789 $474 $402. $1,572 $184 $106 $125 $4,653 Multi-Fami 1 & 2 Sto $1,362 $646 $548 $2,797 $133 $106 $174 $5,755 Multi-Famtl 3 + Stories 52,606 $646 $548 $2,787 $133 $106 $174 $7,000 HotellMotel -Room 52,864 $484 $411 $0 $0 $245 $130 $4,134 Bed d. Breakfast-.Room 51,635 $484 $411 $0 $0 $246 $130 $2,905 All Other Residential $2,606 $724 $615 $5,447 $205 $526 $194. $10,316 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT': General Office $578 $838 $0 $0 - $0 $310 $298 $1,824 MedicalOftice 5957. $1.195 $0 $0 $0 $310 $186 $2.648 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT': Under 100 000 FT' $994 $941 $0 $0 $0 $487 $697 $3,120 100 000-499 999 FT' $1,104 $1,082 $0 $0 $0 6487 $804 $3,477 500,000 8 Over .$1,188 $859 $0 $0 $0 $487 $688 $3,223 • GASOLINE SERVICES: Servk:e Station Per Position ~ $2.044 $206 50 $0 50 $1,Bi0~ $697 $4,557 _ INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse ~ $255. $91 •$0 $0 $0 $71 $36 $453 Truck Terminal $515 $213 50 _ $0 _ SO $70 $71 $869 ' Generallndustrial $284 $146 $0 $0 50 $70 $56 $558 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Par 1,000 FT' $430 $966. 50 $0 $0 $468 $242 $2,106 School - Middle/Hi h Per 1 000 FTz $428 $960 $0 $0 $0 5467 $160 $2,015 Da Care Per 1000 FT' $380 $825 $0 $0 $0 $4117 $153 $1,625 Fraternal .Per 1000 FT= $617 $0 $0 50 $0 $467 $72 $1,158 Hos ital Per 1000 FT2 $955 $785 50 SO $0. 5467 S72 $2,260 Nursi Home Per 1,000 Fl' $174 $647 $0 $0 $0 $1,180 $72 $2,053 Li Per 1 000 FT' $1.,262 $973 $0 $0 $0 $467 $73 $2,776 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $201 $221 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $539 Recreation FacNlt all Per 1,000 FT2 $238 $295 $fl 50 $0 $44 S73 $650 .Got/ Course Per Acre S341 $486 $0 $0 50 $44 $73 $944 Movie Theatres r Seat $23 $113 $0 $0 $0 $487 $73 5696 2008 Impact Fee Update - 44 - d a° ;E e o 0 3° oe ~ 3° a oe o e 3° a° o M 00 ~o v rn oN ap v, r ao ~c ~ v ao iaan~~ ao r °E ~ r N ~ ~+S r N ~ N r N f~ ONO O ~ N 'q L ~ V ip ~ f0 aD ~ O ~ ~ M 'fD ~ ~ cNMr~ ~ N ~ ~ f19 ~ ~ O t ~ ~ ~ ~ 6n9 ~ fiNi ~ ~ to NtA U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ N r 00 ' C ~ ~~yy ~ u0i, ~ ~ o~~pp d~~yy M~M ~O~yi, n ~ N~ ~ ~ M h V! ~ ~ ~ K ~ N V! ~ to NM 6~9 ~ ~ Vs 3e o .3Q 3e 34 ~ ao 3Q 3E 'a° o Se o o d° C 00 Q 00 00 ~t h~ (tND fpVp W 00 a el; O ~ O OD h Oi ' ° L N t~ ~ lrC ~ 1A N t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ t~ M M ~ V C p~ ~~pp pN~ app ~ep? M ~ prp ~ N ~ Oro ~aa ~ : ~ ~ Ol ~ ^ ~ ~'Qy f0 . fY (e~? f~ 00 01 ~ ~ ' a $ ~ V~ ~ , ~ ~ H ~ !rA ~ 1A w ~ V! hH fA r a Opp ~p ~ pp ~j _ p G ~ r ~ ~ ~ Cf ~ N M ~ dM' O O? N C~ ~ ~ N . pippp N N OOpp NN to fR r M M ~ ~ ~ IA W fA H Nbf NfA {NA V~ ~ N . N! ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ d` OE ~ O~ T T T o4 ~ o T ~S ~ O IV 1~ t0 IA e0 O • ~ 00 N l'7 d a ~p~ 1ppn~~e.cc~-~ 1~ OD . ~ ~ 16 ~ N M ~ ~ lfJ ~ N N O fD ~ N OO O OD N .C ~ r- Q ~ a-- M I~ r ~ ~ ~ ~o "~o ~ ~ ~QU ~ ~ ~ p W 2 M rn fop o ~~p} pan rn ~OyO v o Nrn o d~ : • uMi ep? ~ > ~ CCj ~ M~ ~O}> M NN tD ~A ~ N .NM- ~N O N ~V tN~ 1~ ~A .p ..S ~ IR ~ i9 ~ V3 ~ 6r9 h ~ d! Y4 6~9 Ifl ~ .~y . N W {A Z. ~ o e o e o• o r 0~p7 ~ ~ OapO N t+~ N 'd~Q ~ ~ ~ O . ~ 41 , ~~p • D N~ N_ ~ frl~ ° t N N N fV ~ Q ~ M ~ N ~ i eo tgi t0 N N ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r f9 h N A P N C ~ 11j '~R 1~ O ~ Y7 P7 CV 1rA~ IA N ~ r~ r r~ N r • 8 ~ o~ ~ $ W C r a o o t v, E ~ bi ~ $ o a N U ~ +L U 0. r t m N~ E~ c z °o ~ a, S a ~ ~ ~ a c~ ~ M ~ v o ~ S' ~ ~u ~ a ~ _C ~ o ~ ~ •E E ~ ~ ~ zd ~ ~ w ~ S' ~ w ~9 ~ N @ ~ w y zLL= ~ cm ~w _ aS~o~ ~~_t~ p m ~ ~ f U m a d o 8 ~F~~ ~ ~ ~ p~p~~ N Off N ~ ~ N ~ M M !h r N O O . V r ~ ~ c m i°. ~ ~ v ~~Qj ~ M N~ ~ tp tp N fA uM9 V? K fR 49 b9 W • W ~a~~~ a~a~~a~ r> ~ ao r- m m ~ to . A 01 O OD 1A fC 10 a <C CV CC V r ~ r q ~p ~ IA N Owl I~ tOM~f ~pnp~ ~p ~ . t~ O tDD N N $ iA W W o. us iA en w us 'a ~ LL ~ ~ r ~ Ifs ~ N (O Of ~~p - ~ ~ h 1 ~ ffpVV iNN ~ iR d! Y! W V! W ~E st LL- ~ N v a~ ~ r se 1{ ~ ~ O tM eh N M ~ ~ ~ • ~ V ~ N O O e- • ~ ~ ~ N G ~ N ~ to ~ cO+f O ~ u~ ~ ~ - m p W i (A c~ r a Z ~ Obi, O~f• m O N . M ~ O~f • . • ~ ~ F ~ N IA ~ ~o O N P N - ~ ~ a v 2~i v ~ ~ '8, w ~ ~ ~ a ~ ie a x~~~-~ • ~ ~ ~ S 8 W~~ - ~ ~~~m$~~. ~ a r- a~ z a LL a W o ~ ~ ~ ~~a o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 a z' ~ ~ a ~ t7 N. Table V-3 compares the highest updated fees for St Lucie County with the totals for other Florida counties. Many counties do not have all of the impact fees and others have not kept their impact fees current. For example, Monroe County's fees have not been updated since 1987. Also, many are currently in revision, as indicated. Table VI-3 COMPARATIVE COUNTY IMPACT FEES County Parks Pabllc Roads EMS Law! Ftre School Total gl~g Jall Facilities Baker $1,000 $1,000 Bradford' ~ .$1,000 $1,000 Lev $1,046 853 $1,099 Wakuila $53 $317 $522 $236 $1,128 Monroe ~ $340 $633 $150 $105 $1,228 ~Gilchrlst $370 $1,071 $1,441 Pinellas $1,923 $1,923 $2.000 $2.000 Cla. ' Hillsborou h' $354 $1,548 $49 $196 $2,146 Santa Rosa $2,237 $2,237 Alachua' $252 $2.010 $152 $2,414 Seminole ~ $1,061 $172 $1,384 $2,617 Sumter' $2.582 $397 $2,979 Fla ler $2~ $1,438 $3,600 $5,307 MlamilDade $1,173 51,275 $411 $177 $2,306 ..$5,341 Massau ` $520 $231 $1,430 $150 $121 $3,726 ~ ~ $6,178 Hend $2,490 $5,101 $7,591 Glades $366 $3,326 $93 $4,322 $8,107 Charlotte $1.660 - $780 $5,080 ~ $300 $400 $8,220 St Lucie' $484 $368 $2182 $193 $368 $5125 $8 907 Volusia $529 $2.044 $278. $5,443 $8,295 Hernando ~ $113 $302 $3,627 $16 $131 $80 $4,226 $8,495 Marlon ~ $5,462 $137 $3,000 $8,599 Brevard $4,353 $39 $72 $54 $4,445 $8,963 Citrus $723 $679 $4,853 $69 $279 $471 $2,109 $9,182 St. Johns $753 $378 $3,708 $188 $501 • $3,771 $9,299 • Indian River ` $1,507 $206 $5,202 $415 $278 $1,756 $9,363 Lake $222 $2,188 $328 $7,055 $9,794 Oran a $3,398 $193 $201 $7,000 $10,792 Palm Beach• $1,248 $148 $4,822. $171 $528 $3,997 $10,915 Pasco $892 $5,313 $172 $248 $4,313. $10,938 Martin' $2,345 $436 $2,891 $459 $357 $4,555 $11,043 Desoto $370 $971 $4,750 $538 '$398 $6,844 ;13,871 Sarasota $2,348 $303 $8,515 $101 $880 $197 52,032 $14,376 2008 Impact Fee Update ~ " 47 - Table V(-3 COMPARATIVE COUNTY IMPACT FEES County parks Public Roads EM5 Law/ Fire School Tatal B~9 Jail Facllitles Manatee ~ $457 $7,013 $76 $671 $288 $5,886 $14,391 Polk $5,884 ;97 $410 $218 $8,598 $15,203 Lee $1,479 ;8,976 $94 ;845 ;4,325 $15,519 Osceola $8,877 $159 $9,981 ;17;017 Collier E3,299 , $807 ;8,884 ~ $112 $531 $1,043 $9,206 $23,882 ' Mean ~ $908 $450 $3,828 $84 $336 $298 ;4,271 $7,764 Median $525, ;369 $3,109 . $93 $279 $283 $4,270 $8,295 St Lucle HI hest $615 $724 $3,380 ;194 $528 $5,447 $11,090 in revision ~ 2008 Impact Fee Update - 48 - ExLibit B Technical Memorandum on the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public Buildings, and Park Recreation Impact Fees .Prepared for. the Board of County Commissioners of St Lucie County By James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. March 30, 2009 •Table of Contents- : • I. Impact• Fees...:.....:........... .................................................2 A. Impact Fees. in Fiorida 2 . . B. St Lucie County Impact Fee Program...:.: 6 C. County Population Growth 12 I. Roads 14 IV. Public Buildings ............................................................33 V. Parks & Recreation ..:..........:..:.:.:.....~:.....41 VI. Summa ....46 ry . • 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 1 - I. Im act Fees p A. Impact Fees in Florida While there is adopted impact fee legislation in Florida;' there is no general enabling act that sets standards 'for. the preparation and use of impact fees. Rather,. impact fees. evolved through Florida's ~ courts starting in the late 1960's and ultimately were recognized as being within a local government's home rule authority: This method of evolution. was perhaps the only option since Florida cities and counties were exploring new issues of governance and government finance following the adoption of the new constitution in 1968, which granted broad home rule authority while requiring authori- zation by. general.law`for.the imposition of taxes. The body of law that came out of this evolutionary process clearly established that: . • : ~ lmpact Fees are permissible as exercise of the police powers; lmpact fees cannot exceed a pro rata shale of the reasonably anticpated costs of expanding facilities required to serve new development; Impact fees cannot be• imposed or structured to provide a "windfall to existing residents; and , ~ Impact fees must satisfy the dual rational nexus between the need for facility improvements and new development. The Florida Supreme Court, beginning with Contractors- and Builders Association of Pinellas County v City Of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976), dealt fast with the conditions, under which irytpact fees may be utilized and then with the. amounts that may.: be charged. as impact fees.. In Dunedin the Florida Supreme Court wrote: Raising expansion capital by setting connection charges, which do not ex- ceed a pro rata share of reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is per- missible where expansior is reasonably required, if use of the money col- lected is limited to meeting the_ costs of expansion. Users `who benefit es- ~pecially, not~.from the maintenance of the system, .but .by the. extension of the system ...should. bear the cost of that .extension." (citations omitted) The Dunedin court also makes clear that such charges, now known as impact fees, are. not unlimited. Extending their rationale: . ~ See 163..31801, Florida Statufes. 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 2 - [T]he cost of new facilities should be borne by new users to the extent new use requires new facilities, but only to that extent. When new facilities must be built in any event, looking only to new users for necessary capital gives old users a windfall at the expense of new users. New users can be held responsible only for the costs attributable to new use and not far other costs, especially any charge that would yield a "windfal!" to the existing community. Dunedin was a case involving a municipally owned water and sewer utility. It fell to Hollywood Inc. v Broward Counfy, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla. ~4~' DCA 1983) to deal with the application of the Dunedin logic to parks, a facility that the Florida cities of Gulf Breeze, Maitland, and Hollywood unsuccessfully tried to fund with' development charges: In Hollywood Inc. the court wrote: [Wje discern the general legal principle that reasonable dedication or im- .pact fee requirements ire permissible so long as they offset needs suffi- cienfly attributable to the subdivision and so long: as the funds collected are sufficiently earmarked for the. substantial benefit of the subdivision residents. in order to satisfy these requirements, the local government must demonstrate .a reasonable connection, or rational nexus; -between the .need for additional. capital facilities and the growth in population gen- ~erated by the subdivision. In addition, the govemment must show a rea- sonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In'order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark the .funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new res- idents. . . ~ ,.The Hollywood,.lnc..Court provides the .principles of the Dual Rational Nexus Test. ..Specifically, that: ' ~ • ' The local govemment must demonstrate a reasonable connection, ~ or rational nexus, between the'~need for additional capital facilities and the growth gener- ated by the development being charged the impact fees, and The.governmerit must specifically earmark the. funds collected for use in ac- quiring capital facilities to benefit the development charged the impact fees. The paramount issue with respect to impact fees is nexus; There must be a nexus2 between new development and the need.#o expand infrastructure. The establishment of a~ nexus begins with the levels of service that are set out in the comprehensive plan. The second crucial issue is the identification of a pro rata share of the cost of 2 In Nollan v California Coastal Commission (107 S. Ct. 3141, 1987}, Justice Scalia characterized a nexus as "essential.° 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 3 - expanding that infrastructure. This is to be accomplished in the consultant's report. During the 2006 session, an act was passed by the Florida Legislature and signed into law by the Governor that dealt with impact fees 3 ,The only portions of this act that deal with the calculation of impact fees are the requirements that calculation of impact fees be based on the most recent and localized data. .;The.general criteria for impact.fees in Florida are; • Impact fees adopted must be based upon the establishment of a nexus be- tween new development and the need to expand infrastructure; . • .The calculation of .impact fees must use the most, recent .and localized data; and • The resulting impact .fees may be no more than a pro rata .share of the rea- sonablyanticipated cost of expanding that infrastructure. Iri Florida .there are two general types of impact fee methodologies; consumption based and .improvements based. Consumption Based. The consumption based. (also knpwn as "standards . based"}methodology-.calculates impact fees based on the value of.public infra- . ~ ~ ~ structure consumed per unit of~land use: The value of the,public infrastructure is usually developed by calculating the replacement cost of the existing public capital infrastructure: This value is then related to a facility.based standard ~ such as fire.stations per 1000 population, acres of parks .per 1000 population, library or:other building square #ootages per 1000 population, etc. ~ The major.advantage.of the consumption based approach is the flexibility pro- . vlded to the: local government. in meeting the need for infrastructure improve- menu. ~ Specifically; ,a government that uses a consumption based impact fee can develop its capital -improvement •prograrn to ~inGlude projects that directly respond to where growth and the need for the public infrastructure occurs. The capital improvement program list of improvements is reviewed annually and . ~ that list can change as growth patterns change,. resulting .in. new project priori- ties. Generally, these changes only occur.in, the out years of~the capital im- provement; program. Finally, it should. be noted that ordinances that implement consumption based impactfees~generally include a provision.that ties the need .for and benefit of impact:fees to projects that must be included in the local gov- ernment's.capital improvements program and comprehensive plan capital im- provements element. An example of a consumption based calculation would be: 3~"The Florida Impact Fee Act," 163.31'801, Florida Statute§. . 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 4 - • Average~cost of roads per lane-mile is $1,500,000 . . • Level of service for roads per lane-mile is 7,500 vehicles per day • Road cost per vehicle per lane-mile is $200 • Lane-miles per vehicle per day is 15 and road cost per vehicle is $3,000 • :Vehicles per dwelling is 2; so road cost per dwelling in $6,000. ' ~ These calculations are done without reference' to any specific road or improve- ments. Improvements Based. The improvements based {also known as "needs based") methodology charges new development based on a specific set of capital improvement projects as setout in a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). ,This approach is usually based on a long-range master plan that includes a list of future projects that are determined to be necessary to accommodate existing and future growth at the adopted lave! of service. Under the improvements based approach, an analysis is usually made of the impact of any existing defi- ' - ciencies and an adjustment is made° to account for deficiencies existing at the beginning of the planning period to assure that the cost of correcting those de- ficiencies is~not shifted to new~development:. However, generally, no adjust- ment is made for excess capacity built as part of~the improvements lis# that is available at the end of the planning periotl, since the improvements driven ap- proach did riot charge for the existing excess~capacity that is available at the _ start of the planning period and that is consumed by new development. The implicit or explicit a$sumption is that there may~be'excess capacity in every in- frastructure system; and as~long as~the~amount or proportion of excess capac- ity at the end of the planning period is reasonably similar to what was there at ~ the beginning, there is no need to make adjustments for excess capacity, The advantage of the improvements based methodology is that it provides a di- rect tie to the local government's comprehensive plan with the adoption of a list ` of planned capital irriprovements~ as part of those comprehensive plans. In the improvements based methodology, the list of capital improvements used in the calculation of the cost component.is usually the list of~improvements included in the five year or longer capital improvement program. This methodology gives the development~community assurance that the impact fees they pay are being spent on the speafic improvements under which the impact fee was calculated. When the local government changes the list of capital improvements, the re- sulting impact fee should be fecalculated using the new list of capital improve- ments. Finally, similar to ordinances for consumption based impact fees, im- provements based impact fee ordinances also include provisions that tie the 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 5 - .need for and benefit of impact fees to projects included in the local govern- . ~ i`nents capital improvements program and:comprehensive plan capital im- provements element. . An example of an improvements based calculation would.be: • Road improvements needed over 5 years to accommodate anticipated development, ? Road improvement 1 ~ $ 5,000,000 ? Road improvement 2 ~ $25,000,000 ? Road improvement 3 ~ , - ~ $25,000,000 ? Road improvement 4 ~ 5:000,000 Total improvements ~ . $60,000,000 • New development over 5 years, 10,000 homes • :Improvement cost;per home, $6,000. . This simplified improvements example came out with the same answer as the simplified consumption ~ex~mple. In a perfect world this would be the case. However, it is very common for there to be different answers resulting from the two approaches. Both the improvements and consumption based methodologies are commonly used ` and ~ have been judicially reviewed in Florida. Dunedin's water and sewer charges were improvements based while Broward's parks fees, Palm Beach County's roads fees, and .St Johns County's school fees were all consumption based. Either can provide a viable basis for impact fees that meet the standards of nexus and propor- _ tional~ty recognized in Florida.. B. St Lucie County Impact Fee Program. St. Lucie County was one of the first counties in Florida to adopt impact fees. In 1986 the County adopted~road impact fees-while park & recreation, public buildings, law enforcement, fire protection, public libraries, and public education impact~fees followed later: These impact fees all followed the consumption based approach. The county's road fee began with the specification of a quantitative level of service, 7,500 vehicles per lane-mile per day. The generalized cost of providing a unit of goad, expressed as a cost, per lane-mile, was used to project the cost of maintaining the adopted. level of service. The advantage of the.County's consumption based approach has been the flexibility given to the County to meet road improvement needs as they became identified. During 2007-08 St Lucie County considered moving from the general consumption approach to impact fees to a more specific improvements based 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 6 - approach. This option failed to receive the support of the St Lucie County Local Planning Agency. Therefore the roads, parks & recreation and public buildings impact fees set out= herein will return to the consumption based method that had been used in St Lucie County. St Lucie County.has implemented a system of countywide development impact fees. These fees are; • Roads, Parks and recreation, ~ ~ • • Public buildings, • ~ Law enforcement (sheriff), Fire protection and EMS, • Public libraries, and • Public education... The existing impact fees as of October 1, 2008 are shown in Table II-1 TABLE Il-1 a . .EXISTING•IMPACT FEES (1012008) ST LUCIE COUNTY MAINLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Library' Public Fire/ ..Law. , . Roads TOTAL. 8ulldln S EMS RESIDENTIAL: SI. le Famil $5 447 $515 $205 392 $525 $194 $2 324 $9601 Mobile ome/Rec. Vehicle 1572 $337 $184 $256 $107 $128 $1 161 $3 745 Multi-Fami 1 & 2 Sto $2,787 $458 $133 $350 $106 $174 $1 693 $5 701 Multi-Fami 3 ± Stories $2,787 $458 $133 $350 $106 $174 $885 $4,893 HoteUMotel -Room 50 1331 50 $253 245 $130 $2 201 $3,159 Bed 8 Breakfast -Room $0 $331 $0 5253 $248 $130 $1.069 ~ $2,029 All Other Residential $5447 $514 $205 $392 $525 $194 $1 858 8 935 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT=: GeneralOfflce $0 50 $0 $440 $310 $298 $1,421 $2469 Medical Office $0 50 $0 $703 $310 5186 • $6 358 $7,558 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT': Under 100 000 FT' $0 0 0 5494: $487 $698 $3 017 $4,696 •1 00 000-499 999 FT' $0. 0 50 $569 $487 $804 $2,$58 $4,717 500 000 8 Over $0 0 $0 $414 $487 .$688 2,796 $4,386 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $0 0 $0 $71 $1 810 $898 $7,987 $10,366 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': .Warehouse ~ ~ $0 50 $0 $62 $70 36 $467 $636 'Truck Terminal ~ $0 0 $0 $125 ~ $70 • ` S79 ~ $942 51 208 Generallndustrial $0 $0 ~ $100 $70' $56 $520 $745 INSTITUTIONAL: 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 7 - TABLE 11~1a EXISTING IMPACT FEES (10/2008) 'ST LUCIE COUNTY . ~ ~ MAINLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Libra Public Fire/ Law Roads TOTAL ry Buildin s EMS School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT= 0 $0 $563 $468 $242 $1,282 2 555 Schooi Mlddle/Hi h Per 1,000 F7'' $0 $0 $0 :$2,490 5468 $160 $1 270 $4,388 Da Care Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 ~ $302 $488 $153 $4,21.1 $5134 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $0 $468 $72 $971. $1,511 Hos ital Per 1` 000 FT= 50 $0 $0 .$470 $468 ~ $72 $1 787 $2,797 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT= 0 $0 $0 5507 $1,159 $72 . $3.97 $2,134 Libra Per 1000 FTz 50 50 $D 5709 $468 $7.3. : $2,876 54,126 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre ~ $0 $0 $0 $71 544 $73.. $242 $429 Recreation Faci6t Per 1 000 FT' $0 $89 $44 • . $73 $330 ~ 536 Golf Course Per Acre $0 $0 $0 $183 $44 $73 $536 836 Movie Theatres r Seat $0 $0 $0 $80 $487 573 $46 $886 TABLE II-1b EXISTING IMPACT FEES(1012008) ST LUCIE COUNTY NORTH ISLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Libra Public Flre/EM3 Law Roads TOTAL ry Buildin s RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil $5,447 $515 $205 5392 $525 $194 52148 59,425 Moblle Home/Rac. Vehicle $1 572 $337 $184 $256 $107 $128 51 114 ;3,698 Muni-Famll 1 & 2 St 2,787 $458 $133 $350 $108 $174 $1 ;5 866 Mulls-Famil 3 + Stories S2,787 458 5133 $350 $106 $174 $1 156 $5,1 HoteUMotel -Room 50 $331 $0 $253 $245 $130 $3 591 $4 550 Bed & Breakfast -Room $0 $331 $0 $253 $246 $130 51,849 $2 809 All Other Residential $5 447 $514 $205 $392 $525 $194 $2,765 510,041 OFFlCE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT': GeneralOtfice 50 $0 $0 $440 310 $298 $560 51808 Medical Office $0 $0 $0 $703 $310 188 $2,508 $3 705 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': Under 100 000 FT' $0 50 $494 $487 98 $1,892 371 100,000-499 999 FT= $0 $0 SO $569 $487 $604 $1,393 $3 253 500 000 & Over 50 $0 50 5414 $487 $6B8 $1 03 52,793 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 50 50 $0 $71 $1,610 5698 52 900 55 279 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2409 - 8 - TABLE II-1b EXISTING IMPACT FEES(10l2008) ST LUCIA. COUNTY NORTH ISLAND LANG USE Schools Parks Libra Public Flre/EAAS Law Roads TOTAL rY Bulldln s INDUSTRIAL PER 1000 FT': " ' Warehouse' $0 $0 ~$0 $62 $70 $3B 100 $269 Truck Terminal $0 SO $125 $70 77 $203. $468 Generallndustrial $0, $0 $0 $100 $70 56 112 $338 INSTITUTIONAL:' School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT' ~ . $0 $0 ~ $0 $563 $488 $242 $552 $1 825 School Middle/H Per 1000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $2 490 88 $160 $529 $3647 D Care Per 1,000 FT' 0 $0 50 $302 $488 i53 $1 816 $2 739 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $0 $488 $72 $418 $958 Hos ltal Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $470 $488 $72 '$769 $1,779 Nursin Home Per 1000 FT' $0 $0 $507 $1' 159° $72 $169 $1,906 Libra Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $709 $488 $73 $1238 $2.488 REC~iEAT10NAL: ' Park Publlc Per Acre 0 $0 $0 $71 $44 $73 $105 $293 Recreatton Facill Per 1,000 FT' 0 $0 $0 $89 $44 $73 $f43 $348 Golf Course Per Acre $0 $0 $183 $44 $73 $231 $531 Movie Theatres er Seat $0 $0 $0 $BO $48T $73 $19 $859 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 9 - TABLE II-1 c EXISTING IMPACT FEES 10/2008] . ST, LUCIE COUNTY . • ~ ~ FT PIERCE ISLAND LAND USE Schools Parks Library Public FlreIEMS Law Roads TOTAL Bulldln RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil 55 447 $515 3205 $392 $525 $194 $1 823 $9100 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 1 572 337 $1$4 $256 $107 $128 $656 $3240 • • Multi-Fami .1 $ 2 3to 32 787 $458 $133 $350 $908 $174 $1482 $5,490 Muhl-Faml . 3.+ Stories $2,787 $458 5133 $350 $106. 174. . $607 $4 815 NotellMotel -Room . $0 $331 ~ . $0 $253 $245 $130 $2116 $3 075 Bed 8 Breakfast -Room 50 $331 $0 $253 $246 130 $1 026 $1 986 AA Other Reskfenti $5 447 3514 05 $392 $525 $194 $1 628 $8905 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 OOO:FT': GeneralOf(foe 30 $0 $0 $440 $310 $298 $271. $1319 MedlcalOfflce 30 $0 $0 $703 $310 $186 $1;216 $2415 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': Under 100,000 FT' S0 $0 50 $494 $487 $698 $821 $2 501 100 000-499 999 FT' $0 $0 $0 $569 $487 - $675 $2 534 500,000 8 Over 50 $0 $0 $414 7 $686 .$585 $2,175 t3ASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 $71 $1610 $698 $2,813 $5192 INDUSTRIAL.PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $0 30 30 $62 $70 $36 350 $219 Truck Terminal $0 $0 $0 $125 $70 $71 S98 ;3363 Generallndustrial $0 $0 $0 5100 $70 $56 S55 $281 INSTITUTIONAL: . Scholl -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 50 $0 50 $563 $468 $242 $113 31387 Sch. MiddlelHi h Per 1,000 FT= $0 $0 30 $2 490 $488 $160 $265 53 384 Da Care Per 1 000 FT' $0 . $0 $0 $302 $468 $153 $1381 $1,804 Fraternal Or :Per 1,000 FT' $0 0 $0 $468 $72. $203 $743 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT' S0 $0 50 $470 $466 572 $155 51 165 Nursi Home Per 1,000 FT' $0 30 $0 $507 $1,159 $72 $84 $1822 Lira Per 1000 FT' $0 50 $0 $709 $4138 $73 $603 $1 853 RECREATIONAL: Park PubAc Per Acre $0 $0 371 $44 $T3 51 $238 Recreation Facill Per•1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $89 $44 73 $69 $274 Golf Course Per Acre 50 $0 $0 $183 344 373 $113 $413 Movie Theatres r Seat 50 $0 $0 $80 $487 573 $3 $643 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 10 - TABLE II-1d EXISTING IMPACT FEES 1012008) ST LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH ISLAND. LAND USE Schools Parks Library Public Flre/EMS Law Roads TOTAL Bulldln s RESIDENTIAL: Sin ~le Famil ,•$5;447 $515 $205 $392 $525 $194 $2322 $9,600 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicie $1 572 $337 184 $256 $107 $128 $836 $3,420 ' Muld-Famil 1 & 2 Sto $2,787 $458 " $133 $350 $106 $174 $1 888 $5 896 ' Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $2 787 $458. $133 $350 ' $108 $174 ' ~ ' 774 $4,781 ' Hotel/Motel -Room $0 ' $331 $0 $253 $245 $130 $2,722 $3,681 Bed•8~ Breakfast-Room 0 $331 $0 $253 $246 $1.30 ~$1 321 $2,281 AllOttieiftesidential •$5447 514 $205 $392 $525 ' $194 $2,074 $9,350 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT=: ' General'Office $0 $0 $0 $440 $310 '$298 ~ $490 $1,539 Medical Office $0 $0 $0 $703 10' $186 $2,192 $3,392 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': ' Under 100 000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $494 $487 $698 $1481 $3 161 • 100,000-499 999 FT' $0 $0 $0 $569 $487 $804 $1 219 $3,079 500,000 & Over $0 $0 $0 $414 87 $688 $1,053 $2,643 .GASOLINE SERVICES: ~ • Service Station Per Position $0 $0 $0 $71 $7 610 $698 $5,076 $7 455 1NDUSTRIA~. PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $0 $0 $0 $62 '$70 $36 $88 $257 Truck Terminal 0 $0 $0 125 $70 $71 • $i77 $442 Generallndustrlai $0 $0 $0 $100 $70 $56 $98 $324 INSICITUTIONAL: ' School - Elem, Per 1 000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $583 $468 $242 ' $479 $1,752 School Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $2,490 $468 $160 X478 $3 596 Da Care Per 1,b00 FT' $0 $0 $0 $30'2 $468 $1.53 $1 591 $2 514 Frate7nal Or .Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $0 $468 $72 $367 $907 Ho tai Per 1 000 FT= SO • $0 $0 $470 $468 $72 $673 $1 683 ' tVursin Home Per 1,000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $507 $1 159 $72 ` $149 $1 887 Libra Per 1 000 FT' $0 $0 $0 $709. $468 $73 $1,084 $2 333 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $0 $0 $0 $71 $44 ~ $73 $91 $278 Recreation Faciiit Per 1000 FT= $0 $0 $0 $89 $44 $73 $124 $329 Golf Course Per Acre $0 $0 $0 $i 83 $44 $73 $203 $503 Movie Theatres ar Seat $0 $0 $0 $80 $487 $73 17 $657 2009 Impact Fee Update - Maich 30, 2009 - 11 - This program was designed to assess a portion of the cost of infrastructure on the developments creating the Head for infrastructure improvements. The roads, park & recreation, public building, and law enforcement impact fee receipts were shared between the county and the City of Port St Lucie: C. County Population Growth. In order:to develop equitable ,impact fees it.is. first necessary to identify demographic parameters for the county. Table II-2 sets out the historic and~current growth of St .:Lucie County. St Lucie,County, like the rest of Florida and the nation, is experiencing TABLE 11-2 POPULATION AND DWELtrING UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY ' 1980 - 2009' . Po ulatlon ` Dwellin s 1980 87.182 .40,915 1981 93,705 1982 99 705 1983 104,673 1984 109,833 1985 '114,738 1986 119,960 1987 ~ 126105 1988 132,416 1989 139,655 1990 150 171 73,843 1991 155,368 1992 159,302 1993 163 831 1994 167,833 1995 172,212 1996 176 272 1997. 180 338 1998 ' 184 242 1999 188,327 2000 192,695 91,262 2001 198,211 95,384 2002 ~ 205,340 100,536 2003 211,898 105,688 2004 226 216 111,354 2005 240 039 117 020 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 12 - TABLE II-2 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY 1980 - 2009 . Po ulation.. . Dwellin s . . . 2006. ~ 259 315 .125,519 . , 2007 ~ 271,961 131,640 2008 , ~ 276,585 .133 878 2009` 279,351 135,217 SOURCE: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. "Estimated an economic recession. This is not the first nor will it be the last recession. This ` ' recession is somewhat unique in that it followed 'an unsustainable boom in new 'constriction; the result of which has been a significant inventory of houses for sale. Growth'has been an important component of Florida's and St Lucie County's econo- mies. This has been the case for a number of years. History has shown that economic recovery will follow this recession.. Of course, no one knows when this recovery will begin or how long it,will take to absorb the existing inventory. Figure 1 shows the population growth, per year by decade for the State of Florida. These data show that~there have been ups and downs before. and most likely there will be again. But every down has been followed, by an up. And the up to come is what St Lucie County must be planning for. Annual Population Growth State of 1=lorida 1900 - 2000 350,000 300,000 250,000 zoo.aoo 150.ooa 100.000 ~a,oo0 a . 00 20 40 60 80 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 13 - • -II. Roads The need for road improvements is one of the most important and most expensive facing a growing community. St Lucie County has prepared a Capital Improve- ment Program (CIP) showing the roads that will need improvement in order to accommodate the anticipated growth. This program is summarized in Table If-1. These proposed road improvements are presented here for the sole. purpose of calculating a St Lucie County road improvement cost per lane-mile. The relevant cost is the cost to St Lucie County to expand the arterial and collector road system by one lane-mile. This is calculated by summing the County's anticipated road expansion costs and then dividing by the number of additional lane-miles. Table ll-1 ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS ST LUCIE COUNTY' ~ ~ • Capacity Enhancements Total Colt Lane Mlles Cost per . Lane Mlla Jenkins Road Oran a to. Kln s ~ ~ $12,000,000 21.23 Jenkins Road Extension - Desi n ~ $1,600,000 11.08 Jenkins Rd 10 Mile To Edwards ~ $5,5001000 2.19 Jenklna•Road $19,100,000 34.50 $553,623 Ta for Dai Extension - Desl h $500,000 20.95 ' Indrio Road Widenin Desi `n Plaris $1,500;000 ' 8.27 Indrio Road Wldenin $25,000;000 8:27 Indrio Road Widenln RNV Ac uisltion $1,000;000 8.27 Indlro;Road"' $27,500,000 8.27 $3 325 272 Kin s H Widenin Indrio To U.S.1 Kin s H ' ' .An le Road Stud $1,000,000 14.18 Kin s H Wideni Indrio To An le $27,500,000 15.64 Kin s H Widenin le To Okeechobee $32,000,000 ' Kln s Indrio Intersection ~ $8,000,000 Kin s St. Lucie Blvd. Intersection $3,300,000 KI s le Intersection $13,215,000 Kln Ora a I~itersectlon $8,753,000 Kln s H . Desi n SR70 to U:S.1 ~ $11,500,000 K[n s HI hwa $105,288,000 29.82 $3 530,114 SoOth Jenklos Road Desi n $500,000 6.58 Selvltz Glades Intersection $850,000 Walton Rd Phase I Green To Lennard $4,748,926 3.05 $1 557,025 Midwa Rd & Selvitz Intersection $850,000 Lennard Rd Ph 2 alton Rd-Us 1 ~ $2,000,000 Lennard Rd Ri ht Of Wa $17,508,737 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009. -14 - Table II-9 ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS ST LUCIE COUNTY Capacity Enhancements Total,Cost Lane Mlles Cost per Lane Mlle Leonard Rd MSBU Public Share $3,082,151 Leonard Road Widenin ROW $911,292 • Leonard Road' $23,502,180 9.91 $2 371 562 • Mfdwa Rd U.S 1-25th Construction $13,368;128 . Mfdwa Rd South 25th St. -Turn 'ke $16 908,403 Mfdwa Weatherbee Intersection $2,150,000 ...Mfdwa Road.-Turn ike l3rii! a $15,000,000 , West Mfdwa Row - 25th St. to Turn ike $1,000,000 • West Mfdwa Desl n Plans - 25th St. to Turn ike $1,000,000 Mfdwa .Road . $48,426,531 90.34 $4 780 129 TOTALS ~ $232,245 837 113.08 2 053 817 SOURCE: St Lucie County 2048-09 Capital•Improvement Plan. The St Lucie County.. road .capacity Expansion cost per lane-mile is $2,053,817. This datum can be compared with other counties for reasonableness. The COMPARATIVE ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST PER LANE-MILE Roads Ex anslon Cost er Lane•Mile b Jurlsdktlon Capacity Expansion $3,000,000 per Lane-Mile Charlotte.County -.including Rights of Way Weighted Average $2,610;2Q2 per Lane-Mile FDOT, 2005-06. -Excluding Rights of Way Capacfiy Expansbn ~ $3;742,827 'per Lane-Mile Alachua County- Includirg Rights of Way Capacity Expansbn $3,798,000 per Lane-Mile Palm Beach, County.- Exduding Rights of Way Capacity Expansbn $3,834,531 per Lane-Mile Sarasota County -.Including Rights of Way Capacity Expansion $3,691.,133 per Lane-MNe Indian River County.-Including Rights of Way Capaci Expansion ,$3,7,07,827 per Lane-Mile Lake County - Exduding.Rlghts of Way Capacity Expans~n $2;241.,$19 per Lane-Miie Margo County CfP -Including Rights of Way Average $3,318,292 per Lane-Mile Capacity Expansion $2,053,817 per Lane-Mile St Lucie.County • Including Rights of Way The comparative costs shown, with the exception of the FDOT, are. all 2008 or 2009 data, making them the most~recent. St Lucie County trip length data are shown in Table II-2. These data are derived from the US Department of Transportation's National Household Travel Survey4 (NHTS) and adjusted to St Lucie County conditions. The first adjustment is for population size. The NHTS found that trip lengths increased with the size of the population of the jurisdiction. St Lucie County is considered small by the NHTS, so 4 U. S. Department of Transportation, federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, December.2004, http://www.ostl.gov/bridge. . 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 15 - a reduction of 11.4% in average trip lengths is introduced to adjust to St Lucie County's size. ~ Additionally, the NHTS reported that trip lengths decline with the age of the householder; this is due to_ the absence of the work trip among retirees. The percentage of the population 65 or over for St Lucie County is 19.6%, as con- trasted with 12.6% for the nation as a wholes This results in a further reduction of average trip lengths far St Lucie County of 8.4%. These two percentages were added together and then rounded to 2Q%, which is the reduction in trip length shown in Table If-2. TABLE II-2 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS ST LUCIE ON ARTERIAL & TRIP LENGTHS (Mites): TOTAL COUNTY COLLECTOR ROADS All Tri s 10.03 8.02 6.82 To/From Work 12.11 9.89 8.23 Work Related Business 28.26 22.61 19.22 Sho in 7.02 5.62. 4.77 Personal Business 7.84 6.27 5.33 School/Church 6.00 4.80 4.08 Social 8 Recreational 11.36 9.09 7.72 Travel on Local Roads -Percent of All Travel 15.00% Residential Based Tri sMiles Avera a 6.82 Office Based Tri sMiles - 40°~ Work and 60% Personal Business .6.49 Commercial Based Tri sMiles - 20% Work and 80% Sho in 5.47 Industrial Based Trl s Miles - 80% Work and 20% Avera a 7.95 Recreational Based Tri sMiles -100% Recreational 7.72 Short Tri Reduction Factors: Convenience Tri -Percent Reduction 80.0°~ Nei hborhood Tri -Percent Reduction 60.0% Local Tri -Percent Reduction 50.0°Y° Communi Tri -Percent Reduction 30.0% SOURCE: US Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey;' p. 16 & 46. US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "NPTS Databook," October 2001, p. 4-35. In addition to lengths of trips, Table II-2 shows average trip length by land use and trip length reduction factors. Recent data have revealed that many high volume land uses experience shorter trip lengths than previously believed. There are four types of these trips; convenience, neighborhood, local and community. These s US Bureau of the Census, State and County Quick Facts, http://quidcfacts.census.gov/qfd/, March 23, 2009. 2009 Impact Pee Update -March 30, 2009 - 16 - reductions are incorporated into the trip lengths, as shown in Table II-5 through II- ' 8.: . 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 -1 ~ - The capacity of a lane of roadway to ,accommodate traffic is shown in Table I I-3. At St Lucie County's adopted level of service, each lane of roadway can accom- modate 8,250 vehicles per day. TABLE.II-3 ` ROAD CAPACITIES ST LUCIE COUNTY Vehicles er Da at LOS D New Construction Ez anslon Lane Ca aclt - 2 Additional Lanes Collectors 7,300 7 300 Arterials ~ 7,775 • 8,250 Ca acit Used 8,250 SOURCE: Florida Department of Transportation,. There are funds to build roads. These funds, motor fuel taxes, are shown in Table II-4. The federal and state motor fuel, tax receipts are allocated to St Lucie County so they are incorporated into the funding'analysis. Additionally, St Lucie County has sold bonds to fund road expansions. The debt service of this debt has been calculated as a motor fuel tax equivalent and it too in incorporated into the funding analysis. The net result is an equivalent of 28.90 of motor fuel taxes available to expand the road system of St Lucie ' ~ ' County. A fleet-wide miles per gallon of 16.92 is used ~to calculate motor fuel consumption • by lane,:use. This consumption by land use is multiplied by $Q.289 to project annual capital • ,payments towards the: St I_ucie,County road system. This annual:amount is capitalized at :4.25% for 25 years to establish the credit that will be subtracted,from road costs. _ . ~ TABLE II-4 ' • ' ~ AVAILABLE REVENUES •AVAILABLE REVENUES: ~ ' MOTOR FUEL.TAXES ~ ~ ~ .RATE PER CENT ' CAPITAL CAPITAL RATE Federal $0.201 49.7% . $0.100 State of Florida $0.211 43.4% $0.091 Local: . 5TH &:6TH $OA2 80.1?%~ . $0.016 7TH $0.01 0.0% $0.000 8TH $0.01 0.0% $0.000 9TH $0.01 6.0% $0.001 O tional 1 $0.06 30.0% $0.018 O tional2 $0.05 100.0°k $0.050 Debt Service on Road Bands. Motor Fuel Tax a uivalenf $0.01 100.0% $0.093 TOTAL CAPITAL = $0,288 OTHER PARAMETERS: Miles Per GaAon 16.92 Present Value, 4.25% for 25 Years 15.22 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 18 - SOURCES: (1) Kimley Horn ~ Associates, 1989. (2) St. Lucie County Department of Community Development, August 1999. (3) Statistical Abstract of the US, 1998, p. 628, 644 8 645. (4) Florida Department of Transportation, "Florida's Transportation Tax Sources," January 1994. (5} Florida Department of Transportation, "Cost Book 2004," Page 6. (6} Statistical Abstract of the US 2007, Tables 1069 and 1081. NOTES: {1) The Federal .tax of $.184 is. reduced by $0.68 because this amount is used for deficit reduction. (2) Tax rates shown are weighted averages of gasoline and diesel fuel tax rates. TABLE 11-4a MOTOR FUEL TAX EQUIVALENT Outstanding Road Debt 2/20/09 ~ $27,775,000 Annual Debt Service 4.25% $1,825,221 Gas Tax Yield er Penn $1,396,909 . ~ ~ $1.31 cents per . ~ Motor Fuel Tax E uivalent ~ ~ alion SOURCE: St.Lucie County, March 2009... • ~ . Table Il-5 .through ~II=8 show the calculation of total and net road costs by land use. This~is done by multiplying the number of vehicular trips per day by the average trip length. This is reduced to one-half to account for the fact that both the begin- ning of the trip and the end of the trip are included in the number of trips. The result is then multiplied by the percentage of those vehicular trips tha# are new as distinct from existing trips that were "passing-by." The final number is the number of attributable miles of vehicular travel per day by land use. This miles of travel is divided by the capacity of a lane of road to accommodate travel to get the number of lane-miles. of roadway needed to accommodate the travel from that land use. The cost is the result of multiplying the needed lane-miles by the cost per lane- mile. Table II-5a shows the credit for revenues paid, both annual and capitalized, and the resulting net cost: The recalculated and update cost is contrasted with the existing impact fee; with the percentage change also shown. 2004 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 19 - " ' TABLE II-6 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ST LUCIE COUNTY -MAINLAND LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) , ~ TRIP TRIP % NEW LANE- ROAD RATE LENGTH TRIPS MILES COST RESIDENTIAL: Si le Famil 9.20 6.82 100.0% 0.00380. $7 805 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 4.60 6.82. 100:0% .0.00190 $3,902 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 6.70 6.82 100.0% 0.00272 $5,689 Multi-Famil 3.± Stories . ~ 3.50 ~ 6.82. .100.0%. 0.00145 $2,978 HoteUMote! -,Room 10.10 5.80 85.0% 0.00302 $6,203 Bed & Breakfast -Room 4.90. 5.80 .100.0% 0.00172 $3,533 All Other Residential 6.70 6.82 100.0% 0.00277 $5,689 FFICE AND FINANCIAL. PER 1 000 FT=: General Office 11.10 6.49 50.0°~ 0.0021.8 $4 477 Medical Office 54.60 2,73 33.3% 0.00301 $6182 ETAIL PER 1000 FT=: Under 100 000 FTC _ 81.50 2.19 50.0% 0.00407 $8,359 100 000-499,999 FTz 37.95 2.73 67.0% 0.00421 $8,647 500,000 & Over 28.25 3.83 77.7°k 0.00473 $9,715 GASOLINE SERVICES: - . Service Station Per Position ~ 168.56 1,09 20.0% 0.00223. $4 580 NDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FTs: Warehous0 2.44 7.95 50.0% 0.00059 $1,212 Truck Terminal 4.93 7.95 50.0% 0:00119 $2 444 General industrial 2.72 7.95 50.0% 0.00065 $1,335 NSTiTUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1 000 FTZ 12.03 4.08 ' 50.0% 0.00149 $3 060 School - Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 11.92 4,0 50.0% 0.00147 a3 019 Da Care Per 1,000 FT' 79.26 1.09 ~ 25.0% 0.00131 $2,691 Fraternal O .Per 1,000.FT' 9.11 7.72 50.0% 0.00213 $4,375 . ~Hos ital Per 1000 FTC 16.78 6.49 50.0% 0.00330 $6,778 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 5.33 50.0% 0.00060 51,232 t.Ebra Per 1 000 FTZ 54.00 5.33 .25.0°r6 , .0,00436 $8,955 ECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 7.72 50.0% 0.00053 $1,089 Recreation Facilit all Per 1,000 FTZ 3.10 7.72 .50.0% 0.00073 $1,499 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 7.72 50.0°~ 0.00118 $2 424 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 1.93 50.0% 0.00010 $205 SOURCES: Trip Generation Rates - Kimley-Horn & Associates, 1989, and Institute of Transportation Engineers (RE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. Kirniey-Horn 8~ Associates, 1989, US Dept. of Transpor#ation, Bureau of Transportation S#atistics, "Summary . of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Transportation Study," p. 16 & 46, and US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "NPTS Databook," October 2001, p. 4-35. 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 20 - TABLE II.5a ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST ST LUCIE COUNTY -MAINLAND LAND USE TYPEIUNIT - ANNUM. •CREDIT NET EXISTING PAYMENT COST FEE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL: ' Sin fe Famil $196 $2,979 $4,826 $2,324 107.7% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $98 $1,490 $2,412 $1,161 107.8% Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto $143 $2,170 $3 519 $1,693 1.07.9% Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $74 $1,133 $1,845 $885 108.5% Hotel/Motel -Room $155 $2,363 $3,840 ~ $2,201 ~ 74.5% Bed 8 Breakfast -Room $89 $1,349 $2184 $1 069 104.3% AlI Other Residential $143 $2170 $3,519 ~ $1,658 112.2% OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FTz: ' General Office $112 $1,711 $2 766. ~ $1 421 ~ 94.7% Medical Office $155 $2 359 $3 823 $6 358 ~ -39.9% RETAIL PER 1,000 FTz: ~ ' Under 100 000 FTz $210 $3,192 $5,167 $3,017 71.3% 100,000-499,999 FTz $217 $3,300 $5 347 $ 858 87.1 500,000 8~ Over ~ $243 $3.703 $6 012 $2 796 115.0% GASOLINE.SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $115 $1 750 $2 830 $7;987 -64.6% INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FTz: ' Warehouse $30 $461. $751 $467 60.8% Track Terminal $61 $930 $1,514 ~ $942 60.7% Generallndustrial $34 $512 $823 $520 58.3% INSTITUTIONAL: ' Sctioo! =Elem. Per 1,000 FTz $77 $1,165 $1,895 $1,282 47.9% School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FTz $76 $1,154 $1,865 $1,270 ~ 46.8% Da Care Per 1,000 FTz $68 $1,028 $1,fi63 $4 211 -60.5% Fraternal Or .Per 1 000 FTz $110 $1,671 $2 704' $971 178.5% Hos ital Per 1,000 FTz $170 $2,586 $4 192 $1,787 134.5% Nursin ~ Home Per.1,000 FTz $31 $471 $761 $397 91.9% Libra Per 1,000 FTz $225 $3,417 $5,538 $2,876 92.5% RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $27 $418 $671 $242 177.8% Recreation Facilit `all Per 1,000 FTz $37 $568 $931 $330 182.0% Golf Course Per Acre ~ $61 $924 $1,500 $536 179.8% Movie Theatres er Seat $5 $80 $125 $46 172.4% 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2004 - 21 - The data presented in Table Il-1 provide.a convenient opportunity to update the road :impact fees applicable to Hutchinson Island. Several studies have shown that travel parameters for new developments on Hutchinson Island are. different from those of the mainland. For that reason St Lucie County has maintained three separate impact fee schedules of the island; one for North.lsland, one for South Island and one for Ft . Piarce `Island. Following are updated road impact fee schedules for the three island zones that apply ~fhe cost per VMT to the unique travel characteristics of the island's zones:' : . 'i:l r i 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 ~ - 22 - .TABLE II-6 ROADS IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ' ST LUCIE COUNTY -NORTH ISLAND ~ LAND USE,TYPE (UNITS 'TRIP TRIP. % NEW ' LANE- ROAD RATE LENGTH ~ TRIPS MILES. COST . RESIDENTIAL: ~ ~ • Sin le Famil ~ 5.20 ~ 9.63 100.0% _ 0.00303 $6 223 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle. • 2.70 9.63 100.0°k 0.00158: $3,245 . Multi-Fami) 1 8~ 2 Sto 2.80: ~ 9.63. 100.0% 0.00163 $3 348 Multi-Famll 3 + Stories 4.50 9.63 100.0°~ 0.00263 $5,402 Hotel/Motel -Room ~ 10.10 8.17 ~ 85.0% 0.00425 $8,729 Bed & Breakfast -Room 5.20 8.17 100.0% 0.00257 $5 278 All Other Residential 6.70 9.63 100.0°~ 0.00391 $8 030 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: General Office 11.10 2.21 50.0% 0.00074 $1,520 Medical Office 54.60 0.93 33.3% 0.00103 $2115 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 61.50 0.69 50.0% 0.00128 $2 629 100,000-499 999 FT2 37.95 0.86 67.0% 0.00132 $2 711 500 000 & Over 26.25 1.20 77.7°~ 0.00148 $3,040 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 168.56 0.34 20.0% 0.00070 $1,438 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse 2.44 2.96 50.0% 0.00022 $452 Truck Terminal 4.93 2.96 50.0% 0.00044 $904 Genera! Industrial 2.72 2.96 50.0% 0.00024 $493 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1 000 FT2 12.03 1.52 50.0% 0.00055 $1,130 School -Middle/Hi h Per 1 000 FT2 11.92 1.52 50.0% 0.00055 $1 130 Da Care Per 1 000 FT2 79.26 0.41 25.0% 0.00049 $1,006 Fraternal O .Per 1,000 FT2 9.11 2.87 50.0°~ 0.00079 $1,623 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 16.78 2.42 50.0°~ 0.00123 $2 52s Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 1.98 50.0% 0.00022 $a52 Libra Per 1 000 FT2 54.00 1.98 25.0°~ 0.00162 $3,327 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 3.75 50.0°~ 0.00026 $534 Recreation Facilit all Per 1,000 FT2 3.10 3.25 50.0% 0.00031 $637 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04. 2.87 50.0% O.o0o4a $904 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.72 50.0% 0.00004 $82 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2409 - 23 - TABLE II.6a ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST ST:LUCIE COUNTY -NORTH ISLAND RESIDENTIAL: ANNUAL CREDIT NET EXISTING PAYMENT COST FEE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil $156 $2,377 $3,846 2148 79.1% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehjcle $81 $1 234 $2,011 $1 114 80.5% Multi-Fami 1.8 2 Sto $84 $1,280 $2,068 $1,858 11.3% Multi-Fami 3 + Stories $135 $2,057 $3,345 $1,156 189.5% ~.Hotel/Motel -Room . $219 $3,330 $5,399 $3,591 ~ 50.3% Bed 8~ Breakfast -Room $133 $2 01T $3,261 $1,849 76.4% - All Other Residential ~ $201 $3 063 $4,967 $2 765 79.7% OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: General Office $38 $582 $938 $560 67.4% MedicalOffce $53 $803 $1312 $2,506 -47.6% RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: - Under 100,000 FT2 $66 $1,001 $1;628 $1,692 ~ -3.8% 100 000-499 999 FT2 $68 $1,035 $1 678 ~ $1,393 20.3% 500,000 $ Over . $76 $1,162 $1 878 $1,203 56.1% GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $36 $549 '$$89 ~ $2,900 ~ -69.3% INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Warehouse $11 $171 '$281 $100 180.8° Truck Terminal $23 $346 $558 $203 ~ 174.9% GeneralIndustrial $13 $191 $302 $112 169.0% INSTITUTIONAL: ' School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 $28 $434 $696 ~ $552- 26.2°~ School - Mlddle/Hi Per 1,OOO~FT2 $28 $430 $700 $529 32.4% ~Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 ~ $25 ~ $383 $623 $1 816 -65.7% - Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 ~ $41 $622 $1 001 $418 ~ 139.3% Hos ital Per 1000 FT2 $63 $962 $1,564 $769 103.3% Nursin Horj~e Per.1~000 FT2 $12 $175 $277 $169 64.1% ' Libra Per 1,000 FTC ~ $84 $1,271 $2 056 $1,238 66.1% RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $13 $203 $331 $105 215.1% Recrea ion Facilit ail Per 1,OQ0 FT2 $16 $239 $398 $143 178.7% Golf Course Per Acre $23 $344 $560 $231 142.4% Movie Theatres er Seat $2 $30 $52 $19 - 178.3°~ 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 24 - TABLE II-7 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE • ST LUCIE COUNTY -FORT PIERCE ISLAND LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) TRIP TRIP % NEW LANE- ROAD RATE LENGTH TRIPS MILES COST RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil 7.50 7.69 100.0% 0.00350 $7188 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 4.60 7.69 100.0% ~ 0.00214 $4,395 Multi-Famil 1 8 2 Sto 3.50 7.69 100:0% 0.00163 $3,348 Multi-Famil 3 ~ Stories 6.70 7.69 100:0% 0.00312 $6 408 Hotel/Motel -Room 10.10 6.54 85.0% .0.00340 $6 983 Bed & Breakfast -Room 4.90 6.54 100.0% ~ 0:00194 $3 984 Ail Other Residential 6.70 7.69 100.0% 0.00312 $6,408 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: GeneralOffice 11.10 1.69 50.0% 0.00057 $1,171 MedicalOfflce ~ 54.60 0.71 33.3% 0.00078 $1602 • RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: • Under 100 000 FT2 61.50 0.79 50.0% ~ 0.00147 $3 019 100 0~-499,999 FT2 37.95 0.87 67.0% 0.0013 $2 773 500 000 & Over 26.25 1.07 77.7. % 0.00132 $2,711 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 168.56 0.51 20.0% 0.00105 $2,157 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse 2.44 1.91 50.0% 0.00014 $288 • Truck Terminal 4.93 1.91 50.0% 0.00028 $575 Generallndustrial 2.72 1.91 50.0% 0.00016 $329 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1000 FT2 12.03 0.49 50.0% 0.000'18 $370 School -Middle/Hi h Per 1000 FT2 11.92 1.14 50.0% 0.00041 $842 Da Care Per 1,000.FT2 79.26 0.31 25.0% O.Od037 $760 Fraternal Or . Per. 1 000 FT2 9.11 2.16 50.0°k 0:00080 ~ $1,232 Hos itel Per 1,000 FT2 16.78 0.78 50.0% 0.00040 $822 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 1.49 50.0% 0.00017 $349 Libra Per 1 000 FT2 54.00 1.49 25.0% 0.00122 $2 506 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 2.16 50.E%° 0.00015 $308 • Recreation Facili all Per 1;000 FT2 3.10 2.16 50.0% 0.00020 $411 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 2.16 ~ 50.0% 0.00033 $678 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.48 50.0% 0.00003 $62 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 25 - TABLE II-7a ' ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST ST LUCIE COUNTY - FT PIERCE ISLAND RESIDENTIAL: ~ .ANNUAL NET EXISTING PAYMENT CREDIT COST FEE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL: S,in le Famll $180 $2,739 $4,449 $1,823 144.1% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $110 $1,680 . $2,715 $656 314.0% Multi-Famli 1 8 2 Sto $84 $1,278 $2 070 $1,482 39.6% Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $161 $2,447 $3,961. $607 552.6% Hotel/Motel -Roam $175 $2,665 $4,318 $2,116 104.0% Bed Breakfast -Room $100 $1,521 $2,463 $1,026 ~ 139.9% All Other Residential $161 $2,447 $3961 $1,628 143.3% OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FTC: " ,General Office $29 $445 $726 $271 168.3% Medical Office ~ $40 $613 $989 $1,216 -18.7% RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: ,Under 100,000 FTC ~ $75 $1,149 $1,870 $821 127.7% 100 000-499 999 FTC ~ $69 $1 056 $1 717 $675 154.5% 500000 & Over ~ ~ $68 $1,037 $1 674 ~ $585 186.2% GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $54 $822 $1,335 $2,813 -52.6% INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 Fl'2: .Warehouse. $7 $111 $177' $50 255.1% Truck Terminal $15 $223 $352 $98 ~ ~ 259.6% Generallndustrial $8 $123 $206 $55 273.4% INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1 000 FTC $9 $140 $230 ~ $113 102.9% School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FTZ $21 $323 $519 $265 ~ 95.4% Da Care Per 1,000 FTC $19 $288 ~ $472 $881 -46.4% Fraternal Or .Per 1 000 FT' $31 $468 $764 $203 276.5% Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 $20 $310 ~ $512 $155 229.9% ~lursin Home Per 1,000 F7'2 $9 $132 $217 $84 158.6% Libra Per 1 000 FTC $63 $957 $1 549 $603 157.0% RECREATIONAL: ~ ~ ' Park Public Per Acre $8 $117 $191 $51 274.3% Recreation Facilit all Per 1,000.FT2 $10 $159 252 $li9 266.5% Golf Course Per Acre ~ ~ $17 $259 ~ ~ $419 $113 269.6% Movie Theatres er Seat $1 $20 $42 $3 1243.1% 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 26 - TABLE II-8 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ST LUCIE COUNTY -SOUTH ISLAND LAND USE TYPE (UNIT} ~ . ~ TRIP TRIP % NEW LANE- ROAD RATE LENGTH TRIPS MILES COST RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Famil 7.50 7.22 100.0% 0.00328 $6 737 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 4.60 7.22 100.0% 0.00201 $4128 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 3.50 7.22 100.0% 0.00153 $3,142 Multi-Famil 3 Stories 6.70 7.22 100.0% ~ 0:00293 $6,018 Hotel/Mvtel -Room 10.10 6.19 85.0% ~ 0.00322 $6 613 Bed & Breakfast -.Room ~ 4.90 6.19 100'.0% 0.00184 '$3 779 All Other Residential ~ 6.70 7.22 100.0% 0.00293 $6,018 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: GeneralOffice 11.10 1.93 50.0% 0.00065 $1.,335 Medical Office ~ 54.60 0.81 33.3% 0.00090 $1848 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 61.50 0.60 50.0% 0:00112 ~ ~$2 300 100 000-499,999 FT2 .37.95 0.75 67.0% 0.00116 $2,382 500,000 8 Over 26.25 1.05 77.7% 0.00130 $2 670 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 168.56 0.60 20.0% 0.00123 $2 526 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse ~ 2.44 2.59 50.0% 0.00019 $390 Truck Terminal 4.93 2.59 50.0% 0.00039 $ao1 Genera! Industrial 2.72 2.59 50.0% ' :0.00021 $431 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per.1,000 FT2 12.03 1.33 50:0 ~ 0.00048 $986 School - MiddleMi h Per 1,000 FT2 11.92 1.33 ~ 50.0% 0.00048 ~ $986 Da Care Per 1,OOO.FT2 79.26 0.36 25.0% 0.00043 $883 Fraternal O . Per.1 000 FT2 9.11 2.52 50.0% 0:00069 $1 417 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 16.78 2.11 50,0% O.OOt07 2198 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 3.72 1.74 ~ 50:0% 0.00020 $411 Libra Per 1 000 FT2 54.00 1.74 25.0% 0.00142 $2,916 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.28 .3.28 50.0% 0.00023 $472 Recreation Facilit all Per~1 000 FT2 3.10 2:85 50.0° 0.00027 $555 Golf Course Per Acre 5.04 2.52 50.0% 0.00038 $7s0 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.75 0.48 50.0% 0.00003 $s2 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 27 - • TABLE Ill-8a ROAD IMPROVEMENT COST ST LUCIE COUNTY -SOUTH ISLAND LAND USE 7YPEIUNII' ~ .ANNUAL CREDIT NET EXISTING PAYMENT COST FEE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL: • Sin le Famil $169 $2,571 $4,166 $2 322 79.4% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $104 $1 577 $2,551 $836 205.2% Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto $79 $1 200 $1 942 $1 888 2.8% Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $151 ~ $2 29T $3,721 $774 381.0% HoteUMotel -Room $166 $2,524 $4 089 $2,722 50.2% Bed 8 Breakfast -Room $95 $1,441 $2,338 $1,321 77.0% Ali Other Residential $151 •$2 297 $3 721 $2 074 79.4% OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: General Office $33 $510 $825 :$490 68.3% Medical Office $46 •$703 $1,145 $2,192 -47.8% RETAIL PER 1.000 FT2: Under 100.000 FT2 $58 $876 $1 424 $1,481 -3.9% 100,000-499 999 FT2 $60 $906 $1 476 $'I 219 21.1% 500 000: & Over ~ $67 $1 017 $1,653 $1 053 57.0% GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $63 ~ $961 $1,565 $5,076 -69.2% INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse $10 $150 $240. $88 171.3% Truck Terminal $20 $303 $498 $177 181.6% Generallndustrial $11 $167 $264 $98 169.9% INST{TUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 $25 $379 $607 $479 26.7°~ Schoo{ -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 $25 $376' $610 $478 27.7°~ Da Care Per 1 000 FT2 $22 $335 $548 $1,;191 -65.5% Fraternal Or .Per 1000 FT2 $36 $544 $873 $367 137.6% Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 $55 $842 $1,356 . $673 101.3°k Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 $10 $153 $258 $149 73.1% Libra • Per 1,000 FT2 ~ $73 $1 112 $1,804• $1,084 66.4% RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $12 $177 $295 $91 225.2% Recreation Facilit all Per 1 000 FT2 $14 $209: $346. $124 179.0% Golf Course Per Acre $20 '$301 $479 $203 136.0% Movie Theatres er Seat $1 $20 $42 $17 151.8% 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 28 - 6~ T O~ O~ T T d~ O O O~ O~ a2 ~ O O ~ O ~ V N OD O N nO sr pMp aO O r O N M tD Of ttp~ ~ eE ICO ~ ~ N arD 1~ 1~ ti tC ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ a~D m N c~~l V M ~ ~ 0 tp t~ ~p N s~ ~ 1A ~ O~{ ~ h N ~ d ~ ~ ~ VN' aWa N t00 t0 6N9 W fA fA ~ ~ ~ ir9 ~ a ~ 6~9 t9 V! W 69 Vi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M o $N a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N W ~ dNi 69 ~ ifi Y9 ~ ~ 609 ~ y~~ O t0 t0 aO.e}~ 07 c'7 lCO"pp) P I~ .t.o~{{ ~N~pp t0 y~ c0 st ~ ~t R s} r M ~ O ~ ~ f0 ~ N N W ~ tp ~ ~ O 0 l r M r r ~ r r "N N V p ' f/1 O? 0 O ~~rp Op M ~~p~p l0 pWp O I~ 'd ~ yN~ tp0 ~j O_ ' ~ {11 ~ ~ ^ O Ol M ~ O> n 01 ~ ~ m ~ r ~ N N y e~ t+~ V! 6A 69 69 iA ~ N . ~ ~ W O, ~ ~ ~ ~ W iN9 W ~ e~9 b~/ d~ Q ~ ~Np p^ ~ N N0 t~ ~ aNp ttip ~ 1~ ~ t V~ ~ a~D' ~ d_ t0 C t6 N~ L~ W vi Y~ 00 /A ~ ~ EA ~ ~ N w p O ~ ~ W N ~ r~ N N~` W N 69 i9 69 .M 69 t W ' •LL . p iv aP a ae 3E ~ aE ~ ae aE 3° aE aE ~ ae aE a4 a~ 1p M 0 M ~ N a t0 tp M r M OO ~ O N e} . 0 ~ aC N 01 O r Ol O <O 01 h ti M C t~pp W ~ 01 t0 fV O 00 to ti 'ti t0 ' N 10 iQ 60 ~ c0 N M N ~ r pppp ~j r, r r ' Q ~ 0 tG r 0 ~ ~ ~ M r N ~ ti 00 ~^4 v0~ O ~ .O a~ p W ~ ~ o ~ chi M N ~i rnin ~ eo m co ~ irl iri ~ ~ w . ~a~ ~ ~ _ p O m r O O O ~ ('7 M O O M N N~ O tf~ a} 07 p C C U N N NN~ ~ a0 .0-. ~1 a0 t~ ~ ~0y t0 th N N~ i9 ~ W y.~ 8 W ~ 6M9 N NW Vl ~ 69 1~9 H? d dE '3e 3P ~ 3E o`4 3E 3E o ~ 3°` 3E 3E ~ ~ 3~ oe 3° h CD O . hOp IA Mry n Ol M r O t0 CO o pMp Of tEpO Z ~ O D O O ti ~ N ~ ~ ti O^D .0- ~ f00 (O ~ 'nO' V' t r r r r p V 9 . Z ~ ~ ~ b ~ aD ~ ~ CNO ~ ~ O aD n N ONO 000 of . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~ Nw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vi 69~ e9 ~ Q c'V . ~ cN ~ t0 O~ N O W ~ ~Mp O aD ~ O~ ~ ~ 1~~ RO{ N M . N W H ~ b4 ~ W W p~ dl IA y ~ dN! ~ ~ t9 fA ~ ~ ~ O y z C ~ ~ 0 t t ~ v w ~ ~ 8a NN a~~ .-r ~ v I'i ~ Q d W c a ~ ~ ~ ~ cEo ~ E .E o ~ ~ ~ ~ a g gi Z ~ ~ ~ 'g C w O N ~ T LL ~ ~ ~ V ~ .S~ J r ~ 8= O F.. ~ S 1 o _ ~,~a~oo K fn ~ ~ ~ = m ~ 0 C7 ~ ~ a g $ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ C9 2 ~ ~ LL O N m M~~ N O O C~O. M ~p N ~ ~ tf _ ~ ~ t~ O P <O N t ~ ~ N a- r D V ~ ~ " W ~ . ~ t1~pp~ ~ .0~ ~ N_ O ~ ~ M (l9 r. ~ M V! ~ N M N? ~ d N. ~ f~0 O M ~ m ~ ~ N~N b N ~ ~ (~O ~ ~ ,V ~ N N ~ N N N~ ' Q d1 NN` N P ~ ~ NN Gf N fR d? {N9 ~ ~ W i ~y W a ' ~ to M M NN ~ a`.fA ~ ~ di ~~pp ~ ~ ~ O W Z N u. a ~ M 3E ~ 3E dE ~ ~ M g~ O ~ C .N ~ O ~ ~ r vNt ~ ~ (f) • V ~ ~ N W W ~h ~ ~ ~ ~~d Z w v, w ~o~ o Z ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ v? N N w w ~ F= N ~ ~ ~ !b1 Z x ~ ~ ti ~ rn ~i ~ aNO G V ~ ~ Nrn m c~ i ~ g 2 e ~ w ~ bq ~ ers O N ~O-~a :W: ~ ~ o~^Oj N ~ N ~ M fR ~ W N ' ~ 8 ~ e- t ~ ~ a ~ ~ $ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~~ ~ ~ u7 0~ S a Q~ a;~ w a a S ~ a o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a o G V ~ ~ _ OC V u p ~ ~ z' ~ p~ a ~ ~ t7 ~ N Table II-9 contrasts the updated St Lucie County road fee with other counties in Florida. TABLE 11~ EXISTING ROAD IMPACT FEES 1N FLORIDA COUNTIES Coun RoadlTrans . Alachua 1 $2 798 Ba $2 352 Bradford $2,500 Brevard $4 353 Charlotte $5 080 Citrus ~ $4 853 Cla 2 $5,814 Collier $8,884 Columbia $1,046 Desoto $4,750 Fla ler $1,438 ' . Gilchrist $1 750 Glades $3,363 Hend $2,490 Hernando $3,627 Hi hlands ~ $6;594. Hillsboro h $1,475 Indian River $5;202 Lake ~ $2;189 Lee $8,976 Lev $1 046 Manatee ~ $7 013 Marion ~ $5 462 Martin $2 891 MiamilDade $1,275. Monroe $633 Nassau $1 430 Oran a $3 500 Osceola $6;877 Palm Beach ~ $4,822' Pasco $5 313 Pinellas $1 923 Polk $5 844 Putnam $2 290 Santa Rosa $2 237 Sarasota $8;515 Seminole ~ ~$1 061 St Lucie $2 324 St. Johns $3 830 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 31 - TABLE II-9 EXISTING ROAD IMPACT FEES IN FLORIDA COUNTIES - Sumter $1;996 Volusia $2,044 Wakulla $522 . Mean - ~ ~ $3 628. Median , „ . $2 845. St Lucie Mainland Revised $4 826 . ~ , 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 32 - III. Public Buildin .s J Table III-1 shows the inventory of St Lucie County public buildings. This table also shows the size of the buildings, the replacement cost,. and the value of contents. These data show a cost per square foot or floor area of $164.28. This is within a reasonable range for public Public Buildin s Value: Buildin $143 250,650 Contents $26,722,600 Land na Total $169,973 250 Area 1,034,663 er S uare Foot: Buildin $138.45 Contents $25.83 Totai $164.28 buildings. Data from Engineering New Record report a per foot construction cost for office buildings of $177.16 in 2008 and $151.56 for 2009.8 This may be con- trasted with $138.45 for St Luae County. The level of service provided is 3.70 square #eet of floor area per capita. It should be kept in mind that this number includes court and correction facilities in addition to the general administrative spaces. The cost per capita is $608.46. However, St Lucie County has $88 million in outstanding public buildings debt. New develop- ments will pay to service and retire this debt. Thus, outstanding debt is subtracted from the total value to get a net of $84,688,220. This is $303.16. This cost will be used to establish net costs and recommended impact fees. ~~i~g~ V@j~~d,~l~yt Boob 2008 and 2009, published by McGraw-Hill, - 33 - ~ . So$ooopo °~o° S.° oopo° OJ ~ O r. O r CO O ~ ~ <O fD f~ I~ ~ O1 ~ OD O ~ d' O d0 M C7 C m 1A p P O M r t~ I~ 01 O O l'7 O 1n N O C M l'1 d 7~~ O M O N f0 r r r r r r 0 f0, r r ~ M r r in IA r ~ N ~A IA ~ M Ifs tR N fD e- V} et N r /A to ~ N ~ N N r r f.9 ~ ~ ~ 69 EA f,N f~ E9 dA EH fA f/9 EA f!) EA b9 S O O S O b pp S O O p C p O pp 8 S O O p O 8 p O pp g O N ~ f~ O M p O a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~Cl O N N M 1q ~ O r et t~ , pOo ~ M ~ O tM'~ ~A M . ~~pp f ` p^~ ~ tM ~ ~ O ~ ~ N N ~ NON ~ ~ ~ Q M 4~ Of LL9 N r O ~A CO ~ N! b9 r ~ ~ O <O ~O ~ ~ N (r3 69 (A VV pppp f~ tt~~ ~ ~ to ~ C r r r N ~ r lA tH ~ fH 69 E9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4r4 ~ d9 iA 69 ff1 fF? r CD M 00 O N I~ ~A ~p O O P~ p~pp Q N pp M N~ O O ~A t0 O p N N 01 CO N N~~ r <O r I~ d' ~p r N O ~j ~ N O OM! 1p S ~A ~M ~ ~A f~ h O co Q~ to cD O N <O O r ti aO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ONO ~ ~ d' 01 ~ N N ~ O N f0 IN ~ N N r r O ~ ~ M v , o a ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ oXi a~ ~ c m ~ ~ 'Z ~ ~,.m E E E~~~ in~'n~~i N v, Z ~ 3 p Qq ~~~~v ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ 'm m U U 4~ O O c$ c c~. a~i .d aZi o~p ~ ~ p ~ 3 > > z ' ~ 'o o' ~ ' ~ E E o 0 0 0 o aci c c ~ s~c~Sc~~~n~nc~3~~~S8ww~i~n~,~~~c~c~c~ m a m Q ~ ~ d c ~ ~ ass r ffi ~ti .C ~ o~ w ~ _m ~g~ o X C ~ ~ N 'a otf ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~j }FCC F- j V C1 m c0 ~ , 7 C Q x ~ ~ O ~ ~ N~k C ~ ~ m U n'. a ~ ~ ~ r N eO C~ N ~ O ~ . CI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qt bm~p ~ l~O _ N O ~ C_ c c ` p ~AO7 O `3 ~ v ~ o O 'c ~ ~ V C O V ~ ~ lp ~ ~ ~ + 2~ ~ o $ c ~ c c E ~E OD G~ ~ ~ .`c m ~ 3 ~ .'E E J o ~ ~ r coo ~ a~i ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~i ~ !c ~ ~ ~ ~~~nt`3U v~t9o~~-wwzzwzww:az~ as ~ w ' O~ O O N O O Q~ (n tD O ~A S m O N~ dd ~t M ~D C3 C1 ~c' ~.~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~5~ ~ ~ N ~ tr0 fA ' w ~ ~ m ooo~~~gsssoo~~~ M CO ~t pO tp Grp N p . ~ ~ N ~ ~j ~ O d' ch M ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ 1A v... . r r ~cv~ (N~ O N r 1dA• 1~ N ~t ~ y ~ V E9 fA d°1 r 69 N~ M 4H fA r N r CO ~p ~L fA V~ EH EA 69'64 7 ~ W p~ N 1~ ~Op O O O tG h 00 O • ~i ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ CO N ~ M ~ ~ O O ~ ~~rj . H N M~~ N N N r N W N Oro ~ O N N ~ 0 r v'~ M Z m a~i ~ ~~~Y Z o~~ ~ ~ m = zZ o ~ ~ .~~~~r ~~o ~ t4 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ m V J m ~ d ~ N L ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ v~ ~ O N O. m C m ~ O ~ ~ i a v a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w o~ 0 0 N • TABLE IV-2 PUBLIC BUILDING COST:BY LAND USE Total Net • LAND USES Occu anc Cost Cost Sin le Famil 1.047 • $636.93 $317.35 ~MobileNome/Rec. Vehicle ~ '0.686 $417.1fi $207.85 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 0.934 ~ '$568.06 $283.03 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.934 $568.06 $283.03 Hotel/Motel -Room ~ 0.700 $425.92 $212.21 Bed & Breakfast -Room ~ 0.700 $425.92 ~ . $212.21: All Other Residential 1.047 $636.93• ; . $317:35 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1;000. , , ~ . • FTz: General Affice 0.923 $561.30 $279.67 Medical Office 1.727 $1,050.86 $523.58 RETAIL PER 1,000 FTz: Under 100 000 FTz. .,1:361 $827.81 $412.45 100 000-499,999 FTz . 1.564 $951.36. $474.01 - 500 000 ~ Over 1.242 $755.82 $376.58 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service. Station Per Position 0.297 $1.80.98 $90.17 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FTz: Warehouse ~ 0.132 $80.06 .$39.89 Truck Terminal ~ 0.308 $187.69 $93.52 Generallndustrial 0.211 $128.45 $64.00 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FTz 1.398 $849.53 $423.27 School - Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FTz 1.388 $844.78 $420.91 Da Care Per 1,000 FTz 0.903 $549.55 $273.81 Fraternal O .Per 1 000 FTz 0.819 $498.33 $248.29 Hos ital Per 1,000 FTz 1.106 $672.90 $335.27 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FTz 0.936 • $569.52 $283.78 Llbrar Per'1 000 FTz ' 1.407 $856.19 $426.59 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 0.320 $194.76 $97.04 Recreation Facilit ail Per 1,000 FTz `0.428 $260.24 $129.66 Galf Course Per Acre 0.703 $427.85 $213.17 Movie Theatres er Seat 0.163 $99.25 $49.45 The per capita cost for additional public buildings is $303:16. This cost is spread over both the residential and non-residential sectors` by means of functipnal popu- lation. Because impact fees are land development regulations, the rdquirement to pay impact fees is tied to a land use approval. Thus it is necessary to identify the 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 ~ - 36 - relationship between land development and public buildings. The St Lucie County population that is served by public buildings includes people in their homes, em- ployees at work, customers at plact~s of business, arid drivers on the roads. To a great.extent, these are the same people but in different locations. That Is why the total,growth cost is divided by the new population. But the total per capita cost is allocated between the residential and non-residential sectors based on their time spent at various uses of land. The total population of St Lucie County in 2009 is 279,51. This is also the func- tional population. The residents are assigned individual land uses based on the total number of~people present at various land uses and the amount of time that .they spend there. The function populations by land use for St Lucie Count are .shown in Table IV-3. TABLE IV-3 CHANGE IN PUBLIC BUILDING COSTS LAND USES Exlstlrt Fee Revised % Chan e Stn le Fami $392 $317 -19% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $256 $208 -19% Multi-Famll 1' & 2 Sto _ $350 $283 -19% Multi-Fami) 3 + Stories $350 ~ $283 -19% Hotel/Motel -Room $253 $212 -16% Bed & Breakfast -Room $253 $212 -16% All Other Residential $392' $317 -19% OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: General Office $440 $280 -36% Medical Office $703 $524 -25% RETAIL PEF~ 1,000 FT2: Under 100 000 FT2 $494 $412 -17% ' 100,000-499 999 FT2 $569 $474 -17% 500,000 Over $414 ~ $377 -9% GASOLINE SERVICES: Service~Station Per Position $71 $90 27% INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: .Warehouse $62 $40 -36% `Truck Terminal $125 $94 -25% Generallndustrial $100 $64 -36% INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 $563 $423 -25% School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 $2,490 $421 -83% Da Care Per 1 000 FTZ $302 $274 -9% . Fraternal O . Per.1,000. FT2 $0 $0 0% Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 $470 $335 -29% Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 $507 $284. -44% 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 37 - ,TABLE IV-3 CHANGE.IN PUBLIC BUILDING COSTS LAND USES ~ Existin Fee Revised % Chan e Libra Per 1,000 FTC $709 $427 -40% • RECREATIONAL:.. Park Public Per Acre $71 $97 37% • Recreation Facilit al! Per 1,000 FT' $89 $130 46% • • ~ Golf Course Per Acre $183 $213. 18% Movie Theatres er Seat $80 $49 -38°~ 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2049 - 38 - Table IV-3 FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ' ST LUCIE COUNTY • Total • Hours Days per Functianai LAND USES Per- Employees per •Week Population • sons Visitor Sin le Famil 2.617 1.047 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle ~ 1.714 0.686 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 2.334 0.934 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 2.334 0.934 Hotel/Motel -Room 1.750 0.700 Bed & Breakfast -Room 1.750 0.700 All Other Residential 2.617 1.047 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT2: General Office 7.32 3.00 0.50 6.00 0.92 Medical Office 30.03 4.00 1.00 5.00 1.73 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 36.90 3.75 0.08 7.00 1.36 100,000-499,999 FT2 24.67 3.50 0.45 7.00 1.58 500,000 & Over 18.38 2.75 0.50 7.00 1.24 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 84.28 0.05 0.08 7.00 0.30 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT2: Warehouse 1.34 0.50 0.50 5.Op 0.13 Truck Terminal 2.71 1.25 0.25 5.00 0.31 Generallndustriai 1.49 0.80 1.00 5.00 0.21 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 9.02 0.60 5.00 5.00 1.40 School - MiddleMigh Per 1,000 FT2 8.94 0.65 5.00 5.00 1.39 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 59.45 0.08 0.50 5.00 0.90 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 5.47 2.00 2.00 6.00 0.82 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 10.07 3.10 0.25 7.00 1.11 Nursln Home Per 1,000 FT2 2.23 3.00 2.00 7.00 0.94 Librar Per 1,000 FT2 32.40 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.41 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 2.39 0.10 3.00 7.00 0.32 Recreation Facilit Per 1,000 FT2 3.26 0.10 3.00 7.00 0.43 Golf Course Per Acre 5.29 0.20 3.00 7.00 0.70 Movie Theatres er Seat 1.84 0.04 2.00 7.00 0.16 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 39 - A The, updated public buildings impact fee for a single family home is contrasted with other existing public'liuildings impact fees. Table IV-5 • ~ ~ EXISTING PUBLIC BUILDING IMPACT FEES ' ~ Count Public I31d • ~ Charlotte : $780 Citrus ~ ~ $825 Collier ~ ~ $807 Desoto. $9T~1 Gilchrist $1,000 Hernando $302 Indian River $206 Marlin ~ $436 Nassau $231 Palm Beach $148 . Sarasota $303 St Lucie $392 • ~ St. Johns $378 Wakulla $317 Mean $493' • ~ Median $385 St Lucie U dated $317 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 40 - IV. Parks & Recreation Table V-1 shows the park & recreational areas of St Lucie County and calculates the existing level of service of 5.28 acres of all types of parks per 1,000 population. The . adopted level of service is 5.00 acres of parks per 1,000 population. The appraised values shown in Table V-1 are those established by the. St Lucie County Property Appraiser for. the current year (2008}. The vales per acre by #ype of park are estab- lished in a three step process. First, the average value per.:acre is the sum of the values by type of park divided by the number of acres of that type of park. Next the . average value~per acre by type of park.is calculated by dropping the highest and lowest parcels~in terms of value per acre. The third step is to selected the lower of the two averages,' acid this value is used the Table V-2. TABLE V -1 ' PARKS INVENTORY, ACREAGE AND VALUE PARK ~ ~ ACRES APPRAISED Average Calculation Value ~ per Acre Acres Value INLAND PARKS Collins Park 1.0 $140 806 140 806 1.0 $140 806 Elks Park Reed 12.4 $470 100 $37 911 12.4 $470 100 Indrio School House 8.1 $458 00 $58 568 8.1 $458 200 Lakewood Park 7.3 $420,300 $57 575 7.3 $420 300 Palm Lake/lndlan River Estates 9.0 $29,800 '$3 289 tow Paradise Park 3.0 $115 500 $38 500 3.0 $115,500 Ravenswood Co ex 1.5 $731,800 $487,867 Hi h Lakewood Park Re tonal Park 15fi.0 $B 821 300 $55 265 156.0 $8 621 300 Lawnwood Re Zonal Com lex 117.5 $3 281 400 $27,927 117.5 $3,281,400 Sheraton Plaza Recreation Area 5.7 $87,900 $15 421 ~ 5.7 $87,900 Weldon B. Lewis 14.4 $607 587 082 14.4 $807 587 South Count Re tonal S orts Com ex 10.3 $3 550 300 $344 689 10.3 $3550 300 Casa Ca rorra' 2.0 Walton Communit Center' 0.9 WTVX Park" 20.0 Dreamland/MLK Interiocal 14.9 $1 281.900 $86 034 14.9 $1 81 900 Horatio Gris Lease 6.3 $332100 52 714 6.3 $332,100 Ilous EIGs/O en S ace 15.7 $918,100 $58 478 15.7 $918,100 Lincoln Park Lease 4.0 $645 000 $181 250 4.0 $845 000 Maravilla Park Deed 6.1 $1460 300 $239 393 8.1 1 460 300 White Cf School Interlocal 7.8 881700 $87 397 7.8 $681,700 Savannas Recreation Area Lease 800.0 2 019000 $3 365 600.0 $2 019 000 TOTAL. INLAND PARKS 1 023.9 $28 062 893 S25 445 990.5 $25 291493 Inland Parks er Acre $25 534 2004 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 41 - TABLE V -1 ~ ~ ' PARKS INVENTORY, ACREAGE.AND VALUE • ~ APPRAISED Ayerape Calculation PARK ACRES Value perAcrs.~ Acres Value BEACH PARKS & ACCESSES Frederick Dou lass Park 13.7 $6,364 35B $464,552 13.7 $6 364,356 John Brooks Park Green Turtle 22.7 S7 711 047 5339 694 22.7 $7 711 047 Pe Park Eest -Side 52:4 521 063 200 5401,989 52.4 $21,063 200 • Walton Rock Beach Owned b FPL 24.0 $284 900 $11 871 Low Waveland Beach 3.8 $2 182 200 $6061 7 3.6 $2;182,200 Blind Creek Access' 14.0 _ Blue Heron Access' 4.3 B Mawr Access' 1.3 Herman's.Ba Beach Access 1.0 $1 218800 51,218 800 ~ Hi h Isabella Park'.. 24.1 • John Brooks Park (Green TuNe} (Owned by • State of Florida 22.7 Middle Cove Beach Access 1.0 $826,882 826 682 1.0: $826,682 Normand Beach Access 1.0 51 000,000 $1,000 000 1.0 ;1 000 000 Ooilman Beach Access 15.0 S4 331 833 288 789 15.0 S4 331 833 TOTAL,.BEACH PARKS 8 ACCESSES 200.8 844 983,018 5224 019 109.4 $43479 318 Beach Parks & Access er Acr9 5397 434 RIVER PARKS b ACCESSES River Park Mafina 12.6 $1,989 000 $157,857 12.6 1 989 000 Black Pearl ~ ' 2.0 2 294,277 $1 147 139 2.0 2 294,277 Harbour Pdrlte 20.0 $11 267,800 $563 390 20.0 11 267,800 • Narth Causeiiva 11.5 $800 52 .Low Museum Palnte Park 16.6 $10322 900 $621 881 16.6 $10.322 900 Stan Blum Bowl Fta 14.0 $832,612 $5 472 14.0 $832,612 ' White Ci Park 17.0 681 700 $40100 17,0 •$681,700 Dollman Rlver'$ide 128.7 $B9 562,000 $540 497 Hi h • Pe er Park River Side 27.4 $1 033,100 $37 704 27.4 ~ $1 033,100 TOTAL RIVER PARKS & ACCESSES 249.8 897 983,989 $392 250 109.6 28 421 389 River Barks b Access r Acre 259 3i9 TOTAL INLAND PARKS 1 023.9 $26,052 893. • $25,445. 990.5 25 445 TOTAL BEACH PARKS al< ACCESSES 200.8 844 983 018 $224 019 109.4 $224 019 • TOTAL RIVER PARKS & ACCESSES 249.8 $97 983 989 $392 250 109.6. • .$259,319 GRAND TOTAL 1 474.5 $169 019900 5114,629 ' ~ Po ulatbn Served 279,351 Level of Service r 1 Q00 P ulation - Existin 5.28 Level of Service 1 000 P ulation -Ado ted 5.00 SOURCE: St Lucie County, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, May 2008, and Capital Improvement Element, Adopted Nov 25, 2008, Page 9. Note: Moved North Savannas Dike to ESL -65.1 acres "The land value of these parks was not Included in the cak;ulation of average land value by type of park. 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 42 - Table V-2 summarizes the equipment and facilities offered at the various parks along with the replacement value of those equipment and facilities. Table V-2 also contains the value of the park and recreational lands shown in Table V-1. The total value of the St Lucie County park and recreational system amounts to $184,fi21,358, which is . $660.89 per capita. TABLE V - 2 PARKS INVENTORY AND COSTS Recreation Facilities ~ Number Cost er Extension Tennis Courts 22 ` $40 000 $880,000 ShuffleMandbail/Ra uetball Courts 20 $20,000 $400 000 Basketball Courts 11 $45,000 $495,000 Ball Fields - Llt ~ 4 $275 000 $1 100,000 Ball Fields - Unlit 55 $180 000 $9 900,000 E ui ed Pla rounds 14 $100000 1 400 000 Lar a Pavilions 7 $35 000 $245 000 Small Pavilions 68 ~ $15.000 $'I 020 000 Picnic Tables/facilities 103 $2,500 $257,500 Rest Roams 22 $80 OOU $1,760 000 Covered E uestrian Area 1 $1 250,000 $1 250,000 Boat Ram Lanes ~ ,1:6. $125,000 $2 000 000 Recreation Center Small less than 5,000 FT2 3 100 er FTC $800,000 Re Tonal Recreation Center Hurricane Shelter 1 200 er FT' $14,000,000 Pools 4 $300,000 $1,204 000 . Pool - 50 Meter ~ 0 $2,500 000 $0 Fishin AreaslDodcs 13 $100,000 $1,300,000 Beach Access w1#h Parkin 6 $300 000 $1,800,000 Football Stadium ~ 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 Park 8 Recreation Land Area Acres Cost er Inland Parks 1 023.9 $25 445 .$26,052,893 Beach Parks 8 Access ~ 200.8 $224;019 $44,983,018 F2iver Parks 8 Access 249.8 $259,319 $64,777,947 TOTAL . ~ 1~ 474.5 Level of Service 5.00 acres er 1,000 TOTAL VALUE OF PARK AND RECREATION $1.84,621,358 Po ulation Served 279,351 Cost er Ca lta $660.89 Outstandin Park & Recreation Debt $18,975,318 Citizens E uit $165,646,040 E uit er Ca ita $592.97 E uit er Ca ita at Ado ted Level of Service $561.70 NOTES: Land values from St Lucie County Property Appraiser. Facilities and equipment values from St Lucie County Parks 8 Recreation Department. St Lucie County presently has $19 million in outstand debt, the proceeds of which 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 43 - ' - ~ , were used to provide park and/or recreation land and facilities. Therefore this amount is subtracted from the value:of parks to arrive at a Citizens' equity of $165,646,040, or $592.97 per capita. However, the adopted level of service is 5.00 acres per 1,000 population. the net cost per capita at the adopted level of service is $561.70. Tabie V-3 takes this per capita net figure and applies it to St Lucie County occupancy rates to arrive at up-dated park impact fees. This update would involve an increase of 185% over the existing park fee. TABLE V-3 PARK 8 RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEE ST LUCIE COUNTY Exist- Revised % ' ~ Occupancy frig Fee Chang Fee e LAND USE TYPE UNIT Sin le Fami . ~ 2.62 ~ $515 $1,470 185.4% Mobile Homy/Rec. $337 Vehicie 1.71 $963 185.4% Multi-Famil 1~82Sto 2.33. $458 $1,311 186.2% Multi-Fami{ ~ 3 + Stories 2.33 $458 $1,311 186.2% Hotel/Motel- Room ~ 1.75 $331 x983 196.9% Bed & Breakfast -Room 1.75 $331 $983 196.9% All Other Residential 2.62 $514 $1,470 185.8% The updated park and recreation impact fee for St Lucie County is contrasted with other park and recreation impact fees in Tabfe V-5. TABLE V-5 PARK IMPACT FEES FLORIDA COUNTIES Count Parks Wakulla $53 Lev $150 Lake $222 Putnam $227 Alachua $252 Fla ler $268 Bradford $269 Monroe $340 Hillsborou h $354 Glades $366 Desoto $370 Broward non-inflil $389 Poik $444 Hernando $501 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 44 - TABLE V-5 PARK IMPACT FEES FLORIDA COUNTIES Coun ~ Parks ' St Lucle ~ $515 Nassau $520 • ~ Volusia ' ~ ~ $566 • Citrus $723 St Johns $753 Hi hlands $757 Pasco $892 Osceola $924 Manatee ; $971 Oran a $1,123 MiamilDade $1 173 fndian River $1,463 Lee ~ $1,479 Palm Beach $1 540 . Charlotte $1,660 . Martin $2,345 _ Sarasota $2,348 Collier $3;299: , Mean $852 Median $543 , St Lucie Revised ~ ~ $1,470- 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 45 - ry V. Summa Table V-1 a through V-1 a summarize the updated consumption driven impact fees and . add in the other impact flees to get a picture of aft impact fees to be imposed by S#~ Lucie County. Following the eve updated and recommended fee schedules, Tables Vi-2a and VI-2b show the percentage changes in impact fees by area of St Lucie County. Las#ly, Table.Vl-3 contrasts the total impact fees recommended with'impact fees presently, in existence in other Florida counties. 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 46 - . , Table V-1a RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES MAINLAND LAND USE Roads gu Idin s Parks School Library EMS Law Total RESIDENTIAL: Sin Id Famll $4,826 $317 $1,470 $5 447 $205 5525 $194 $12,984 Mobile Home/Rec..Vehicle. ~ $2,412. $208 $963 1572. X84 .$107 $128 $5,574 Multi-Fami1 1 &.2 Sto ~ $3,519. $283 $1,311 $2 787 ~ $133 5106 $174 $8,314 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories ~ .$1,845 $283 $1,311 ~ $2 787 133 106. $174 $6,639 HoteUMotel -Room.. $3,840 $212 $983 $0 $0 245 $130 $5.410 Bed & Breakfast -Room $2,184. 5212 ~ $983 $0 $0 . $246 $130 $3,755 All Other Residential $3,519 $31T $1;470 $5447 ~ ~ $205 ~ $525 5184 $11,677 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT': General Office $2,768 $280 $0 $0 $0 $310 $298 $3,654 Medical Office $3,823 $524 $0 $0 $0 $310 5188 $4,843 RETAIL PER 1000 FT': Under 100 000 FT' $5,187 $412 50 $0 $0 5487 $898 $6,765 100 000-499 999 FT' $5,347 5474 $0 $0 $0 5487 $804 $7,112 500,000 & Over $6,012 '$377 $0 $0 $0 $487 $688 $7,564 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $2,830 $90 50 $0 $0 $1,610 $698 $5,229 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $751 $40 $b $0 $0 $70 $36 $898 Truck Terminal $1,514 $94 $0 $0 $0 $70 571 $1,748 Generallndustrial $823 $64 $0 $0 50 $TO $58 $1,012 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1000 FT' $1,895 $423 $0 $0 50 $468 $242 $3,028 School - Middle/HI h Per 1,000 FT' $1,865 $421 $0 $0 $0 $468 $160 $2,914 Da Care Per 1000 FT' $1,663 $274 50 $0 $0 $468 $153 $2,557 Fraternal O .Per 1 000 F7'' ~ $2,704 5248 50 $0 $0 $468 $72 $3,493 Hos itel Per 1 000 FT' $4,192 $335 $0 $0 $0 5468 $72 $5,067 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT' $761 $284 $0 $0 $0 $1,159 $72 $2,276 Libra Per 1,000 FT' $5,538 $427 $0 $0 $0 $468 $73 $6,506 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $671 $97 $0 $0 50 $44 $73 5885 Recreation Facili all Per 1000 FT' 5931 $130 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $1,177 Golf Course Per Acre $1,500 $213 50 $0 $0 $44 $73 $1,830 Movie Theatres er Seat $125 $49 $0 $0 $0 $487 $73 $734 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 47 - . ~ • Table V-1 b RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES • NORTH !BLAND LAND USE Roads guildln s Parks School Library EMS ,Law Total RESIDENTIAL: Sln k: Fami $3,848 $317 $1;470 $5,447 $205 $525. $194 - $12,003 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $2,011 $208 $963 $1,572 $184 _ . $107 $128 ~ $5,172 Multi-Famll 1 & 2 Sto 52,Q68 $283 $1,311 $2,787 $133 $106 $174 $8,862 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $3,345. $283 $1,311 $2,787 $133 $106 $174 58,139 HoteUMotet -Room $5,399 $212 $983 50 50 $245 5130 $6,969 • Bed & Breakfast -Room • 53,261 5212 $983 50 $0 $24.6 5130 54,832 All Other Residential $4,967 $317 $1,470 $5,447 $205. 5525 $194 513,125 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1 000 FT': General Office 5938 '$280 50 ~ 50 $0 5310 $298 51,825 Medical Office $1,312 $524 50 50 $0 $310 5188 52,332 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': • Under 100 000 FT' $1,628 $412 50 50 50 5487 5698 53,225 100 000-499999 FT' 51,676 5474 50 50 50 $487 5804 $3,441 500 000 & Over 51,878 5377 $0 50 50 $487. $688 53,430 • GASOLINE• 8ERVICES: Service Station Per Position $889 590 50 50 50 $1,610. 5698 $3,288 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $281 540 $0 50 50 $70 536 $427 Truck Temninai 5558 $94 50 $0 50 $70 •571 5792 Generellndusirial 5302 564 $0 $0 50 $74 •556 $492 INSTCrUTiONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT' $696 $423 50 $0 $p 5468 ; $242 $1,830 School - Mlddfe/Hl h Per 7,000 FT' $700 5421 50 $0 $0 $468 $160. . $1,750 ba .Care Per 1;000 FT' $623 $274 50 50 , $0 • • $468 5153 $1,518 • Fraternal O .'Per 1 000 FT' 51,001 $248 50 $0 50 ,$468 $72 $1,790 • . Hos tal Per 1,000 FT= 51,564 $335 50 50 50 $468. 572 $2,439 • Nursl Home Pe? 1,000 FT= $277 5284 $0 50 50 $1,159 $72 $1,791 Lilxa Per 1,000 FT' 52,056 $427 $0 50 50 $468 $73 $3,023 • RECREATIONAL: • Park PubBc Per Acre $331 $9T 50 $0 $0 . • 544 573. 5545 Recreation FacilH all Per 1000 FT' $398 5130 $0 $0 50 $44 $73 $644 . Golf Course Per Acre' 5560 5213 $D 50 . ~ . $0 $44 573 $890 Movie Theatres @f S@;~t 552 $49 50 50 $0 $487 $73 $662 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 48 - ' Table V-7 c RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES ~ FT PIERCE ISLAND LAND USE Roads Bui dins Parks School Library EMS Law Total RESIDENTIAL: ~ ' Sin le Famll $4,449 $317 $1,470 $5,447 $205 $525 $194 $12,606 Mobile HomelRec. Vehicle $2,715 $208 $983' $1,572 $184 $107 $128 $5,877 Multi-Famll 1 8 2 S $2,070 $283 $1,311 $2,787 $133 ..$106 $174.. $8,864 Multi-Ferro) 3 + Stories $3,981 $283 $1,311 $2,787 $133 $108 . $174 $8,755 HoteUMotel -Room $4,318 $212 -$983 $0 $0 • $245 $130 $5,888 Bed ~ Breakfast- Roorn $2,463 $212 $983 $0 $0 $248 $130 $4,034 AU Other Residential $3,981 $317 $1,470 $5,447 $205 $525 $194 $12,118 • OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1000 FTs: GeneralOfBce $T28 $280 $0 •:°'$0 $0 • $310 $298 • $1,614 Medk:alOffice $989 ~~$524 50' $0 50 $310 $188 $2,009 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': ' Under 100 000 FT' $1,870 $412 $0 $0 $0 .$487 $698 $3,468 100,000-499 999 FT' $1,717 . • $474 $0 • $0 $0 $487 $804 $3,482 500,000 & Ove? $1,874 5377 50 $0 $0 $48? $688 $3,226 GASOL• INE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position $1,335 590 50 $0 $0 $1,810 $898 $3,733 INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse $177 $40 $0 $0 ~ $70.~: $36 $324 Truck Termirial ~ 5352 594 50 SO $0 570 $71 $58B • Gendrallndustrial ~ $208 584 50 $0 $0 570.. 556 $396 INSTITUTIONAL: ' School -Elem. Per 1 000 FTz 5230 5423 $0 $0 50 $488 5242 $1,383 School - Mkidle/Hl h Per 1,000 FT' 5519 5421 50 $0 50 $468 $180 $1,568 Da C8re Per 1,000 FT' $472 $274 $0 $0 $0 $468 $153' 51367 Fraternal O .Per 1 000 FT' 5764 5248 $0 $0 $0 $468 $72 $1,552 H tai Per 1000 FT' • 5512 5335 • $0 So 50:. $468 572 $1,387 Nursin Home Per 1 000 FT' $217 5284 50 $0 50 $1,169 $72 $1,732 Libra Per 1000 FT2 51,549 $427 $0 $0 $0 5458 $73 52,517 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre $191 $97 $0 $0 50 'Sao $73 $405 Recreation Faclllt all Per 1 000 FT' 5252 5130 $0 $0 $0 , Sea $73 $498 Golf Course Per Acre $419 $213 50 $0 $0 $a4 $73 $749 Movie Theatres r Seat 842 $49 50 $0 50 $487 ~ 573 $651 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 49 - Table V-1 d RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES SOUTH ISLAND LAND USE Roads Public parks School Library Firel Law Total Buildiri s EMS RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Fami $4,166 $317 $1,470 .$5,447 $205 $525 $194 $12,323 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $2,551 $208 $963 $1,572 $184 $107 $128 $5,713 Multi-Famll 1 & 2 Sto $1,942 $283 51,1,1 $2,787 5133 $106 $174 56,738 Multi-Famll 3 + Stories $3.721 $283 $1,311 $2,787 $133 $108 5174 $6,515 HoteUMotel -Room $4,089 $212 $983 $0 $0 $245 $130 $5,659 Bed & Breakfast -Room $2,338 $212 $983 $0 $0 $246 $130 $3,909 Ali Other Residential $3,721 $317 $1,470 $5,447 $205 $525 $194 $11,878 OFFICE ANO FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT': GenerelOffice $825 $280 $0 $0 $0 $310 $298 $1,713 MedicalOfHce $1,145 $524 $0 $0 $0 $310 $186 $2,165 RETAIL PER 1 000 FT': ' Under 100 000 FT' $1,424 $412 $0 $0 $0 $487 $898 $3,021 i 00,000199,999 FT' $1,478 $474 $0 $0 $0 $487 $804 $3,241 500,000 & Over $1,653 $377 $0 $0 $0 $487 $688 $3,205 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 51,585 $90 $0 $0 $0 $1,610 5698 $3,964 ' INDUSTRIAL PER 1 000 FT': Warehouse 6240 $40 _ $0 $0 $0 $70 $38 $386 Truck Terminal $498 ~ $94 $0 $0 $0 $70 $71 $732 Generallndustrlal $264 $64 $0 $0 $0 $70 $56 $454 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT' . $607 $423 $0 $0 $0 $468 $242 $1,740 • .School - Middle/HI h Per 1,000 FT' $610 $421 $0 $0 $0 $468 $160 $1,659 D Care Per 1 000 FT' $548 $274 $0 $0 $0 $468 $153 $1,443 .Fraternal Or ,Per 1 OOO.FT' $873. $248 $0 $0 $0 $488 572 $1,861 Hos taI Per 1,000 FT' $1,356 $335 $0 EO $0 $468 $72 $2,231 Nursi Home Per 1000 FT' $258 $284 $0 $0 $0 $1,159 $72 ;f,772 Libra Per 1 000 FT' $1,804 $427 $0 $0 $0 $488 $73 $2,771 RECREATIONAL: Park Publk Per Acre $295 $97 - $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $508 Recreation Facilit all Per 1 000 FT' $346 $130 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $592 GoN Course Per Acre $479 $213 $0 $0 $0 $44 $73 $809 Movie Theatres er Seat $42 $49 $0 $0 $0 $487 $73 $651 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 50 - ~ a~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~o C L~dpp' ~ n ~ O M~ ~ M M pp~ 1~~(~ p M = N ~ r ~ Iln 1~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ N ~ 1A (O it 4 V !9 M N CD M r ~O O ~ on~i ~ ~ 8 ~pp~ ~p ~Oyf N cp . ~ fppD~~ ~ 1O~D 1~0~}, f0 1NN1 ~~5 115 M~ ~ O ~~1 ~ N ~ . M ~ c~~ . N N w H Vl ~ f/! Nf f i W ~ M 6n9 1A fA W d9 fA aE ~ a~ a~ a4 a~ a~ ae aE ~ ~ ae ae ae aE a~ ~ ae c u5 v, o n In ~ v ao a co rn M o~ r- n ~~pp 1~ p? ~ c+i ~p 1N~ pppp y ~ M OD N CO O O~ N ~ M M ~ N ~ ~ ~ ' C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a V t1. ~ S N 11~~~' .tr0~}} ~O~yy Of ~~~pp fO ~~~yy 1NN~ 11~ N~N 1C/N~1 N C7 N /h fM7 N ~ ~ H! N M h d! di M K 4N! H t9 ~ ~ ~ fA ~ m ~ IL G tC . O p In M 0p OD t~ aaDD IN ~ ' Q ~ N M r Inq IM ~ ~ r ~ ~ `t h ~ ~ IA tOC ~ O INA a ~ o~ g1~~~p~p~~p~~ ~~~yy1~1+~~~~y ~ W Q ~ $ M Vi ~ ~ fA fA ~ ~ M . H9 W M H ~ r V a d ~ W Z ~ppf 11~ep~ 1p~ pp~ App 1{{+7~ ~ O J O , ~ ~IyD t01~~ 1~~ 1p~ aN0 O ID . M° ~+M7 N N~ N fA . ~ (A C~D t~05 Z ~ N ~ M1 W V~ iR fA w N N fR ~ fR ~ to di a y ~Q ~E ~ ~~'~~ti~~ ~ ~M ~ ~ O 1[5 1~1p5 N ppp~ pp N tb et ~ ~ V) In i'>, tt1pp0 ~1t/~f5 ti ~ M~M . ~ 1t~p~p i- ~ 1~~ . CD f~~, O ~OrS fA d9 ~ . ~ W ~ N ~ ~ N W d9 d9 fA tN9 ~ ~ 10~ ~ N~N pip N~ ~ti} d~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N OW ~ ~ fA ~ i/! W W M dl f9 iA ~ ~ ~ ~ LL OO ' 8g ~ ~ O a g ~ ~ WS oL ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ p ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ C m ~ a ~ o!i ~ U ~ ~ Q '~j O~p 25 O ~ N ~i~X4 ~i ~ c~5 g Iii. ~ ~ ~ O = C ~ ~ V { ~~n~~~io~oapt~~a~.-175 z3~ u~'zv~~i r r fV r fV N 1A fA M S ~ b b g! 3i ~ c~0, N A C U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r in as iri w ~ ~W N N d? ~ . N ~ ~ 1~0~ t~p ~ ~ 1~n, ~M~pp ~ 1t~~0 V ~ ' Q ~ ~ aD @~7 ~ N aD ~ t0 ~ . N~~ ~ F~~~ c > ~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ x g,~~~m~ `~~~m~ ~ ~ • ~ W W~ h H N c+~ . .ra LL . S ~ a ~ ~ 8 ~ ~o ~_a g ~ ~ _ a a ~ ~ o o ~ m R Table V-3 compares the highest updated fees for St Lucie County with the totals for other Florida counties. Many counties do not have all of the impact fees and others have not kept their impact fees current. For example, Monroe County's fees have not been updated since 1987. Also, many are currently in revision, as indicated. Table V-3 COMPARATIVE COUNTY IMPACT FEES County Parks Public Bidg Library Roads EMS LawlJall Fire Other School Total Factlltles Alachua $252 $2.798 .$152 $3,202 Baker $1,500 $1,500 Ba $2 352 $2 352 Bradford $269 210 $2,500 $71 $886 $281 . $1 000 $5 017 Brevard $64 $4 353 S39 $72 $93 $232 $4 445 $9 298 8roward non-Intrll $389 $1,844 $2,233 Charlotte $1 660 $780 $160 $5 080 $300 $400 $8,380 Citrus $723 $625 $251 $4 853 $89 $257. $497 2 109 $9 384 Cla $5 814 $7,034 $12,848 Collier $3 299 $807 $506 $8 884 $112 $53i $1,043 10 099 $25,281 Columbia $1 046 $406 $109 $1 500 $3 061 Desoto $370 $971 163 $4 750 ~ $538 $398 ,562 $i 1,752 Fla ter $268 ~ $1,438 $3 X00 $5 307 Gilchrist $1,000 $1750 $750 $3500 Glades $386 $3 383 ~ $93 $4 322 8144 Hend $2,490 $5,101 $7 591 Hernando $501 $302 $154 $3,627 $99 $99 $4 288 $9,048 Hi hlands $757 $245 6 594 $915 $759 $5 601 $15 070 Hillsborou h $354 $1 475 $49 $2 000 $3 877 Indian River 1,463 $206 $483 $5,202 $244. 278 245 $1 758 $9 877 Lake $222 $191 $2,189 369 $9 324 $12 295 Lee $1 479 $8 978 $94 $T39 $4 309 $15 597 Lev $150 $1,046 $53 $S3 $1302 Manatee $971 $7 013 $839 $182 $6 350 $15 355 Marion ~ $5 462 '$252 $3 51 B $9 230 Martin $2 345 $438 $456 $ 891 $459 $357 $5,567 $12 511 MIamUDade 1173 $1,275 $411 $177 $2,448 $5,484 Monroe $340 $242 $633 $150 $105 $1,470 Nassau $520 5231 $1,430 $150 .$121 53,726 $8 178 Oran a $1 123 $3500 $193 $201 $11,829 $16,848 Osceola $924 $8 877 $159 $9,981 $17,941 Palm Beach $1 540 $148 $181 $4 822 $171 $528 $3,998 $11,367 Pasco 892 $145 $5,313 5172 248 $4 356 $11126 Pinellas $1 923 $1 923 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 53 - ~ ~ + . Table V-3 • COMPARATIVE COUNTY IMPACT FEES County Parks Public Bldg Ubrary Roads EMS L.awlJail Fire Other School Total Facilities Polk $444 $197 $5,844 410 $313 4171 $11,379 Putnam $227 $2,290 $70 $88 $4 347 $7,023 Santa Rosa $2,237 $2,237 Sarasota $2,348 $303 $380 8,515 $101 $880 $197 $2,032 $14 756 Seminole $54 $1 081 $172 $5 000 $6,287 St Lucie 515 $392 $205 E2 324 $194 $525 $5,447 $9 802 St. Johns $753 $378 $3,830 $188 $501 $3 895 $9 545 Sumter $1,998 $397 $2 393 Volusia 568 $2 044 $278 $6 086 $8,954 Wakulla 53 $317 $119 $522 $236 $1,247 Mean 5852 5493 231 $3 828 $87 $379 307 $239 $4 516 $8,381 Median $543 $385 $197 $2 845 $82 $279 $252 $239 $4 309. $8 667 St Lucie U dated $871 $317 $205 $4 828 $994 $525 $5447 $12 384 2009 Impact Fee Update -March 30, 2009 - 54 - Agenda Item 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ~ PLANNING DIVISION • . - MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Lee Ann Lowery, Assistant County Administratot~' FROM: Kara Wood, Planning Manager Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director l~' DATE: April 24, 2009 SUBJECT: Western Lands Planning -April 28, 2009 BOCC Informal Meeting Over the past many months, Growth Management staff has been working toward the development of a planning study to address the future of the western agricultural lands of St. Lucie County. Attached is a PowerPoint presentation summarizing progress to this point and requesting Board discussion and direction on the proposed study area, study framework and the process for selecting a lead consultant. Western Lands Planning 3~. ~ ~ . , - Proposed Framework for Board Discussion & Direction a2U20o9 Board of County Commissioners Informal Workshop-Apri128, 2009 7 Background _ . ¦ Staff has been developing a general process and scope for a planning study to address fundamental issues regarding the future of land in western St. Lucie County with an Agricultural Future Land Use. ¦ Outlined herein is a proposal for ¦ Study Area ¦ Study Framework ¦ Technical Expertise Needs ¦ Lead Consultant Selection Options 1242009 2 1 Proposed Western Lands Stud Area s i ~ Futur se ' i ~ a ~ FLU designations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 - i , ~ ' ~ _ l ~ 4 i,/ i`~ 3 Proposed Study Framework 1. Evaluation of current land uses, trends and impacts 2. Overview of land conservation tools 3. Significant stakeholder input process, including interviews, focus groups, public workshops 4. Conceptual master plan scenarios based on public input 5. Fiscal assessment of conceptual plan scenarios 6. Proposed Transfer of Development Rights program 7. Recommended final master plan scenario 8. Comp Plan Amendments and LDR revisions - preparation and adoption 2 Technical Expertise To fully address the proposed study framework, the following expertise would be required: ¦ Consensus building through a public process ¦ Economic and fiscal analyses ¦ Natural systems planning ¦ Rural concerns and agricultural interests and needs ¦ Transfer of Development Rights ¦ Land design, with experience in rural/ag settings ¦ Land development regulations, with experience in agricultural and rural application ¦ Comprehensive planning arzarzoos s Lead Consultant Selection Options 1. Establish Interlocal Agreement with other public agency (i.e. TCRPC, FAU, UF, TCRC&D) ¦ No competitive selection process required ¦ County can provide input/approve technical team 2. Choose from private firm on continuing contract for planning (MSCW, Miller Legg, Urban Design Studio) ¦ No additional competitive selection process required ¦ County can provide input/approve technical team 3. Utilize RFQ/RFP process ¦ Competitive selection process 3-4 months minimum ¦ Typically involves a team established by proposer ananoo9 e 3 Staff Request BOCC to discuss and provide direction on proposed study framework and Lead consultant selection 424/2009 7 4 April 24, 2009 Please note: The City Manager has indicated that a revised Joint Planning Agreement will be provided by end of day, Monday, April 27. CITY OF FORT PIERCE -OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM :~~~E1V'E D TO: David Recor, City Manager ~~E _ PROM: Robert V. Schwerer, City Attorney .y ~ SUBJECT: Interlocai A Bement - Research Pazk Annexations G~TY of FT. PIERCE gT ply MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: Apri115, 2009 Pursuant to our discussion, this memo encloses the proposed draft of an interlocal agreement to be entered into between the City and St. Lucie County regarding annexation of the TCERDA properties. Such draft incorporates suggested points itemized by you and other staff. Please k in d this is an initial working draft. Accordingly, I suspect you and the Co 'ssion ma have additional comments. ~ oar- s Lc ,P ~ ~ Robert .Schwerer, Esq. G~,.Q ~ City Attorney ~ ~ ,f}-s,~- J~-'' r S'l_C C~''' Attachment C~ ~ : C S-_ N ~ _ + ~ C R ~ a- ~ ~ T:1Current File Foldcrs11vI1;MOS.RV51Itecar, DnvidITCGRDA 04-I5-09.doc INTERLOCAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE ON THC DEVELOPMENT OF TREASURE COAST RESEARCH PARK This Interlocal Development Agreement is made and entered into as of the day of 2009, by and between the City of Fort Pierce, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (henceforth "City") and St. Lucie County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City possesses Municipal Home Rule Powers pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b}, Florida Constitution and Section 166.021, Florida States; and WHEREAS, the County possesses powers as aNon-Charter County pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1(f),. Florida Constitution and Section 125.01 Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01, Florida States, permits local governments to cooperate within one another on matters of mutual interest and advantage and provides for interlocal agreements between Iocal governments on matters that influence and affect local communities; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, requires that cities and counties include intergovernmental coordination in their respective planning efforts; and WHEREAS, the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to protect the substantial investment in existing public facilities and to plan far and finance new facilities in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; and WH>JREAS, St. Lucie County has created the Treasure Coast Research and Development Authority ("TCERDA"), under the authority of FIa. Ch. 159, Part V, for the pluposes of development, operation, management, and financing of a research and development park, known as the Treasure Coast Research Park (:TCERDA") as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached; and WHER)GAS, the City and County have agreed that the location of the TCERDA land and potential annexation lands as indicated on Exhibit `B" attached, represents a logical expansion of the City of Fort Pierce; and WH>CRIJAS, this lnterlocal Agreement is entered into for the purpose of establishing certain agreements, policies and understandings which will facilitate the development of TCERDA Park and in so doing promote the mutual health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and County, while further establishing intergovernmental relations that encourage, promote and improve the coordination, overall effectiveness and efficiency of governmental activities and services within the TCERDA Park; and WHEREAS, the elected officials of the City and County have met and negotiated in good faith to resolve issues relating to development and planning as such development and planning concerns TCERDA Park, and wish to memorialize their understanding in this agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County find this agreement to be necessary, proper and convenient to the exercise of their powers, duties and purposes authorized bylaw. 2 T:1Current File FolderslInterlocnl Agreements\TCfiFtDA tIA-15-09.doc NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, agreements and mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficient of which aze hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals and Authority. The forgoing recitals aze taste and correct and by this reference are hereby incorporated as a material part of this Agreement. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Florida Law, including but not limited to Chapters I25, 163,166 and 171, Florida Statu#es, and the Florida Constitution. SECTION Z. Annexation of Lands. The City may annex, all within the manner provided for by law, those certain lands depicted in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, representing the area to be governed under this V ~ v Agreement, and for their part the County, its member agencies and dependent special districts shall not object to any such annexation. Further, the County and its agencies and dependent special districts agree not to object to annexation of any lands westward of the TCERDA Parlc land west of the Turnpike, as designated on Exhibit "B" hereto during the term of this Agreement. Potential annexation areas referred to herein consist of lands likely to be developed for urban purposes and are therefore jointly understood to be appropriate for annexation by the City. SECTION 3. Adoption of -Land Development Re~ulafions. The City will contemporaneous with annexation of the properties described in Exhibit "A" draft land development regulations so as to implement the TCERDA Conceptual Development Master Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", with such drafting and adoption by the City to be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare and in a manner comporting with requirements of general law. 3 T:1Current File PaldcrslInterlocal AgreemenlslTCERDA 04-15-Q9.d~ ~ SECTION 4. Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Program. Both the City and County agree to provide any lands located within the TCERDA Park subject to approvals as needed, tax abatements as authorized in Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes. In all events, the City agrees to provide tax abatements to the TCERDA Parlc equal to and identical with those provided by the County. SECTION 5. Development Plan Review and Permitting. Upon annexation of one or more of those properties described above by Exhibits "A" and `B", said property or properties shall, upon their annexation, be subject to the City's requirements as set forth in its Code of Ordinances, for development, plan review, permitting and inspections. SECTION 6. Intersovernmental Review and Coordination. The City and County agree that the impacts of certain developments previously under the jurisdiction of the County can and will affect the nature of development within the adjacent unincorporated sections of the County. The following provisions are included to address a desire by both parties to ensure a level of consistency and compatibility in development application review and permit approvals: a. Charrette. The City agrees to participate in aCounty-funded charrette process to plan the encompassing areas surrounding those certain Lands identified in Exhibit "A" attached. Said charrette shall be held within the year following adoption of this Agreement. b. Building Permits. The City and County agree that the Cifiy Building Department shall provide building services and will serve as the 4 T:1Curnnt File FoldersllnterIocal AgreementslTCERDA 04-15-09.doc agency responsible for reviewing and issuing permits in accordance with , C~,n~ the requirements of Chapter 5 of the City s Code of Ordinances. t~ f ~ c. Coordination of Land Development Applications and Development Standards. Subject to application of the City's Land Development Regulations, upon annexation of the property or properties described in Exhibits "A" and `B" aforesaid, the City will give the County Planning Duector or designee written notice of the following matter, relating to such properties: (i) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (ii) Rezonings ~_1J""" (iii) Special Exceptions (iv) Conceptual Development Plans (v) Site Plans No later than 10 days after receiving the application, and in no event less than 20 days prior to a public hearing on any item listed above, the City will transmit a copy of the application, including all support and backup material, to the County. The County will review the application within 20 ' days of receipt and make a finding as to compliance with the TCERDA Conceptual Development Master Plan. Any such findings shall be transmitted to the City and shall be included in the City's staff report on said application. The aforesaid staff report of the City shall additionally include any written recommendations by County staff regarding the proposed application. For its part, the City Commission agrees to consider 5 ZiCutrent File FoldersUntcdocal AgreemenlslTCERDA 04-15-09.dac all such findings and recommendations of the County. In the event there is disagreement between the County and City over whether the City's 2 adoption of any land development regulation is consistent with the ~ TCERDA Conceptual Development Master Plan, any such dispute shall be subjected to the provisions and requirements of the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act, Fla. Ch. 154, upon timely request, and application of said Act shall be a prerequisite by invocation of an aggrieved party to alternative means of relief. SECTION 7. Withdrawal of Resolution. The recitals and agreements provided far herein are an adequate substitute for whatever relief, if any, is atherwise available to either of the parties pursuant to Fla. Ch. 171, Part II, entitled the "Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act", and the County accordingly withdraws County Resolution No. 48-382. SECTION 8. Notice to Parties. All notices, consents, approvals, waivers, or elections that either party hereto requests or gives under this Agreement will be in writing and shall be given only by hand-delivery for which a receipt is obtained, or certified mail, prepaid with confirmation of delivery requested. Notices will be delivered or mailed to the addresses set forth below or as either party may otherwise designate in writing. If to the County: St. Lucie County Attn: County Administrator 2344 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 St. Lucie County Attn: County Attorney 2340 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 6 T:\Current File FoldcrsVnterlocal Agreements\TCERDA 04-[5-09.doc If to the City: City of Fort Pierce Attn: City Manager 100 North U.S. Highway 1 Post Office Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 City of Fort Pierce Attn: City Attorney 100 North U.S. Highway 1 Post Office Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 Notices, consents, approvals, waivers and elections will be deemed given when received by the party for whom intended. SECTION 9. Discharse. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the City and the County, and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party. Nothing in this Agreement, whether expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person, corporation or governmental entity other than the parties any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof, and all of the provisions, representation, covenants and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements between the parties with respect thereto. SECTION 11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 7 'r:lCurrcnt Filc Folder;llnEer(oaol AgreementslT'CL-12DA D4-IS-09.doe SI+;CTION 12. Recording of Agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall, at the City's expense, cause this Agreement to be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida SECTION 13. I<;ffectrve Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon filing with the C1erlc of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 163.01{ll). IN WIZ'NI<;SS WHER>COF, the County and the City have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. ATTEST: ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Joseph E. Smith Paula Lewis, Chairman for the Clerk of Court Board of County Commissioners APPROVI+;D AS TO FORM AND CORR>CCTNESS: Daniel S. McIntyre, Esq. County Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE The foregoing instrument is acknowledged before me this day of 2009 by Paula Lewis, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida. She is personally known to me and did not take an oath. Notary Public-State of Florida [Notary Seal] Print Name: My commission expires: 8 T:1Current File FoldersUnlcrlocal AgreementslTCERDA 0415-09.doc ATTEST: CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA BY: Cassandra Steele Robert J. Benton, III, Mayor City C1erlc APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Robert V. Schwerer, Esq. City Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA . COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE The foregoing instrument is acloaowledged before me this day of 2009 by Robert J. Benton, III, as Mayor of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida. He is personally lmown to me and did not take an oath. Notary Public-State of Florida [Notary Seal] Print Name: My commission expires: 9 T:1Currcnt Tile Tolder5lInterlocal Agreements\TCERDA 04-1i-09.doc Agenda Item 5 ~ - INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA • TO: Board of County Commissioners Faye W. Outlaw, MPA, County Administrator FROM: Daniel 5. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO.: 09-0492 DATE: April 17, 2009 SUBJECT: Joint Planning and Interlocnl Service Boundary Agreement between the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County Attached for discussion purposes is n draft Joint Planning and Interlocnl Service Boundary Agreement between the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County prepared by County staff. Also attached is a copy of a draft agreement prepared by City staff. There appear to be significant differences between the two drafts. The agreement will be agendaed for discussion at your April 28 informal meeting. Please note that the County staff draft is a work in progress. If there are any changes in the staff draft before your informal meeting, a revised draft will be provided to you. DSM/caf Attachments Copy to: Assistant County Administrator Growth Management Director Ben D. DeVries, Executive Director R. MacLaren, Esq. APB ~ a ~Q~ AD{~fST~i1~~~ JOINT PLANNING AND INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY (TREASURE COAST RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS) This Joint Planning and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (the "Agreement" is made and entered into this day of , 2009, by and between the City of Fort Pierce, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City") and St. Lucie County, n political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County"). WHEREAS, the City possesses Municipal Home Rule Powers pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b), Florida Constitution and Section 166.021, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the County possesses Home Rule powers as anon-charter county pursuant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, encourages and empowers local government to cooperate with one another on matters of mutual interest and advantage, and provides for interlocal agreements between local governments on matters such ns annexation and joint planning; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Annexation or Contraction Act, Chapter 171, Part I, Florida Statutes, and the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, recognizes the use of interlocal service boundary agreements and joint planning agreements as a means to coordinate future land use, public facilities and services, and protection of natural resources in advance of annexation; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Pnrt II, Florida Statutes, requires that counties and cities include in their respective planning efforts intergovernmental coordination and particularly, mechanisms for identifying and implementing joint planning areas, especially for the purpose of annexation; and 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6~D Park.wpd Pnge 1 of 15 WHEREAS, The State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to direct development to those areas which have in place the land and water resources, fiscal abilities and service capacities to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner; and WHEREAS, the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to protect the substantial investment in public facilities that already exist and to plan for and finance new facilities in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; and, WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to adequately plan and develop the Treasure Coast Research and Development Park ("Research Park"), as depicted on Composite Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and surrounding areas, identify the appropriate land uses and transportation infrastructure needs and provider for such lands, ensure protection of natural resources, jointly develop economic development initiatives including the identification of jobs corridors and agree on certain procedures for the timely review and processing of development proposals within those areas; and WHEREAS, the extension of City and County facilities and services to the Research Park and surrounding areas should be provided in prioritized phases. The process and timing of annexation and development review processes for certain designated areas of the City and County should be clearly identified and jointly coordinated in advance of the City and County capital planning, commitment, and expenditure; and WHEREAS, Subsection 163.3171(3), Florida Statutes, provides for the adoption of joint planning agreements to allow counties and municipalities to exercise jointly the powers granted under the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City, after consultation with its staff, has determined that the lands included in the Joint Planning Area described herein may be necessary to reasonc?bly accommodate urban growth projected in the City during the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City and the County find that the benefits of intergovernmental communications and coordination will accrue to both Parties; and WHEREAS, the elected officials of the City and the County have met and negotiated in good faith to resolve issues relating to annexation and joint planning of the Research Park and surrounding areas and wish to memorialize their understanding in this Agreement; and 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRbD Pnrk.wpd Page 2 of 15 WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of Article VIII of the Florida Constitution, the City of Fort Pierce Charter, and Chapters 125,163,166 and 171, Florida Statutes (2008). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and the County agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Preamble. The Preamble above is true and correct and incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. Establishment of Joint Plnnning Aren. To establish the means and process by which future annexations and planning activities will be accomplished, the City and the County (the "Parties") hereby establish n Joint Planning Area (JPA), depicted in Composite Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All areas specif ically delineated, mapped and referenced in the legend on Composite Exhibit "A" are within the JPA. 3. Limitation on Future Annexations. A. Within the Joint Plnnning Area, the City and the County agree to the following criteria on annexation: 1. The City agrees not to annex any property within the Research Park. The County agrees not to use ns a basis for objecting to annexations adjacent to the Research Park the fact that the Research Park has not been annexed into the City and such adjacent properties are not contiguous to the City municipal boundaries. 2. The areas outside the Research Pnrk but inside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit "A" as Potential Annexation Aren "A", may be annexed by the City without the requirement of contiguity with City municipal boundaries. 3. Other areas outside the Research Park and outside the FPUA retail service area, designated on Composite Exhibit "A" as "Potential Annexation Area "B", are eligible for annexation by the City with the prior written consent of the County without the requirement of contiguity with City municipal boundaries. B. The City and the County agree to develop n schedule of annexation for properties within Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Aren "B" that consist of land likely to be developed for urban and economic development purposes under the term of this Agreement and which are therefore appropriate for annexation by the City. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRbD Park.wpd Page 3 of 15 C. The City and County agree that the City shall provide notice to the County within thirty (30) days of receipt of any petition to annex properties within the JPA or initiation of an annexation ordinance by the City. Included within the notice to the County, the City shall provide a report to the County showing that the annexation is consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 4. County Consent to Annexations of Potential Annexation Areas by the City If an annexation ordinance of the City is adopted under the conditions set forth in this Agreement, the County will not challenge, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, such annexations by the City set forth in said annexation ordinance. 5. Land Use. Infrastructure and Environmental Agreements for Potential Annexation Arens within the Research Pnrk. A. Process for Incorporating Potential Annexation Arens into CitX Comprehensive Plan. Future land uses are identified herein and agreed to by the City and the County for each of the areas within Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Area "6". These future Innd uses will be examined during the City's comprehensive plan update pursuant to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. During the process to update the City's comprehensive plan, the City and County will agree on future land use categories and design guidelines for the specific lands in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Area "B". The City will adopt the future land uses as an overlay to its comprehensive plan. Specific policies addressing allocations of acreage, density, and intensity of development shall be included for each future land use category. If one or more of the future land uses are not adopted by the City as an overlay, then the Innd uses on the County's Future Land Use Map as to that parcel(s) shall apply unless another land use category acceptable to both Parties is adopted. Once in effect, the overlay will serve to govern any future land use map amendments occurring after annexation. Prior to annexation, the County will not revise its future land uses to redesignate any parcels in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Area "B" to a use incompatible with the designations set forth in this Agreement or the overlay. The County is under no obligation to change the land use designations for any parcel in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Area "B" B. Land Development Code Standards; Development Permits: The parties agree that the County shall issue all development permits within the Research Park and be responsible for enforcing County code provisions. The City may serve in a consultative role to the County in the development review process. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Pork.wpd Page 4 of 15 C. Service Delivery Provider with the Research Pnrk. The following provisions are applicable to the service delivery providers and transportation improvements of the areas within the Research Park whether they are annexed by the City or remain within the unincorporated area of the County: Service Delivery Provider Fire/EMS St. Lucie Fire District Law Enforcement St. Lucie County Sheriff Water/Sewer Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Natural Gas Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Electric Florida Power & Light Roads/Transportation County Stormwater County Solid Waste County Zoning; Development Permit Issuance/Code Enforcement County Once the Research Park is developed, the County may enter into an agreement with the Research & Development Authority for the maintenance of the roads, Stormwater ponds, parks or common areas. 6. Intergovernmental Review and Coordination. A. Coordination of Developments of Extra jurisdictional Impact. The City and the County agree that the impacts of certain development, herein referred to as "Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impacts;' in close proximity to the boundaries of the Research Pnrk, whether within the City limits or in the unincorporated area of the County, require that the Parties closely coordinate such developments in order to assure the orderly and efficient provision of public facilities and services and compatibility of land uses. B. Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact, defined. Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact shall have meaning: Any development within the Joint Planning Area set forth on Composite Exhibit "A". C. Coordination of County Planning Activity. The County will give the City Planning Director, or designee, written notice of the following matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the unincorporated area of the County depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6~D Park.wpd Page 5 of 15 (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional uses/Special Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit Developments; or (5) Site Plans D. Development Proposals within the City's Jurisdiction. The City will give the County Growth Management Director, or his designee, written notice of matters or applications that relate to Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact located within the municipal boundaries of the City depicted on Composite Exhibit "A" which matters or applications include but are not limited to: (1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (2) Rezonings; (3) Conditional Uses/Special Exceptions; (4) Planned Unit bevelopments; or (5) Site Plans E. Process for Coordination of Developments of Extra jurisdictional Impact. The Parties will adhere to the following process in order to facilitate intergovernmental coordination regarding Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact: (1) Not later than thirty (30) days after receiving an application, and in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing on a proposed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact, the Party with approval authority (the "Approving Party") will transmit the application packet for the proposed development, including all back-up material, to the other Party (the "Reviewing Party") a. The Approving Party will transmit any substantive changes to the application packet made during the review process to the Reviewing Party within five (5) business days of its receipt by the Approving Party and in no event less than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing. b. The Reviewing Party will transmit comments within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the item(s) listed in subparagraphs C.1, 2, or 3 or D.1. 2, or 3, above. If the Reviewing Party does not respond in writing within twenty (20) working days, then it is deemed to have no recommended conditions for inclusion in the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, special exception or development concept plan. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\iNTERLOC\FP-TCR~D Pnrk.wpd Page 6 of 15 c. The parties agree to take reasonable steps to facilitate the review process set forth herein. (2) Agreement to Incorporate Conditions. a. The City's recommendation to the City Planning and Zoning Advisory Board and City Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed Development of Extra jurisdictional Impact will set forth all County-proposed stipulations that are based on adopted County standards, neighborhood and community plans, industry standards, or common agreement between the City and County. b. The County's recommendation to the County Planning & Zoning Commission and County Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed Development of Extrajurisdictional Impact will set forth all City-proposed stipulations that are based on adopted City standards, neighborhood and community plans, industry standards, or common agreement between the City and County. F. Approval of Reviewing Party Not Required. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 6.E.(2) hereof, unless otherwise specified herein in Paragraphs 5 and 9, the Parties will not construe any provision of this Agreement to require: (1) City approval of the County's planning activities or of Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact within the unincorporated area of the County; or (2) County approval of the City's planning activities or of Developments of Extrajurisdictional Impact within municipal boundaries of the City. G. Coordination of Further Plnnnina Efforts in the JPA. The City and the County agree to coordinate further long range planning efforts and studies within the JPA. This coordination includes, but is not necessarily limited to (a) implementation of the Planned Nonresidential Development overlay district within the Research Park; (b) implementation of a Transportation Concurrency Management Aren for Kings Highway; (c) a design charette for the parcels in Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Area "B". 7 Incorporation into Comprehensive Plans. No later than the next City EAR plan amendments, the Parties will incorporate into the Future Lnnd Use, Transportation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, and ns necessary other Elements of their respective Comprehensive Plans the provisions of this Agreement as is necessary to effectuate the intent of the Agreement and the obligations assumed by each of the Parties. S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Park.wpd Page 7 Of 15 As necessary, within one year of adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments, the Parties will amend their Land Development Codes. 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution. A. The parties agree to resolve any dispute related to the interpretation or performance of this Agreement in the manner described in this Section. Either Party may initiate the dispute resolution process by providing written notice to the other Party within 90 days of the Party having received written notice of the action in accordance with Paragraph 12 herein. Failure to raise the dispute within 90 days of receipt of written notice of the action shall constitute a waiver of said dispute. Initiation of the dispute resolution process shall operate as a stay of the action which is the subject of the dispute. B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that either Party determines in its sole discretion and good faith that it is necessary to file a lawsuit or other formal challenge in order to meet a jurisdictional time deadline, to obtain a temporary in junction, or otherwise to preserve a legal or equitable right, such lawsuit or challenge may be filed, but upon the filing and any other act necessary to preserve the legal or equitable right or to obtain the temporary injunction, the Parties shall thereafter promptly file a joint motion with the reviewing court or administrative law judge requesting that the case be abated in order to afford the Parties an opportunity to pursue the dispute resolution procedures set forth herein. If the abatement is granted, the Parties shall revert to and pursue the dispute resolution procedures set forth herein. C. After transmittal and receipt of a written notice specifying the areas of disagreement, the Parties agree to meet at reasonable times and places, as mutually agreed upon, to discuss the issues. D. If discussions between the Parties fail to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days of the written notice described in subparagraph A above, the Parties shall appoint a mutually acceptable neutral third party to act as n mediator. If the Parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the County shall request appointment of a mediator by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. The mediation contemplated by this Section is intended to bean informal and non-adversarial process with the objective of helping the Parties reach a mutually acceptable and voluntary agreement. The decision- making shall rest solely with the Parties. The mediator shall assist the Parties in identifying issues, fostering joint problem-solving, and exploring settlement alternatives. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRd~D Park.wpd Page 8 of 15 E. If the Parties are unable to reach a mediated settlement within ninety (90) days of the mediator's appointment, either Party may terminate the settlement discussions by written notice to the other Party. F. Either Party must initiate litigation or move to end the abatement specified in paragraph B above, within thirty (30) days of the date on the notice terminating the settlement discussions or such action is barred. Resolution by failure to initiate litigation shall not be considered to be acceptance of the interpretation, position or performance of the other Party in any future dispute. G. The Parties agree that this dispute resolution procedure satisfies the requirements of Chapter 164, Florida Statutes. 9. Agreement on Additional Substantive Standards and Issues. In addition to the matters set forth above, the Parties agree to the following additional substantive standards and issues: A. Each party agrees that as a part of its review of development applications within the JPA set forth in Composite Exhibit "A" that it will apply its own comprehensive plan policies, land development regulations and methodologies to assess the impacts on the public facilities for which it is financially responsible. In addition, any application in which concurrency is determined will be provided to the other party which will conduct a concurrency review based on its comprehensive plan policies, land development regulations and methodologies to address impacts to public facilities which are its financial responsibility. Any concurrency approval will incorporate the results of reviews by both Parties. B. The Parties agree to enter into negotiations within three (3) months of the execution of this Agreement and to finalize an interlocn) service boundary agreement within twelve (12) months thereafter, and if necessary, a longer timef rnme shall be agreed to by both Parties, which may create an agreement to address annexation and service delivery issues within the area identified in the County's initiating resolution (Resolution No. 08-382). If the agreement is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot agree on a longer timeframe, failure to complete the agreement shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement. C. The Parties agree that within three (3) months of the execution of this Agreement, they will negotiate a scope of services with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council or other acceptable entity which shall create n special planning study for the JPA depicted on Composite Exhibit "A"hereto. The study will be completed in twelve (12) months, and if necessary, a longer timeframe shall be agreed to by both Parties. The study will 5.\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\Fp-TCR&D Pcrk.wpd Page 9 of 15 include, but not be limited to, infrastructure cost estimates, aesthetic improvements, and a determination of which land uses will be compatible and consistent with adjacent developments and consistent with the Parties' vision of the Research Park set in the Research Park Master Plan. No consideration of land use changes by either party, unless mutually agreed upon, shall occur until the planning study is completed and mutually agreed upon. If the study is not completed within twelve (12) months and the Parties cannot agree on a longer timefrnme, failure to complete the study shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement. The Parties shall implement the site design and architectural standards recommended by the study. The County and City shall pay their equal share for the cost of the study. D. Both the City and the County agree to respect each others land use compatibility principles in zoning petitions for any parcels within Potential Annexation Area "A" and Potential Annexation Aren "B". The land use compatibility reviews referenced above shall include an evaluation of land use density, intensity, character or type of use proposed, and nn evaluation of site and architectural mitigation design techniques. E. The Parties agree to cooperate on the preparation and implementation of any neighborhood or community plans within the areas subject to this Agreement. F. The Parties agree that in order to protect the limited, valuable natural and financial resources that exist within the region, development must proceed in a sustainable manner. Sustainability measures such as Green Building, Florida Green Building Standards and LEED Certification will be encouraged by both Parties for all new development. G. The City and the County agree to coordinate and encourage economic development within the JPA and further agree, to the maximum extent possible, to offer qualified applicants the same economic development incentives including but not limited to ad valorem tax incentives. 10. Other Rights and Agreements. A. Other Rights. Nothing in this Agreement precludes either the City or the County from exercising its rights pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to challenge any regional impact development order. B. Other Contemporaneous Agreements. The Parties do not intend for this Agreement to amend, modify, supersede, or terminate any other agreement between the City and County in effect as of , 2009. The parties specifically agree that this 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR4D Park.wpd Page 10 of 15 Agreement does not amend the utility service area boundaries set out in that certain Interlocal Agreement dated February 10, 2004. 11. Notice to Parties. All notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections that any Party requests or gives under this Agreement will be in writing and shall be given only by hand delivery for which a receipt is obtained, or certified mail, prepaid with confirmation of delivery requested. Notices will be delivered or mailed to the addresses set forth below or as either Party may otherwise designate in writing. If to the County: With a copy to: St. Lucie County St. Lucie County Attorney ATTN: County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 If to the City: With a copy to: City of Fort Pierce Fort Pierce City Attorney ATTN: City Manager Post Office Box 1480 Post Office Box 1480 Fort Pierce, Florid 34954 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954 Notices, consents, approvals, waivers, and elections wi I I be deemed given when received by the Party for whom intended. 12. Discharge. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the City and the County, and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party. Nothing in this Agreement, either expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person, corporation or governmental entity other than the parties any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof, and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement may be relied upon by any current or future parcel owner in the JPA as creating any investment backed expectation of development rights for such parcels. 5:\nTTY\AGREEMNT\iNrERLOC\FP-TCR6~D Pnrk.wpd Page 11 of 15 13. Validity of Agreement. The City and the County each represent and warrant to the other its respective authority to enter into this Agreement, acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the Agreement, and waive any future right or defense based on a claim of illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any nature. The City hereby represents, warrants and covenants to and with the County that this Agreement has been validly approved by the Fort Pierce City Commission at a public hearing of the Fort Pierce City Commission held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, that it has been fully executed and delivered by the City, that it constitutes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordance with its terms, and that the enforceability hereof is not subject to any impairment by the applicability of any public policy or police powers. The County hereby represents, warrants and covenants to and with the City that this Agreement has been validly approved by ordinance of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing of the Board held pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.317(3), and Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes, that it has been duly executed and delivered by the County, that it constitutes a legal, valid and binding contract enforceable by the Parties in accordance with its terms, and that the enforceability hereof is not subject to any impairment by the applicability of any public policy or police powers. 14. Enforcement. Subject to Section 9 above, this Agreement shall be enforceable by the Parties hereto by whatever remedies are available in law or equity, including but not limited to injunctive relief and specific performance. 15. Covenant to Enforce. If this Agreement or any portion hereof is challenged by any judicial, administrative, or appellate proceeding (each Party hereby covenanting with the other Party not to initiate or acquiesce to such challenge or not to appeal any decision invalidating any portion of this Agreement except as otherwise provided in this Agreement), the Parties collectively an individually agree, at their individual sole cost and expense, to defend in good faith its validity through to a final judicial determination, unless both Parties mutually agree in writing not to defend such challenge or not to appeal any decision invalidating any portion of this Agreement. 16. Term. Review and Termination. A. Original Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon its f fling with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County and, unless amended or extended in accordance with its terms, shall expire on , 2029. B. Extension. This Agreement shall be automatically extended past the original term for one additional ten (10) year term unless either the City or the County, as the case s:\aTTY\nGREEMNT\iNTERLOC\FP-TCR&D Park.wpd Page 12 of 15 may be, delivers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the original term of this Agreement. If it is extended for an additional ten (10) year term, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for one additional five (5) year term unless either the City or the County, as the case may be, delivers a notice of non-renewal to the other Party at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year extension. A Party delivering such a notice of non-renewal as aforesaid may, in such Party's sole discretion, revoke such notice of non-renewal at any time prior to the expiration date of the original term or any extended term of this Agreement. C. Review. During the comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report review process required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, each Party will review the terms of this Agreement and consider amendments, as necessary. D. Alternate Term. If the law does not allow this Agreement to have the term set forth above, then the term shall be twenty (20) years or the maximum term of years allowed by law, whichever is greater, and at least eighteen (18) months before the expiration of the twenty (20) year term the Parties agree to commence negotiations for another interlocal agreement to govern the matters addressed in this Agreement. 17. Amendment. Amendments may be proffered by either Party at any time. Proposed amendments shall be in writing and must be approved by a ma jority of the boards of both Parties. 18. Subsequent Legislative Enactments. The Parties agree and covenant, having given and received valuable consideration for the promises and commitments made herein, it is their desire, intent and firm agreement to be bound by and observe he terms of this Agreement wherever such terms are more stringent than those subsequently enacted by the Legislature. 19. Miscellaneous. A. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement embodies and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters addressed herein, and all prior agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are superseded by this Agreement. B. Governing Lnw and Venue. The Inws of the State of Florida shall govern this Agreement, and venue for any action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR&D Park.wpd Page 13 Of 15 C. Compliance with Chapter 171 Pnrt II Florida Statutes The Parties agree that this Agreement also meets the requirements of Chapter 171, Part II, Florida Statutes. 20. Severnbility. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in ay situation in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chairman and affixed its official seal, attested by its Clerk pursuant to the Authorization of the Fort Pierce City Commission and St. Lucie County, Florida has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair and affixed its official seal, attested by its Clerk, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of County Commissioners on the day and year indicated below. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chair Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ATTEST: BY: City Clerk Mayor Dated: 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCRbD Park.wpd Page 14 of 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: City Attorney 5:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\INTERLOC\FP-TCR6D Park.wpd Pnge 15 of 15 Shinn Rd \ v a ~ ~ v I _a ~ T ~_y_ K K [ K K K, K Q ' d. \ K K K K K K f C f ( f f [ O ~ K K K K K K K ( t i f ( ( [ K K K K f t t t t t K . 1. . , l ~ I K f K Kind ivy ~ / ~P ~I y~~ J.e ~k~ s j' CC ,r - - G v _ i~,Rd ~:l ~ Hartman Rd ~ _ _ ~~r _ i ~ ~ _ r_... ` _ ~T - ~ ~ 5th St (r ~ < _ ~ a _ ~ _ ~ ~ ao3t a~® p~ ~ N o v a ~ o C O o ~ ~ ~ ~ y c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rt = ~ L N G ~ ~ ~ C r d N fD ~ Q 'm 3 0 N ~ m fo ~ m m m N C `G Q I~ D a1 N ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 n ~ ~ w, N m ~ ~ ~ 0 > > ~ _S 0 •V ~ ~ ~ D d d ~ 3 ~•cc cd D D <D ~D _ ~ ~ i