The URL can be used to link to this page

11-18-2019 - Regular City of Edgewater 104 N.Riverside Drive Edgewater,FL 32132 EpGEWATER Meeting Minutes City Council Monday,November 18,2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers 3rd Monday due to Budget&Veterans Day 1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL,PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,INVOCATION Present: 5- Mayor Mike Thomas,Councilwoman Christine Power,Councilwoman Kimberly Yaney, Councilwoman Megan O'Keefe,and Councilman Gary Conroy Also Present: 3- City Attorney Aaron Wolfe,City Clerk/Paralegal Robin Matusick CMC,and City Manager Glenn Irby 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-None at this time 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONATIONS a. AR-2019-4095 Presentation to EdgeFest Fall Festival supporters. This presentation was read into the record. b. AR-2019-4434 American Cancer Society's Relay For Life Fundraising Event seeking to partner with City of Edgewater EDGEfest event on May 15,2020 This presentation was read into the record. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve the waiving of the Special Activity Fees for the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life Fundraising Event on May 15,2020.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mary Wells, 2011 Mango Tree Drive:stated that she is giving her time to Libby Lavette. Libby Lavette, 1820 Hibiscus Drive:read a letter that she wrote into the record. Bill Billman, 2612 Mango Tree Drive: stated that he would like to give his time to Libby Lavette. 5. APPROVAL OR CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve and continue Item #8b & 48d being postponed until a date certain on December 2, 2019. The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: City of Edgewater Page I Printed on 21312020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Councilwoman Yaney also requested to also pull Consent Agenda Item#7h for discussion Mayor Thomas confirmed that he needed no motion to pull a consent item 6. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Power reported: attending the Team Volusia Meetings in Daytona and at the Brannon Center. Councilwoman Yaney reported: attending the Edgewater Animal Shelter Fundraiser, the Run to the Sun event is still open for registation and all proceeds will benefit the Edgewater Animal Shelter. Counilwoman O'Keefe reported: nothing at this time. Councilman Conroy reported:nothing at this time. Mayor Thomas reported: attending the Mayor and City Manager Breakfast, the Round Table Meeting and thanked the Police Department for the recent drug bust that ended in 39 arrest warrants. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Councilman Conroy, second by Councilwoman Power, to approve the Consent Agenda pulling "h".The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy a. AR-2019-4440 Approval to Contract with Enviro-Tech of America, Inc. for Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG) Treatment within the Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant b. AR-2019-4451 Fully Insured lines of coverage Insurance Premiums for Calendar Year January 1, 2020-December 31,2020 C. AR-2019-4462 Authorization to H&H Liquid Sludge Disposal Inc. for Biosolids Transportation and Disposal d. AR-2019-4467 2020 Elections Polling Place Agreement for Precinct 901/910(City Council Chambers) e. AR-2019-4470 Award and authorize the City Manager to execute the revised contracts to Mead & Hunt, Traffic Engineering Data Services Inc., CPH Inc., ECT Inc., Zev Cohen & Associates, Bentley Architects & Engineers Inc., Kimley-Horn, and Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hoitt for per terms and conditions of RFQ 19-GS-0I I - Continuing Professional Engineering Services(CCNA)for the City of Edgewater City of Edgewater Page 2 Printed on 21312020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 f. AR-2019-4472 Award and authorize the City Manager to execute contracts with Southern Georgia Staffing and Waterfield Florida Staffing, LLC for (ITB 19-GS-013) Temporary Staffing Services for the City of Edgewater. g. AR-2019-4473 Authorization for the City Manager to execute the contract to piggyback on the City of Palm Coast award to Universal Engineering Sciences for Building Inspection and Plans Reviewer Services. h. AR-20194486 Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract to Construct Co., Inc., for George R. Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall, Dock & Boat Ramp Repair/Replacement per terms and conditions in ITB 19-PR-016. Councilwoman Yaney's Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and other Public Officers has been filed and attached. Councilwoman Yaney informed Council that their company, YES Electric had received a call from Construct Company to install temporary power at Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall. City Attorney Wolfe then informed Council that that creates a voting conflict for Councilwoman Yaney so she needs to abstain from voting, state what the conflict is (which she has already done)and abstain from voting on this item. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve Consent AGenda Item#7h.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 4- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Abstain: 1- Councilwoman Yaney i. AR-2019-4488 Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Jacob Schumer of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer & Hand P.A., for Special Magistrate Services for the City of Edgewater. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS,ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. 2019-0-26 2nd Reading - Ordinance 2019-0-26 amending Ordinance No. 2014-0-20 relating to the City of Edgewater, Florida Firefighters' pension plan; providing for compliance with Chapter 2019-21, Laws of Florida which mandates certain amendments to the plan. City Attorney Wolfe read Ordinance No. 2019-0-26 into the record. City Manager Irby made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilman Conroy, second by Councilwoman Power, to approve Ordinance No. 2019-0-26 amending Ordinance No. 2014-0-20. The MOTION was City of Edgewater Page 3 Printed on 21312020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy b. 2019-0-24 2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-24: Amending the language implementing the Impact Fee program set forth Article XVII (Development/Impact Fees) of the Land Development Code. Pulled and continued until a date certain,December 2,2019 C. 2019-0-27 2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-27: Glenn D. Storch, requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.29± acres of land located at 3757 S. Ridgewood Avenue and the two vacant parcels to the south as Medium Density Residential with Conservation Overlay. City Attorney Wolfe read Ordinance No. 2019-0-27 into the record. Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staffpresentation. Glenn D. Storch made a presentation. Libby Lavette, 1820 Hibiscus Drive:discussed her concerns with the lack of green space. Denise Dale, 908 Fernald Street:requested that native plants be planted at any new development. Richard Simmon, 165 Costa Rica:stated that the HOA Board is in favor of this amendment. Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilwoman O'Keefe, second by Councilwoman Power, to approve Ordinance No.2019-0-27.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 4- Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy No: 1- Mayor Thomas d. 2019-0-25 2nd Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-25: Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees. Pulled and continued until a date certain,December 2,2019 e. 2019-0-19 2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-19: Constance Silver requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map and to repeal and restate the Julington Oaks PUD Agreement for development now known as Lakeview Estates. City Attorney Wolfe read Ordinance No. 2019-0-19 into the record. Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staff presentation. City of Edgewater Page 4 Printed on 213/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 Gigi Bennington, 121 Virginia Street: believes that building single car garages will result in parking issues. Libby Lavette, 1820 Hibiscus Drive:requested that the developers use native plants. Mary Wells, 2011 Mango Tree Drive: discussed her concerns with the 100 year flood plan and flash flooding. Denise Dale, 908 Fernald Street:suggested more requirements for storm water and native plants. Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve Ordinance No.2019-0-19.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy f. 2019-R-23 Resolution 2019-R-23 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract#ASF54 City Attorney Wolfe read resolution No. 2019-R-23 into the record. City Manager Glenn Irby made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve Resolution No. 2019-R-23 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract #ASF54 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy g. 2019-R-22 Resolution No. 2019-R-22; November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. City Attorney Wolfe read resolution No. 2019-R-22 into the record. Finance Director Bridgette King made a staff presentation. Denise Dale, 908 Fernald Street: is requesting that we budget to repair Riverside Drive. Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilwoman O'Keefe, to approve Resolution No. 2019-R-22 the November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: City of Edgewater Page 5 Printed on 2/3/2020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 9. BOARD APPOINTMENTS-None at this time 10. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting went into Recess at 7.•28 pm Meeting Reconvened at 7:32 pm a. FP-1902 FP-1902- Michael J. Good, requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes subdivision. A motion was made by Councilman Conroy, second by Councilwoman Power, to approve FP-1902- Michael J. Good requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes Subdivision. The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy b. AR-2019-4490 City Sponsored Mediation City Manager Irby requested direction from Council on a neighborhood dispute in Florida Shores that has been going on for a couple of years between the neighbors. City Attorney stated that it would have to be a 3 party mediation, the City would have to have a representative & then the 2 neighbors with mediators typically costing approximately $350.00- 400.00 per hour plus the City Attorney & probably the City Manager or his designee. C. AR-2019-4493 Utility Rate Study Services Agreement - Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. - Addendum#I Libby Lavette, 1820 Hibiscus Drive: believes the City should negotiate a rebate. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilwoman O'Keefe, to approve Addendum #1 to the Utility Rate Study Services Agreement - Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 3- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power and Councilwoman O'Keefe No: 2- Councilwoman Yaney and Councilman Conroy d. AR-2019-4461 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as subrogee of Joseph Manzi, v. City Of Edgewater Case No.:2019 14577 CODL A motion was made by Councilwoman Power, second by Councilman Conroy, to approve the settlement with State Farm to conclude the lawsuit. The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: City of Edgewater Page 6 Printed on 2/3/2020 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas,Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney,Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 11. OFFICER REPORTS a. City Clerk Robin Matusick reported: the only thing I have is that no one got back to me on the tentative 2020 Schedule, if you are okay with it, I will go ahead&post it on our city website&agenda. b. City Attorney Aaron Wolfe reported: Fire Association Litigation quick update - we are at the point now where I can start taking depositions so I have scheduled 3 depositions of the plaintiffs representatives for January. In the Marina case - we sent out initial Discovery Interrogatories & a Request to Produce Documents. Plaintiff Thorallson just recently responded so we are in the process of going through that and the other plaintiff in the case, we do not have her responses yet but they are due in the next day or two&will analyze that&go forward in the case. c. City Manager Glenn Irby reported: late last week we received $145,000.00 from FEMA as reimbursement for Irma, this may sound like lot but it is a little amount since they still owe us 1.1 million. 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS Libby Lavette, 1820 Hibiscus Drive:discussed a Town Hall Meeting that she requested. Mary Wells, 2011 Mango Tree Drive: believes a Town Hall Meeting is a good idea. Cori Sapp, 2630 Travelers Palm Drive: does not believe the city should get into civil matters. Leo Towsley, 2828 Unity Tree Drive:discussed his thoughts on the city easement near his home. Denise Dale, 908 Fernald Street:discussed native plants and how it can positively impact the city. 13. ADJOURN There being no further business to discuss, Mayor Ignasiak adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Kelsey Hanna,Assistant to the City Clerk City of Edg—ater Page 7 Printed on 21312010 City Council Meeting Minutes November 18,2019 ATTEST: APPROVED: CJC, Robin Matusick, City Clerk/Paralegal or City ojEdg—ter Page 8 Printed on 21312010 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE • Y MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,4COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY *�liry ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCALAGENCY IQNAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIO^N:— DATE ON H VOTE OCCURRED �.,30C ` w e 1 MY POSITION IS: LECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). « ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. « « « « « « « APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ) DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST &,-Q V kV6n hereby disclose that on—AQy4Xr\ a v I$ , 20 (a)A easure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more) 7inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ; inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ; inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: OtA C,oft'.ym y Wczs Coni-c-o.� e�d If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. [)kg Date Filed Signa e NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 813-EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. J Cit of Edgewater 104 N.Riverside Drive Y g Edgewater,FL 32132 I TER Action Summary City Council Monday,November 18,2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers 3rd Monday due to Budget&Veterans Day 1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL,PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,INVOCATION Present: 5- Mayor Mike Thomas, Councilwoman Christine Power, Councilwoman Kimberly Yaney, Councilwoman Megan O'Keefe, and Councilman Gary Conroy Also Present: 3- City Attorney Aaron Wolfe, City Clerk/Paralegal Robin Matusick CMC, and City Manager Glenn Irby 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-None at this time 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONATIONS a. Presentation to EdgeFest Fall Festival supporters. b. American Cancer Society's Relay For Life Fundraising Event seeking to partner with City of Edgewater EDGEfest event on May 15, 2020 A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve the waiving of the Special Activity Fees for the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life Fundraising Event on May 15,2020.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power,Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS 5. APPROVAL OR CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve and continue Item#8b&#8d being postponed until a date certain on December 2,2019.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Councilwoman Yaney also requested to also pull Consent Agenda Item#7h for discussion Mayor Thomas confirmed that he needed no motion to pull a consent item 6. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS City of Edgewater Page 1 Printed on 1112112019 City Council Action Summary November 18,2019 7. CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Councilman Conroy,second by Councilwoman Power,to approve the Consent Agenda pulling"h".The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy a. Approval to Contract with Enviro-Tech of America, Inc. for Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG) Treatment within the Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant b. Fully Insured lines of coverage Insurance Premiums for Calendar Year January 1, 2020- December 31, 2020 C. Authorization to H&H Liquid Sludge Disposal Inc. for Biosolids Transportation and Disposal 2020 Elections Polling Place Agreement for Precinct 901/910 (City Council Chambers) Award and authorize the City Manager to execute the revised contracts to Mead & Hunt, Traffic Engineering Data Services Inc., CPH Inc., ECT Inc., Zev Cohen &Associates, Bentley Architects & Engineers Inc., Kimley-Horn, and Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hoitt for per terms and conditions of RFQ 19-GS-011 - Continuing Professional Engineering Services (CCNA) for the City of Edgewater X4 Award and authorize the City Manager to execute contracts with Southern Georgia Staffing and Waterfield Florida Staffing, LLC for(ITB 19-GS-013) Temporary Staffing Services for the City of Edgewater. g. Authorization for the City Manager to execute the contract to piggyback on the City of Palm Coast award to Universal Engineering Sciences for Building Inspection and Plans Reviewer Services. City of Edgewater Page 2 Printed on 1112112019 City Council Action Summary November 18, 2019 "31. Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract to Construct Co., Inc., for George R. Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall, Dock & Boat Ramp Repair/Replacement per terms and conditions in ITB 19-PR-016. Councilwoman Yaney informed Council that their company,YES Electric had received a call from Construct Company to install temporary power at Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall. City Attorney Wolfe then informed Council that that creates a voting conflict for Councilwoman Yaney so she needs to abstain from voting,state what the conflict is(which she has already done)and abstain from voting on this item. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve Consent AGenda Item#7h.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 4- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Abstain: 1 - Councilwoman Yaney Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Jacob Schumer of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer& Hand P.A., for Special Magistrate Services for the City of Edgewater. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS,ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Ordinance 2019-0-26 amending Ordinance No. 2014-0-20 relating to the City of Edgewater, Florida Firefighters' pension plan; providing for compliance with Chapter 2019-21, Laws of Florida which mandates certain amendments to the plan. A motion was made by Councilman Conroy,second by Councilwoman Power,to approve Ordinance No.2019-0-26 amending Ordinance No.2014-0-20.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy b. 1 st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-24: Amendment to Article XVII (Development/Impact Fees) of the Land Development Code Pulled and continued until a date certain, December 2, 2019 C. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-27: Glenn D. Storch, requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.29± acres of land located at 3757 S. Ridgewood Avenue and the two vacant parcels to the south as Medium Density Residential with Conservation Overlay. A motion was made by Councilwoman O'Keefe,second by Councilwoman Power,to approve Ordinance No. 2019-0-27.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: City of Edgewater Page 3 Printed on 1112112019 City Council Action Summary November 18, 2019 Yes: 4- Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy No: 1 - Mayor Thomas d. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-25: Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees. Pulled and continued until a date certain,December 2,2019 e. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-19: Constance Silver requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map and to repeal and restate the Julington Oaks PUD Agreement for development now known as Lakeview Estates. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve Ordinance No.2019-0-19.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Resolution 2019-R-23 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract #ASF54 A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve Resolution No.2019-R-23 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract #ASF54 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy Resolution No. 2019-R-22; November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilwoman O'Keefe,to approve Resolution No.2019-R-22 the November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 9. BOARD APPOINTMENTS- None at this time 10. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting went into Recess at 728 pm Meeting Reconvened at 7:32 pm City of Edgewater Page 4 Printed on 1112112019 City Council Action Summary November 18, 2019 a. FP-1902 - Michael J. Good, requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes subdivision. A motion was made by Councilman Conroy,second by Councilwoman Power,to approve FP-1902-Michael J.Good requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes Subdivision.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy b. City Sponsored Mediation City Manager Irby requested direction from Council on a neighborhood dispute in Florida Shores that has been going on for a couple of years between the neighbors. City Attorney stated that it would have to be a 3 party mediation,the City would have to have a representative&then the 2 neighbors with mediators typically costing approximately$350.00-400.00 per hour plus the City Attorney& probably the City Manager or his designee. C.: Utility Rate Study Services Agreement- Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. -Addendum #1 A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilwoman O'Keefe,to approve Addendum#1 to the Utility Rate Study Services Agreement- Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 3- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power and Councilwoman O'Keefe No: 2- Councilwoman Yaney and Councilman Conroy d. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as subrogee of Joseph Manzi, v. City Of Edgewater Case No.: 2019 14577 CODL A motion was made by Councilwoman Power,second by Councilman Conroy,to approve the settlement with State Farm to conclude the lawsuit.The MOTION was APPROVED by the following vote: Yes: 5- Mayor Thomas, Councilwoman Power, Councilwoman Yaney, Councilwoman O'Keefe and Councilman Conroy 11. OFFICER REPORTS a. City Clerk Only thing I have is that no one got back to me on the tentative 2020 Schedule, if you are okay with it, I will go ahead&post it on our city website &agenda. City of Edgewater Page 5 Printed on 1112112019 City Council Action Summary November 18,2019 b. City Attorney Fire Association Litigation quick update-we are at the point now where I can start taking depositions so I have scheduled 3 depositions of the plaintiffs representatives for January. In the Marina case-we sent out initial Discovery Interrogatories&a Request to Produce Documents. Plaintiff Thorallson just recently responded so we are in the process of going through that and the other plaintiff in the case,we do not have her responses yet but they are due in the next day or two&will analyze that&go forward in the case. c. City Manager Late last week we received$145,000.00 from FEMA as reimbursement for Irma,this may sound like lot but it is a little nugget since they still owe us 1.1 million. 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN Adjourned at 8:48 pm City of Edgewater Page 6 Printed on 1112112019 City of Edgewater 104 N.Riverside Drive Edgewater,FL 32132 0 - ,EDGEWATER Meeting Agenda City Council Monday,November 18,2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers 3rd Monday due to Budget&Veterans Day We respectfully request that all electronic devices are set for no audible notification. 1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL,PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,INVOCATION 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-None at this time 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONATIONS a. Presentation to EdgeFest Fall Festival supporters. b. American Cancer Society's Relay For Life Fundraising Event seeking to partner with City of Edgewater EDGEfest event on May 15,2020 Attachments: Relay for Life ACS May 2020 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS This is the time for the public to come forward with any comments they may have. Citizen comments relating to any agenda matter may be made at the time the matter is before Council. Please state your name and address, and please limit your comments to three(3)minutes or less. 5. APPROVAL OR CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA 6. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless discussion is desired by a member of the Council, in which case the Mayor will remove that item from the consent agenda and such item will be considered separately. a. Approval to Contract with Enviro-Tech of America, Inc. for Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG) Treatment within the Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Attachments: Enviro Tech Last Extension Agreement Naples Executed 2019-10-01 thru 2020• City of Edgewater Page 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 City Council Meeting Agenda November 18,2019 b. Fully Insured lines of coverage Insurance Premiums for Calendar Year January 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 Attachments: Insurance Renewal Premiums.01.01.20-12.31.20 C. Authorization to H&H Liquid Sludge Disposal Inc. for Biosolids Transportation and Disposal Attachments: H&H Liquid Sludge Disposal. Inc.-Professional Services Agreement-Sludge ITB 19-WW-12 Holly Hill Pricing Form.pdf d. 2020 Elections Polling Place Agreement for Precinct 901/910(City Council Chambers) Attachments: Election-202013olling Place Agreement e. Award and authorize the City Manager to execute the revised contracts to Mead&Hunt,Traffic Engineering Data Services Inc.,CPH Inc.,ECT Inc.,Zev Cohen&Associates,Bentley Architects & Engineers Inc., Kimley-Horn,and Booth,Ern,Straughan& Hoitt for per terms and conditions of RFQ 19-GS-011 -Continuing Professional Engineering Services(CCNA)for the City of Edgewater Attachments: Bentley contract BESH contract CPH contract ECT contract KHA contract Mead Hunt contract TEDS contract Zev Cohen contract f. Award and authorize the City Manager to execute contracts with Southern Georgia Staffing and Waterfield Florida Staffing,LLC for(ITB 19-GS-013)Temporary Staffing Services for the City of Edgewater. Attachments: Southern Georgia Staffing Inc contract Waterfield Florida Staffing contract ITB 19-GS-013-Temporary Staffinq Services for the City of Edgewater ITB 19-GS-013-Temporary Staffing Services for the City of Edgewater-bid ops g. Authorization for the City Manager to execute the contract to piggyback on the City of Palm Coast award to Universal Engineering Sciences for Building Inspection and Plans Reviewer Services. Attachments: RFP-CD-19-86 Bid Manual and Forms Palm Coast accecptance to piggy back Universal acceptance of piggyback contract Universal contract City of Edgewater Page 2 Printed on 1111212019 City Council Meeting Agenda November 18,2019 h. Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract to Construct Co.,Inc., for George R. Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall, Dock& Boat Ramp Repair/Replacement per terms and conditions in ITB 19-PR-016. Attachments: Construct Co contract ITB 19-PR-016-George R. Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall. Doric-Boat Rami DMC recommendation DMC-Bid Review i. Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Jacob Schumer of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer&Hand P.A., for Special Magistrate Services for the City of Edgewater. Attachments: Special Magistrate Request of Interest 9-23-19 Jacob Schumer SpecialMagistrate-2019 agreement-signed 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS,ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Ordinance 2019-0-26 amending Ordinance No. 2014-0-20 relating to the City of Edgewater, Florida Firefighters' pension plan; providing for compliance with Chapter 2019-21, Laws of Florida which mandates certain amendments to the plan. Attachments: 2019-0-26 Firefighter Cancer Pension Change 20191009100442356EFR cancer chq b. 1st Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-24: Amendment to Article XVII(Development/Impact Fees) of the Land Development Code Attachments: 2019-0-24 Edgewater Impact Fee Analysis C. 1 st Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-27: Glenn D. Storch,requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.29±acres of land located at 3757 S. Ridgewood Avenue and the two vacant parcels to the south as Medium Density Residential with Conservation Overlay. Attachments: 2019-0-27 Aerial Map Location Map Future Land Use May Conceptual Plan d. 1 st Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-25: Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees. Attachments: 2019-0-25 Edgewater Impact Fee Analysis City of Edgewater Page 3 Printed on 11/12/2019 City Council Meeting Agenda November 18,2019 e. 1 st Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-19: Constance Silver requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map and to repeal and restate the Julington Oaks PUD Agreement for development now known as Lakeview Estates. Attachments: 2019-0-19 Location Map Aerial Map PUD Agreement Master Plan L--> Color Master Plan i C Dwelling Unit Elevations f. Resolution 2019-R-23 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract#ASF54 Attachments: 2019-R-23-FDOT Highway Maintenance Contract ASF54 FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Agreement ASF54 FDOT-AR 494 R1-Highway Maintenance Renewal March 2017 g. Resolution No.2019-R-22;November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Attachments: 2019-R-22 Budget Adjustments-November FY20 with Exhibit A 9. BOARD APPOINTMENTS-None at this time 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. FP-1902-Michael J.Good,requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes subdivision. Attachments: Aerial Aerial View Location Map Final Plat b. Discussion of City Sponsored Mediation C. Utility Rate Study Services Agreement- Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. -Addendum#1 Attachments: Addendum no 1 PRMG assignment of contract d. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as subrogee of Joseph Manzi,v.City Of Edgewater Case No.:2019 14577 CODL 11. OFFICER REPORTS City of Edgewater Page 4 Printed on 1111212019 City Council Meeting Agenda November 18,2019 a. City Clerk b. City Attorney c. City Manager i 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN Pursuant to Chapter 286, F.S., if an individual decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, that individual will need a record of the proceedings and will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The City does not prepare or provide such record. i In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact City Clerk/Paralegal Robin L. Matusick, CMC, 104 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, Florida, telephone number 386-424-2400 x 1102, S days prior to the meeting date. If you are hearing or voice impaired, contact the relay operator at 1-800-955-8771. City of Edgewater Page 5 Printed on 1111212019 COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Thomas Councilwoman Power Councilwoman Yaney Councilwoman O'Keefe Councilman Conroy Also Present - City Manager Glenn Irby City Attorney Aaron Wolfe City Clerk/Paralegal Robin Matusick Monday, November 18, 2019 CITY CLERK REPORT—November 18, 2019 ITEM 411.a. 1) On October 7t", I handed out a tentative calendar for 2020 for everyone to review & provide comments - are you okay with me publishing the calendar as is? C '/L. �1c2►. l C it (Clerk/Council/Clerk Reports/01-22-2019) CITY OF EDGEWATER,Regular CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY,November 18, 2019 AGENDA We respectfully request that all electronic devices are set for no audible notification. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,INVOCATION 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -None at this time 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONATIONS a. Presentation to EdgeFest Fall Festival supporters b. American Cancer Society's Relay for Life Fundraising Event seeking to partner with City of Edgewater EdgeFest event on May 15, 2020 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS This is the time for the public to come forward with any comments they may have. Citizen comments relating to any agenda matter may be made at the time the matter is before Council. Please state your name and address, and please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. 5. APPROVAL OR CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA 6. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Councilwoman Power Councilwoman Yaney Councilwoman O'Keefe Councilman Conroy 7. CONSENT AGENDA- a. Approval to Contract with Enviro-Tech of America,Inc for Fats, Oils,&Grease(FOG)Treatment within the Wastewater Collection system and Wastewater Treatment Plant b. Fully Insured lines of coverage Insurance Premiums for Calendar Year January 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 C. Authorization to H&H Liquid Sludge Disposal, Inc - for Biosolids Transportation and Disposal d. 2020 Elections Polling Place Agreement for Precinct 901/910 (City Council Chambers) 1 e. Award and authorize the City manager to execute the revised contracts to Mead& Hunt, Traffic Engineering Data Services, Inc., CPH, Inc, ECT, Inc, Zev Cohen&Associates, Bentley Architects & Engineers, Inc, Kimley-Horn, and Booth, Ern, Straughan& Hoitt for per terms and conditions of RFQ 19-GS-011 - Continuing Professional Engineering Services(CCNA) for the City of Edgewater f. Award and authorize the City manager to execute contracts with Southern Georgia Staffing and Waterfield Florida Staffing, LLC for(ITB 19-GS-013)Temporary Staffing Services for the City of Edgewater g. Authorization for the City Manager to execute the contract to piggyback on the City of Palm Coast award to Universal Engineering Sciences for Building Inspection and Plans Reviewer Services h. Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract to Construct Co, Inc for the George R. Kennedy Memorial Park Seawall, Dock& Boat Ramp Repair/Replacement per terms and conditions in ITB 19-PR-016 i. Authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract with Jacob Schumer of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer& Hand, PA for Special Magistrate Services for the City of Edgewater MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. 1 st Reading-Ordinance No.2019-0-26-amending Ordinance No.2014-0-20 relating to the City of Edgewater, Florida Firefighters' Pension Plan; providing for compliance with chapter 2019-21, Laws of Florida which mandates certain amendments to the plan READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (if any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL I 2 G i b. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-24 - Amendment to Article XVII (Development Impact Fees) of the Land Development code READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (f any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL C. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-27 - Glenn D. Storch requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.29+acres of land located at 3757 S. Ridgewood Avenue and the two vacant parcels to the south as Medium Density Residential with Conservation Overlay READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (if any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL d. 1 st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-25 - Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (if any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL 3 e. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-19 - Constance Silver requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map and to repeal and restate the Julington Oaks PUD Agreement for development now known as Lakeview Estates READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (if any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL f. Resolution No. 2019-0-23 - FDOT Highway MOA Maintenance Contract#ASF54 READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (f any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL g. Resolution No. 2019-0-22 -November Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 READ INTO THE RECORD STAFF REPORT APPLICANT PRESENTATION (if any) OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL 9. BOARD APPOINTMENTS -None at this time 4 Y 10. OTHER BUSINESS - a. FP-1902 - Michael J. Good requesting Final Plat approval for the Woodbridge Lakes Subdivision MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL b. Discussion of City Sponsored Mediation MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL C. Utility Rate Study Services Agreement - Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc - Addendum 41 MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL d. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as subrogee of Joseph Manzi vs City of Edgewater- Case No. 2019 14577 CODL MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL 11. OFFICER REPORTS a. City Clerk b. City Attorney c. City Manager 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN 5 r l 1 M.r. z � o � N O *NEW CD ow M � O ►. O OMEW Onow OMW 0 ow ---------------- n � ow O 0 n OM=d OMW 40 O �, CD CD e Cl4 � CD CD CD CDCD 0 CD CD CD cD � O \.pun • CD ~� cD o CD C-D p CD ►•� � CDCD O IrD o CD CD CD O � cD CDo O SND CD CD CD O! fD O n C CD o � • C-D w CD CD iii''' �,pa•��;. .r 1 cr C a 3 cn p iii y,rm -n . DQ 00 � mzm m �1 H .�. � � .� ..�M..;� .�.��• ��N.'J. .rte,.! ��'�� . • �M 0 *Now 0 M�• Q O CD CD c CD � . CD > V � (D CD (D �- O CD CD CD CD cry � c CD CD CD . CD CLLcn C). n C) o v ,..� . N O CDcn O CD y � CD �� n ►-�� > � CL CD CD n ,..,. CD CD CD 0 O ~• � ,CD.� v NCD U4 CD CD CD U4 " �„♦ n C p� CD CD CD p o CD CD CD CD n � �S CD ►-� c 0 � O � C COD �► U4 � � O r'• � CD CD • CCD CD M■■� 0 CD C� C C� CD C-D CD • w C4 UQ �► CD 0 - - J CDCD � ' O CD '--� c� CD CD CDCD CD CD CD CD CD O �Q �D • CD O CD CD � o � CD 0 � p N � CD o D CD CCD p 1 CD OCD CD `p �:s N O• UQ r+ O • CCD e CD CD CD c CD CD o � • � C � C� CCD � � o � c� I + C CDCD �• CD o .0 M OEM CD CD CD �- • r+ CDCSD (rq • CD CD CD CD CD C 4 £LL, a ay M w` y 4sw{ 4 �s m : mow. �d i. 1 xIF 3 fz a El 1 lb 4�D os 4 aid vo �`' 4 oa � � �gS � o Ni . . . #a Ar i 119 3 f 17 1 l "t7+,"'"mss°.-•"1i�� 1 !;rMPL RAF" w v �si �^ jl.• . ..4.s ,. --•`S -�.+AOS y.Y .tom • C� CL CD 01 O CD CD rD 0 o • � O C c N • CD Up CD CD I ('D CD El " Q r-r- CD � ~ CD CD CD c CD CD O CD C'D CD 0 �5� ® 'r;,, �� s .� � � � ��.,�. __ ;, �� n� P 4 �" ,� .mss _�i.. ��x e,t`- ` �� -�` �-`'� �'� , y 1 + f I f � 1 (L a n x Y o R �.�. s •j a m® i�jrry r a r dir-- -+wmb-.*win— � � \ � \ , , �\�\■ �� \ � a . � \ � : y�f �/� �' �\ ~ � � \ � � , \ � \, �© ' � Z�\ \/�'� � � . �� : £,i : � + �� ` { � , ` ~ a ■ \ / , � , s � ® f , ! � �K� � ■ . & � a . , a , » * , ■ �^�) ` ` � s � � a s � ■ ^ ■ . , � . �s � | .�a .� � jam■ ` ' s � ' - e ` � , ` , ■ � - ■ �� - ■ � � . ■ � � � � ■ ■ > �� . | s �� m C O _ = � r A A n x_ t St AR0 b v� U 11J � � a Fla i o� �3 r` r Idid ng r y MH R� ILI amp0 aft P P i 4 . I E T � �� '. `�. '�— � � 3 1 F+ F t� � � �, � �� ,� e. .� �y . y 1 - � k, �J r k p � � Y� L j � �� _ r® � h. C' � 'e �� a�3 _� ��. �' ` � �. . �� ` `� t ;e o C O r Y i r pi _ o r� X LK ,6S `VI ` 00 iqallr ,r Lu cc W w ' as �r KKe_ do r _ a R 411C �. = w F O c� OEM 0 Q1 O CD O C C) n e-+ -p O • O C �s C M� W o C e� CD N n N � O N O N O +� W g iJi t,1, A A {a A A A41 �j p O O O o o U A �. p A L g w N O �+ U D m r G r- r 3 c -V+ m A V) o - m -� to � T "0 -I m Z A 0 r 0 m y � u p m m A A p 0 T h m A 0 x T m c W - r -� Z <. -I -� y m = n m r m p Z m m m „ 3 ° A D m ¢ ; r40 m m T D 0 Z X p G m Z G 0 p r > D r p Z (A W Z D �' r m Q W -� =� D 3 r m A r 0 H m --1i m 4� < < m A V, z D z = A -1 > Z x C m Q m m m m r- p m `m M n j 3 m j m mr. x m T Z � 0 F p z C '0 m m 0 a m rm Z Z � 3 m a 3 m ,, z �+ m =_ C = y H G -1 m Z Z T 'n Z 'i t � ; ED y p r m 3 -1 -1C Z p m 0 z > m r m = to m 0 3 0 z m x �' z v v m ° -n Z m -+ m T c m 0 z v w N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m pn v A A + + N fA + W W O A � IS N i W i V p i A Q 4 �+ II��11 {► p OT ++ i N U o co 00 W U w -� O U N O 0) W O tb U W -+ O U O W 0 W " m UOOWO < m to z A W W i 0) 0 ,4 V M a 0! a a 00 V W V W C* 0 A D O U .W 9 v � -1 0) i 4 V 9 W A 0 N C Q W 0 A 0 pp 4 N N O O �I - O A ww�� N 46 A a O 0) O N O O to O O U O O O h O v O O O O A O 4 o, + m e + + + w w N mZ W .a y A 4� v + A -I P 0 •+ i N w 0 W0) W t71 tD N O 0) N A -+ T O W " W -� O -+ I7) OD W 0) O -� U Z N N N + w w a w + mm 0 4 O W A ih 4 M i Oa W O O A A tt' V W 4 it A Q4 4 Gn C th vL y t p ° q ° w p . o Cg y m 0 X M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M N N N 3 x = m m c' N + w + V 7i + 0 0 V + 0, y 0, w + + N V Z v k' T W +T OD N V p a 0) D W a W a O -+ iT Ob m M "+ N N N •+ W W O W + tt d iL C W tD W N O -� to W tow N m v Ch W + A to O t0 + m W O O a p tD w O) d t� t- O Q to *fp a Ol y m Ch *J o +4 + O 4 W N O O O 0 00 A O 4 a N N 4 O �4 v A O v Q5 6 O Lb p O V N N N N M N M 40 N N N N N N N M M M N M N M M M M N N 0 7 N t&A cD V P -, y Y A 3 U O W i N (n D1 0) V i i i i N Z a 0 A W + 00 N N 0) 00 i Oa 0 !i m to w m Ot a to 0) a td 0 o a a y � � � � `� o �, �. � � I • �• �D O • O 0 � O . cU � CD � o C CD �. o ` f . � ° ¥ , ! . \ ^ ! ® • \ � \ . . - r . z . . . > . : ■ _ . � �yy � r rx CL W ;k " INV. - t r . 33 1,��..-°�� l�'M �� ',lk !. � � w- • tlr ` ,fes iI u y l r � p if if r` � i ; i V - If } �r t J � r 1 f fir' I ! Met 1 11 !!ll ! :j:' '--- �, �!� tae a! as{° I � �l ��li�� !• �� !ll��` � � 1 •�+ � �5 i P " ' U C ` 9 (� a iF" a �� '� i E §-• ''r' ,. if r All R 4 i w g i E ' M { 1 tz 14) t �• tjHM[ 8 �i f it tT I 1 r Lai 1 0 e 0 I--I� M■d e l 1 0 CCD CD o � � C v CD uV 1 � Ica CD CD I � O o CD C CD N CD � J � J � N ►� CD C O n CD l 1 ^ ^ e--r C O � CD cCD CD CD �• CD CD N CD fD � �r CD CDcn o t� CD CD CD �- IrD O CD � � n CD l 1 � �• N � V � N O O CD O �- C MISS • J �f 11/18/2019 City of Edgewater-File#:2019-0-25 Sign In i� . Cil,of 1 J✓ f ,DGEWATE C. Home Legislation Calendar City Council Departments People © © `D Share 'D RSS 'UAlerts Details Reports File #: 2019-0-25 Version: 1 Name: Type: Ordinance Status: Agenda Ready File created: 10/29/2019 In control: City Council On agenda: 11/18/2019 Final action: Title: 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-25: Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees. Attachments: 1. 2019-0-25, 2. Edgewater Impact Fee Analysis History(0) Text COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: title 1 st Reading - Ordinance No. 2019-0-25: Update to the Schedule of Impact Fees. body DEPARTMENT: Development Services SUMMARY: The-Citg contracted with Mead& Hunt to complete an Impact Fee Analysis and update the Impact Fee Program. Impact fees are a fee charged by governments to developers/builders as a total or partial reimbursement for the cost of providing additional facilities or services needed as a result of new development (e.g. new roads, schools, parks etc.). The City of Edgewater has seen significant residential growth over the past several years and with it increased need for infrastructure improvements. This growth is expected to continue in the future. Although Resolution 2004-R-13 allows for the annual review/adjustment of all impact fees by City staff, the City has not increased its impact fees for Police, Fire/EMS, Parks and Open Space, and Transportation since 2006. Utility Impact fees were last adjusted in 2009. `Ph s-ahi tl-ys includes a review of the City's impact fee ordinances, population estimates through 2038 and reonn3eidations for impact fee adjustments to support projected growth. It offers the following fee components for the City of Edgewater: • Police • Fire • Recreational Parks and Open Space • Transportation • Utilities hftps://cityofedgewater.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4218790&GUID=344CBC08-BDF9-42E6-ACCE-A7F7574F08D3 1/2 s. �. 11/18/2019 City of Edgewater-File#:2019-0-25 BUDGETED ITEM: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable RE QMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2019-0-25 r' https://cityofedgewater.legistar.com/LegislationDetaii.aspx?ID=4218790&GUID=344CBC08-BDF9-42E6-ACCE-A7F7574FO8D3 2/2 A rt IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS FINAL DRAFT "i"'V or -D GEWATE 111C. 1951 Mead & Hunt, Inc. Project# 1000708-181709.01 Prepared for: City of Edgewater May 2019 Mead lunt 4401 Eastport Parkway Port Orange, FI 32127 Phone: 386-761-6810 www.meadhunt.com TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................1 LEGALFRAMEWORK...........................................................................................................................................2 POPULATIONGROWTH.......................................................................................................................................2 PERMANENT CITY POPULATION..........................................................................................................................3 POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................4 SERVICEUNIT................................................................................................................................. 4 TABLE 1-HOUSEHOLD SIZE................................................................................................................................5 TABLE 2-RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS.....................................................................5 TABLE 3-NUMBER OF UNITS BY TYPE................................................................................................................6 TABLE 4-FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA................................................................................................6 TABLE 5-NON-RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS.............................................................7 TABLE 6-NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE................................................................................................7 TABLE 7-TOTAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION,2017............................................................................................8 COST PER SERVICE UNIT............................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 8-BUILDING COST...................................................................................................................................8 TABLE9-VEHICLE COST.....................................................................................................................................9 TABLE 10-COST PER SERVICVE UNIT..................................................................................................................9 TABLE 11-MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................................10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................10 FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................11 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................11 SERVICEUNIT................................................................................................................................12 TABLE1-HOUSEHOLD SIZE...............................................................................................................................12 TABLE 2-RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS....................................................................13 TABLE 3-NUMBER OF UNITS BY TYPE...............................................................................................................13 TABLE 4-FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA.............................................................................................. 14 TABLE 5-NON-RESIDENTIAL FUNCITONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS........................................................... 14 TABLE 6-NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.............................................................................................. 14 TABLE 7-TOTAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION,2017...........................................................................................15 COSTPER SERVICE UNIT..............................................................................................................15 TABLE8-BUILDING COST..................................................................................................................................15 TABLE9-VEHICLE COST...................................................................................................................................16 TABLE 10-COST PER SERVICE UNIT..................................................................................................................16 TABLE 11-MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE................................................................................................................17 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................17 RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS .........................................18 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................18 ANALYSISOF EXISTING ................................................................................................................19 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.......................................................................................19 PARK& RECREATION SYSTEM STANDARDS ..............................................................................19 TABLE 1.o-PARK CLASSIFICATION AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION................................................................21 TABLE 2.0-RECREATION FACILITIES POPULATION GUIDELINES........................................................................23 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS............................................................................................................i3 TABLE 3.0- POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES 2008-2038............................................................................24 TABLE 4.0-EXISTING PARK ACREAGE ANALYSIS,2018.....................................................................................24 TABLE 5.0-2o18 NRPA AGENCY PERFORMANCE REVIEW(MODIFIED FROM FIGURE 2.0).................................24 TABLE 6.o-PROJECTED PARK ACREAGE NEEDS,2028......................................................................................25 TABLE 7.o-PROJECTED PARK ACREAGE NEEDS,2038......................................................................................25 TABLE 8.o-EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES ANALYSIS,2018.......................................................................26 TABLE 9.o-PROJECTED RECREATION FACILITIES ANALYSIS,2028...................................................................27 GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................28 MAP 1.o:EXISTING PARK GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREAS.....................................................................................29 TABLE 1o.o-EXISTING PARK CLASSIFICATION AND SERVICE AREA..................................................................30 LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.............................................................................................31 ESTIMATED COST PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE PARK&RECREATION FACILITIES.............................................31 TABLE 11.o-PROJECTED PARKLAND DEDICATION AND FEE-IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION.............................32 ESTIMATED COST PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE PARK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS............................................32 TABLE 12.o-ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FUTURE PARK NEEDS,2028....................................................................33 RECOMMENDED PARK IMPACT FEE&LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.......................................................33 TABLE 13.0-NON-RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE MULTIPLIERS.....................................................................34 TABLE 14.0-RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE MULTIPLIERS.............................................................................34 TABLE 15.0-PROJECTED RECREATIONAL AND PARK FEE INPUTS....................................................................35 TABLE 16.o-RECOMMENDED RECREATIONAL AND PARK IMPACT FEE BY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPE.........35 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS................................................................................36 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................36 POPULATION GROWTH &ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................37 TABLE i-TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES BASED ON ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENTS........................................37 SERVICEUNIT...............................................................................................................................38 TRIPGENERATION..................................................................................................................................................39 NEWTRIP FACTOR..................................................................................................................................................39 AVERAGETRIP LENGTH..........................................................................................................................................39 ADJUSTMENTFACTOR...........................................................................................................................................39 AVG.ROADWAY COSTS,LANE MILES,WEIGHTED CAPACITY PER LANE.............................................................39 TRAVEL DEMAND SUMMARY................................................................................................................................39 TABLE 2-RESIDENTIAL TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE........................................................................................40 TABLE 3-NON-RESIDENTIAL TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE...............................................................................40 COST PER SERVICE UNIT..............................................................................................................42 TABLE 4-LOCAL ROADWAY AVERAGE COST PER LANE MILE...........................................................................42 TABLE 5-COST PER VEHICLE MILE TRAVELED FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS..............................................43 IMPACTFEE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................................43 TABLE 6-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE................................................................................................43 TABLE 7-NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE........................................................................................44 TABLE 8-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE............................................................................................46 TABLE 9-NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE...................................................................................46 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................49 UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 50 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 50 AVAILABLE CAPACITY...................................................................................................................51 TABLE i-AVAILABLE CAPACITY..........................................................................................................................51 i WATERSUPPLY.............................................................................................................................51 WATERTREATMENT.....................................................................................................................5i TABLE z-WATER DEMAND FLOW ESTIMATES.................................................................................................52 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL....................................5z FUTURE PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................53 TABLE 3-WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS........................................................54 TABLE 4-TOTAL CAPACITY COSTS...................................................................................................................55 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX A PROPOSED IMPACT FEE COMPARISON TO EXISTING FEES................................57 APPENDIX B IMPACT FEE COMPARISON TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.......................61 APPENDIX C EXCERPTS FROM VOLUSIA COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY....................... 64 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Edgewater is an intercoastal waterfront community located in southeast Volusia County bounded by the Indian River North on the eastern edge and stretching west of Interstate 95. The City is near Turnbull Hammock Conservation Area, an approximately 1,2oo-acre habitat and forested wetlands protection area and its close to other attractions such as Kennedy Space Center and Port Canaveral. Edgewater is adjacent to Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve and the Atlantic Ocean. The City retained Mead & Hunt to prepare an analysis of its impact fees and update its existing impact fee program. This analysis updates the City's impact fees based on the most appropriate methodology and most current data. Impact fees are collected from new construction at the time a building permit is issued and used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. Impact fees do have limitations and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding needs. Rather,they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure provision of adequate public facilities needed to serve new development. In contrast to general taxes, impact fees may not be used for operations,maintenance,replacement of infrastructure or correcting existing deficiencies. The City of Edgewater has seen significant residential growth over the past several years and with it increased need for infrastructure improvements.This growth is expected to continue in the future.Although Resolution 2004-R-13 allows for the annual review/adjustment of all impact fees by City staff,the City has not increased its impact fees for Police,Fire/EMS,Parks and Open Space,and Transportation since 2006. Utility Impact fees were last adjusted in 2009. This analysis includes a review of the City's impact fee ordinances, population estimates through 2038 and recommendations for impact fee adjustments to support projected growth. It offers the following fee components for the City of Edgewater: • Police • Fire • Recreational Parks and Open Space • Transportation • Utilities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i s LEGAL FRAMEWORK Impact fees are"one time"charges that are assessed on new development(residential and non-residential)to fund the capital facility costs they impose on the community. Unlike other types of developer exactions,impact fees are based on a standard formula and a pre-determined fee schedule. Impact fees require that each new residential or commercial project pay its pro-rata share of the cost of new capital facilities and capital expenditures and must be spent within six years of collection. Impact fees cannot be used to pay for non-capital items and recurring expenses such as personnel salaries and operating/maintenance expenses. POPULATION GROWTH In 20o8,the City of Edgewater's permanent population was 19,008 people. In 2018,the permanent population was approximately 25,819,an increase in population of 35%since 20o8.Over the io year period spanning from 2oo8-2o18,the City of Edgewater has experienced an average growth in population of approximately 3.59 per year. Current socioeconomic studies predict growth trend at approximately 2.1%per year for the next 10 years. The predicted growth trend is consistent with anticipated economic growth within the County.In October 2015, an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement was executed between Volusia County and the City of Edgewater. This agreement allows the City to annex any parcel that is within the designated annexation area,even if it is not contiguous to the current municipal boundaries.Since it's inception,1,312 acres of land have been annexed in.If the predicted growth trend continues,by 2023 the permanent population of the City of Edgewater will be 28,441, by 2028, the permanent population of the City of Edgewater will be 31,253, and by 2038, the permanent population of the City of Edgewater will be 36,554• In developing population projections for Edgewater, (4) methodologies were employed. These included: US Census,St.Johns River Water Management District(SJRWMD),City C.U.P.and historical straightline.The graph below depicts the results.For the purposes of this study,the straightline methodology was selected.Permanent population projections through 2038 are detailed below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 City of Edgewater Population Projections 45,000 40,000 -. 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 •y:::�:::.... 10,000 5,000 1970 2000 2010 2070 2030 —LISCensus — —SJRWMD New Projections —+—CUP Permit Projections Straightfine ......•Linear(US Census) -----••Linear(SJRWMD New Projections) --- -Linear(CLIP Permit Projections) - Linear(Straightline) Permanent City Population 2oo8 M8 2023 2028 2033 2038 X9,008 25,8i9 28,441 3�,Z53 33,903 36,554 Note:Population growth estimates are straight-line average of US Census,SJRWMD new projections and CUP permit projections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 i POLICE IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION In zoos, population growth and increasing non- residential development within the City of Edgewater _ ___^ adversely impacted the ability of the City's Police "J Department to maintain its level of service. As a result, the Police Department developed a capital plan to adequately meet future demands for level of service. The capital plan required the implementation of new , Police impact fees to be charged on all new development(residential and non-residential)to fund the capital facility cost they impose on the City. Edgewater City Hall Due to an increase in annexations,continuing population growth and non-residential development,an increase in impact fees for new construction is needed to maintain the level of service that currently exists within the community. The primary purpose of this report is to: • Develop appropriate measures of demand for police services; • Estimate the cost of capital needed to service the increasing demand; • Determine the necessary impact fees that will be required to maintain the level of service currently provided by the City of Edgewater. SERVICE UNIT To calculate police impact fees,the demand on the police response system associated with different types of development must be expressed in a common unit of measurement,called a"service unit".Service units create the link between the supply of police capital facilities and the demand for such facilities generated by new development. The two most common methodologies used in calculating police impact fees are the"calls-for-service"approach and the"functional population"approach. The calls-for-service approach uses historical data on police service POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 4 calls by land use type to make the connection between land use type and demand for police facilities. Under- reporting has been found in the call-taking system so an alternative approach is required. The approach that is used in this study to estimate the service demands for police services is the functional population approach.This approach is based on the assumption that demand for these types of facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people.The functional population concept is analogous to the concept of"full-time equivalent"employees. It represents the number of"full-time equivalent"people present at the site of a land use. To establish the unit for residential land uses,both average household size and number of dwelling units by type are needed. TABLE i HOUSEHOLD HOUSING • • Single-Family Detached 2.91 Single-Family Attached 2.15 Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 1.94 Mobile Home 1.60 Multi-Family** 2.03 *Totals from City Police Impact Fee Study dated June 2001 **Sum of single-family attached and duplex/apartment/condominium The residential functional population is considerably simpler than the non-residential component. In total, people are assumed to spend 84 hours per week,or 50 percent of their time at home.The other 50 percent of their time spent away from home accounts for working, shopping and other away-from-home activities. For residential uses,then,functional population is calculated by multiplying average household size by 50 percent. The functional population for single-family,multi-family and mobile home units are shown below in Table z. .; FUNCTIONALRESIDENTIAL POPULATION FACTORHOUSINCTYPE HOUSEHOLD SIZE OCCUPANCY FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Single-Family Detached 2.91 0.5 1.46 Single-Family Attached 2.15 0.5 1.08 Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 1.94 0.5 0.97 Mobile Home 1.60 0.5 0.80 Multi-Family* 2.03 0.5 1.01 *Includes single-family attached and duplex/apartment/condominium POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 5 i i For the impact fee analysis,it is important to know the number of dwelling units by type in Edgewater.This information is shown below in Table 3. TABLE NUMBER OF USETYPE NUMBER OF Single-Family Detached 9,264 Multi-Family 189 Mobile Home 463 Hotel/Motel 3 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses is based on national trip generation data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a day by 16 hours. Employees are assumed to spend eight hours a day at their place of employment while visitors are generally assumed to spend one hour per visit (varies with land use). The formula used to derive the non-residential functional population estimates is summarized below. . : . FUNCTIONALPOPULATION FORMULA Functional population/l000 sf=(employee hours/l000 sf+visitor hours/l000 sf)=16 hours/day Where: Employee hours/l000 sf=employees/l000 sf x 8 hrs/day Visitor hours/l000sf=visitors/l000sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/l000 sf=weekday ADT/l000sf x avg.vehicle occupancy-employees/l000 sf Weekday ADT/l000 sf=one-way average daily trips(total trip ends_2) Using this formula and information on trip generation rates from the ITE manual, nonresidential functional population estimates per 1,000 sf of gross floor area were calculated. Table 5 presents the results of these calculations for major land use categories. POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 6 . ; NON-RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONALPOPULATION Employee/Trip Persons/ Pop/UnitLand Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit Hours/Visitor Hotel/Motel Room 5.86 1.4 .90 7.30 4.00 2.21 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 37.75 1.4 2.34 50.51 1.00 3.25 Office institutional 1,000 sf 9.74 1.34 2.97 to.o8 1.00 1.96 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.37 1.03 1.16 2.31 1.00 1.16 LL Source:Average daily trip rates(1/2 of trip ends)from Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,Wh Edition,2017;persons per trip are average vehicle occupancies from US Department of Transportation,2009 National Household Travel Survey;employees per 1,000 sf from ITE manual(ADT per 1,000sf divided by ADT per employee-retail rate from National Association of Office and Industrial Parks,America's Future Office Space Needs,1990 p.22);visitors/unit and functional population calculated based on formula in Table 4;hours per visitor assumed. Total functional population for non-residential land uses is calculated based upon the land use data of such non- residential uses currently existing in the City of Edgewater. Land use data is shown below in Table 6. NON-RESIDENTIALTABLE 6 • FOOTAGE NumberLand Use Measurement of Units Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 561 Office institutional 1,000 sf 43 Ind ustria[[Warehouse 1,000 sf 293 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) Combining residential and non-residential measurements will determine the functional population for the City of Edgewater.Table 7 has actually been developed by combining Tables 2 and 3 for residential with 5 and 6 for non-residential. The functional population is then derived by multiplying the number of units in 2017 by the functional population per unit. It should be noted that the functional population for the City is less than the actual population;this is expected because the amount of off ice institutional is so low and much of Edgewater Landings had a lower persons per household rate than other single-family detached dwellings. POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 7 s TOTAL • POPULATION, • Functional Functional Land Use Unit 2017 Units Population/Unit Population Single-Family Detached Dwelling 9,264 1.46 13,525 Multi-Family Dwelling 189 1.01 191 Mobile Homes Dwelling 463 o.8 370 Hotel/Motel Room 3 2.21 7 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 561 3.25 1,823 Office/Institutional 1,000 sf 43 1.96 84 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 293 1.16 340 TOTAL 16,341 LI Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) COST PER SERVICE UNIT The current capital facilities to support the police department's enforcement and patrolling include the police station, an evidence building, a range, vehicles, and communication and other equipment. The buildings and equipment(other than vehicles)have a value of$wee 56.811,486.00 as shown in Table 8. COSTSTABLE 8 BUILDING FACILITY BUILDING EQUIPMENT TOTAL Police Station $345,10e 56;300,000 $87,600.00 $wee-16.187.600 Evidence Building $352,16o $67,000.00 $419,16o Range-Aluminum $3,626 $1,100.00 $4,726 Total $7oe,886 56.655.786 $155,700.00 $956i586 56,811,486 Source:City Finance Department.Building replacement calculation:3o,000 square feet(@ 521o.00 per square foot per Interim Chief of Police. i In addition to buildings,a significant amount of rolling stock is required to support police protection service. The Police Department's existing inventory of patrol and other vehicles has a total current replacement value of $1,152,65o.00.The list of vehicles and current replacement values are shown in Table 9. POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 8 TABLE 9 VEHICLE COST Manufacturer Model Quantity Total Cost Ford Interceptor 18 $665,o82.00 Ford Taurus 3 $57,830.00 Ford Crown Victoria 9 $192,973.00 Ford Fusion 1 $22,921.00 Ford Explorer 4 $75,071.00 Ford F250 SD Extended Cab 1 $17,219.00 Ford Transit CNCT 1 $23,604.00 Dodge Dakota Pickup 1 $9,925.00 Chevy Tahoe 2 $74,026.00 Guardian Patrol Boat 1 $13,999.00 Total Vehicle Cost $1,152,650.00 Source:City Finance Department The total capital replacement costs listed in Tables 8 and 9 form the basis for the cost of service. Dividing this total cost by the functional population shown in Table 7 yields a cost of $122:96_ 5487.37 per functional population,as summarized in Table 1o. TABLE io COST PER SERVICE UNIT Description Totals Building Replacement Cost $7ee,886.ee. $6.655.786.00 Equipment Cost $155,700.00 Vehicle Replacement Cost $1052,650.00 Existing Police Facility Cost $2,009923 _ $7.964.136.00 Total Functional Population 16341 Cost per Functional Population $122•:96 $487.37 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 9 The maximum police impact fees that may be adopted by the City of Edgewater are calculated by multiplying the functional population per unit associated with the various land uses by the cost per functional population of maintaining the existing level of service. These impact fee calculations are shown in Table 11. TABLE 11 MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE Functional Cost/Functional Land Use Unit Population/Unit Population Cost/Unit Single-Family,Detached Dwelling 1.46 $i22.96 54877 $fig ii. 6 Single-Family,Attached Dwelling 1.o8 $x:96$487.37 $fie S5z6;�6 Duplex,Apartment,Condominium Dwelling .97 $11947__$_72.75 Mobile Home/RV Park Pad Site .8o $196 $487.37 $98-37—A3-89.40 Hotel/Motel Rooms 2.21 $122.9Fi$487.37 $ 74 31,o77.09 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sq.ft. 3.25 $12;!.96 5487.37 $399-6-t 51.583.95 Office/Institutional 1,000 sq.ft. 1.96 $241-94_A955.25 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq.ft. 1.16 $1 2 2:9 $i42.6-3__$565.35 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) CONCLUSION During the past 5 years,the City of Edgewater annexed approximately 1,442 acres into the city. Some of this newly annexed area will be a mixed-use development including single and multi-family residential,commercial retail and industrial facilities. The expansion and widening of S.R. 442 is also anticipated to cause additional growth in the western portion of the City.The need for expansion of police protection services in the next several years due to an increase in area to be covered, population growth, and an increase in the number of police incidents/calls is anticipated. Planning to finance and offset the cost of new services (partially for existing residents)needed to maintain the level of service that currently exists within the community is recommended through the increase of police fees for new construction. POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 10 FIRE I EMS IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION In 2001, population growth and increasing non- residential development within theCity of Edgewater adversely impacted the ability of the , v City's Fire-Rescue Department to maintain its level of service which was a Fire/EMS response time of �� four-minutes or less to go% of all incident calls within the City limits.As a result, the Fire-Rescue Department developed a capital plan to adequately meet future demands for level of service. Fire Station#55 The capital plan required the implementation of new Fire/EMS impact fees to be charged on all new development (residential and non-residential) to fund the capital facility cost they impose on the City. The impact fees collected are required to be spent to provide a reasonable and rational benefit to the fee-paying development. The funds collected by the imposition of impact fees must be connected to the proposed capital improvements by the Florida Courts definition of"dual rational nexus of benefit"theory.The benefit that would be expected from such impact fees assures adequate and consistent levels of service from the City of Edgewater's Fire-Rescue Department. The Fire-Rescue Department's current level of service continues to be a response time of four-minutes or less to go%of all incident calls within the City limits. Due to an increase in annexations, continuing population growth and non-residential development,an increase in impact fees for new construction is needed to maintain the level of service that currently exists within the community. The primary purpose of this report is to: • Estimate population growth for the City of Edgewater to the year 2038; • Estimate the cost and schedule of capital Fire/EMS facilities needed to provide the adopted level of service for Fire/EMS; • Determine the necessary impact fees that will be required to maintain the level of service currently provided by the City of Edgewater. FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 1i SERVICE UNIT To calculate Fire/EMS impact fees,the demand on the Fire/EMS response system associated with different types of development must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a "service unit". Service units create the link between the supply of Fire/EMS capital facilities and the demand for such facilities generated by new development. The two most common methodologies used in calculating Fire/EMS impact fees are the "calls-for-service" approach and the "functional population" approach. The calls-for-service approach uses historical data on Fire/EMS calls by land use type to make the connection between land use type and demand for Fire/EMS facilities. Under-reporting has been found in the call-taking system so an alternative approach is required. The approach that is used in this study to estimate the service demands for Fire/EMS services is the functional population approach. This approach is based on the assumption that demand for these types of facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people.The functional population concept is analogous to the concept of"full-time equivalent"employees. It represents the number of"full-time equivalent"people present at the site of a land use. To establish the unit for residential land uses,both average household size and number of dwelling units by type are needed. HOUSINGTABLE i HOUSEHOLD SIZE • • Single-Family Detached 2.91 Single-Family Attached 2.15 Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 1.94 Mobile Home 1.6o Multi-Family" 2.03 *Totals from City Police Impact Fee Study dated June zoos **Sum of single-family attached and duplex/apartment/condominium The residential functional population is considerably simpler than the non-residential component. In total, people are assumed to spend 84 hours per week,or 50 percent of their time at home.The other 50 percent of their time spent away from home accounts for working, shopping and other away-from-home activities. For residential uses,then,functional population is calculated by multiplying average household size by 50 percent. The functional population for single-family,multi-family and mobile home units are shown below in Table 2. FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 12 ,; RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONALPOPULATION FACTORHOUSINCTYPE HOUSEHOLD SIZE OCCUPANCY FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Single-Family Detached 2.91 0.5 1.46 Single-Family Attached 2.15 0.5 1.08 Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 1.94 0.5 0.97 Mobile Home 1.60 0.5 0.80 Multi-Family* 2.03 0.5 1.01 *Includes single-family attached and duplex/apartment/condominium For the impact fee analysis,it is important to know the number of dwelling units by type in Edgewater.This information is shown below in Table 3. NUMBER OF USETYPE NUMBER OF Single-Family Detached 9,264 Multi-Family 189 Mobile Home 463 Hotel/Motel 3 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses Is based on national trip generation data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Functional population per 1,00o square feet is derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a day by 16 hours. Employees are assumed to spend eight hours a day at their place of employment while visitors are generally assumed to spend one hour per visit (varies with land use). The formula used to derive the non-residential functional population estimates is summarized below. FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 13 TABLE I FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA Functional population/l000 sf=(employee hours/l000 sf+visitor hours/l000 sf)+16 hours/day Where: Employee hours/l000 sf=employees/l000 sf x 8 hrs/day Visitor hours/l000sf=visitors/l000sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/l000 sf=weekday ADT/l000sf x avg.vehicle occupancy-employees/l000 sf Weekday ADT/l000 sf=one-way average daily trips(total trip ends_2) Using this formula and information on trip generation rates from the ITE manual, nonresidential functional population estimates per 1,000 sf of gross floor area were calculated. Table 5 presents the results of these calculations for major land use categories. . ; NON-RESIDENTIAL • POPULATION Employee/Trip Persons/ Pop/UnitLand Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit Hours/Visitor Hotel/Motel Room 5.86 1.4 .90 7.30 4.00 2.21 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 37.75 1.4 2.34 50.51 1.00 3.25 Office/Institutional 1,000 sf 9.74 1.34 2.97 1o.o8 1.00 1.96 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.37 1.03 1.16 2.31 1.00 1.16 Source:Average daily trip rates(1/2 of trip ends)from Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,lo'^Edition,2017;persons per trip are average vehicle occupancies from US Department of Transportation,20o9 National Household Travel Survey;employees per 1,000 sf from ITE manual(ADT per 1,000sf divided by ADT per employee-retail rate from National Association of Office and Industrial Parks,America's Future Office Space Needs,1990 p.22);visitors/unit and functional population calculated based on formula in Table 4;hours per visitor assumed. Total functional population for non-residential land uses is calculated based upon the land use data of such non- residential uses currently existing in the City of Edgewater. Land use data is shown below in Table 6. NON-RESIDENTIAL • 1 • FOOTAGE Land Use Measurement Number of Units Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 561 Office/Institutional 1,000 sf 43 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 293 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 14 Combining residential and non-residential measurements will determine the functional population for the City of Edgewater.Table 7 has actually been developed by combining Tables 2 and 3 for residential with 5 and 6 for non-residential. The functional population is then derived by multiplying the number of units in 2017 by the functional population per unit. It should be noted that the functional population for the City is less than the actual population;this is expected because the amount of office/institutional is so low and much of Edgewater Landings had a lower persons per household rate than other single-family detached dwellings. . ; TOTAL • POPULATION, Functional Functional Land Use Unit 2017 Units Population/Unit Population Single-Family Detached Dwelling 9,264 1.46 13,525 Multi-Family Dwelling 189 1.01 191 Mobile Homes Dwelling 463 o.8 370 Hotel/Motel Room 3 2.21 7 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sf 561 3.25 1,823 Office/Institutional 1,000 sf 43 1.96 84 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 293 1.16 340 TOTAL 16,341 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) COST PER SERVICE UNIT The capital facilities that are used to support the provision of Fire/EMS services in the City of Edgewater include fire stations,firefighting apparatus,vehicles,and other capital equipment including communications equipment, breathing systems and specialized extrication equipment.The total replacement cost of the existing fire stations and fire station sites is $3,264,057 as shown in Table 8. The Fire Department's current inventory of Fire/EMS vehicles has a total capital replacement cost of$1.562 million,as shown in Table 9. COSTSTABLE 8 BUILDING FACILITY BUILDING REPLACEMENT COST LAND TOTAL Station#55/HQ $2,251,975 $197,134 $2,449,109 Station#57 $759,970 $54,978 $814,948 Total $3,z64,057 Source:Building valuation listed in property schedule provided by City.Land value from Volusia County Property Appraiser. FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 15 VEHICLE COST Description Units Unit Cost Total Cost Tanker Truck 1 $200,000 $200,000 2004 Pierce Pumper 1 $180,000 $180,000 2001 Pierce Pumper 1 $108,000 $108,000 2010 International Rescue 1 $205,486 $205,486 International 4300 Ext.Cab 1 $248,310 $248,310 2015 Pierce Impel Pumper 1 $422,018 $422,018 2005 Int'I 4300 Used Ambulance 1 $60,723 $60,723 2016 Ford F-150 1 $40,602 $40,602 2015 Ford F-150 1 $36,820 $36,820 2010 Ford F-150 Crew Cab 1 $30,125 $30,125 2006 Ford E-350 Club Wagon 1 $20,792 $20,792 2005 Ford F-150 1 $7,500 $7,500 2013 Look Utility Trailer 1 $2,500 $2,500 Total Vehicle Cost $1,562,876 Source:City Finance Department Based on the original acquisition cost obtained from the City's fixed asset listings,the total value of the City's capital Fire/EMS equipment is $428,334• Adding the equipment cost to the fire station value and vehicle replacement value results in a total Fire/EMS facility cost of$5,255,267• The total capital replacement costs listed in Tables 8 and 9 added to the total value of the City's capital Fire/EMS equipment form the basis for the cost of service. Dividing this total cost by the functional population shown in Table 7 yields a cost of$321.6o per functional population,as summarized in Table 10. TABLE io COST PER SERVICE UNIT Description Totals Fire Station Replacement Cost $3,264,057 Vehicles and Apparatus Cost $1,562,876 Equipment Cost $4z8,334 Existing Fire Facility Cost $%255rz67 Total Functional Population 16,341 Cost per Functional Population $321.60 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's Office(includes vacant parcels) FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 16 The maximum Fire/EMS impact fees that may be adopted by the City of Edgewater are calculated by multiplying the functional population per unit associated with the various land uses by the cost per functional population of maintaining the existing level of service. These impact fee calculations are shown in Table 11. TABLE ii MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE Functional Cost/Functional Land Use Unit Population/Unit Population Cost/Unit Single-Family,Detached Dwelling 1.46 $321.6o $469.54 Single-Family,Attached Dwelling 1.o8 $321.6o $347.33 Duplex,Apartment,Condominium Dwelling •97 $321.6o $311.95 Mobile Home/RV Park Pad Site .80 $321.6o $257.28 Hotel/Motel Rooms 2.21 $321.60 $710.74 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sq.ft. 3.25 $321.6o $1045.20 Office/Institutional 1,000 sq.ft. 1.96 $321.6o $630.34 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq.ft. 1.16 $321.6o $373.05 Source:Volusia County Property Appraiser's C ffice(includes vacant parcels) E CONCLUSION During the past 5 years, the City of Edgewater annexed approximately 1,442 acres into the city. Some of this newly annexed area will be a mixed-use development including single and multi-family residential, commercial retail and industrial facilities. The expansion and widening of S.R. 442 is also anticipated to cause additional growth in the western portion of the City.The need for expansion of Fire/EMS services in the next several years due to an increase in area to be covered, population growth, and an increase in the number of Fire/EMS incidents/calls is anticipated. Planring to finance and offset the cost of new sery ces (partially for existing residents)needed to maintain the level of service that currently exists within the community is recommended through an increase of Fire/EMS impact fees for new construction. FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 17 RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The City currently has around 146 acres of park, outdoor recreation facilities and open space and close to 16 miles of trails throughout the city. It offers a number of riverside amenities including a Riverwalk trail, public fishing and boating t access and scenic views. The primary purpose of this report is to proactively guide the development and improvement of the City of Edgewater's outdoor parks and recreational facilities in order to meet the recreational needs and demands of Florida SUN Trail in Edgewater,Florida the residents. This report contains recommendations for providing new park and recreational facilities and the corresponding Capital cost estimates associated with them.This information is intended to assist the City with the budgeting and planning for future parks and is in accordance with Florida's statute§163.318o1 or the"Florida Impact Fee Act"'. This report serves as a supplement to resources and plans already in existence.The City's Comprehensive Plan (Plan),adopted April 8,2011,includes a chapter titled Recreation and Open Space Element which outlines goals, objectives and policies related to the future development of recreation and open space.The Plan includes the objective to"provide a system of parks and recreation facilities meeting the needs of the population by 2030". This report uses 2028 as a benchmark when determining projected demands. To aid in the funding of the comprehensive plan's goal to provide sufficient recreational parks,facilities and open space areas to meet the needs of the community and its visitors.This report includes recommended park level of service standards as well as policies regarding the location and needs for park types.The goals,objectives and policies outlined in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Plan are incorporated throughout. Given funding limitations and a desire to best serve residents, this analysis seeks to reflect community specific standards to identify deficiencies not reflected by national standards. As such, certain Comprehensive Plan changes are proposed to match this study. 'Other relevant Florida Statutes include;§153.73 Assessable improvements;levy and payment of special assessments,§190.021 regarding Taxes;non-ad valorem assessments,§191.o11 regarding Procedures for the levy and collection of non-ad valorem assessments§259.042 regarding`Tax increment financing for conservation lands' RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 18 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES This section presents an analysis of how well the City of Edgewater's existing park and recreational facilities satisfy needs in the community.This is needed to determine gaps in the City's service in order to estimate park and recreation expenditure. The adequacy of the City's park and recreation system will be evaluated in the following ways: ■ Projection of existing and future park and recreation facility needs based on service standards defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Where applicable, National Park and Recreational (NRPA) facility service standards are used to supplement this analysis. ■ An analysis of the geographic distribution of park open space areas; The results of this analysis will serve as the basis for recommendation in the City of Edgewater Park Impact Fee and Land Dedication Requirement presented in the next section of this report. PARK & RECREATION SYSTEM STANDARDS It is important to define a set of minimum standards for park and recreational facilities in order to evaluate existing and projected park and recreation needs.To do this,this report uses a combination of NRPA facility service standards,and established standards presented in the City's Comprehensive Plan. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) developed a national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for the citizens of urban and rural communities.The purpose of these guidelines is to present park and recreation space standards that are applicable nationwide for planning,acquisition,and development of park, recreation, and open space lands, primarily at the community level. Such standards enable a community to quantitatively measure how well its existing facilities are meeting the needs of residents and to plan for future facilities based on projected population growth. The NRPA Guidelines will be used for analysis in the following ways: ■ Geo"ranhic Distribution Service Area Standards. The NRPA has established service area standards for each park classification that assist communities in determining gaps in facility coverage. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 19 ■ Park Classifications Mini,Neighborhood,Community,Special Use.The NRPA has classified parks based on a set of specific park characteristics, including service area, desirable minimum size, level of service, and typical facilities. • Existing and Projected Facility Needs Recreational Facilities Population Guidelines. The NRPA has established a comprehensive list of recreational facility population guidelines, represented as needed facilities per 1,000 residents. Where standards have not explicitly been established by the City, NRPA standards will be used.Where standards conflict,the City's standard was used. Although such national standards provide acceptable target guidelines for the provision of parks and open spaces, a more thorough and accurate analysis of the park system in Edgewater must emphasize the local demand for recreational resources. Therefore, a calculation of community-specific standards is more likely to identify those park system deficiencies that would not otherwise be captured by universal standards. Chapter VII: Recreation and Open Space Element of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan sets goals, objectives,and policies to achieve sufficient level of service(LOS)for recreation,parks,facilities,and open space areas for the City's residents by 2030.The established standards are defined by the following policies: ■ Policy t.t.t Parks Level of Service(LOS)Standard.The LOS standard for parks within Edgewater shall be five(5)acres per 1,000 residents,including passive open space and developed parklands. • Policy 1.1.2 Location and Need for Parks. The City shall utilize the following criteria for determining the location and need for parklands: o Regional Park— Large resource-based area that serves two or more communities or counties and is usually located within a thirty(30)to sixty(6o)-minute driving distance of the residents they serve.Suggested park size is 25o acres minimum,or zo acres per t,000 population served. o Community Park-A facility designed to serve the needs of more than one neighborhood.This facility type shall serve a minimum of 8,00o City residents and is located no greater than three (3) miles from those residents.The suggested minimum size of any new community parks is five(5)acres. o Neighborhood Park-A facility that serves an entire neighborhood or area with a minimum of 2,000 city residents and is located no greater than three-quarters (3/4) of a mile from those residents.The suggested minimum size of a neighborhood park is two(z)acres. The City of Edgewater's comprehensive plan classifies parks differently than that of this industry standard.These City's classifications are presented as Policy 1.1.2:Location and Need of Parks.To facilitate the comparison of the City's facilities to other similar communities,the NRPA standards will be used in this study. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 20 ■ Policy t.t.3 Recreational Facilities Population Guidelines.The City utilizes the following standards as a guide for recreation facilities. Proposed changes and additions are included below. FACILITY CURRENT STANDARD PER 1,000 PROPOSED STANDARD PER 1,000 POPULATION POPULATION Activities Center 1/15,000 No change Baseball/Softball 1/4,000 No change Basketball Courts 1/5,000 No change Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 1 mile/4,000 No change Boat Ramps 1/4,700 No change Pickleball 1130,000 No change Community Center 1/30,000 No change Nature&Fitness Trails0) 1/14,000 1/10,000 Gymnasium N/A No change Multi-purpose/Soccer 1/4,000 No change Racquetball/Handball 1/4,000 No change Tennis Courts 1/3,500 No change Volleyball 115,000 No change `'/Reflects Multi-Use Trails Changes and/or additions generally reflect NRPA recommendations,except for specific exceptions noted herein. The Combined Minimum Standards below will be used to perform the quantitative analysis of parks and recreation facilities. For overall park acreage per 1,00o persons,the NRPA recommended ratio of park mix was used and applied to the City's goal of 5.o acres. Table 1.0-Park Classification and Geographic Distribution MINI PARKS General Description: Mini parks offer specialized facilities that serve a very local area with limited population or specific group such as young children or senior citizens. Service Area: Desirable Size: Acres per 1,00o Population: '/,mile in residential areas 5,000 square feet to 2 acres 0.2 acres Basic Facilities and Activities: ■ Coordinated play equipment and structures for pre-school and elementary school age children ■ Sitting areas arranged to permit easy surveillance by parents ■ Lighting for security at night(direct cut-off) ■ Parking is typically not required NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS General Description: RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 21 Neighborhood parks are designed specifically to accommodate residents living within a defined service area.They are often characterized by active recreational facilities such as baseball and soccer fields but can also incorporate passive recreational areas for picnickin and nature-study. Service Area: Desirable Size: Acres per i,000 Population: Y2-mile radius 1.5 acres-minimum;2 to 8 o.8 acres uninterrupted by non- acres is optimal depending residential roads and on desired uses. other physical barriers. Basic Facilities and Activities: ■ Active recreational facilities such as playfields,tennis courts,basketball courts,playgrounds,or spray facilities. ■ Passive recreational facilities such as picnic/sitting areas and nature study areas • Service buildings for shelter and storage;possible restrooms • Lighting for security at night • Adequate on-street and off-street parking spaces PARKSCOMMUNITY General Description: Community parks are intermediate in size and are able to accommodate visitors from multiple neighborhoods and the greater community.These parks focus on both the developed aspects of the parks and natural resource amenities,and typically include a range of active(sports fields,etc. andpassive trails,observation areas recreation facilities. Service Area: Desirable Size: Acres per i,000 Population: 2 miles io acres-minimum; 4.o acres 15-5o acres is optimal depending on desired uses. Basic Facilities and Activities: ■ Active recreational facilities such as areas for swimming and boating,biking/walking trails,playfields,playgrounds, tennis courts,and basketball courts • Passive recreational facilities such as walking trails,picnic/sitting areas,and nature study areas • Service buildings for shelter,storage,and restrooms • Facilities for cultural activities,such as plays and concerts in the park • Community Center building with multi-use rooms for crafts,theater,restrooms,social activities,and adult use ■ Lighting for security at night • Ade uate off-street parkingpaces,where the size of the park and the neighborhood context allow SPECIAL USE PARKS&OPEN SPACE General Description: The City has numerous areas that do not fit into the classification of mini,neighborhood,or community parks,but are still critical components of the park and recreation system.These areas cannot be measured by a quantifiable standard because of their unique and diverse contributions to the community.Examples of Special Use Parks vary but can include passive or special recreational activities,such as golf courses,marinas,beaches,display gardens,arboreta,and outdoor amphitheaters,and natural areas.Open space are those areas available for public recreation,but do not have existing programmed use. Service Area: Desirable Size: Acres per i,000 Population: Variable-depends on Variable-depends on Variable-most Special Use Parks are not included in the function function overall community calculation of park and recreation space per 1,000 persons. Basic Facilities and Activities:Variable,but may include: ■ Active recreational facilities such as areas for swimming and boating,biking/walking and golf courses ■ Passive recreational facilities such as walking trails,picniclsitting areas,and natural study areas • Service buildings for shelter,equipment storage/rental,concessions,and restrooms • Signage,trail markers,trash receptacles,information booths • Lighting for security at night • Off-street parking spaces if appropriate to the area RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 22 Table 2.0-Recreation Facilities Population Guidelines FACILITY CITY OR NRPA CURRENT STANDARD PER PROPOSED STANDARD PER STANDARD 1,000 POPULATION 1,000 POPULATION Activities Center City 1/15,000 No change Baseball/Softball City 1/4,000 No change Basketball Courts City 1/5,000 No change Bicycle/Pedestrian Path City 1 mile/4,000 No change Boat Ramps City 1/4,700 No change Pickleball City 1/30,000 No change Community Center City 1/30,000 No change Fitness Trails City 1/14,000 1/10,000 Gymnasium City N/A No change Multi-purpose/Soccer City 1/4,000 No change Racquetball/Handball City 114,000 No change Tennis Courts City 1/3,500 No change Volleyball City 1/5,000 No change NRPA STANDARDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Outdoor Theater NRPA 1/20,000 No change Picnic Shelters NRPA 1/2,000 No change Playgrounds NRPA 1/2,000 No change Wading Pool/Splash Pad NRPA 115,000 1/10,000 ■ QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The Combined Minimum Standards provide a baseline and framework from which the City can analyze the adequacy of its existing and proposed park facilities.The Standards enable an apples-to-apples comparison of parks and recreation facilities between communities, which is helpful for determining the City's level of service.This analysis requires an investigation of the City's population growth trends. Population Growth To perform the existing facility analysis historic population growth and future projections were compiled from 2oo8—2038.To normalize the data to represent true park facility demand,these populations were multiplied by the percentage of City residents 65�ears and younger from the 2017 American Community Survey(75.50• While those over 65 remain park goers,their needs typically are met by passive recreation facilities that do not contribute as significantly to the cost of park development. Additionally, the City should not develop active recreation facilities like soccer or football fields based on the 24.5% of the population that are unlikely to use RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 23 them. Table 3.0 provides an overview of expected growth and as a result anticipated demand for park and recreation facilities,including normalized numbers. Table 3.0- Population Growth Estimates 2oo8-2038 19,008 25,819 28,441 31,253 33,903 36,554 • 14,351 19,493 21,473 23,596 25,597 27,598 Note:Population growth estimates are straight-line average of US Census,SJRWMD new projections and CUP permit projections.Normalized population is the estimated percentage of residents 65 years old or younger. Existing Park Acreage Analysis Table 4.0 presents a comparison of the Combined Minimum Standards(acres per 1,000 persons)to the City's existing park acreage totals. Table 4.0-Existing Park Acreage Analysis,2018 CLASSIFICATIONPARK • RECOMMENDED STANDARD AC* TOTALAC PER i,000 AC PER ... PERSONS PERSONS Mini Parks 0.20 acres 3.90 acres 1.02 acres 0.05 acres Neighborhood Parks o.8o acres 15.6o acres 13.17 acres o.68 acres Community Parks 4.00 acres 78.00 acres 56.28 acres 2.89 acres Special Use Parks&Open Space varies Varies 70.76 acres 3.64 acres Total(Parks w/out special use parks 5.0 97.50 acres 70.47 acres 3.62 acres and open space) Total(Parks with special use parks N/A N/A 141.23 acres N/A and open space) *Based on 2o18 normalized population estimate(19,493) As indicated in Table 4.0 the City currently has 3.62 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents,not including special use parks.Based on the City minimum standard of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,the city has a deficit.It should also be noted that it is not uncommon for communities to maintain higher levels of service.Table 5.0 shows the 2018 NRPA Agency Performance Review range of service levels nationwide.Edgewater falls between population categories,which are represented below alongside all agencies. Table 5.0-2oi8 NRPA Agency Performance Review(modified from Figure 2.0) 10.1 1o.8 9.6 • ' • ' ' S1 4.9 5.4 • • 17.4 18.o 17.5 RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 24 Projected Park Acreage Analysis Table 6.o and Table 7.0 outline the park acreage needs in the years 2028 and 2038 to correspond to the near-and long-term park needs and potential growth in expenditures. A 10-year period is typical when collecting/ expending park fees,and the 20-year timeframe aligns with the long-term planning and growth needs. Table 6.o-Projected Park Acreage Needs,2028 PARK CLASSIFICATION • • RECOMMENDED 2018 MINIMUM STANDARD AC* TOTAL ADDITIONAL AC NEEDED AC ... AC BY 2028 PERSONS Mini Parks 0.20 acres 4.72 acres 1.02 acres 3.7o acres Neighborhood Parks o.8o acres 18.87 acres 13.17 acres 5.70 acres Community Parks 4.00 acres 94.38 acres 56.28 acres 38.o9 acres Special Use Parks&Open Space Varies Varies 70.76 acres Varies Total(Parks w/out special use and 5.0 117.98 acres 70.47 acres 47.51 acres open sace Total(Parks with special use parks N/A N/A 141.23 acres N/A and open space) I Based on 2028 normalized population estimate(23,596) Table 7.0-Projected Park Acreage Needs,2038 CLASSIFICATIONPARK • • RECOMMENDED 2oi8 MINIMUM STANDARD AC* TOTAL ADDITIONALAC NEEDED AC .o. AC BY 2038 PERSONS Mini Parks 0.2o acres 5.52 acres 1.02 acres 4.5o acres Neighborhood Parks o.8o acres 22.o8 acres 13.17 acres 8.91 acres Community Parks 4.00 acres 110.39 acres 56.28 acres 54.11 acres Special Use Parks and Open Space Varies Varies 70.76 acres Varies Total(Parks w/out special use and 5.0 137.99 acres 70.47 acres 67.52 acres open space Total(Parks with special use parks N/A N/A 141.23 acres N/A and open sace *13ased on 2038 normalized population estimate(27,598) The projections show that Edgewater will have a deficit of parkland for each park classification through 2038. Table 6 shows the short-term deficits of 47.51 acres of parkland,not including special use parks. Looking at the classification breakdown,the vast majority is community parks,a deficit of 38.og acres.These numbers help to highlight areas that should be a focus of new improvements in the park system,and therefore expenditure over the short-term. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 25 Existing Recreational Facilities Analysis,2018 Table 8 provides an analysis of the existing supply of recreational facilities in Edgewater compared to the existing need.This comparison utilizes the combined facility standards per 1,00o person and the normalized population statistics for 2018.These numbers illustrate where facility improvements are needed and may translate into park development costs. Table 8.0—Existing Recreation Facilities Analysis,2018 FACILITY CITY OR STANDARD EXISTING EXISITING EXISTING NRPA PER ••• FACILITY FACILITY DEFICIENCY/ STANDARD POPULATION Activities Center City 1/15,000 1 1 0 Baseball/Softball City 1/4,000 5 5 0 Basketball Courts City 1/5,000 5 4 1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Path City 1 mile/4,000 16 5 11 Boat Ramps City 1/4,700 3 4 Pickleball City 1/30,000 0 1 Community Center City 1130,000 1 1 0 Fitness Trails City 1/14,000 4 1 3 Gymnasium City N/A 1 N/A 1 Multi-purpose/Soccer City 1/4,000 3 5 -2 Racquetball/Handball City 1/4,000 2 5 -3 Tennis Courts City 1/3,500 2 6 -4 Volleyball City 1/5,000 2 4 -2 Outdoor Theater NRPA 1/20,000 1 1 0 Picnic Shelters NRPA 1/2,000 g 10 -1 Playgrounds NRPA 1/2,000 8 10 -2 Nature Trail NRPA 1 mile/2,500 3 8 -5 Wading Pool/Splash Pad NRPA 115,000 2 4 -2 *Based on 2o18 Normalized Population Data(19,493) Note:Existing supply includes publicly accessible facilities,including those at Schools and the YMCA. The existing deficiency/ surplus column shows the difference between existing and needed park facilities in Edgewater's park and recreation system.This comparison provides a quantitative analysis of where the focus of facility improvements may be,and where improvements are not anticipated to be needed. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 26 Projected Recreational Facilities Analysis,2028 Table 9 provides an analysis of the existing supply of recreational facilities in Edgewater compared to the projected need in 2028. Like above, this comparison utilizes the combined facility standards per 1,000 person and the normalized population stat stics for 2028. These numbers illustrate where facility improvements are needed and may translate into park development costs. The projected deficiency/ surplus column shows the difference between existing and projected park facility needs in Edgewater's park and recreation system.This comparison provides a quantitative analysis of where the focus of facility improvements may be,and where improvements are not anticipated to be needed. Table 9.o—Projected Recreation Facilities Analysis,2028 FACILITY PROPOSED CITY STANDARD EXISTING PROJECTED PROJECTED • •A• • PER 1,000 FACILITY FACILITY DEFICIENCY/ POPULATION Activities Center City 1/15,000 1 2 -1 Baseball/Softball City 1/4,000 5 6 1 Basketball Courts City 1/5,000 5 5 0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Path City 1 mile/4,000 16 6 10 Boat Ramps City 1/4,700 3 5 -2 Pickleball City 1/30,000 0 1 -1 Community Center City 1/30,000 1 1 0 Nature&Fitness Trails City 1/ 10,000 7 2 5 Gymnasium City N/A 1 N/A 1 Multi-purpose/Soccer City 1/4,000 3 6 -3 Racquetball/Handball City 1/4,000 2 6 -4 Tennis Courts City 1/3,500 2 7 -5 Volleyball City 1/5,000 2 5 -3 Outdoor Theater City 1/20,000 1 1 0 Picnic Shelters City 1/2,000 9 12 -3 Playgrounds City 1/2,000 8 12 -4 Wading Pool/Splash Pad City 1/10,000 2 2 -0 *Based on 2028 Normalized Population Data 23,596) Note: Existing supply includes publicly accessible facilities,including those at Schools and the YMCA. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 27 GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS The location and distribution of parks and recreational facilities also provides a good indicator of how well the existing park system is meeting the needs of the City's residents.To illustrate this distribution,Map 1.o: Existing Park Geographic Service Areas depicts the service areas of the City's parks.These service areas are based on the standards identified in Table to-Park Classification and Geographic Distribution. In total,Edgewater's Park and Recreation system has 3 mini parks,2 neighborhood,2 community,and 4 special use parks, as well as a number of publicly accessible ponds and lakes.Table 1o.o shows the classification and service area for each park.The special use facilities are focused on water recreation like fishing and boating and are typically located along the shoreline with the Indian River Lagoon. It is expected that users travel to these facilities for the specified use,and therefore have a service area defined by the City and regional boundaries.For this reason,they will not be part of this analysis.In addition,the City has recently acquired a residential lot along Umbrella Tree Dr. and 22"d Street, as well as 30.92 acres of land along S. Ridgewood Ave. that they plan to develop into parks. These lands were calculated as open space in the existing park acreage but are shown as future parks on Map i.o in order to accurately represent existing service area. As Map 1.o shows,the area to the northeast is well covered by parklands. To the southeast,there is coverage by community parks, but not mini or neighborhood parks. The recently annexed lands to the west of 1-95 are currently undeveloped and do not have existing park and recreation facilities.As these developments progress, it will be necessary to dedicate parklands so that future residents have equitable access to parklands and open space. The following is an overview of parkland geographic needs based on each park classification. RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 28 Y y�. p a u .. O v W Q Q � N W v, Nlff- J � N w F i V1 � a � ♦ p Z a � Q W LLF- 0.a .a • 4'y w s v w LLI o w - a J Q W a a N ¢ J r Q LLI Y ZO li Q W J Q o V V W W cc LiJ Y ¢ V ----- • CL M, Wiz._ a v¢ g CL V z m V Z 0 Z t - y oao N . a W E o O V L v ¢ n r • ® v = Z a Table io.o-Existing Park Classification and Service Area Location Park Name Classification Service Area on Map 1.o 1 Umbrella Tree Park Mini Park X Mile z Lake&Alice Park Mini Park %Mile 3 Sanchez Park Mini Park X Mile 4 Rotary Park Neighborhood Park X Mile 5 Menard-May Neighborhood Park X Mile 6 Whistle Stop Park Community Park z Miles 7 Hawks Park Complex YMCA Community Park i Miles 8 Umbrella Tree Park South -Future Future Mini Park X Mile 9 S.Ridgewood Ave.Park-Future Future Community Park z Miles a Duck Lake Special Use NSA b Veterans Park Special Use NSA c George R Kennedy Memorial Park Special Use NSA d Highland Shores Park Special Use NSA Mini Parks are intended to serve their localized areas,and typically serve a defined user group.The northeastern portion of the City has good mini-park coverage,generally with one per residential area.To the southeast,this City has been developed as uniform single-family residential development, without the benefit of mini-parks. Opportunities for new mini park development should be considered in this area.As new lands are developed throughout the city,mini parks should play a support role to other classifications. Neighborhood Parks are intended to serve the area within % mile.They are designed to be accessible by users through non-motorized transportation.Again,the northeastern portion of the City has good neighborhood park coverage, the central and southeastern sections of the City are not well served. The uniform single-family residential development in this part of the City provides a constraint to the development of Neighborhood Parks, due to a lack of contiguous vacant lands.Opportunities for the expansion of special use parks into neighborhood class facilities should be considered in these areas.Where new development occurs to the southeast and west, neighborhood parks should be developed to provide equitable access to future residents. Community Parks are intended to serve the area within z miles.They are designed accommodate visitors from multiple neighborhoods and the greater community. They provide both a range of active, sports focused facilities,as well as passive recreation in the form of trails,etc.The historic boundaries of the City are generally well served by Community Parks,though new development to the south and west are not. As noted above,the City plans to develop a 30.92 acre Community Park along S.Ridgewood Ave.This will nearly satisfy the 38.11 acres of projected Community Park deficit for 2028. Despite this future community park,the recently annexed lands to the west of 1-95 do not have park and recreation facilities to date.This area is isolated from park facilities on RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 30 the east side. The need to provide a similar level of service will require future Community Park development. The City should follow minimum standards from Table 1.o for establishing parkland needs in this area(10 acres minimum). IMPACT FEE & LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT This section contains detailed capital cost estimates for providing new park and recreational facilities over the short term(2028).The information is intended to assist the City with the budgeting and planning for future parks and to satisfy§163.318o1 of the Florida State Statutes and§21-320 of the City of Edgewater's development code regarding parkland dedication and impact fees. The funds collected are solely for the purpose of planning, acquisition, expansion and development of improvements to the recreational system. The City Council establishes the level of required park land dedication,fees in lieu of land dedication,and park improvement fees through the City's subdivision,impact fee,and other relevant ordinances. ESTIMATED COST PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE PARK& RECREATION FACILITIES This section highlights the necessary land dedication or fee-in-lieu of dedication to meet the projected demands for parkland. Based on an estimated 2018 population of 25,819,a projected growth to 31,253 persons by the year 2028, an average household size of 2.50 individuals,and the City's standard of 5.o acres of parkland per 1,000 persons,the City should plan to spend an estimated$393,038.38 for park land acquisition for 16.31 acres needed by 2028.This calculation takes the acreage needed(outlined in Table 6)and subtracts open space land acquired that will be developed for future parkland. Assuming the addition of 2,174 new households, a fee-in-lieu of land dedication of $198.87 per new dwelling unit would meet this demand.The alternative dedication of 349 square feet ( .008 acres) per dwelling unit would satisfy this requirement, if land dedication were preferred. However, land dedication per this provision must be suitable for the development of a parks and recreation facilities. The City may accept non-developable areas as donations to the park system; but these lands will not count toward this land dedication requirement.The process for arriving at these calculations is described in detail in Table 11.o RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 31 Table».o-Projected Parkland Dedication and Fee-In-Lieu of Land Dedication CALCULATION A Projected Additional Population in 2028 5,434 Persons B Projected Additional Dwelling Units in 2028(A/2.5) 2,174 HH C Open Space Already Acquired For Future Park Development Calculated Additional Acre 31.20 AC D Calculated Additional Acres Needed(From Table 6)-Row C 16.31 AC Calculated Land Dedication Requirement per Dwelling Unit in oo8 AC E Acres(Row D/Row B) F Land Cost per Acre Estimate(Avg.cost per acre in the City)* $24,098 G Projected Cost of Land Acquisition(Row D*Row F) $393,038.38 H I Legal,Engineering,and Design Costs(Row G*10%) $39,303.84 1 Total Land Acquisition Cost(Row G +Row H) $432,342.22 J Calculated Fee-in-Lieu of Land Dedication per Dwelling Unit (Row I /Row B) $198.87 Calculated Land Dedication Requirement per Dwelling Unit in K S uare Feet Row E *43,560 349 SF recommendation*Just value ofall propertywithin Edgewaterfrorn Volusia County Property Appraiser divided by total acreage within the City.Then perthe .get per/acre ESTIMATED COST PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE PARK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS In addition to lands needed to develop parks, each park type should have a minimum amount of supporting facilities to support their use by the public. Basic facilities found in each park type are provided in Table 1.o. For the purposes of this analysis, the estimated overall cost of projected parks and recreation facility needs are quantified, based on the deficits found in Table 9.o.The cost of facilities varies with the age range of the intended users, park type, and other factors. For this reason, an estimate for the cost of providing typical facilities was determined from planning level estimates in nearby communities.3 These are not construction estimates and the true cost of developing these facilities may vary depending on site specific constraints and facility characteristics. Table 12.0 outlines the overall estimated costs and value of facility improvements per person for parks and recreation facility needs in the short term. RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 32 Table 12.0—Estimated Costs for Future Park Needs,2028 FACILITY CITY OR STANDARD PROJECTED NRPA PER ••• DEFICIENCY/ TYPICAL COST TOTALCOST STANDARD POPULATION SURPLUS* PER FACILITY OF FACILITY Activities Center City 1115,000 -1 $2,250,00 $2,250,000 Baseball/Softball City 1/4,000 -1 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Basketball Courts City 1/5,000 0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Path City 1 mile/4,000 10 - Boat Ramps City 1/4,700 -2 $500, 00 $1,000,000 Pickleball City 1/30,000 -1 $20,000 $20,000 Community Center' City 1130,000 0 - Nature&Fitness Trails City 1/ 10,000 5 Gymnasium City N/A o - Multi-purpose/Soccer City 1/4,000 -3 $230,000 $69o,000 Racquetball/Handball City 1/4,000 -4 $35,000 $140,000 Tennis Courts City 1/3,500 -5 $90,0oo $450,000 Volleyball City 1/5,000 -3 $30,000 $90,000 Outdoor Theater City 1/20,000 0 - - Picnic Shelters City 1/2,000 -3 $55,000 $165,000 Playgrounds City 1/2,000 -4 $150,000 $600,000 Wading Pool/Splash Pad City 1/10,000 0 Overall Estimated Cost $6,445,000 Value of Facility Improvements Per Person(Overall Estimated Cost/Projected 2028 Population,31,253) $2o6.22 supplyNote:Existing .. Normalized*Based on 2028 Population Data "Development of a(50m)swimming pool meets the requirements for(25m)as well. 'Facilities determined to support specialized groups or associated with long term facility improvements and not included in park impact fee totals. *'Facility cost estimates determined from City of Orlando Impact Fee Study,2014 ■ RECOMMENDED PARK IMPACT FEE & LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT This study recommends that park fees be imposed on each new dwelling unit.To accomplish this estimate, a breakdown of the persons per housing type is needed.This will be referred to as the Residential Park Impact Fee Multiplier. By using fees outlined in Table 14.o, the development of parks and recreation facilities to the combined standards would be possible.The costs imposed on development would be dependent on the added benefit to each housing category. RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 33 It should be noted that Hotel/Motel is calculated using the functional population methodology.The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses is based on national trip generation data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE).Functional population per i,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a day by 16 hours. Employees are assumed to spend eight hours a day at their place of employment while visitors are generally assumed to spend one hour per visit(varies with land use).The formula used to derive the non-residential functional population estimates are summarized below.Table 13 shows the calculation for Hotel/Motel functional population. Functional populatio i000 sf=(employee hoursh000 sf+visitor hoursh000 sf)+16 hours/day Where: Employee hours/i000 sf=employees/i000 sf x 8 hrs/day Visitor hours/i000sf=visitors/h000sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/i000 sf=weekday ADT/i000sf x avg.vehicle occupancy-employees/i000 sf Weekday ADT/i000 sf=one-way average daily trips(total trip ends..z) Table 13.0—Non-Residential Park Impact Fee Multipliers Employee/Tri I p Persons/ Pop/UnitLand Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit r Hotel/Motel Room 5.86 1.4 .90 1 7.30 4.00 z.zi TransportationSource:Average daily trip rates(1/2 of trip ends)from Institute of _ Departmentineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,loth Edition, 2017;persons per trip are average vehicle occupancies from US .. Household Travel Survey; employees per l,000 sf from ITE manual(ADT per i,000sf divided by ADT per employee-retail rate from National Association of Office and Industrial Parks,America's Future Office Space Needs,1990 p.22);visitors/unit and functional population calculated based on formula above.;hours per visitor assumed. Table 14.0—Residential Park Impact Fee Multipliers HouseholdHousing Type Size Single-Family Detached* 2.91 Single-Family Attached* 2.15 Duplex/Apartment/Condominium* 1-94 Mobile Home* 1.6o Hotel/Motel** 2.21 Impact*Totals from City Police . dated June 2001 **Hotel/Motel Calculated based on functional population formula and Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)data for 2017 RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 34 Table 15.0—Projected Recreational and Park Fee Inputs CALCULATION VALUE A Calculated Land Dedication Requirement per Dwelling Unit in SF Square Feet Row K from Table 11.0 349 B Calculated Fee-in-Lieu of Land Dedication per Dwelling Unit Row J from Table 11.o) $198.87 C Value of Facility Improvements Per Person(From Table 12.0) $2o6.22 Table 16.o shows the recommended Recreational and Park Impact Fee by residential housing type. This is determined by taking the estimated persons per housing type in Table 14.o and multiplying it by the value of facility improvements per person(c)from Table i5.0.The fee in lieu is then added for developments that do not provide the required.008 acres per dwelling unit land dedication. Table 16.o—Recommended Recreational and Park Impact Fee by Residential Housing Type HouseholdHousing Type Size Park Impact Fee Fee In Lieu Total Park Impact Single-Family Detached* 2.91 $600.10 $198.87 $79$•97 Single-Family Attached* 2.15 $443.37 $642.24 $198.87 Du plex/Apartment/Condominium* 1.94 $400.06 $198.87 $598.93 Mobile Home* 1.60 $329.95 $528.82 $198.87 Hotel/Motel** 2.21 $455.75 $654.62 *Totals from City Police Impact Fee Study dated June 2ool $198.87 **Hotel/Motel Calculated based on functional population formula and Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)data for 2017 RECREATIONAL PARKS&OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 35 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FE-E ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION In zoos, population growth and increasing non- residential development within the City of Edgewater adversely impacted the ability of the City to maintain its adopted transportation system �,„ v "W level of service. As a result, the City developed a capital plan to adequately meet future demands for level of service. The capital plan required the implementation of new Transportation/ Road Impact fees to be � � charged on all new development (residential and 1-95 Off Ramp to SR 442(Indian River Blvd.)in Edgewater,Florida non-residential) to fund the capital facility cost they impose on the City.The impact fees collected are required to be spent to provide a reasonable and rational benefit to the fee-paying development.The funds collected by the imposition of impact fees must be connected to the proposed capital improvements by the Florida Courts definition of"dual rational nexus of benefit"theory. The benefit that would be expected from such impact fees assures adequate and consistent levels of service from the City of Edgewater's transportation network. The City of Edgewater's current transportation system level of service, found in Policy 1.1.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan:Transportation Element,is the following: • Limited Access Roads B Peak Hour,or as otherwise prescribed by FDOT; • Arterials D Peak Hour;and • Collectors D Peak Hour Due to an increase in annexations,continuing population growth and non-residential development,an increase in impact fees for new construction is needed to maintain the level of service that is the adopted minimum in the community. The primary purpose of this report is to: • Estimate population growth for the City of Edgewater to the year 2038;as well as anticipated impacts to the transportation network through anticipated development. • Estimate the cost and schedule of transportation related capital improvements needed to provide the adopted level of service for transportation systems. • Determine the necessary impact fees that will be required to maintain the level of service currently adopted by the City of Edgewater. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 36 POPULATION GROWTH & ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT The population growth in Edgewater indicates a need for additional housing as well as businesses to serve those new residents needs. This increase in development will require additional transportation system capacity to maintain the City's level of service.Table 1 highlights anticipated development occurring in the City of Edgewater and the associated trips generated.This gives sense of the scale of improvements that will be needed over time as developments put an estimated 1,04,243 gross trips. Table t-Trip Generation Estimates Based on Anticipated Developments Trip Generation Characteristics Direct. Cross Trips Non-Residential Projects Granite&Marble to 816 ;,000 /1000 sf T=9.94(x)-12.22 50 50 9 9 18 Innovations Vasquez building auto repair building 10 943 3,000 /1000 sf 16.28 50 50 24 24 49 Brilliance ALF assisted living facility 10 254 59,241 /1000 sf 4.19 50 50 124 124 248 Dr Somai parking lot expansion Nothing to add for this o 0 0 McCartney office/warehouse 10 150 6,000 /1000 sf T=1.58(x)+45.54 50 50 28 28 55 Warehouse Phase 2 Balduf Concrete office/manufacturing 10 140 9,500 /1000 sf T=3.16(x)+160.04 50 50 95 95 190 Block Plant Boston Whaler office buildings 10 714 325.897 /1000 sf T=6.16(x)+462.50 50 50 1235 1235 2470 Expansion Whistle Stop Park City Park Renovation-51 10 435 120000 /1000 sf 3.58 50 50 236 236 472 million JYT Marine Marine Storage 48 10 420 48 storage spaces 2.41 50 50 58 58 116 storage units Dollar Tree retail 10 815 9,984 /1000 sf 53.12 50 50 265 265 530 Barracuda Boat/RV R/V Boat Storage 299 10 420 299 storage spaces 2.41 50 50 36o 36o 721 Storage spaces Barnickle Business 10 710 5,500 /1000 sf Ln(T)=0.97Ln(x)+2.5 50 50 32 32 64 Warehouse Edgewater Marina restaurant/marina/bait 10 930 5,195 /1000 sf 315.17 50 50 819 819 1637 store Chick-Fil-A Istormwater re-design Nothing to add for this o 0 0 Residential Projects Edgewater Lakes RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 328 single family unit Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.43 50 50 1316 1316 2632 Dev. Julin ton Oaks 10 210 87 -single famil unit Ln T=o.92Ln x+2.71 50 50 458 458 916 Pinehurst 10 210 21 single family unit Ln T=o.92Ln x+2.71 50 50 124 124 248 Worthin ton Creek 10 210 436 single family unit Ln(T)=0.92Ln(x)+2.71 50 50 2015 2015 4030 Alison Estates MF-Multi 10 221 30 multi-family unit T=5-45(x)-1.75 50 50 81 81 162 River Colony 10 210 15 single family unit Ln(T)=o.92Ln(x)+2.71 50 50 91 91 182 Tuscany Villas 10 220 18 condos T=7.56 x-40.86 50 50 48 48 95 The Villas at Massey RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 6 Townhouse Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.43 50 50 31 31 62 [� Ranch Dev. Oakleaf Preserve RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 423 single family unit Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.4 50 50 1672 1672 3344 Dev. Deerin Park 10 210 1362 single familunit Ln T=o.92Ln x+2.71 50 50 5746 5746 11492 Restorations DRI 10 210 8500 single family unit Ln T=o.92Ln x+2.71 50 50 30973 30973 61946 River Oaks RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 3o8 dwelling units Ln(T)=o.94Ln(x)+2.4 ±50 1241 1241 2482 Dev. Elegant Oaks RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 z7o 5z dwelling units Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.4 233 233 466 Dev. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 37 Ed ewater Oaks 10 210 130 dwellingunits Ln T=o.92Ln x+2.71 50 5o 662 662 24 Oakwood cove RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 135 dwelling units Ln(T)=o.94Ln(x)+2.4 50 50 571 571 1142 Dev. Edgewater RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 774 single family unit Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.4 50 50 2950 2950 5900 Preserve Dev. Woodbridge Lakes RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 103 single family unit Ln(T)=o.94Ln(X)+2.43 50 50 443 443 886 Dev. Liberty Village RPUD-Res planned Unit 10 270 40 single family unit Ln(T)=0.94Ln(x)+2.4 50 50 182 182 364 Dev. Habitat for 10 221 4 multi-family unit T=5.45(*.75 50 50 10 10 20 Humanit TOTAL .. ,243 SERVICE UNIT To calculate the estimated cost of transportation system improvements needed to provide the adopted level of service,the demand associated with different types of development must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a "service unit". Service units create the link between the supply of Transportation facilities and the demand for such facilities generated by new development. To calculate the impact fee this study uses the prescribed method in Section 21-323.05(e)of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan: Capital Improvements Element. The following formula shall be used as the basis for the impact fee per unit of development: Impact Fee=(1/2)*(TGR)*(%NT)*(DF)*(ATL)*(CC/LM)(WCL) Where: TGR=trip generation rate assigned to ATL =average trip length utilizing the each land use thoroughfare network %NT = new trips generated by the land CC=average road construction cost use LM=lane miles DF= distribution factor of trips utilizing WCL=weighted capacity per lane mile the thoroughfare network Note:This report utilizes data from Volusia County's Roadway Impact Study,2018 as the basis for construction costs, lane miles, and weighted capacity per lane mile. For this reason, as the referenced report does, (CC/LM)(WCL)is used interchangeably with Cost/VMC. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 38 TRIP GENERATION To determine the average daily trip generation rates,the most recent version of the Institute for Engineer's(ITE) Trip Generation Manual loth Edition was used.These numbers are estimated by calculated trips to and from each land use classification.Because a single trip constitutes an origin and a destination,the TGR are divided in half to avoid double counting a return to a place of origin. NEW TRIP FACTOR To account for pass by and diverted-linked trips,the trip generation numbers must be adjusted by a"new trip factor". Pass by trips are those that a user may stop at a land use that is already on their primary route. For example,grabbing gas on the way home from work.A diverted-linked trip are bypasses to the primary route to make an interim stop. For example, stopping to pick up the kids on the way home from work. This factor is derived from the ITE average pass by rates. AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH Average trip lengths are used to determine what the average travel distance for each land use is on the transportation network.This established the amount of capacity that is used by each land use. ADJUSTMENT FACTOR To prevent double counting travel that occurs on non-local roads in the transportation system,an estimate of the percentage of travel on local roads is needed.This adjustment ensures that development is not charged by the local transportation impact fee for travel on Federal, State, and County roadways, where fees may be collected.This study determined that zo%of all travel in the City of Edgewater jurisdiction occurs on local roads. AVG. ROADWAY COSTS, LANE MILES, WEIGHTED CAPACITY PER LANE To calculate the average roadway construction cost,lane miles,and weighted capacity per lane,this study uses calculations from Volusia County Roadway Impact Study, September 2ol8, page 21-22. Tables iz and 13 of that report, correspond to Tables 4 and 5 of this report. It was used as the basis for this analysis due to the recentness and locality of the Volusia County transportation project data. The corresponding pages are available in the appendix. TRAVEL DEMAND SUMMARY The result of the inputs listed above is the estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per service unit. This establishes an average daily VMT generated by each land use type. Table z shows the input values used to calculate the residential travel demand schedule,and the resulting VMT/Unit.Table 3 indicates this calculation for non-residential land uses. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 39 Table 2-Residential Travel Demand Schedule Land Use Type Unit 1/2 %NT ATIL DF VMT/Unit TGR Residential Transportation/Road Impact Fees Single Family Detached living Dwelling Unit 4.72 l00% 8.23 0.15 5.83 Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 3.66 l00% 8.23 0.15 4.52 (less than 3 floors) Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse(3 Dwelling Unit 2.72 100% 8.23 0.15 3.36 to 10 floors) Apartments/Condominiums[Townhouse Dwelling Unit 2.23 l00% 8.23 0.15 2.75 (more than 10 floors) Assisted Living 1000/sf 2.10 100% 8.23 0.15 2.59 Continuing Care Retirement Community Units 1.20 l00% 8.23 0.15 1.48 Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit 2.50 100% 8.23 1 0.15 3.09 Note:TGI,%NT,ATL Calculated using Institute for Engineer's(ITE)manual.DF as the percentage oftrips that occur on the local roadway Table 3-Non-Residential Travel Demand Schedule Land Use Type Unit 1/2 TGR %NT ATL DF VMT/Unit Office and Financial Hospital /1000 SF 5.36 l00% 8.o1 0.15 6.44 Office under 1o,000 square foot /1000 SF 8.10 100% 9.19 0.15 11.17 Office over 1o,000 square foot /1000 SF 4.87 100% 9.19 0.15 6.71 Corporate Headquarters building /1000 SF 3.98 100% 9.19 0.15 5.49 Medical/Dental Office /1000 SF 17.40 100% 9.19 0.15 23.99 Office park /1000 SF 5.54 100% 9.19 0.15 7.64 Research and Development Center /1000 SF 5.63 100% 10.12 0.15 8.55 Business Park /1000 SF 6.22 l00% 8.07 0.15 7.53 Bank without drive through /1000 SF 6.07 47% 8.07 0.15 3.45 Bank with drive through /1000 SF 50.02 47% 8.07 0.15 28.46 Industrial Light industry /1000 SF 2.48 100% 10.12 0.15 3.76 Industrial park /1000 SF 1.69 100% 10.12 0.15 2.57 Manufacturing /1000 SF 1.97 100% 10.12 0.15 2.99 Warehouse /1000 SF o.87 100% 10.12 0.15 1.32 Mini-warehouse /1000 SF 0.76 l00% 8.07 0.15 0.92 Land Use Type Unit 1/2 TGR %NT ATL DF VMT/Unit Retail Building materials and lumber store /1000 SF 9.03 l00% 8.07 0.15 10.93 Hardware/paint store /1000 SF 4.57 26% 8.07 0.15 1.44 Nursery(Garden Center) /1000 SF 34.05 25% 8.07 0.15 10.30 Factory Outlet Center /1000 SF 13.30 34% 8.07 0.15 5.47 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 40 Retail,less than 1o,000 square feet /1000 SF 18.88 40% 8.07 0.15 9.14 Retail 1o,000-99,999 square feet /1000 SF 45.44 40% 8.07 0.15 22.00 Retail 1oo,000-1,000,000 square feet /1000 SF 20.90 34% 8.07 0.15 8.6o Retail more than 1,000,000 square feet /1000 SF 33.88 66% 8.07 0.15 27.07 Quality Restaurant /1000 SF 41.92 l00% 8.o6 0.15 5o.68 High turnover restaurant(sit down) /1000 SF 56.o9 43% 8.o6 0.15 29.16 Fast food restaurant w/drive through /1000 SF 173.12 50% 4.03 0.15 52.33 Fast food restaurant who drive through /1000 SF 235.48 50% 4.03 0.15 71.17 Coffee/Doughnut Shop 0.15 /100o SF 377.28 50% 4.03 114.03 who drive through Coffee/Doughnut Shop w/drive through /1000 SF 410.19 50% 4.03 0.15 123.98 Bar/lounge/drinking place /1000 SF 5.68 44% 8.o6 0.15 3.02 Winery /1000 SF 22.98 43% 8.o6 0.15 11.95 Quick lube I1000 SF 34.79 42% 8.07 0.15 17.69 Automotive care center /1000 SF 1.13 28% 4.03 0.15 0.19 Self Service Car Wash Wash Stalls 54.00 42% 4.03 0.15 13.71 Automotive car(new/used)sales /1000 SF 13.92 l00% 8.07 0.15 16.85 Automated Car Wash /1000 SF 7.10 42% 4.03 0.15 1.8o Tire store/auto repair/sales /1000 SF 27.67 28% 7.97 0.15 9.26 Supermarket /1000 SF 53.39 36% 8.o6 0.15 23.24 Convenience store /1000 SF 381.14 39% 4.03 0.15 89.86 Convenience store with gas pumps /1000 SF 312.10 42% 4.03 0.15 79.24 Convenience store with gas 0.15 pumps and fast food /100o SF 418.76 56% 4.03 141.76 Home improvement store /1000 SF 15.37 48% 8.07 0.15 8.93 Pharmacy/drug store 0.15 /100o SF 54.58 49% 4.03 16.17 with drive through Furniture Store /1000 SF 3.15 47% 8.07 0.15 1.79 Lodging Hotel Rooms 4.18 l00% 8.48 0.15 5.32 All Suites Hotel Rooms 2.23 l00% 8.48 0.15 2.84 Motel Rooms 1.68 l00% 8.48 0.15 2.14 Resort Motel Rooms o.16 100% 3.83 0.15 0.09 Recreational City Park Acres 0.39 100% 7.00 0.15 0.41 Major Park/Regional Park Acres 2.29 100% 7.00 0.15 2.40 Soccer Complex Acres 8.85 100% 7.0 0.15 9.29 Campground/RV Park Occup.Sites 0.24 100% 7.00 0.15 0.25 Marina Berths 1.21 100% 7.00 0.15 1.27 Miniature golf course Holes 0.17 100% 7.00 0.15 o.18 Golf course Holes 15.19 100% 7.00 0.15 15.95 Multipurpose Recreational Facility /1000 sq ft 1.79 100% 7.00 0.15 1.88 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 41 Water Slide Park Acres 75.17 l00% 7.00 F57771 78.93 Health and Fitness Club /1000 sq.ft o.66 100% 7.00 0.15 o.69 Miscellaneous Movie Theater /l000 sq.ft 39.05 25% 8.o1 0.15 11.73 Church /1000 sq.ft 3.48 l00% 8.o1 0.15 4.18 Day Care /1000 sq.ft 23.81 l00% 8.o1 0.15 28.61 General Aviation Airport Employees 7.47 l00% 8.o1 0.15 8.98 Veterinary Clinic /1000 sq.ft 10.75 l00% 8.o1 0.15 12.92 Recreational Community Center /l000 sq.ft 14.41 100% 8.01 0.15 17.31 roadwayNote:TGI,%NT,ATL Calculated using institute for Engineer's(ITE)manual.DF estimated as the percentage of trips that occur on the local COST PER SERVICE UNIT To calculate the cost per service unit we need to determine the total cost of recent roadway construction projects in the area.Table 4 shows the total cost for planned and completed projects within Volusia County, in addition to project characteristics. Table 4-Local Roadway Average Cost Per Lane Mile TotalNew New Miles . Roadway Saxon Blvd,Entry-1-4 Ramp 1.31 2 2.62 $5,698,295 Tymber Creek Rd,SR 40-Peruvian Ln 0.7 2 1.40 $9,152,093 LPGA Blvd,Jimmy Anne-e/o Derbyshire 1.05 2 2.10 $7,139,36o Williamson Blvd/Dunn Ave-LPGA Blvd 2.10 2 4.20 $5,367,433 Howland Blvd,Courtland-SR 415 2.22 2 4.44 $14,884,317 Williamson Blvd,LPGA Blvd-Strickland Range 2.00 2 0.90 $5096,000 Dunn Ave Ext.,Tomoka Farms-Williamson 0.74 2 1.48 $1o,864,651 loth St,US 1-Myrtle Ave 0.50 2 1.00 $11,345,1o8 Orange Camp/MLK,MLK Blvd to 1-4 1.8o 2 3.6o $11,342,198 Howland Blvd,Providence Blvd-Elkcam 2.20 2 4.40 $14,179,365 Total 14.62 26.14 $95,168,820 Note:Roadway Costs Determined from Volusia County Roadway Impact Study,September 2oi8,Table 12 Source:Volusia County Construction Engineering,September,2oi8 Calculating the total cost of roadway improvements is the first step in calculating the cost per service unit.The next step is to calculate a cost per vehicle mile capacity(VMC).Table 5 shows a breakdown of the capacity added per lane mile for the roadway improvements in Table 4. It then calculates the Cost Per Vehicle Mile Capacity by dividing the total capacity added by the total cost. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 42 Table 5—Cost Per Vehicle Mile Traveled for Roadway Improvements New Roadway Segment Miles Daily VMC Total Cost Cost/VMC Saxon Blvd,Entry-1-4 Ramp 1.31 23,58o $5,698,295 $242 Tymber Creek Rd,SR 40-Peruvian Ln 0.7 15,526 $9,152,093 $589 LPGA Blvd,Jimmy Anne-e/o Derbyshire 1.05 25,127 $7,139,360 $284 Williamson Blvd/Dunn Ave-LPGA Blvd 2.10 43,932 $5,367,433 $122 Howland Blvd,Courtland-SR 415 2.22 54,013 $14,884,317 $276 Williamson Blvd,LPGA Blvd-Strickland Range 2.00 41,840 $5,196,000 $124 Dunn Ave Ext.,Tomoka Farms-Williamson 0.74 12,617 $1o,864,651 $861 loth St,US 1-Myrtle Ave 0.50 11,965 $11,345,1o8 $948 Orange Camp/MLK,MLK Blvd to 1-4 1.8o 37,656 $11,342,198 $301 Howland Blvd,Providence Blvd-Elkcam 2.20 53,526 $14,179,365 $z65 Total 14.62 319,782 $95,168,820 1 $298 Note:New Daily VMC determined from Volusia County Roadway Impact Study,September 2oi8,Table 13;COStIVIVIC is determined by dividing Total Cost by New Daily VMC. Source:Volusia County Construction Engineering,July, . : IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Table 6 and Table 7 show the calculation of the residential and non-residential impact fees.The fee is a product of the daily VMT per development unit of the local road network for each land use category,and the cost per vehicle mile capacity. Table 6—Residential Impact Fee Schedule Land Use Type Unit VMT/Unit Cost/VMC TotalFee Residential Transportation/Road Impact Fees Single Family Detached living Dwelling Unit 5.83 $298 1,737.34 Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 4.52 $298 $1,346.96 (less than 3 floors) Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 3.36 $298 $1,001.28 (3 to 10 floors) Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 2.75 $298 $819.50 (more than 10 floors) Assisted Living(l) 1000/sf 2.59 $298 $771.82 Continuing Care Retirement Units $298 Community0) 1'48 $441 04 Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit 3.19 $298 $95o.62 Note:Fee Calculated as VIVIT/Unit*Cost/VMC NFormerly Nursing Home TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 43 Table 7-Non-Residential Impact Fee Schedule . TotalFee Office and Financial Hospital 11000 SF 6.44 $298 $1,919.12 Office Under 1o,000 Square Foot 11000 SF 11.17 $298 $3,328.66 Office Over 1o,000 Square Foot 11000 SF 6.71 $298 $1,999.58 Corporate Headquarters Building 11000 SF 5.49 $298 $1,636.02 Medical/Dental Office 11000 SF 23.99 $298 $7049.02 Office Park 11000 SF 7.64 $298 $2,276.72 Research and Development Center 11000 SF 8.55 $298 $2,547.90 Business Park 11000 SF 7.53 $298 $2,243.94 Bank Without Drive Through 11000 SF 3.45 $298 $1,028.10 Bank with Drive Through 11000 SF 28.46 $298 $8,481.08 Industrial Light Industry 11000 SF 3.76 $298 $1,120.48 Industrial Park 11000 SF 2.57 $298 $765.86 Manufacturing 11000 SF 2.99 $298 $891.02 Warehouse 11000 SF 1.32 $298 $393.36 Mini-Warehouse 11000 SF 0.92 $298 $274.16 Retail Building Materials and Lumber Store 11000 SF 10.93 $298 $3,257.14 Hardware/Paint Store 11000 SF 1.44 $298 $429.12 Nursery(Garden Center) 11000 SF 10.3 $298 $3,o69.40 Factory Outlet Center 11000 SF 5.47 $298 $1,630.06 Retail,Less Than 1o,000 Square Feet 11000 SF 9.14 $298 $2,723.72 Retail 1o,000-99999 Square Feet 11000 SF 22 $298 $6,556.00 Retail 100,000-1,000,000 Ft' 11000 SF 8.6 $298 $2,562.8o Retail,more than 1,000,000 Ft' 11000 SF 27.07 $298 $8,066.86 Quality Restaurant 11000 SF 50.68 $298 $15,102.64 High Turnover Restaurant(Sit Down) 11000 SF 29.16 $298 $8,689.68 Fast Food Restaurant W1Drive Through 11000 SF 52.33 $298 $15,594.34 Fast Food Restaurant W/O Drive 11000 SF 71.17 $298 $21,208.66 Through Coffee/Doughnut Shop W/O Drive 11000 SF 114.03 $298 $33,980 94 Through Coffee/Doughnut Shop W1Drive 11000 SF 123.98 $298 $36,946.04 Through BarlLoungelDrinking Place 11000 SF 3.02 $298 $899.96 Winery 11000 SF 11.95 $298 $3,561.10 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 44 Quick Lube /1000 SF 17.69 $298 $5,271.62 Automotive Care Center /1000 SF 0.19 $298 $56.62 Self Service Car Wash Wash Stalls 13.71 $298 $4,o85.58 Automotive Car(New/Used)Sales /1000 SF 16.85 $298 $5,021.30 Automated Car Wash /1000 SF 1.8 $298 $536.40 Tire Store/Auto Repair/Sales /1000 SF 9.26 $298 $2,759.48 Supermarket I1000 SF 23.24 $298 $6,925.52 Convenience Store I1000 SF 89.86 $298 $26,778.28 Convenience Store with Gas Pumps /1000 SF 79.24 $298 $23,613.52 Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and I100o SF 141.76 $298 $42,244.48 Fast Food Home Improvement Store /1000 SF 8.93 $298 $2,661.14 Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive /100o SF 16.17 $298 $4,818.66 Through Furniture Store /1000 SF 1.79 $298 $533.42 Lodging Hotel Rooms 5.32 $298 $1,585.36 All Suites Hotel Rooms 2.84 $298 $846.32 Motel Rooms 2.14 $298 $637.72 Resort Motel Rooms 0.09 $298 $26.82 Recreational City Park Acres 0.41 $298 $122.18 Major Park/Regional Park Acres 2.4 $298 $715.20 Soccer Complex Acres 9.29 $298 $2,768.42 Campground/Rv Park Occup.Sites 0.25 $298 $74.50 Marina Berths 1.27 $298 $378.46 Miniature Golf Course Holes o.18 $298 $53.64 Golf Course Holes 15.95 $298 $4,753.10 Multipurpose Recreational Facility /1000 sq ft 1.88 $298 $560.24 Water Slide Park Acres 78.93 $298 $23,521.14 Health and Fitness Club /1000 sq ft o.69 $298 $205.62 Miscellaneous Movie Theater /1000 sq ft 11.73 $298 $3,495.54 Church /1000 sq ft 4.18 $298 $1,245.64 Day Care /1000 sq ft 28.61 $298 $8,525.78 General Aviation Airport Employees 8.98 $298 $2,676.04 Veterinary Clinic I1000 sq ft 12.92 $298 $3,85o.16 Recreational Community Center /1000 sq ft 17.31 $298 $5,158.38 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 45 Nole:Fee I I The City of Edgewater's adopted comprehensive plan allows for the increase of the transportation impact fee to follow Consumer Price Index (CPI) — For All Urban Consumers. Table 8 and Table 9 below show both the calculated fee from the tables above as well as the fee adjusted fee based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers from 2oo6(the last time the impact fee was adjusted)and 2o18.This was multiplied by a factor of 1.245,which is equivalent to the inflation rate over the same period. Table 8—Residential Impact Fee by Land Use Existing Calculated Consumer Price Land Use Type Unit Impact Fee Impact Fee Index Adjustment Single Family Detached living Dwelling Unit $1,426.17 $1,737.34 $1,776.35 Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 51,053.97 51,346.96 51,312.76 (less than 3 floors) Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit $701.46 $1,001.28 $873.69 (3 to 10 floors) Apartments/Condominiums/Townhouse Dwelling Unit $701.46 $819.50 $873.69 (more than 10 floors) Assisted Living 1000/sf - $771.82 Continuing Care Retirement $16o.17 per Units $441.04 5199.50 Community0) bed Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit $551.95 $95o.62 $687.47 (1)Formerly Nursing Home Table 9—Non-Residential Impact Fee by Land Use Existing Existing ITE Manual Calculated Consumer Price Land Use Type Unit Impact Fee Unit Impact Fee Index Adjustment Office and Financial Hospital /1000 Sf $1,727.69 /1000 Sf $1,919.12 $2,151.90 Office Under 1o,000 Square Foot /1000 Sf $2,602.02 11000 Sf $3,328.66 $3,240.91 Office Over 1o,000 Square Foot /1000 Sf $1,658.47 /1000 Sf $1,999.58 $2,o65.68 Corporate Headquarters Building /1000 Sf $826.49 /1000 Sf $1,636.02 $1,029.42 Medical/Dental Office /1000 Sf $4,o67.95 /1000 Sf $7049.02 $5,o66.78 Office Park /1000 Sf $2,367.76 /1000 Sf $2,276.72 $2,949.13 Research&Development Center /1000 Sf $1,007.14 /1000 Sf $2,547.90 $1,254.43 Business Park /1000 Sf $2,212.37 /1000 Sf $2,243.94 $2,755.59 Bank Without Drive Through 11000 Sf $3,219.6o /1000 Sf $1,028.10 $4,010.13 Bank with Drive Through /1000 Sf $9,364.76 /1000 Sf $8,481.o8 $11,664.14 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 46 Industrial Light Industry /1000 Sf $1,039.78 /1000 Sf $1,120.48 $1,295•o8 Industrial Park /1000 Sf $1,295.11 /1000 Sf $765.86 $1,613.11 Manufacturing /1000 Sf $571.o6 /1000 Sf $891.02 $711.28 Warehouse /1000 Sf $717.14 /1000 Sf $393.36 $893.22 Mini-Warehouse /1000 Sf $240.02 /1000 Sf $274.16 $298.95 Retail Building Materials and Lumber /1000 Sf $3,263.20 /1000 Sf $3,257.14 $4,064.43 Hardware/Paint Store /1000 Sf $8,504.85 /1000 Sf $429.12 $10,593.09 Nursery(Garden Center) - /1000 Sf $3,o69.40 Factory Outlet Center - /1000 Sf $1,63o.o6 Retail,Less Than 1o,000 Ft2 /1000 Sf $3,505.39 /1000 Sf $2,723.72 $4,366.o9 Retail 1o,000-99,999 Ft2 /1000 Sf $2,237.32 /1000 Sf $6,556.00 $2,786.66 Retail 1oo,000-1,000,000 Ft2 /1000 Sf $1,722.18 /1000 Sf $2,562.8o $2,145.04 Retail more than 1,000,000 Ft2 /1000 Sf $2,407.73 /1000 Sf $8,o66.86 $2,998.91 Quality Restaurant—NO CHANGE /1000 Sf $5,642.o8 /l000 Sf $15002.64 $7,027.41 High Turnover Restaurant(Sit /1000 Sf $8,089.22 11000 Sf $8,689.68 $10,075.41 Down) Fast Food Restaurant W/Drive 11000 Sf $15,708.53 11000 Sf $15,594.34 $19,565.54 Through Fast Food Restaurant W/O Drive 11000 Sf $2,674.51 /1000 Sf $21,208.66 $3,331.20 Through Coffee/Doughnut Shop W/O Drive 11000 Sf $33,980.94 Through Coffee/Doughnut Shop W/Drive /1000 Sf $36,946.04 Through Bar/Lounge/Drinking Place /1000 Sf $10,177.50 /1000 Sf $899.96 $12,676.44 Winery - - /1000 Sf $3,561.10 - Quick Lube Bays $2692.89 /1000 Sf $5,271.62 $3,229.54 Automotive Care Center /1000 Sf $2,169.54 /1000 Sf $56.62 $2,702.24 Self Service Car Wash - Wash Stalls $4,o85•58 - Automotive Car (New/Used)Sales /1000 Sf $3,215.15 /1000 Sf $5,021.30 $4,004.58 Automated Car Wash /1000 Sf $5,o66.84 /1000 Sf $536.40 $6,310.93 Tire Store/Auto Repair/Sales Bays $1,544.99 /1000 Sf $2,759.48 $1,924.34 Supermarket /1000 Sf $3,401.67 /1000 Sf $6,925.52 $4,236.90 Convenience Store /1000 Sf $10,727.68 /1000 Sf $26,778.28 $13,361.71 Convenience Store with Gas Pumps /1000 Sf $9,169.39 11000 Sf $23,613.52 $11,42o.8o Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Fast Food /1000 Sf $20,027.14 /1000 Sf $42,244.48 $24,944.52 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 47 Home Improvement Store /1000 Sf $2,013.84 /1000 Sf $2,661.14 $2,5o8.31 Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive /1000 Sf $2,203.72 /1000 Sf $4,818.66 $2,744.81 Through Furniture Store /1000 Sf $395.00 /1000 Sf $533.42 $491.99 Lodging Hotel Rooms $1,035.53 Rooms $1,585.36 $1,289.79 All Suites Hotel - Rooms $846.32 - Motel Rooms $557.48 Rooms $637.72 $694.36 Resort Motel - Rooms $26.82 - Recreational General Recreation(') Acres $434.17 Acres - $540.77 City Park /Parking Acres $122.18 Space $1,334.59 $1,662.28 Major Park/Regional Park /Parking 1 $292.40 Acres $715.20 $364.19 Space Campground/Rv Park /Space Occup. $74.50 $466.58 Sites $581•14 Marina Berths $555.20 Berths $378.46 $691.52 Major Sports Facility0) /Parking $26o.85 Acres - $324.90 Space Soccer Complex Fields $2,768.42 - Miniature Golf Course Holes $53.64 Golf Course Holes $4,753.10 Multipurpose 11000 Sf $560.24 Recreational Facility Water Slide Park Acres $23,521.14 Health and Fitness Club /1000 Sf $205.62 Miscellaneous Movie Theater Screens $6,593.92 /1000 Sf $3,495.54 $8,212.96 Church /1000 Sf $832.20 /1000 Sf $1,245.64 $1,036.53 Day Care—NO CHANGE /1000 Sf $2,914.99 /1000 Sf $8,525.78 $3,630.72 General Aviation Airport 1000 Sf $1,303.30 Employees $2,676.04 $1,623.31 Veterinary Clinic /1000 Sf $1,389.24 /1000 Sf $3,85o.16 $1,730.35 Recreational Community Center - /1000 Sf $5,158.38 category has been removed frorn the CUrrent ITE nlanUal. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 48 CONCLUSION There are several factors that could account for the difference between the CPI adjusted rate and the Calculated Fee. These include a difference in the change between transportation construction costs and the CPI index, changes in travel behavior, or a greater delineation between land uses leading to impact fees that better represent the specialized land use. This leads to some fees that have increased and others that have decreased with the Calculated Fee,and all fees that increase for the CPI adjustment. Not all the land use types from Table 8 and Table 9 were included in previous impact fees, and as a result a comparison between the CPI adjustment and Calculated fee is not possible.They are included here to provide a complete analysis of potential land uses, provided as categories from the Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 49 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Water and wastewater system extension and capital charges are described within Sections 21-324, 325, 326 and 327. ` Generally, the intent of each section is to establish charges for the purpose of a compensating the City for costs incurred in providing sewage treatment facilities, effluent disposal facilities and pumping stations and extending sewage collection k lines to a point of reasonable availability � u � for connection to the City sewer system. The charges are computed on the basis of Alan R.Thomas Water Treatment Plant real property use,zoning and size in approximate proportion to the benefits received. The basis for the water and sewer capital charge schedule set forth by resolution was structured by the City with regard to two factors. First,the present level of construction costs of treatment,transmission,distribution and collections; second, future capacity requirements as prescribed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)and/or other regulatory agencies governing within the jurisdiction. The current ordinance states that staff shall annually review all fees related to the utility's capital charges and make adjustments proportional to change in the Consumer Price Index(CPI)or Engineering News Record(ENR). The City has not adjusted water and sewer impact fees since 2009. Current capital charges are as follows: CATEGORYCAPITAL CHARGES Residential Water,Inside City $1612.43/ERU Residential Sewer,Inside City $2,226.691ERU The City's comprehensive plan established a level of service(LOS)of 204 GPD/ERU,for both water and sewer service. The current capital charges for residential water and sewer can be expressed in terms of $/GPD as follows: Residential Water = $7.9o/GPD Residential Sewer = $10.92/GPD UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 50 The charges are intended to represent costs in gallons/day,for available capacity and future costs to construct facilities needed to collect,convey,treat and dispose of water and/or sewage required for new development. The current ordinance states that capital charges shall be increased annually in proportion to the CPI or ENR inflationary indices.The Southeast Consumer Price Index(CPI)has increased 19.2%over the course of the past 10 years,January 2019(source: US Bureau of Labor and Statistics). In accordance with the current rate ordinance, capital charges should have been increased as follows: CHARGES2019 CAPITAL CATEGORY • 2019 Residential Water $1922.02/ERU 2019 Residential Sewer $2654.21/ERU Based upon a LOS=204GPCD,2019 capital charges would be$9.42/GPD and$13.o1/GPD,respectively,if the fees are updated per CPI. AVAILABLE CAPACITY The City's water treatment facilities have permitted and available capacity as detailed below: CAPACITYAVAILABLE 2o18 AVERAGE COMMITTEDPERMITTED DAILY FLOWAVAILABILITY CAPACITYFACILITY . .. Water Treatment Plant 5.00 1.93 2.59 2.41 48% Wastewater Treatment Plant 2.75 1.71 2.23 0.52 19% Excludes 0.74 MGD reserved capacity for Restoration DRI. WATER SUPPLY Edgewater withdraws groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer. Groundwater use is regulated by SJRWMD and the City has a Consumptive Use Permit(CUP)#9157 issued December 11,2007. It expires December 11,2027. The permitted average daily withdrawal capacity increases annually and is capped at 3.48 MGD in 2025. UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 51 The City has 15 water supply wells with a total groundwater withdrawal capacity of 4,300 GPM(6.20 MGD)and a firm capacity of 3,85o GPM(5.5o GMD)with the largest well out of service. The current CUP authorizes construction of four(4)(new western wells for a total additional capacity of 1,66o GPM and a total firm capacity of 5,40o GPM(7.85 MGD). WATER TREATMENT The Alan R.Thomas Water Treatment Facility has a rated capacity of 5.0 MGD. It is a lime softening facility with onsite storage and high service pumping. Current average flows are approximately 5o% of its rated capacity. Historical flow and future projections are detailed below: WATER DEMAND FLOW ESTIMATES 2023 2028 2033 2038 Estimated Population 28,441 31,253 33,903 36,554 Estimated Water Demand(92 2.62 MGD 2.88 MGD 3.12 MGD 3.36 MGD GPCD) Estimated flow projections do not reflect wholesale water sold to Volusia County for County water customers in southeast Volusia County, i.e. Oak Hill. Based upon current flow projections, the City has adequate water treatment capacity through 2038. Capital projects required for capacity and regulatory compliance are listed herein as Table#2. WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL The City owns and operates an Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT)facility located at 409 Mango Tree Drive. The facility has a permitted capacity of 2.75 MGD, annual average daily flow (AADF). Current flows are approximately 1.71 MGD and approximately 8o%of the plant's capacity has been committed. The facility has an NPDES `wet weather' discharge for 250 million gallons per year (MGY) which equates to approximately 25% of the annual flow. A public access reclaimed water system serves as the utility's second means of effluent disposal. The City is currently investing$3.58 million in a western reclaimed water transmission UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 52 main and secondary outfall to increase effluent disposal capacity. The graph,below,illustrates estimated flows through 2028. Edgewater WWTP Flow Projections 3.00 2.50 2.40 2.00 9 0 1.80 v 3 1.50 5 1.46 0 1.32 1.00 0.50 0.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 --dw-AADF —Projected Flow Based upon current flow projections, the City will reach 8o%of its permitted capacity(2.20 MGD) by 2023. In accordance with FDEP requirements, planning for facility expansion is required upon reaching this point. The existing facility is designed to accommodate a third process train that matches the existing two (2) upon completion of that capacity expansion,treatment capacity will be 4.125 MGD. FUTURE PROJECTS The City's current Capital Improvements Plan(CIP), FY 17-22,identifies approximately $30 million for water and sewer related projects. A listing of major impact fee eligible projects has been assembled and is shown below. UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 53 This table includes many of the major projects identified within the adopted CIP;however,two(z)projects are not included that will be required within a 10-year planning horizon. These are the western wellfield and WWTP Expansion projects. Table#3 identifies future projects,capacity,estimated costs and capacity costs,expressed in$/GPD. Funding for a portion of these capacity costs are accounted for within the existing charge; however, projected sewer expenses exceed the current charges,even after considering inflationary factors. PROJECTSWATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE PROJECT .D .D Western Wellfield and Transmission Water 2,300,000 $3,000,000 $1.30 THM Reduction&Water Quality Water 5,000,000 $3,500,000 $0.70 Compliance Western Storage and Water 1,500,000 $3,000,000 $2.00 Transmission SE Service Area 16"Water Main Extension Water 1,500,000 $1,675,000 $0.90 PW/PU Complex,(@1/4 total Water 5,000,000 $2,575,000 $0.46 cost) WATER SUBTOTALS $13,750,000 $5.36 WWTP Expansion Sewer 1,375,000 $10,000,000 $7.27 Sludge Handling Upgrades Sewer 4,125,000 $1,500,000 $0.36 Western Regional LS&Force Sewer 1.500,000 $3,000,000 $2.00 Main SE Service Area Force Main Extension Sewer 1,300,000 $1,500,000 $0.87 RWM Extensions 1,2&3 Sewer 2,000,000 $3,580,000 $1.79 PW/PU Complex(1/4 total cost) Sewer 4,125,000 $2,275,000 $0.55 SEWER SUBTOTALS $21,855,000 $12.84 Based upon Table #3, capacity costs for future water and sewer projects are $5.36 /GPD and $12.84 GPD, respectively.The table below calculates the costs associated with available capacity in conjunction with future costs to determine the total capacity costs and capital charges,at the current Level of Service. UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 54 TOTAL • UTILITY AVAILABLE (')AVAILABLE FUTURE CAPACITY COST TOTALCHARGE CAPACITY CAPACITY • ., CAPACITY •D • •. Water 48% 3.8o $5.36 9.16 $1.869.00 Sewer 19% 2.07 $12.84 14.91 $3,042.00 TOTALS $4,911.00 ')Available capacity cost=(current charges)x(%available) M Capital charge=(total capacity cos)x 204GPCDIERU CONCLUSION The City has established water demand and sewer flow estimates that create future needs to be met by the City's water and wastewater utilities. A Capital Improvement Program has been established to satisfy those needs. The proposed capital charges reflect additional costs incurred by the utility system resulting from the new development. UTILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 55 APPENDIX A PROPOSED IMPACT FEE COMPARISON TO EXISTING FEES PROPOSED IMPACT FEE COMPARISON TO EXISTING FEES PROPOSED Functional Population w 2oo6t'i CPit'1 Functional Population Building Replacement POLICE Development Unit Single-Family/Detached Dwelling $15o.66 $187.65 $179-52 $711.56 Single-Family/Attached Dwelling $111.45 $138.81 $132.80 $526.36 Duplex/Apartment/ Condominium Dwelling $100.10 $124.68 $119 $472.75 Mobile Home or R/V Park Pad Site S82.55 $102.82 '98 !7 $38990 Hotel/Motel Room $228.o6 $284.06 $271.74 $1,077.09 Retail/Commercial I,00-Sq.Ft. $33538 $417.73 $399-62 $1,583.95 Office/Institutional 1,000 Sq.Ft. $202.27 $251.93 $241.00 $955.25 Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 Sq.Ft. $119.72 $149.121 $142.63 $56535 'Current impact fee per Resolution 2oo6-R-04 P)Based on US Bureau of labor Statistics CPI Rate average from 2oo6n018(1.245) PROPOSED 20o6' CPI' Functional Population FIRE Development Unit Single-Family Detached (Formerly Single-Family/ Mobile Home I Hotel) Dwelling $330.51 $411.66 $469-54 Single•Family Attached (Formerly Single-Family/ Mobile Home I Hotel) Dwelling $330.51 $411.66 $347.33 Duplex,Apartment, Condominium (Formerly Multi-Family) Dwelling $143.77 $179-07 $311.95 Mobile Home or R/V Park Pad Site $0.00 $0.00 $257.28 Hotel/Motel (Formerly Single-Family/Mobile Home/ Room Hotel) $330.51 $411.66 $710.74 rcial Retail/CommeT000 5 .Ft. 5241.27 $300.51 $1,045.20 Office/Institutional 1,0oo Sq.Ft. $165.25 $205.82 $630.34 Industrial I Warehouse 1,000 Sq.Ft. $11.57 $14.41 $373.05 Current impact fee per Resolution zoo6-R-04 (')Based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Rate average from 2006-2018(1.245) PROPOSED 2006' CPI' Functional Population a RECREATIONAL PARKS AND OPEN Development Unit SPACE Single-Family Detached (Formerly Single-Family I Mobile Home I Hotel) 3 Bedroom $612.11 $762.40 $798-97 Single-Family Attached (Formerly Single-Family/ Mobile Home Hotel) 3 Bedroom $676.5 $842.67 $642.24 Duplex,Apartment, Condominium (Formerly Multi-Family) 3 Bedroom $716.81 $892.81 $598-93 Mobile Home 3 Bedroom I s636.27 $792.501 $528.82 Hotel/Motel (Formerly Single-Family/Mobile Home/ Hotel Room $459.09 $571.81 $654.62 'Current impact fee per Resolution zoo6-R-o4 (')Based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Rate average from 2oo6-2o18(1.245) (3)With the exception of Hotel/Motel,theproposed development unit is dwelling PROPOSED 2017' CPI a PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM Minimum (SIDEWALK) Pedestrian/ DEVELOPMENT FEE(') Sidewalk Width Street/Roadway Classiftcation Local 4 Feet $16.o0 1 $16-391 Collector 5 Feet $20.00 $20.4 Arterial 6 Feet $28.00 $28.69 'Fee calculated per linear foot of property frontage. (')Current impact fee per Resolution 2017-R-24. (3)Based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Rate average from 2017-2018(1.024) PROPOSED 2009' CPI' Total Capacity UTILITY Development Unit Water Capital Char es ERU sl,612.43 $1,887.56 $1,869.00 Sewer Ca italChar es ERU $2,226.69 $2,6o6.63 $3,042.00 'Current impact tee per Resolution 20og-R-o8 (')Based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Rate averagefrom 2009-2018(1.17) \ { !! - T. o k 1===(( ! \\\\\{\)\\ \\\\) \\\\\ \ -- / !Z!!�= .......... .... . . .......... ...IE ::_...� !}}° } ®®!:! { \ I - ) ; § : _ _ `{ t)!t/ )!}[{j(;!:} }f\}7!}))!\) /)§a)\fi;i]) LL!;f]!!|\i/;f/J!{!]i; e ,:Zl:z3;}:#!})!)/:&!)/7/f Lq 0) �—, O O �t N N O M O � r-I -I I� JA a Qi 00 M N 1.0 G) M Ql I� W a rn O an O W 2 U W } ~ lD r-I O p r-I r-I Ct J W lD Ln O OC O O N O M lD CD CO M N M Q Ln M lD N 00 d %D W U V)- t/*)- VIP in _0 J 3 Z O N ZD 0 00 J � LL Q O N H 1 Z OC W W C: LL U O Lu W H C C Li- WQ r L W ULL O a Q N E Ca u C Y E a1 to C _ O N O O +�-+ O O_ c0 ++ O NA V) a-+ N U _0 — co O 1 LL or d f— i APPENDIX B IMPACT FEE COMPARISON TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES ! - �® ) °\ |! o § ; \ ; ; )§�(\\ \�`}/( � m ! | | 0 § 0 § } % § l::!!!!! | : _ , | \ _ | !__ | a ( kk ` Ln } | ! ! |x..lz>z� !:!! AMM MM | 7 10 �)))),,,, / !!(\/\ ! 10|2:=,5\4!; ~ E } • • , E . §� § | .I 12 9111! | |! ! | ow o } �jj)k/| );;\} /} ) |) ) j}}\\® ]®o §){� \)) \ ) X\6 #&# =a�� . �,a / ƒ} - - - -.---- -- ---- - ! \-- / 0000000* 000 \/�\)\/ \\\�\/� \\ }\\�/ ----------- {\\�00\ \ }}{\ \\/\\/ \\ \\ tA / §k \ § \kk) \/; \\ \ k} /kkkk / \ k 0 \ § \ ------ ---------- ----- ------------ -- - - -- -- 10 U- z u � EtA § { \2�)\)&/ /3!m je.4 \}t§} __ !a -� alaa�;,aZ=-=«= 1p | ( ` - | 21 � � * ! . !k , r :; -! !]7!!!! § _ i ------!!! ! 5555! !!!!! !!!!!!!--- --- ---- ®' / 15555 § \ ) 'D . . . \ r /\ § k ) ® ! |) ,;k� k . ! § �\ k bi k � ` \ 01 _ �(|!\\ ! �` � �\ )�)) § §k § A!0i|!(!!2\§ |_� §! £(;; !|� !`!»!§! !! ; , ._� . 2 _ �} �k)$$ !)}}}/ 0. }} { k } � � (=J{! \/ - )2!| )/(\}(.... ®!!Z! a - l�a.la ! !\)�! ) !!!�§ /f APPENDIX C EXCERPTS FROM VOLUSIA COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY, SEPTEMBER 2018 Cost per Service Unit Most functioning major roadway systems require an overall VMC/VMT ratio greater than one,which represents a system in which,on average,every roadway segment is utilized to its full capacity. Because traffic is not spread uniformly in proportion to capacity, even systems with severe congestion issues on some major roadways have VMC/VMT ratios greater than one. The existing levels of service on Volusia County's major roadway system by roadway class are summarized in Table 11. Overall, the system has twice as much capacity as demand. As noted in the Methodology chapter, the City could base the fees on a VMC/VMT ratio somewhat higher than 1.00, referred to as a modified consumption-based approach. This update, however, retains the standard consumption-based approach used in previous studies. Table 11. Existing Level of Service by Roadway Class VIVICNIVIT Roadway Class VIVIC VIVIT Ratio State Highways 5,313,944 3,053,893 1.74 County Arterials 3,082,243 1,708,497 1.80 County Collectors 3,396,713 924,077 3.68 Total 11,792,900 5,686,467 2.07 Source: VMC and VMT from Table 18 in Appendix A. Roadway Project Cost While the most obvious component of a roadway project is the physical roadway itself,there are other components that add to the cost of the project. These include the cost of professional services (planning and design), right of way (land), environmental mitigation, utility relocation, permitting, inspection, and project management. In a consumption-based impact fee system, roadway construction costs are entered into the formula as an average cost for providing new roadway capacity. Using this method,assuming there are no dramatic changes to the type of construction contemplated, it is not necessary to revisit impact fees each time that the capital improvement program changes. Updates at reasonable periodic intervals are sufficient to analyze potential changes to average costs. The average cost to add capacity to the major roadway system is determined by examining the most recent cost data available. The roadway improvements costs shown in Table 12 are for projects that have been recently-completed or have bids or detailed cost estimates. The average cost from this set of recent and planned major roadway improvements is $3.70 million per added lane-mile. Volusia County,Florida duncan'ossociates Road Impact Fee Study 21 September 24,2018 Supplemental Document Item 12 - 25 Cost per Service Unit Table 12. Major Roadway Cost per Lane-Mile New New Cost/ Roadway Segment Status Project Miles Lns Ln-Mi Total Cost Lane-Mi. Saxon Blvd,Kmart Entry-1-4 Ramp Done 4 to 6 Lns 1.31 2 2.62 $5,698,295 $2,174,922 Tymber Crk Rd,SR 40-Peruvian Ln Done 2 to 4 Lns 0.70 2 1.40 $9,152,093 $6,537,209 LPGA Blvd,Jimmy Ann-e/o Derbyshire Est. 2 to 4 Lns 1.05 2 2.10 $7,139,360 $3,399,695 Williamson Blvd/Dunn Ave-LPGA Blvd Done 2 to 4 Lns 2.10 2 4.20 $5,367,433 $1,277,960 Howland Blvd,Courtland-SR 415 Bid 2 to 4 Lns 2.22 2 4.44 $14,884,317 $3,352,324 Williamson Blvd, LPGA Blvd-Stricklland Rng Est. 2 to 4 Lns 2.00 2 0.90 $5,196,000 $5,773,333 Dunn Ave Ext.,Tomoka Farms-Wllmsn Done New 2 Lns 0.74 2 1.48 $10,864,651 $7,340,980 10th St,US 1-Myrtle Ave Est. 2 to 4 Lns 0.50 2 1.00 $11,345,108 $11,345,108 Orange Camp/MLK, MLK Blvd to 1-4 Est. 2 to 4 Lns 1.80 2 3.60 $11,342,198 $3,150,611 Howland Blvd, Providence Blvd-Elkcam Est. 2 to 4 Lns 2.20 2 4.40 $14,179,365 $3,222,583 Total 14.62 26.14 $95,168,820 $3,704,399 Source: Volusia County Construction Engineering,September 11,2018. While cost per lane-mile is a useful measure of cost that can be readily understood, the consumption- based methodology must convert this to a cost per vehicle-mile of capacity (VMC). The previous 2003 study and the unadopted 2007 study divided average lane-mile cost by the average capacity per lane. This update divides the total cost of a set of specific improvements by the vehicle-miles of capacity added by those improvements. As calculated in Table 13, the average cost of recent and planned improvements is $298 per VMC added. Table 13. Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Daily Capacity New Cost/ Road Segment Miles Before After New VMC Total Cost VIVIC Saxon Blvd, Kmart Entry-1-4 Ramp 1.31 26,320 44,320 18,000 23,580 $5,698,295 $242 Tymber Crk Rd,SR 40-Peruvian Ln 0.70 13,640 35,820 22,180 15,526 $9,152,093 $589 LPGA Blvd,Jimmy Ann-E of Derbyshire 1.05 14,040 37,970 23,930 25,127 $7,139,360 $284 Williamson Blvd/Dunn Ave-LPGA Blvd 2.10 17,050 37,970 20,920 43,932 $5,367,433 $122 Howland Blvd,Courtland-SR 415 2.22 13,640 37,970 24,330 54,013 $14,884,317 $276 Williamson Blvd, LPGA Blvd-Stricklland Rng 2.00 17,050 37,970 20,920 41,840 $5,196,000 $124 Dunn Ave Ext.,Tomoka Farms-Wllmsn 0.74 0 17,050 17,050 12,617 $10,864,651 $861 10th St,US 1-Myrtle Ave 0.50 14,040 37,970 23,930 11,965 $11,345,108 $948 Orange Camp/MLK,MLK Blvd to 1-4 1.80 17,050 37,970 20,920 37,656 $11,342,198 $301 Howland Blvd, Providence Blvd-Elkcam 2.20 13,640 37,970 24,330 53,526 $14,179,365 $265 Total 14.62 319,782 $95,168,820 $298 Source: Miles and total costs from Table 12; capacities from Table 18 in Appendix A; new VMC is product of miles and new capacity;cost per VMC is cost divided by new VMC. Volusia County,Florida duncan associates Road Impact Fee Study 22 September 24,2018 Supplemental Document Item 12 - 26