The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02152007 SpecialJOINT PUBLIC SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP MEETING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF FELLSMERE COUNCIL TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES COUNCIL CITY OF SEBASTIAN COUNCIL CITY OF VERO BEACH COUNCIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M. RICHARDSON CENTER AT THE INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE MUELLER CAMPUS AT 6155 COLLEGE LANE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER, BCC CHAIRMAN 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 4. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT 5. REVIEW OF SCHOOL CONCURRENCY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 6. ADJOLJ7ZNMENT ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE RICHARDSON CENTER'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 299-1717 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\Meetings\Meeting Agenda2-15-07.doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Members, School Board Members, City Council Members, and Town Council Members DE RT E T HEAD CONCURRENCE: l Ro ert M. eating; AI P Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S~~vG^ Chief, Long-Range Planning FROM: Bill Schutt, AICP Senior Economic Development Planner DATE: February 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft School Concurrency Documents It is requested that" the data herein presented be given formal consideration at the February 15, 2007 joint workshop meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, School Board, City Councils, and Town Councils. BACKGROUND Since 1985, the State of Florida has required that all local governments in the state apply "Concurrency" regulations to their review of development project applications. Basically, Concurrency requires that the services and facilities needed to accommodate new development be in place concurrent with the impacts of new development. Until last year, Concurrency applied to water, sewer, parks, solid waste, drainage, and roads. With the passage of SB 360 by the 2005 Florida Legislature, the State Concurrency requirement changed. Along with various other mandates, that law requires that all local governments in the state adopt school Concurrency provisions as part of their comprehensive plans by 2008. To assist local governments in complying with the new school Concurrency requirements, the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) chose six counties and their school boards to be school Concurrency pilot communities. In exchange for $200,000 in DCA funding, each pilot community was required to prepare the applicable school Concurrency documents by June 1, 2006, and those documents were to become models for other communities to use in complying with school concurrency requirements. In the fall of 2005, DCA offered the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and the Indian River County School Board an opportunity to become one of the pilot communities for developing school concurrency plan components that meet the requirements of the Florida Legislature's 2005 growth management law (SB360). To meet school concurrency requirements, local governments must: ^ Adopt a public school facilities element ^ Enter into an Interlocal agreement with their school board ^ Amend appropriate sections of their Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and ^ Amend appropriate sections of their Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). As part of the pilot community program, Indian River County and the School District of Indian River County completed the following: 1. Entered into a Pilot Community contract with DCA; 2. Advertised for and selected a consultant to prepare the applicable school concurrency documents (Kimley Horn and Associates); 3. Formed acounty/school staff committee to assist Kimley Horn and Associates with preparation of the required documents; 4. Held acounty/schooUmunicipalstaff meeting on October 14, 2005 to review School Concurrency Pilot Community requirements; . 5. Held a joint meeting with county/school/municipal elected officials on January 4, 2006 in which staff from DCA presented an overview of the new school concurrency requirements; 6. Prepared a draft of the revised Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Planning; 7. Submitted the revised draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Planning to DCA on March 1, 2006; 8. Held a public school planning staff working group committee meeting on March 17, 2006 to review the draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Planning. 9. Held a School Board school concurrency workshop on April 12, 2006; 10. Prepared draft school concurrency related revisions to the County's Capital Improvements Element and the County's Intergovernmental Coordination Element and submitted those drafts to DCA on Apri115, 2006; 11. Prepared a draft Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) and submitted it to DCA on April 15, 2006; 12. Held a county and municipal elected officials workshop on May 3, 2006 to review the draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Planning; 13. Prepared a fmal draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Planning based on comments received from DCA, elected municipal and school officials, and school, municipal, and county staff; 14. Prepared fmal draft school concurrency revisions to the County's Capital Improvements Element and the County's Intergovernmental Coordination Element based on comments received from DCA on the draft documents; 15. Prepared a fmal draft Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) based on comments received from DCA; 16. Prepared an assessment of each municipal Capital Improvements Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element to identify necessary school concurrency related revisions; 17. Held a Public School Planning Staff Working Group Committee meeting on August 11, 2006 (see attached unapproved meeting minutes); 18. Responded to municipal staff comments on the draft documents. 19. Held acounty/schooUmunicipalelected officials workshop on September 26, 2006 to review the fmal draft pilot community program school concurrency documents; 20. Held an Intergovernmental Coordination staff meeting to review implementation requirements for school concurrency. In late Fall of 2006, the County and School District completed their obligations for the school concurrency pilot community program. While school concurrency pilot community responsibilities 2 have been met, the school board and local governments have not achieved consensus on the draft school concurrency documents. Such a consensus is necessary in order to move forward with formal adoption of the school concurrency documents. At the September 26, 2006 county/school/municipal elected officials meeting, School Board members expressed concern regarding the accuracy of some of the school related data contained within the draft documents. At that meeting, School Board members requested additional time to review the draft documents and make necessary changes Since the September 26th meeting, School Board staff has updated school related data in the draft documents. Also, the School Board has had several workshops, and has accepted the modified draft revisions in principle. At this time, the Board of County Commissioners, School Board, City Councils, and Town Councils are to review and reach a general consensus to accept or accept with modifications the draft Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency (attachment 2), the draft Public School Facilities Element (attachment 3), the proposed changes to municipal Capital Improvements Elements and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements (attachment 4), and the proposed school concurrency implementation schedule (attachment 5). DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Public School Facilities Element The draft Public School Facilities Element addresses projected school enrollment growth, acceptable levels of service, need for new school facilities, anticipated revenues, procedures for implementing school concurrency, and general goals, objectives, and policies. As part of an overall school concurrency program, this element will need to be adopted by the County, the City of Fellsmere, the Town of Indian River Shores, the City of Sebastian, and the City of Vero Beach. The Town of Orchid is the only municipality within the County that does not have to participate in the school concurrency program. The Town of Orchid qualifies for this exemption pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.3177(12)(b), Florida Statutes. ^ Updates Since the September 26th 2006 elected officials meeting, the Public School Facilities Element has been updated to include new data and revised maps. In addition, tiered level of service standards have been replaced by a level of service standard of 100% of FISH capacity. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) The draft of the County's Capital Improvements Element (CIE) includes the addition of school concurrency level of service standards and the addition of the School District's Capital Improvements Schedule (per state requirements). Similar updates will need to be made to the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Fellsmere, the Town of Indian River Shores, the City of Sebastian, and the City of Vero Beach. As part of the consultant contract between Kimley Horn and Associates and Indian River County/School District of Indian River County, Kimley Horn and Associates reviewed the CIE of each applicable municipality within the County and identified 3 various sections, tables, objectives, and policies that need to be updated to meet the new school concurrency requirements. The consultant's findings are detailed in the attached letter dated May 15, 2006. ^ Updates No recent updates have been made to these documents. The Municipalities and the County will need to include the School District's current Capital Improvements Schedule within their respective Capital Improvements Elements. In addition, the school concurrency level of service standard may need to also be included in each municipal and county Capital Improvements Element. Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) The draft version of the County's Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) includes procedures for coordinating development reviews with the School District. Similar to the Capital Improvements Element, school concurrency related changes need to be made to each applicable municipal Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Suggested school concurrency related changes to each municipal intergovernmental coordination element are detailed within attachment 4. ^ Updates No significant updates have been made to this draft document since the September 26th 2006 elected officials meeting. Interlocal Agreeme~zt (ILA) The proposed draft Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency maintains many of the same sections and much of the same content as the current School Interlocal agreement adopted by the County, School District, and each Municipality in May of 2003. In addition to the original sections/content, the draft revised ILA contains new school concurrency procedures. Thus, it is intended that, upon adoption, the new agreement will replace the existing (2003) agreement. Several sections (2-10 and 18-20) of the proposed agreement are not related to school concurrency or the pilot community project. Those sections contain proposed modifications to the site selection, data exchange, and school site plan review procedures in the current Interlocal agreement. The modifications proposed are the result of discussions between County and School District staff, comments received from the Staff Working Group Committee, and comments received from prior elected officials meetings. Sections 1, 11-17, and 21 of the revised ILA contain the new, proposed school concurrency procedures. In addition, Appendices E and F contain new school service area boundaries and school levels of service by facility type. ^ Updates The draft Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency has been 4 updated based on comments received as part of the September 26th 2006 elected officials meeting and based on subsequent recommendations received (including recommendations from recent School Board workshops). The previously proposed tiered school level of service standard has been replaced, various procedures and time frames have been clarified, and a proposed "hold harmless" section has been included. Public Comment Recently, staff received an extensive analysis of the draft Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency from a citizens' group representative and is in the process of reviewing that analysis. An initial review of that analysis indicates that the analysis contains a number of proposed changes to the ILA that are appropriate and that would make the ILA abetter document. Other proposed changes, however, are not appropriate and should not be made. Because these proposed changes are substantial and substantive, county and school board staff feel that these changes should be the subject of a future joint school concurrency workshop that focuses solely on the ILA. ANALYSIS As structured, the draft concurrency components establish a process for the county, municipalities, and school district to implement school concurrency. This process will require changes in the way that development projects are reviewed and approved by the county, towns, and cities. Once school concurrency is in place, no development project may be approved until the school district has determined that the project complies with school concurrency requirements. Consequently, existing development review processes and procedures will need to change; more and better coordination will be required; and new regulations will need to be applied. Although concurrency is a regulatory tool with the potential for stopping development projects if sufficient capacity in a concurrency facility is not available, the objective of concurrency is to program infrastructure improvements such that capacity is available when demand occurs. As structured, the school concurrency components provide a mechanism to do that. Once all of the school concurrency components have been finalized, school concurrency will need to be formally established. For Indian River County, the Department of Community Affairs has established a deadline of March 1, 2008 for school concurrency to be implemented. To meet this deadline, it is necessary that the County and each applicable municipality: Execute the Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Public School Planning and School Concurrency; 2. Adopt the Public School Facilities Element as part of the jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan; 3. Amend the Capital Improvements Element of its Comprehensive Plan to include the School District's Capital Improvement Schedule, school level of service standards, and other applicable school concurrency related text; and 4. Amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of its Comprehensive Plan to 5 include relevant school concurrency coordination text. The school concurrency documents fall into two different timelines for adoption. The Public School Facilities Element, Capital Improvements Element, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements fall within the first timeline. All are part of municipal and county comprehensive plans. As required by state statute, new comprehensive plan elements and updates of, existing comprehensive plan elements must go through a lengthy process of review and consideration before adoption. That process involves several public hearings and review by the state. As such, comprehensive plan amendments typically take 9 to 10 months to adopt. The Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency falls within the second timeline. Interlocal agreements are not part of a community's comprehensive plan and are not subj ect to the extensive public review and adoption process that comprehensive plan amendments are subject to. As a result, there is additional time and opportunity to work out the details of the Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency. In attachment 5 to this memorandum, there is a proposed timeline for execution of the interlocal agreement and adoption of the required comprehensive plan amendments. That timeline was approved at the September 26, 2006 elected officials meeting. As designed, it provides a schedule for the County, School District, and Municipalities to adopt the necessary agreements and comprehensive plan amendments to implement school concurrency. The timeline reflects state statutory requirements, which mandate state review of local government comprehensive plan amendments. CONCLUSION At the February 15, 2007 elected officials meeting, county and school board staff will provide an overview of the draft work products. In order to move forward with school concurrency implementation, the county, municipalities, and school board need to develop a consensus to accept or accept with modifications the proposed draft Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency, proposed draft Public School Facilities Element, and proposed draft revisions to the Municipal and County Capital Improvements Elements and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. Even though the objective of the February 15~` meeting is to achieve consensus among the participating local governments on the draft concurrency documents, there will still be many opportunities to modify the documents. The principal need for consensus at this point is to allow the local governments the opportunity to initiate the long process of amending their concurrency related comprehensive plan elements. Details can be resolved at subsequent meetings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, the Indian River County School Board, the City Councils of Fellsmere, Sebastian, and Vero Beach, and the Town Council of Indian River Shores review the attached Draft Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency, Draft Public School Facilities Element, draft revisions to both the Municipal and County Capital Improvements Elements and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements, consider information presented at the February 15, 2007 meeting, identify any needed changes to the draft 6 documents; and indicate concurrence with those documents. ATTACHMENTS 1. August 11, 2006 Unapproved Public School Planning Staff Working Group meeting minutes 2. Draft Proposed Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency 3. Draft Public School Facilities Element 4. May 15, 2006 Letter from Kimley Horn and Associates Regarding review of Municipal CIE's and ICE's 5. School Concurrency Implementation Schedule Cc: Jason Nunemaker, Fellsmere City Manager Robert J. Bradshaw, Indian River Shores Town Manager Al Minner, Sebastian City Manager Rebecca Grohall, City of Sebastian Director of Growth Management Jim Gabbard, Vero Beach City Manager Tim McGarry, City of Vero Beach Growth Management Director Maria Aguilar, Orchid Town Manager Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, Assistant Superintendent, SDIRC Susan Olson, Director of Facilities, Planning, & Construction, SDIRC Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long Range Planning F:\CommunityDevelopmenaUsers\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schoois\Updates\Meetings\February Meeting Memo v2.doc 7 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL PLANNING STAFF WORKING GROUP There was a .meeting of the Indian .River County Public School Planning Staff Working Group (SWG) on Friday, August 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in First Floor Conference Room "A" of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Present were members: Robert Keating, Indian River County (IRC) Community Development Director; Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director; Dr. Dan McIntyre, IRC School Board Assistant Superintendent of Planning & Operations; Susan Olson, IRC School Board Director of Facility Planning & Construction; and Timothy McGarry, City of Vero Beach Planning & Development Director. Absent were: AI Minner, City of Sebastian City Manager and Joel Tyson, City of Fellsmere Councilman. Also present were IRC staff: Bill Schutt, Senior Planner; and Darcy Vasilas, Assistant to Executive Aide. Others present were: Maria Aguilar, Town Manager, Town of Orchid; Jeanne Mills co-consultant and David DeYoung, with Kimley-Horn & Associates. Call to Order Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes of March 17, 2006 ON MOTION BY Mr. Keating, SECONDED BY Dr. McIntyre, the Committee voted unanimously (5- 0) to approve the minutes of the March 17, 2006 meeting as submitted. Updates A. School Board facilities plan status, siting and development activities. Attachment 1 SWG-Unapproved 1 _ C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 B\Min081106.doc Dr. Dan McIntyre, IRC School Board Assistant Superintendent of Planning & Operations, reported the School Board would be getting their annual revisions to the Five Year Plan approved at their August 22, 2006 meeting and would also be amending the School Plan Survey. He continued the Five Year Work Plan would be submitted by the end of September, 2006. Dr. McIntyre related the IRC School Board had voted to pursue simultaneous construction of a new high school on Oslo Road and a-new middle school on a site yet to be determined. Mr. Keating asked how long it took to build a middle school. Dr. McIntyre responded typically it took 24 months if replicating an existing school design. Dr. McIntyre noted there were additions being made to Vero Beach and Sebastian River High Schools. He stated notwithstanding the controversy in the media, there were assets and resources available to get both of the new schools built as well as completing the additions to the two high schools. B. County large-scale planning and development activities. Mr. Boling reported there had been a large rush for home ownership in the past, but in the last year it had been mostly commercial projects. He noted permits for single and multi-family homes were down. C. Municipalities large-scale planning and development activities. Mr. Timothy McGarry, City of Vero Beach Planning & Development Director, explained Heritage Reserve had 780 units instead of the 700 reported at the March 17, 2006 meeting. He added the development was going before the Vero Beach City Council at their meeting scheduled for August 15, 2006. Discussion was held regarding the potential numbers of school students that may be generated by the Heritage Reserve development; potential sites for. other schools; and Dr. McIntyre reported it was likely another elementary school would be built somewhere between Sebastian and Fellsmere before the previously mentioned middle and high schools. SWG-Unapproved 2 August 11, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 B\Min081106.doc Ms. Maria Aguilar, Town Manager, Town of Orchid, reported there had been very little building activity in the Town of Orchid and there were over 30 homes for sale that had been on the market for a long time. She mentioned there were very few children, if any, in the Town of Orchid impacting the IRC School system. Presentation of Consultant's Final Drafts: Revised Interlocal Agreement (Includes School concurrency), Public School Facilities Element, and Other Elements. Ms. Jeanne Mills, co-consultant with Kimfey-Horn & Associates, gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Ms. Mills explained IRC had been selected by the Department of. Community Affairs (DCA) as a Pilot Project community to fast track draft school concurrency, documents. She continued the Pilot Project required work completion by June 1, 2006, with several items necessary for submission in the interim to DCA. The following draft documents were submitted: Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School concurrency. Public School Facilities Element. Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Capital Improvement Element. Mr. Dave DeYoung, with Kimley-Horn & Associates, explained the Interlocal Agreement was the foundation for the Residential Review Process for school concurrency. He continued the IRC School District did not have a Land Development Code or a Comprehensive Plan so everything that went into the Interlocal Agreement had to include the process so the residential projects could be reviewed and approved. Mr. DeYoung reported when a residential development came into any participating municipality, they would submit an application for review with a SWG-Unapproved 3 August 11, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 B\Min081106.doc School Concurrency Application or a study which identified their impact on the school. The process was as follows: Residential application submitted to local government for review. Local government deems application sufficient. Application transmitted to School District for review. School District: 1. Calculates the number of new students to School System. 2. Applies the number of new students to School System. 3. Determines capacity availability in School System. 4. Allows negotiation for proportionate share mitigation. Local government completes the development review process. Mrs. Olson inquired if the developer would be .getting impact fee credits. Ms. Mills responded impact fee credits were being used for the developer's proportionate share mitigation. Mrs. Olson expressed concern regarding the bookkeeping and staffing involved for the IRC School Board for the regulatory portion of the school concurrency process. Mr. Boling noted the County had been able to get through the plan development process, which was the negotiating phase where public benefit was obtained. He continued staff was able to secure elementary school sites with no impact fee credits, and the land was brought up to buildable standards by the developers. SWG-Unapproved 4 August 11, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKi B\Min081106.doc R Mr: Bob Keating, IRC Planning Director, explained how the proportionate share mitigation formula was calculated and noted staff was currently working on several proportionate share agreements. Dr. McIntyre was worried about getting his staffing lined up to manage the regulatory process. He also had concerns with how the municipalities, especially the smaller ones with limited staff, would be able to cope with those requirements. Mr. Keating related the IRC School Board would be dealing. mostly with the City of Fellsmere and the City of Sebastian because the County did the permitting for the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Keating stated his biggest concern was the need to coordinate with the other municipalities what information the County needed for entering vesting into the computer system. Mr. DeYoung interjected initially there would be some hand holding that needed to be done with the municipalities, but having a point person to handle the communication between all parties involved would improve the process.. Mr. Keating asked Dr. McIntyre if he was receiving information from the municipalities regarding the projects they were reviewing. Dr. McIntyre replied they received invitations to the City of Vero Beach Planning & Zoning meetings, but nothing from the City of Sebastian and the City of Fellsmere. Dr. McIntyre reported he would have an opportunity in the next few months to prepare the IRC School Board for the need to hire additional staff to handle the regulation issues. Mr. Keating added there were cooperative municipalities in IRC and when a process was established, he felt they would all work well together. Mr. Keating recommended when giving the presentation to the elected officia{s, to make sure when Level of Service was discussed that everyone understood the same thing. He continued the Level of Service would always be met but there would be portables sitting on the school grounds. Ms. Mills clarified that only residential developments would be reviewed, wherever there was a residential component, and no commercial developments. Mr. DeYoung pointed out there would be no allowances for SWG-Unapproved 5 August 11, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 B\Min081106,doc V a development to claim age restrictions when trying not to comply with the concurrency requirements until they produced a covenant. Mr. Boling reported there would be a School concurrency Workshop for elected officials at the Richardson Center September 26, 2006 from 9:00 a. m. to noon. Other Matters Dr. McIntyre reported the School Board had hired an architect to master plan the 66t" Avenue school site. He felt it would be an excellent opportunity to try the joint use procedures, and recommended meeting with some of the County staff. Mr. Keating asked if timeframes .should be given for adoption and implementation of the School concurrency Program. Mr. Schutt noted the amendments to the County and Municipal Comprehensive Plans could be initiated in July, 2007, with the final adoption in early January, 2008, and that the municipalities, County, and School Board should adopt the Interlocal Agreement by January, 2008. Discussion was held regarding school bus stops and shelters. Mr. Keating felt the benefits to both the School District and municipalities while complying with concurrency issues should be emphasized. Mr. Boling asked what the school projection figures were. Ms. Mills replied as of July 31, 2006, across the state, the projected enrollments were flat or declining in most counties. She opined the reason for the decline was the affordability of homes. Mr. Keating announced several -staff from IRC and the IRC School Board would be attending a Pilot Communities School .concurrency meeting in Gainesville the following week. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m. SWG-Unapproved 6 August 11, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\bschutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 B\Min081106.doc ~C~U~ITY ~r?t~~~~~~i~~h~r' ~ot~iity I~ ~~ii~In Riven C~it~~~ty Sc-fool Ea~ard City of f ejl~ri~c~r~~ Ci#v ~_~f 5e'v~I~~tit~n City of Vero Be~3ch -1~oti^~ii~ o~ fi;di~r1 Ri~:~er 51-tor~E~S t l~ ~" _~ Fipt ' '~~ F' ~~~ ~(A `` ~ '.~ y~1Lf ~-i.. ~.y 1 mod, ~: ~-r -.,.•ti„r '4 ~i~..n.<aw- Y ~ ~{sr w6 v_ ~k'> ~-...c ~ ~ rte`' ~„ ~~. ~'( ~ ,~ .mss,,,.,;, ,~ .'~ ""~....., ~,z. u :'~ i ~ ~[_~, r mac, - ov,. _.. -- ~ ~: '' ~'- .t JLY ~ Y f f r ,~ M ~~t~ H .~~>~ +- .~.... ~ ~ _. ~~~ r ~1 ~^-?~ r x e~~,; - ~ ~~ ~,~! 'mo'w: f# ~. ~ .,; Eff~C~1V2 ~c~l~~:' '~ ~. _:_~ ~; - :. .~ , - '~ ,~ ,Q .~ .1c ~-i '' ,r ~ f ~ ~ ,r . y ~I1C~I~?tl ~1~"~'I' C'r~l,l~1~ ~ c -~ • z~ ~' - ~, ~. 11]~IL~I1 ~'iti~'£'I' ~,Otli)h~ ~C~1Ot~l ~Itili~iC~ _ ~,.~y ~ + ' ."a` ~b ~ ~ r ~ p - -~ r °~ ~= ~ , ~ = ,t ~~. . -.- ~ ;. ~.. '` _ `. ~ }xe~~rrd fey. .. ~ - 1 ~ s ~~ ~ 2 ~,: ~ Kimsey-Horn .: ~.. ~ ~ -r.,~ - , ~,~ _~x ~.,~ ~ >' andAss~x~ates,lnc: ~. ,.. ~ r !_ ~ !- "`'~°'~ ~ 3 '. Attachment 2 ~. . __~._~__W__-__~ ICitnley~l"IOrn and AsSC)CiateS, InC. David L. DeYoung, AICP Frederick W. Schwartz, P.E. Ashley Davidson Jeanne Mills, ]D, AICP Patricia Behn Mamco, lnc. Ryan Morrell, AICP Nabors, Cli)lin and Nickerson P.A. Robert L. Nabors, Esci. David G. Tucker, Esq. Indian River Indian Rivei° County Country 5tat# Involvement School pstrict Staff Involvement Bob Keating, AICP, Director of Community Development Dr. Dan Mcln#yre, Stan Boling, AICP, Planning Director, Assistant Superintendent of Planning &~ Operations Planning Division Susan Rahani, AICP, Chief, Long Range Planning Section Susan Olson, Director of Facilities, Planning end Construction Bill Schutt, AICP, Senior >;cGnomic Development Planner E'rt*~~red P,y ' ~', Kimley-Horn ^r..' and Associates, lnc. sa3aaals.os Leanne K. Nulls and Associates, I.C F:\Community Development\UsersV.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 2 1~'el~~°a~-y g Ili ~~:afl Table of Contents for the Interlocal Agreement Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................Page 5 .................................................................................................. Section 1 -Definitions ...................... ..Pa e 6 g Section 2 -Committees ....................................................................................................................... ..Page 9 Section 3 -Joint Meetings ................................................................................................................. Page 10 Section 4 -Student Enrollment Projections ........................................................................................ Page 11 Section 5 -Coordinating and Sharing of Information ........................................................................ Page 11 Section 6 -School Site Selection ........................................................................................................ Page 12 Section 7 -School Facility Modification, Closures, Major Additions, and Renovations .................................................................................. Page 14 Section 8 -Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Re-zonings and Development Approvals ........................................................................................... Page 15 Section 9 - Co-location and Shared Use ............................................................................................ .Page 16 Section 10 -School Concurrency ..................................................................................................... .Page 17 10.1 Overview of School Concurrency 10.2 Required Concurrency Elements 10.3 Specific Responsibilities of the Parties Section 11 -School District Capital Improvement Plan .................................................................. .Page 19 11.1 School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan 11.2 Ten and Twenty Year Work Program 11.3 Transmittal 11.4 Final Adoption 11.5 Amendment to the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan Section 12 -Comprehensive Plan Elements .................................................................................... ...Page20 12.1 Development and Adoption of the Capital Improvement Element 12.2 Development and Adoption of the Public School Facilities Elelnent 12.3 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Section 13 -School Concurrency Program ...................................................................................... ..Page 21 13.1 School Concurrency Program Overview 13.2 Commencement 13.3 School Service Area Boundaries Standards F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 3 13.4 School Service Area Boundary Modification 13.5 Level of Service 13.6 Exemptions 13.7 School Concurrency Regulations Section 14 -School Concurrency Process ....................................................... 14.1 Review Process 14.2 Students Generation Calculation 14.3 Utilization Determination 14.4 The Three Year Rule 14.5 Adjacent School Service Area Boundary Capacity 14.6 Issuance and Term of School Concurrency 14.7 Proportionate Share Mitigation 14.8 Appeal Process Section 15 - n verciuht Section 16 -Special Provisions ....................................................................... 16.1 School District Requirements 16.2 Land Use Authority Section 17 -Resolution of Disputes ................................................................ Section 18 -Amendment Process and Term of the Agreement ...................... Section 19 -Execution in Counterparts ........................................................... Section 20 -Effective Date ............................................................................. Signature Pages ................................................................................................ Appendix "A" -School Coordination Groups/Activities ................................ Appendix "B" -School Coordination Due Dates ............................................ Appendix "C" -School Site Selection Flow Chart .......................................... Appendix "D" -Indian River County LDR Section 971.14(4) ....................... Appendix "E" -School Service Area Boundaries ............................. .............. Appendix "F" -Student Generation Multipliers ............................................. Appendix "G" -School Concurrency Review Process Flow Chart ................ E~ ~~~~Y ~ 211I7 I°~~fl ___.~ ..Page 23 .Page 28 .Page 29 ...................................Page 29 ...................................Page 29 ...................................Page 30 ...................................Page 30 ............................Pages 31-36 ...................................Page 37 ...................................Page 38 ...................................Page 39 ...................................Page 40 ...................................Page 42 ...................................Page 45 ...................................Page 46 F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATED PLANNING AND SCHOOL CONCURRENCY This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is entered into between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "County"), the City or Town Council of the Cities of Fellsmere, Sebastian, Vero Beach, and the Town of Indian River Shores (hereinafter referred to as "Cities"), and the School Board of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "School Board"). Not participating in this Agreement is the Town of Orchid. .This jurisdiction is not participating in this Agreement because it qualifies for exemption pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.3177(12)(b), Florida Statutes. WHEREAS, the County, Cities, and School Board recognize their mutual obligation and responsibility for the education, nurture and general well-being of the children of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized to enter into and update this Agreement pursuant to Section 163.01, Section 163.3177(6)(h)2 and Section 1013.33, F. S.; and WHEREAS, Sections 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, Florida Statutes, require each local government to adopt an intergovernmental coordination element as part of its comprehensive plan that establishes principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the local governments adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of the School Board, and describes .the processes for collaborative planning and decision making on population projections and public school siting; and WHEREAS, per Sections 163.31777, 163.3180(13), and 1013.33 Florida Statutes, the County, Cities and School Board must update their Public School Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, Section 163.3180(13), Florida Statutes, requires the County, Cities and the School Board to adopt a School Concurrency program; and WHEREAS, the County, Cities and School Board recognize the benefits that will flow to the citizens and students of their communities by more closely coordinating their comprehensive land use and school facilities' planning programs. These benefits include: (1) better coordination of new schools in time and place with land development, (2) greater efficiency for the School Board, Cities and County through the reduction of student travel times and the placement of schools to take advantage of existing and planned roads, water lines, sewer lines and parks, (3) improved student access and safety by coordinating the construction of new and expanded schools with the road and sidewalk construction programs of the Cities and County, (4) better location and design of schools so that they serve as community focal points, (5) improved location and design of schools with parks, ball fields, libraries, and other community facilities to take advantage of joint use opportunities, and (6) better location of new schools and expansion and rehabilitation of existing schools in order to reduce pressures contributing to urban sprawl; and WHEREAS, the County, Cities and School Board have further determined that it is necessary and appropriate for the entities to cooperate with each other to provide adequate public school facilities in a timely manner and at appropriate locations, to eliminate any deficit of permanent student stations, and to provide capacity for projected new growth; and F:\Conununity Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 5 r `~l~rta°~- 1, 2lfi r°aI't.._._.._~ ~.~ WHEREAS, Section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, requires that the location of public educational facilities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of the appropriate local governing body; and WHEREAS, Section 163.3180(13)(g), Florida Statutes, requires that prior to establishing a School Concurrency program, the County, Cities and School Board adopt an Interlocal Agreement for School Concurrency to satisfy Sections 163.31777 and 163.3180 (13)(g), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the County and Cities, also known as the "Local Governments," are entering into this Agreement in reliance on the School Board's obligation to prepare, adopt and implement a financially feasible capital facilities program that will result in public schools operating at the adopted level of service consistent with the timing specified in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, and the School Board's further commitment to update and adopt the plan yearly to add enough capacity in the new fifth year to address projected growth and to adjust the plan in order to maintain the adopted level of service and to demonstrate that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to Section 163.3180 (13)(d)2 and 1013.35, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the County and School Board had a "Memorandum of Understanding" for joint review of new school sites and joint review of school site plans from 1986, until it was superseded by an Interlocal Agreement in 2003; and WHEREAS, the County, Cities and School Board have mutually agreed that coordination of school facility planning and comprehensive land use planning is in the best interests of the citizens and students of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the County has jurisdiction for land use and growth management decisions within its unincorporated boundaries and the Cities have similar jurisdiction within their boundaries; and WHEREAS, the School Board has the responsibility to make the best use of public school facilities to ensure a free and adequate public education to the residents of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the County, Cities and School Board agree that they can better fulfill their respective responsibilities by working in close cooperation to ensure that adequate public school facilities are available for the residents of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the School Board, is entering into this Agreement in reliance on the obligation of the County and Cities to adopt amendments to their local comprehensive plans to impose School Concurrency as provided in Section 163.3180(13), Florida Statutes; and NOW THEREFORE, be it mutually agreed that the County, the School Board and the Cities, (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Parties") hereby enter into this Agreement, and that the following procedures and requirements will be followed and met to establish School Concurrency to coordinate land use and public school facilities planning: Section 1 Definitions Adjacent School Service Areas: School Service Areas which touch along one side of their outside boundary. Attendance Boundary: The geographic area which identifies public school assignment. Cities: All municipalities in Indian River County except those that are exempt from the Public School Facilities Element, pursuant to Section 163.3177(12), F.S. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 6 ~el~r~uary 8, 2117 Draft ~..~ Class Size Reduction: A provision to ensure that by the beginning of the 2010 school year, there are a sufficient number of classrooms in a public school so that: 1. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classrooms for pre-kindergarten through grade 3 does not exceed 18 students; 2. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classrooms for grades 4 through 8 does not exceed 22 students; and 3. The maximum number of students who are assigned to each teacher who is teaching in public school classrooms for grades 9 through 12 does not exceed 25 students. Comprehensive Plan: A plan that meets the requirements of F.S. 163.3177 and 163.3178. Consistency: Compatible with and furthering the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Elements and this Agreement. Core Facilities: The media center, cafeteria, gymnasium, toilet facilities and circulation space of an educational facility. Developer: Any person, including a governmental agency, undertaking any development. Development Order: Any order granting, or granting with conditions, an application for a development permit. Development Permit: Any amendment to the text of a Local Government's Land Development Code or Official Zoning Map (rezoning), conditional use, special use, planned development, site plan final subdivision plan, subdivision, building permit, special exception, preliminary plat, plat, comprehensive plan or any other official action of a Local Government having the effect of permitting the development of land or the specific use of the land. Educational Facility: The public buildings and equipment, structures and special educational use areas that are built, installed or established to serve educational purposes only. Exempt Local Government: A municipality which is not required to participate in school concurrency when meeting all the requirements for having no significant impact on school attendance, per Section 163.3177(12)(b), F.S. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Student Count -Fall Semester: A fall semester count of all "full-time equivalent" students, pursuant to Chapter 1011.62, Florida Statutes. Financial Feasibility: An assurance that sufficient revenues are currently available or will be available from committed funding sources for the first 3 years, or will be available from committed or planned funding sources for years 4 and 5, of a 5-year capital improvement schedule. Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Capacity: The report of the permanent capacity of existing public school facilities. The FISH capacity is the number of students that may be housed in a facility (school) at any given time based on a percentage (100% elementary, 90% middle and 95% high) of the total number of existing student stations and a designated size for each program. In Indian River County, permanent capacity does not include temporary classrooms unless they meet the standards for long-term use pursuant to Section 1013.20, Florida Statutes. Those standards include the requirement that the portables have covered walkways and the requirement that the portables have access to the same technologies F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 7 le~~l~r~za~°y S, l~Elfi r°a1=1. available to similar classrooms within the main school facility. Level of Service (LOS) Standard (schools): A standard established to measure utilization within a School Service Area Boundary. Local Governments: Indian River County and its Towns and Cities (Fellsmere, Indian River Shores, Sebastian, and Vero Beach). Local Enrollment Forecast: Enrollment projection prepared by the school board staff or their representative. It may include an analysis of school by school cohort trends, county-wide housing and demographic trends, the most recent DOE COFTE forecast, boundary changes, and program changes. Maximized Utilization: The use of student capacity at each school to the greatest extent possible, based on the adopted level of service and the total number of permanent student stations according to the FISH inventory, taking into account special considerations such as, core capacity, special programs, transportation costs, geographic impediments, court ordered desegregation, and class size reduction requirements to prevent disparate enrollment levels between schools of the same type (elementary, middle, high) and provide an equitable distribution of student enrollment district-wide. Permanent Classroom: An area within a school that provides instructional space for the maximum number of students in core-curricula courses assigned to a teacher, based on the constitutional amendment for class size reduction and is not moveable (including classroom additions which have received covered walkways and technology upgrades). Permanent Student Station: The floor area in a permanent classroom required to house a student in an instructional program. Program Capacity: The capacity of a school once the space needs for programs including, but not limited to, English as a Second Language (ESOL), special programs for the emotionally handicapped, autistic and varying exceptionalities have been addressed. Proportionate Share Mitigation: A developer improvement or contribution identified in a binding and enforceable agreement between the Developer, the School Board and the local government with jurisdiction over the approval of the development order to provide compensation for the additional demand on deficient public school facilities created through the residential development of the property, as set forth in Section 163.3180(13)(e), F.S. Proposed New Residential Development: Any application for new residential development, or any amendment to a previously approved residential development, which results in an increase in the total number of housing units. Public Facilities: Major capital improvements including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, education, parks and recreation facilities. Residential Development: Any development that is comprised of dwelling units, in whole or in part, for permanent human habitation. School Board: The governing body of the School District, a body corporate pursuant to Section 230.21, Florida Statutes. School District: The District for Indian River County created and existing pursuant to Section 4, Article IX of the State Constitution. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 8 I'eTru«r:<°~r S, 211'7 r:.It School Capacity Availability Determination Letter: A letter prepared by the School District of Indian River County, identifying if school capacity is available to serve a residential project, and if capacity exists, whether the proposed development is conceptually approved or vested. School District Facilities Work Program: Indian River County School District's annual comprehensive capital planning document, that includes long range planning for facility needs over afive-year, ten-year and twenty-year planning horizon. School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan: The adopted Indian River County School District's Five- Year Work Plan and Capital Budget as authorized by Section 1013.35 Florida Statutes. School Service Area Boundary (SSAB): A geographic area in which the level of service is measured when an application for residential development is reviewed for school concurrency purposes. School Service Area Level of Service: The maximum acceptable percentage of school utilization within a School Service Area Boundary. Level of Service is determined by dividing the total number of students for all schools of each type (elementary, middle and high) in each School Service Area Boundary by the total number of permanent student stations for that type of school in each School Service Area Boundary. Temporary Classroom: A movable classroom facility. Type of School: Schools providing the same level of education, i.e. elementary, middle or high school. Utilization: The comparison of the total number of students enrolled to the total number of student stations (FISH) at a facility within a School Service Area Boundary. Section 2 Committees The following committees are hereby established. 2.1 A Staff Working Group Committee consisting of the Indian River County Community Development Director, the Indian River County Planning Director, the Planning or Community Development Director or City Manager of the Cities of Sebastian, Vero Beach, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the City of Fellsmere, the Indian River County School District's Assistant Superintendent for Planning and Operations, and the Indian River County School District's Director of Facilities Planning and Construction. 2.2 An Elected Officials Oversight Committee (EOOC) consisting of the County Commission Chairman, the mayors of Vero Beach, Sebastian, Indian River Shores and Fellsmere, the Regional Planning Council Chairman, the School Board Chairman, or designated representatives. 2.3 A School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) consisting of representatives from the following agencies: (a) Planning Director from the Indian River County Planning Division and, if applicable, any affected Cities' City Planning or Community Development Director, City Manager or designated staff person; (b) County Engineer from the Indian River County Engineering Division and, if applicable, any affected Cities' City Engineer; F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 9 lacl~~uu~°' g ~IIII'7 Dr^aIt ~~ (c) County Traffic Engineer from the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division and, if applicable, any affected Cities' Traffic Engineer or Public Works director; (d) MPO Director from the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); (e) Assistant Superintendent for Planning and Operations from. the Indian River County School District; (f) Director of Facilities Planning and Construction from the Indian River County School District; (g) Director from affected water and sewer utility providers; (h) Director of the Indian River County Parks and Recreation Department and, if applicable, any affected Cities' Park and Recreation Director; and (i) County Sheriff and, if applicable, any affected City's Police Chief. 2.4 A citizen oversight committee consisting of six (6) citizens appointed by the School Board, the County, the Town of Indian River Shores, and Cities of Fellsmere, Sebastian and Vero Beach. Each jurisdiction or entity shall appoint one member. Section 3 Joint Meetings 3.1 The School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) shall, at a minimum, meet semi-annually (2°d Friday in September and March of each year at the School Board Administration Building, unless re-scheduled by agreement) to set direction and formulate recommendations and discuss issues regarding the school concurrency process, including such issues as school capacity and level of service, school facilities planning and school service area boundaries. The SPTAC shall review site selection proposals, and site plans for new schools and major renovations. The SPTAC will also be responsible for preparing an annual assessment report on the effectiveness of the School concurrency System by March 1St of each year. The School District Director of Facilities Planning and Construction will be responsible for making meeting arrangements and providing notification. 3.2 The Staff Working Group shall, at a minimum, meet semi-annually (last Friday in March and 2°d Friday in August of each year at the County Administration Building, unless re-scheduled by agreement) to set direction, formulate recommendations, review population and student projections, and. discuss issues regarding coordination of land use and school facility planning, including such issues as development trends, school needs, co-location and joint use opportunities, and on-site or off-site infrastructure improvements (e.g. roads, sidewalks and bikeways) needed to support schools and ensure safe student access. The County Planning Director will be responsible for making meeting arrangements and providing notification. 3.3 The Elected Officials Oversight Committee shall, at a minimum, meet every year (3rd Friday in August of each year, at the County Administration Building, unless re-scheduled by agreement) in joint workshop sessions. The joint sessions will be opportunities for representatives of the County Commission, the City Councils, and the School Board to set direction, discuss issues, and reach understandings concerning issues of mutual concern regarding coordination of land use and school facilities planning, including population and student growth, development trends, school needs, off-site F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IltC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 10 p`~:l~ru~~°y , 211 Dr°al'I improvements, and joint use opportunities. The County Planning Director will be responsible for making meeting arrangements and providing notification. 3.4 The Citizens Oversight Committee shall, at a minimum, meet annually (September of each year) to evaluate and provide input on public school planning issues and activities. The County Planning Director will be responsible for making meeting arrangements and providing notification. 3.5 The meetings discussed in 3.1 through 3.4 of this Agreement shall ensure that this Interlocal Agreement is implemented in a timely and efficient manner. Section 4 Student Enrollment Projections 4.1 The School District shall use the Department of Education (DOE) countywide student enrollment projections or the COHORT Projection Waiver as the alternative student enrollment measurement accepted by the DOE or a "Local Enrollment Forecast" approved by the School Board. The School Board may request that the DOE projections be adjusted to reflect the development trends and enrollment as measured by the Waiver. The Waiver must be approved by the State Commissioner of Education. The School Board will inform the County and Cities of any such request and action taken by DOE on any such request. 4.2 The Staff Working Groups at its first meeting each year, will review the School Board's staff allocation of projected student enrollment into School Service Areas. 4.3 The school enrollment projections and their allocation to School Service Areas will be included in the educational facilities report provided to the County and Cities each year as specified in subsection 5.1 of this Agreement. Section 5 Coordinating and Sharing of Information 5.1 The School Board shall coordinate and share information with the County and Cities as follows: (a) District Facilities Work Program: By September 1St of each year, the School Board shall submit to the County and each City its draft five-year facilities work program. The program will contain: 1. Projected five year school enrollment; 2. Existing school sites and educational facilities, their enrollments, existing capacities and their designed capacities upon expansion; 3. The number of portables in use at each school; and 4. Projected needs for expansions, major renovations and new facilities. The report will also contain the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, including planned facilities with funding over the next 3-5 years. (b) When considering a significant renovation or a closure of a school facility, the School Board shall notify the appropriate City in which the school is located or the County Planning Division prior to any significant renovation or closure activities. Significant renovations encompass projects that increase or decrease a school's capacity by 10% or more, or increase a school's total building square footage by 10% or more. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft TRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 11 1t ~xl~rua°~' I117 D•t€lt ~~ 5.2 The County and Cities shall coordinate and share information with the School Board as follows: (a) Project Review and Comments: Within 15 days of the submittal of any pre-application or formal application for a new housing development project, or group of projects in the same area, the County or City in which the project is located shall notify the School Board's Director of Facilities Planning and Construction of the submittal and shall inform him/her of the location where the subdivision plan or site plan can be reviewed. To implement an effective school concurrency system, the Parties agree that the School District must be afforded the opportunity to review and provide timely findings and recommendations to the County and the Cities on proposed amendments to their respective Comprehensive Plans. Further, the School District shall have the opportunity to review and provide recommendations on all applications for development orders which will have an impact on school capacity and the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. To ensure that the School District is provided timely notice of all residential development projects proposed in the County, the County and the Cities will continue to send agendas for pre-application conference meetings, Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings, Planning and Zoning Commission (Local Planning Agency) meetings, and Board of County Commissioners meetings to School Board representatives. Additional supporting documents shall be provided by County planning staff to the School Board upon request. (b) Population Projections: By January 31St of each year, County staff shall provide School District staff with population projections by TAZ (traffic analysis zones). These projections shall be considered by the Staff Working Group at its first meeting of each year, to discuss and agree on population projections. 5.3 All parties to this Agreement agree that the Public School Facilities Element that is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan of any jurisdiction in the County will be the same or consistent with this Agreement as adopted by the County, the Cities and School Board. Section 6 School Site Selection and Site Plan Approval for New Schools 6.1 When the need for a new school is identified in the School District Facilities Work Program, or by School District staff in coordination with County or City staff, the School Board shall notify the County Administrator, the County Planning Director, a potentially affected City's City Manager or City Mayor, and the Staff Working Group in writing that it is looking for a school site in a particular location. The School Planning and Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) shall evaluate the potential school sites under the criteria of section 6.5 below and rank the sites. Alternatively, School District Staff may select a single site for evaluation if the staff of the affected jurisdiction (County or City) has determined that the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and is justified under the criteria of section 6.5 below. 6.2 On or before the date that an option contract has been executed for purchase of a new school site, School District staff shall notify the County Planning Director and, if applicable, City Planning or Community Development Director, City Manager, or designated City staff person of the potential site purchase. Upon receiving such notice, the County Planning Director shall schedule a SPTAC meeting to be held within 14 days. The SPTAC shall meet and evaluate the proposed school site(s) under the criteria of 6.5 below. The SPTAC shall submit prepare a report and recommendation on site selection to the School Board within 30 days of the SPTAC meeting. 6.3 Through the SPTAC, Indian River County and appropriate Cities shall advise the School Board as to the consistency of any proposed new site with the applicable local comprehensive plan, including the F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-0'7 - Clean.doc 12 ~ `el~~°lE~~°y , :1111'7 ~r°~1~_.~ appropriate process under which the School Board may request an amendment to the school siting policies of the applicable local comprehensive plan. 6.4 The SPTAC shall complete an Impact Assessment Statement (IAS) and prepare an Economic Analysis (EA) for any proposed school site. The IAS shall incorporate the required Florida Statute 1013.33 review regarding consistency of proposed school sites with the applicable local government comprehensive plan. Where a site plan has been prepared for development of a proposed site, the EA shall, at a minimum, identify potential on-site and off-site improvements for the type of facility proposed, the estimated costs associated with these improvements if such estimates are available, and the entity responsible for the cost. Identification of specific required improvements and responsibilities for providing, operating, and maintaining improvements shall be addressed at the time of site plan review, as specified in section 6.6 below. 6.5 The following criteria will be considered by the SPTAC, the School Board and the local government(s) when evaluating a potential school site: (a) Potential to accommodate the projected additional student population by expanding or rebuilding existing schools instead of building a new school. (b) Consistency of the proposed site with any Court-ordered school desegregation mandate. (c) Extent to which the proposed site provides a logical focal point for community activities and serves as the cornerstone for innovative urban design standards, including opportunities for shared use and co-location of community facilities (d) Extent to which an elementary or middle schools can be located internal to residential neighborhoods and discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways. (e) Extent to which an elementary school can be located within reasonable walking distance of dwelling units served by the schools. (f) Extent to which a high schools can be located on the periphery of residential neighborhoods, near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along residential streets in residential subdivisions. (g) Extent to which the proposed school site is compatible with present and projected uses of adjacent property and capable of accommodating buffers necessary to shield adjacent residences from school driveways, school drop-off and pick-up areas and school playgrounds. (h) Extent to which the proposed school site encourages community redevelopment and revitalization, provides efficient use of existing infrastructure, and discourages urban sprawl. (i) Extent to which the proposed site's acquisition and development cost is affected by the proposed location. (j) Extent to which the proposed school site provides safe access to residential neighborhoods by pedestrians and vehicles. (k) Extent to which the proposed school is served by adequate public facilities and services to support the school, or the extent to which adequate public facilities and services will be available, concurrent with the impacts of the school. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 13 1<e~ru~r~y 117 rafi ~_ (1) Extent to which the proposed school site contains no significant environmental constraints that would preclude development of a public school on the site. (m) Extent to which the proposed school will have no adverse impact on archaeological or historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designated by the affected local government as locally significant historic or archaeological resources. (n) Extent to which the proposed school will be located on well drained soils which are suitable for development or are adaptable for development and outdoor educational purposes with drainage improvements. (o) Extent to which the proposed school site is not in conflict with local government stormwater management plans or watershed management plans. (p) Extent to which the proposed school site is not within a floodway as delineated in the affected comprehensive plan. (q) Extent to which the proposed school site is large enough to accommodate the required parking, circulation, and queuing of vehicles onsite. (r) Extent to which the proposed school site lies outside the area regulated by Section 333.03, F.S., regarding the construction of public educational facilities in the vicinity of an airport. (s) Extent to which the proposed school can serve as an emergency shelter by being built according to the appropriate standards and requirements that make it an appropriate emergency shelter. (t) Extent to which the proposed school, if it is to be located in the unincorporated County, can meet the requirements of the County's Land Development Regulations Section 971.14(4) (Appendix «D„). 6.6 In conjunction with the School Board's approval of anew school site, the School Board and affected local governments will jointly determine the need for and timing of on-site and off-site improvements necessary to support each new school. The School Board shall submit a site plan of the new school for review and approval by the SPTAC. Prior to the SPTAC review, the affected jurisdiction may coordinate with School District staff and perform its own technical review of the site plan. The SPTAC shall notify the School District in writing of its action, including approval conditions. Approval conditions shall cover the timing and responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of required on-site and off-site improvements. Section 7 School Facility Modification, Closures, Major Additions, and Renovations 7.1 The School Board shall notify the SPTAC, Indian River County, and appropriate Cities of any proposed closure, major addition to (expansion of 10% or more) or major renovation of existing schools. Major renovations shall include projects that change traffic circulation, reduce building setbacks or buffers, or increase existing building heights by 10% or more. 7.2 The SPTAC shall review any proposed school closure, major addition or major renovation for consistency with the local comprehensive plan, and local government land development regulations relating to: F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\IL.A\03_FINAL Draft IIZC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 14 r'~"`-w i l~el~ruur;~, , 2II7 I11°a I.1 (a) Building setbacks (b) Building orientation and articulation (c) Building height (d) Buffers (e) Signs (f) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation and infrastructure 7.3 The School Board shall submit a site plan of the major addition or renovation for review and approval by the SPTAC. Prior to the SPTAC review, the affected jurisdiction may coordinate with School District staff and perform its own technical review of the site plan. The SPTAC shall notify the School District in writing of its action, including approval conditions. Approval conditions shall cover the timing and responsibility for construction, operation, and maintenance of required on-site and off-site improvements. Section 8 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and Development Approvals 8.1 The County and each of the Cities will appoint a School Board representative, designated and approved by the School Board, to serve as a nonvoting member on their local planning agency. The School Board representative will be provided with an agenda and back-up materials for meetings, and invited to attend meetings and/or provide comments to the County and City planning agencies. 8.2 As described in Section 5.2 of this Agreement, the County and the Cities agree to give the School Board written notification of meetings and hearings for residential Comprehensive Plan amendments, residential rezoning requests, and residential development proposals pending before them that may affect student enrollment, enrollment projections, or school facilities. This notice requirement applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, re-zonings, developments of regional impact, and other major residential or mixed-use development projects, and notice will be provided to School District staff. 8.3 The School Board shall appoint a representative to serve on, or provide comments to, the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC). The School Board Representative will receive notice in the same manner as other Technical Review Committee members. In addition, the School Board representative will be invited to participate in the Cities' development review committees when development and redevelopment proposals are submitted which could have a significant impact on student enrollment or school facilities. 8.4 In reviewing and approving Comprehensive Plan amendments and development proposals, the County and Cities will consider the following issues, as applicable: (a) The compatibility of land uses adjacent to existing schools and reserved school sites. (b) The co-location of parks, recreation and community facilities in conjunction with school sites. (c) The linking of schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities with bikeways, trails, and sidewalks. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\UpdatesULA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 15 11? el:~~sry , 2IlIfi D~°fl _._.~ (d) The targeting of community development improvements in older and distressed neighborhoods near schools. (e) The development of traffic circulation plans to serve schools and the surrounding neighborhood, including any needed access improvements, sidewalks to schools, off-site signalization or safety-related signage. (f) The location of school bus stops and turnarounds in new developments. (g) The consideration of private sector action to identify and implement creative solutions to developing adequate school facilities in residential developments. (h) The consideration of School District comments on comprehensive plan amendments and other land-use decisions. (i) The availability of existing permanent school capacity or planned improvements to increase school capacity, in accordance with applicable school concurrency policies and requirements. 8.5 In formulating neighborhood plans and programs and reviewing residential projects, the County and the Cities will consider the following: (a) Encouraging developers or property owners to provide incentives to the School District for building schools in their neighborhoods. These incentives may include, but not be limited to, donation and preparation of site(s), acceptance of stormwater run-off from future school facilities into development project stormwater management systems, reservation or sale of school sites at pre- development prices, construction of new school facilities or renovation to existing school facilities and provision of transportation alternatives. (b) Scheduling County and City programs and capital improvements that are consistent with and meet the capital needs identified in the School District's school facilities plan. (c) Providing school sites and facilities within existing and planned neighborhoods. Section 9 Co-location and Shared Use 9.1 Co-location and shared use of facilities are important to both the School District and local governments. When preparing its Educational Plant Survey, the School District will look for opportunities to co-locate and share use of school facilities and civic facilities. Likewise, co-location and shared use opportunities shall be considered by each local government when updating its comprehensive plan's schedule of capital improvements and when planning and designing new, or renovating existing, community facilities. For example, opportunities for co-location and shared use will be considered for libraries, parks, recreation facilities, community centers, auditoriums, learning centers, museums, performing arts centers and stadiums. In addition, co-location and shared use of school and governmental facilities for health care and social services will be considered where applicable. 9.2 For each instance of co-location and shared use, the School Board and the affected Local Government shall enter into a separate Agreement addressing legal liability, operating and maintenance costs, scheduling of use, facility supervision and any other issues that may arise from co-location. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Intedocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean,doc 16 ~~el~ury , 207 Fr°.~ll_. Section 10 School Concurrency 10.1 Overview of School Concurrency (a) This Agreement establishes a public school concurrency system consistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180, Florida Statutes. (b) The Parties agree that the timely delivery of adequate public school facilities at the adopted level of service requires close coordination among the Parties at the level of land use planning, development approval, and school facility planning. Further, the Parties agree that new school facilities should be planned for and provided in proximity to those areas planned for residential development or redevelopment. Further, the School District shall review and provide a determination on all applications for development orders which will have an impact on school capacity and the School District's Five- Year Capital Facilities Plan. (c) The Parties agree that, within the County's jurisdiction and each City's jurisdiction, residential Development Orders may be issued only if school capacity is available in public school facilities at the level of service specified in this Agreement. A determination of whether school capacity is available to serve residential development shall be made by the School District, consistent with the adopted level of service standard. This determination shall be based upon the criteria established in the applicable local government's Public School Facilities Element. 10.2 Required Concurrency Elements (a) Comprehensive Plan Amendments -The County and the Cities agree to adopt the following comprehensive plan amendments no later than March 1, 2008: 1. A Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3180 Florida Statutes and this Agreement. 2. An amended the Intergovernmental Coordination Element as required by Section 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2., Florida Statutes and this Agreement. 3. An amended Capital Improvement Element that includes "The School Board of Indian River County Capital Improvement Schedule." The CIE schedule shall be updated consistent with the updated and adopted School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. The amended schedule shall be included in the next comprehensive plan amendment round, but no later than December 31St, following the annual adoption of the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the School Board. This will ensure that the CIE uniformly sets forth a fmancially feasible public school capital facilities plan, consistent with the adopted Level of Service Standards for public schools. 4. Each jurisdiction's amendments shall be consistent with those adopted by the other jurisdictions, as required by Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. 10.3 Specific Responsibilities of the Parties (a) When the comprehensive plan amendments adopted in accordance with this Agreement become effective, the County and Cities shall undertake the following activities: F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan funendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocai Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 17 ~__._._._._._. t17 Dr°al°I ! 'ek~r~~~a~r°~' E___ 1. Adopt required school concurrency provisions into their Land Development Regulations (LDR) consistent with the timeframe established by law, the requirements of this Agreement, and the County and Cities' comprehensive plans. As an alternative to adopting school concurrency LDRs, any city may elect to be bound by the provisions established by the County. 2. Withhold issuance of any site specific development order for new residential units not exempted under section 14.6 of this agreement until the School District has reported that there is school capacity available to serve the development under review or enter into a proportionate share mitigation agreement. 3. Share information with the School District regarding population projections, school siting, projections of development and redevelopment for the coming year, infrastructure required to support public school facilities, and amendments to future land use plan elements. 4. Maintain data for approved new residential development. The data shall be provided to the School District on a quarterly basis and include, at a minimum, the following: a. Development name and location b. Total number of dwelling units by unit type (single-family, multi-family, etc.) c. Impact fee calculation d. Total number of dwelling units with certificates of occupancy by development 5. Transmit site plans, preliminary plats and final plats for new residential development, to the School District for its review and comment. (b) By entering into this Agreement, the School District agrees to undertake the following activities: 1. Annually prepare and update a financially feasible Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan containing enough capacity each year to meet the anticipated demand for student stations identified by the population projections so that no schools exceed the adopted level of service. 2. Institute program and/or school attendance boundary adjustments, as necessary, to maximize the utilization of capacity in order to ensure that all schools of each type (elementary, middle, high) in each School Service Area and each individual school operate at the adopted level of service. 3. Construct the capacity enhancing and modernization projects necessary to maintain the adopted level of service specified in the School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. 4. Provide the County and Cities with any School District data and analysis relating to school concurrency necessary to amend or annually update the comprehensive plan. Adopt a ten and twenty year work program. 6. Review proposed new residential developments for compliance with concurrency standards. Review proportionate share mitigation options for new residential development. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean:doc 18 1<el~~~a~°y , 211'7 lr~til ~. ~__._ 8. Prepare annual reports on enrollment and capacity. 9. Provide necessary staff and material support for meetings of the SPTAC as required by this Agreement. 10. Provide information to the County and Cities regarding enrollment projections, school siting, and infrastructure required to support public school facilities consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. Section 11 School District Capital Improvement Plan 11.1 School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan (a) On or before September 30th of each year, the School Board shall update and adopt the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan for public schools in Indian River County. (b) The School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual update shall specify all new construction, remodeling or renovation projects which will add permanent capacity or modernize existing facilities. (c) The School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual update shall be a financially feasible program of school construction for a five (5) year period. The Plan shall include school construction projects which, when completed, will add sufficient capacity to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS for all schools based on projected increases in enrollment; provide for required modernization; and satisfy the School District's constitutional obligation to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a County-wide basis. (d) The School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual update shall include a description of each school project, a listing of funds to be spent in each fiscal year for the planning, preparation, land acquisition, and actual construction and renovation of each school project which adds capacity or modernizes existing facilities; the amount of capacity added, if any; and a generalized location map for schools included in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. (e) The School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual update shall ensure that the utilization of existing schools has been maximized and that proposed projects add the necessary capacity to maintain the adopted Level of Service. (f) The School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual update shall identify the projected enrollment, capacity and utilization percentage of all schools. The School District shall annually update the School Service Area Boundary Tables and "School District of Indian River County Five-Year Capital Improvements Schedule" when updating the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. 11.2 Ten and Twenty Year Work Program (a) In addition to the adopted School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the School District shall annually adopt a ten year and a twenty year work p1ali based upon revenue projections, enrollment projections and facility needs for the ten year and twenty year period. It is recognized that the projections ui the ten and twenty year time frames are tentative and should be used only for general. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft n2C Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 19 1{~xl~rua~°~' S, 2€I'7 Dlf~ffilt planning purposes. Upon completion, the School District Facilities Work Program will be transmitted to the local governments. 11.3 Transmittal (a) The School District shall transmit copies of the proposed School District Work Program which includes the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. to the SPTAC, the Cities and County for review on or before September 1St of each year commencing after the effective date of this Agreement. 11.4 Final Adoption (a) Unless the adoption is delayed by mediation or a lawful challenge, the School Board shall adopt the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan no later than September 30`l', and the plan shall become effective October 1St of each year. 11.5 Amendments to the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan (a) The School Board shall not amend the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan so as to modify, delay or delete any project in the first three (3) years of the Program unless the School District, by a majority vote of its Board members, provides written confirmation that: 1. The modification, delay or deletion of the project is required in order to meet the School District's constitutional obligation to provide aCounty-wide uniform system of free public schools or other legal obligations imposed by state or federal law; or 2. The modification, delay or deletion of the project is occasioned by unanticipated changes in population projections or growth patterns or is required in order to provide needed capacity in a location that currently has a greater priority than an originally planned project and does not cause the adopted LOS to be exceeded in the School Service Area from which the originally planned project is modified, delayed or deleted; or 3. The project schedule or scope has been modified to address local government concerns, and the modification does not cause the adopted LOS to be exceeded in the School Service Area from which the originally planned project is modified, delayed or deleted. (b) The School Board may amend at anytime its Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan to add necessary capacity projects to satisfy the provisions of this Agreement. For additions to the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the School Board must demonstrate its ability to maintain the financial feasibility of the Plan. Section 12 Comprehensive Plan Elements 12.1 Development, Adoption and Amendment of the Capital Improvements Element (a) The annual update of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, once adopted by the School Board, shall be transmitted to the County and the Cities. The County and the Cities shall adopt "The School District of Indian River County Five-Year Capital Improvement Schedule" from the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Improvements Element of their Comprehensive Plans no later than December 31St of each year. F:\Community Development\UsersU.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft Il2C Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 20 t.."" lael~z°rlary , 2II ~ra14. (b) Any amendment, correction or modification to the School District's Five-Year Capital Improvements Schedule or the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan concerning costs, revenue sources, or acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications, once adopted by the School Board, shall be transmitted to the County and Cities. Within ninety (90) days, the County and Cities shall amend their Capital Improvements Elements to reflect the changes. Such amendments may be accomplished by ordinance, and shall not be deemed amendments to the comprehensive plan. (c) The County and the Cities, by adopting "The School District of Indian River County Five Year Capital Improvement Schedule" in their Capital Improvements Elements shall have neither obligation nor responsibility for funding the School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. 12.2 Development, Adoption and Amendment of the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) (a) The County and the Cities shall adopt a Public School Facilities Element which is consistent with those adopted by the other local governments within the County. The Public School Facilities Element must also be consistent with this Agreement, Chapter 163.3177(12), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025, F.A.C. The County and the Cities shall notify the SPTAC when this element is adopted and when the element becomes effective. (b) In the event that it becomes necessary to amend the PSFE, the local government wishing to initiate an amendment shall request review through the SPTAC prior to transmitting the amendment to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The SPTAC shall be responsible for distributing the amendment to all Parties to this Agreement for review and comment. 1. To achieve required consistency, all local governments shall adopt the amendment in accordance with the statutory procedures for amending comprehensive plans. 2. If any local government objects to the amendment and the dispute cannot be resolved between or among the Parties, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 18 of this Agreement. In such a case, the Parties agree not to adopt the amendment until the dispute has been resolved. 3. Any local issues not specifically required by Statute or Rule may be included or modified in the Local Government Public School Facilities Element by following the normal Comprehensive Plan amendment process. 12.3 Intergovernmental Coordination Element (a) The process for the development, adoption, and amendment of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall be that set forth in Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Section 13 School Concurrency Program 13.1 School Concurrency Program Overview (a) The School Concurrency Program requires that Indian River County, the Cities and the School Board maintain a minimum Level of Service Standard for public schools. The School Concurrency Program requires that all new residential development be reviewed to ensure that adequate school capacity will exist prior to or concurrent with the impact of the residential development, to support the additional student growth at the adopted level of service. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE1CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\UpdatesULA\03_FINAL Drag IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 21 ~l~`~hr°tr~°, S, 207 nf4 13.2 Commencement (a) The School Concurrency Program described in this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2008. 13.3 School Service Area Boundaries (SSAB) Standards (a) The County and Cities shall adopt the School Service Areas Boundary standards and the process for modification as defined herein into the Public School Facilities Element of their Comprehensive Plans. (b) The Parties hereby agree that School Concurrency shall be measured and applied on a less than district-wide basis using School Service Area Boundaries (SSAB). The SSABs are provided as Appendix "E" of this Agreement. 1. The School District and local governments shall apply school concurrency using school attendance zones (school boundaries) as adopted by the School Board, as the School Service Area Boundaries. Use of this method will create a separate school service area boundary map for each elementary, middle and high school. Each school attendance zone will become its own School Service Area (SSA). 13.4 School Service Area Boundary (SSAB) Modification (a) As future boundary modifications are required for schools programmed in the Indian River School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, school boundaries shall be modified to the greatest extent possible to provide School Service Area Boundary alignment with traffic analysis zones. (b) Any Party may propose a modification to the School Service Area Boundaries. Prior to adopting any change, the School District must verify that as a result of the modification: 1. The adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained for each year of the five year planning period; and 2. The utilization of school capacity will be maximized to the greatest extent possible, taking into account transportation costs, court approved desegregation plans and other relevant factors. (c) The Parties shall observe the following process for modifying School Service Area Boundaries: 1. At such time as the School District determines that a SSAB change is appropriate considering the above standards, the School District shall transmit the proposed School Service Area Boundaries and data and analysis to support the changes to the Cities, to the County and to the SPTAC. 2. The County, Cities and the SPTAC shall review the proposed boundary changes and send their comments to the School District within forty five (45) days of receipt. 3. The change to a School Service Area Boundary shall become effective upon final approval of the new school boundaries by the School Board. 13.5 Level of Service (LOS) F:\Community Development\UsersU.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\UpdatesULA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 22 ~ ~ el~X'uur~' S, 2~(I7 IJr°lt------~ (a) The adopted level of service for each year of the five year planning period and through the long term planning period for each School Service Area will be 100% of the FISH permanent capacity. 13.6 Exemptions (a) The following residential uses shall be considered exempt from the requirements of school concurrency: 1. All single family lots of record at the time the School concurrency implementing ordinance becomes effective. 2. Any residential development that has a preliminary plat or site plan approval or the functional equivalent for a site specific development order prior to the commencement date of the School concurrency Program. 3. Any amendment to any previously approved residential development, which does not increase the number of dwelling units or change the type of dwelling units (single-family to multi-family, etc.). 4. Any Age restricted community with no permanent residents under the age of eighteen (18). Exemption of an age restricted community will be subject to a restrictive covenant limiting the age of permanent residents to 18 years and older. (b) Upon request by a developer submitting a land development application with a residential component, the School District shall issue a determination as to whether or not a development, lot or unit is exempt from the requirements of school concurrency. 13.7 School concurrency Regulations (a) By July 1, 2008, each Local Government shall adopt school concurrency provisions into its Land Development Regulations (LDR) consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. (b) The County and the Cities shall amend their Land Development Regulations (LDR) to adopt school concurrency provisions which provide procedures for review of development orders. 1. In the event that any participating City does not, by July 1, 2008, adopt LDRs consistent with this Agreement, that government shall be deemed to have "opted in" to the County regulations and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions therein until it adopts its own ordinance. 2. At any time, any Local Government Inay opt out of the County's implementing ordinance through implementing its own ordinance. Section 14 School concurrency Process 14.1 Review Process (a) Indian River County, the Cities and the School Board shall ensure that the minimum Level of Service Standard established for each school type is maintained. No new residential comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conceptual plan, preliminary plat, final plat, site plan or functional equivalent may be approved by the County or Cities, unless the residential development is exempt from these requirements as provided in Section 14.6 of this Agreement, until a School Capacity Availability Determination Letter has been issued indicating that adequate school facilities exist. For comprehensive F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drafr IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 23 e'er°ua S, I~ 7 I~°.f plan land use designation amendments, rezonings, and conceptual plans, a conditional School Capacity Availability Determination Letter may be issued, even if school capacity is not available to meet the school demand associated with the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, or conceptual plan with a condition identifying improvements necessary to meet an adopted level of service standard and the cost- feasible mechanism for implementing the necessary improvements. This shall not limit the authority of a local government to deny a development permit or its functional equivalent, pursuant to its home rule regulatory powers. (b) Any developer submitting a development permit application (such as a land use map amendment, rezoning, site plan or preliminary plat) with a residential component that is not exempt under Section 14.6 of this Agreement is subject to school concurrency and must prepare and submit a School Impact Analysis, as applicable, for review by the School District. The School Impact Analysis must indicate the location of the development, number of dwelling units and unit types (single-family, multi-family, apartments, etc.), and age restrictions for occupancy, if any. The local government shall initiate the review by determining that the application is sufficient for processing. Upon determination of application sufficiency, the local government shall transmit the School Impact Analysis to the School District for review. The School District will verify whether sufficient student stations for each type of school are available or not available to support the development. A flow chart outlining the school concurrency review process is included as Appendix "H". The process is as follows: 1. The School District shall review the School Impact Analysis for residential developments, which have been submitted and deemed sufficient for processing by the applicable local government. 2. The School District shall review each School Impact Analysis in the order in which it is received and shall issue a School Capacity Availability Determination Letter to the applicant and the affected local government within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the application. 3. The School District Inay charge the applicant anon-refundable application fee payable to the School District to meet the cost of review. (c) In the event that there is not adequate capacity available in the SSAB in which the proposed development is located or in an adjacent SSAB to support the development, the School Board shall entertain proportionate share mitigation pursuant to Section 15.7 of this Agreement and, if the proposed mitigation is accepted, enter into an enforceable and binding agreement with the affected local government and the developer pursuant to Section 15.7 of this Agreement. (d) The local government shall be responsible for notifying the School District when a residential development has paid its school impact fees and when the development order for the residential development expires. 14.2 Student Generation Calculation (a) To determine a proposed development's projected students, the proposed development's projected number and type of residential units shall be converted into projected students for all schools of each type within the specific School Service Area Boundary using the. School District Student Generation Multiplier, as established in Appendix "G." 14.3 Utilization Determination (a) The School District shall create and maintain a Development Review Table (DRT) for each School Service Area, and will use the DRT to compare the projected students from proposed residential developments to the School Service Area's available capacity programmed within the first three years of the current five-year capital planning period. Student enrollment projections shall be based on the most F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft II2C Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 24 F'€~Isr°n~~ ~ 1I'7 I~°~~ft ~~~ recently adopted five year capital plan, and the DRT shall be updated to reflect these projections. Available capacity shall be derived using the following formula: Available Capacity =School Capacity' - (Enrollment2 + Vested3) Where ' School Capacity =FISH Capacity (As programmed in the first three (3) years of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan.) ~ Enrollment =Student enrollment as counted, at the fall FTE. 3 Vested =Students generated from residential developments approved after the implementation of school concurrency, where all school impact fees have been paid. (b) At the Fall FTE, the vested number of students on the Development Review Table will be reduced by the number of students represented by the residential units that received certificates of occupancy within the previous twelve (12) month period. 14.4 The Three Year Rule (a) If new capacity within a School Service Area Boundary will be in place or under actual construction in the first three years of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the new school capacity will be added to the capacity shown in the School Service Area Boundary, and the utilization rate will be adjusted accordingly. 14.5 Adjacent School Service Area Boundary Capacity (a) If .the projected student growth from a residential development causes the adopted .LOS to be exceeded in a School Service Area, an adjacent School Service Area will be reviewed for available capacity. In conducting the adjacency review, the School District shall first use the adjacent School Service Area with the most available capacity to evaluate projected enrollment and, if necessary, shall continue to the School Service Area with the next most available capacity until all adjacent School Service Areas have been evaluated or the available capacity has been identified to allow a determination Letter approving school concurrency to be issued. (b) If a proposed new development causes the LOS in the School Service Area in which it is located to exceed the adopted LOS and there is available capacity in an adjacent School Service Area, actual development impacts shall be shifted to the contiguous school service area having available capacity. This shift shall be accomplished through boundary changes or by assigning future students from the development to an adjacent SSAB. 14.6 Issuance and Term of School Concurrency (a) If the School District reviews a development project application and determines that sufficient capacity is available at the adopted LOS to necessitate the students projected to be generated from the development project, the School District shall issue a School Capacity Availability Determination Letter indicating that adequate school facilities exist to support the student impacts. Issuance of a determination letter identifying that adequate capacity exists indicates only that school facilities are currently available, and does not guarantee that school facilities will be available at the time of any subsequent concurrency review. F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft 1RC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 25 °~:xary , ZI17 D~°al_t ~~ ~_ (b) The Local Government shall not approve a final site plan for amulti-family residential project or a final plat for asingle-family residential project unless the project is vested for school concurrency, and the Local Government shall not vest approval of any residential development until receiving confirmation of available school capacity from the School District and the payment of school impact fees. Local government vesting of school concurrency for a residential development shall be valid for one (1) year after approval. This approval may be extended by the local government for up to a total of five (5) years, provided that the applicant signs a waiver of rights for the refund of school impact fees in exchange for the extension of the approval. (c) The Local Government shall notify the School District within ten (10) days of receiving paylnent of school impact fees and vesting school concurrency for any residential development. (d) The Local Government shall not issue a building permit or its functional equivalent for a residential develop>ent until receiving confirmation of available school capacity from the School District and the payment of school impact fees. Once the permit is issued, school concurrency vesting for the permitted residential development shall be considered valid as long as the building permit or its functional equivalent is active. (e) The payment of school impact fees shall occur prior to the vesting of a residential development, or portion thereof. (f) If the student impacts from a proposed development would cause the adopted Level of Service to be exceeded, the determination letter shall detail why the development is not in compliance, and the School District shall offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into the ninety (90) day negotiation period as described below. 14.7 Proportionate Share Mitigation (a) In the event that there is not adequate capacity available to support a development, the School Board may entertain proportionate share mitigation options and, if accepted, shall enter into an enforceable and binding agreement with the developer and the local government to mitigate the impact from the development through the creation of additional school capacity. (b) When the student impacts from a proposed development would cause the adopted Level of Service to fail, the developer's proportionate share mitigation for the development will be based on the number of additional student stations necessary to meet the established level of service. The amount to be paid will be calculated utilizing the cost per student station allocations for elementary, middle and high school, as established by the Florida Department of Education, plus a share of the land acquisition and infrastructure expenditures for school sites as determined and published annually in the School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. 1. The methodology used to calculate a developer's proportionate share mitigation shall be as follows: Proportionate Share = (Development studentsa -Available Capacity) x Total Cost' per student station Where aDevelopment students =Students generated by development that are assigned to that school tTotal Cost =the cost per student station as determined and published by the State of Florida, plus a share of the land acquisition and infrastructure expenditures for school sites as determined and published annually in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities F:\Community Development\UsersU.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 26 F`er°~alia- , 217 D~°aft Plan or as calculated utilizing an alternative method that incorporates regional differences based on average prior year cost per student station for school districts along the Treasure Coast. (c) The applicant shall be allowed to enter a ninety (90) day negotiation period with the School District in an effort to mitigate the impact from the development through the creation of additional school capacity. Upon identification and acceptance of a mitigation option deemed financially feasible by the School Board, the developer shall enter into a binding and enforceable agreement with the School Board and the local government with jurisdiction over the approval of the development order. (d) A Mitigation contribution provided by a developer to offset the impact of a residential development must be directed by the School Board toward a school capacity project identified in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facility Plan. Capacity projects identified within the first three (3) years of the Five-Year Capital Facility Plan shall be considered as committed in accordance with Section 15.4 of this Agreement. If capacity projects are planned in years four (4) or five (5) of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facility Plan within the same SSAB as the proposed residential development, the developer may pay his proportionate share to mitigate the proposed development in accordance with the formula provided in Section 15.7(b)(1). 2, If a capacity project does not exist in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facility Plan, the School Board may add a capacity project to satisfy the impacts from a proposed residential development, as long as financial feasibility of the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan can be maintained. Mitigation options may include, but are not limited to: i. Contribution of land in conjunction with the provision of additional school capacity; or ii. Provision of additional student stations through the donation of buildings for use as a primary or alternative learning facility; or iii. Provision of additional student stations through the renovation of existing buildings for use as learning facilities; or iv. Construction of permanent student stations or core capacity; or v. Construction of a school in advance of the time set forth in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan: or vi. Construction of a charter school designed in accordance with School District standards, providing permanent capacity to the District's inventory of student stations. Use of a charter school for mitigation must include provisions for its continued existence, including but not limited to the transfer of ownership of the charter school property and/or operation of the school to the School Board. 3. In exchange for the mitigation banking of funds for the construction of a public school facility, the developer will have the right to sell capacity credits for school capacity in excess of what was required to serve the proposed residential development. (e) For mitigation options provided above, the costs associated with the identified mitigation shall be based on the estimated cost of the improvement on the date that the improvement is programmed for F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\UpdatesULA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 27 Fellrar~- l'7 I~°nl"t E construction. Future costs will be calculated using estimated values at the time the mitigation is anticipated to commence. 1. The cost of the mitigation required by the developer shall be credited toward the payment of the school impact fee. 2. If the developer's required mitigation cost is greater than the school impact fees for the development, the difference between, the developer's mitigation costs and the impact fee credit is the responsibility of the developer. (f) Upon conclusion of the ninety (90) day negotiation period, a new School Capacity Availability Determination Letter shall be issued identifying whether or not capacity has been identified to serve the development. If mitigation has been agreed to, the School District shall identify in the School Capacity Availability Determination Letter that adequate capacity is available for the development, subject to those mitigation measures agreed to by the local government, developer and the School Board. Prior to vesting approval of the School Capacity Availability Determination Letter, the mitigation measures shall be memorialized in an enforceable and binding agreement with the local government, the School Board and the developer, and impact fees must be paid. The mitigation agreement shall specifically detail mitigation provisions, identify the capacity project, indicate the financial contribution to be paid by the developer, provide a method of surety in form of a bond or letter of credit in the amount of the contribution, and include any relevant terms and conditions. If mitigation is not agreed to, the Determination Letter shall detail why any mitigation proposals were rejected and detail why the development is not in compliance with school concurrency requirements. 14.8 Appeal Process (a) A person substantially affected by a School District's adequate capacity determination made as apart of the School concurrency Process Inay appeal such determination through the process provided in Chapter 120, F.S. A School Capacity Determination Letter indicating either that adequate capacity is available, or that there is no available capacity following the ninety (90) day negotiation period as described in Section 15.7 of this Agreement, constitutes final agency action by the School District for purposes of Chapter 120 F.S. (b) A person substantially affected by a local government decision made as a part of the School concurrency Process may appeal such decision within 15 business days to the governing body of the local government (See Appendix G). Section 15 Oversight 15.1 Monitoring and evaluation of the school concurrency process is required pursuant to s. 163.3180(13)(g)(6)(c ),F.S. By March ls` of each year the SPTAC shall be responsible for preparing an annual assessment report on the effectiveness of School concurrency. The report will be made available to the public and presented at the Elected Officials Oversight Committee meeting. 15.2 The SPTAC Committee members shall be invited to attend all meetings referenced in Sections 3 and 6 and shall receive copies of all reports and documents produced pursuant to this Agreement. 15.3 By September 1st of each year, the SPTAC shall receive the proposed School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Program. The SPTAC shall report to the School District, the County, and the Cities on whether or not the proposed School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan maintains the adopted Level of Service by adding enough projects to increase the capacity, if needed, to eliminate any permanent student station shortfalls; by including required modernization of existing facilities; and by F:\Canmunity Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 28 ~ I"°crr~tra~wy 111D7 lira l t providing permanent student stations for the projected growth in enrollment over each of the five (5) years covered by the Plan. Section 16 Special Provisions 16.1 School District Requirements (a) The Parties acknowledge and agree that the School District is or may be subject to the requirements of the Florida and United States Constitutions and other state or federal statutes regarding the operation of the public school system. Accordingly, the County, the Cities and the School Board agree that this Agreement is not intended, and will not be construed, to interfere with, hinder, or obstruct in any manner, the School District's constitutional and statutory obligation to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a Countywide basis or to require the School District to confer with, or obtain the consent of, the County or the Cities, as to whether that obligation has been satisfied. Further, the County, the Cities and the School Board agree that this Agreement is not intended and will not be construed to impose any duty or obligation on the County or City for the School District's constitutional or statutory obligation. The County and the Cities also acknowledge that the School District's obligations under this Agreement may be superseded by state or federal court orders or other state or federal legal mandates. (b) The School Board agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, the County and/or the Cities, the members of their governing board and their staffs, and each of them, for and from any all claims, civil actions, damages or administrative proceedings, of whatever kind or nature whatsoever in Law or equity whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, created by or arising from or alleged to be arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to, any action done or not done in reliance upon any undertakings or obligations by the School Board pursuant to this Agreement or upon any advice or other representation made by the School Board pursuant to its undertakings or obligations set forth in this Agreement. Such defense shall be carried out by counsel reasonably acceptable to the party(ies) being defended. Such indemnification shall include but not be limited to tort claims, actions for declarative relief, claims alleging that the act triggering this clause violates the Laws or Constitutions of the United States and/or the State of Florida, or for claims arising under common law rules or the Bert J. Harris Property Rights Protection Act. (CH 70 Florida Statutes 2005 as amended.) Upon receipt of the notice of any such claim, civil action, or administrative proceeding, the party invoking the terms of this provision shall notify the School Board in writing as soon as practicable. 16.2 Land Use Authority (a) The Parties specifically acknowledge that each Local Government is responsible for approving or denying comprehensive plan amendments and development orders within its own jurisdiction. Nothing herein represents or authorizes a transfer of this authority to any other party. Section 17 Resolution of Disputes 17.1 If the parties to this Agreement fail to resolve any conflicts related to issues covered in this document, such dispute will be resolved in accordance with governmental conflict resolution procedures specified in Chapters 164 and 186, Florida Statutes. Section 18 Amendment Process and Term of the Agreement 18.1 This Agreement may be amended by written consent of all parties to this Agreement. The Agreement will remain in effect in accordance with Florida Statutes. If the Florida statute as it pertains to school F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FIlQAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 29 I `~:~rnary Y 1Jli r~~ft planning coordination is repealed, the Agreement may be terminated by written consent of all parties of this Agreement. Section 19 Execution in Counterparts 19.1 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one in the same instrument. Section 20 Effective Date 20.1 Effective date of the original Agreement was January 1, 2004. The effective date of this revised Agreement shall be March 1, 2008. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft TRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 30 ~ F`e11E°~a , ~ill'1` lral't~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Interlocal Agreement has been executed by and on behalf of Indian River County, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the Cities of Fellsmere, Sebastian, and Vero Beach, and the School Board of Indian River County on this day of , 200_ THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Carol Johnson, Board Chairman ATTEST Board Secretary Witness as to all Signatories Print Name (CORPORATE SEAL) State of Florida, County of Indian River WITNESS my hand and official seal this Witness as to all Signatories Print Name Print Nalne My Commission Expires: Approved as to form and correctness: day of A.D. 200 (AFFIX NOTARY SEAL) Usher Brown, School Board Attorney F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 31 j 'e~°r~-y 1~II'~ I~°al'1 DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THIS DAY OF , 200 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman Approved as to form and correctness: ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk By William G. Collins II, County Attorney F:\Community Development\UsersU.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft Il2C Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 32 DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FELLSMERE, FLORIDA, THIS Day of , 200_ CITY OF FELLSMERE, FLORIDA Mayor Sara J. Savage Attest City Clerk (Seal) Duly Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Fellsmere, Florida, this Day of , 200 F:\Community Development\UsersU.oNG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 33 I'ellr°~~~~x°~° , 2€ICI'7 f DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, THIS Day of , 200 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA Mayor Brian Burkeen Attest City Clerk (Seal) F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 34 F~I~~~~py 1~I17 lit DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, THIS Day of , 200_ CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA Mayor Thomas P. White Attest City Clerk (Seal) F:\Community Development\Users\I,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 35 l~`a~~~~s~r 11 I..1 DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FLORIDA, THIS Day of , 200 TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FLORIDA Attest Mayor Thomas W. Cadden City Clerk (Seal) F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IIZC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 36 ~F~I~°u llll gat APPENDIX "A" SCHOOL COORDINATION GROUPS/ACTIVITIES COMMITTEES SCHEDULED PURPOSE MEETINGS Staff Working Group Semi-annually (last Friday in Set direction, formulate Committee March and 2"d Friday in recommendations, discuss August of each year) issues Elected Officials Oversight Every year (2" Friday in Set direction, discuss issues, Committee (EOOC) April of each year) reach understanding School Planning Technical Semi-annually (2" Friday in Set direction, formulate Advisory Committee September and' March of recommendations, discuss (SPTAC) each year) and as needed issues regarding school concurrency Review School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan Evaluate each potential school site and prepare an initial evaluation report to be submitted to the SSC Prepare an Impact Assessment Statement (IAS) and Economic Analysis (EA) for each short listed school site Citizen Oversight Committee Annually Evaluate and assess the (COC) effectiveness of the Interlocal Agreement F:\Community Development\UsersU..ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 37 Fr--~%y----- d` ~ 1111' lal _.~~ E APPENDIX "B" SCHOOL COORDINATION DUE DATES Due Date Activi 2n Friday in September and Working meetings to set direction, formulate March of each year recommendations and discuss issues regarding school concurrency Last Friday in March and 2° Working group meetings to set direction, formulate Friday in August of each year . recommendations, and discuss issues 2° Friday in April of each IRC, Cities, TCPRC and School District representative year workshop to set general direction and discuss issues June 1St of each year The County and Cities provide site plan and building permit information regarding residential projects to School District July lst of each year School District submits its educational facilities report (five- . year work program) to the County and Cities September 1St of each year The School Districts proposed Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan transmitted to the SPTAC, County and Cities September 30 of each year School Board adoption of the proposed Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 38 'el~~°a~~°y 107 ~°~:l't APPENDIX "C" SCHOOL SITE SELECTION FLOW CHART School Board identifies need for a new school and provides a list of potential sites to the SPTAC. Within 30 Days School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) prepares initial evaluation report for each potential site, reviews sites for consistency with local comprehensive plans, submits reports to the School Board. Within 60 Days The School Board narrows the sites down to three (3) sites and submits short list of sites to SPTAC. SPTAC prepares Impact Assessment Statement (IAS) and Economic Analysis (EA) for short listed sites. SPTAC rank short listed sites and provide IAS, EA, and ranking to the school board The School Board officially approves the site and authorizes acquisition of the site F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 39 I eh°e~~~ 107 1~°aft APPENDIX `D' For Schools within the Unincorporated County INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LDR SECTION 971.14(4) Educational centers including schools, primary and secondary (not including business and vocational schools) (special exception). . (a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval (pursuant to the provisions of 971.04): OCR, MED, CN, CL, CG. (b) Districts requiring special exception (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05): A-1 A-2 A- 3RFD RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-6 RT-6 RM-3 RM-4 RM-6 RM-8 RM-10 ROSE-4 RMH-6 RMH-8 Con-1 Con-2 Con-3. (c) Additional information requirements: 1. A site plan which denotes the location of all existing structures, parking facilities, and the proposed circulation plan, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 914; 2. A description of the anticipated school service area and projected enrollment shall be provided; 3. A copy of all requisite licenses from State of Florida. (d) Criteria for educational facilities: 1. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local residential streets in residential subdivisions. Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways; 2. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial requirements for the site shall be similar to standards utilized by the Indian River County School District and the State of Florida; 3. No main or accessory building shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any property line not adjacent to a street or roadway. No main or accessory building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any property line abutting a local road right-of--way that serves asingle-family area; 4. The applicant shall submit a description of anticipated school service area and projected enrollment, by stages if appropriate, and relate the same to a development plan explaining: a. Area to be developed by construction phase; b.. Adequacy of site to accommodate anticipated facilities, enrollment, recreation area, off-street parking, and pedestrian and vehicular F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interloca] Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 40 ~1~~°~~ ~ ltt ~°aft circulation on-site including loading, unloading and queuing of school bus traffic; c. Safety features of the development plan; 5. No rooms within the school shall be regularly used for the housing of students when located in asingle-family residential district; 6. The facilities shall have a Type "C" buffer in the A-l, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 and RS-6 districts; a. The Board of County Commissioners may waive or reduce the buffer requirements where the educational facility is located next to an existing cemetery, place of worship, child care facility, adult care facility, community center, or school. Consideration shall be given to security, noise, and visual impacts. Where a waiver or buffer reduction is granted, normal perimeter landscaping requirements shall apply, and alternative requirements (such as fencing) may be required. 7. The facilities shall have a Type "D" buffer in all other residential districts not listed in subsection 6 above. a. The Board of County Commissioners may waive or reduce the buffer requirements where the educational facility is located next to an existing cemetery, place of worship, child care facility, adult care facility, community center, or school. Consideration shall be given to security, noise, and visual impacts. Where a waiver or buffer reduction is granted, normal perimeter landscaping requirements shall apply, and alternative requirements (such as fencing) may be required. F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompP]an Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 41 Appendix `E' School Service Area Boundaries ~` L ryO W U .~ r~ i U L -F~ ^~ W ^~ W W j y :QI ~i m v Q~ m m m v v ¢` ¢ Z m ~ m u d N .~ y N ~ y a ,, r ~ m E c ~ W W u E c W W c W c U u W n m E ' m a w o v fA F F- ~ ~ Q Q d Q U u v ~_ N 'z r N N ~ A T ~ °' .- m ~ E v E m E w E W ~ W c W '~ v E a m t u - c ~ ~ ttc7 = a .Q Y:~t 3:~ m rn d J '~ y m m v ~a d a ~ d v ~ d ~n •~ w .~ z a ~ d ~ E .ra aEi .oc °' ~ w ~ W E ~ v ~ c m o ~ W C ~ L ~ m ~ a dm~o W N O t N V ~ O Z' u ~ N e ~ m ~ ~ W R ~ W ~ N N ~ II N R ~ Q' ~ R .~. u ~ J N N R W Z ~ln N O F:\Community Development\UsersU,ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Drag Il2C Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 42 E APPENDIX `E' School Service Area Boundaries Continued ~ ' 3 ~ S ' 3.v ~ yLL ~~ ~ U 4 , =~ 1 ~~ _ 't _ I ~ .I I - __ li -l t ~ ~ i ¢tea ' I .. ..-,. ~ ~ ~I ~ . ~ ~. (0 / / \LJ - ~ - ~ _ U1 U -- r v f6 . . -. __ R1 N V '.] N L U 'U .. - y R d ~` ~ , ~ `[ o a p d - o y .6 d (~ ~ C y fn ~ a~ d' (~ ~ a ~ ~ v ~ 'J U V p O d d (/~ n~ r / ' ~L ~L i .. ....._._.. N y O I ~I O O ' U _ _... ~ d . '- '~ r~ ~/ Vl I O \ Ri,l .. ,~ R ~. ~_ - -- ~~. i j ~~ ~ w ..~, Z~(n N T " I O F:\Community Development\UsersU.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments~Public Schools\Updates~ILA\03_FINAL Draft IItC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-09 - Clean.doc 43 APPENDIX `E' School Service Area Boundaries Continued //''yamy'~ W ~./ L~ •~ Q O /V V J ~~ Z i I ~~ '1~A. N ~ p f I _ f .z. t '3 i N" _ - ` ,. -, : ~, , ~. ,~ __ .. _ - .. .. _. _. ~ .. - I i ~ VIII i i i i i ~,~_ ;. ' _ a:. :. ~. . .. L ~~I 1 - 1 ~~ i 1 P i i i - ~ ,I I I ~~ I~~l ~ ai 9 m ~' i m m m w v 'S > a`' <n `~ R O O ~-' ° u Q V ~ d ~ L C1 L ~ ~ ~ _ ~ U ~ N C 10 10 LT ~ ~ N m y L L L O` J N N VJ j t t , rn = _rn' ' 2 2 `(:_ 41 N ~ ~ U ~ ~ '\ ~ ~ d e W l Z ~~- c!> N O F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 44 F ~~~:~~ 8, 2017 l:l°a~t. APPENDIX `F' Student Generation Multipliers A critical component of the school concurrency process is projecting the number of students that will be generated from new residential development. In order to calculate the number of students associated with new residential development, a student generation multiplier was created. Because the number of students living in a housing unit varies depending on the type of residential housing, the student generation rate per residential unit is based on three housing types: single family, multi-family, and mobile home. Two key pieces of data were used to calculate student generation rates, including: the Geographic Information System (GIS) parcel file from the Indian River County Property Appraisers office with associated land use and attribute data (2005), and the GIS Point file based on the October 2005 FTE Survey data provided from the School District (for the school year 2005-2006). A spatial join was applied to these key files resulting in one database based on a common location. Once the data was joined, the student GIS Point file was assigned a housing type based on the closest proximity of a residential parcel to the GIS centerline point. Asa 100 percent student inventory (not a sample set), the volume of data used (16,857 geo-coded students) was large enough to offset occasional land use assignment errors. The student database was then sorted by grade and housing type. The student generation rate (multiplier) was then calculated by dividing the total number of students (by school type) by the total number of occupied dwelling units by residential type. The occupied dwelling unit counts are based on an average 10 percent occupancy rate applied to the existing unit count by type and reconciled to the permanent household count for year 2005. The student generation multipliers by residential housing type from the "Indian River County Student Generation Rates by Housing Type" report prepared by Fishkind and Associates, Inc. (May 24, 2006) are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Student Generation Rates, Indian River County, 2005 Single- Multi- Mobile All Unit Family Family Home Types Elementary 0.189 0.037 0.045 0.131 Middle 0.097 0.015 0.016 0.066 High 0.123 0.014 0.016 0.082 Total 0.409 0.066 0.078 0.279 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board, Indian River County Property Appraiser F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 24-07 - Clean.doc 45 ~ ehl<°~zal°y 1 ~ r~~::i'~ APPENDIX `G' School Concurrency Review Process Flow Chart °~.~ „: °~ Application Submitted io Local Government. Application may he made at any time during tt~e'year. a~ ~_ Incomplete Local Government indiates revieav Application Deterrninat ion of Apphcatidn completeness and data sufficient' made Apphcaiion fcnvarded to the Scijoo{ District: Ire = n n %4i p c t e;;vv',7dcd t o Applicant specifying deficierries rc.ie 4i if-,e r determine if _ r ~ hoot capacrhy is' ' iedeveloprnent. fiiciencies addre ~ ~ i ~,,, Applicant; ar~d Apph ,t ~_ ~ - NO process re-indiai , i rapacity Not Available .. ~ - ~~ol Dis2ria '.~.~ ~ - -,~ Schr I L ~~-[i ~_; i n a ~ Concurrercy.AvailabilAy Scl~ ~~Cuucutrer~y Determination Letter to local AVailabil'dy Deterrninaiion government and developer. Letter iderdit~ing adequate detailing why the developrnant is capacity fo local government not in compliance with adopted acrd developer (no ~revting or level of service and a 90 dad reseYVedcapa,dy). mitigation negotiation ,.period is. offered Local go4anrnent i _:arit pay ' cf;o~ d notifies School District Impact. Fees to Incal' vvrthin 10 clays when government to vest iY~e -~ receming'impactfees to I developrrrerR for 1 year. Vesta rEvidential Remedy the application dcvelopmeni. Applicant ` and resolve deficiencies Chooses ~~ and subrnrt for anotYirx .' ,~' ° ~ ~ ~ canerreepcy determination Local yovernnierrt may ' extend project vesting to 5 -: years rfthe applicant sigrr> a '-`^'-ti~ vvaNerofrightsfcrrefundof h impact fees .';f;Nl,.un..prthdr..,r.~ application ~~.~gsnlca ~rC err T to add sufficient capa:ity Lw ~ a n~r~c i ay issue building perod or turotional '.. i -~ Equroalernupon corrfirmation ~ ~~ of adequate school ~ - .File appeal with the Local capserh,; and the payment of r r . ,-,: ,"_ ;,, f : ~,-,i Gdvernment or School impact fees.. Government i -~_i~~~I Board as applicable ~ Dist~~~_. "h'hlr ~ .- - f P,esiderAial developrnerrt }r ~ + _ Local Government or School approval shall be valid as Board will reaieav the appeal, long as the building I biitigationoption Mitigation ot~[ion schedule hexing in front permit or funtianal accepted .not accepted of the Board, andwrde equivalent is active. recornmandatiun tothe Board Within 30 days „r~ .. _ m The BoardwilfconsiJ.r the appeal Appea~Derned Circuit Court F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendments\Public Schools\Updates\ILA\03_FINAL Draft IRC Interlocal Agreement 2-2-07 - Clean.doc 46 ~"er~~ry ~}, 20€}7 I)rai'i Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan Indian River County Community Development Department Adopted: Attachment 3 ~ ~ -~ ~ February 9, 2(I07 I)~-a:tt TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 3 COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL RELATED DATA ............................................................................ 3 Past and Projected Population ....................................................................................... 3 Permit Activity/Projected Permit Activity .................................................................... 4 Residential Development Activity ................................................................................ 5 Student Generation Multiplier ...................................................................................... 7 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... I4 Enrollment and Capacity .........................................................:................................... 14 Enrollment Projections ................................................................................................ 17 Student Population from 2006 through 2012 .............................................................. 20 Indian River County School Utilization ............................................................... 21 School District Capital Funding Sources .................................................................... 22 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 23 SCHOOL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES ................................................:................................ 23 SCHOOL LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................................................................. 27 Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................... 27 Elementary Schools .............................................................................................. 29 Middle Schools ..........:.......................................................................................... 29 High Schools ......................................................................................................... 29 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ....................................................................................................... 32 PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION .................................................................................. 33 SCHOOL PLANNING AND SHARED COSTS ............................................................................. 39 COORDINATION .................................................................................................................... 3 9 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ........................................................................ 42 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 46 EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROCEDURES ................................................... 48 Community Development Department Indian River County i `erry 9, Zt107 17~~-~ft LIST OF TABLES Table 12.1: Population Data, 1995 - 2006 ............................................................................... 3 Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-2020 ............................................................................. . 3 Table 12.3a: Total Building Permits Issued Per Year .............................................................. . 4 Table 12.3b: Indian River County Total Residential Units ..................................................... . 4 Table 12.4: Projected Building Permits for Next 5 Years ....................................................... . 4 Table 12.Sa: Students by Residential Housing Type and School Type ................................... . 8 Table 12.Sb: Occupied Dwelling Units by Type, 2005 ........................................................... . 8 Table 12.Sc: Student Generation Rates, Indian River County, 2005 ....................................... . 8 Table 12.6: New Residential Development ............................................................................. . 9 Table 12.7: School Year 2006/2007 School Enrollment and Capacity .................................. 16 Table 12.8: Elementary School Student Enrollment Projections ............................................ 18 Table 12.9: Middle School Student Enrollment Projections .................................................. 18 Table 12.10: High School Student Enrollment Projections .................................................... 19 Table 12.11: Special and Alternative School Student Enrollment Projections ...................... 19 Table 12.12: School District's Capital Improvement Summary ............................................. 35 Table 12.13: School District's Capital Improvement Program Summary .............................. 38 Table 12.14: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix ................................. 46 Community Development Department Indian River County ii FeI~~°uar°r- ~~, ZUil7 :[~~-aft LIST OF FIGURES Figure 12.1: Approved and Potential New Residential Development ...................................... 6 Figure 12.2: Existing School Locations .................................................................................. 15 Figure 12.3: Elementary School Service Area Boundary Map ............................................... 24 Figure 12.4: Middle School Service Area Boundaries Map ................................................... 25 Figure 12.5: High School Service Area Boundary Map ......................................................... 26 Figure 12.6: Existing /Programmed District Owned & Operated School Locations ............. 31 Figure 12.7: Co-location Opportunities .................................................................................. 41 Community Development Department Indian River County iii `~[~r~aar~, , 2€It17 Draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element INTRODUCTION Public schools are critical components to the well-being and future of a community. Because of the importance of the public school system and its impact on the future of Indian River County, coordinated school planning among the County, the School District and the municipalities within the County is critical to.ensure that public school capacity needs are met. Residential development is a primary factor associated with the growth of the public school system. Because of the relationship between residential development and the provision of public schools, the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) focuses on coordinated planning among the School District, County and local governments to accommodate future student growth needs in the public school system. This element establishes public school system concurrency requirements, including a level of service standard for public schools and procedures for establishing a concurrency management system. Within Indian River County, the local governments participating in school concurrency are Indian River County, the City of Vero Beach, the City of Sebastian, the City of Fellsmere, and the Town of Indian River Shores. The fifth municipality in the County, the Town of Orchid, is exempt ,from school concurrency based on the criteria contained in 163.3177(12)(b), F.S. At the time of its comprehensive plan's evaluation and appraisal report, the Town of Orchid must determine if it continues to meet the criteria as an exempt municipality. Once implemented, school concurrency will ensure that the public school facilities necessary to maintain the adopted level of service for schools are in place before or concurrent with the school impacts of new residential development. Community Development Department Indian River County 1 P's;hrc~~~ry ~, 20I}7 Draft DRAFT --....~.....-.... Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element BACKGROUND In 2005, the Florida Legislature amended s.163.3180, F.S., and mandated the implementation of public school concurrency. That legislation requires that each local government adopt a Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) as part of its Comprehensive Plan .and amend its Capital Improvement Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The PSFE must address school level of service; school utilization; school proximity and compatibility with residential development; availability of public infrastructure; co-location opportunities; and financial feasibility. As mandated by Rule 9J-5-025 F.A.C., the PSFE must contain the following: • Existing school facility deficiencies and school facilities required to meet future needs; • School level of service standards; • A financially feasible five-year schedule of school-related capital improvements that ensures adequate school capacity is available to maintain the adopted level of service; • Provisions to ensure that school facilities are located consistent with the existing and proposed residential areas they serve; that schools be used as community focal points, and that schools be co-located with other public facilities; • Maps depicting existing school sites, areas of anticipated future school sites, ancillary facilities, and School Service Area Boundaries (SSABs); and • Goals, objectives, and policies for planning and school concurrency. Community Development Department Indian River County 2 F'el~ruar~~ 9, 24~I}7 Draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element EXISTING CONDITIONS For school concurrency purposes, existing conditions relate not only to the number and location of public schools, but also to the County's population and overall level of residential development activity. Because the County's land use and demographic characteristics relate to the various components of the public school system, this section identifies past and projected County population figures, recent residential development activity, student enrollment data, and the existing conditions of Indian River County's public school system. County and Municipal Related Data Past and Projected Population The first set of data used to establish the level of growth in Indian River County is the population increase over time. For the time period 1995-2006, demographic data were obtained from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Table 12.1 details the population estimates for Indian River County and the municipalities during this ten-year period. Table 12.2 shows population growth projections and annual growth rates for the County to the year 2020. Table 12.1: Population Data, 1995 - 2006 ,,, ,,; ,,, iii ii ~~ ~i ii ~i ~~, Indian River 100,375 102,516 104,644 106,689 109,266 112,947 115,716 118,149 121,129 126,829 130,043 135,215 County Po ulation Cities Po ulation Fellsmere 2,357 2,419 2,469 2,549 2,593 3,813 3,901 4,044 4,173 4,284 4,322 4,581 Indian River 722 3 Shores 2,602 2,648 2,690 2,739 2,782 3,448 3,521 3,507 3,572 3,647 3,654 , Orchid 25 29 45 60 150 140 161 216 256 304 302 307 Sebastian 13,503 14,009 14,475 15,115 15,662 16,181 16,796 17,425 18,275 19,365 20,048 21,666 Vero Beach 17,701 17,750 17,794 17,745 17,856 17,705 17,879 17,918 17,945 18,012 17,895 18,160 Unincor- 86,779 orated 64,187 65,661 67,171 68,481 70,224 71,660 73,458 75,039 76,908 81,217 83,822 Total 100,375 102,516 104,644 106,689 109,266 112,947 115,716 118,149 121,129 126,829 130,043 135,215 Source: University of Florida Annual t'opulation Studies and UJ' C,'ensus tjureau lUU6 Table 12.2: Population Growth 2005-2020 Indian River County Po ulation ~~ 130,041 ~~ 146,980 ~ 162,546 ~~ 176,964 Growth 16,939 15,566 14,418 Growth Rate (%) 13.03% 10.59% 8.87% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida, 2006 Community Development Department Indian River County 3 February 9, 2007 .lrat DRAFT .._.._.,_. Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Permit Activity/Projected Permit Activi~ In Indian River County, the increase in population has been accompanied by an increase in residential housing units. Table 12.3a details building permit activity for the unincorporated county and the City of Vero Beach for the period between 2001 and 2006. Table 12.3b identifies the increase in total residential units from the 2000 Census to 2006. Table 12.3a: Total Building Permits Issued Per Year Building Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Single Family Units 1,361 1,484 2,050 3,168 3,426 2,813 Multi-Family Units 122 991 913 562 144 182 Mobile Home Setups 49 42 52 68 91 12 Source: Indian River County Community Development Report, January 2006 Table 12.3b: Indian River County Total Residential Units Residential Units Census 2000 2006 Total Single Family Units 36,240 41,540 Total Multi-Family Units 14,792 18,215 Total Mobile Home Units 6,870 7,682 Total Housing Units 57,902 67,437 Source: Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Yacant Land Analysis Application 2006. The data detailed in Table 12.3a indicate a steady increase in the number of single family residential building permits issued in Indian River County between 2001 and 2005, with a decrease occurring in 2006. These new units place additional demands on the school system's capacity because each new housing unit has the potential to generate new students. Table 12.4, however, shows that the number of building permits to be issued annually through the year 2009 is expected to decrease and then increase in 2010 and 2011 Table 12.4: Projected Building Permits for Next 5 Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Projected Annual Po ulation Chan e 5,623 5,332 5,406 5,619 6,692 Projected Permits 2,878 2,728 2,766 2,875 3,424 Source: Indian River County Community Development Department & Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 2006 Community Development Department Indian River County 4 F~°b~-~~ary ~~, 21}7 )raft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Residential Development Activity While building permit data provide an indication of future growth, development review activity also serves as a growth indicator. Consequently, development review information, including the number of new residential housing units under review by Indian River County and municipal planning departments in Indian River County, was collected. This information can assist the local governments and School District in anticipating the demand for public schools. Figure 12.1 depicts the location and intensity of approved and potential new residential development. This information was obtained from the County and municipalities. For analysis, these data were incorporated into a GIS dataset. In Figure 12.1, new residential development is thematically symbolized by the number of approved housing units. The darker shaded areas identify developments with a higher number of housing units, while the lighter shaded portions indicate developments with a lower number of housing units. According to these data, approximately 26,637 housing units are under construction or in the development review process. Generally, it is expected that those areas with an increase in proposed new residential developments will experience a higher demand for new schools. Community Development Department Indian River County 5 la'€~l~rc~ar~~, 2~1}7 ~9rraft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Figure 12.1: Approved and Potential New Residential Development ~rr~- soutc E Approved and Potential New Residential Development - iii - ~~ ~ :~ ` -. ~_ - e; w. ~ .r ~ ~. v ^~' , 1 . ' d p i t ~ I l • ~ _ Ac~i ~ ~ i _ _. . _. a v ~ , ~~ ly~ 'Y 2 3``n ~ ° y ~ jv y~ i ~ ~~ ~~ "` , ~ ' Sf # _ t7 ~ ~ v .~ . _ u ' \ 2 ~. ~a r ~ ,._ C~ .. .~~,,. ., .„ ~ ~ ~` f i l :.'t ~ ~ ". E ~ ~ ., Al - ,,. ~,, . e .~ ~ J a - - - - ~ H p o- ~ _ . ~ . ~ _ _ i E_ _ s.. i !~ _. ~~ ~ I .. - ` ~.. r ~ ~ "~ x~-v ~S ~ ~ ~ 8 ~. ~(. z9 rtt ~ „E ~ ~~i ~ f". "rti ..._ ~ ~ twr~ ~ s .. ..,~', . - .. a,. t ', E I ,,,,.~ E 1 . _ ~~ _ , E N ~ ~'> ~ ~ ~ = i w.._... .. ,. ~.~........~..~.~~.~.. ........_ a .~ ~/ € E'. _ ~_ s ~ 4 ~ 1 ~ ~~.tk {1~ ~ 1.. ~ C ~ , [t i• 1. t ~ ' ` .'i ti _ +~ M ~R t ~ ,... 1 Le and 9 Gem a+~..::~c,. e+„nawY sn; N Elenienlary S<hoala Major Roe US i! U I Iuluta RealUenUal UnILS M I p I U we~aa purr u.~r..+~ ~+,.a..m;M x 0 woM ~ E .i o so c r:lam.r. tt a-p n+~ i G x ! .sw W~E Mesamsm.aa ~eolROam - z! urY .bam.~ ~ ~ +: a _+w. nm a ~ ~ zz •.oa ~ y.~a 6.e:n . S MIUUIa Schools U,bns Servlu Aree g,,,,; ".C8-]:e ~c..n o!IrN Un F.v.r Bher.s i M w w.szs a*~:,no~cre,~a ~ e r nOVea~Milea HIUU 9[hoo15 5.8 - 8,4 IA.a pe~ar.tl OY AUn:a.tx. ~ 0 0.5 1 2 H 940-taBU F.avary to ]GCE ~ Community Development Department Indian River County 6 'c;brc~ary 9, ZOf}7 Bral't DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Student Generation Multiplier A critical component of the school concurrency process is projecting the number of students that will be generated from new residential development. In order to calculate the number of students associated with new residential development, a student generation multiplier was created. Because the number of students living in a housing unit varies depending on the type of residential housing, the student generation rate per residential unit is based on three housing types: single family, multi-family, and mobile home. Two key pieces of data were used to calculate student generation rates. These were the Geographic Information System (GIS) parcel file from the Indian River County Property Appraisers office with associated land use and attribute data (2005), and the GIS Point file based on the October 2005 FTE Survey data provided from the School District (for the school year 2005-2006). A spatial join was applied to these key files resulting in one database with a common location. Once the data were joined, the student GIS Point file was assigned a housing type based on the closest proximity of a residential parcel to the GIS centerline point. Asa 100 percent student inventory (not a sample set), the volume of data used (16,857 geo- coded students) was large enough to offset occasional land use assignment errors. The student database was then sorted by grade and housing type. To calculate a student generation rate (multiplier), the total number of students (by school type) was divided by the total number of occupied dwelling units by residential type. Table 12.Sa shows the number of students by residential housing type and school type in Indian River County as of the October 2005 student count. The occupied dwelling unit counts are based on an average 90 percent occupancy rate. The occupancy rate was determined by dividing permanent 2005 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) households by the 2005 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) housing unit count. The student generation multipliers by residential housing type were derived from the "Indian River County Student Generation Rates by Housing Type" report prepared by Fishkind and Associates, Inc. (May 24, 2006). Consequently, the number of students associated with a development can be calculated by applying the multiplier to the development's proposed number and type of residential housing units. The projected number of students is the product of the development units multiplied by the student generation multiplier for the unit type. Community Development Department Indian River County 7 Fe;l~~-uar~~ 9, 2flf?7 Draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Table 12.Sa: Students by Residential Housing Type and School Type Single- Multi- Mobile Total Family Family Home Students Elementary 6,692 568 296 7,556 Middle 3,439 231 107 3,776 High 4,377 220 108 4,705 Total 14,507 1,019 511 16,038 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board, Indian River County Property Appraiser Table 12.Sb shows the 2005 occupied/permanent dwelling unit counts by type. Table 12.Sb: Occupied Dwelling Units by Type, 2005 Single- Multi- Mobile Occupied Family Family Home Dwelling Units Occupied Dwelling 35,444 15,542 6,555 57,541 Units Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board, Indian River County Property Appraiser Table 12.Sc shows the resulting student generation rates for year 2005 by unit type by school type. Table 12.Sc: Student Generation Rates, Indian River County, 2005 Single- Multi- Mobile All Unit Family Family Home Types Elementary 0.189 0.037 0.045 0.131 Middle 0.097 0.015 0.016 0.066 High 0.123 0.014 0.016 0.082 Total 0.409 0.066 0.078 0.279 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., MAMCO, Inc., Indian River County School Board, Indian River County Property Appraiser To determine the student impact of a proposed residential development for school concurrency purposes, a proposed development's projected units by type of unit are converted into the number of projected students using the student generation rate for the unit type and grade level, as identified in Table 12.Sc. As shown in Table 12.6, the approximately 26,637 new residential units in Indian River County are estimated to yield a total of 8,253 students. Community Development Department Indian River County 8 ~'etyr>.~ar~, 9, 241£}7 Draft~~ DRAFT ---~-----~ Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Table 12.6: New Residential Development Indian River County -New°~Residential Developments with Estimated Student Generation Development Unit'. Type* Number of SF Units Number of MF Units SF Students (0.409)..., MF Students (0.066) Total Students Per Development, 1 1ST STREET SUB RSF 22 - 9 - 9 2 27TH AVE SUB RSF 66 - 27 - 27 3 66TH AVE & 87TH ST. SUB MXD 33 78 13 5 19 4 ANSLEY PARK RSF 90 - 37 - 37 5 ASHBURY SUBDIVISION RSF 195 - 80 - 80 6 ASHLEY LAKES RSF 36 - 15 - 15 7 ASHLEY LAKES NORTH RSF 160 - 65 - 65 8 BEACH COVE MHP RMF - 58 - 4 4 9 BEJAR SD RSF 70 - 29 - 29 10 BELLA ROSA RMF - 80 - 5 5 11 BELLA TERRA NORTH RSF 16 - 7 - 7 12 BELLA TERRA SOUTH RSF 16 - 7 - 7 13 BELLA VISTA ISLES RMF - 64 - 4 4 14 BENT PINE PRESERVE RSF 152 - 62 - 62 15 BLUE LAKE MANOR RMF - 59 - 4 4 16 BLUEWATER BAY PD RSF 379 - 155 - 155 17 BOWER HILL SUB RSF 33 - 13 - 13 18 BRADFORD PLACE RMF - 152 - 10 10 19 BRAE BURN ESTATES RSF 41 - 17 - 17 20 BRIDGEPOINTE MXD 166 - 68 - 68 21 BRISTOL BAY RSF 499 - 204 - 204 22 BROOKS SUB RSF 13 - 5 - 5 23 BUCCANEER COVE MXD 55 24 22 2 24 24 CITRUS SPRINGS PD RSF 584 - 239 - 239 25 CITRUS WAY ESTATES AOE RSF 11 - 4 - 4 26 CLEMAN OAKS SUB RSF 25 - 10 - 10 27 COCONUT CAY RMF - 12 - 1 1 28 COQUINA BAY RSF 21 - 9 - 9 29 CROFTON MEADOWS RSF 11 - 4 - 4 30 CROSS CREEK LAKE ESTATES RSF 134 - 55 - 55 31 DEER VALLEY AOE RSF 31 - 13 - 13 32 DEVONWOOD LAKES RSF 242 - 99 - 99 33 DIAMOND COURT MXD 51 - 21 - 21 34 DIAMOND COURT VILLAGE WEST MXD 132 132 54 9 63 35 DIAMOND LAKE RSF 117 - 48 - 48 36 DIVOSTA HOMES 25 ACRES RMF - 162 - 11 11 37 DODGER PINES RSF 778 - 318 - 318 38 DODGER TOWN RMF - 326 - 22 22 39 EAGLES TRACE II RSF 49 - 20 - 20 40 EARRING POINT RMF - 116 - 8 8 41 EAST GATE VILLAS RMF - 27 - 2 2 42 ECHO LAKE MXD 310 90 127 6 133 43 EL RANCHO DEVELOPMENT AOE RSF 12 - 5 - 5 44 ENCORE RV RESORT RMF - 52 - 3 3 45 ESTANCIA RSF 17 - 7 - 7 Community Development Department Indian River County 9 DRAFT ---------~- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element 46 FALCON TRACE RSF 593 - 243 - 243 47 FOUR LAKES RSF 58 - 24 - 24 48 FOX RUN RSF 24 - 10 - 10 49 FOXWOOD RMF - 55 - 4 4 50 GRACE GROVES RSF 82 - 34 - 34 51 GRAND LEGACY RMF - 54 - 4 4 52 GROVE COTTAGES RSF 5 - 2 - 2 53 HAMILTON TRACE RSF 54 - 22 - 22 54 HAMMOCK COVE RMF - 104 - 7 7 55 HAMMOCK LAKES PHASE 3 RSF 96 - 39 - 39 56 HAMMOCK SHORES RSF 117 - 48 - 48 57 HAMMOND INDUSTRIAL PARK RSF 26 - 11 - 11 58 HARBORCHASE ALF RMF - 111 - 7 7 59 HARMONY SUBDIVISION RSF 43 - 18 - 18 60 HERITAGE GROVE RMF - 115 - 8 8 61 HIDDEN HAMMOCK RSF 14 - 6 - 6 62 HIDDEN LAKE RSF 47 - 19 - 19 63 HIGH HAWK OF VERO RSF 71 - 29 - 29 64 HIGH POINT PD MXD 46 201 19 13 32 65 HOSPITAL TOWNHOUSES RMF - 178 - 12 12 66 HUNTER GROVE RSF 70 - 29 - 29 67 HUNTINGTON PLACE RSF 141 - 58 - 58 68 INLET AT SEBASTIAN RMF - 84 - 6 6 69 KASHI ASHRAM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MXD 35 39 14 3 17 70 KOSLOWSKI SUBDIVISION RSF 34 - 14 - 14 71 LAKES OF SANDRIDGE RSF 142 - 58 - 58 72 LAUREL RESERVE RSF 96 - 39 - 39 73 LEXINGTON PLACE RSF 276 - 113 - 113 74 LOOKOUT POINTE RMF - 3 - 0 0 75 LOST LAKE RSF 26 - 11 - 11 76 LOST TREE PRESERVE PD RSF 389 - 159 - 159 77 MADERA ISLES RSF 186 - 76 - 76 78 MAGNOLIA PLANTATION RSF 21 - 9 - 9 79 MALLARD BAY RMF - 48 - 3 3 80 MANDALA CLUB RSF 56 34 23 2 59 81 MARQUESAS RSF 12 - 5 - 5 82 MAVERICK RUN RSF 36 - 15 - 15 83 MEADOWBROOK SUB RSF 16 - 7 - 7 84 MICHAEL CREEK SUB RSF 60 - 25 - 25 85 MILANO ESTATES PD RMF 49 3 3 86 MILLSTONE LANDING PD RSF 630 - '258 - 258 87 MURANO PRESERVE RSF 19 - 8 - 8 88 NANTUCKET CONDOMINIUMS RMF - 15 - 1 1 89 OAK GROVE VILLAS RMF - 108 - 7 7 90 OAK HOLLOW ESTATES RSF 24 - 10 - 10 91 OAK ISLAND PHASE III RSF 14 - 6 - 6 92 OAKS OF VERO PHASE II RSF 137 - 56 - 56 93 OCEAN SANDS WEST RMF - 168 - 11 11 94 OLD FLORIDA ESTATES AOE RSF 5 - 2 - 2 95 OLD PALM SUB RSF 24 - 10 - 10 96 ORCHARD PARK PD RSF 73 - 30 - 30 97 ORCHID RESERVE RMF - 100 - 7 7 Community Development Department Indian River County 10 ~~i~-e~~r~, 9, 2{)'7 draft DRAFT ----------~-~-- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element 98 PALADIN HAMMOCK MXD 12 9 5 1 6 99 PALADIN PLACE II MXD 27 26 11 2 13 100 PALISADES TOWN VILLAS RMF - 40 - 3 3 101 PARK LANE ESTATES RSF 44 - 18 - 18 102 PARK PLACE PHASE II RSF 494 - 202 - 202 103 PASKOR LLC RSF 10 - 4 - 4 104 PATEL SUBDIVISION RSF 36 - 15 - 15 105 PELICAN ISLE APARTMENTS RMF - 150 - 10 10 106 PINE GROVE RSF 32 - 13 - 13 107 PINE VALLEYAOE RSF 18 - 7 - 7 108 PINEAPPLE CAY RMF - 32 - 2 2 109 PINNACLE GROVE RMF - 234 - 15 15 110 PLANTATION HOUSES/SEA OAKS RMF - 48 - 3 3 111 POINTE WEST NORTH VILLAGE TOWNHOM MXD 4 96 2 6 8 112 PORTOFINO PRESERVE RSF 178 - 73 - 73 113 PORTOFINO SHORES MXD 429 500 175 33 208 114 PORTOFINO VILLAGE (NORTH PHASE) RSF 109 284 45 19 64 115 PROVENCE BAY RMF - 232 - 15 15 116 QUAIL CREEK PD RSF 91 - 37 - 37 117 QUAIL RIDGE RSF 40 - 16 - 16 118 RANCH ROAD LAKE SAND MINE AOE RSF 30 - 12 - 12 119 REGENCY PARK MXD 40 252 16 17 33 120 RIVER OAKS PRESERVE RSF 366 - 150 - 150 121 RIVER PARK PLACE PHASE 2 RMF - - - - - 122 RIVERWIND PHASE 1, II, & III RSF 146 - 60 - 60 123 ROBYNWOOD RSF 14 - 6 - 6 124 ROMANI PALMS RSF 18 - 7 - 7 125 ROMERO TOWNHOMES RMF - 52 - 3 3 126 ROUND ISLAND PLANTATION RSF 6 - 2 - 2 127 ROYAL OAK RSF 39 - 16 - 16 128 ROYAL RESERVE RSF 34 - 14 - 14 129 SABALTRACE RSF 57 - 23 - 23 130 SABALTRACE RSF 57 - 23 - 23 131 SANDFOREST RSF 80 - 33 - 33 132 SAPPHIRE LAKE RSF 37 - 15 - 15 133 SEBASTIAN CROSSINGS RSF 137 - 56 - 56 134 SEBASTIAN LAKEVIEW ESTATES RSF 97 - 40 - 40 135 SEBASTIAN PARK PD RSF 400 - 1.64 - 164 136 SEBASTIAN PRESERVE RSF 243 - 99 - 99 137 SEBASTIAN RIVER LANDINGS UNIT II RSF 189 - 77 - 77 138 SEBASTIANS LANDING MXD 109 72 45 5 49 139 SEDONA POINT RSF 70 - 29 - 29 140 SEGOVIA PD RSF 82 - 34 - 34 141 SERENOA RSF 294 - 120 - 120 142 SIENA GROVES RSF 87 - 36 - 36 143 SKYLINE SUB RSF 12 - 5 - 5 144 SOUTH LAKES RSF 110 - 45 - 45 145 SOUTH POINT VILLAGE RSF 18 - 7 - 7 Community Development Department Indian River County 11 e~t~°taar~ ~, 20(}7 ~7r~at DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element 146 STASSIDEV MXD 60 52 25 3 28 147 STONERIDGE SUB ~ RSF 57 - 23 - 23 148 STONEYBROOK FARM RSF 112 - 46 - 46 149 SUMMER GROVE RMF - 105 - 7 7 150 SUNRISE RSF 134 - 55 - 55 151 SWEZY SUB RMF - 257 - 17 17 152 TAMARIND LAKES RMF - 32 - 2 2 153 THE ANTILLES SUBDIVISION RSF 260 - 106 - 106 154 THE BOULEVARD VILLAGE & TENNIS CLUB RMF - 98 - 6 6 155 THE CLUB AT WOODFIELD MXD 292 144 119 10 129 156 THE ENCLAVE RSF 22 - 9 - 9 157 THE ESTATES AT QUAIL CREEK RSF 34 - 14 - 14 158 THE ESTATES AT VERO BEACH RMF - 153 - 10 10 159 THE FALLS AT GRAND HARBOR RSF 65 - 27 27 160 THE FOUNTAIN HEAD RMF - 89 - 6 6 161 THE FOUNTAINS ATAMBER LAKES RSF 50 - 20 - 20 162 THE GARDENS AT RIVERS GROVE RSF 66 - 27 - 27 163 THE HAMMOCK SD RSF 61 - 25 - 25 164 THE INLET AT SEBASTIAN RMF - 84 - 6 6 165 THE ISLES OF GRAND HARBOR MXD 359 450 147 30 177 166 THE LAKES AT BROOKHAVEN RSF 49 - 20 - 20 167 THE LAKES AT WATERWAY VILLAGE (PHASE II) RSF 271 - 111 - 111 168 THE PRESERVE AT INDIAN RIVER RMF - 39 - 3 3 169 THE RESERVE AT GRAND HARBOR RSF 100 - 41 - 41 170 THE RIVER PRESERVE ESTATES MXD 24 78 10 5 15 171 TIMBER RIDGE RSF 14 - 6 - 6 172 TIMBERLAKE RMF - 102 - 7 7 173 TOSCANA RMF - 90 - 6 6 174 TRILLIUM RSF 217 - 89 - 89 175 TRILLIUM WEST MXD 25 52 10 3 14 176 TRIPSON ESTATES RSF 276 - 113 - 113 177 TURTLE CREEK PRESERVE PD RSF 450 56 184 4 188 178 TURTLE RUN PHASE I & II RSF 180 - 74 - 74 179 TUSCANY LAKE ESTATES AOE RSF 6 - 2 - 2 180 TUSCANY LAKES RSF 129 - 53 - 53 181 VENEZIA ESTATES RSF 39 - 16 - 16 182 VERANDAH AT VERO RMF - 70 - ~ 5 5 183 VERO BEACH TOWNHOMES RMF - 169 - 11 11 184 VERO LARGO RSF 525 - 215 - 215 185 VERO VILLAGE RSF 83 - 34 - 34 186 VEROMAR BEACH CLUB RMF - 72 - 5 5 187 VERONA TRACE & THE VILLAGES RMF - 447 - 30 30 188 VERONESE LAKES RSF 54 - 22 - 22 189 VERONESE LAKES RSF 54 - 22 - 22 190 WALKER WOODS RMF - 208 - 14 14 191 WARREN WAY RSF 58 - 24 - 24 192 WATER OAKS MXD 18 32 7 2 9 Community Development Department Indian River County 12 DRAFT c:ra, 9, 2~}7 )rft Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element 193 WATERSIDE RSF 54 - 22 - 22 194 WATERWAY VILLAGE PD RSF 1596 - 653 - 653 195 WESTFIELD RSF 137 - 56 - 56 196 WETHERELL AOE RSF 10 - 4 - 4 197 WHISPER LAKES RSF 18 - 7 - 7 198 WINDSOR OCEAN WAY RSF 16 - 7 - 7 199 WINDSOR RIDGE RSF 13 30 5 2 7 200 WING CREEK RSF 12 - 5 - 5 201 WINGATE RSF 18 - 7 - 7 202 WINTER BEACH VILLAGE PD RSF 118 - 48 - 48 203 ZERAN 5 ACRE SUB RSF 6 - 2 - 2 Total 1.8,803 7,834 7,696 522 8,253 26,637 Source: Indian River County Community Development Report, January 2006 & 2007 and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2006 *Unit Type: RSF -Residential Single Family RMF -Residential Mutli-Family MXD -Mixed Use Development Community Development Department Indian River County 13 :'ebruar~r {3, 2€lti7 lra°t DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Public School System As required by the state, the School District must implement a financially feasible Five- Year Capital Facilities Plan that provides for school capacity improvements to accommodate projected student growth. Those improvements which are budgeted and programmed for construction within the first three years of the Plan are considered committed projects for concurrency purposes. Within the current Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the capacity providing capital improvements consist of three new elementary schools and minor capacity additions at Sebastian River Middle School and Sebastian River High School. The School District has also identified the need for a future high school in the south county area. As structured, the public school system consists of students, personnel, schools, and administrative facilities. Residential development impacts the students and school facilities because increases in new student enrollment can place demands on school capacity and cause overcrowding of facilities. Therefore, an accurate inventory of both current and projected school capacity and student enrollment is crucial for school planning. Enrollment and CapacitX The Indian River County School District provides the public school facilities necessary to educate its students. Recently enacted state-mandated changes, such as early childhood education and smaller teacher/pupil ratios at each school, significantly impact the capacity needs of the School District. Currently, the School District operates 21 public schools, from pre-kindergarten to 12tH grade. In school year 2004/05, approximately 64% of the County's school-age children attended public schools operated by the School District. The remaining 36% attended private schools or charter schools, or were no longer attending school. Students no longer attending school are typically associated with drop-out students over the age of 16. The School District operates fourteen elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and two alternative education centers serving more than 16,000 students. Figure 12.2 shows the geographic locations of public schools operated by the School District. In Table 12.7, a breakdown of the enrollment and school capacity for School Year 2006/07 is provided. The figures in Table 12.7 exclude charter schools which are not operated by the School District. School capacity figures are determined by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and are based on the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity analysis. As the basis for determining permanent FISH capacity at individual schools, the School District utilizes FDOE's FISH capacity data and district owned Type 4 portable classrooms. Community Development Department Indian River County 14 ~=l~~°ua' ~, 2€1117 I~at DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Figure 12.2: Existing School Locations ~'~:~ Indian River County School Locations ~;otrr~, ~,- -_ - - ' i i ' ,~ , .t r. ~ ~° ~ i ..1 ~ \ ~ A { C `[ s ~ µ p Y p • •.~ a t. . ~ 4 J 1 I ti s ". 9 G ~c +:~ .. i r~ - ... ~ . . ~ ~ i . _ 3 _.. E C ~~.. y ,. . ~ l _. - ~ H.,eba.~- e ~ aFi~ L,iapd[- -~ 1 .: ~ ~ r r. eoa.: e ~ Lloert r1 g ~ ~. j G~..... .,, s .. _ _ .... ,~ . - _ , c l , ~~ i r .. - _. ~ 1 .. ~. ~ i ~ 1 l i ® } r r } , 1 `` `rs ~i ~ ~~ __l Gpoid Mtldk~ ~ ] i -~ p ~, ' ~ E (~ n, M i +' 1 t ~' - 2 ~ a •"C7tlne rl c wn61e rtlary ~. j ~ `. . ~ ~ E ~ `r. .. ~ . .. ~ ~ i u l _ F .. w ..:_ .. . ~ L - ,. ~ _ I .. . 1 ~ [ ~ V . 1 I ~ ( , E ~ .. 1 ~ ffi, f t € ~ bvE ach El ntary •• - ~ ~ i ~i o i ~ , C , ~n._ ~ ~ Su ~'.. j 4 Osl 11 ddk~ t # f Y• ,, 3 f _....:.~. _ ~ 7 - a ~ ~ St ~__ -~.. ~... __.-__ r y Em pe .. a~ A ~C _ ,. )t ~ _ , a ,, . `s' I qS~ _ =. t° ,: - snuae - 1. .: ~ 1 ,.,..~~ ,, i N Legend W~E Elementary Schools Middle Schools Mayor Roads Municipallllac E M N Ciry of Fellsmera Magner SChoola Hlgh Schools Warer _--, Ciry of Seba¢dan G H cirrerv.reRea¢n eam~Miles Lha~er Schools Urban Service Nea ~~m of lndun River Shores 0 0.5 1 2 C ~~~~~~~. Tm+m of UChitl Mep prcwnN rry CNaTena, inc. FeMwryB, ZOOi Community Development Department Indian River County 15 l~'cbruary , 211117 1~>ralt DRAFT -- - - - -- -- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Table 12.7: School Year 2006/2007 School Enrollment and Capacity SCIiOO1. N~~l~1I: SY 06107 Enrollmc-il ~,C ~ •it~~ Elementary eachland Elementary 548 555 Citrus Elementa 517 573 od ertown Elementa 580 608 ellsmere Elementary 564 543 Glendale Element 623 623 ighlands Elementary 593 584 ibe Element (Ma net) 688 Osceola Elementary (Magnet) 541 558 elican Island Element 451 583 osewood Elementa (Ma net) 542 561 Sebastian Elementary 575 637 Thom son Elementa 419 557 Treasure Coast Elementary 672 568 ero Beach Eletnentary 509 559 - - ----- Total'Elementar ~ ~',6'7:~~~ ...,3,197 Middle Gifford Middle 1,386 1,122 Oslo Middle 1,120 1,117 Sebastian River Middle -- _ 1 307 1 083 Tota1 Micidt~ ~ ;,8:13 _-- 3;322 Hi h LC (9th Grade Only) 769 878 Sebastian River Hi h 1,972 1,933 ero Beach High 1,973 Total Hi;~~i -~ 714 2,055 _ _ -~,86~ Other lternative Education (Gifford 111 178 Wabasso School 57 60 Total Other 1(iS ?3'8 Student Total 16,37U 16,623 Source: Indian River County Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2006 *October FTE (includes magnet schools does not include charters schools) Community Development Department Indian River County 16 :'ci~uary , 21(17 I~ aft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Enrollment Projections For a school concurrency system, enrollment and capacity for each school are critical components. Current enrollment and school capacity data provide a baseline that can be used to develop a financially feasible level of service standard. According to state law, the School District is required to accurately project future student enrollment and school capacity. To determine future school capacity needs, the School District calculates both short- and long-term student enrollment projections. Student enuollment projections are based on data obtained from the following: • School District of Indian River County • University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) • Local utilities • U.S. Census Bureau Student projections based on residential growth trends in the County provide adata- driven profile of the short-term and long-term future conditions driving the demand for new public schools. The projected full-time equivalent (FTE) student counts by grade are based on cohort survival history and historic population growth estimates compiled from BEBR. Tables 12.8 - 12.11 summarize the enrollment forecast. Information on existing residential development and residential development anticipated over both the next five years and the long-term planning period was collected from the County and local government planning departments to verify the accuracy of student enrollment projections. Community Development Department Indian River County 17 ;; ., H N A s''.' ~a `,.'w O U N 0 a 0 W b a~+ O U N N 00 cV N ,D etin ~ o o o o o ~ o o o a o o ==° v o o o - ~ ~ M m N m m m N m rn p m m ~ O m 1~ m ~ m m m p '- N m 1~ r~ m m N m N •pau3. O U9 N m M 7 m f~ ~ N O O O N N 'd' m O m N O W M 1A h t~ m r ~ M m V N m m V u] N V N u] u7 N U7 M m N tT m ~i iO K1 ~ O ~dep~. N r 0 0 0 0 VM' N ~} m W Vm1 ~ t0 M N m N m m - v> u~ m n n n ~n m u~ m m N h m in u-, u~ o I!an o v o o s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a v o e V N N O m 1~ m M O m M m m 0 1~ m O .'... - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n m m ~IIau3 o N cD m r M o O M ~t r N v N v N m m u~ m o N m M M V o N n N u> V v m m V ~p N TJ . N N ~ m N m m li! 7 N lfi m h m 'Q ~ N ~ ep - ~n N M r m O o O o O o O M T M N V m m m m 41 M m m r M n 10 m m m to m N M N ~ m 1~ n r 10 m m m 4] m V7 m N N ~ O 'Inn ° o o a o o o a o 0 0 0 o v o o o Q r. v m m r m m N m M n M m V m N m O m m m N m m m N m m n f~ n m m m m 0 :. ~pau3. -.o N ' m m m M m f~ N m r m O r O v m m f~ o u) m M v M o 10 m O o V v m m M n ~ ' 47 l!'1 T m ~ N N N 7 u) N ~ N m V ~f h ~ O 'dep ~O ~ M f~ m O 0 O 0 O 0 O M s{ M N 7 m m m m N M m t0 r M r h m m m U) N M ~n N m n r n h m v~ co m ~ u~ m ~n u~ ~ o con ~ o o o o ~ a o s o v o e > o o o r m v v '~ p N N O n rn m rn m ~ f! N M r; m m m r „ m m m m m r r m m m ~'llau3 N m f~ m t0 v V m N V7 m n n m n O N O a M M O N m I~ I~ M O N N M `r d' O ~. N O N W u'i m 4'1 V u7 4] U1 N N V V' m ~ 'dep - ~ ~[1 M 1~ m O o O o O M V M N V m m m m h M m m r M r N m m m 10 m N . ~O u) m 1~ n ~ m N m W t0 W m M N LL7 ~ I;~~, a o a°. o o o ° aa o o `e ~ o e' o o m n' y r > o r N m N m N r: o .. r. m , r ~ co m m . r m, ~ r r t:, ~ m ..'llau3 po N n m O N O M n 0 7 V V V' N O N ' UJ N m ~ m m M 1~ IS a N u7 'V u1 O r N u7 m r M V M a N u7 ~ p ' ;dep. N h M n m O M R M N V m m m m N M m tO r M r l0 m m m ~O ~o N : ~O l0 m h m ~ m ~ N h (p t0 10 N ~ lon o .o '~ o 0 0 W p m ~~ r O O n :O a0 W (D ~ a0 N N m v l~ m m M N v m m m m O u-, O v I~ m 0 ~ 0 h N V N o m m ~ : - - ~n u-, m n m v ~n ~ m ip r v v m W 'dep N N M r m O M V M N ~ m m m m m M m m f~ M r 10 m m m ~ m N N N m N m ~C> m u7 h N m N h ~ m Inn o o o v o ~' o 0 0 0 0 v o o o '. m o ve o ° o m r n r o m ~ v m m m o r m t~ m m n ~ rn m N m V 1~ O m V m M N M m V 'O ~O N ~ ~f! 1~ m N r m O M ~ h N LL] N m h ~ N '7 h N ~ W h r O : .dep tp M m M M V' m m M n r m m m u) N n ~ O m V N N tD m ~O m (O u) ~O m t0 f0 ~O M ~D u'i u~ f0 4~ ~O t0 ~ U p m m w ~ ° ° ° N o : E z W o o o w m v) rn w m W F- cn w <n in in ~ ~ cn ~ ~ v ~ <n w ~ w o C (n O l0 tG f0 N N ~ ~ w y O N O d 0 u) L w d d ~ d ~ H _ m c m o ~ ~ 3 •N y a m m m 2 v E E E e t m v of a o o p ~] « U p ~ N W 41 W N W y U_ U ._ S a J N O N d O 2 N N L ~ d I,)fl o ~° o o o c o 0 ~ ~ N _. -Ilau3.. 'O O m 1~ N r N ~ : r O N r O r V N ~ ~ O . ' ep nNi uo~ ~ a rmi o e e ~l e v m r o m m m m .~ m ' ~Ilau3-: ..o . m m m m v N LL~ O N O m O m V u O ~ ~ ep; N N O N 1~ r m ~ m M _ •- O ~ ~ 7 Il,n 0 0 0 0 0 rn O m M m V m N m pau3 ~ N ip V V N N N O A M O m O m O ~ m ~ O • ep N O f~ m m N ~ o .- ~ V ~ M v v I,~n .... ° o o a o -. r- m m m o m m m m m _m ~ -Ilau3:.. N ~ ~ OO ~ O ep N o n co m N ~- LL"i O .- r O r M a V I!in a a .o N 0 ' 0 co o o c i N ~ 'po~u3,. N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N r ~ O - ep _. N O I~ m m ~ O r ~ 7 Q -Inn ~ ~ o N O C'J O ~ Ilom3 n M n r U N N M ~ M M N ~ O deb N r V ~ .~- M ~I!In 0 0 ~ e N O N ~ . coo :.-Ilau3'. _ ~ m N O M `U ~ M r m M p ems, N N ~ M m N N O M N ~ m u m g ~ m . ~ F' Z o _ pp o L ~ p u ~ ~ U) fn !4 W V N ~ N ° m ~ v - ' ~ ~ . O U N 'o a a~ O W G a U a`, K A :b a .. a L a. Q d E d O d d A 1+' C a E U % ~" w ~ Q °<{ G a ~' ~ :T e ";~ 'F U N .O a O W C, v O .~ U CA ~i O_ (mil N Finn o o': o m a od, o 0 G.. 0 ~ 0; ~ N llmu3 - N ~ O n N u M o] N O h p _ g~ oJ M o M a m 07 O O OJ N N O tND eln o e ~ a m m o: m Ilo~u3,, -. b . m co ri m Ti °D n N V O dep O O N V I,In o a ° a T W ~ ~ Ilau3 N ~ M O ~ ep M O N V v>n O O O Q m .Ilau3 .: w ~ O O - deb ~ ~ N V ~Ig~.. 0 ~ 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn ~po~u3 . o N O O N N M M ~ r ~ m O de~J m m o I,tin . 0 m 0 rn 0 rn 0 m '~ 'Ila~u3. N o rn r o O m ~ , - ~ p o p j r ~ - 0. . deb ~ rn n rn ~ ~ N V Inn 0 0 0 N 0 ~ m ~ ~ .IImu3 N O M ~ N m V ~ r r O ~ ~ dep ~ N O ~ N V) Z d O N -~.E U ~ o d o z t t a" ~ ~ i L L O1 c N N N m N [I] 2 y o ` o ~ 3m ~ ~, m d m Z o N ' a G', O U ^7 W b Sti c .N 0 O U cV N f-~ .Inn 'nau3 N O <y O • e~,. . Inn 000 °v ~ o 'llau3;.. o M r r m r in •- N O .deb, U) ~ N I!tin =eo N aMO W 'llo~u3 0 N ~ ~ V N ~ ~ N V) ~ N 'Inn moo N Oy ~ _, "Ilo~u3 m o O N of ~.. n r N O deb u) ^ N _Infl 0 0 rmr ~t~w Ilau3 N O M O N p .dew: V) ~ N 'Inn.. ~o 0 ~ ~ r 'llow3 N ~ N W O ep - ~ r N 'U1n. ~- eoe m ~ n m N 'llo~u3 r ~ ~ ~ r r ep o com O e~-N u m z O N oD C Q~ U CG ro C G O 7 O V d Qi C T K U v W C d H C E R CY Q d a 7 Q CE G U l+cl~ruar~''~, 2(1(1'7 Ilr~~t ----- DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Student Population from 2006 throu hg_2012 The data used to forecast student population were obtained from the FDOE. Since the 1998/99 school year, five charter schools have been established. These are Sebastian Charter Junior High, North County Charter, St. Peter's Academy, Indian River Academy, and Indian River Charter High School. As a result of the addition of these schools, the FDOE enrollment data for the School District showed an estimated average of 555 fewer students per year. When these students were accounted for in the School District's enrollment projections, the number of students in the appropriate grades and years were adjusted through the use of the enrollment ratios developed for this forecast for public schools. This process specified a regression model for each grade level as follows: StZlGl2ntS~.adex,yeart - COnSt. -~ ~1 * StZILIEntS~.adex-l,yeart-1 + NZ * population growth This regression model specifies student population in a given year as a function of unobservable factors (captured by the constant term), cohort survival (the number and percentage of students advancing in grade), and a percentage of population growth. Changes in any of these trends from one year to the next can have a significant impact on the number of students ultimately enrolled. For example, the high school driver's license law change in 1997 resulted in fewer high school dropouts statewide in 1999 and 2000. Similarly, increases in population growth and changing development patterns can result in more students than the cohort survival method may predict. This regression model was refined and adjusted on a grade-by-grade basis to build the student forecast models with the highest degree of predictability. Community Development Department Indian River County 20 'el}rary ~, 2(107 1?raft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Indian River County School Utilization The projected student enrollment data were used to determine the need for school facilities in light of the growing demands on public schools because of new residential development. An evaluation of Indian River County's current school enrollment and capacity in conjunction with projected student enrollment provided a determination of surpluses and deficiencies over the long-term planning period. To accommodate the projected future student growth, additional capacity projects were added to the School District's Capital Facilities Plan through school year 2011-12. These additional capacity projects were used to balance future enrollment by redistributing students from their existing schools to their, future schools. Tables 12.8 - 12.11 shows the details of this analysis. Community Development Department Indian River County 21 DRAFT .,_.~.,__,~__.~,,.~,,, Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element School District Capital Funding_Sources To address the new construction and renovation needs of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the School District relies on local and state funding. The primary local funding sources are property taxes, impact fees, and bonds. By Florida statute, school districts may levy up to 2 mills to fund the district capital program. In 2005, Indian River County adopted an impact fee of approximately $3,400 for a single family home. Impact fees are collected for new housing to offset a portion of the cost of students generated by new residential development. The School District may also sell bonds or offer certificates of participation (COPS). The District has the capacity to sell $150 million in COPs. The Florida Statutes place restrictions on the School District's portion of state funding for capital outlay to specific uses. Expansion projects for student stations may make use of state capital outlay funding sources derived from motor vehicle license tax revenue, known as Capital Outlay and Debt Service funds (CO&DS), and gross receipts tax revenue from utilities Public Education Capital Outlay funds (PECO). The recent legislative mandates have provided additional state funding for smaller class sizes and early childhood education. The School District of Indian River County SY 2006-2010 Five-Year Capital Plan reports that the School District received $604,513 from the State in fiscal year 2006 to fund additional capacity needed to support the reduced class size requirement. Community Development Department Indian River County 22 Fehruar~• 9, 2007 Draft DRAFT - - -- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element ANALYSIS With the data collected from the School District, the County and the municipalities, an analysis was performed to determine the short-term and long-term future conditions that will impact public schools. As part of this analysis, the current inventory of public schools and planned school capital improvements was reviewed in light of the projected student growth and available revenue to finance the .planned capital improvements. Generally, the analysis focuses on whether existing and planned school capacity can support residential development at the adopted level of service standard. Specific outputs from this analysis include school capacity figures, a financially feasible adopted level of service, and goals, objectives and policies for the school concurrency program. School Service Area Boundaries A fundamental requirement of school concurrency is the establishment of geographic school service area boundaries (SSABs) to which school concurrency is applied when reviewing the impact of new residential development on public schools. The SSABs are used to determine whether adequate capacity is available to accommodate new students generated from residential development. There are two alternatives for establishing SSABs. One alternative is to establish adistrict-wide SSAB for each school type. This method calculates the utilization of all schools of the same school type. For example, the utilization for the elementary schools in school year 2006/07, as identified in Table 12.8, is 94%. This rate is calculated by taking the average of the utilization rates for all of the elementary schools. By measuring capacity in this manner, the School District is currently operating at a level of service lower than 100%, even though six individual schools are operating at a level of service greater than 100%. This alternative would allow development to continue without mitigation where there is no capacity at the elementary school level because capacity is available on a district-wide basis. The other alternative is to establish less than district-wide SSABs. With this alternative, SSABs would be established using geographic areas based on streets, natural boundaries or existing school attendance zones. Less than district-wide SSABs allow school capacity determinations to be made at a local level. By using a school attendance zone for the SSAB, capacity determinations directly measure the impacts of residential development at the schools, which the developments will .impact. Using school attendance zones as the service areas, the School District can more accurately project which schools are most likely to be impacted by new residential development. In conjunction with the School District and the municipalities of the County, Indian River County has determined that the SSABs will be applied on a less than district-wide basis. Figures 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5 detail the school service area boundaries for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels, respectively. Community Development Department .Indian River County 23 ~x ~`' v H ^~/\ HI C~ rY~1 h+-i C~ N U .~ Q U y~ C6 W (~ N 7~i Q. C~ G M~ W ^~ W L.., Q~ U •~ ' /U'~ v\J _^ -~--~ QrY~ 1^..,. W W ' ~~ ~. ,~] &t,. 4f~. `J'r ~. Y4 ~E~~ ~ * ~ _w ~ ~~ ~a ~ t~ ~~_-~ k'.4 K - i 1 yry':'. . { , ~ ~.~~ t- .~ f ~~ s c ^+~*/ t t, 1 t ;1 r.' s t ~' ; 6 jj]]tjj: 0 ... -Leo-... .:{ and ~zv "dN.~ .Z r N y N C r r ~ e d c E m E d w ~ w W ~ U _ u E m N F- i- i ~ m G d ¢ m ~ ~ y ,. Z m ~ m m ~ _ „~ r r - E E E E W w w w v E _ ~ ~ 'x e i T" ~ . c m m J y Vi ~ q Q ~ Q Y Q V_ N V Z v UJ N u ~ m ~ _ N - m ~ O E m v m c w L W ~ E 3 2` ' w c° .'0. m 2 a y N~ U O d W °o L N u y O V ~ N c ~ °' c W W A C7 W rL ~o ~az N Ifl A N O O ~ O: O u r ~ \ J -'... w Z~cn v a N 0 ~, v ~ N R O U ~. d a a d 7.i CO a A d 8 ca. 0 m A rr O O U +~ ~`"' d ~ W ~+ ~ U ~i r~,~ o w ° U /~ ~ Q ..V.i C~ ~' .~ M~ W C~ /'Oy~ m N U s_.. ~ U`` O O y_ U N N '~ Q . N O U N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~_ w ~ ,~ `, a~ s~ ~~ ~~ ~ 4 a m Q w ~ N Q v a U y L .` R d ` V1 v ~ m v Q o ~ '~ o ~ U V O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i w e ~ N N ~ v ~ ~ °o c ~ v m r J L v ~ w tuA N ~ N v d v c7 o w v ~ ~ f ~ L~ h N A R O V r ~~~~'~ d a W Z~~ N ~~ ~ N O U a a b rr F~1 w c d w ~, a d A a 8 a 0 d A w G 0 U ~~ ~a ~xt H Q C~ 1.L ~` L T~ V M~ /W77''(( \V W U .~ rr~^ vJ O O U M/y~~ W ai N U . ,-. C/~ 0 .~ U C/] ubA W N ,--i N bA . ,~ W ~ ~Uy i` C ~ ~ ~_ - --~ -- - ~ ` ~ [ ~ ~ • , ~ . k ~ r ~,- ,, .. ry a~ ~i]r' i ~`. S +~a . fi +~.wJ ~ s 4 ~ j 5 .. ti. ~ i a .y. ~'~~ 1 J ~ ~ ' N. z t ~ q 2 i _ . ~' L.a ~ ~:'1I c ~ - -<.L.._ _ ~ i a - t .. ~ , ~ _ ~ -. 0 m rv ~. ~<o a' m m m a d U V > d a ~ ~ ~_ o r 0 Q U N d ~ t U L ~ .~ ~ ;,xt v y c o m m ~ o ~ ~ m a s s a ° J ul w cn L L Pe"' _rn z _rn s x ~_ V1 y~ ~ ~ `p ~ m a, .- • V N d W I ~ Z~~ ~N ~ Ir la ~~ ~ N O U ~, a H~ ~+ .ba c~ i]. A a 0 A 0 U F'ebrtaa , 2(11€}7 Draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element School Level of Service Essentially, level of service (LOS) is the relationship between supply and demand. For schools, LOS is expressed as a ratio of enrollment and capacity, with capacity being number of student stations. To establish an acceptable level of service, the school district and the local governments must project future demand, identify needed capacity, and determine the level of financial resources available to construct additional capacity. These factors are then used as a basis to establish a school LOS standard. The level of service standard controls the maximum utilization of schools. Florida law requires that the public school facilities element of a local government comprehensive .plan address how the level of service standards will be achieved and maintained. The ability to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service must be based on a financially feasible Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Furthermore, the law requires that the public school level of service standards be adopted into local government capital improvement element, and must apply to all schools of the same type (elementary, middle, and high). Initial shortfalls in capacity over the five-year period following adoption may be addressed by adopting a tiered level of service standard along with a concurrency management system. Prior to establishing a level of service standard, the School District must determine the maximum capacity of the public schools. Tables 12.8-12.11 identify the capacity of all public schools and their enrollment and utilization through school year 2012/13. The current enrollment and capacity for each school are critical in developing a school concurrency system. Public school concurrency should ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support current enrollment and the projected students from future residential development. Current enrollment and school capacity data provide a baseline for developing a financially feasible level of service standard for public schools. As adopted, the public school level of service standard should maximize the efficiency of each school facility for educating students. Based on this ideal, the preferred level of service standard in Indian River County is 100% of permanent FISH capacity. Needs Assessment To determine the capacity for each school, the School District uses FISH capacity. The FISH capacity is the number of students that may be housed in a facility (school) at any given time based on a utilization percentage of the number of existing satisfactory student stations. FISH capacity is a product of the number of classrooms at a school and the student stations assigned to each room type. No capacity is assigned to small instructional spaces and the specialized classrooms (labs), including art, music, etc. Since the number of student stations at a school is used to calculate the school's capacity, the data detailed in Tables 12.8 - 12.11 are presented at the student station level. A Community Development Department 27 'elsr~~~~ry 9, 241[17 3rat DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element student station is defined as the square footage required per student for an instructional program based on the particular course content. As indicated above, an analysis of student stations is one component of establishing a school level of service standard. A utilization rate was also calculated for each school. The utilization rate is calculated by dividing the school's enrollment by the capacity at each school. The utilization value determines whether a school is over crowded or within its capacity designation. Schools with a utilization rate less than 100% are operating within their capacity, and schools with a utilization rate greater than 100% are over-crowded. Based on the data and analysis for school year 2006/07, current district-wide school capacity utilization is at 94% for elementary schools, 115% for middle schools, and 97% for high schools. To achieve adistrict-wide level of service standard of 97%, the school district must provide additional student stations at the middle school level. At the elementary school level, the district-wide utilization is less than 100%. There are, however, six elementary schools where enrollment exceeds capacity and the utilization is greater than the 100% level of service standard. Community Development Department 28 F'eb~-uary 9, 21107 Draft DRAFT -~------~----- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Elementary Schools Fourteen elementary schools are currently operated by the School District. Two additional elementary schools are proposed in the current Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan and a third is being considered for inclusion in the next updated Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan; the two schools in the current Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan will open in school years 2009 and 2010, adding approximately 1,400 additional elementary student stations. With the addition of these elementary schools, the number of permanent elementary student stations will be approximately 9,628. The enrollment projection for the five-year planning period identifies a total of 9,157 elementary students by 2010. The estimated district-wide utilization at the elementary school level will then be approximately 89%. Until school year 2010/2011, one elementary schools will have enrollments that exceed their capacity, and the utilization of each school will be greater than 100% (shown highlighted in yellow in Table 12.8). Middle Schools The School District currently operates three middle schools, all three of which are currently at or are exceeding their FISH capacity. The Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan has a small addition scheduled for Sebastian River Middle, which will add 66 student stations, increasing its FISH capacity from 1,083 to 1,149. The total number of district- wide middle school student stations will then be 3,388. To accommodate the growth at the middle school level, a new middle school with a capacity of 1,050 students is planned for the 2008%9 school year. According to enrollment projections, there will be 4,085 enrolled middle school students by 2010. Based on these projections, the estimated district-wide utilization at the middle school level will be approximately 92% for the 2010/11 school year. High Schools Currently, there are two high schools in Indian River County. These are Sebastian High School and Vero Beach High School. Vero Beach High School includes a satellite campus known as the Freshman Learning Center (FLC), which has 878 student stations and currently houses 9th grade students. Both high schools have capacity projects scheduled in the current Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. While Sebastian High will receive a capacity addition, increasing its FISH capacity from 1,943 to 2,023 student stations, Vero Beach High is in the midst of a modernization project which will decrease the number of student stations on the main campus from 2,055 to 1,893. Consequently, there will be 4,794 student stations at the high school level in school year 2010/11, including the Freshman Learning Center. The estimated enrollment at the high school level for school year 2010/11 is 4,723 students. Based on these projections, the estimated district-wide utilization. at the high school level is approximately 99%, for the 2010/11 school year. Community Development Department 29 Fchrt~ar°y 9, 20f}7 draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Figure 12.6 identifies the locations of the planned school capacity projects contained in Table 12.8 - 12.10. This figure shows approximate locations, and those locations subject to change. Community Development Department 30 '€~l~r~rar~, 9, 2f}7 draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Figure 12.6: Existing /Programmed District Owned & Operated School Locations "~~~ Indian River Count Exisitn and Pro rammed School Locations Y 9 9 ~u„l~, : i4 i is _ _ a`` I r~ f r f,, ., k / .. _ ~ ~ >. ai . ~,. ' ~ ~ 1 1 E ~~ n ~ ~ 1 ,,a~, ~ , ` ' ~ ~ _, ,r ~ ~. ~ v ti;a _ ~1= ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F{se ~ ... ~ asi- .. t ~' r; _ ~ S ~ ~ `` ~ r - _~ 1. ~ j l .e.. ~l { j I i t t~ fir. ~;~ ~.,.t i._ l ~ ~ ~ ., F~ , a Eri ~ ~ ~ a a ~n >. ~ ~ l e~ ~. ~ ~ @_., l a ~. w •, E - - ~ , ,. , - C ~ <<,i _ : Era - - -.._ . ,.~ ....... .. .. .. ~ ~ t . EYz ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~a ~ = Y ~ t \ t ... E ~ ~ \ ti G e.~ie E a zE Firy • ` ~ ~ olA tldF~ " 1. ~~ r,v 11 . , ~ i FI ____~_ z~~ = Era ~ ~. ~ € ;. z i ~HOna~aseie a E r i,,, a_ ~' .. it _ _ _ s =~_. ~~ea ~ •~e N a,.,nm.. u...n.a aama. ,•mm..k~m.....nneoa m.n,.,re..xoei. w. .. n~,rw.,a MuNCIPNIIka : ~ e,~ nym " E~~:oa,=ero M~..,..,.eenkna E ~ c~~ Mas. a~~ ,~;,w ` n °' ~.° W~E ,-.o,a Eis.o. H~~~n..~anun~ .. a.a..k M' ~.n. a p. e ;,:::~ ~w,.°~~~Ke ,.. ~. ;w :w aa ~ a, noa. YY e,.:e., E kea<n.a. e ab... -as* n r,,.,,„a4 e.. g rr H Mm~Mllea a.n..i. .. ,,,,s a os i z G ,Mry G..rmn. ~n< Community Development Department 31 Feb°t~ar~r ~, 2Qtl7 Draft DRAFT .-.-.-M~-.----- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Financial Feasibility School concurrency requires the School Board to adopt a financially feasible five-year capital facilities plan. The Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, which is annually updated and adopted each year, details the capital improvements needed and funding revenues available to maintain the adopted level of service. As structured, the SY 2007-2011 School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan identifies four fundamental goals which have been adopted to ensure a consistent strategy for addressing facility improvements and long-range capacity needs. The first goal is to build new capacity as needed to meet student growth. The second goal addresses updating schools on a systematic schedule to meet educational needs. The next goal is to provide funding for maintenance and system renovation to ensure that facilities function safely. The fourth goal is to develop along-range financially feasible plan. School concurrency also requires that the School District annually update and adopt a Plan that contains capacity to meet the anticipated demand for student stations, ensuring that no schools exceed their adopted level of service for the five year period. This requirement is met through the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. The School District's Plan identifies how each project meets school capacity needs and when that capacity will be available. The Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan provides the foundation of an annual planning process that allows the School District to effectively address changing enrollment patterns, development and growth, and the facility requirements of high quality educational programs. The summary of capital improvements shown in Table 12.12 details the School District's planned expenditures over the five-year planning period. While this summary must be adopted into the Capital Improvements Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, the school district's capital improvements program does not require county or city funding. Table 12.12 shows the estimated cost of projects to address existing facility deficiencies and future facility needs for the five-year planning period, and the long range planning period, in order to meet the adopted level of service standard. The revenue for capital expenditures will continue to be derived from local and state sources. Impact fee revenues, PECO and CO&DS revenues and revenues from the 2 mills tax assessment along with funds from the sale of certificates of participation (COPs), if the School District chooses to issue them, will comprise the bulk of the revenue stream. According to the School District's Capital Outlay Five Year Revenue Forecast, the 2 mills tax will generate $138 million over the next five years, 27.3% of which will be used to fund capital expansion projects. The Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan Summary of Estimated Revenue, shown in Table 12.13, details the School District's projections for its revenue sources over the next five years and the long-range planning period. A comparison of Tables 12.12 and 12.13 shows that the School District's capital plan is sufficient to fund necessary capital improvements and is financially feasible. Community Development Department 32 Is chi°nary~ ~, X611'7 Draft DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Proportionate Share Mitigation In the event that there is not adequate school capacity available to accommodate a development's demand for student stations, the School Board may entertain proportionate share mitigation options and, if accepted, shall enter into an enforceable and binding agreement with the developer and the affected local government to mitigate the impact from the development through the creation of additional school capacity. A mitigation contribution provided by a developer to offset the impact of a residential development must be directed by the School Board toward a school capacity project identified in the School District's Five-Year Capital Facility Plan. Capacity projects identified within the first three years of the Five-Year Capital Facility Plan shall be considered as committed projects. If capacity projects are planned in years four or five of the School District's Five-Year Capital Facility Plan within the same School Service Area Boundary (SSAB) as the proposed residential development, the developer may pay his proportionate share of the identified capacity project to mitigate the proposed development. If a capacity project does not exist in the School District's Five-Year Capital .Facility Plan, the School Board may add a capacity project to satisfy the impacts from a proposed residential development, as long as financial feasibility of the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan can be maintained.. When the student impacts from a proposed development cause the adopted Level of Service to fail, a developer may enter into a 90 day negotiation period with the School District and the applicable local government to review potential mitigation projects. To be acceptable, a proportionate share project must create a sufficient number of additional student stations to maintain the established level of service with the addition of the development project's demand. Mitigation options may include, but are not limited to: (a) Contribution of land in conjunction with the provision of additional school capacity; (b) Provision of additional student stations through the donation of buildings for use as primary or alternative learning facilities; or (c) Provision of additional student stations through the renovation of existing buildings for use as learning facilities; or (d) Construction of permanent student stations or core capacity; or (e) Construction of a school in advance of the time set forth in the School District's Five- Year Capital Facilities Plan: or (f) Construction of a charter school designed in accordance with School District standards, providing permanent capacity to the District's inventory of student stations. Use of a charter school for mitigation must include provisions for its continued existence, including but not limited to the transfer of ownership of the charter school property and/or operation of the school to the School Board. Community Development Department 33 l~'ehru~~r~, €}7 Draft DRAFT -~-- Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element The amount of proportionate share mitigation to be paid will be calculated utilizing the total cost per student station, established by the Florida Department of Education, plus a share of the land acquisition and infrastructure expenditures for school sites as determined and published annually in the School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. The costs associated with the identified mitigation shall be based on the estimated cost of the improvement on the date that the improvement is programmed for construction. Future costs will be calculated using estimated values at the time the mitigation is anticipated to commence. The cost of the mitigation required by the developer shall be credited toward the payment of the school impact fee. If the mitigation cost is greater than the school impact fees for the development, the difference between the developer's mitigation costs and the impact fee credit is the responsibility of the developer. Community Development Department 34 ~a w*``"Q e~ $~ yy /w~ H C~ C/1 S", f-1 .~ U U .~ `^~, 11 O 0 U N_ N .--~ H a- ^^~. 1...1... Wr Y.. '1 U ~i-- i ~ O toD T ° ~- o y. o O LL N r c o . 8 ~ 0 0 $ 0 O 9 o O o ° m 0 O r rn O , N O O ~ ~ oo ~ + O O. , S' ~ N ' o p o p ~ °. ° O S O , o ~ O ~° o ~ e S o_ ~ o oo~ ~~° N ' n _ ~ :: : S o° °o °o o i 25 n ° $ °o0 1 °o a S °o o va I ~ j S oo_ ti ~ , o 0 0~ '~ ~n Sri o o" *: o co (O o `~"' p S o ~ M N Y ~.• ~ S v0a oNO ~ C o ~ 1.1.. O O o P o ' "t ~ a}' cV H m i ; N m o c ~ 1 .. ~' 0 0. c 0 0 0 o .g :o i ~ g o I ' 1 S' :S- !$. m ,• ~;" ~ p p 0 . ,407 O O~~S ~"1 o ~ O. O O 0 y~. O':o CO ~[J C :O O 4~7 4 o . N S~ ~ tNj O' O~ ..N r S'' ~~ 0 u7 N w ~•:-C ~,CN7 'd ~ ' . N N ~ . . O ~rS. o;'a~i ~ '.v v c*.i N ~; ~ ' ~ .~ ` ~ f N '~ ; i m .:O oo. ~ o. ' ~' O7. ~ M . i Q ~yj ~j CV . d'. u7: ~tV. Ql. . . CD . C[J . VJ' ia ~7, 47 : o aP aD' C O ' V 'd': CO ~ ~ T O o , `.. V'. ~ . f~ CD R N ~ ~ r ~ °o. ~°o ~ °o °o S S ! ~ ~n ~ ~ o c4i" S o' °o' o ° ; ~ .~i m S °o v `~ ~ ion o ~n I_ 0 0 0 {{S I o P o a ~n on o S M S S N N 0 ~ p S ~ V05 ~ N' ~ Q~f . Q N C°O CMO CoD M .f ~ T 47 u y S O V' O O c0 M ,47 " • 47 ~ " O ' - O ~ O ` CP : ' : ~ In 11 CD " ~~ o ~ ; v aT m a 4'i ~ , n . m ' r ~ o om Y c 0 a a ++ o v m ~ a o a .. CC o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ N O U ~~ ~ -~ ¢ G 2 ~` O -Q p ~ . G = ~ N O d (fJ N a~ w ~ ~ c ~ p o = . p g rn m y ' 3 ~ N ~ R . _N ~~ N ~ O. o V ~ _ ~ W E j) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O h ~ . ~« U N ~ C7 c°3 C. '} ~' ~ ~ ~ O N N .~ N o O ~ o E } ~ V ~ N O o ¢ O ~ ~ n 'O G rn O ~ ~ o w U m a i a i a- i a 'i ~ E a in ~ u ~ o ~ o ~ ~ cn . ~ ~ C .• yr °: i'n ~ ~ . ~ a . 0 ~ i~ c 0 a w w ~ c~: v Z z ~, ~ . w z z u ~ ~? N ,. ' .. ; ~ U 0 N U 7 q; v 2 m e ~~ ~ M O U >,. c~ c 6) a A a ~. a A .~ 0 0 U ,~ 'a~ w "C~ ~ti .~ U y~y C~ O 3^-I ~+••`1 C~ C~ U U .~ . ,..~ Q O O ,~ U N N_ N CC3 r r ~ ° o ~ ~ o o a T _ N n M ~` O tf] O o n. ~ M O N ~ O n O ~ O . - . - ~ rn co ~ rn 1 O ' N 117 N , o ~ M ~ O O O O O O O O' O O 00 00 .- r Q S t0 ~ i0 O O O O O _ O T M M (~D ~ S V h p p iY ~ r O p O O ~,{„ O N ° - O N vi ' O ~i ~ ~'] ti - N o" ~ N ... M ~! - co co -. .- .. . O S o o .. ° ~ S o° I m ° ~ O . O } . ~ M ~ M 1!1' - N O ° t(j W N O ~ ~ .: O n = ~ ° O ° O ~.L N rn m ti V rn N c o u -a_ io Oi c v . ~ N c+ ~ c •+ N •~ O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O ~ O O N tt~ N 47 W ~fJ T O O O O N 1 O O O O O O '' ~ O O ~ O O g O O O ~ ~Oi O ~fl O ~ {p O O t(j to O O O I.L Q O 1 _ , W m N of ("J O a0 O c'7 ~ N O) V' N n .n- V' O O O C7 O M N ni ai v N m m ati ~• S o° °o I ~ u°~ ° -- ~ °o H i °o O S °o O S °o O O °o O g' °o O ~ °o O °o O S O O O q O ~ M O O O R O O O O O p O ~ ep ~ t0 uu''~~ ~ ~ ~ lf) O. ft) p 0 O O M O M ~D `S ~ N e ~~77 N O O n ltd ~ n O N O ~ ~ ^ cO+7 0 N N N ~{V 1 N ~ i T. t+l 0 N ov , N N N n N a'i (V N • O ' ~ M ' _ o' ~oo. oaop ~ p S . S ~ .O'. S' ~O~. S. S •. .,S . ' S ~ S S'. O o !' ' . : ~ . N .. O) ~ O h Q , O .O O , O o ! O O O C . O. . p If] W c ' ' N O lC7 : ' p . ~ ' IL) O ~ ' O ~ ' W ~ . Q .N N - . : O '• ., u'1 N I fl . ' ' u ~, ox N N M. O ' : M N .. .~ N ,: - ;N O 'oi N rn' N R o' ~" co M 'ai I N d .- ~ N ' ' ~ ' ~ : ~ ' o o .o °~ w ^e ~ S ~'~~ .o O o ,o o ~a ~ :~~' ~ : I o C o o %o. O o :o o °o '~g : eo m ::o o 00 w S o ~u~r 'o u~ O ~ . ~n . N pp ,~O N ~: vi i ~ (? :V] . ,N : OO n. ~ r ~' : ~~ O . . ~O . . O '~? O (D : O [O O ~.`C_ <f L ~~ C n ~ ~ '- r ~ ! ~ .ONi O. p '; ("> .O •.ONO p~~. . N: p .O ~ : •~ ~N ~~Vn' N ~ iW ~ M r - r 0 m V' ~ V' ~ C oD ' M .C? t0 " .f0' 7 N CO . mot n .'a' :t` ti` o O, •~;,,: N .~ V , V'. I : •tV N .u ~ N N . I n ,V <{ ~. :. M M ~' ` , . O. ~ O 1n ~ O O O '~ ::Qf '` ! ~ O (+J ' O 'O ' ~O O O O ' 1A N N M ~ O O O O O~ O ~O O O O O O S O O' ~ W CO ~ ~ O' O W a0 ~ O O O O ~1J d' O Iti ~t n n O O M ~ M N lt'1 N N N I~ O ~ o h u7 O 1o tO O N O ~ N O O T O OO ~ O' ~ o O O O li') N O n V O N V' O ~ N O (~f O Ifl W (P n ~O (jY ./ a - ti ~ O O O O N [D N O C~J O t C~7 r- 00 fD h Vi O O . V' V f7 N 1~ fD 1~ 4] (D oD N n O O O `~{ ~ ~ T N .r--' N t'J N N~ N N N N N t0 M V'i F ~ n n N to w a~ c E a~ ~ . c c o . , ,., o o !~ E o w . ~ . ~ ~ ~ N d O ~ r - ~ c N ~ ' ~ ~ i ~ °~ d ` R .~ °- ~ R ~ cri ~p . Q. U n a~ c o a ~ ~ c c ~ ~- A ~ ~ C o ~ O N R N '~' C ~ d d _ ~ ~ d • C ~ d ~ N 0 • C ~ .~C t' ~ 2 ' ~ ~'' iv ~ O • N V ~ Np N ~ O ~ 1 10 b [~ V ~ Q j p~ ~ ~ S c t -p t W cC t9 ~ c ° lV 'C U ~ Z cb O ? d' t~ c R E 2 ° 'o 'R- C aci aci o' ~ `° °- = U ~ _ ~ U [° o b = ~ w ! o~ ~ KR ~ . c Q Q" 1{t C C N ~ 'fa ~ N d W C ~ ~ ~ N C W $ t ; f0 .3] N N d m ~ U .~ Y ~O O : ' -~ ~ U ~ ~ U t O ~~ O C -V1 N m N V ~ V ~ U ~ . . - N U 1 C C N N dl c ~ N N ' m O (O ~ O y 10 R (9 D > = ~ ,p fQ ~ d d O O N E d > .Q [L' ~ a .G >. > ~ i ~ ~ V U U C~ z ' i tq ¢ m w s z n. N cn ~ ~ n n 0 y. !. '~ :~ C O i U Z a a S ~~ ~ M "~ O U ~. a >~ CV b {ri F~1 1~ +..+ L C~ a A C ~+ ~r a 0 A .~ 0 0 U F3. > (~ Q ~, Sri .~ U Q~ I-I RS R3 U U .y Q .r i U N N_ N CC3 H m ' ° h~ o rn rn o_ m o o " y~ ~ o o~ O m o o O O O v~ ~n N v ~ O ~y ^ O •'07' O : O N ' .. N. ra N . N ~v ' .v'- , ion O ~ ' O ~ O ~ ~ 1 0~ ~~ O N ~'V ~ T O N ~ M O C ~ ti N - r ~ N. N ~ M. O ll~ : ~ O ~ . O . T O O. QNi ~ O 'C CO C'f t`I O I+i a0 00 M } 'O ~ O O N MMM ~ N N r oho piWp YY ~ M~ {j, O N N if) ~ R. N O NN N~ O r ~ of O ^ t°D r oOD S oOp O O N ~ ° M ~ ° ~ a o o r ° ° ° aO m oe' ~ l. l N ~ m r N i ~ ~ ~ u ~ .=a O O O O ~ o O r O O' O o O o M' r mil' ~ t") N Of 4M'1 01 OM f~ }Y O ° ~ N m ~ ~ N M N N ~ O ~ p •Q 1.1.. N ° t+07 u7 n ~ ~~ °Oo M ~lD ~ : ~M O O ' r "O : Of r ~ M N . U'J V ~ ~ C ti pp M. ti p G ~ O p oi~ ti; ~ O i ~o" ~ O ~ v ' ~ ' . 'm v 67 ~ '~ 'V' of d' . C .N h M' O. 4'f';; O 1~ M M .N. '~ O O N N N t~ N '~. _ p ~ ~ ~ ~:13..:. ~1.- I: .. i' I. .r L t--: .i. ~. ,w N - n . m m F b _ tD to •<t' W"! (O' 0 O.. D~ O N .ti .01 00 00 ~ !~ .O 01= t- C7 Yi ~i; Q ~ I±; i 'N ' I N' v '~ N .. ' ~ I. I~ 7 .. ~ ~ a~ o: M~ ~ .. . M1i ~ O ..M .~~ N O ~ ~ . ~ 0:. ~: N O CO N Qi ~ tM- ~ O : _ n ~'. ~ V ~ N~ p ' .N O (~ ~ n Sn N Q n o M D) . N N N M . O~ ! . F-r. v•co ..v ~.n ,r i F N i • .. ~ N ~~ V O .d f N T ~ t ~ ~. ~ , ' ~. i v O I .. y C o. ~ ~ ~ o ~ C d W U U_ ~ ~ .~ N y 'O Y3 ~ N d ~- m rn •~ Q' W L L N o 5 N U ~ d ~ c c ~ ~ a ;~ •E ~ rn m ~ C N r~ L 'O N. y 7 ' O` C " m d ' ~p C m o is t7 N ~ ~~ ' ~ w CJ ~p E ~ o c o o .: E o o :n F - n. ~ ° :° 3 W E in -~ U ~ ~ u t N ~ 7 d O N a C s ~ LL. 4• D U D ~ 0 0 ti• rn O M N , ti h . ~O N ' M w le V A N W . 'NV" . OMi O o ~- :. . :! i ~` 'I v ~. .. .. d .O .. Q~'. F I; a,~ ~ M O U ~, a~ a .~. .b H N °o :~ h. b ~ ~ !~ N v Ci za ~' ~ . N .yH C "~,+ U +., .~ U >_ ~ ~.+ U ~ ~i O ~ A ~ ~ ti of CL U ~ ~ ~ O y C'' A a-~ .~ .~ 0 E 0 U i ~^ '"'.mr`V ~a'~,.j E"~ Q f-1 C~ .~- bA $-1 a ~i N }r ai (CS U U .~ Q O O .L' U C/] N H i W • :~ ~ n~'' ~ ,,'W ~~~/ `LL ~V\ . /l'~~~ . v V! W 4-- `~ ' S.. ~/~ ~./ J .. O ~ ~ S ~ •~ .. O ~ N O O' O ~ O (D O ~ O c? 1~ a0. ',. ~ ~... O lri O ~ O N ~ M m ~ ~ N ~ N t' ) Y 'i O ,~ O O O ~ }• O N O ~ ~ N O In ~ M, Ll,. O O M . 000 r (rn0 t7 O N 0 ~ ~I' 7 N N m ~ N '~ N ~ N . :. O O O t+') O O O O ~ (D CV a3 O O O O N V' 47 . V' O O ~ P . o v o .- o O M cr 0 v) 0 L. O O~ L O `~ M r n j "~ C7 ( D rn a 0 N e~ N N M ~ N ~ 0 ~ N ' V" ~ I i C 7 N• O O yO~ O `d' O ~ N ~ [m[p~ '~f p ~ O 0 ~ N ' O ~ ~ ~ ~' O O. o o- ~ N n O h ! 4 7 o I ~ i LL O O o m > ~ u I m ~ c i i i co i ~ rn :'~ N N i.j m ,_ ' ~~ 1 N ~ N cD 1 CAD ! OO N ifJ lfJ O ~ st ~ ~(7 (") 1 0 O Y' O ' Q ~ O [0 (h ['`J oD {L O O O r i ~ a O ~ 7 c' ~ ~ .... c~*7 ~ ~ - O M _ u7 N N: i N f_:: ~' ' ~ o. O .g 1~ '~~ ~ I p O ~ ~ o pO' ~ ~ O c'J O~i~ - o~ N' ; t l~ V +-~ d ~. O ~ lam] ~ N ' ~ ; ~ , '~ V O ~~ ~ ~ ch ~i ~ • ! _ _ .. _ ~ .. O ~ coi °o ~ o ~ ~ ~ i g ° o ~ o . L _ ~ ~ O m 000 n ~ Q U o `O' O ~ ~ O •o o ,~ O ~ ~ . o ~ ~ f ) o W ,~L N .CL N V - ~ 'N M (D i~ C d 'a Q.. ai . ... ~ ~ ~ . ~ E . ~ G - c o C • y . U ~ Lj ~ ~ i1 ~ O m ~'' c p C W ' ~ ~ v c 0. is . '° ~ °~ c ro ~ y w o ~ c m ~ ~ m °~ ~ a C m ~ O p m ` I- a i ~ (A m. m. p~ O O V m ~ O ~ m ~' •~'. tv O O. y ~° ~ m a Z y .C ' V N .a ~ ~ a . . ~ ~ . `~ df ~ ~ ` o a .. N ~ i O W W m O O N. c O a' ~~ ~ M O U ~. a C~ '~ H C a~ cZ. A_ C a~ R. O d N A c a E 0 U ~elsrraa~°y ~, 2114J7 i)raft~ DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element School Planning and Shared Costs By coordinating the planning of future schools with affected local governments, the school district can better identify the costs associated with site selection and the construction of new schools. Coordinated planning requires the School Board to submit proposed school sites to the School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) for review and approval. The SPTAC consists of representatives from various government agencies. Prior to the SPTAC review, the affected jurisdiction may coordinate with School District staff to perform its own technical review of the site. This analysis permits the School Board and affected local governments to jointly determine the need for and timing of on-site and off-site improvements necessary to support each new school. Because Indian River County is undergoing significant infrastructure development, analyzing the infrastructure needs of planned school sites is necessary. With this process, shared funding for capital improvements for school sites can be determined according to the responsibility of each party for each specific school site. Necessary infrastructure improvements may include: potable water lines, sewer lines, drainage systems, roadways including turn lanes, traffic signalization and signage, site lighting, bus stops, and sidewalks. These improvements are assessed at the time of site plan preparation. Approval conditions can cover the timing and responsibility for construction, as well as the operation and maintenance of required on-site and off-site improvements. Any such improvements should be in keeping with the financially feasible capital plan adopted by the School Board. Other cost-effective measures should be considered by local governments during the process of formulating neighborhood plans and programs and reviewing large residential projects. During those processes, the County and the cities can encourage developers or property owners to provide the School District with incentives to build schools in their neighborhoods. These incentives may include, but are not be limited to, donation and preparation of site(s), acceptance of stormwater run-off from future school facilities into development project stormwater management systems, reservation or sale of school sites at pre-development prices, construction of new school facilities or renovation of existing school facilities, and provision of transportation alternatives. Coordination The Florida Statutes require the School District and the local governments to consider co- locating public schools and public facilities. The co-location and shared-use of facilities provide important economic advantages to the County, School District and local governments. During the preparation of its Educational Plant Survey, the School District can identify co-location and shared-used opportunities for new schools and public facilities. Likewise, co-location and shared use opportunities should be considered by the local govermments when updating their comprehensive plan, schedule of capital improvements and when planning and designing new or renovating existing libraries, parks, recreation facilities, community centers, auditoriums, learning centers, museums, Community Development Department Indian River County 39 Fehrua,°y ¢), 2(107 ~ral't DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element performing arts centers, and stadiums. Co-location and shared use of school and governmental facilities for health care and social services should also be considered. As detailed in Figure 12.7, several co-location opportunities are available for existing facilities. Middle schools and high schools are particularly well equipped to serve as community centers because of their capacity, parking, and multi-purpose classrooms. If middle schools were available for such purposes, community associations and private organizations could utilize schools for meetings and events. The North County Park, located near Sebastian River Middle School, provides an opportunity for mutual benefit. Oslo Middle School, which is located adjacent to the South County Park, also provides an opportunity for benefit. Both of these examples highlight opportunities for the shared use of public school and park facilities. For each instance of co-location and shared use, the School Board and the County or affected municipality must enter into an agreement addressing each party's liability, operating and maintenance costs, scheduling of use, facility supervision, and other issues that may arise. As residential development occurs near school facilities, opportunities exist for the County and School District to jointly plan for community focal points and parks. Recently, the County completed planning efforts on the South County Initiative and the West County Initiative. These initiatives involve several adjacent residential development projects and the provision of pedestrian facilities, future school sites, parks, and a connected roadway grid. Such coordinated planning between the School District and the County ensures that proposed school sites will be consistent with land use plans and regulations. Likewise, a co-location review by the School District of a proposed County capital project will enhance co-location opportunities. The required coordinated planning for co-location will additionally result in capital savings for the School District and the County. Community Development Department Indian River County 40 February E3, 2€17 l.~ralt DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element Figure 12.7: Co-location Opportunities p `` ~ Public Facilities with School Co-location Opportunities Map So~aC - , - ,--r - a- - - .~ . ,..~ _ ~ . ~ •, 1 {y 4 .Il H9 ~ 1 ~. ~ `~ ~ 1 J ~`~ as 1E l ~. ;.. ~ ~oerly M g el G~~~ a :. ,~ n ~ ,. ", ~l I .~ - ~ ~~i ;.. ~ l '~ ~, ~.~ l r ~t e i i 1 / ~ GI, ~ y... _ d i i6. E - .,. 4r ~ >< ~ t .. .pp.._. ....... :: i ~ tf{ I {~~.i e i~ 1 ~~ $ ~ l ~ ~ ' ~ ~r LA 6Jp ryt I ~t ~ F I l R ~ ~ `~ 1 t Y l Ltl 11 ' E B ~, [ ,'~V~ `. l \ , ~ __._ _.....- - f ~ -~ i p E ' z F ~ '~'~ _ t z'= ~ ~ > ~ a , ' r` ; . : ' ' . . , ~,, _.}. ~.~_.,, ..~,~,~.~. • X3.0:.,. ~. ~__ -_- --- ~~ J .,e:< ~ ~ . ` _ - - N ~ele mmbry 5<Saels W E tl,,.,.a.amtl.. yg~ountle anal9c~eels ~e G $ ~.en.: wea. senoal. Miles epmmpnlryeentus 0 0.5 1 ] ~ Miah SCSOOIs H Legend Meh.plontls P..es Munlclpealles r.. _::.~ CMaFHlsme~e epl eoa~a P.opMy n Wate. :.:::, O o Sehsafun sir n bevatlup eenm ennn L,na {~ .n SenluMw amaTaen plinainn p~e~sm~.p ~ eens.rv um n S a .~~,,.. .n.,n.l adw y . pn en M9 aTene lnC . . mg> Community Development Department Indian River County 41 P'ebro;a~~y ~J, 2007 :l~ralt DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT GOAL Indian River County shall have a public school system that offers a high quality educational environment, provides accessibility for all of its students, and ensures adequate school capacity to accommodate enrollment demand. OBJECTIVE 1: ADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES By 2010; there will be no deficiencies within the Indian River County public school system. POLICY 1.1: The County hereby adopts the LOS standards for public schools at 100% of FISH permanent capacity. POLICY 1.2: The County hereby adopts the School Board's current public school attendance boundaries, as the School Service Area Boundaries (SSAB). The SSABs exclude magnet and charter schools. POLICY 1.3: The County and the School District, shall utilize the following procedures for modifying SSABs: a. The School District will transmit a proposed SSAB modification with data and analysis to support the change to the Cities, the County, and the School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC). Any proposed change to the SSABs shall require a demonstration by the School District that the change complies with the public school LOS standard and that utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible. b. The County, the Cities, and the SPTAC will review the proposed modification and send their comments to the School District within 45 days of receipt of the proposed change. c. The modification of the SSABs shall be effective upon adoption by the School Board. OBJECTIVE 2: SCHOOL CONCURRENCY REVIEW After 2010, there will be adequate school facility capacity within the Indian River County public school system to accommodate projected development at the adopted level of service. Community Development Department Indian River County 42 "ebrua~~~ ~, 2U'7 Irafi~ DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public SchootFacilities Element POLICY 2.1: The County shall not approve any non-exempt residential development application for ~ comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, conceptual plans, preliminary plats, site plans or their functional equivalents until the School District School has issued a School Capacity Availability Determination Letter (SCADL) verifying available capacity. POLICY 2.2: The County shall consider the following residential uses exempt from the requirements of school concurrency: a. Single family lots of record, existing at the time the school concurrency implementing ordinance becomes effective. b. Any new residential development that has a preliminary plat or site plan approval or the functional equivalent for a site specific development order prior to the commencement date of the School Concurrency Program. c. Any amendment to any previously approved residential development that does not increase the number of dwelling units or change the type of dwelling units (single-family to multi-family, etc.). d. Age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18. Exemption of an age restricted community will be subject to a restrictive covenant limiting the age of permanent residents to 18 years and older. POLICY 2.3: The County, through its land development regulations, shall establish a school concurrency review process for all residential projects that are not exempt under Policy 2.2. The minimum process requirements are described below: a. A residential development application is submitted to the County. b. The County determines application is sufficient for processing and transmits to the School District for review. c. The School District reviews application for available capacity and issues a SCADL: 1. If capacity is available within the affected SSAB, the School District shall issue a SCADL verifying available capacity. 2. If capacity is not available within the affected SSAB, contiguous SSABs are reviewed for available capacity. 3. If capacity is available in the contiguous SSABs, the School District shall issue a SCADL verifying available capacity. Community Development Department Indian River County 43 I?e~°srry E), 2007 l~ralt DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element 4. If capacity is not available in the contiguous SSABs, the School District shall issue a SCADL indicating the development is not in compliance with the adopted LOS and offers the developer a 90-day negotiation period for mitigation. d. The County and the School District shall review mitigation options during the 90- day negotiation period. 1. If mitigation is approved, the County and the School District enter into an enforceable binding agreement with the developer. 2. If mitigation is denied, the County must deny application based upon no available school capacity. POLICY 2.4: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall review developer proposed applications for proportionate share mitigation projects to add the school capacity necessary to satisfy the impacts of a proposed residential development. POLICY 2.5: The County shall, upon acceptance of a mitigation option identified in Policy 2.4, enter into an enforceable binding agreement with the School District and the developer. POLICY 2.6: The County shall notify the School District within working 10 days of receiving payment of school impact fees and vesting school concurrency for any residential development. OBJECTIVE 3: COORDINATION After 2008 all new public schools built within the County will be consistent with the appropriate jurisdiction's future land use map designation, will be co-located with other appropriate public facilities, and will have needed supporting infrastructure. POLICY 3.1: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall jointly determine the need for and timing of on-site and off-site improvements necessary to support a new school. POLICY 3.2: The County shall enter into an agreement with the School Board identifying the timing, location, and the party or parties responsible for constructing, operating, and maintaining off-site improvements necessary to support a new school. POLICY 3.3: The County shall encourage the location of schools near residential areas by: a. Assisting the School District in the identification of funding and/or construction opportunities (including developer participation or County capital budget expenditures) for sidewalks, traffic signalization, access, water, sewer, drainage Community Development Department Indian River County 44 Felsz-uary ~, 2(107 I~ral't DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element and other infrastructure improvements. b. Reviewing and providing comments on all new school sites. c. Allowing schools within all residential land use categories. POLICY 3.4: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall seek opportunities to co-locate public facilities with schools, such as parks, libraries, and community centers, as the need for these facilities is identified. POLICY 3.5: The County hereby designates the SPTAC as the monitoring group for coordinated planning and school concurrency in Indian River County. POLICY 3.6: By July 1, 2008, the County shall adopt school concurrency provisions into its Land Development Regulations (LDR). POLICY 3.7: The County, in conjunction with the School District and the municipalities within the County, shall identify issues relating to public school emergency preparedness, such as: 1. The determination of evacuation zones, evacuation routes, and shelter locations. 2. The design and use of public schools as emergency shelters. 3. The designation of sites other than public schools as long-term shelters, to allow schools to resume normal operations following emergency events. OBJECTIVE 4: Five-Year Schedule of Capital hmprovements After 2008, the five-year schedule of capital improvements will include those projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs. POLICY 4.1: The County shall, no later than July 1st of each year, incorporate into the Capital Improvements Element the "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" and "Summary of Estimated Revenue" tables from the School District's annually adopted Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan prepared by the School Board and submitted to the County by December of the previous year. POLICY 4.2: The County, in conjunction with the School District, shall annually review the Public School Facilities Element and maintain along-range public school facilities map series, including the planned general location of schools and ancillary facilities for the five-year planning period and the long-range planning period. Community Development Department Indian River County 45 F'ebx°ua~•y ~), tll}71°aft DRAFT ------~°--°° Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the Public Schools Facilities Element will involve numerous activities. The most extensive of these will be the implementation of the provisions contained in the Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School concurrency. The Public School Facilities Element's implementation is contingent upon the implementation of the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Overall implementation responsibility rests with the County planning staff. The staff will bear the primary role of executing the Interlocal Agreement. The planning staff must also provide the local planning agency, the School District, and the Board of County Commissioners the information and analysis upon which their actions and decisions will be based. The plan implementation actions and responsibilities are shown in Table 12.14. Table 12.14: Public School Facilities Element Implementation Matrix POLICY TYPE OF ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMING CAPITAL # EXPENDITURE 1 1 Establish School Level School District/ Municipalities/ . of Service (LOS) Planning Dept. 2008 No 1.2 Establish SSABs School District/ Municipalities/ 2013 No Planning Dept. 1 3 Procedures to modify School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then . SSAB Planning Dept. ongoing No 2 1 Approval of residential School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then development Planning Dept. ongoing No 2.2 Residential exemptions School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then No Planning Dept. ongoing 2 3 School concurrency School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then review process Planning Dept. ongoing No 2 4 Proportionate share School District! Municipalities/ 2008, then mitigation Planning Dept. ongoing No 2 5 Enforceable binding School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then agreement Planning Dept. ongoing No 2.6 School impact fees/vesting of School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then No residential development planning Dept. ongoing 3 1 Infrastructure needs BCC/municipalities/School 2008 then identification Board ongoing yes 3 2 School Board agreement BCC/municipalities/School 2008 then on off-site improvements Board ongoing No 3 3 School sites near BCC/municipalities/School 2008 then . residential Board ongoing No 3 4 Co-location with public School District! Municipalities/ 2008 then . facilities Planning Dept. ongoing No 3 5 SPTAC to monitor School District/ Municipalities/ 2008 then . concurrency Planning Dept ongoing No Community Development Department Indian River County 46 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element POLICY TYPE OF ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 3.6 LDRs amended Municipalities/ Planning Dept 2008 No 3.7 Emergency preparedness School District/ Municipalities/ 2008 then No planning Dept. ongoing Incorporate School School District/ Municipalities/ 2008, then Yes (School 4.1 District capital Planning Dept ongoing ,District) improvement plan tables 4 2 Annual review of PSFE School District/ Municipalities/ 2008 then No & long range map series Planning Dept. ongoing BCC: Board of County Commissioners Community Development Department Indian River County 47 I?ebru:~v ~~, Z0'7 l)ral't. DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Public School Facilities Element EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROCEDURES To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation: the plan must also provide a mechanism for assessing its effectiveness. Generally, a plan's effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which its objectives have been met. Because objectives are measurable and have specific time frames, the plan's objectives are the benchmarks used to evaluate the plan. The planning department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Public Schools Facilities Element on a regular basis, which involves collection of data and compilation of information regarding school capacity, and new residential development. Formal evaluation of the Public School Facilities Element will occur every five years in conjunction with the formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire comprehensive plan. In addition to assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Public School Facilities objectives should be modified or expanded. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Public School Facilities Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element. Community Development Department Indian River County 48 ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. ^ 4431 Embarcadero Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 May 15, 2006 Bill Schutt, Senior Economic Planner Indian River County Community Development Department 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Indian River County School Concurrency Pilot -Review of Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) for the municipalities of Indian River County participating in the School Concurrency Process. Dear Bill: In accordance with our Scope of Services to assist Indian River County with the preparation of the required documents for school Concurrency, we have completed a review of the CIE and ICE from the comprehensive plans of the participating municipalities in Indian River County. Our recommended changes have been listed by municipality and comprehensive plan element, as follows: City of Fellsmere Capitallmprovements Element Objective CIE A-1 should be amended to include public schools. Policy CIE A-1.5. should be amended to include the financially feasible "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" and the "Summary of Estimated Revenue" tables from the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Policy CIE A-2.2 should be amended to include public schools. Policy CIE A-3.1 should be amended to include public schools. Objective CIE A-4 should be amended to include public schools. Policy CIE A-4.1 (bullet 5) should be amended to include public school demands incases where residential development is proposed. Policy ClE A-4.2 references the City's Concurrency Management System as Appendix 8A. Appendix SA was not provided to us be either the County or the City but should be amended to include school Concurrency provisions. ^ TEL 561 845 0665 Attach FAX 561 863 8175 m en t 4 Policy CIE A-5.1 should be amended to include the level of service standards for schools. Policy CIE A-5.2 should be amended to include public schools. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy ICE A-1.6 should be amended to include School Concurrency. Policy ICE A-1.7 should be amended to include School Concurrency implementation. Policy ICE A-2.1 should be amended to include Level.of Service standards for public schools. Objective ICE A-4 should be amended to include public schools. Policy ICE A-4.6 should be amended to include the School District's "Summary of Capital Improvements Program." City of Sebastian Capital Improvements Element Objective 9-l .l should be amended to include public schools. Table IX 2.1 should include the School District's "Summary of Capital Improvements Program." Policy 9-1.4.1 should be amended to include public schools. Objective 9-1.5 should be amended to include public schools. Policy 9-1.5.1 (bullet 5) should be amended to include public school demands in cases where residential development is proposed. Policy 9-1.5.1 references the City's Concurrency Management System as the Appendix. The Appendix was not provided to us be either the County or the City but should be amended to include school concurrency provisions. Policy 9-1.6.1 should be amended to include the level of service standards for schools. Policy 9-1.6.2 should be amended to include public schools. 2 Policy 9-2.1 should be amended to include the financially feasible "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" and the "Summary of Estimated Revenue" tables from the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 8-1.1.3 should be amended to include Level of Service standards for public schools. Objective 8-1.3 should be amended to include public schools. Policy 8 -1.3.3 should be amended to include the School District's "Summary of Capital Improvements Program." Inventory of Existing Intergovernmental Coordination Mechanisms Section, should include the adoption of the Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency. Indian River County Agencies Section should include the adoption of school concurrency provisions. Intergovernmental Agreements Section should include the Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency. City of Vero Beach Capital Improvements Element Section 9.1.2 should be updated to reflect the requirement for a Public School Facilities Element and the addition of public schools to the concurrency management system. Table 9.3 should include the School District's "Summary of Estimated Revenue" table. Table 9.4 should be updated to include the level of service standards for schools. Section 9.2.3 should be amended to summarize capital cots for public schools. Section 9.2.4 should be amended to summarize revenue sources of the School District. Policy 1.2 should be amended to include the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Table 9.14 should be amended to include the School District's "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" table. Policy 5.5 should be amended to reference the School District's revenue sources. Policy 4.2 should be amended to include public schools. Policy 6.1 should be amended to include public schools. Intergovernmental Coordination Element 8.1 INVENTORY OF COORDINATING ENTITIES Section should be amended to include the School Board of Indian River County as a Regulatory agency. 8.2 Regulatory Section should be amended to include the School Board of Indian River County. 8.2.0 City -County Relationships Section should be amended to include public school concunency. 8.3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Section should be amended to include Public School Education. Objective 1 (Coordination of Local Plans) should be amended to include a policy for coordinated planning. Objective 2 (Development Impacts) should be amended to include a policy for schoolconcurrency. Objective 3 (Adequate Public Facilities) should be amended to include policies for maintaining the Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School concunency, the adopted level of service for schools. Town of Indian River Shores Capital Improvements Element: Policy 9-1.2.1 should be modified to include public schools. Policy 9-3.1.2 should be modified to annually adopt the financially feasible "Summary of Capital Improvements Program" and the "Summary of Estimated Revenue" tables from the School District's Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 8-1.1 should be amended to include The School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC). Policy 8-1.13 should be amended to include SPTAC and school concunency program. 4 Objective 8-1.3 should be amended to include public schools. Policy 8-1.3.3 should be amended to include the School District's "Summary of Capital Improvements Program." Policy 8-1.3.4 should be amended to include adoption of level of service standards for public schools. Policy 8-1.5.3 should be amended to include school planning data. In addition to the above, the following text should be amended: Inventory of Existing Intergovernmental Coordination Mechanisms Section should be amended to include School Planning Technical Advisory Committee (SPTAC) and the Elected Officials Oversight Committee. Effectiveness of Existing Coordination Mechanisms and Related Issues Section should be amended to include the Indian River County Interlocal Agreement for coordinated Planning and School Concurrency. Joint Meetings Used to Further Intergovernmental Coordination Section should be amended to include the Town's participation SPTAC and Intergovernmental Coordination for Public School Facilities Planning and School Concurrency. If you have any questions regarding the information provided above, please feel free to contact me at 561-840-0291 or Jeanne Mills at 561-213-6931. Very truly yours, David L. DeYoung, AICP eanne K. Mills, JD, AICP Project Manager Co-Project Manager Enc. Cc: Bob Keating, Community Development Director, Indian River County Dan McIntyre, Assistant Superintendent, Indian River County School District ui~~~ s.rt~~i:»Z{ :~.~t».i.rn~uo;~ Iooy~S x ~I ~ ~~i I j j I li ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i I i it yi ~ " ~ u - I j ~ f i 1 ~ I ~' = _ ~_= ~ . ~~ ~ ! ~ -' 1 ,, ~ ~ _ ~ ? ~ ,. c - ~I O U t _ I ~ L N ~ ~ J U ti . ~ ; ~ ~~ ~_ `. y C ~- ~ fi ,a ! Y a I I L i ',; '~ I 'r ~ ~~,w a~ c 0 :~ v ~ ~ ~° . T' ~ l l ~~ r'' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~d ~~ ~ ~ - =,~ ~ i ~ o i - t -~ ~I 1 J ~~ ~ i ~ ,_ I i - ''I i o ~ C ~ ~. ~ I: _ ~~~~1; ; i' - _ I -: ~ ~ - ~~,~ ~ ~~~ ~ J ~ ~ I ~ I ' ~ '~' i ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~'~ I C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - I -d - l l ~ ~ Y V ~ .'~+ ti - ~; ~ _ C H l I ! L J' Attachment 5