TOWN OF
INDIAN RIVER RIDGE
INCORPORATION
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
– PRESENTED TO –
The Board of Directors
The Indian River Drive Freeholders, Inc.
The freeholders, residents, and registered voters
within the proposed municipal limits
The Board of
The Legislature of the State of
– WORKING DRAFT –
(
Prepared by
The Municipal Incorporation Committee
of
The Indian River Drive Freeholders Association, Inc.
Carl Flick, Chairman
Members
Tom Burgess, Kathy Davis, Debra Eddington, Bobby Edwards, George Edwards, Harry Hery, Rick
Langdon, Christi Mollet,
Roger Sharp, Jack Shelton, Kevin Stinnette, Ed Stover,
Bruce Wunner
With
William B. Stronge Ph.D.
Economic Consulting + Comprehensive Planning + Market
Research
270 NW 38th St
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
CONTENTS
Cover Page |
|
|
|
Credits |
2 |
|
|
Table of Contents |
3 - 4 |
|
|
Executive Summary and Overview - TBD |
5 |
|
|
History |
6 - 16 |
|
|
Territorial Boundaries - General |
17 |
|
|
Review of Methods and Requirements for Municipal Incorporation |
|
Florida Constitution, as revised in 1968 |
18 |
1.. Title XII, Chapter 165 – “The Formation of Municipalities Act” |
19 – 22 |
2. Municipal Merger |
23 |
3. TitleXI, Chapter 163.3217 – Municipal overlay for municipal incorporation |
24 – 25 |
|
|
Review of Municipal Incorporation - Effect on Homesteads |
26 – 28 |
|
|
Economic Evaluation by Dr William B. Stronge Ph. D. |
29 - 61 |
|
|
Impact Analysis
- Effects of Incorporation on
the Freeholders of the proposed town,
and on adjacent Municipal and -TBD |
|
|
|
Conclusions and Recommendations |
|
Background |
|
Conclusions |
|
Recommendations |
|
CONTENTS (CONT)
- APPENDICES
Territorial Limits, Legal Descriptions: |
|
Township 37 South, Range 41 East |
|
Township 36 South, Range 41 East |
|
Township 36 South, Range 40 East |
|
Township 35 South, Range 40 East |
|
|
|
Territorial Limits, Figures: |
|
Miles 1 & 2 , From South to North- “Then & Now” |
|
Miles 3 & 4 , From South to North- “Then & Now” |
|
Miles 5 & 6 , From South to North- “Then & Now” |
|
Miles 7 & 8 , From South to North- “Then & Now” |
|
Miles 9 & 10 , From South to North- “Then & Now” |
|
|
|
Year 2000 – Census Data Tables - by Block, Tract, and Total |
|
Census Block Locations & Descriptions |
|
Population and Median Age |
|
Population – Age by Sex |
|
Population – Race |
|
Households |
|
Household Occupancy / Vacancy & Vacancy Status |
|
Household Size |
|
Households & Housing Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
HISTORY
Anglo-American occupation and a
sense of community identity along Indian River Ridge and “The Drive” stretches
back nearly as far as
Pre and early
The year 1842 marks the start of a
significant period in the development and occupation of this “Indian River
Ridge” area. To encourage settlement,
and in an attempt to free the federal government from the burden of providing
and maintaining troops in the area, the U.S. Government on August 4, 1842 passed
the “Armed Occupation Act”. This act, in
order to encourage settlement and provide for a ready civilian militia to
defend their lands - provided for the
grant of 160 Acres to settlers willing to occupy, erect a fit habitat and
cultivate at least 5 acres of their lands in southeastern Florida for a minimum
period of 5 years. Additional provisions
of this Act provided that these homesteads be no closer than 2 miles from
existing forts. This act was the predecessor
of “The Homestead Act”. Permit Number 1
under this act was granted to Dr. Fredrick Wheedon and included lands
containing the only existing structures in the region, the now deactivated
As a result of this inducement,
pioneer settlers did arrive in the area, which was known as The Indian River
Colony. This colony ultimately consisted
of claims and grants to about 40 families stretching along the
River Ridge area, this Armed Occupation Act settlement was known as the Susanna settlement which consisted of 8 homesteads stretching along the west bank of the Indian river from the Davis grant south thru areas to be known later as the Eldred and Ankona communities.
From an article - How and by Whom
Gilbert’s Bar was Opened in 1844 by Professor William Henry Peck – “The
In the summer of 1844 the leading
settlers of the Indian River Country became convinced that it was vitally
necessary … to open Gilbert’s Bar, which had been closed for many years. The only settlers at that date, along the
entire stretch of
Unfortunately for many of these
homesteaders, an Indian massacre of “Trader Barker”, who had a store in the
area and allegedly on several occasions cheated them in their trades (sold them
defective gunpowder) raised fears of a general Indian uprising and the Susanna
settlers made a hasty retreat to the relative safety of St. Augustine. This abandonment of their claims took place
in August 1849. The 1850 census reflects
this, most civilians having departed the area and not yet returned. The
majority of the St. Lucie County population, 22 dwellings in this
"division" of the census, consisted of Soldiers barracked at
In January 1851, the Florida
Legislature appropriated $1,000 to build a wagon trail (Military Trail) from
the Fort located at
Little evidence of these earliest homesteads
exists, except in the initial land records for the area. In preparation for the transfer of lands
from public to private hands, the General Land Office survey of the lands
including our Indian River Ridge area were performed during the period 1844 –
1853. Two parcels, preexisting claims
and grants under this Armed Occupation Act were noted but “excluded” from this
survey of public lands available for sale.
Near the northern end of our proposed town limits is The W.B. Davis
Permit lands, a 143.77 Acre grant under this act, which extends from about 3553
to
All of the initial recordings for
lands along Indian River Ridge were either in the form of U.S. Government
Patent deeds (for “good lands”) or State of
lands transferred from the Federal
Government to the State of
An item of interest with respect to some of the State deeded lands in the Savannas is that they are part of a sale, in June 1881, by the cash strapped State of Florida, to Hamilton Diston of Philadelphia and his associates for 4 million acres (of “Swamplands”) for 1 million dollars … 25 cents per acre. At the time, the typical price for these government lands was $1.25 per acre.
The primary Government land office
responsible for the disposition of these lands was located in
The period 1880 through the 1890’s
marks the start of continuous occupation and development of the Indian River
Ridge area. This period also includes
two of the most significant events in the opening of
Also during this time period, the state was
granting to various Railroad companies lands from the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund at rates ranging from 6,000 to 20,000 acres per mile of railway
constructed and placed into operation. One
of the largest single grants noted was a grant in 1885 to the "Florida
Southern Railway Company" of 1,592,018 and 64/100 acres (of which
819,997 and 54/100 acres were in the present St. Lucie County) for the
completion of 165.26 miles of road (at 10,000 acres per mile) from Gainsville
to the Withlacoochee River in Hernando County. Through many mergers and acquisitions these
became grant lands of Henry Flagler and his Florida East Coast Railway. We agonize now about economic incentives
extended to business for development … in the late 1800’s the State of
This led to the second, and probably the most significant of the events opening up South Florida – the extension by Henry Flagler of his Florida East Coast Railway from St. Augustine to West Palm Beach in the period 1892 – 1894, on to Miami in 1896 and ultimately to Key West in 1912 with steamship connections from Miami to Nassau and from Key West to Havana. The construction of the FEC Railway, although initially providing greatly increased access to the northern markets for South Florida Pineapples, was also a significant contributor, combined with fungus problems and freezes, in the demise of the our Pineapple Plantations following the removal of protective tariffs on “Pines” and greatly increased importation of Pineapples from Cuba and the Bahamas.
The Railroad arrived in
Another of the early settlers to
the Indian River Ridge area was Elon Eldred who arrived here around 1879 from
in establishing a Pineapple
plantation in the area south of
From an article by John Pennekamp
in the “Herald” –
Comments Wenzel J Schubert, a
“native born, old time East Florida Cracker”…Seventy years ago (1898) I stood
on Grandfather Tancre’s front porch at Ankona … and watched a gang of laborers
chopping down and grubbing out several fine old trees as they cut the new
“county road” right across the middle of our front yard. This narrow, single lane, dirt road that
tunneled through the dense river bank hammock growth was
Fall,
Over the years since it’s initial cut thru as a “sand trail” the road through our front yards has been variously identified as Riverside Drive, The Dixie Highway, U.S. Highway 1 (prior to construction of the “new” U.S. 1 approximately 4 miles inland), State Road 707, and currently County Road 707 and South Indian River Drive.
From the earliest days, speeding on The Drive has been, and remains, a major concern of residents.
From “The St. Lucie County Tribune”, March 21, 1913
We second the Ankona
correspondent’s efforts to draw the attention of the proper authorities to the
reckless use of automobiles on
From the days of the earliest homesteaders and settlers along our Indian River Ridge there appears to have existed a strong sense of community and community identity. This sense of self identity and community was quite obviously reinforced by our
natural boundaries
As time passed, and development along the Indian River Ridge progressed, local community identity was reinforced by the establishment of post offices located at Eden (7 July 1882 – 31 March 1923), Tibbals (28 April 1899 … renamed Walton 18 March 1907 as a “marketing” tool in honor of Isacc Walton to stress the opportunities for fishing and hunting in the area and which continued to be operated as the Walton Post Office until 30 June 1944), Ankona (named for the Ankeny Family, 29 May 1886 – 31 August 1953), and Eldred (23 August 1902 – 11 November 1942). Postal service for our area has now shifted to the Ft. Pierce PO for properties located North of Walton Rd. and to the Jensen Beach PO for those living south of Walton.
In conjunction with the decline of
pineapple farming along the Indian River Ridge area, The FEC railway was, in
the 1910’s, abandoning, tearing down, or disposing of many of the early
shipping Depots along their line including all the early depots in our area –
the White City, Eldred, Walton, and Eden
Depots. In 1912, the Walton Depot was
acquired by St. Lucie County and moved on rollers from its original location
immediately north of
Despite the shift in our postal service and the “taking” of our community center, a strong sense of local community identity and pride remains.
Development of properties within the limits of our proposed Town of Indian River Ridge proceeded slowly in the period “pre 1900” through the mid to late 1940’s (see History – Figure 2). In 1947, based on the current parceling of properties within the proposed limits of Indian River Ridge, occupation had reached approximately 10%. However, in anticipation of coming development, the period 1938 – 1947 represents a landmark period along “The Drive”.
During this period, The Indian River Drive Freeholders Association was organized. The primary purpose of this organization was to work toward obtaining passage of legislation authorizing the establishment of “local initiative zoning districts”. These
efforts resulted in the passage of AN ACT in the Florida Legislature (Chapter 24865 No. 1251, House Bill No. 676, 9 pages) - which Empowers the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County to “.... provide for the establishment of zoning districts within the unincorporated areas of the County ... by petition of a majority of the land owners within such proposed zoning district". The final page of this ACT includes the notation - "Became a law without the Governor's approval, Filed in Office Secretary of State May 28, 1947".
The passing of this Act, and petition by the
residents along The Drive, led to a Resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County which established "The Indian River
Drive Zoning District" filed -
On
In 1973, in a legal, but unusually short time
period, Port St. Lucie, by ordinance. annexed properties reaching eastward
across the Indian River Ridge to the bank of the
the exception of the Jill & Kim Brownie parcel
on the riverbank in the “center” of the land annexed.
The purpose for this request for
annexation and rezoning was for the development of a large block of high
density apartments and condominiums.
This was vigorously opposed by residents along Indian River Ridge and
the IRD Freeholders Association who had gotten wind of the effort and opposed
it in front of the St. Lucie County Zoning Board. We had no “voice” however in opposing the
action by the City of
Subsequent to this annexation, the
developer attempted to build a causeway off of
In 1974, following this experience – of having
little or no control over our destiny -
a proposed Charter for the “Town of
Through the 1960’s and early 1970’s, public concern and awareness of the value of our natural resources increased. Supported by the efforts of the Indian River Drive Freeholders, and many others, these concerns culminated in the creation of Aquatic Preserve A-10, aka "The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve" (of the Indian River Lagoon). This was recorded by Resolution of the State of Florida board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund dated August 29, 1973, Filed
Also, during this time period, the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust fund of the State of Florida
commenced the reacquisition of private lands in the Savannas, which were sold
by the state in the mid to late 1800’s, for the creation of the Savannas State
Preserve. The first recorded reacquisition
of these lands in the Indian River Ridge area was recorded
For the past 66 years, The Indian River Drive Freeholders Association has been the public voice and social focus for residents along The Drive. Thru the years it has undergone several reorganizations, levels of activity, and levels of participation. However, the association has remained true to its original goal of protecting and preserving the unique character of the drive and the continued health and preservation of our natural boundaries - The Indian River and The Savannas. The present “character” of the drive can well be credited to the associations efforts in retaining The Drive in its rural, two lane (narrow and winding) state flanked on the west with single family residential development. The time over which Indian River Ridge has developed, slow and steady over a period of 125 years, along with its continued rural nature (private wells and individual septic tanks/drain fields) also contributes greatly to the character of our community and the diversity of our residences – character and diversity appreciated by new residents and jealously guarded by long time residents.
The current efforts toward creating our own town grow from renewed concerns of annexation by our member residents coupled with the desire to have a much stronger – municipal – voice in future development along the Indian River Ridge. In October 2001 the Indian River Drive Freeholders, Inc. authorized the formation of an Incorporation Committee to study the feasibility of incorporating our community.
We pray that the effort is successful and that we may soon join our similar neighbor to the north – St. Lucie Village – and become the 4th municipality incorporated in St. Lucie County, Florida.
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES
Generally described, the boundaries of the Town of INDIAN RIVER RIDGE are:
EAST, the Centerline of the
NORTH, a common Northern limit line, being the municipal boundary between the City of Ft. Pierce and the Town of Indian River Ridge, lying along the Northern line of Section 26, Township 35 South, Range 40 East and the projection of this line easterly to the centerline of the Intracoastal Waterway’s Navigation Channel..
SOUTH, a common Southern limit line, being the Southern St. Lucie County / Northern Martin County line and the South line of the Town of Indian River Ridge, this line being the South line of Sections 9 and 10, Township 37 South, Range 41 East and the projection of this line easterly to the centerline of the Intracoastal Waterway’s Navigation Channel.
WEST, a meander line generally following Government Land Survey lines describing the “center” of the Savannas in St. Lucie County, Florida. Exceptions to this Western boundary meander line through the “center” of the Savannas exist at both the Southern and Northern ends of this Western Boundary where it forms a common boundary between lands of the Town of Indian River Ridge and the City of Port St. Lucie at the Southern end, or the Town of Indian River Ridge and the City of Ft. Pierce at the Northern end. In some areas of this Western boundary the existing Municipal Limits extend Eastward from this “natural boundary”.
For the Southern 4 miles of this western boundary, this line is common with the Eastern Municipal limits of Port St. Lucie as originally established, or amended by annexation ordinance.
For the Central 4 miles of this western boundary this line follows Government Land Survey lines roughly describing the center of the Savannas through unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida.
For the Northern 2 miles of this Western boundary, this line
is common with the Eastern Municipal limits of
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
Article VIII of the Constitution of
the State of Florida AS REVISED IN 1968
AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED addresses local government, Section 2 addresses
municipal governments.
SECTION 2. Municipalities.--
(a) ESTABLISHMENT. Municipalities may be established or abolished and their charters amended pursuant to general or special law. When any municipality is abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors.
(b) POWERS. Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. Each municipal legislative body shall be elective.
(c) ANNEXATION. Municipal annexation of unincorporated territory, merger of municipalities, and exercise of extra-territorial powers by municipalities shall be as provided by general or special law.
Section 6 provides a schedule for implementing the revisions of 1968 and the superceding of the 1885 Constitution.
SECTION 6. Schedule to Article VIII.--
(a) This article shall replace all of Article VIII of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, except those sections expressly retained and made a part of this article by reference.
Basically this schedule provides for the continuation and recognition of Counties, County Seats, Municipalities and Districts then existing … provides for the continuation in office for persons holding office for the remainder of their terms provided the office has not been abolished and the compensation of office holders for if that office has been abolished … provides for the amending or repeal of local ordinances relating only to unincorporated portions of the Counties … and provides for the continuation and recognition of home rule provisions existing for Dade, Duval, Monroe, and Hillsborough Counties as exists in the Constitution of 1885 as adopted and revised.
STATUTORY REVIEW
Title XII, Chapter 165 of Florida Statutes, the “Formation
of Municipalities Act” – Adopted
165.021 Purpose.--The purpose of this act is to provide standards, direction, and procedures for the formation of municipalities in this state and the provision of municipal services so as to:
(1) Allow orderly patterns of urban growth and land use.
(2) Assure adequate quality and quantity of local public services.
(3) Ensure financial integrity of municipalities.
(4) Eliminate or reduce avoidable and undesirable differentials in fiscal capacity among neighboring local governmental jurisdictions.
(5) Promote equity in the financing of municipal services.
165.031 Definitions.
(4) "Municipality" means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s. 2 or s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.
(7) "Formation" means any one of the following activities:
(a) "Incorporation"--The establishment of a municipality.
(8) "Service delivery" means any mechanism used by a unit of local government to provide governmental services.
(10) "Parties affected" means any person owning property or residing in a municipality proposing a formation or in the territory that is proposed for a formation or any governmental unit with jurisdiction over such area.
(11) "Qualified voter" means any person registered to vote in accordance with law.
STATUTORY REVIEW
(12) "Sufficiency of petition" means the verification of the signatures and addresses of all signers of a petition with the voting list maintained by the county supervisor of elections and certification that the number of valid signatures represents the required percentage of the total number of qualified voters in the area affected by a proposal pursuant to this chapter.
1)(a) A charter for incorporation of a municipality, except in case of a merger which is adopted as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), shall be adopted only by a special act of the Legislature upon determination that the standards herein provided have been met.
(b) To inform the Legislature on the feasibility of a proposed incorporation of a municipality, a feasibility study shall be completed and submitted to the Legislature 90 days before the first day of the regular session of the Legislature during which the municipal charter would be enacted.
The feasibility study shall contain the following:
1. The general location of territory
subject to boundary change and a map of the area which identifies the proposed
change.
2. The major reasons for proposing
the boundary change.
3. The following characteristics of
the area:
a. A list of the current land use
designations applied to the subject area in the county comprehensive plan.
b. A list of the current county zoning
designations applied to the subject area.
c. A general statement of present land use
characteristics of the area.
d. A description of development being
proposed for the territory, if any, and a statement of when actual development
is expected to begin, if known.
4. A list of all public agencies,
such as local governments, school districts, and special districts, whose current
boundary falls within the boundary of the territory proposed for the change or
reorganization.
STATUTORY REVIEW
5. A list of current services being
provided within the proposed incorporation area, including, but not limited to,
water, sewer, solid waste, transportation, public works, law enforcement, fire
and rescue, zoning, street lighting, parks and recreation, and library and
cultural facilities, and the estimated costs for each current service.
6. A list of proposed services to be
provided within the proposed incorporation area, and the estimated cost of such
proposed services.
7. The names and addresses of three
officers or persons submitting the proposal.
8. Evidence of fiscal capacity and an
organizational plan as it relates to the area seeking incorporation that, at a
minimum, includes:
a. Existing tax bases, including ad
valorem taxable value, utility taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise taxes,
license and permit fees, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, and other
revenue sources, as appropriate.
b. A 5-year operational plan that, at a
minimum, includes proposed staffing, building acquisition and construction,
debt issuance, and budgets.
9. Data and analysis to support the
conclusions that incorporation is necessary and financially feasible, including
population projections and population density calculations, and an explanation
concerning methodologies used for such analysis.
10. Evaluation of the alternatives available to the area to address its policy concerns.
11. Evidence that the proposed
municipality meets the requirements for incorporation pursuant to s. 165.061.
(c) In counties that have adopted a municipal overlay for municipal incorporation pursuant to S163.3217, such information shall be submitted to the Legislature in conjunction with any proposed municipal incorporation in the county. This information should be used to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed municipal incorporation in the geographic area.
STATUTORY REVIEW
165.061 Standards for incorporation,
merger, and dissolution.--
(1) The incorporation of a new
municipality, other than through merger of existing municipalities, must meet the following conditions in
the area proposed for incorporation: (emphasis added)
(a) It must be compact and contiguous and
amenable to separate municipal government.
It must have a total population, as determined in
the latest official state census, special census, or estimate of population, in
the area proposed to be incorporated of at least 1,500 persons in counties with
a population of 75,000 or less, and of at least 5,000 population in counties
with a population of more than 75,000.
(c) It must have an average population
density of at least 1.5 persons per acre or have extraordinary conditions requiring
the establishment of a municipal corporation with less existing density.
(d) It must have a minimum distance of
any part of the area proposed for incorporation from the boundaries of an
existing municipality within the county of at least 2 miles or have an
extraordinary natural boundary which requires separate municipal government.
(e) It must have a proposed municipal
charter which:
1. Prescribes the form of government and
clearly defines the responsibility for legislative and executive functions.
2. Does not prohibit the legislative body
of the municipality from exercising its powers to levy any tax authorized by
the Constitution or general law.
165.071 Financial allocations.--
(1) The law incorporating a new municipality in previously unincorporated lands may provide a procedure for establishing the distributive share of local option gas tax moneys in counties where such tax is levied when appropriate under the provisions of s. 336.025(4)(b). The law shall also provide for assumption of the existing governmental indebtedness or property specially benefiting that area, if any, the fair value of such and the manner of transfer and financing.
165.093 All state and local agencies to cooperate in administration of chapter.--The department is empowered to call on any state, county, special district, or municipal agency, department, bureau, or board for any information or assistance which may, in its
STATUTORY REVIEW
judgment, be of assistance in administering, or preparing for the administration of, this chapter, and such state, county, special district, or municipal agency, department, bureau, or board is hereby authorized, directed, and required to furnish such information or assistance.
MERGER
2)(a) A charter for merger of two or more municipalities and associated unincorporated areas may also be adopted by passage of a concurrent ordinance by the governing bodies of each municipality affected, approved by a vote of the qualified voters in each area affected.
(b) The ordinance shall provide for:
1. The charter and its effective date.
2. The financial or other adjustments required.
3. A referendum for separate majorities by each unit or area to be affected.
4. The date of election, which should be the next regularly scheduled election or a special election held prior to such election, if approved by a majority of the members of the governing body of each governmental unit affected, but no sooner than 30 days after passage of the ordinance.
(c) Notice of the election shall be published at least once each week for 2 consecutive weeks immediately prior to the election, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be affected. Such notice shall give the time and places for the election and a general description of the area to be included in the municipality, which shall be in the form of a map to show clearly the area to be covered by the municipality.
(3)(a) Initiation of procedures for municipal incorporation by merger as described in subsection (2) may be done either by adoption of a resolution by the governing body of an area to be affected or by a petition of 10 percent of the qualified voters in the area.
(b) If a petition has been filed with the clerks of the governing bodies concerned, the governing bodies shall immediately undertake a study of the feasibility of the formation proposal and shall, within 6 months, either adopt an ordinance under subsection (2) or reject the petition, specifically stating the facts upon which the rejection is based.
STATUTORY REVIEW
(c) The purpose of this subsection is to provide broad citizen involvement in both initiating and developing their local government; therefore, establishment of appropriate citizen advisory committees, as well as other mechanisms for citizen involvement, by the governing bodies of the units affected is specifically authorized and encouraged.
MUNICIPAL
OVERLAY
Title XI,
Chapter 163, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
PART II, GROWTH POLICY; COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING; LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
Provides a “possible” third, alternative, method for the
creation of new municipalities
163.3217 - Municipal overlay for municipal incorporation
This is included, by reference, in Title XII, Chapter 165 of Florida Statutes, the “Formation of Municipalities Act”.
163.3217 Municipal overlay for municipal incorporation.--
(1) PURPOSE.--In order to assist in the planning for future municipal incorporation of a specific geographic area, a county may adopt a municipal overlay as an amendment to its comprehensive plan. A municipal overlay will allow a county, in cooperation with the public, to address the future possible municipal incorporation of a specific geographic area and the impact of municipal incorporation on the provision of public services to serve the area.
(2) PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--
(a)1. This section applies only in those jurisdictions in which the county has authorized, by resolution or local ordinance, the development of a municipal overlay pursuant to the provisions of this section. A county governing body, or a citizens' organization that represents property owners in the area affected, may sponsor the preparation of the municipal overlay.
2. It shall be the responsibility of the county to prepare the municipal overlay for an area under its jurisdiction; however, if the sponsor of the municipal overlay is other than the county, the county may by written agreement authorize the sponsor to prepare some or all of a proposed municipal overlay.
(b)1. A
municipal overlay shall be adopted as an amendment to the local government
comprehensive plan as prescribed by s. 163.3184
STATUTORY REVIEW
2. A county may consider the adoption of a municipal overlay without regard to the provisions of s. 163.3187 (1) regarding the frequency of adoption of amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
(3) CONTENTS OF A MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--A municipal overlay must contain:
(a) Boundary options for the creation of the new municipality.
(b) A feasibility study as outlined in chapter 165.
(c) A map of existing and proposed land uses in the area by type and density.
(d) Population projections for the area.
(e) Data and analysis relating to the provision of public facilities for the area.
(4) FUNDING OF THE MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--The development of the municipal overlay shall be funded by the county unless there is written agreement between the county and another entity to fund it.
Review of Municipal Incorporation
Effect on Homesteads
MUNICIPLE INCORPORATION - It's effect on Homesteads, asset protection
And tax exemptions
The Florida Constitution, in Art. X, §4 and its legislative
implementation by F.S. ch. 222, provides asset protection for
homesteads in Florida.
ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
SECTION 4. Homestead; exemptions. (provides - in part)--
(a) There shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court,
and no judgment, decree or execution shall be a lien thereon, except for
the payment of taxes and assessments thereon, obligations contracted for
the purchase, improvement or repair thereof, or obligations contracted
for house, field or other labor performed on the realty, the following
property owned by a natural person:
(1) a homestead, if located outside a municipality, to the extent of
one hundred sixty acres of contiguous land and improvements thereon,
which shall not be reduced without the owner's consent by reason of
subsequent inclusion in a municipality; or if located within a
municipality, to the extent of one-half acre of contiguous land, upon
which the exemption shall be limited to the residence of the owner or
the owner's family;
The Florida Statutes - Title XV, HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTIONS;
Chapter 222, METHOD OF SETTING APART HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTIONS provides
the methods available for the homeowners designation, and protection of
their homestead asset (if subdivision for protection should become
necessary).
The Florida Statutes - Title XIV, TAXATION AND FINANCE; Chapter 196,
EXEMPTION provides the authority(s) for the exemption from taxation of
all or a portion of a properties "taxable value" due to homestead, and
for various other reasons.
196.031 Exemption of homesteads
196.075 Additional homestead exemption for persons 65 and older.
196.081 Exemption for certain permanently and totally disabled veterans
and for surviving spouses of veterans.
Review of Municipal Incorporation
Effect on Homesteads
(cont)
196.091 Exemption for disabled veterans confined to wheelchairs.
196.095 Exemption for a licensed child care facility operating in an
enterprise zone.
196.101 Exemption for totally and permanently disabled persons.
S196.031(5) Provides the "tie" to the constitutional limitation on the
size of a homestead provided asset protection and states -
The exemption provided in this section applies only to those parcels
classified and assessed as owner-occupied residential property or only
to the portion of property so classified and assessed.
The Florida Statutes - Title XIV, TAXATION AND FINANCE; Chapter 193,
ASSESSMENTS, under S193.155 Homestead assessments - provides the
Statutory provisions for the limitations placed on the Assessment of
property values for taxation (prior to applicable "exemptions") provided
by the 1992 "Save our Homes" / "Amendment 10" to the Florida
Constitution for homesteaded property.
DISCUSSION:
Asset protection and Taxation of property, while related under the rules
established under S196 defining "homestead", are separate issues.
The issue of concern in considering municiple incorporation of "The
Drive" is the reduction in asset protection within a municipality to
"one-half acre of contiguous land, upon which the exemption shall be
limited to the residence of the owner or the owner's family".
We would assume that, at least initially, the current provisions of the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and the St. Lucie County Land
Development (and Zoning) Code as they effect our proposed Town Limits
would be adopted and reaffirmed, with perhaps only minor (future)
modifications. We would further assume that these future modifications
would be consistant with the Constitutional desire to protect a
landowners homestead asset by division, if necessary.
The potential effect for a homestead owner seeking asset protection of
his homesteaded property by subdivision would then be the issue of
concern.
Review of Municipal Incorporation
Effect on Homesteads
(cont)
The overwhelmingly predominant zoning classification for lands
developed, or capable of being developed, within our proposed Town
Limits is RE-2 (Residential Estate, 2 Dwelling units per acre). [see
the relation to the asset protection provision?] This carries with the
classification, a minimum lot width of 100', 100' of road frontage, and
a minimum lot size of 17,500 SF (0.402+/- acre). Most of our property
parcels exceed these minimums, and those that do not are "grandfathered" for development. Also, a very significant portion of our developed
property parcels and the few remaining parcels to be developed - exceed
0.902+/- acre and could therefore be declared to be protected homestead
properties by defining and declaring a "lot split" to protect a
homestead parcel.
This is allowed, and provided for, under the current land development
code. Even if "excess" roadway frontage is not available to "split off" an access way to a rear parcel (or parcels) the land development code provides that this access to an otherwise inaccessable parcel may (must) be provided via an access easement (over the fronting parcel).
The Impact of Incorporation on Property
Taxes
Prepared for
The Board of the Indian River Drive
Freeholders, Inc.
Prepared by
William B. Stronge Ph.D.
Senior Fellow in
June 18, 2008
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Preliminary Studies 4
An Analysis of the Property Tax Base 4
An Estimate of Population in
A Budget for Indian River Ridge After the Transitional
Year 11
Expenditures 11
Revenues 17
5-Year Projection 18
Current Property Tax Rates in
Conclusion 22
Uncertainties 24
Appendix A: 2007-08 St. Lucie Village Budget 26
Revenues 27
Expenditures 28
Appendix B: Tables
Presented to the Incorporation Committee
and not Included in the Body of the Report 29
Introduction
This report contains
a fiscal analysis that has been prepared for the Indian River Drive Freeholders,
Inc. in connection with the fiscal feasibility of incorporating
Public
service provision in St. Lucie County relies to an unusual extent on county
wide providers funded by property tax levies collected by St. Lucie County
Government. For example, fire and rescue
services are provided this way, in contrast to several other
The city would be responsible for public works (including roads and drainage projects) as detailed below and the city would remain in the Unincorporated MSTU for additional law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff. The organization of the town would include a part time city council of five members, a part time town clerk and a city attorney. Although the city attorney would be part time, it is expected that a major commitment of time will be needed, at least in the first five years.
This report is divided into four sections. Section One contains two preliminary studies: an analysis of the property tax base and an estimate of the population within the proposed municipal boundaries A budget for the proposed city after it completes its transitional period is presented in the second section. Expenditures have been developed in consultation with St. Lucie County and members of the Indian River Ridge Incorporation Committee. In a number of cases, the expenditures are estimated at twice the 2007 budgeted amounts for St. Lucie Village, a similarly situated existing municipality in St. Lucie County that has a population about one half the size of the population in the proposed municipality. The second section also includes estimated revenues for the proposed municipality. Several non-ad valorem revenue sources are estimated at twice the St. Lucie Village budgeted amounts. The ad valorem revenues from the property tax are estimated as a residual, that is, as the amount necessary to make up the shortfall between projected expenditures and the sum of revenues from non-ad valorem sources.
St. Lucie Village was chosen as a model for estimating many of the revenues and expenditures in this report because the Incorporation Committee indicated that the organization and structure of the Village has most of the features that would be desirable in Indian River Ridge. The population of Indian River Ridge would be approximately twice the population of St. Lucie Village and so it is reasonable to assume that many of the revenues and expenditures in the new town will be approximately twice the corresponding numbers in the St. Lucie Village budget. There are obvious differences, of course. St. Lucie Village has a town hall and a Marshal, neither of which is assumed for Indian River Ridge.
The use of a model can be expected to give an accurate estimate of aggregate expenditures and aggregate revenues, but there will be greater uncertainty about the individual items. There are a number of items that may be underestimated by the model, such as the salary of the Town Clerk, and there may be others that are overestimated, such as mowing. Because of the importance of providing an objective estimate, it was decided to minimize the adjustments to individual items so that the Incorporation Committee and others would see that selective adjustments designed to achieve a particular answer to the question of the impact of incorporation on property taxes were not made. In this spirit, the labels for line items were generally retained and the actual St. Lucie Village budget was provided in an appendix.
The third section
of the report discusses current property tax rates in St. Lucie County and an
estimate of the impact of the proposed budget on the property tax rate is
presented in the fourth section, labeled Conclusion. This study has been undertaken at a time of
considerable uncertainty because of a statewide recession and constitutional
changes in the
Preliminary Studies
In order to
develop a budget for the town of
An Analysis of the Property Tax
Base
TABLE
1 contains a tabulation of the preliminary property tax rolls inside the
proposed boundaries of the municipality.
The tax rolls were obtained from the Department of Revenue in
TABLE 1 Indian
River Ridge Study Preliminary
Tax Rolls 2006 |
|||
Land Use |
No. Parcels |
Taxable Value 2006 |
Taxable Value 2007 |
Vacant Residential Single Family Mobile Home Apartments Condos Coops Misc. Residential Total Residential Commercial Vacant Industrial Institutional & Gov’t Utilities Other Total |
172 494 1 7 55 68 3 800 1 1 108 7 32 949 |
$ 24,699,771 $139,314,302 $ 0 $ 4,093,100 $ 8,638,017 $ 1,133,876 $ 30,100 $177,909,166 $ 742,300 $ 2,600 $ 30,200 $ 3,376,800 $ 138,700 $182,199,766 |
$ 22,352,503 $143,755,782 $ 0 $ 3,803,300 $ 7,132,088 $ 1,267,038 $ 26,900 $178,337,611 $ 586,400 $ 2,600 $ 25,700 $ 3,011,700 $ 138,400 $182,102,411 |
Between 2006 and
2007, the total taxable value in the proposed boundaries declined slightly,
namely, 0.05 percent. It is instructive
to break down the changes in taxable values between properties subject to the
Save Our Homes Amendment to the Florida Constitution (SOH) and those not
subject to the Amendment. The SOH
applies to
TABLE 2 Changes in Taxable Value of Homesteaded and Non-Homesteaded Properties |
||||
Type of Property |
No. Parcels |
2006 Value |
2007 Value |
Percent Change |
Homesteaded Properties Non-Homesteaded Properties Total |
395 554 949 |
$ 81,413,064 $100,782,602 $182,199,766 |
$ 82,695,696 $ 99,406,715 $182,102,411 |
1.58 -1.37 -0.05 |
TABLE 2 shows that
between 2006 and 2007, the taxable value of
It appears
possible that the decline in taxable value of non-
TABLE
1 above showed that in 2007 over 97 percent of the taxable values within the
proposed boundaries for Indian River Ridge is accounted for by residential
properties, and over 80 percent of residential taxable value is accounted for
by single family
In January 2008,
TABLE 3 Indian
River Ridge Study Preliminary Tax Rolls 2007 |
|||
Land Use |
No. Parcels |
Taxable Value 2007 |
Adjusted
for Double |
Vacant Residential Single Family Mobile Home Apartments Condos Coops Misc. Residential Total Residential Commercial Vacant Industrial Institutional & Gov’t Utilities Other Total |
171 495 1 7 55 68 3 800 1 1 108 7 32 949 |
$ 21,970,300 $144,137,985 $ 0 $ 3,803,300 $ 7,132,088 $ 1,267,038 $ 26,900 $178,337,611 $ 586,400 $ 2,600 $ 25,700 $ 3,011,700 $ 138,400 $182,102,411 |
$ 21,970,300 $135,508,705 $ 0 $ 3,753,300 $ 6,757,088 $ 1,194,171 $ 26,900 $169,210,464 $ 586,400 $ 2,600 $ 25,700 $ 3,011,700 $ 138,400 $172,975,264 |
Note: one parcel
classified as vacant has a
There may also be
a reduction in taxable values due to the portability provision. It seems reasonable to expect that this
impact will be delayed for a couple of years because of the collapse of
An Estimate of Population in
Indian River Ridge
The starting point for developing an estimate of population in Indian River Ridge is to identify the census tracts within the area and tabulate the population reported in the 2000 Census of Population. The result is an estimated population of 1,145 as of 2000 as shown in TABLE 4 (next page). There are some small errors in the Census Data as noted in the footnote to the TABLE.
The 2000 Census also provided an estimate of the number of households in each census tract and this can be used to estimate the number of persons per household in each tract. The average number of persons per household within the Indian River Ridge boundaries in 2000 was 2.09 persons. This average was applied to the count of housing units for 2007 obtained from the 2007 property tax rolls in order to develop an estimate of the 2007 population for the proposed municipality.
The use of the
average household size across all the census tracts as reported in TABLE 4
results in a conservative estimate of the population because the average across
all the tracts is considerably less than the household sizes reported in the
four largest tracts which together account for 65 percent of the population in
the area. The estimate is also
conservative because it is assumed that only ten percent of the housing units
are vacant, or occupied by seasonal residents.
The vacancy rate may be higher or more seasonal although the close
location of Indian River Ridge relative to the employment centers of
TABLE 4 Population
indian river ridge 2000 |
|||
Census Tract-Block |
Population 2000 |
Households 2000 |
Average Household Size |
14.01-1073 14.01-1075 14.03-1087 14.03-1088 14.03-1089 16.03-1000 16.03-1001 16.03-1002 16.03-1033 16.03-1034 16.03-1035 16.03-1036 16.03-1037 16.03-1038 16.03-1039 18.01-2000 18.01-2001 18.01-2034 18.01-2036 18.01-2037 18.01-2038 18.01-2039 18.01-2040 18.01-2041 18.01-2042 18.01-2043 18.01-2044 18.01-2045 18.01-2046 Total |
12 193 3 0 9 276 21 0 0 24 2 0 6 131 16 0 5 32 28 0 144 0 16 40 82 104 0 0 1 1,145 |
7 84 1 0 3 121 12 0 0 13 2 0 3 51 8 0 2 13 17 0 63 0 8 27 42 69 0 0 1 547 |
1.71 2.30 3.00 3.00 2.28 1.75
1.85 1.00 0.0 2.00 2.57 2.00 2.50 2.46 1.65 2.29 2.00 1.48 1.95 1.51 1.00 2.09 |
Note: The population in 16.03-1000 is really in 16.03-1001 and the population in 16.03-1001 is in 16.03-1002. This data entry error may extend further across the tract. There is also a question about where the population is in 18.01-2001.
The resulting
estimate of population is presented in TABLE 5.
The estimate of 1,186 persons is very close to the census estimate for
2000. It indicates that the population is not growing rapidly, a finding
confirmed by the experience of St. Lucie Village a similar area further north
along
TABLE 5 Population Estimate 2007 |
||
Property Type |
Number of Units |
Population 2007 |
Single Family & Misc. Res. Condos Cooperatives Apartments Total |
495 55 68 11 629 |
933 104 128 21 1,186 |
Assumes 90 percent of units are occupied and 2.09 persons
per housing unit – the average from the 2000 Census. The mobile
The 2000 Census of
population had a population in the census blocks covered by the area proposed
for the new town of 1,145. The land area
in these same blocks was 3.86 square miles.
The population density per square mile of land area in 2000 was 297
persons per square mile.
A Budget for Indian River Ridge After the Transitional Year
Public service
provision in St. Lucie County relies to an unusual extent on county- wide providers funded by property tax levies
collected by St. Lucie County Government.
For example, fire and rescue services are provided this way, in contrast
to several other
The city would be responsible for public works (including roads and drainage projects) as detailed below and the city would remain in the Unincorporated MSTU for additional law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff. The organization of the town would include a part time city council of five members, a part time town clerk and a city attorney. Although the city attorney would be part time, it is expected that a major commitment of time will be needed, at least in the first five years.
Expenditures
Expenditure items from a budget for Indian River Ridge after it makes the transition to municipality status are presented in TABLE 6. Assuming the legislature approves legislation that would establish the new municipality (spring 2009), and assuming the voters approve the new municipality in a referendum (November 2009) , the first year of operation (fiscal 2009-10) will primarily be an organizational year. During this time, revenues will be limited until a new town council is elected (March 2010), a budget is adopted, and ordinances and interlocal agreements are adopted that will enable the new town to obtain access to all of the standard municipal revenues.
The transitional year will need careful attention if a decision is made to proceed to incorporation.
The expenditure
items in TABLE 6 represent a projection of the expenditures of the new
municipality after the transitional year has ended. If a decision to proceed with incorporation
is taken, a detailed negotiation with the
The
Incorporation Committee indicated that St. Lucie Village, a long established
small municipality similarly situated in St. Lucie County, can serve as a model
for the proposed municipality of Indian River Ridge. As a result, the 2007 Budget for St.
TABLE 6 Expenditures of the
Town of |
||
Item |
Amount |
Basis of Estimation |
Salaries Council members Town Clerk City Attorney Total Salaries Town Hall Office Rental Furniture & Equipment Supplies Telephone Insurance Contracted Services Building Official Sheriff Garbage Collection Comprehensive Planning Accounting Other Professional Fees Total Contracted Services Public Works Mowing Road Repair Ditch Maintenance Drainage Projects Total Public Works Addition to Reserves Total Expenditures Plus Reserves |
$ 3,000 $ 21,600 $ 70,000 $ 94,600 $ 18,750 $ 4,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 28,750 $ 20,000 $ 60,732 $ 118,000 $ 16,500 $ 15,000 $ 6,000 $ 236,232 $ 30,000 $ 50,000 $ 10,800 $ 100,000 $ 190,800 $ 82,557 $ 632,939 |
$50/Month/Council Member (LG) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) 750 sq. ft. Estimate Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Estimate $300/month rounded up 111% SLV (St. Lucie Village) 2007 Millage Applied to 2009 Taxable Value Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Three times SLV + 10% inflation Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) 5 of 100 culverts $20,000/Culvert (4SLV) 15% of expenses (a little less ½ mill) |
Note: LG = Town of Loxahatchee Groves. 2007 Millage for Sheriff = .3511 mills. 2009 taxable value $172,975,264 same as 2007 in TABLE 3.
In modeling future expenditures and revenues for the new town based on the population ratio, it was decided not to make adjustments to individual items that might appear to be too high or too low, in order to retain the objectivity of the methodology. In essence, it is assumed that items that are overestimated by this methodology are offset by other items that are under-estimated.
TABLE 6 contains expenditures of $550,382 and an addition to reserves (savings) of 15 percent of expenditures. Expressed relative to the tax base of the new municipality, the addition to reserves is a little less than one-half of a mill (.4773 mills).
Debt service has not been included on the grounds that taxpayers in the proposed municipality will continue to contribute to the three Unincorporated Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs) during the transitional year. In return for these contributions, St. Lucie County will continue to provide law enforcement, storm water drainage and comprehensive planning services. Additional costs such as half year salaries for the members of the town council, the town clerk and attorney, office costs including furniture and equipment and rent, and accounting fees will total approximately $60,000, a sum that may be obtained from state revenue sharing. To the extent that full revenue sharing is not obtained because a portion is paid to the County, the County should be asked to cover some of the transitional year budget.
Below are some comments on the individual items:
Salaries: It is unlikely that Indian River Ridge can hire a clerk or attorney for the rates paid by St. Lucie Village, especially since a new town will require extra commitments of time. The positions are budgeted at 200 percent of the St. Lucie Village figure.
Town Hall: the rent will be the outcome of negotiations
with the County. The triple net rent of
$25 per square foot was quoted by the
Contracted Services: The cost of a building official is rounded up to $20,000 from the $18,000 in the St. Lucie Village budget. It is assumed that the current construction recession will cause the amount to be unusually low. A similar low estimate will be applied to estimate building permit revenues in the next TABLE so that this expenditure is offset by a revenue item. Errors in the two projections will offset each other. Permits and inspections might be the subject of negotiation with the County, particularly in the early years when the County Zoning Code will apply. It is assumed that the Town will remain in the Law Enforcement Unincorporated MSTU and this is the projected expenditure for that item in the TABLE. Garbage collection expenditures will be offset by a garbage fee on the revenue side and again errors in the two projections will offset each other. It may be possible to delay comprehensive planning in the first year.
Public Works: about one quarter of the public works
budget is directly related to roads, of which
Drainage Projects: these
projects are the other major expense under Public Works. There are
approximately 100 unimproved roadway culverts along
TABLE 7 Revenues of the
Town of |
||
Item |
Amount |
Basis of Estimation |
Ad Valorem Taxes Tax Levied Less Collection Costs Total Ad Valorem Net State-Collected Revenue Revenue Sharing ½ cent sales tax Total State-Collected
City Taxes Communications Tax Gasoline Tax Fees & Licenses Electric Franchise Garbage Collection Building Permits Occupational Licenses Total Fees & Licenses Other Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue Interest Income Total Other Revenue Total Revenues |
$ 307,099 $ (30,710) $ 276,389 $ 25,000 $ 60,000 $ 85,000 $ 12,000 $ 24,000 $ 36,000 $ 100,000 $ 124,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,250 $ 235.250 $ 300 $ 0 $ 300 $ 632,939 |
1.7754 mills versus 1.2847 mills in 2007 10 % of levy (early discounts & non-payment) (LG used 15% collection costs) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) Twice SLV (St. Lucie Village) ½ SLV (St. Lucie Village) ½ SLV (St. Lucie Village) ½ SLV (St. Lucie Village) |
Revenues
Revenues
for Indian River Ridge after it completes the transition to municipal status
are given in TABLE 7. It is assumed that
the 2008-09 tax base will be maintained, that is, the market-induced reduction
in revenues of non-
In TABLE 7 the revenues from property taxes are a balancing item – they represent the difference between the total expenditures and addition to reserves in TABLE 6 and the total of projected revenues from other sources. The calculation is as follows:
Total Ad Valorem Net = Total expenditures in TABLE 6 = $ 632,939
Less Total Non-Ad Valorem Revenues Table 7 (the sum of all items other than Total Ad Valorem Net) = $356,550
The result of this subtraction is
$276,389. This number needs to be
divided by 90 percent to obtain the taxes levied gross of collection costs
$307,999. The gross cost divided by the
tax base in TABLE 3 of $172,975,264 and the result is expressed in mills
(tenths of a percent). The required tax
millage for the new municipality is 1.7754 mills. Property tax revenues amount to less than
fifty percent of the total revenues of the
Most of the non-ad valorem revenue items have been projected to be twice the St. Lucie Village projection for 2007-08 because the population in Indian River Ridge is approximately twice that of St. Lucie Village. The exception relates to construction related revenues which have been projected at one-half the St. Lucie Village amounts because of the recession in the industry.
5-Year Projection
A projection of
these revenues and expenditures beyond the first year is exceptionally
difficult at this time because of the uncertainties outlined later in this
report. The most prudent estimate is to
assume no growth or decline in the expenditure or revenue totals in constant
dollars.
Current Property Taxes in St. Lucie County
TABLE 7A contains the current property tax rates paid by property taxpayers in St. Lucie County. Separate columns are presented for taxpayers in the unincorporated area and tax payers in each of the county’s three municipalities. The rows of the Table distinguish various taxing authorities including St. Lucie County, the St. Lucie County Public School District, special taxing districts which collect property taxes from all county tax payers, municipal taxes collected only within a particular city, and special taxing districts which collect taxes only from taxpayers in the unincorporated area. The tax rates are presented in mills (one thousandths) and reported to 4 decimal places. A tax rate of 1 mill applied to $100,000 of taxable value would result in a tax amount of $100. The total tax rates paid by St. Lucie County taxpayers are close to 20 mills for each type of taxpayer. Twenty mills equal 2 percent. Twenty mills applied to $100,000 of taxable value would result in a tax amount of $2,000.
All
Taxpayers in each of the three municipalities in the county also pay taxes to their city governments, and taxpayers in the unincorporated area pay taxes to three special taxing districts administered by St. Lucie County. These latter districts were established at least in part as a result of the settlement of double taxation law suits whereby municipal taxpayers objected to paying for municipal services delivered by the county- wide agencies while at the same time paying their city governments for the same services. If a city has its own police services, for example, its taxpayers feel they should pay less for services provided by the sheriff than do taxpayers in the unincorporated area.
A number of the taxes are collected by Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTUs). An MSTU is a special taxing district that is established by a County or City Government to help finance the delivery of municipal (urban) services. An MSTU allows the collection of taxes from taxpayers in a geographic area whose boundaries do not have to be the same as the county or the city which establishes the MSTU. The taxing and spending decisions relevant to the MSTU are usually made by the city or county and sometimes there is a citizens advisory committee to advise the city or county in these matters.
The tax rates for the three MSTUs in the unincorporated area amount to 1.2847 mills, or $128.47 per $100,000 of taxable property value for the property taxpayers in the Indian River Ridge boundaries.
From
a property tax perspective, the decision to incorporate is a decision to
replace some or all of the 1.2847 mills collected by the unincorporated MSTUs
with a city tax rate similar to the rates charged by the existing
municipalities which range from 1.25 mills in St. Lucie Village to 5.4674
charged by
TABLE 7A Property Tax Rates in St. Lucie County Expressed in Mills (One Thousandths) |
||||
Taxing Authority |
Unin- corporated Area |
City of Ft. Pierce |
City of St. Lucie |
St. Lucie Village |
St. Lucie County: All taxpayers County Parks MSTU Erosion District E Environ Law Enf, Jail, Judicial Sys Co General Revenue Fund Sub-Total
County-Wide St. Lucie Co Public School District School Capital Improvement School Discretionary School Required Local Effort Sub-Total Public
Schools Special Taxing Districts: All taxpayers Children’s Services Council Florida Inland Navigation District South Florida Water Management District Mosquito Control Sub-Total Special
Taxing Districts Municipal Taxes Port St. Lucie St. Lucie Village Unincorporated MSTUs Unincorp. Storm Water Management Unincorp. Law Enforcement Unincorp. Community Development Sub-Total
Unincorporated MSTUs Total All Taxes |
0.2313 0.0833 0.0925 0.0766 1.9532 4.2299 0.0144 6.6642 2.0000 0.6760 4.8140 7.4900 0.3858 2.2000 0.0345 0.6240 0.2036 3.4479 0.4731 0.3511 0.4605 1.2847 20.1715 |
0.2313 0.0833 0.0925 0.0766 1.9532 4.2299 0.0144 6.6642 2.0000 0.6760 4.8140 7.4900 0.3858 2.2000 0.0345 0.6240 0.2036 3.4479 5.4674 24.1965 |
0.2313 0.0833 0.0925 0.0766 1.9532 4.2299 0.0144 6.6642 2.0000 0.6760 4.8140 7.4900 0.3858 2.2000 0.0345 0.6240 0.2036 3.4479 4.2172 22.9463 |
0.2313 0.0833 0.0925 0.0766 1.9532 4.2299 0.0144 6.6642 2.0000 0.6760 4.8140 7.4900 0.3858 2.2000 0.0345 0.6240 0.2036 3.4479 1.2500 19.9791 |
Conclusion
Currently
tax payers in the Indian River Ridge boundaries are taxed by the County through
three Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs) because they are
unincorporated. All other unincorporated
county property taxpayers are also subject to these MSTU taxes, but taxpayers
in the cities of
Fort Pierce 5.4674 mills
Port St. Lucie 4.2172 mills
The Unincorporated MSTU taxes are as follows:
Unincorporated Storm Water Management MSTU .4731 mills
Unincorporated Law Enforcement MSTU .3511 mills
Unincorporated Community Development MSTU .4605 mills
Total 1.2847 mills
The budget presented above assumes that the taxpayers of Indian River Ridge will remain in the Unincorporated Law Enforcement MSTU by inter-local agreement and that the city will collect the MSTU tax and forward the proceeds to the MSTU. The budget assumes that Indian River Ridge taxpayers do not remain in the storm water or community development MSTUs but obtain these services from their own city.
The budget in TABLES 6 and 7 would result in a property tax rate of 1.7754 mills. For ease of comparison, round this rate to 1.8 mills and round the total of the three current MSTU rates (1.2847 mills) to 1.3 mills. Comparing the two rates shows that the tax rate in a new municipality would be about one half mill above the current MSTU total (1.8 mills less 1.3 mills). It is also helpful to recall that the budget in TABLES 7 includes almost one-half of a mill to build a reserve.
TABLE 8.shows the
implications for three
TABLE 8 Impact of Incorporation on Homeowner Property Taxes |
||||||
Taxable Value |
Increased Mills |
Increased Taxes |
Mills to Build Reserves |
Dollars to Build Reserves |
Net Increase In Mills |
Net Increase in Dollars |
$100,000 $200,000 $300,000 |
0.50 0.50 0.50 |
$ 50 $100 $150 |
0.48 0.48 0.48 |
$48 $96 $144 |
0.02 0.02 0.02 |
$2 $4 $6 |
Uncertainties
There are several sources of uncertainty that should be considered in the process of deciding to move ahead to complete the feasibility study for the State Legislature. It is likely that these uncertainties will diminish in a year or two, as more information becomes available.
The expenditure side of the budget prepared here is very lean. There are very small resources for the development of a town office and one expert has indicated that the assumed cost of retrofitting the culverts along Indian River Drive is under{-}estimated. The expenditure figures also assume that no debt will be incurred during the difficult transition period after the referendum before the first full budget year is reached.
The size of the reserve, budgeted at 15 percent of total expenditures, may be too low. A single road washout might eliminate all the reserves with one project. Other municipalities have much larger reserves, as the figures for St. Lucie Village in Appendix A show.
Appendix A
2007-08 Budget for St. Lucie Village
TABLE A.1 (next page) contains the revenue sources in the budget St. Lucie Village adopted for 2007-08. It begins with the balances brought forward or reserves available at the end of the previous fiscal year. These are added to the revenue sources to show the resources available to the municipality to fund spending in the fiscal year. Borrowings are not included and are usually part of a separate capital budget where the corresponding expenditures are also listed. It is likely that St. Lucie Village does not have borrowings or a capital budget.
The
expenditures by line item from the 2007-08 St. Lucie Village Budget are
presented in TABLE A.2 on page 20.
Ending balances are the amounts anticipated to remain in various
accounts at the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year.
TABLE
A.1 Revenues of St. Lucie Village 2007-08 |
|
BALANCES
BROUGHT FORWARD |
Amount |
Checking |
$4,000 |
Money
Market (Railroad Crossings) |
$63,200 |
Ad Valorem |
$80,500 |
Parks
MSTU |
$30,075 |
TOTAL
BALANCES BROUGHT FORWARD |
$177,775 |
REVENUES: |
|
Ad Valorem Taxes (MiIlage
1.25 mills) |
$96,000 |
Electric
Franchise Fee |
$50,000 |
Local
Communications Services Tax |
$6,000 |
Alcohol
Tax |
$640 |
Occupational
Licenses |
$2,500 |
Building
Permits |
$20,000 |
Village
Hall Rental |
$2,400 |
Shade
tree Rental |
$1,200 |
State
shared revenue |
$12,500 |
Garbage
Collection |
$62,000 |
Interest |
$3,000 |
Miscellaneous
Revenues |
$600 |
One
Half Cent Sales |
$30,000 |
Gas
Tax |
$12,000 |
Parks
MSTU |
$16,000 |
DCA
Grant |
$10,000 |
TOTAL
REVENUES |
$324,840 |
TOTAL
REVENUES |
$502,615 |
TABLE
A.2 Expenditures of St. Lucie Village 2007-08 |
|
EXPENDITURES: |
|
Salaries |
|
Clerk |
$10,800 |
Marshal |
$8,220 |
Building
Official |
$18,000 |
Payroll
Tax |
$3,000 |
Insurance |
$23,000 |
Legal
Fees and Costs |
$35,000 |
Amend
Zoning and Comp Plan |
$5,000 |
Village
Hall |
|
Supplies |
$500 |
Utilities |
$4,500 |
Repairs,
Maintenance & Renovation |
$3,500 |
Cleaning |
$650 |
Patrol
Car |
$2,000 |
Public
Works |
|
|
$6,000 |
Street
Lights |
$6,000 |
Mowing |
$15,000 |
Road
Repair |
$25,000 |
Ditch
Maintenance |
$5,400 |
Drainage
Projects |
$25,000 |
Rouse
Road MSBU |
$7,760 |
Crossing
Repair/Contingency |
$39,000 |
Accounting
Services |
$7,500 |
Other
Professional Fees |
$3,000 |
Garbage
Collection |
$59,000 |
Other
(Miscellaneous) |
$2,500 |
School |
|
Utilities |
$3,000 |
Renovation |
$6,000 |
Cleaning |
$1,800 |
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES |
$326,130 |
ENDING
BALANCES (RESERVES) |
|
Checking |
$37,285 |
Money
Market |
$24,200 |
Ad
Valorem |
$75,000 |
Parks
MSTU |
$40,000 |
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES |
$502,615 |
Appendix B
Tables Presented to the Incorporation Committee
and Not Included
in the Body of the Report
It should be noted that a number of the tables that follow contain data for the 2006 fiscal year.
TABLE 2 2006 Preliminary Tax Rolls |
||
Land Use |
No. Parcels |
Taxable Value 2006 |
Vacant Residential Single Family Mobile Homes Apartments < 10 Misc. Residential Total Residential Vacant Commercial Developed Commercial Industrial Other Total |
69 243 12 6 6 336 18 20 9 36 419 |
$ 6,653,491 $ 40,195,608 $ 773,302 $ 959,574 $ 717,000 $ 49,298,975 $ 6,008,800 $ 7,075,200 $ 5,594,900 $ 1,060,700 $ 69,038,575 |
Note:
table 3 sewall’s point 2006 preliminary tax rolls |
||
Land Use |
No. Parcel |
Taxable Value |
Vacant Residential Single Family Apartments Condos Coops Misc. Residential Total Residential Commercial Utilities Other Total |
101 879
20 1,000 4
23 1,027 |
$ 56,193,510 $569,045,201 $ 25,442,610 $650,681,321 $ 13,150,130 $ 200 $650,681,321 |
TABLE 6 Population Estimate 2006 |
|
|||
Property Type |
Population 2006 |
|
||
Indian River Ridge Sewall’s Point |
1,221 572 2,024 |
|
||
TABLE 8 AD VALOREM REVENUES INDIAN RIVER RIDGE |
||||
|
MILLAGE |
REVENUES |
||
Indian River Ridge 2007 St. Lucie Village 2006 |
1.5000 1.5000 |
$ 269,286 $ 103,558 |
||
TABLE 9 MILLAGE RATES INDIAN
RIVER RIDGE |
||
|
Indian River Ridge |
Sewall’s Point |
Co. General Revenue
Fund |
4.2734 |
4.9280 |
Law Enf, Jail,
Judicial Sys |
2.3778 |
|
Environ |
0.0823 |
0.0290 |
Other |
0.0154 |
0.0850 |
County Parks MSTU |
0.2500 |
|
Co Public Transit MSTU |
0.0900 |
|
Erosion District E |
0.0100 |
|
County |
7.1889 |
5.0420 |
Schools Total |
7.7370 |
6.7440 |
St. Lucie Co. Fire
District |
2.4562 |
|
Mosquito Control |
0.2200 |
|
Children’s Service
Council |
0.3915 |
0.3202 |
Fl Inland
Navigation Dist |
0.0385 |
0.0385 |
S FL Water Mgmt
District |
0.6970 |
0.6970 |
Taxing Districts |
3.8032 |
3.8032 |
Unincorp. Storm
Water Mgt |
|
|
Comm. Dev & Law
Enforce. |
1.2911 |
|
Sewall’s Point |
|
2.4000 |
Total |
20.0202 |
15.2417 |
Note: there are more countywide taxes in St. Lucie County.
See especially the Law Enforcement, Jail and Judicial System,
as well as Fire District.
Also,
than St. Lucie. As a result, tax millage rates can be lower.
TABLE 10 AD VALOREM REVENUES INDIAN RIVER RIDGE |
||
|
MILLAGE |
REVENUES |
Indian River Ridge (2007) Sewalls’ Point (2006) |
1.2911 2.4000 |
$ 231,783 $ 1,561,634 |
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations are drawn exclusively from a review of the statutory provisions for the formation, merger, and dissolution of municipalities.
This purpose is the mandate of the State of Florida, and while all points and well taken and necessary points to be considered in the formation of a new municipality they are also points, in many cases, which are contrary to our essential purpose – that being the limitation on the provision of “public services” and the retention of our current, and historical rural character.
a) must be compact and contiguous
By the limits and boundaries proposed we can argue contiguity, compactness would be a somewhat harder “sell” being roughly 11 ½ miles long and roughly 0.8 mile wide (as an “average”). However, this IS our community as it has historically been established, developed, and “guarded” through the efforts of The Indian River Drive Freeholders, Inc. established in 1938..
b) must have a total population …. Of at least 5,000 … in counties with a population of more than 75,000
With an “official – 2000 Census” population of 1,152 … even knowing that that information is flawed with errors of omission, we could probably not reasonably argue for a current population of greater than 1,600 – 1,800 … still far shy of the 5000 required. We can “wish” and point out many municipalities with populations less than this … but … this is the law as revised and adopted in 1974.
c) must have an average population density of at least 1.5 persons per acre
Without going to extraordinary efforts to accurately calculate acreage, I roughly estimate acreages for our town as 5,950 Total – and break this down as roughly 3500a – as River, 1035a as Savannas, and 1415a as “developable lands”.
Based on census population and Total area this is – 0.19 persons per acre.
Based on Census population and “developable lands” this is a density of - 0.74 persons per acre. Based on an adjusted population estimate and “developable lands” this is – 1.27 persons per acre which gets “closer”, based on “adjustments to required measures” but it still does not meet the requirements. What we seem to envision as the desired future for our town “might” max out, or approach, 1.5 persons per acre (+/-) … of developable lands.
c) continues
by including an “out” which could be argued – “or
have extraordinary conditions requiring the establishment of a municipal
corporation with less existing density.
d) must have a minimum distance of any part of the area proposed for incorporation from the boundaries of an existing municipality within the county of at least 2 miles
The boundaries we’ve selected are
coincident with the boundaries of Port St. Lucie for the South 4 miles and with
d) continues
by again including an “out” which could be argued – “or
have an extraordinary natural boundary which requires separate municipal
government
e) must have a proposed municipal charter
This is
“the least of the challenges” which we face and is “merely” a matter of either
“doing it” or having it prepared.
From an
analysis of the “musts” and “must haves” required for consideration
of incorporation of a new municipality any reasonable person – and we must
assume that our elected legislators, both House and Senate, are reasonable –
would conclude that this is not a feasible request – even without addressing
economic feasibility. Further, these
representatives are sworn to uphold the constitution and laws in force. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to even
ask them to support our desire under the “basic” provisions of s 165. It is my conclusion that “lobbying” efforts
directed
toward our local State of
HOWEVER, s. 165.1.c includes by reference to s. 163.3217 – municipal incorporation by municipal overlay (of the Counties comprehensive plan) a method with a possible chance of success. I mentioned this in committee shortly after becoming involved in 2002. However, a path and “strategy” had already been established. This method for incorporation of new municipalities appears to be specifically “tailored” to our situation and desires and does give our legislators reason and opportunity to support waiver of the “musts and must haves” addressed in s 165.
For this reason, it is my RECOMMENDATION that the direction of our committee be shifted to a determination: Has St. Lucie County adopted by Ordinance or Local Act “municipal incorporation for municipal incorporation pursuant to s 163.3217?
If not, I recommend - we need to direct out lobbying efforts to the St. Lucie County Commission for it’s adoption by ordinance of s. 163.3217 and their voiced support by adoption of that ordinance to our efforts toward the completion of our Incorporation Feasibility Study.
Representatives of this committee
have visited our District Commissioner, Cliff Barnes, who is also – at present
– the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. He has expressed support of our desire to
incorporate. However, he is not running
for reelection in the coming term.
Therefore time is short, and possibly past, for what might be our “best
shot” in having this provision adopted.
TERRITORIAL LIMITS
The territorial limits of the Town of INDIAN RIVER RIDGE are
hereby defined and shall be as follows (Proceeding from the South, the common
Township 37 South, Range 41 East
Section 10
All of fractional Section 10, bounded on the South by the common South Line of St. Lucie County, Florida and North Line of Martin County, Florida … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said fractional Section 10, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 9 (the Southern
½)
All of Govt. Lot 3, bounded on the West by SW ¼ of Section 9 T37S R41E - lands of the City of Port St. Lucie as established 27 April 1961 by HB 953 and filed in the Official Records of St. Lucie County, Florida – Book 10, Pages 1 -37 and on the South by the common South Line of St. Lucie County, Florida and North Line of Martin County, Florida. — “OK”—
All of Govt. Lot 4, bounded on the South by the common South Line of St. Lucie County, Florida and North Line of Martin County, Florida … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 4, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 9 (the Northern
½)
All of Govt. Lot 2 and bounded on the West by Govt. Lot 1 of Section 9 T37S R41E and on the South by the SW ¼ of Section 9 T37S R41E - lands of the City of Port St. Lucie as established 27 April 1961 by HB 953 and filed in the Official Records of St. Lucie County, Florida – Book 10, Pages 1 -37. — “OK”—
Section 9 (the
Northern ½, Cont.)
All of that portion of a parcel of land known as “Grant’s
Permit” situate within Section 9 T37S R41E… plus the submerged lands of the
State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River
Lagoon with the boundaries of said “Grant’s Permit” on the South and the North line of Section 9, projected easterly to the
center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 4 (the South ½)
All of Govt. Lot 2, bounded on the West by the SE ¼ Section
5 T37S R41E and on the South by Govt. Lot 1 of Section 9 T37S R41E - lands of
the City of Port St. Lucie as established 27 April 1961 by HB 953 and filed in
the Official Records of St. Lucie County, Florida – Book 10, Pages 1 -37. — “OK”—
All of Govt. Lot 3, and all of that portion of land known as “Grant’s Permit” situate within Section 4 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida and others from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said South ½ of Section 4, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 4 (the North
½)
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 5 (the North
½)
All of the E ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 5, bounded on the West
by the W ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 5 and
on the South by the SE ¼ of Section 5 - lands of the City of Port St. Lucie as
established 27 April 1961 by HB 953 and filed in the Official Records of St.
Lucie County, Florida – Book 10, Pages 1 -37.
— “OK”—
Township 36 South, Range 41 East
Section 33
All of Govt. Lot 1… plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 32 (The South
½)
All of Govt. Lot 3 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 3, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less the following lands:
1. A parcel of land situate in Govt. Lot 3 of Section 32 described as:
“The West Part of Govt. Lot 3 (
Said parcel is included in the
municipal limits of the City of
All of Govt. Lot 2 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 2, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less the following lands:
1. Lands situate within the central portion of Govt. Lot 2 described as:
“A parcel of land
beginning at a point on the West Bank of the Indian River (St. Lucie Sound) 5
Chains and 20 Links South of the North line of Government Lot 2: thence West parallel to said lot line 30
Chains and 20 Links to the West line of said Lot 2: thence South along the said West line to a
point 5 Chains and 18 Links North of the South line of said Lot 2: thence East parallel to South line of said
Lot 2 to the West Bank of the Indian River:
thence northwesterly along the River Shore to the point of beginning.”
Said parcel is included in the
municipal limits of the City of
Section 32 (The North
½) – check
& double check these descriptions
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less the following lands:
1. That portion of lands situate within the North 738.1 feet of Government Lot 1 annexed into the Municipal Limits of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida by Ordinance 73-15 dated 26 June 1973 as recorded in the Official Records of St., Lucie County, Florida in OR Book 317 Pages 2773 and 2774. — “OK”—
All of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 32 T 36S
Less the following lands:
1. That portion of lands situate within the North 738.1 feet of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 32 T36S R41E which was annexed into the Municipal Limits of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida by Ordinance 73-15 dated 26 June 1973 as recorded in the Official Records of St., Lucie County, Florida in OR Book 317 Pages 2773 and 2774. — “OK”—
2 That portion of lands situate within the South 581.9 feet of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 32 T36S R41E which was annexed into the Municipal Limits of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida by Ordinance 73-15 dated 26 June 1973 as recorded in the Official Records of St., Lucie County, Florida in OR Book 317 Pages 2773 and 2774. — “OK”—
Section 29 (The South
½) – check
& double check these descriptions
All of Govt. Lot 3 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 3, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less the following lands:
1. That portion of lands situate within Government Lot 3 which was annexed into the Municipal Limits of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida by Ordinance 73-15 dated 26 June 1973 as recorded in the Official Records of St., Lucie County, Florida in Official Records Book 317 Pages 2773 and 2774.
— “OK”—
Section 29 (The South
½, cont.) – check
& double check these descriptions
All of Govt. Lot 2 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 2, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less the following lands:
2. That portion of lands situate within Government Lot 2 which was annexed into the Municipal Limits of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida by Ordinance 73-15 dated 26 June 1973 as recorded in the Official Records of St., Lucie County, Florida in Official Records Book 317 Pages 2773 and 2774.
— “OK”—
Section 29 (The North
½)
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 30 (The North
½ Section)
All of the E ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 30, bounded on the West by the West ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 30 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida) and on the South by the SE ¼ of Section 30 (lands of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 20
All of fractional Section 20 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 19 (The South
½)
All of Govt. Lots 3 … plus the submerged lands of the State
of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon
with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 2 and 3, projected easterly to the
center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, bounded on the
West by the SW ¼ of Section 19 and on the South by the W ½ of the NE ¼ of
Section 30 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 19 (The South ½, Cont.)
All of Govt. Lot 2 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 2 and 3, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, bounded on the West by the SW ¼ of Section 19 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 19 (The North
½ Section)
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
All of the NW ¼ of Section 19 T36S R41E, bounded on the West by the NE ¼ of Section 24 T36S R40E and on the South by the SW ¼ of Section 19 T36S R41E (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 18
All of Govt. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Section 18, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, bounded on the West by Section 13 T36S R40E (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 7
All of fractional Section 7 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Fractional Section 7, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Township 36 South, Range 40 East
Section 12 (South ½)
All of the E ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 12 T36S R40E, bounded on the South by the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 13 and on the West by the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
All of the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12 T36S R40E, bounded on the South by the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12 and on the West by the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 12 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 12 (North ½)
All of Govt. Lots 1 and 2 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lots 1 and 2, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, bounded on the West by the NW ¼ of Section 12 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 1 (South ½)
All of Govt. Lot 3 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 3, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, Bounded on the West by the W ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 1 and on the South by the NW ¼ of Section 12 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
All of Govt. Lot 2 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 2, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel, bounded on the West by W ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 1 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Section 1 (North ½)
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 1 (North ½,
Cont.)
All of the W ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 1 T36S R40E, bounded on the West by the NE ¼ of Section 2 and on the South by the W ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 1 (unincorporated lands of St. Lucie County, Florida). — “OK”—
Township 35 South, Range 40 East
Section 36 (South ½) – check &
double check these descriptions
All of Govt. Lot 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less - lands annexed into the City of
*************************
TBD *******************************
Section 36 (North ½)
All of that portion of a parcel of land known as the “W.B.Davis Permit” lying within Section 36 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Section 36 and said “W.B. Davis Permit”, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
Section 35 (North ½)
All of that portion of a parcel of land known as the “W.B.Davis Permit” lying within Section 35 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Section 35 and said “W.B. Davis Permit”, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less - lands annexed into the City of
*************************
TBD *******************************
Section 26 (South ½)
All of that portion of a parcel of land known as the “W.B.Davis Permit” lying within Section 26 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Section 26 and said “W.B. Davis Permit”, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less - lands annexed into the City of
*************************
TBD *******************************
All of Govt. Lot 4 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 4, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel. — “OK”—
All of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 26, bounded on the West by the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 26 and on the South by the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 26 (lands of the City of Ft. Pierce, Florida).
**************** Annexation details
TBD **************
Section 26 (North ½
Section)
All of Govt. Lot 3… plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 3, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less lands annexed into the City of Fort Pierce by Ordinance I-231, I-232, I-233, and I-234 dated 11 September 1987 - recorded in the Official Records of St. Lucie County, Florida in OR Book ** Pages ******
All of Govt. Lots 1 … plus the submerged lands of the State of Florida from the intersection of the West bank of the Indian River Lagoon with the boundaries of said Govt. Lot 1, projected easterly to the center line of the Intracoastal Waterway’s navigation channel.
Less lands annexed into the City of
Territorial Limits
Township 37 South, Range 41 East
Sections 4 & 5
Figure 2
Sections 9 & 10
Figure 1
Territorial Limits
Township 36 South, Range 41 East
Sections 29 & 30
Figure 4
Sections 33
Figure 3
Territorial Limits
Township 36 South, Range 41 East
Sections 18
Figure 6
Sections 19 & 20
Figure 5
Territorial Limits
Township 36 South, Range 40 East
Sections 1
Figure 8
Township 36 South, Range 41 East Section 7
Township 36 South, Range 40 East
Sections 12
Figure 7
Territorial Limits
Township 35 South, Range 40 East
Section 26
Figure 10
Sections 35 & 36
Figure 9
Year 2000 Census Data
Block Locations and Descriptions
Tract |
Block |
Map |
Block Description |
18.01 |
2001 |
36 |
"PSL" -
South of Walton & West of SIRD |
18.01 |
2034 |
45,
44,36 |
West of FEC Rwy -
Co Line to E&W of FEC -
North of River View Dr to PSL properties at |
18.01 |
2036 |
44 |
Small enclave
between River View Dr & Walton Rd. |
18.01 |
2038 |
45
& 44 |
Prop between |
18.01 |
2040 |
45 |
Prop between
Pleasant |
18.01 |
2041 |
45 |
Prop between " |
18.01 |
2042 |
45 |
- between " |
18.01 |
2043 |
45 |
South of Netherby
Properties - |
18.01 |
2046 |
45 |
Wetland Way
properties |
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
36
& 28 |
East of SIRD - North
of Walton Woods to |
16.03 |
1001 |
36
& 28 |
East of FEC Ry,
West of SIRD, North of Walton
Woods to |
16.03 |
1034 |
36 |
East of SIRD -
North of "PSL" to North end of Walton Woods |
16.03 |
1035 |
36 |
"Walton
Woods" - South part |
16.03 |
1037 |
36 |
Walton Community - West of SIRD
between |
16.03 |
1038 |
36 |
Walton Community - West of |
16.03 |
1039 |
36 |
Walton Community - West of SIRD,
South of |
16.03 |
1040 |
36 |
Walton Community - Ridge Circle |
16.03 |
1041 |
36 |
Walton Community - South of |
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
28 |
West of FEC, North
of Midway to |
14.01 |
1075 |
28 |
East of FEC, West
of SIRD, North of
Indianapolis St to Ft Pierce parcels |
14.01 |
1087 |
28 |
North of East of |
14.01 |
1089 |
28 |
North of Midway,
West of SIRD, East of FEC, South
of Indianapolis St. |
NOTE: ONLY those blocks reported as containing population have been included. There are several additional “blocks” which should, but which have been reported as containing “zero population”. Also to one with an intimate knowledge of the area, there are several cases of population and dwellings reported in incorrect “blocks”.
Year 2000 Census Data
Population and Median Age
|
|
Total Population |
Urban Population |
Rural Population |
Median Age Males |
Median Age Females |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tract |
Block |
P1 |
P2a |
P2b |
P13a |
P13b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
28.0 |
40.5 |
18.01 |
2034 |
32 |
32 |
0 |
47.5 |
44.5 |
18.01 |
2036 |
28 |
28 |
0 |
34.5 |
43.3 |
18.01 |
2038 |
144 |
144 |
0 |
46.2 |
47.2 |
18.01 |
2040 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
36.5 |
57.5 |
18.01 |
2041 |
40 |
40 |
0 |
25.3 |
39.5 |
18.01 |
2042 |
82 |
82 |
0 |
40.0 |
48.3 |
18.01 |
2043 |
104 |
104 |
0 |
62.5 |
72.5 |
18.01 |
2046 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0.0 |
66.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
452 |
452 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
276 |
276 |
0 |
49.5 |
48.9 |
16.03 |
1001 |
21 |
0 |
21 |
45.0 |
72.8 |
16.03 |
1034 |
24 |
24 |
0 |
38.5 |
70.5 |
16.03 |
1035 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.0 |
61.5 |
16.03 |
1037 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
39.0 |
52.5 |
16.03 |
1038 |
131 |
131 |
0 |
48.0 |
47.5 |
16.03 |
1039 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
45.8 |
53.5 |
16.03 |
1040 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
63.5 |
37.5 |
16.03 |
1041 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
39.0 |
57.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
483 |
460 |
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
49.5 |
44.5 |
14.01 |
1075 |
193 |
193 |
0 |
49.8 |
48.7 |
14.01 |
1087 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
61.5 |
74 |
14.01 |
1089 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
47.5 |
39.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
217 |
205 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
1152 |
1117 |
35 |
|
|
Year 2000 Census Data
Age by Sex
Male: |
584 |
Female: |
568 |
Total: |
1152 |
Under 5 years |
16 |
Under 5 years |
6 |
Under 5 years |
22 |
5 to 9 years |
26 |
5 to 9 years |
20 |
5 to 9 years |
46 |
10 to 14 years |
49 |
10 to 14 years |
31 |
10 to 14 years |
80 |
15 to 17 years |
18 |
15 to 17 years |
16 |
15 to 17 years |
34 |
18 and 19 years |
4 |
18 and 19 years |
6 |
18 and 19 years |
10 |
20 years |
3 |
20 years |
3 |
20 years |
6 |
21 years |
5 |
21 years |
5 |
21 years |
10 |
22 to 24 years |
9 |
22 to 24 years |
9 |
22 to 24 years |
18 |
25 to 29 years |
21 |
25 to 29 years |
16 |
25 to 29 years |
37 |
30 to 34 years |
23 |
30 to 34 years |
23 |
30 to 34 years |
46 |
35 to 39 years |
36 |
35 to 39 years |
36 |
35 to 39 years |
72 |
40 to 44 years |
43 |
40 to 44 years |
56 |
40 to 44 years |
99 |
45 to 49 years |
65 |
45 to 49 years |
70 |
45 to 49 years |
135 |
50 to 54 years |
74 |
50 to 54 years |
45 |
50 to 54 years |
119 |
55 to 59 years |
41 |
55 to 59 years |
31 |
55 to 59 years |
72 |
60 and 61 years |
15 |
60 and 61 years |
20 |
60 and 61 years |
35 |
62 to 64 years |
20 |
62 to 64 years |
19 |
62 to 64 years |
39 |
65 and 66 years |
12 |
65 and 66 years |
9 |
65 and 66 years |
21 |
67 to 69 years |
19 |
67 to 69 years |
22 |
67 to 69 years |
41 |
70 to 74 years |
28 |
70 to 74 years |
35 |
70 to 74 years |
63 |
75 to 79 years |
28 |
75 to 79 years |
36 |
75 to 79 years |
64 |
80 to 84 years |
20 |
80 to 84 years |
33 |
80 to 84 years |
53 |
85 years and over |
9 |
85 years and over |
21 |
85 years and over |
30 |
Year 2000 Census Data
Race
|
|
White Only |
Black Only |
Am.
Indian Or
Alaskan Only |
Hawaiian Or
Pacific Islander Only |
Other Only |
Two
Or
More Only |
Pop.
By Race Total |
Tract |
Block |
P7a |
P7b |
P7c |
P7d |
P7e |
P7f |
P7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
18.01 |
2034 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
18.01 |
2036 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
28 |
18.01 |
2038 |
132 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
144 |
18.01 |
2040 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
18.01 |
2041 |
40 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
40 |
18.01 |
2042 |
77 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
82 |
18.01 |
2043 |
102 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
104 |
18.01 |
2046 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
428 |
10 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
274 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
276 |
16.03 |
1001 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
21 |
16.03 |
1034 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
16.03 |
1035 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
16.03 |
1037 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
16.03 |
1038 |
127 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
131 |
16.03 |
1039 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
16.03 |
1040 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
16.03 |
1041 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
474 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
483 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
14.01 |
1075 |
190 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
193 |
14.01 |
1087 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
14.01 |
1089 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
214 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
1116 |
15 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
9 |
1152 |
Year 2000 Census Data
Households
|
|
House Holds |
Pop. |
House Hold Size |
Family House Holds |
Pop In Families |
Avg. Family Size |
Non Family House Holds |
Pop. In Non Family |
Avg. Non Family Size |
Tract |
Block |
P15 |
P16 |
P17 |
P26a |
P32 |
|
P26b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
2 |
5 |
2.50 |
1 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
18.01 |
2034 |
13 |
32 |
2.46 |
10 |
28 |
2.80 |
3 |
4 |
1.33 |
18.01 |
2036 |
17 |
28 |
1.65 |
5 |
13 |
2.60 |
12 |
15 |
1.25 |
18.01 |
2038 |
63 |
144 |
2.29 |
38 |
104 |
2.74 |
25 |
40 |
1.60 |
18.01 |
2040 |
8 |
16 |
2.00 |
2 |
7 |
3.50 |
6 |
9 |
1.50 |
18.01 |
2041 |
27 |
40 |
1.48 |
8 |
18 |
2.25 |
19 |
22 |
1.16 |
18.01 |
2042 |
42 |
82 |
1.95 |
23 |
57 |
2.48 |
19 |
25 |
1.32 |
18.01 |
2043 |
69 |
104 |
1.51 |
22 |
50 |
2.27 |
47 |
54 |
1.15 |
18.01 |
2046 |
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
242 |
452 |
1.87 |
109 |
281 |
2.58 |
133 |
171 |
1.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
121 |
276 |
2.28 |
92 |
233 |
2.53 |
29 |
43 |
1.48 |
16.03 |
1001 |
12 |
21 |
1.75 |
6 |
15 |
2.50 |
6 |
6 |
1.00 |
16.03 |
1034 |
13 |
24 |
1.85 |
7 |
18 |
2.57 |
6 |
6 |
1.00 |
16.03 |
1035 |
2 |
2 |
1.00 |
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
2 |
1.00 |
16.03 |
1037 |
3 |
6 |
2.00 |
2 |
4 |
2.00 |
1 |
2 |
2.00 |
16.03 |
1038 |
51 |
131 |
2.57 |
37 |
107 |
2.89 |
14 |
24 |
1.71 |
16.03 |
1039 |
8 |
16 |
2.00 |
5 |
11 |
2.20 |
3 |
5 |
1.67 |
16.03 |
1040 |
1 |
3 |
3.00 |
1 |
3 |
3.00 |
0 |
0 |
|
16.03 |
1041 |
3 |
4 |
1.33 |
1 |
2 |
2.00 |
2 |
2 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
214 |
483 |
2.26 |
151 |
393 |
2.60 |
63 |
90 |
1.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
7 |
12 |
1.71 |
2 |
6 |
3.00 |
5 |
6 |
1.20 |
14.01 |
1075 |
84 |
193 |
2.30 |
62 |
159 |
2.56 |
22 |
34 |
1.55 |
14.01 |
1087 |
1 |
3 |
3.00 |
1 |
3 |
3.00 |
0 |
0 |
|
14.01 |
1089 |
3 |
9 |
3.00 |
3 |
9 |
3.00 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
95 |
217 |
2.28 |
68 |
177 |
2.60 |
27 |
40 |
1.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
551 |
1152 |
2.09 |
328 |
851 |
2.59 |
223 |
301 |
1.35 |
Year 2000 Census Data
Household Occupancy
|
|
Housing Units Occupied |
Housing Units Vacant |
Vacant For
Rent |
Vacant For
|
Vacant Rented Or Sold Not
Yet Occupied |
Vacant Seasonal Recreational Occasional |
Vacant Other |
Tract |
Block |
H3a |
H3b |
H5a |
H5b |
H5c |
H5d |
H5e |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2034 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
18.01 |
2036 |
17 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
18.01 |
2038 |
63 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
18.01 |
2040 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2041 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2042 |
42 |
22 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
13 |
1 |
18.01 |
2043 |
69 |
49 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
46 |
1 |
18.01 |
2046 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
242 |
78 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
63 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
121 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
16.03 |
1001 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
16.03 |
1034 |
13 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
16.03 |
1035 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
16.03 |
1037 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
16.03 |
1038 |
51 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
16.03 |
1039 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1040 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1041 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
214 |
23 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
11 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
14.01 |
1075 |
84 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
14.01 |
1087 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14.01 |
1089 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
95 |
13 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
551 |
114 |
9 |
6 |
5 |
80 |
14 |
Year 2000 Census Data
Household Size
|
|
House Holds |
1-Person |
2-Person |
3-Person |
4-Person |
5-Person |
6-Person |
7-Person or
more |
Tract |
Block |
H13 |
H13a |
H13b |
H13c |
H13d |
H13e |
H13f |
H13g |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2034 |
13 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2036 |
17 |
9 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2038 |
63 |
19 |
23 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
18.01 |
2040 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2041 |
27 |
16 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2042 |
42 |
15 |
18 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2043 |
69 |
40 |
25 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.01 |
2046 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
121 |
20 |
70 |
16 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
16.03 |
1001 |
12 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1034 |
13 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1035 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1037 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1038 |
51 |
8 |
23 |
11 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
16.03 |
1039 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1040 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16.03 |
1041 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
214 |
47 |
108 |
33 |
16 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14.01 |
1075 |
84 |
16 |
46 |
7 |
13 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
14.01 |
1087 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14.01 |
1089 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
95 |
20 |
49 |
9 |
15 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
551 |
174 |
245 |
68 |
47 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
Year 2000 Census Data
Households and Housing Units
|
|
Households |
Housing Units |
Housing
Units Per Household |
Census
Tract |
Block |
P15 |
H1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.01 |
2001 |
2 |
2 |
1.00 |
18.01 |
2034 |
13 |
14 |
1.08 |
18.01 |
2036 |
17 |
18 |
1.06 |
18.01 |
2038 |
63 |
68 |
1.08 |
18.01 |
2040 |
8 |
8 |
1.00 |
18.01 |
2041 |
27 |
27 |
1.00 |
18.01 |
2042 |
42 |
64 |
1.52 |
18.01 |
2043 |
69 |
118 |
1.71 |
18.01 |
2046 |
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
South |
Subtotal |
242 |
320 |
1.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
16.03 |
1000 |
121 |
130 |
1.07 |
16.03 |
1001 |
12 |
14 |
1.17 |
16.03 |
1034 |
13 |
17 |
1.31 |
16.03 |
1035 |
2 |
4 |
2.00 |
16.03 |
1037 |
3 |
5 |
1.67 |
16.03 |
1038 |
51 |
55 |
1.08 |
16.03 |
1039 |
8 |
8 |
1.00 |
16.03 |
1040 |
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
16.03 |
1041 |
3 |
3 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
Subtotal |
214 |
237 |
1.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
14.01 |
1073 |
7 |
9 |
1.29 |
14.01 |
1075 |
84 |
95 |
1.13 |
14.01 |
1087 |
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
14.01 |
1089 |
3 |
3 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
North |
Subtotal |
95 |
108 |
1.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
551 |
665 |
1.21 |
Incorporation Feasibility Study
November 2004
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
TOWN OF
INDIAN
RIVER RIDGE
Incorporation
Feasibility Study
November
2004
IMPACT ANALYSIS