Florida Senate - 2013                        COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
       Bill No. SB 972
                                Barcode 243214                          
                              LEGISLATIVE ACTION                        
                    Senate             .             House              
                  Comm: RCS            .                                
                  03/21/2013           .                                

       The Committee on Community Affairs (Hukill) recommended the
    1         Senate Amendment (with title amendment)
    3         Delete lines 26 - 211
    4  and insert:
    5         Section 1. Paragraph (h) of subsection (5) of section
    6  163.3180, Florida Statutes, is amended, and paragraph (i) is
    7  added to that subsection, to read:
    8         163.3180 Concurrency.—
    9         (5)
   10         (h)1. Local governments that continue to implement a
   11  transportation concurrency system, whether in the form adopted
   12  into the comprehensive plan before July 1, 2011, or as
   13  subsequently modified, must:
   14         a.1. Consult with the Department of Transportation when
   15  proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic
   16  intermodal system.
   17         b.2. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. For
   18  the purposes of this sub-subparagraph subparagraph, public
   19  transit facilities include transit stations and terminals;
   20  transit station parking; park-and-ride lots; intermodal public
   21  transit connection or transfer facilities; fixed bus, guideway,
   22  and rail stations; and airport passenger terminals and
   23  concourses, air cargo facilities, and hangars for the assembly,
   24  manufacture, maintenance, or storage of aircraft. As used in
   25  this sub-subparagraph subparagraph, the terms “terminals” and
   26  “transit facilities” do not include seaports or commercial or
   27  residential development constructed in conjunction with a public
   28  transit facility.
   29         c.3. Allow an applicant for a development-of-regional
   30  impact development order, development agreement, a rezoning, or
   31  other land use development permit to satisfy the transportation
   32  concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the
   33  local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06,
   34  when applicable, if:
   35         (I)a. The applicant in good faith offers to enter enters
   36  into a binding agreement to pay for or construct its
   37  proportionate share of required improvements in a manner
   38  consistent with this subsection.
   39         (II)b. The proportionate-share contribution or construction
   40  is sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements
   41  that will benefit a regionally significant transportation
   42  facility. A local government may accept contributions from
   43  multiple applicants for a planned improvement if it maintains
   44  contributions in a separate account designated for that purpose.
   45         d.c.(I)Provide the basis upon which The local government
   46  has provided a means by which the landowners landowner will be
   47  assessed a proportionate share of the cost of addressing the
   48  transportation impacts resulting from a providing the
   49  transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed
   50  development.
   51         2. An applicant may shall not be held responsible for the
   52  additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies.
   53         (II) When an applicant contributes or constructs its
   54  proportionate share pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph, a
   55  local government may not require payment or construction of
   56  transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a
   57  development’s proportionate share of the improvements necessary
   58  to mitigate the development’s impacts.
   59         a.(A) The proportionate-share contribution shall be
   60  calculated based upon the number of trips from the proposed
   61  development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from
   62  the stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the
   63  peak hour maximum service volume of roadways resulting from
   64  construction of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve
   65  the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction
   66  cost, at the time of development payment, of the improvement
   67  necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service.
   68         b.(B) In using the proportionate-share formula provided in
   69  this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall
   70  identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation
   71  deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as
   72  defined in subparagraph 4 sub-subparagraph e. The proportionate
   73  share formula provided in this subparagraph shall be applied
   74  only to those facilities that are determined to be significantly
   75  impacted by the project traffic under review. If any road is
   76  determined to be transportation deficient without the project
   77  traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency
   78  shall be removed from the project’s proportionate-share
   79  calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to
   80  correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for
   81  purposes of the proportionate-share calculation. The improvement
   82  necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the
   83  funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance
   84  responsibility for the facility. The development’s proportionate
   85  share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation
   86  improvements that are greater than the identified deficiency.
   87         c.(C) When the provisions of subparagraph 1. and this
   88  subparagraph have been satisfied for a particular stage or phase
   89  of development, all transportation impacts from that stage or
   90  phase for which mitigation was required and provided shall be
   91  deemed fully mitigated in any transportation analysis for a
   92  subsequent stage or phase of development. Trips from a previous
   93  stage or phase that did not result in impacts for which
   94  mitigation was required or provided may be cumulatively analyzed
   95  with trips from a subsequent stage or phase to determine whether
   96  an impact requires mitigation for the subsequent stage or phase.
   97         d.(D) In projecting the number of trips to be generated by
   98  the development under review, any trips assigned to a toll
   99  financed facility shall be eliminated from the analysis.
  100         e.(E) The applicant shall receive a credit on a dollar-for
  101  dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other
  102  transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or
  103  payable in the future for the project. The credit shall be
  104  reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the
  105  project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the
  106  selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local
  107  ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit.
  108         3.d. This subsection does not require a local government to
  109  approve a development that is not otherwise qualified for
  110  approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and
  111  land development regulations for reasons other than
  112  transportation impacts.
  113         4.e. As used in this subsection, the term “transportation
  114  deficiency” means a facility or facilities on which the adopted
  115  level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing,
  116  committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected
  117  background trips from any source other than the development
  118  project under review, and trips that are forecast by established
  119  traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with
  120  the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business
  121  Research medium population projections. Additional projected
  122  background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage
  123  or phase of development under review.
  124         (i) If a local government elects to repeal transportation
  125  concurrency, it is encouraged to adopt an alternative mobility
  126  funding system that uses one or more of the tools and techniques
  127  identified in paragraph (f). An alternative mobility funding
  128  system may not be used to deny, time, or phase an application
  129  for site plan, plat approval, final subdivision approval,
  130  building permit, or the functional equivalent of such approvals
  131  if the developer agrees to pay for the development’s identified
  132  transportation impacts using the funding mechanism implemented
  133  by the local government. The revenue from the funding mechanism
  134  adopted in the alternative system must be used to implement the
  135  needs of the local government’s plan which serve as the basis
  136  for the fee imposed. A mobility-fee-based funding system must
  137  comply with the dual rational nexus test applicable to impact
  138  fees. An alternative system that is not mobility-fee-based may
  139  not be applied in a manner that imposes upon new development any
  140  responsibility for funding existing transportation deficiencies
  141  as that term is defined in paragraph (h).
  143  ================= T I T L E  A M E N D M E N T ================
  144         And the title is amended as follows:
  145         Delete lines 7 - 17
  146  and insert:
  147         certain criteria are met, and must provide the basis
  148         upon which landowners will be assessed a proportionate
  149         share of the cost of addressing certain transportation
  150         impacts; encouraging a local government that repeals
  151         transportation concurrency to adopt an alternative
  152         mobility funding system that is subject to certain
  153         requirements; amending s. 163.3182, F.S.;