2011 Florida Statutes
(1) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the only public facilities and services subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis. Additional public facilities and services may not be made subject to concurrency on a statewide basis without approval by the Legislature; however, any local government may extend the concurrency requirement so that it applies to additional public facilities within its jurisdiction.
(a) If concurrency is applied to other public facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide its application. In order for a local government to rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required. An amendment rescinding optional concurrency issues is not subject to state review.
(b) The local government comprehensive plan must demonstrate, for required or optional concurrency requirements, that the levels of service adopted can be reasonably met. Infrastructure needed to ensure that adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period of the capital improvement schedule must be identified pursuant to the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The comprehensive plan must include principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the establishment of a concurrency management system.
(2) Consistent with public health and safety, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, adequate water supplies, and potable water facilities shall be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. Prior to approval of a building permit or its functional equivalent, the local government shall consult with the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies to serve the new development will be available no later than the anticipated date of issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. A local government may meet the concurrency requirement for sanitary sewer through the use of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems approved by the Department of Health to serve new development.
(3) Governmental entities that are not responsible for providing, financing, operating, or regulating public facilities needed to serve development may not establish binding level-of-service standards on governmental entities that do bear those responsibilities.
(4) The concurrency requirement as implemented in local comprehensive plans applies to state and other public facilities and development to the same extent that it applies to all other facilities and development, as provided by law.
(5)(a) If concurrency is applied to transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service to guide its application.
(b) Local governments shall use professionally accepted studies to evaluate the appropriate levels of service. Local governments should consider the number of facilities that will be necessary to meet level-of-service demands when determining the appropriate levels of service. The schedule of facilities that are necessary to meet the adopted level of service shall be reflected in the capital improvement element.
(c) Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring levels of service when evaluating potential impacts of a proposed development.
(d) The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standard. A comprehensive plan that imposes transportation concurrency shall contain appropriate amendments to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan, consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The capital improvements element shall identify facilities necessary to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-year period.
(e) If a local government applies transportation concurrency in its jurisdiction, it is encouraged to develop policy guidelines and techniques to address potential negative impacts on future development:
1. In urban infill and redevelopment, and urban service areas.
2. With special part-time demands on the transportation system.
3. With de minimis impacts.
4. On community desired types of development, such as redevelopment, or job creation projects.
(f) Local governments are encouraged to develop tools and techniques to complement the application of transportation concurrency such as:
1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density.
2. Adoption of an areawide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function.
3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system.
4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit.
5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility.
6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or districts, or for affordable or workforce housing.
(g) Local governments are encouraged to coordinate with adjacent local governments for the purpose of using common methodologies for measuring impacts on transportation facilities.
(h) Local governments that implement transportation concurrency must:
1. Consult with the Department of Transportation when proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic intermodal system.
2. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. For the purposes of this subparagraph, public transit facilities include transit stations and terminals; transit station parking; park-and-ride lots; intermodal public transit connection or transfer facilities; fixed bus, guideway, and rail stations; and airport passenger terminals and concourses, air cargo facilities, and hangars for the assembly, manufacture, maintenance, or storage of aircraft. As used in this subparagraph, the terms “terminals” and “transit facilities” do not include seaports or commercial or residential development constructed in conjunction with a public transit facility.
3. Allow an applicant for a development-of-regional-impact development order, a rezoning, or other land use development permit to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06, when applicable, if:
a. The applicant enters into a binding agreement to pay for or construct its proportionate share of required improvements.
b. The proportionate-share contribution or construction is sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements that will benefit a regionally significant transportation facility.
c.(I) The local government has provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed development. An applicant shall not be held responsible for the additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies.
(II) When an applicant contributes or constructs its proportionate share pursuant to this subparagraph, a local government may not require payment or construction of transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a development’s proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development’s impacts.
(A) The proportionate-share contribution shall be calculated based upon the number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from the stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of development payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service.
(B) In using the proportionate-share formula provided in this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as defined in sub-subparagraph e. The proportionate-share formula provided in this subparagraph shall be applied only to those facilities that are determined to be significantly impacted by the project traffic under review. If any road is determined to be transportation deficient without the project traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed from the project’s proportionate-share calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the proportionate-share calculation. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. The development’s proportionate share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that are greater than the identified deficiency.
(C) When the provisions of this subparagraph have been satisfied for a particular stage or phase of development, all transportation impacts from that stage or phase for which mitigation was required and provided shall be deemed fully mitigated in any transportation analysis for a subsequent stage or phase of development. Trips from a previous stage or phase that did not result in impacts for which mitigation was required or provided may be cumulatively analyzed with trips from a subsequent stage or phase to determine whether an impact requires mitigation for the subsequent stage or phase.
(D) In projecting the number of trips to be generated by the development under review, any trips assigned to a toll-financed facility shall be eliminated from the analysis.
(E) The applicant shall receive a credit on a dollar-for-dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or payable in the future for the project. The credit shall be reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit.
d. This subsection does not require a local government to approve a development that is not otherwise qualified for approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
e. As used in this subsection, the term “transportation deficiency” means a facility or facilities on which the adopted level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from any source other than the development project under review, and trips that are forecast by established traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium population projections. Additional projected background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage or phase of development under review.
(6)(a) If concurrency is applied to public education facilities, all local governments within a county, except as provided in paragraph (i), shall include principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, in their comprehensive plans and interlocal agreements. If the county and one or more municipalities have adopted school concurrency into their comprehensive plan and interlocal agreement that represents at least 80 percent of the total countywide population, the failure of one or more municipalities to adopt the concurrency and enter into the interlocal agreement does not preclude implementation of school concurrency within jurisdictions of the school district that have opted to implement concurrency. All local government provisions included in comprehensive plans regarding school concurrency within a county must be consistent with each other as well as the requirements of this part.
(b) Local governments and school boards imposing school concurrency shall exercise authority in conjunction with each other to establish jointly adequate level-of-service standards necessary to implement the adopted local government comprehensive plan, based on data and analysis.
(c) Public school level-of-service standards shall be included and adopted into the capital improvements element of the local comprehensive plan and shall apply districtwide to all schools of the same type. Types of schools may include elementary, middle, and high schools as well as special purpose facilities such as magnet schools.
(d) Local governments and school boards may utilize tiered level-of-service standards to allow time to achieve an adequate and desirable level of service as circumstances warrant.
(e) A school district that includes relocatable facilities in its inventory of student stations shall include the capacity of such relocatable facilities as provided in s. 1013.35(2)(b)2.f., provided the relocatable facilities were purchased after 1998 and the relocatable facilities meet the standards for long-term use pursuant to s. 1013.20.
(f)1. In order to balance competing interests, preserve the constitutional concept of uniformity, and avoid disruption of existing educational and growth management processes, local governments are encouraged, if they elect to adopt school concurrency, to apply school concurrency to development on a districtwide basis so that a concurrency determination for a specific development will be based upon the availability of school capacity districtwide.
2. If a local government elects to apply school concurrency on a less than districtwide basis, by using school attendance zones or concurrency service areas:
a. Local governments and school boards shall have the burden to demonstrate that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible in the comprehensive plan and amendment, taking into account transportation costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors. In addition, in order to achieve concurrency within the service area boundaries selected by local governments and school boards, the service area boundaries, together with the standards for establishing those boundaries, shall be identified and included as supporting data and analysis for the comprehensive plan.
b. Where school capacity is available on a districtwide basis but school concurrency is applied on a less than districtwide basis in the form of concurrency service areas, if the adopted level-of-service standard cannot be met in a particular service area as applied to an application for a development permit and if the needed capacity for the particular service area is available in one or more contiguous service areas, as adopted by the local government, then the local government may not deny an application for site plan or final subdivision approval or the functional equivalent for a development or phase of a development on the basis of school concurrency, and if issued, development impacts shall be subtracted from the contiguous service area’s capacity totals. Students from the development may not be required to go to the adjacent service area unless the school board rezones the area in which the development occurs.
(g) The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level-of-service standard. A comprehensive plan that imposes school concurrency shall contain appropriate amendments to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan, consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The capital improvements element shall identify facilities necessary to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-year period consistent with the school board’s educational facilities plan.
(h)1. In order to limit the liability of local governments, a local government may allow a landowner to proceed with development of a specific parcel of land notwithstanding a failure of the development to satisfy school concurrency, if all the following factors are shown to exist:
a. The proposed development would be consistent with the future land use designation for the specific property and with pertinent portions of the adopted local plan, as determined by the local government.
b. The local government’s capital improvements element and the school board’s educational facilities plan provide for school facilities adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local government or school board has not implemented that element or the project includes a plan that demonstrates that the capital facilities needed as a result of the project can be reasonably provided.
c. The local government and school board have provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost of providing the school facilities necessary to serve the proposed development.
2. If a local government applies school concurrency, it may not deny an application for site plan, final subdivision approval, or the functional equivalent for a development or phase of a development authorizing residential development for failure to achieve and maintain the level-of-service standard for public school capacity in a local school concurrency management system where adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the issuance of final subdivision or site plan approval, or the functional equivalent. School concurrency is satisfied if the developer executes a legally binding commitment to provide mitigation proportionate to the demand for public school facilities to be created by actual development of the property, including, but not limited to, the options described in sub-subparagraph a. Options for proportionate-share mitigation of impacts on public school facilities must be established in the comprehensive plan and the interlocal agreement pursuant to s. 163.31777.
a. Appropriate mitigation options include the contribution of land; the construction, expansion, or payment for land acquisition or construction of a public school facility; the construction of a charter school that complies with the requirements of s. 1002.33(18); or the creation of mitigation banking based on the construction of a public school facility in exchange for the right to sell capacity credits. Such options must include execution by the applicant and the local government of a development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate-share mitigation for the additional residential units approved by the local government in a development order and actually developed on the property, taking into account residential density allowed on the property prior to the plan amendment that increased the overall residential density. The district school board must be a party to such an agreement. As a condition of its entry into such a development agreement, the local government may require the landowner to agree to continuing renewal of the agreement upon its expiration.
b. If the interlocal agreement and the local government comprehensive plan authorize a contribution of land; the construction, expansion, or payment for land acquisition; the construction or expansion of a public school facility, or a portion thereof; or the construction of a charter school that complies with the requirements of s. 1002.33(18), as proportionate-share mitigation, the local government shall credit such a contribution, construction, expansion, or payment toward any other impact fee or exaction imposed by local ordinance for the same need, on a dollar-for-dollar basis at fair market value.
c. Any proportionate-share mitigation must be directed by the school board toward a school capacity improvement identified in the 5-year school board educational facilities plan that satisfies the demands created by the development in accordance with a binding developer’s agreement.
3. This paragraph does not limit the authority of a local government to deny a development permit or its functional equivalent pursuant to its home rule regulatory powers, except as provided in this part.
(i) A municipality is not required to be a signatory to the interlocal agreement required by paragraph (j), as a prerequisite for imposition of school concurrency, and as a nonsignatory, may not participate in the adopted local school concurrency system, if the municipality meets all of the following criteria for having no significant impact on school attendance:
1. The municipality has issued development orders for fewer than 50 residential dwelling units during the preceding 5 years, or the municipality has generated fewer than 25 additional public school students during the preceding 5 years.
2. The municipality has not annexed new land during the preceding 5 years in land use categories which permit residential uses that will affect school attendance rates.
3. The municipality has no public schools located within its boundaries.
4. At least 80 percent of the developable land within the boundaries of the municipality has been built upon.
(j) When establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, a local government must enter into an interlocal agreement that satisfies the requirements in ss. 163.3177(6)(h)1. and 2. and 163.31777 and the requirements of this subsection. The interlocal agreement shall acknowledge both the school board’s constitutional and statutory obligations to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a countywide basis, and the land use authority of local governments, including their authority to approve or deny comprehensive plan amendments and development orders. The interlocal agreement shall meet the following requirements:
1. Establish the mechanisms for coordinating the development, adoption, and amendment of each local government’s school concurrency related provisions of the comprehensive plan with each other and the plans of the school board to ensure a uniform districtwide school concurrency system.
2. Specify uniform, districtwide level-of-service standards for public schools of the same type and the process for modifying the adopted level-of-service standards.
3. Define the geographic application of school concurrency. If school concurrency is to be applied on a less than districtwide basis in the form of concurrency service areas, the agreement shall establish criteria and standards for the establishment and modification of school concurrency service areas. The agreement shall ensure maximum utilization of school capacity, taking into account transportation costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors.
4. Establish a uniform districtwide procedure for implementing school concurrency which provides for:
a. The evaluation of development applications for compliance with school concurrency requirements, including information provided by the school board on affected schools, impact on levels of service, and programmed improvements for affected schools and any options to provide sufficient capacity;
b. An opportunity for the school board to review and comment on the effect of comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings on the public school facilities plan; and
c. The monitoring and evaluation of the school concurrency system.
5. A process and uniform methodology for determining proportionate-share mitigation pursuant to paragraph (h).
(k) This subsection does not limit the authority of a local government to grant or deny a development permit or its functional equivalent prior to the implementation of school concurrency.
History.—s. 8, ch. 93-206; s. 12, ch. 95-341; s. 3, ch. 96-416; s. 1, ch. 97-253; s. 5, ch. 98-176; s. 4, ch. 99-378; s. 2, ch. 2002-13; s. 6, ch. 2002-296; s. 5, ch. 2005-290; s. 11, ch. 2005-291; s. 18, ch. 2006-1; s. 3, ch. 2006-220; s. 3, ch. 2006-252; s. 11, ch. 2007-196; s. 2, ch. 2007-198; s. 3, ch. 2007-204; s. 5, ch. 2009-85; s. 4, ch. 2009-96; s. 17, ch. 2010-5; s. 1, ch. 2010-33; s. 4, ch. 2011-14; s. 15, ch. 2011-139.