CS for CS for SB 972                             First Engrossed
    1                        A bill to be entitled                      
    2         An act relating to transportation development;
    3         amending s. 163.3180, F.S.; providing that local
    4         governments that implement transportation concurrency
    5         must allow an applicant for a development agreement to
    6         satisfy transportation concurrency requirements if
    7         certain criteria are met, and must provide the basis
    8         upon which landowners will be assessed a proportionate
    9         share of the cost of addressing certain transportation
   10         impacts; encouraging a local government that repeals
   11         transportation concurrency to adopt an alternative
   12         mobility funding system that is subject to certain
   13         requirements; providing an effective date.
   15  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
   17         Section 1. Paragraph (h) of subsection (5) of section
   18  163.3180, Florida Statutes, is amended, and paragraph (i) is
   19  added to that subsection, to read:
   20         163.3180 Concurrency.—
   21         (5)
   22         (h)1. Local governments that continue to implement a
   23  transportation concurrency system, whether in the form adopted
   24  into the comprehensive plan before July 1, 2011, or as
   25  subsequently modified, must:
   26         a.1. Consult with the Department of Transportation when
   27  proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic
   28  intermodal system.
   29         b.2. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. For
   30  the purposes of this sub-subparagraph subparagraph, public
   31  transit facilities include transit stations and terminals;
   32  transit station parking; park-and-ride lots; intermodal public
   33  transit connection or transfer facilities; fixed bus, guideway,
   34  and rail stations; and airport passenger terminals and
   35  concourses, air cargo facilities, and hangars for the assembly,
   36  manufacture, maintenance, or storage of aircraft. As used in
   37  this sub-subparagraph subparagraph, the terms “terminals” and
   38  “transit facilities” do not include seaports or commercial or
   39  residential development constructed in conjunction with a public
   40  transit facility.
   41         c.3. Allow an applicant for a development-of-regional
   42  impact development order, development agreement, a rezoning, or
   43  other land use development permit to satisfy the transportation
   44  concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the
   45  local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06,
   46  when applicable, if:
   47         (I)a. The applicant in good faith offers to enter enters
   48  into a binding agreement to pay for or construct its
   49  proportionate share of required improvements in a manner
   50  consistent with this subsection.
   51         (II)b. The proportionate-share contribution or construction
   52  is sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements
   53  that will benefit a regionally significant transportation
   54  facility. A local government may accept contributions from
   55  multiple applicants for a planned improvement if it maintains
   56  contributions in a separate account designated for that purpose.
   57         d.c.(I)Provide the basis upon which The local government
   58  has provided a means by which the landowners landowner will be
   59  assessed a proportionate share of the cost of addressing the
   60  transportation impacts resulting from a providing the
   61  transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed
   62  development.
   63         2. An applicant may shall not be held responsible for the
   64  additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies.
   65         (II) When an applicant contributes or constructs its
   66  proportionate share pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph, a
   67  local government may not require payment or construction of
   68  transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a
   69  development’s proportionate share of the improvements necessary
   70  to mitigate the development’s impacts.
   71         a.(A) The proportionate-share contribution shall be
   72  calculated based upon the number of trips from the proposed
   73  development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from
   74  the stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the
   75  peak hour maximum service volume of roadways resulting from
   76  construction of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve
   77  the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction
   78  cost, at the time of development payment, of the improvement
   79  necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service.
   80         b.(B) In using the proportionate-share formula provided in
   81  this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall
   82  identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation
   83  deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as
   84  defined in subparagraph 4 sub-subparagraph e. The proportionate
   85  share formula provided in this subparagraph shall be applied
   86  only to those facilities that are determined to be significantly
   87  impacted by the project traffic under review. If any road is
   88  determined to be transportation deficient without the project
   89  traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency
   90  shall be removed from the project’s proportionate-share
   91  calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to
   92  correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for
   93  purposes of the proportionate-share calculation. The improvement
   94  necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the
   95  funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance
   96  responsibility for the facility. The development’s proportionate
   97  share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation
   98  improvements that are greater than the identified deficiency.
   99         c.(C) When the provisions of subparagraph 1. and this
  100  subparagraph have been satisfied for a particular stage or phase
  101  of development, all transportation impacts from that stage or
  102  phase for which mitigation was required and provided shall be
  103  deemed fully mitigated in any transportation analysis for a
  104  subsequent stage or phase of development. Trips from a previous
  105  stage or phase that did not result in impacts for which
  106  mitigation was required or provided may be cumulatively analyzed
  107  with trips from a subsequent stage or phase to determine whether
  108  an impact requires mitigation for the subsequent stage or phase.
  109         d.(D) In projecting the number of trips to be generated by
  110  the development under review, any trips assigned to a toll
  111  financed facility shall be eliminated from the analysis.
  112         e.(E) The applicant shall receive a credit on a dollar-for
  113  dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other
  114  transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or
  115  payable in the future for the project. The credit shall be
  116  reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the
  117  project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the
  118  selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local
  119  ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit.
  120         3.d. This subsection does not require a local government to
  121  approve a development that, for reasons other than
  122  transportation impacts, is not otherwise qualified for approval
  123  pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and land
  124  development regulations.
  125         4.e. As used in this subsection, the term “transportation
  126  deficiency” means a facility or facilities on which the adopted
  127  level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing,
  128  committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected
  129  background trips from any source other than the development
  130  project under review, and trips that are forecast by established
  131  traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with
  132  the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business
  133  Research medium population projections. Additional projected
  134  background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage
  135  or phase of development under review.
  136         (i) If a local government elects to repeal transportation
  137  concurrency, it is encouraged to adopt an alternative mobility
  138  funding system that uses one or more of the tools and techniques
  139  identified in paragraph (f). An alternative mobility funding
  140  system may not be used to deny, time, or phase an application
  141  for site plan, plat approval, final subdivision approval,
  142  building permit, or the functional equivalent of such approvals
  143  if the developer agrees to pay for the development’s identified
  144  transportation impacts using the funding mechanism implemented
  145  by the local government. The revenue from the funding mechanism
  146  adopted in the alternative system must be used to implement the
  147  needs of the local government’s plan which serve as the basis
  148  for the fee imposed. A mobility-fee-based funding system must
  149  comply with the dual rational nexus test applicable to impact
  150  fees. An alternative system that is not mobility-fee-based may
  151  not be applied in a manner that imposes upon new development any
  152  responsibility for funding existing transportation deficiencies
  153  as that term is defined in paragraph (h).
  154         Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.