The Florida Senate

163.3180  Concurrency.--

(1)

(a)  Roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and mass transit, where applicable, 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 appropriate study and approval by the Legislature; however, any local government may extend the concurrency requirement so that it applies to additional public facilities within its jurisdiction.

¹(b)  If a local government elects to extend the concurrency requirement to public schools, it should first conduct a study to determine how the requirement would be met and shared by all affected parties. The local government shall provide an opportunity for full participation in this study by the school board. The state land planning agency may provide technical assistance to local governments that study and prepare for extension of the concurrency requirement to public schools. When establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, a local government shall comply with the following criteria for any proposed plan or plan amendment transmitted pursuant to s. 163.3184(3) after July 1, 1995:

1.  Adopt level-of-service standards for public schools with the agreement of the school board. Public school level-of-service standards shall be adopted as part of the capital improvements element in the local government comprehensive plan, which shall contain a financially feasible public school capital facilities program established in conjunction with the school board that will provide educational facilities at an adequate level of service necessary to implement the adopted local government comprehensive plan.

2.  Satisfy the requirement for intergovernmental coordination set forth in s. 163.3177(6)(h)1. and 2.

(2)

(a)  Consistent with public health and safety, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, 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.

(b)  Consistent with the public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section, parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction no later than 1 year after issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. However, the acreage for such facilities shall be dedicated or be acquired by the local government prior to issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share shall be committed prior to issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.

(c)  Consistent with the public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section, transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction no more than 3 years after issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.

(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. This subsection does not limit the authority of any agency to recommend or make objections, recommendations, comments, or determinations during reviews conducted under s. 163.3184.

(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)  The Legislature finds that under limited circumstances dealing with transportation facilities, countervailing planning and public policy goals may come into conflict with the requirement that adequate public facilities and services be available concurrent with the impacts of such development. The Legislature further finds that often the unintended result of the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities is the discouragement of urban infill development and redevelopment. Such unintended results directly conflict with the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan and the intent of this part. Therefore, exceptions from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities may be granted as provided by this subsection.

(b)  A local government may grant an exception from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities if the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the adopted local government comprehensive plan and is a project that promotes public transportation or is located within an area designated in the comprehensive plan for:

1.  Urban infill development,

2.  Urban redevelopment, or

3.  Downtown revitalization.

(c)  The Legislature also finds that developments located within urban infill, urban redevelopment, existing urban service, or downtown revitalization areas which pose only special part-time demands on the transportation system should be excepted from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities. A special part-time demand is one that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during any calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volume hours.

(d)  A local government shall establish guidelines for granting the exceptions authorized in paragraphs (b) and (c) in the comprehensive plan. These guidelines must include consideration of the impacts on the Florida Intrastate Highway System, as defined in s. 338.001. The exceptions may be available only within the specific geographic area of the jurisdiction designated in the plan. Pursuant to s. 163.3184, any affected person may challenge a plan amendment establishing these guidelines and the areas within which an exception could be granted.

(6)  The Legislature finds that a de minimis impact is consistent with this part. A de minimis impact is an impact that would not affect more than 1 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of the affected transportation facility as determined by the local government. No impact will be de minimis if it would exceed 110 percent of the sum of existing volumes and the projected volumes from approved projects on a transportation facility; provided however, that an impact of a single family home on an existing lot will constitute a de minimis impact on all roadways regardless of the level of the deficiency of the roadway. Local governments are encouraged to adopt methodologies to encourage de minimis impacts on transportation facilities within an existing urban service area. Further, no impact will be de minimis if it would exceed the adopted level of service standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes.

(7)  In order to promote infill development and redevelopment, one or more transportation concurrency management areas may be designated in a local government comprehensive plan. A transportation concurrency management area must be a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common trips. A local government may establish an areawide level-of-service standard for such a transportation concurrency management area based upon an analysis that provides for a justification for the areawide level of service, how urban infill development or redevelopment will be promoted, and how mobility will be accomplished within the transportation concurrency management area. The state land planning agency shall amend chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to be consistent with this subsection.

(8)  When assessing the transportation impacts of proposed urban redevelopment within an established existing urban service area, 110 percent of the actual transportation impact caused by the previously existing development must be reserved for the redevelopment, even if the previously existing development has a lesser or nonexisting impact pursuant to the calculations of the local government. Redevelopment requiring less than 110 percent of the previously existing capacity shall not be prohibited due to the reduction of transportation levels of service below the adopted standards. This does not preclude the appropriate assessment of fees or accounting for the impacts within the concurrency management system and capital improvements program of the affected local government. This paragraph does not affect local government requirements for appropriate development permits.

(9)

(a)  Each local government may adopt as a part of its plan a long-term transportation concurrency management system with a planning period of up to 10 years for specially designated districts where significant backlogs exist. The plan may include interim level-of-service standards on certain facilities and may rely on the local government's schedule of capital improvements for up to 10 years as a basis for issuing development permits in these districts. It must be designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities. It must be financially feasible and consistent with other portions of the adopted local plan, including the future land use map.

(b)  If a local government has a transportation backlog for existing development which cannot be adequately addressed in a 10-year plan, the state land planning agency may allow it to develop a plan of up to 15 years for good and sufficient cause, based on a general comparison between that local government and all other similarly situated local jurisdictions, using the following factors:

1.  The extent of the backlog.

2.  Whether the backlog is on local or state roads.

3.  The cost of eliminating the backlog.

4.  The local government's tax and other revenue-raising efforts.

(10)  With regard to facilities on the Florida Intrastate Highway System as defined in s. 338.001, local governments shall adopt the level-of-service standard established by the Department of Transportation by rule. For all other roads on the State Highway System, local governments shall establish an adequate level-of-service standard that need not be consistent with any level-of-service standard established by the Department of Transportation.

(11)  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 transportation concurrency, when all the following factors are shown to exist:

(a)  The local government with jurisdiction over the property has adopted a local comprehensive plan that is in compliance.

(b)  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.

(c)  The local plan includes a financially feasible capital improvements element that provides for transportation facilities adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local government has not implemented that element.

(d)  The local government has provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a fair share of the cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed development.

(e)  The landowner has made a binding commitment to the local government to pay the fair share of the cost of providing the transportation facilities to serve the proposed development.

History.--s. 8, ch. 93-206; s. 12, ch. 95-341; s. 3, ch. 96-416; s. 1, ch. 97-253.

¹Note.--Section 13, ch. 97-265, provides that "[i]n order to implement proviso language in Specific Appropriation 1628 of the 1997-1998 General Appropriations Act, which created the Public Schools Construction Study Commission to study school planning, siting and school concurrency, the Legislature deems it desirable to temporarily suspend the imposition of school concurrency pending the study of the issues arising thereunder. In furtherance thereof, the concurrency requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, shall not be applied by a local government to evaluate school concurrency before July 1, 1998, unless the county in which concurrency is to be applied has adopted, prior to May 1, 1997, a plan amendment establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, including any subsequent amendments to such public school element. Adoption by the county of the aforesaid shall further entitle any municipality located therein to implement school concurrency without regard to whether such adoption by the municipality occurs before or after May 1, 1997. Nothing herein shall prevent local governments that have not adopted a public school element prior to May 1, 1997, from continuing to work on agreements under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes."