1. (1) (a) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities, including 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.
2. (b) Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring level of service for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and trucks. These techniques may be used to evaluate increased accessibility by multiple modes and reductions in vehicle miles of travel in an area or zone. The Department of Transportation shall develop methodologies to assist local governments in implementing this multimodal level-of-service analysis. The Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Transportation shall provide technical assistance to local governments in applying these methodologies.
3. (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.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (4) (a) 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.
8. (b) The concurrency requirement as implemented in local comprehensive plans does not apply to public transit facilities. For the purposes of this paragraph, public transit facilities include transit stations and terminals, transit station parking, park-and-ride lots, intermodal public transit connection or transfer facilities, and fixed bus, guideway, and rail stations. As used in this paragraph, the terms "terminals" and "transit facilities" do not include airports or seaports or commercial or residential development constructed in conjunction with a public transit facility.
9. (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.

10. (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,

    3. Downtown revitalization, or

    4. Urban infill and redevelopment under s. 163.2517.

11. (c) The Legislature also finds that developments located within urban infill, urban redevelopment, existing urban service, or downtown revitalization areas or areas designated as urban infill and redevelopment areas under s. 163.2517 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.
12. (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.
13. (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 the sum of existing roadway volumes and the projected volumes from approved projects on a transportation facility would exceed 110 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of the affected 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.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.

17. (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.

18. (10) With regard to facilities on the Florida Intrastate Highway System as defined in s. 338.001, with concurrence from the Department of Transportation, the level-of-service standard for general lanes in urbanized areas, as defined in s. 334.03(36), may be established by the local government in the comprehensive plan. For all other facilities on the Florida Intrastate Highway System, 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.

19. (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:

    1. (a) The local government with jurisdiction over the property has adopted a local comprehensive plan that is in compliance.
    2. (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.
    3. (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.
    4. (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.
    5. (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.

20. (12) When authorized by a local comprehensive plan, a multiuse development of regional impact may satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the local government's concurrency management system, and s. 380.06 by payment of a proportionate-share contribution for local and regionally significant traffic impacts, if:

    1. (a) The development of regional impact meets or exceeds the guidelines and standards of s. 380.0651(3)(i) and rule 28-24.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and includes a residential component that contains at least 100 residential dwelling units or 15 percent of the applicable residential guideline and standard, whichever is greater;
    2. (b) The development of regional impact contains an integrated mix of land uses and is designed to encourage pedestrian or other nonautomotive modes of transportation;
    3. (c) The proportionate-share contribution for local and regionally significant traffic impacts is sufficient to pay for one or more required improvements that will benefit a regionally significant transportation facility;
    4. (d) The owner and developer of the development of regional impact pays or assures payment of the proportionate-share contribution; and

    5. (e) If the regionally significant transportation facility to be constructed or improved is under the maintenance authority of a governmental entity, as defined by s. 334.03(12), other than the local government with jurisdiction over the development of regional impact, the developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to transfer funds to the governmental entity having maintenance authority or to otherwise assure construction or improvement of the facility. The proportionate-share contribution may be applied to any transportation facility to satisfy the provisions of this subsection and the local comprehensive plan, but, for the purposes of this subsection, the amount of the proportionate-share contribution shall be calculated based upon the cumulative number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from the complete buildout of a 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 the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted level of service. For purposes of this subsection, "construction cost" includes all associated costs of the improvement.

       ¹(13) School concurrency, if imposed by local option, shall be established on a districtwide basis and shall include all public schools in the district and all portions of the district, whether located in a municipality or an unincorporated area. The application of school concurrency to development shall be based upon the adopted comprehensive plan, as amended. All local governments within a county, except as provided in paragraph (f), shall adopt and transmit to the state land planning agency the necessary plan amendments, along with the interlocal agreement, for a compliance review pursuant to s. 163.3184(7) and (8). School concurrency shall not become effective in a county until all local governments, except as provided in paragraph (f), have adopted the necessary plan amendments, which together with the interlocal agreement, are determined to be in compliance with the requirements of this part. The minimum requirements for school concurrency are the following:

    6. (a) Public school facilities element.--A local government shall adopt and transmit to the state land planning agency a plan or plan amendment which includes a public school facilities element which is consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(12) and which is determined to be in compliance as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(b). All local government public school facilities plan elements within a county must be consistent with each other as well as the requirements of this part.

    7. (b) Level-of-service standards.--The Legislature recognizes that an essential requirement for a concurrency management system is the level of service at which a public facility is expected to operate.

       1. Local governments and school boards imposing school concurrency shall exercise authority in conjunction with each other to establish jointly adequate level-of-service standards, as defined in chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, necessary to implement the adopted local government comprehensive plan, based on data and analysis.

       2. 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.

       3. Local governments and school boards shall have the option to utilize tiered level-of-service standards to allow time to achieve an adequate and desirable level of service as circumstances warrant.

    8. (c) Service areas.--The Legislature recognizes that an essential requirement for a concurrency system is a designation of the area within which the level of service will be measured when an application for a residential development permit is reviewed for school concurrency purposes. This delineation is also important for purposes of determining whether the local government has a financially feasible public school capital facilities program that will provide schools which will achieve and maintain the adopted level-of-service standards.

       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 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. For local governments applying school concurrency on a less than districtwide basis, such as utilizing school attendance zones or larger school concurrency service areas, 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, included, and adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Any subsequent change to the service area boundaries for purposes of a school concurrency system shall be by plan amendment and shall be exempt from the limitation on the frequency of plan amendments in s. 163.3187(1).

       3. 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 development order shall be issued and mitigation measures shall not be exacted.

    9. (d) Financial feasibility.--The Legislature recognizes that financial feasibility is an important issue because the premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level-of-service standard. This part and chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, contain specific standards to determine the financial feasibility of capital programs. These standards were adopted to make concurrency more predictable and local governments more accountable.

       1. A comprehensive plan amendment seeking to impose school concurrency shall contain appropriate amendments to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan, consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(3) and rule 9J-5.016, Florida Administrative Code. The capital improvements element shall set forth a financially feasible public school capital facilities program, established in conjunction with the school board, that demonstrates that the adopted level-of-service standards will be achieved and maintained.

       2. Such amendments shall demonstrate that the public school capital facilities program meets all of the financial feasibility standards of this part and chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, that apply to capital programs which provide the basis for mandatory concurrency on other public facilities and services.

       3. When the financial feasibility of a public school capital facilities program is evaluated by the state land planning agency for purposes of a compliance determination, the evaluation shall be based upon the service areas selected by the local governments and school board.

    10. (e) Availability standard.--Consistent with the public welfare, a local government may not deny a development permit authorizing residential development for failure to achieve and maintain the level-of-service standard for public school capacity in a local option school concurrency system where adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after permit issuance.

    11. (f) Intergovernmental coordination.--

        1. When establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, a local government shall satisfy the requirements for intergovernmental coordination set forth in s. 163.3177(6)(h)1. and 2., except that a municipality is not required to be a signatory to the interlocal agreement required by s. 163.3177(6)(h)2. as a prerequisite for imposition of school concurrency, and as a nonsignatory, shall 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:

        a. 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.

        b. 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.

        c. The municipality has no public schools located within its boundaries.

        d. At least 80 percent of the developable land within the boundaries of the municipality has been built upon.

        2. A municipality which qualifies as having no significant impact on school attendance pursuant to the criteria of subparagraph 1. must review and determine at the time of its evaluation and appraisal report pursuant to s. 163.3191 whether it continues to meet the criteria. If the municipality determines that it no longer meets the criteria, it must adopt appropriate school concurrency goals, objectives, and policies in its plan amendments based on the evaluation and appraisal report, and enter into the existing interlocal agreement required by s. 163.3177(6)(h)2., in order to fully participate in the school concurrency system. If such a municipality fails to do so, it will be subject to the enforcement provisions of s. 163.3191.

    12. (g) Interlocal agreement for school concurrency.--When establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, a local government must enter into an interlocal agreement which satisfies the requirements in s. 163.3177(6)(h)1. and 2. 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 be submitted to the state land planning agency by the local government as a part of the compliance review, along with the other necessary amendments to the comprehensive plan required by this part. In addition to the requirements of s. 163.3177(6)(h), the interlocal agreement shall meet the following requirements:

        1. Establish the mechanisms for coordinating the development, adoption, and amendment of each local government's public school facilities element with each other and the plans of the school board to ensure a uniform districtwide school concurrency system.

        2. Establish a process by which each local government and the school board shall agree and base their plans on consistent projections of the amount, type, and distribution of population growth and coordinate and share information relating to existing and planned public school facilities projections and proposals for development and redevelopment, and infrastructure required to support public school facilities.

        3. Establish a process for the development of siting criteria which encourages the location of public schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent possible and seeks to collocate schools with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers to the extent possible.

        4. Specify uniform, districtwide level-of-service standards for public schools of the same type and the process for modifying the adopted levels-of-service standards.

        5. Establish a process for the preparation, amendment, and joint approval by each local government and the school board of a public school capital facilities program which is financially feasible, and a process and schedule for incorporation of the public school capital facilities program into the local government comprehensive plans on an annual basis.

        6. 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 also establish a process and schedule for the mandatory incorporation of the school concurrency service areas and the criteria and standards for establishment of the service areas into the local government comprehensive plans. The agreement shall ensure maximum utilization of school capacity, taking into account transportation costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors. The agreement shall also ensure the achievement and maintenance of the adopted level-of-service standards for the geographic area of application throughout the 5 years covered by the public school capital facilities plan and thereafter by adding a new fifth year during the annual update.

        7. Establish a uniform districtwide procedure for implementing school concurrency which provides for:

        a. The evaluation of development applications for compliance with school concurrency requirements;

        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.

        8. Include provisions relating to termination, suspension, and amendment of the agreement. The agreement shall provide that if the agreement is terminated or suspended, the application of school concurrency shall be terminated or suspended.

        ²(14) The state land planning agency shall, by October 1, 1998, adopt by rule minimum criteria for the review and determination of compliance of a public school facilities element adopted by a local government for purposes of imposition of school concurrency.

    13. (15) (a) Multimodal transportation districts may be established under a local government comprehensive plan in areas delineated on the future land use map for which the local comprehensive plan assigns secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to assuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit. Such districts must incorporate community design features that will reduce the number of automobile trips or vehicle miles of travel and will support an integrated, multimodal transportation system.
    14. (b) Community design elements of such a district include: a complementary mix and range of land uses, including educational, recreational, and cultural uses; interconnected networks of streets designed to encourage walking and bicycling, with traffic-calming where desirable; appropriate densities and intensities of use within walking distance of transit stops; daily activities within walking distance of residences, allowing independence to persons who do not drive; public uses, streets, and squares that are safe, comfortable, and attractive for the pedestrian, with adjoining buildings open to the street and with parking not interfering with pedestrian, transit, automobile, and truck travel modes.
    15. (c) Local governments may establish multimodal level-of-service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes of transportation within the district, when justified by an analysis demonstrating that the existing and planned community design will provide an adequate level of mobility within the district based upon professionally accepted multimodal level-of-service methodologies. The analysis must take into consideration the impact on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. The analysis must also demonstrate that the capital improvements required to promote community design are financially feasible over the development or redevelopment timeframe for the district and that community design features within the district provide convenient interconnection for a multimodal transportation system. Local governments may issue development permits in reliance upon all planned community design capital improvements that are financially feasible over the development or redevelopment timeframe for the district, without regard to the period of time between development or redevelopment and the scheduled construction of the capital improvements. A determination of financial feasibility shall be based upon currently available funding or funding sources that could reasonably be expected to become available over the planning period.

    16. (d) Local governments may reduce impact fees or local access fees for development within multimodal transportation districts based on the reduction of vehicle trips per household or vehicle miles of travel expected from the development pattern planned for the district.

        ¹Note.--Section 11, ch. 98-176, provides that "[a]ny county whose adopted public school facilities element is the subject of a final order entered by the Administration Commission prior to the effective date of this act may implement its public school facilities element in accordance with the general law concerning public school facilities concurrency in effect when the final order was entered and in accord with the final order consistent with any appellate court decision. The county shall comply with the requirements of the final order, consistent with any appellate decision, in implementing its public school facilities element and in adopting any necessary amendment to its comprehensive plan."

        ²Note.--Section 10, ch. 98-176, provides that "[u]ntil the minimum criteria for a public school facilities element adopted for purposes of imposition of school concurrency, as required by s. 163.3180(13), Florida Statutes, are in effect, the state land planning agency shall utilize the minimum criteria for a public school facilities element adopted for purposes of imposition of school concurrency contained in the Final Report and Consensus Text by the Department of Community Affairs Public School Construction Working Group, dated March 9, 1998, in any compliance review of any such element."

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.