2009 Reform
Urban Areas Defined
• Creates a definition in Ch. 163 for “Dense Urban Land Area.”
• As defined, a Dense Urban Land Area means a local government having an average of at least 1,000 people per-square mile of land area, or a county, including all cities located therein, which has a population of at least 1 million, according to the latest census and latest population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research.
• The following 8 counties meet this definition
- Broward
- Duval
- Hillsborough
- Miami-Dade
- Orange
- Palm Beach (based on total population threshold)
- Pinellas
- Seminole
• A city having an average an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile and a total population of 5,000. This includes approximately 190 cities affecting another 24 counties statewide.
Urban Service Areas
• Renames and expands the definition of “Existing Urban Service Area” to include areas designated in the comprehensive plan as of July 1, 2009 for urban development, where public facilities are in place or are committed in the first 3 years of the capital improvement schedule.
Concurrency (TCEAs)
• Creates transportation concurrency exception areas (TCEAs) in the following areas:
o Cities that qualify as dense urban land areas;
o Urban service areas that been adopted into the comprehensive plan and are within counties that qualify as dense urban land areas.
o Counties, including cities therein, that have a population of at least 900,000, that qualify as a dense urban land area but do not have an urban service area designated in the comprehensive plan
• Requires dense urban land area communities to adopt transportation mobility strategies within designated exception areas within 2 years. If such strategies are not adopted within this time period, DCA may submit a finding to the Administration Commission, which may impose sanctions.
• Exempts counties that have a population of at least 1.5 million and implement a transportation concurrency-related assessment to support alternative modes of transportation.
• TCEAs are not created for a county that has exempted more than 40% of its urban service area from transportation concurrency for purposes of infill.
Dense Urban Land Area – Local Opt-In
• Counties and cities that do not qualify as dense urban land areas may designate in the comprehensive plan the following areas as TCEAs:
o Urban Infill Development
o Urban Infill and Redevelopment
o Urban Service Areas
• The DRI process in these locally designated areas does not apply.
Developments of Regional Impact
• Eliminates the DRI program in Dense Urban Land Areas
• Retains requirement that development orders from DRI-size projects (even though exempt under proposal) be reviewed by state land planning agency. School Concurrency
• Eliminates the penalty (i.e., FLUM amendments that increase density) for failing to adopt a public school facilities element and entering into an interlocal agreement.
• However, DCA is required to submit a finding to the Administration Commission if it finds insufficient cause by the local government for not adopting a school facilities element into its plan.
Financial Feasibility
• Extends compliance deadline December 2011 (applies to all counties).
Alternative State Review Process (NEW ISSUE)
• Extends the Alternative State Review Process to any local government that wants to adopt and Urban Service Area.
Permit Extensions (NEW ISSUE)
• Extends any local government development order or building permit issued between September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012 for an additional 2 years.
Zoning / Land Use Approvals (NEW ISSUE)
• Requires zoning changes to be made simultaneously with any plan amendments if requested by the applicant. Zoning changes take effect upon the comprehensive plan amendment becoming effective.
School Concurrency (NEW ISSUE)
• Requires school districts to include relocatable facilities (a.k.a. portables) in its level-of-service (LOS) calculations if such facilities are used in the student station inventory.
Security Standards Prohibited (New Issue)
• Prohibits local governments from adopting or maintaining in effect any ordinance or rule that establishes standards for security cameras that require a business to expend funds to enhance the services provided by local government.
Affordable Housing (NEW ISSUE)
• Requires counties to include within their land development regulations language ensuring that the densities of RV parks be maintained when such properties propose a use change.
• Allows SHIP funds to be used for manufactured housing constructed after 1994.
Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (NEW ISSUE)
• Expands the term “infrastructure” under s. 212.055 to include any land acquisition expenditure for a residential housing project where at least 30 percent of the units are affordable to individual/families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of the area medium income.
Additional information regarding SB 360 and implementation issues associated with the legislation may be found on the Florida Senate Community Affairs website and the Florida Department of Community Affairs website.
2005 Reform
Growth Management - SB 360 by Sen. Bennett (HB 1865 by Rep. Johnson)
Senate Bill 360 required a local government’s comprehensive growth management plan to be financially feasible and established a definition for financial feasibility. It also required counties to update their capital improvements element (CIE) annually and include a schedule of improvements ensuring that the adopted levels-of-service (LOS) of their listed public facilities are achieved and maintained. To ensure the plan was financially feasible, the CIE had to be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review on an annual basis, and a county that failed to meet this requirement could not adopt any map amendments after December 1, 2007.
The bill strengthened transportation concurrency by requiring that the road facilities (both state and local) needed to accommodate development were in place within 3-years from when the local government issued a building permit or its functional equivalent. It required counties to adopt a proportionate fair-share mitigation process as an option for meeting concurrency on deficient road segments. However, it limited proportionate share contributions to road segments that were specifically identified in the county’s 5-year CIE or its long-term concurrency management system, if one was adopted. The bill also allowed counties to use this process on road segments that were not listed in either the CIE or a long-term concurrency system, so long as the road was added to the schedule of improvements in the next CIE update. For compliance purposes under Ch. 163, F.S., the bill provided that a county that uses fair-share contributions may rely on revenue sources that are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed 10 years. Further, the bill exempted the application of a county’s adopted LOS standards on any road funded under the fair-share mitigation process.
The bill required all counties to adopt school concurrency no later than December 2008; however, counties could seek a school concurrency waiver if they were a low growth county that met the exemption criteria listed in the bill. Local governments that failed to implement school concurrency were precluded from adopting land use amendments that increased residential density. It required counties to broaden water concurrency provisions to ensure water supply sources were coordinated with new development. Specifically, the potable water element had to incorporate water supply projects identified by the local government from the regional water supply plan or proposed by the local government within 18 months after the update of the regional water supply plan.
The bill encouraged counties to adopt a community vision and urban service boundary into their comprehensive plans. The following exemptions applied to those counties that adopted these provisions:
- Land use map amendments proposed in these areas were not subject to state compliance review. However, affected parties could still challenge such amendments if they were inconsistent with the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan.
- Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) were exempt in these areas. However, the developer was required to enter into a binding agreement with the adjacent jurisdictions and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to ensure transportation impacts were mitigated. The county also had to adopt a proportionate share mitigation process.
The bill created two other DRI exemption categories: one for projects located in urban infill and urban redevelopment areas; and, one for projects located in rural land stewardship areas. However, to qualify for the exemption, the developer had to execute a binding agreement with the FDOT and the adjacent jurisdiction to address transportation impacts from the development, and the county must have adopted a proportionate fair-share funding methodology.
The bill also established the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) for the purpose of providing funds to improve regionally significant facilities in regional transportation areas. Funds awarded for projects under this program required a 50-percent local match.
It also, established the size threshold for small scale plan amendments in rural areas of critical economic concern from 10 acres to 20 acres.
The “Century Commission Act for a Sustainable Florida,” a standing body to help Floridians envision and plan for Florida’s growth 25 to 50 years into the future was created by this bill along with a School Concurrency Task Force charged with reviewing the existing school concurrency requirements and making recommendations to the Legislature for streamlining the process was also created by this bill. The task force included 11 members, including one member appointed by the Florida Association of Counties and had to submit its recommendations to the Legislature by December 1, 2005.
The bill created the Florida Impact Fee Review Task Force which was charged with reviewing the current use of impact fees in the state and making recommendations to the Legislature as to whether there is a need for statutory direction in the use of this revenue source and they were required to issue their recommendations to the Legislature by February 1, 2006. It also directed the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to perform a study by December 31, 2005, regarding adjustments to the boundaries of the Florida Regional Planning Councils, Florida Water Management Districts, and FDOT Districts.
This bill provided funding for the Water Protection and Sustainability Program in s. 403.890, F.S., which was created in SB 444. Also, the bill established the High Growth District Capital Outlay Assistance Program in s. 1013.78, F.S., to provide funds for qualifying high student enrollment growth school districts and appropriated $1.5 billion for 2005-2006 to fund specified transportation, school, and water projects. It appropriated $750 million annually, thereafter, to fund these types of projects.