Chapter 103 - Concurrency Management
Chapter 103 - CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
(56) Editor’s note— Ord. No. 2417, § 1, adopted March 8, 2011, amended Ch. 103 in its entirety & enacted similar provisions as set out herein. The former Ch. 103 derived from CPLDR 1993, §§ 3-1—3-6; & Ord. No. 2331, § 1, adopted Nov. 25, 2008.
Sec. 103-1. - Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the concurrency provisions of the Panama City Comprehensive Plan, as mandated by Florida Statute & the Florida Administrative Code. No development order or permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-2. - Applicability. Development orders or permits shall not be issued unless public facilities & services which meet or exceed the adopted level of service standards are available concurrent with the impacts of the development, are properly mitigated, or are programmed within 3 years of the issuance of the development order in the capital improvements schedule as applicable. Public facility & service availability shall be deemed sufficient if the public facilities & services for a development are partly phased, or the development is phased, so that the public facilities & those related services which are deemed necessary by the city to operate the facilities necessitated by that development are available & meet the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of the development. Phased facilities & services to be provided by the city shall be included in & consistent with the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan. Public facilities & services to be provided by the developer shall be guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement pursuant to F.S., § 163.3220, or by a development agreement pursuant to the pertinent sections of this land development regulation. For the purpose of determining if concurrency requirements are being met, the city shall use the minimum requirements of the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-3. - De minimis exceptions. The following development requests shall be considered de minimis for the purposes of transportation concurrency evaluations:
(1) Single-family residential dwelling units on lawfully created lots or parcels of record, as defined by F.S., § 163.3180(6), except when the additional unit will adversely affect the adopted level of service standard for hurricane evacuation clearance times.
(2) Nonresidential development which does not individually exceed 110% of the service threshold at 5% of the roadway volume.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-4. - Required facility & service evaluations. Level of service standards shall be established & maintained to ensure that adequate facility & service capacity will be available for future development & for purposes of assessing concurrency. The city shall establish & maintain a level of service standard for each public facility identified in the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan.
(1) Public facilities & services. Public facilities & services subject to required evaluation are:
b. Sanitary sewer;
c. Solid waste;
e. Potable water;
f. Parks & recreation; &
g. Public schools.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-5. - Level of service standards & generation rates. The following level of service standards & generation rates shall be used to evaluate available facility capacity & as a basis for issuance of development orders. All population statistics used for generation rates shall be sourced from the same data year, & the same data source, & shall be either the most recent U.S. Census data to include American Community Survey projections, or the University of Florida Bureau of Economic & Business Research estimates.
(1) Transportation. Levels of service standards & generation rates for transportation systems or facilities shall be as follows:
a. Levels of service for transportation systems or facilities shall be based upon the functional classifications of roadways. Volume & capacity standards used by the Florida Dept. of Transportation shall be used to determine projected impacts. Level of service standards are shown in table 103.1.
Table 103.1—Roadway Levels of Service Standards
Level of Service
US 98 (SR 30) Hathaway Bridge to Beck Avenue
Business 98 (SR 30) Beach Drive to Hamilton Avenue
All other principal arterials
b. Generation rates for roadways shall use the ITE Trip Generation Manual, most recent version, unless otherwise agreed upon by the planning official & city engineer. Such agreement must be received in writing by the planning official.
(2) Sanitary sewer systems or facilities. Levels of service (LOS) standards & generation rates for sanitary sewer systems or facilities shall be as follows:
a. The level of service for the St. Andrews Waste Water Treatment Plant service area shall have an LOS standard of 4.5 million gallons per day for determining capacity against any proposed development. The most recent monthly Panama City 3-month flow average shall be utilized for determining existing utilization rates.
b. The level of service for the Millville Waste Water Treatment Plant service area shall have an LOS standard of 4.5 million gallons per day for determining capacity against any proposed development. The most recent monthly Panama City 3-month flow average shall be utilized for determining existing utilization rates.
c. Generation rates for sanitary sewer systems shall be assessed at 110 gallons of wastewater per capita per day for residential uses. Nonresidential uses shall be assessed at 166 gallons of wastewater per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential uses, or 90% of the potable water generated demand, whichever is greater.
(3) Solid waste systems or facilities. Levels of service standards & generation rates for solid waste systems or facilities shall be as follows:
a. The solid waste level of service standard shall be when 5 years of capacity remains at the Steelfield Landfill. This assessment shall be based on the most recent annual Bay County data issued.
b. The residential generation rate for solid waste shall be assessed at a rate of 4 & one-half pounds per capita per day. Nonresidential uses shall be assessed at a rate of 6.89 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 square feet of heated & cooled space.
(4) Drainage systems or facilities. Levels of service standards & generation rates for drainage systems or facilities shall be as follows:
a. Stormwater quality. Minimum stormwater quality level of service is retention of the runoff from the first one-half inch of rainfall for drainage areas less than 100 acres. For areas of 100 acres or more, the runoff from one inch of rainfall shall be retained with the runoff.
b. Stormwater quantity. For flood attenuation, the city will use the 25-year critical storm with facilities designed so the post development stormwater off-site discharge rate shall not be greater than the predevelopment discharge rate, as determined by the applicable Panama City Stormwater Master Plan, or by standard engineering analysis.
(5) Potable water systems or facilities. Levels of service & generation rates for potable water systems or facilities shall be as follows:
a. The level of service standard for determination of capacity shall be 90% of the permitted capacity of the Bay County water treatment plant(s). The assessment shall be based on the most current year’s data as supplied by Bay County.
b. Residential uses shall be assessed at a rate of 125 gallons per capita per day for one residential unit. Nonresidential uses shall be assessed at a rate of 166 gallons per 1,000 square feet of heated & cooled space.
(6) Parks & recreation systems or facilities. Levels of service & generation rates for parks & recreation systems shall be as follows:
a. The level of service standard for determination of capacity for park & recreation systems shall be one acre of neighborhood park per 1,000 city population, in addition to 2 & three-fourths acres of community park per 1,000 city population.
b. The most recent annual park inventory prepared by the city shall be utilized for park space concurrency analysis.
(7) Public school facilities. The level of service standard for public school facilities is determined jointly by all statutorily nonexempt local government agencies within Bay County, in consensus with the Bay District School Board. Levels of service & generation rates for public school facilities shall be as follows:
a. The level of service standard for determination of capacity for public schools shall be as depicted in table 103.2. The Bay District School Board is responsible for the annual reporting of available FISH capacity.
Table 103.2—Public School Facilities
Level of Service Standards
Type of School
Level of Service
100% of FISH capacity
100% of FISH capacity
100% of FISH capacity
FISH—Florida Inventory of School Houses
b. Student generation rates for determination of capacity for public schools shall be as depicted in table 103.3.
The analysis shall calculate elementary students at 46 % of the total number of students generated (grades K thru 5); middle school students at 23 % of the total number of students generated (grades 6 through 8); & high school students at 31 % of the total number of students generated (grades 9 through 12) by dwelling type.
Student impacts shall be assessed by school family district boundaries.
Table 103.3—Public School Facilities Student Generation Rates
Type of Dwelling
Table 103.3—Public School Facilities Student Generation Rate (Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-6. - Adequate services & facilities capacities. The availability of public facilities to include all facilities & services listed in section 103-4 shall not fall below the adopted level of service standards of the comprehensive plan & the land development regulations. The following requirements shall prevail specific to the service or facility:
(1) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, potable water supply & facilities, & stormwater systems shall be in place at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
(2) The acreage for park space shall be dedicated or be acquired by the city prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or funds in the amount of the developer’s fair share shall be committed no later than issuance of the development order.
(3) Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the issuance of the first building permit for uses or structures pertaining to the development that will result in traffic generation. However, for those sites located within the boundary of an adopted mobility plan, the city shall not assess transportation concurrency fair-share fees. In adopted mobility plan districts the city shall assess the adopted mobility fee. This fee shall be paid at the time the development order is issued.
(4) Prior to the issuance of a development order for those uses which contain residential dwelling units, the applicant shall obtain from the Bay District School Board facilities department verification that there is adequate capacity for the proposed development, or that appropriate mitigation has been made or programmed.
a. The city shall not issue a development order if adequate public school capacity for school-aged children is not available, or is not in place or under construction within 3 years after the issuance of the development order, or is not mitigated by the developer through a legally binding document. Such determination shall be made by the Bay District School Board’s authorized representative.
b. The city shall consider the Bay District School Board’s authorized representative’s comments & findings on the availability of adequate school capacity when considering comprehensive plan future land use map amendments &/or zoning change requests where such amendment &/or request increases residential density.
(5) No development order shall be approved unless a corresponding concurrency encumbrance certificate has been issued or a determination is made that the development proposed is exempt from concurrency review. (Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-7. - Concurrency evaluations. Any property owner may request a written concurrency evaluation based upon a proposed development. Such evaluation is nonbinding upon the city, & is to be used for informational purposes only. A concurrency evaluation is valid only for the date issued, & the circumstances of the evaluation may change. Concurrency evaluations are not to be construed as any type of vesting for any development.
Concurrency evaluations are subject to a fee as adopted in the city’s fee schedule.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-8. - Concurrency management system. The city shall independently evaluate the impact to public facilities & services for each proposed development. The projected need incurred by a proposed development for which adequate capacity is available shall be withdrawn from the available capacity of the public facilities & service levels in determining when the capacity thresholds have been met. No capacity reservation shall occur until issuance of a concurrency encumbrance certification pursuant to section 103-9.
The potential impacts on public facilities & services caused by proposed development shall be determined using the generation rates & thresholds set forth in section 103-5.
(1) [Development orders.] No development order shall be issued until capacity thresholds or level of service standards have been met or exceeded for a proposed development unless:
a. The city agrees to make improvements necessary to satisfy level of service standards. A development order may be issued on the basis of such an agreement, however, the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be subject to the completion of the required improvements.
b. The subject site lies within an adopted mobility plan area. This exemption only applies to transportation concurrency.
c. Transportation improvements are funded & programmed to be in place within 3 years of issuance of the development order.
d. The proportionate fair share option for transportation systems, as described in section [chapter] 103A of this Code, is utilized.
e. Adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the issuance of final subdivision or site plan approval.
f. 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.
(2) Acceptable methods of mitigation. Appropriate forms of mitigation may include:
a. Contribution of land.
b. Contribution of funds.
c. Construction of improvements, acceptable to the City, to the adopted service standard.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-9. - Concurrency encumbrance. If a development requires a concurrency evaluation, a concurrency encumbrance certificate must be issued in conjunction with issuance of a development order.
(1) Development orders cannot be issued without a concurrency encumbrance certificate.
(2) Concurrency encumbrance certificates are not valid prior to the issuance of a development order.
(3) Concurrency encumbrance certificates must not be analyzed or completed more than 30 days prior to the issuance of the applicable development order.
(4) A concurrency encumbrance certificate is valid for 6 months from the date of issuance of a development order.
(5) During the period from the time the development order is issued, until the first building permit is issued, the capacity of any given service shall be deemed encumbered & shall be removed from the available capacity bank.
(6) The capacity of any given service shall be deemed as permitted capacity after a building permit is issued, & shall be removed from the available capacity & encumbered capacity banks.
(7) Permitted capacity shall be returned to the encumbered or available capacity banks when a building permit expires & a certificate of acceptance is not issued for a project with an issued development order.
(8) A concurrency encumbrance certificate is not eligible for extension. If a development subject to the concurrency encumbrance certificate does not receive a building permit within the valid period of the development order, or such building permit expires, the applicant must apply for a new concurrency encumbrance certificate.
(9) If the development does not meet all levels of service at the time of the reissuance, the developer must mitigate the impacts of the development prior to the issuance of any building permit or commencement of construction.
(10) The issuance of a concurrency encumbrance certificate shall reserve capacity for the corresponding development as long as the development order remains active & valid.
(11) Concurrency encumbrance certificates are nontransferable [to] any other parcel.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-10. - Concurrency exemption. Determinations of exemption from concurrency shall be made by the planning official or a designee. Exemptions may be based on vested rights determinations, reuse developments, de minimis criteria.
(1) Developments that are a reuse of an existing structure that has previously received a development order may be eligible for concurrency credits if [the] permitted use for such structure has not been discontinued or abandoned for a period not to exceed one year.
(2) If such credits are sought, the evaluation shall be based on the previous use of the structure, based on city records &/or Bay County Property Appraiser records. (Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Sec. 103-11. - Annual concurrency report.
(a) The city shall prepare an annual concurrency report which evaluates the status of the year’s development order activity, including:
(1) Development orders that were issued;
(2) Projects that were issued a certificate of acceptance;
(3) Development orders that were approved but not issued due to nonpayment of funds;
(4) Development orders that expired due to lack of issuance of a building permit or inactivity; &
(5) Development orders that are under review, but not issued, at the time of the report.
(b) The annual concurrency report shall also evaluate each public facility & service indicating:
(1) The available capacity for each system at the beginning of the reporting period, & the end of the reporting period;
(2) Available capacity;
(3) Encumbered capacity;
(4) Permitted capacity;
(5) Vested capacity;
(6) A forecast of capacity needs based upon development orders that are under current review, but not issued; &
(7) Programmed capacity.
(c) As part of the annual update to the capital improvements element, the city shall prepare a report that lists the developments that qualifies as de minimum exceptions to identify all building permits that were exempt from concurrency evaluation. This report shall identify the total vehicular trips of all exemptions combined & how that total affects the transportation levels of service.
(Ord. No. 2417, § 1(Exh. A), 3-8-2011)
Chapter 103A - PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION
Sec. 103A-1. - Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public & private sectors, to be known as the proportionate fair-share program, as required by & in a manner consistent with F.S. § 163.3180(16). (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-2. - Applicability. The proportionate fair-share program shall apply to all applicants for developments in the City of Panama City that have been notified of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency on a transportation facility governed by the city’s concurrency management system, including transportation facilities maintained by Bay County, FDOT, or another jurisdiction that are relied upon for concurrency determinations. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-3. - Exclusions. The proportionate fair-share program does not apply to a development of regional impact (DRI) using proportionate fair share under F.S. § 163-3180(12), or to developments exempted from concurrency as provided in the comprehensive plan, in section 103-7 of the Code, &/or pursuant to the provisions of F.S. § 163.3180(6), governing de minimis impacts. Also excluded are transportation improvements required for public safety, on site roadway improvements, or off-site improvements otherwise required by the Code for non-deficient roadway segments. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-4. - Minimum requirements for proportionate fair-share mitigation. Notwithstanding chapter 103 of the Code, an applicant for development may choose to satisfy all transportation concurrency requirements by contributing or paying proportionate fair-share mitigation only under the following conditions:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan & applicable land development regulations.
(2) The city’s 5-year capital improvement element (CIE) includes capacity of the transportation improvements that, upon completion, will fully mitigate for the additional traffic generated by the proposed development.
(3) If the city’s concurrency management system indicates that the capacity of the transportation improvement set forth in the CIE has already been consumed by the allocated trips of previously approved development or the CIE does not reflect the transportation improvement needed to satisfy concurrency, then the provisions of this section shall apply.
(4) The city may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation concurrency through the proportionate fair-share program by contributing to an improvement that, upon completion, will fully mitigate for the additional traffic generated by the proposed development but is not contained in the CIE as follows:
a. The city commission votes to add the improvement to the CIE no later than the next regularly scheduled update of the CIE. To qualify for consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be determined to be financially feasible pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(b)(1), consistent with the comprehensive plan, & in compliance with the provisions of this section. The term financial feasibility under this chapter means that additional contributions, payments or funding sources are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed ten years to fully mitigate for the impacts of the proposed development on transportation facilities.
b. If the funds allocated for the CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a transportation improvement required by the concurrency management system, the city may enter into a binding proportionate fair-share agreement with the applicant pursuant to section 102-24(e) of the Code or as a condition of development approval, to authorize construction of that amount of development which the proportionate fair share is calculated if the proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation will, in the opinion of the city or governmental entity maintaining the transportation facility, significantly benefit the impacted transportation system. Criteria governing this opinion shall include whether the proposed transportation improvements that would constitute proportionate fair-share mitigation are to be contained in an adopted short- or long- range transportation plan or program of the city, TPO, FDOT, or other local or regional transportation agency. Proposed improvements not reflected in an adopted transportation plan or program that would significantly reduce access issues, congestion, & number of trips, or increase mobility in the impacted transportation system (including new roads, additional right-of-way, service roads, operational improvements, improved network development, increased connectivity, additional roadway drainage, or transit oriented solutions) may also be considered at the discretion of the city. Any improvement(s) funded by proportionate fair-share mitigation must be adopted into the CIE at the next regularly scheduled update of the CIE.
(5) Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer’s fair-share obligation must meet local design standards as well as those of the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) for the state highway system. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-5. - Intergovernmental coordination. Pursuant to the policies of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the city’s comprehensive plan & applicable policies in the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization’s Programs as amended, the city shall coordinate with affected jurisdictions, including FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities not under the jurisdiction of the local government receiving the application for proportionate fair-share mitigation. An interlocal agreement may be established with any other affected jurisdiction for this purpose. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-6. - Application process. The proportionate fair-share program shall be governed by the following procedures.
(1) Within 10 days of a determination of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the applicant for development shall be notified in writing of the city’s proportionate fair-share program.
(2) Prior to submitting an application for proportionate fair-share mitigation, a pre-application meeting shall be held to discuss eligibility, application submittal requirements, potential mitigation options, & related issues.
(3) Eligible applicants shall submit an application to the city that includes an application fee of $250.00 & the following:
a. Name, address, & phone number(s) of owner(s), developer, & any authorized agent;
b. Property location, including parcel identification numbers;
c. Legal description & survey of property;
d. Project description, including type, intensity, & distribution of development;
e. Any proposed phasing schedule;
f. Description of proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation methods;
g. Estimated value of the proposed fair-share mitigation pursuant to this chapter;
h. All necessary applications.
(4) Within 10 business days of submittal, the director or their designee shall review the application & determine whether the application is complete & sufficient. If an application is determined to be insufficient, incomplete, or inconsistent with the general requirements of the program & this chapter, the applicant will be notified in writing within 20 business days of the submittal of the application. If the deficiencies are not remedied within 45 business days of notification, the director shall deny the application. The director may grant an extension of time if requested in writing. Any extension shall be no longer than 60 days & shall be subject to the applicant showing good cause for the extension & verification that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to remedy the deficiencies.
(5) Pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(e), proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System requires the concurrence of the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT). In such event, the applicant shall submit evidence that FDOT concurs with the proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation.
(6) Within 60 business days from the date at which the application is deemed sufficient, complete, & eligible, the director shall evaluate the application pursuant to this chapter & subsequently notify the applicant in writing of the status of approval. A copy of the notification shall be provided to the FDOT for any proportionate fair-share mitigation proposed on a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility or any other FDOT facility.
(7) Appeals of decisions of the director pursuant to this chapter shall be made directly to the city commission. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-7. - Methodology for determining proportionate fair-share mitigation. The following shall describe the methodology to determine proportionate fair-share mitigation.
(1) Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include, without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of land, & construction & contribution of facilities, & may include public funds if the city commission authorizes the use of public funds.
(2) A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation for the impacted facilities shall not differ among the forms of proportionate share mitigation.
(3) The methodology to be used by the director to calculate an applicant’s proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be as provided for in F.S. § 163.3180(12), as follows:
“The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build-out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume (MSV) 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.”
Proportionate Fair-Share = σ [[(Development Trips1) / (SV increase1)] X Cost1]
Development Trips1 = Those trips from the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to a roadway segment “1” & have triggered a deficiency per the concurrency management system or have further degraded the LOS of an already deficient roadway segment;
SV Increase1 = Service volume increase provided by the eligible improvement to roadway segment “1” per Section 130A-4,
Cost1 = Adjusted cost of improvement to segment “1”. Cost shall include all improvements & associated costs, such as design, right-of-way, acquisition, planning, engineering, inspection, & physical development costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost in the year it will be incurred.
(4) The term “cumulative” used above includes only those trips from the stage or phase of a development being considered in the application. The trips expected to reach the failing roadway for this calculation are those identified in the development’s traffic impact analysis. All assumptions used in the proportionate fair-share calculation should be consistent with those used in chapter 103
(5) In the context of the formula for the proportionate fair-share calculation, “development trips” apply only to those trips that trigger a concurrency deficiency or are adding trips to an existing deficient roadway segment.
(6) For the purpose of determining proportionate fair share mitigation, the city shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cost of the improvement as obtained from the Capital Improvements Element, the CIP, the TPO Transportation Improvement Program, or the FDOT Work Program. Where such information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined using one of the following methods:
a. An analysis by the city of costs by cross section type that incorporates data from recent projects & is updated annually. In order to accommodate increases in construction material costs, project costs shall be adjusted by the inflation factor established by the U. S. Dept. of Commerce; or
b. The most recent issue of FDOT transportation costs, as adjusted based upon the type of cross section; locally available data from recent projects on acquisition, drainage, & utility costs; & significant changes in the cost of materials due to unforeseeable events. Cost estimates for state road improvements not included in the adopted FDOT Work Program shall be determined using this method in coordination with the FDOT District.
(7) If a proposed form of proportionate fair-share mitigation is other than financial, then the value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation improvement shall be determined using one of the methods provided in this section.
(8) If the fair market value of an alternative form of fair-share mitigation is less than the total proportionate fair-share obligation as determined above, the applicant must pay the difference as a fee-in-lieu payment. The city is authorized to accept forms of proportionate fair-share mitigation that exceed the actual values calculated. Under no circumstances shall the city approve an application that obligates the city to compensate an applicant for proportionate fair-share mitigation that exceeds the value calculated.
(9) If the conveyance of land or a right-of-way dedication is proposed as a form of proportionate fair-share mitigation, the value of the land or right-of-way shall be the fair market value established by an independent appraisal approved by the city at the time of the application & at no expense to the city. The applicant shall supply with the application a survey & legal description of the land or right-of-way & a certificate of title or title search of the land to the city at no expense to the city, & shall deliver clear title by warranty deed to the city at closing. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-8. - Certificate of concurrency for proportionate fair-share mitigation. Upon approval of an application for proportionate fair-share mitigation, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) Notwithstanding the requirements in chapter 103, upon approval of an application for proportionate fair-share mitigation, the city shall issue to the applicant a certificate of concurrency governing concurrency for transportation facilities, which shall explicitly set forth the proportionate fair-share mitigation required by this chapter.
(2) If within 12 months of the date of the certificate of concurrency the applicant should fail to apply for a building permit, the approval of the application for proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be considered null & void. At that time, the applicant will be required to reapply for a certificate of concurrency for the project. Extensions may only be granted by the director should the applicant show good cause in due diligence in their permitting process.
(3) Payment of the proportionate fair-share mitigation funds is due in full prior to issuance of the final development order or recording of the final plat & is nonrefundable. If the payment is submitted more than 12 months from the date of the issuance of the certificate of concurrency, the proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be recalculated at the time of payment based on the best estimate of the construction cost for the required improvement at the time of payment pursuant to section 103A-7 & shall be adjusted accordingly.
(4) If an applicant enters into a binding agreement or receives a development order which requires road improvements as a condition of development approval, such improvements must be completed prior to issuance of any certificates of acceptance (CA) or any final plat approval. A presentment bond payable to the city sufficient to ensure the completion of improvements shall be obtained.
(5) Dedication of land or right-of-way for facility improvements to the city as proportionate fair-share mitigation must be completed prior to issuance of the certificate of acceptance or recordation of the final plat.
(6) Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a development order may be subject to additional proportionate fair-share mitigation to the extent the change would generate additional traffic that would require mitigation. In such event, the applicant for development must submit an application pursuant to this chapter.
(7) Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-share program at any time prior to the issuance of the certificate of concurrency. The application fee & any associated advertising costs to the city will be nonrefundable.
(8) The city may consider joint applications for proportionate fair-share mitigation to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on improvements to a shared transportation facility, & may coordinate with other jurisdictions on proportionate fair-share mitigation through interlocal agreements. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-9. - Appropriation of fair-share revenues. At the time the proportionate fair-share mitigation funds are received pursuant to this chapter, they shall be deposited as follows:
(1) Proportionate fair-share mitigation funds shall be placed in the appropriate project account for funding of scheduled improvements in the CIE or CIP, or as otherwise established in the terms of the certificate of concurrency, or as a condition of development approval. At the discretion of the city, proportionate fair-share revenues may be used for operational improvements prior to construction of a project from which the proportionate fair-share funds were derived. Proportionate fair-share mitigation funds may also be used as the 50% local match for funding under the FDOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP).
(2) In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the CIP, then the revenues collected for its construction may be applied toward the construction of another improvement within that same corridor or sector that the city determines will mitigate the impacts of development.
(3) Where an impacted regional facility has been designated as a regionally significant transportation facility in an adopted regional transportation plan pursuant to F.S. § 339.155, then the city may coordinate with other impacted jurisdictions & agencies to apply proportionate fair-share mitigation & public contributions & seek funding for improving the impacted regional facility under the FDOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). Such coordination shall be ratified by the city through an interlocal agreement that establishes a procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions for this purpose. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)
Sec. 103A-10. - Impact fee credit for proportionate fair-share mitigation. The following requirements shall apply regarding impact fee credits & proportionate fair-share mitigation.
(1) Proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be applied as a credit against impact fees only when a transportation impact fee is applied. Credits will be given for that portion of the applicant’s transportation impact fees that would have been used to fund the improvements on which the proportionate fair-share mitigation is calculated. If the proportionate fair-share mitigation is based on only a portion of the development’s traffic, the credit will be limited to that portion of the impact fees on which the proportionate fair-share mitigation is based.
(2) Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share mitigation will be determined when the transportation impact fee is calculated for the proposed development. If the applicant’s proportionate fair-share mitigation is less than the development’s anticipated road impact fee for the specific stage or phase of development under review, then the applicant or its successor must pay the remaining impact fee amount to the city.
(3) The proportionate fair-share mitigation is intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of a proposed development at a specific location. As a result, any road impact fee credit based upon proportionate fair-share mitigation for a proposed development cannot be transferred to any other location. (Ord. No. 2229, § 1, 12-12-2006)