Title: Lecture Outlines plus Lecture Program and Speaker Evaluation Form: Issues for the 1990's: Infrastructure, Economics and Concurrency - June 15, 1989 Orlando
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004321/00001
 Material Information
Title: Lecture Outlines plus Lecture Program and Speaker Evaluation Form: Issues for the 1990's: Infrastructure, Economics and Concurrency - June 15, 1989 Orlando
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Environmental and Land Use Law Section
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Lecture Outlines plus Lecture Program and Speaker Evaluation Form: Issues for the 1990's: Infrastructure, Economics and Concurrency - June 15, 1989 Orlando (JDV Box 89)
General Note: Box 19, Folder 12 ( Infrastructure, Economics and Concurrency - 1989 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004321
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text





CLE SEMINAR EVALUATION FORM

NAME -'DATE

NAME OF CI'RF -E

CITY :/, '. FACILITY -',-// /.-

Please answer the questions below so that we may have the benefit of your suggestions and criticisms.
Your answers will be kept confidential. Based on the following scale: (5) Outstanding, (4) Excellent,
(3) Good, (2) Fair and (1) Poor. If you rate a speaker 2 or 1, please tell us why below so that we can
further improve our programs.


NAME OF LECTURER


2, .- -"

3.

4. 7.,/ _Ii.-

5.


RATING




/


6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Please grade the overall program.


C. -


1. What were the strong/weak points:


2. Comments:






3. Please classify the course BASIC INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED

4. Is this the level you anticipated YES ; NO

5. How many years have you practiced?

6. What topic areas would you be interested in for future programs?


7. Any comments about the facilities used to present this program?


TURN IN WHITE COPY-RETAIN YELLOW COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS


--~------- ~- .~ _______





LECTURE OUTLINES
-PLUS-
LECTURE PROGRAM
AND
SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM




Issues For
The 1990's:

Infrastructure,
Economics and
Concurrency




June 15, 1989
Orlando


Sponsored by the Environmental and Land Use Law Section




























Copyright 1989
The Florida Bar



*A~Z









PREFACE

The course materials in this booklet were prepared for
use by the registrants attending our Continuing Legal
Education course during the lectures and later in their
offices.

The Florida Bar is indebted to the members of the
Steering Committee, the lecturers and authors for their
donations of time and talent, but does not have an
official view of their work products.

CLER CREDIT
(Maximum 3.0 hours)

General............3.0 hours Ethics..........0.0 hours

DESIGNATION CREDIT
(Maximum 3.0 hours)

Administrative and Governmental Law..........3.0 hours
Environmental Law............................3.0 hours
General Practice.............................3.0 hours
Real Property Law.............................1.5 hours

CERTIFICATION CREDIT
(Maximum 2.0 hours)

Civil Trial.................................. 2.0 hours
Real Estate..................................1.5 hours

Policy does not permit double credit within any one of
the programs listed above. Any combination of the
hours indicated may be used providing the total does
not exceed the maximum for the course or the total for
the area. EACH LAWYER SHOULD MAINTAIN A RECORD OF
CREDIT HOURS EARNED.

COURSE CLASSIFICATION

The Steering Committee for this course has determined
its content to be INTERMEDIATE.









ISSUES FOR THE 1990'S:
INFRASTRUCTURE, ECONOMICS AND CONCURRENCY
Sponsored by the Environmental
and Land Use Law Section


Thursday, June 15, 1989


8:30 a.m. 8:40 a.m.




8:40 a.m. 9:05 a.m.





9:05 a.m. 9:30 a.m.





9:30 a.m. 9:55 a.m.






9:55 a.m. 10:10 a.m.

10:10 a.m. 10:25 a.m.


INTRODUCTION
John G. Metcalf, Pappas &
Metcalf,
P.A., Jacksonville

THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT IN
PRACTICE
Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary,
Department of Community
Affairs, Tallahassee

FINANCING INFRASTRUCTURE IN
THE 1990's
Jacob D. Varn, Carlton,
Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith
& Cutler, P.A., Tallahassee

ESTABLISHING LEVELS OF SERVICE
- VIEWS OF A PUBLIC CHOICE
ECONOMIST
Dr. Randy Holcombe, Department
of Economics, Florida State
University, Tallahassee

BREAK

THE IMPACT OF THE CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENT ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
Dr. Charles W. Blowers, Chief,
Planning Department, Metro
Dade County, Miami


I









10:25 a.m. 10:50 a.m.





10:50 a.m. 11:30 a.m.


THE FUTURE OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
Wade L. Hopping, Hopping,
Boyd, Green & Sams,
Tallahassee

PANEL DISCUSSION
Moderator: John G. Metcalf,
Pappas & Metcalf, P.A.,
Jacksonville









ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE LAW SECTION


Roger W. Sims, Lakeland-Chairman
Terry E. Lewis, West Palm Beach-Chairman-Elect
Daniel H. Thompson, Tallahassee-Chairman, CLE Committee
Timothy A. Smith, Miami-Chairman, CLE Workshops

FACULTY & STEERING COMMITTEE

John G. Metcalf, Jacksonville-Program Co-Chairman
Timothy A. Smith, Miami-Program Co-Chairman
Charles W. Blowers, Miami
Randy Holcombe, Tallahassee
Wade L. Hopping, Tallahassee
Thomas G. Pelham, Tallahassee
Jacob D. Varn, Tallahassee










TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT IN
PRACTICE DRAFT RULE 9J-5
Thomas G. Pelham, Tallahassee

Rules of the Department of Community
Affairs..................................... 1.1-1.13

ESTABLISHING LEVELS OF SERVICE-
VIEWS OF A PUBLIC CHOICE ECONOMIST
Randy Holcombe, Tallahassee

I. The Common Pool Problem and
Collective Comsumption Goods............ 2.1
II. Congestion and Peak Load Pricing........ 2.2
III. Levels of Service....................... 2.3
IV. Collective Consumption Goods............ 2.4
V. Distributional Issues................... 2.5
VI. Conclusions............................. 2.7

THE IMPACT OF THE CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Charles W. Blowers, Miami

Introduction.................................. 3.1
I. Concurrency Infrastructure Funding...... 3.2
II. Information Systems to Support
Concurrency Implementation.............. 3.6
III. Possible Outcomes and Effects of
Concurrency Application on Urban
Development............................. 3.10









ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

THOMAS G. PELHAM is the Secretary of the Department of
Community Affairs. The Department has responsibility
for state programs in the areas of growth management,
housing and community development, and emergency
management. Secretary Pelham also serves as Chairman
of the State Emergency Response Commission and as a
member of the Board of Directors of the Florida Housing
Finance Agency. He received his B.A. and J.D. degrees
from Florida State University, his M.A. degree from
Duke University and his Master of Law degree from
Harvard University. By profession, Secretary Pelham is
a lawyer. Prior to becoming secretary in 1987, he
acquired broad experience in environmental and land use
planning law as a lawyer, teacher, writer, and planning
commissioner. While in the private practice of law he
represented both developers and environmental and
citizens' groups. He also served as a member and
chairman of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning
Commission and as a member of the Capital Center
Planning Commission. Secretary Pelham taught land use
planning law as a member of the Southern Methodist
University School of Law from 1977-1980 and as an
adjunct professor at Florida State University from
1981-1984. During this time, he authored a book and
numerous articles on Florida's growth management
programs.

JACOB D. VARN is a native Floridian, who holds a Juris
Doctorate degree and a Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering from the University of Florida. He was
admitted to The Florida Bar in 1971. Upon graduation
from law school he joined the Southwest Florida Water
Management District. In June of 1973 he joined the
Carlton, Fields firm and has been with the firm since
that time, except for approximately three years (1979
through 1981). In February of 1979 he was appointed by
Governor Graham to serve as Secretary of the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation. He served in
that capacity until February of 1981, when Governor
Graham appointed him as the Secretary of the Florida
Department of Transportation. He returned to the









Carlton, Fields firm in November of 1981 and has worked
in the Tallahassee office since that time. In recent
years he has worked exclusively in the area of water,
environmental, land use, administrative and
transportation law and is generally recognized as an
expert in these areas of the law. He has represented a
wide variety of clients, including residential
developers, phosphate companies, shopping center
developers, local governments, road contractors and oil
companies. He works on a frequent basis with the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of
Community Affairs, Florida Department of
Transportation, the regional planning councils, the
water management districts, the Governor and Cabinet
and various local governments (primarily in the Tampa
Bay area).

RANDALL G. HOLCOMBE is professor of economics at
Florida State University. He has a bachelor's degree
from the University of Florida, and M.A. and Ph.D.
degrees in economics from Virginia Polytechnic
Institute. He is the author of four books and more
than eighty publications in scholarly journals. His
main area of research interest is the application of
economic theory to government decision-making.

CHARLES W. BLOWERS is Chief of the Research Division,
Metro-Dade Planning Department, a position he has held
for 17 years. He worked for the TVA as an economist
and the State of Kansas, Legislative Audit Committee.
His educational background includes B.A. and M.A.
degrees from the University of Florida and a doctorate
from the University.of Tennessee, all in economics.
His responsibilities with the Dade County Planning
Department are to provide demographic, economic and
geographic research and analytical support to the
planning program. Included within that are fiscal
impact analysis financial studies and development of
the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. He has done private consulting and been an
adjunct professor at Florida International University
and University of Miami. Being from St. Petersburg,


vii




I


having spent most of his life in Florida and visiting
all part of the State, he definitely thinks of himself
as a "Friend of Florida."

WADE L. HOPPING is a Senior Partner in the law firm of
Hopping Boyd Green & Sams located in Tallahassee,
Florida. He received his J.D. degree from Ohio State
University Law School in 1955, and his undergraduate
degree from Ohio State University. He is a former
Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida with extensive
legislative experience, both as a lobbyist and an
advisor to former Governor Claude Kirk. He has a broad
based environmental/administrative law practice
representing most of Florida's utility companies, a
number of major land developers, and a phosphate mining
company. Mr. Hopping served as a member of the
Environmental Land Management Study Committee (ELMS
II), Senator Neal's Ad Hoc Task Force on Wetlands,
Chairman of the Florida Chamber of Commerce Natural
Resources Committee, and the Governor's Coastal
Resource Management Citizens Advisory Committee. He is
also a past President of the Florida Chamber of
Commerce.


viii















THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT IN PRACTICE
DRAFT RULE 9J-5



























Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

Department of Community Affairs
Tallahassee










RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Division of Resource Planning and Management
RULES TITLES:

Purpose 93-5.001
Definitions 9J-5.003
General Requirements 93-5.005

Concurrency Management System 93-5.0055

Capital Improvements Element 9J-5.016


PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of this amendment to Chapter

9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, is to include minimum criteria
to ensure the availability of public facilities and service

concurrent with the impacts of development. This amendment

includes provisions to add requirements concerning the Wekiva

River Protection Area.

SUMMARY: The proposed amendment provides guidelines to local

governments to enable the development of a concurrency management

system which will ensure the availability of public facilities

and services concurrent with the impacts of development. The
proposed amendments also include new definitions.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY 120.53(1)(b), 163.3177(9) FS.

LAW IMPLEMENTED 163.3167, 163.3177, 163.3184, 163.3187 FS.
SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED RULES:

(1) The proposed amendments to Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code, will not add any addition as cost to be

incurred by the agency. The cost of promulgating the rule

amendments is approximately $11,000.

(2) There is no additional cost associated with the
amendments that would impact local governments to meet the

requirements of the proposed amendments since they are

clarifications and further guidelines for the existing rule.

There will be no fiscal impact on regional planning councils.











(3) The procedures required by the proposed amendments have

no significant impact on competition and the open market for

employment.

(4) There is no impact on small or minority businesses as

defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act

of 1985.

(5) The full economic impact statement contains the

discussion of the data and methods used in making each estimate.

A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT THE TIME, DATE, AND PLACE SHOWN

BELOW:

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m., Thursday, June 8, 1989

PLACE: Department of Community Affairs, Emergency Operations

Center, Room 176, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida

32399-2100

Written comments regarding the proposed amendments will be

accepted through June 9, 1989.

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS:

Rhoda P. Glasco, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,

2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100,

904-488-0410.

9J-5.001 PURPOSE. This Chapter establishes minimum

criteria for the preparation, review, and determination of

compliance of comprehensive plans pursuant to the Local

Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation

Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This Chapter establishes

criteria implementing the legislative mandate that local

comprehensive plans be consistent with the appropriate

comprehensive regional policy plan and the State Comprehensive

Plan, and recognizes the major role that local government will

play in accompanying the goals and policies of the appropriate

comprehensive regional policy plan and the State Comprehensive

Plan. Rule 93-5.005S establiehes the minimum criteria to ensure











the availability of public facilities and services concurrent

with the imacts of development.

Rule 93-5.021 establish*a the requirement for comprehensive
plan consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and the

appropriate comprehensive regional policy plan. It also
establishes minimum criteria for determining whether pl&n

elements are in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.

Rules 93-5.003 through 93-5.020 establish minimum criteria for
comprehensive plan elements. The basic format of the criteria

for each element requires the identification of available data,

analyses of such data and preparation of goals, objectives and

policies to accomplish desired ends. As minimum criteria, these

criteria are not intended to prohibit a local government from

proposing, considering, adopting, enforcing, or in any other way

administering a comprehensive plan which is more specific,

detailed, or strict, or which covers additional subject areas,

whether within required or optional elements; as long as the

comprehensive plan is in compliance with Chapter 9J-5, FAC,

Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and any other applicable statutes,
laws or rules.

Specific Authority 163.3177(9),(10) FS. Law Implemented

163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3181, 163.3184,

163.3187, 163.3191, 163.3194 FS. History-New 3-6-86, Amended
10-26-86,

93-5.003 DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the terms
defined in Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, shall have the
meaning provided in that section. In addition, the following

definitions are provided to clarify terms used in this Chapter

and not to establish or limit regulatory authority of other

agencies or programs; however local governments may choose

alternative definitions which the Department shall review to

determine'whether such definitions accomplish the intent of both











this Chapter and of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes:

(1) through (6) -- No Change
I71 "Availability" or "Available". with regard to the

provision of facilities and services concurrent with the impacts

of develownent. means that at a minimum the facilities and

services will be provided in accordance with the standards et

forth in Rule 9J-5.0055f21. Florida Administrative Code.

Numbers (7) through (17) are renumbered to read (8) through

(18).
(19) "Concurrency" means that the necessary public

facilities and services to maintain the adopted level of service

standards are available when the imnacts of develoDment occur.

(20) "Concurrency Manacement System" means the procedures

and/or process that the local government will utilize to assure

that develoopent orders and hermits when issued will not result

in a reduction of the adopted level of service standards at the

time that the imact of development occurs.

121) *Ofi "CONE OF INFLUENCE" means an area around one or

more major waterwells the boundary of which is determined by the

government agency having specific statutory authority to make

such a determination based on groundwater travel or drawdown

depth.

(22. ft9* "CONSERVATION USES" means activities within land

areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting

natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas

designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of

quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain

management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative

communities or wildlife habitats.
(231 "CURRENTLY AVAILABLE REVENUE SOURCES" means an existing

source and amount of revenue resentlv available to the local

government. It does not include a local government's present












h f t l l or amour >t a e


JLntn1 tko A.-----a bn ...I- tIY eC 3MM -_r.L
which is continent on ratification by Dublic referendum.

Numbers (20) through (79) are renumbered to read (24)

through (76).
(771 "PU!BLC FACILITTIS AND SERVICES" which must be

available concurrent with the iamacts of daevlosment mns those

covered by comprehensive plan elements retuird by section

163.3177. Florida Statutes. and for which level of service

standards must be adopted under Chapter 93-5. Florida

Administrative Code. The public facilities and services are:

roads. Rule 9J-5.007131 (c)1. sanitary sewer. Rule

93-5.011131(c)2.a.a solid waste. Rule 93-5.011(31fc)2.b.:

drainage. Rule 9J-5.011(3 1c2.c. : notable water. Rule

93-5.01131(3c)2.d.: recreation. Rule 93-5.014(31)(c4. and mass

transit. Rule 93-5.008(31(cli.. if applicable.


Numbers (73) through (99) are renumbered to read (78)

through (104)

Specific Authority 163.3177(9),(10) FS. Law Implemented

163.3177, 163.3178 FS. History-New 3-6-86, Amended 10-20-86,


.93-5.005 General Requirements.

(1) through (8)(g) No Change.

1(1fh A oMeprehensive plan or plan amendment aunlicable to

the iaiva River Protection Area. in addition to the review of

the camorehensive plan or olan amendment for compliance pursuant

to Section 163.3184. Florida Statutes. must meet the requirements

of Chapter 88-121. Laws of Florida.


Specific Authority 163.3177(9), (10) FS. Law Implemented

163.3167(2),(3),(4), 163.3171, 163.3174, 163.3177, 163.3178,

163.3181, 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3191 FS. History- ew 3-6-86,

Amendment 10-20-86,


b 6 6A 4












9J-.15~ CONCURRENCY ~MA(AIENEWT RYS~1!E.


*~4l44t.~. .'.A ~i----~
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKuuuuurL guveignuent are


* an***" mum* mrvAw.I Im nIaOO o s muPPoro ayevAoonena are

available concurrent with the impacts of such development. a

local government must adopt a concurrency manaeauent system.

Prior to the issuance of a development order and development

Permit. the concurrency management system mut ensure that the

adopted level of service standards required for roads. notable

water. sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, recreation and mass

transit, if anplicable. will be maintained.

11) LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS.

fa) For the Durnose of the issuance of development orders

and permits. the local government must adont level of service

standards for public facilities and services located within the

area for which such local government has authority to issue. For


the DurDoses of concurrenCV. Dublic facilities and agryt
gag fgg 94


the following for which level of service standards must he


adopted under Chanter 93-5. Florida Administrative Code:


1. Roads, Rule 93-5.007f3)(C)1


.

2. Sanitary sever. Rule 9J-5.011(2)(cl2.a.


3. Solid wastem Rule SJ-5 011f2)(C h


4. Drainaae. Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)2


.c.


5. Potable water. Rule 93-5 011(21f d


6. Recreation. Rule 93-5.014f2)(c14


.

7. Janse transit. Rule 93-5.008f3)(cil., it an
plicable


,
If a local.novernment.desires to include in the connr
e


Plan other public facilities and services for which level of


*s,-uI, r*aA.,.A- r- --- -ar ~-


--- --- --- =sw mounswu. anw comoranensive m
e


whether or not the level of service standard must be met prior to


the issuance of a development order t


Y* .~ *..1 a


unblest to the concurrenow


service standard must be met, the facility or service mus
t e


- wnsure that


~nlrr r~rr


w r r-


rn


--~~-~-~-~


Yi


. ,


........... imlVJli i


. .


--- ----------~


I


-~~~~~. T T-- ~ ~ ~ -~


E


, a s su. a.v. ,,


--u


*--------- --------- I --


manaweaent system.










(b) The capital improvements element must set forth a

financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the local

eovarnuent can achieve and maintain the adopted level of service

standards.

Ic) A local aovernmt may desire to have a tiered.

two-level anproach for the level of service standard. To utilize

a tiered approach, the local government ust adont an initial

level of service standard as a police to be utilized for the

ourdose of the issuance of developnmnt orders and development

permits. A second policy may be included which adoots a

higher level of service standard by a date certain to be utilized

for the nurooaa of the issuance of development orders and

permits. The specific date for this second oolicv to become

effective must be included in the plan. The plan must set forth

the specific actions and Droarams for attaining the higher level

of service by the specified date. If the identified actions and

oroarams are not attained by the specified date. the local

government coaorehensive elan must be amended to specifv the

level of service standard that will be utilized and be binding

for the Purpose of the issuance of develoament orders and

pTraits.

(dl To the maximum extent feasible as determined by the

local government, the adopted level of service standard for state

roads should be compatible with the level of service standard

established by the Florida Daeartment of Transportation for such

roads. If the adopted level of service standard is not

comatible with the level of service standard established by the

Dmeartment of Transaortation. the local government must provide a

justification in its adootad plan or in the data and analysis as

to why it is not feasible to be compatible with the Florida

Department of Transortation'a level of service standard. This

justification may include. but is not limited to. situations









where adherence to the Florida DeDartaent of Transoortation's

level of service standard would result in the local government's

failure to achieve other important State olannina coals and

policies. or where deviation freo the Florida Deartment of

TransDortation's level of service standard is necessary in order


for the local covrnaent to achieve other important state

planning aoals and policies. For example. important sate
planning coals and policies would include, but not be limited to.

discouraoina the proliferation of urban sprawl and oromotina mass

transit.

(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCURRENCY. A concurrency

manaceamnt vsYtem must be developed and adopted to ensure that

public facilities and services needed to support development are

available concurrent with the impacts of such developments.

la) For notable water, sewer. solid waste. and drainage, at
a minimum. provisions in a coamrehensive plan that ensure that

the following standards will be met will satisfy the concurrence

requirement:

1. The necessary facilities and services are in place at

the time a development permit is issued: or

2. A development Permit is issued subject to the condition

that the necessary facilities and services will be in lace when

the impacts of the develorment occur; or

3. The necessary facilities are under construction at the

time a permit is issued: or

4. Tha necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in

an enforceable development agreement that includes the provisions

of Rules 93-5.0055(2) fall.-3. of this Chapter. An enforceable

development agreement may include. but is not limited to.

development aareements pursuant to section 163.3220. Florida

Statutes or an earement or develmnent order issued pursuant to
Chanter 380. Florida Statutes.










(bl For recreation, a local government may satifvy the
concurrency reauirement by connlvina with the standards in Rules
93-S.00550211fa 1.-3. of this Chanter or by including in the
colnrehensive nlan provisions that ensure that the following standards

will be net:
1. At the time the development mrmit ia issued. the
necessary facilities and services are the subLect of a finding
executd contract which provides for the commence*nt of the
actual construction of the required facilities or the provision
of services within one year of the issuance of the development
parait: or
2. The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in
an enforceable development agreement which requires the
commencement of the actual construction of the facilities or the
provision of services within one year of the issuance of the
aonlicable davelo2Dent permit. An enforceable development
agreement may include. but is not limited to. development
agreements pursuant to Section 163.3220. Florida Statutes or an
agreement or development order issued nursuant to Chanter 380.
Florida Statutes.
(cl For roads and mass transit outside of designated urban
service areas. a local government may satisfy the concurrency
requirement by following the standards in Rules 93-
5.00S(2) a)fl.-3. and f2(b1 l. and 2. of this Chanter. For roads
and ass transit within urban service areas designated in the
adote d clan and within which the local overnment has committed
to provide the necessary public facilities and services in
accordance with the five year schedule of capital imurovements. a
local government mav satisfy the concurrency requirement by
comnlving with the standards in Rules *3-S.O0SS0 t21(a.-3. and
1(2)bll. and 2.. of this Chanter or by the adoption and
ilamlaentation of a concurrency manar ment sstem based union an









adef.e Lcapital improvement program and schedule and adequate
inmlementina regulations which. at a minimum. include the
provisions of Rules 9J-5.00S55(2(c) 1.-9. of this Chapter.

1. A capital imrovementa element and a five year schedule
of capital imrovements which, in addition to meeting all of the
other statutory and rule reauirements, must be financially
feasible.

2. The five-year schedule of capital improvements which

includes both necessary facilities to maintain the adopted level of

service standards to serve the new development Proposed to be

permitted and the necessary facilities required to eliminate that

Portion of existing deficiencies which are a priority to be

eliminated during the five-vear period under the local

government's Plan schedule of capital improvements pursuant to

Rule 9J-5.016(4)(a)l. of this Chanter.

3. A realistic, financially feasible funding system based
on currently available revenue sources which is ademuate to fund


the Public'facilities required to serve the development

authorized by the development order and development permit and


vh~tch wnh14l~. *.-414e~4---J..,..- r- .L -


......... O.. A*-****M ar Anuume ian une zive-year schedule of
capital improvements.

4. The five-vear schedule of capital improvements must
include the estimated date of commencement of actual construction
.an4 th. t4i _u o .


SUN m e ma Be ae oL nro0ict coniD1etion.
5. Actual construction of the road or mass transit

facilities and the aroviaion of services must be scheduled
to chance in or before the third year of the five-year schedule
of capital improvements.

6. A Proviaion that a plan amendment would be required to
eliminate, defer or delay construction of any facility or service

which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service


1.10


standard and which is listed in the 5 year schedule of











imorovements.
7. A requirement that the local aovezr..e.it mu.st adopt

local develoPment recrlations which, in conjunction with the
capital imnramvents element. ensure that development orders and

permits are issued in a manner that will assure that the
necessaryv public facilities and services will be available to
accommodate the impact of that development.
8. A provision that a monitoring system shall be adopted
which enables the local government to determine whether it is

adhering to the adopted level of service standards and its
schedule of capital iorovements and that the local government has
a demonstrated capability of monitoring the availability of public
facilities and services.

9. The adopted comprehensive nlan must clearly designate

those urban service areas within which facilities and services

will be Provided with Public funds in accordance with the five-
year capital improvement schedule.

(di In determining the availability of services or
facilities, a developer mav DroPoaa and a local government may

anorove developments in steaks or chases so that facilities and

services needed for each Dhase will be available in accordance

with the standards reaoired by Rules 9J-5.0055(21 (a. (2) fb and
(12) ( of this Chapter.

fea For the reauirements of Rules 93-5.0055O2Sfa (2 )b)
and f2ll ( of this Chater. the local government ust develop

sidelines for interpreting and aoolvina level of service
standards to aRolications for develouent orders and permits and
determining when the test for concurrency must be met. The
latest Point in the anplication process for the determination of
concurrency is Drior to the aPnroval of an annlication for a
develomant order or permit which contains a specific plan for
development. including the densities and intensities of


1.11










devalomaent.
Specific Authority 163.3177(9), (10) FS. Law Implemented

163.3177(3),(6),(8),(9),(10) FS.

History New

93-5.016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. The purpose of the

capital improvements element is to evaluate the need for public

facilities as identified in the other comprehensive plan elements

and as defined in the applicable definitions for each type of

public facility, to estimate the cost of improvements for which

the local government has fiscal responsibility, to analyze the

fiscal capability of the local government to finance and
construct improvements, to adopt financial policies to guide the

funding of improvements and to schedule the funding and

construction of improvements in a manner necessary to ensure that

capital improvements are provided when required based on needs
identified in the other comprehensive plan elements. The element
shall also include the requirements to ensure that an adequate

concurrencV management system will be ismlemented by local
governments pursuant to Rule 93-5.0055 of this Chanter.

(1) through (4)(a)l.b. No Change

2. A list of projected costs and revenue sources by type of
public facility for the five year period. Only for the purpose
of determining the financial feasibility of the capital

improvements element. projected revenue sources may include a

local government's present intent to increase the level or amount

of a revenue source which is contingent on ratification by public

referendum. If the local aovenment utilizes these nroiected

revenue sources for planning purposes. the local government is

encouraged to include in the nlan Policies which identify

alternatives and actions to be undertaken should the referendum

fail. If a local government utilizes orolected revenue sources


1.12









which require a referendum and the plan does not include policies

to identify alternatives and actions to be taken if the

referendum fails, the olan must include a Dolicv that the local

government will amend the plan to include policies to identify

alternative funding sources or other actions should the

referendum fail. However. for the nurnose of iaauina development


orders and permits the local aovernmant mst have a copcurrency

management system which meets the requirements of Rule 9J-5.0055(2)

of this Chanter.

(b) The plan shall identify those programs to be adopted
which will ensure that the goals, objectives and policies

established in the capital improvements element are net or

exceeded. These programs shall include provisions that

facilities and services at least meet the standards established

and are available concurrent with the impacts of development so

that no development order or development permit may be issued

which results in a reduction in the levels of service below the

level of service standards established in the comprehensive plan

no later than one year after its submittal due date established

in Chapter 9J-12, Florida Administrative Code. At a minimum, the

programs related to concurrency shall meet the requirements of

Rule 9J-5.0055 of this Chapter.


(5) No Change
Specific Authority 163.3177(9),(10) FS. Law Implemented

163.3177(1),(3),(5),(8),(9),(10) FS. History-New 3-6-86, Amended

10-20-86,

NAME OF THE PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE: Rhoda P. Glasco,

Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel

NAME OF SUPERVISOR OR PERSON WHO APPROVED THE PROPOSED RULE:

Paul R. Bradshaw, Division Director, Division of Resource

Planning and Nanagement

DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED: May 4, 1989.


1.13















ESTABLISHING LEVELS OF SERVICE -
VIEWS OF A PUBLIC CHOICE ECONOMIST


Randy Holcombe

Department of Economics
Florida State University
Tallahassee








CONCURRENCY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE: AN ECONOMIST'S VIEW

Randall G. Holcombe
Florida State University

The Concurrency rule requires "that public facil-
ities and services needed to support development shall
be available concurrent with the impacts of such devel-
opment." F.S. 163.3177(9). The concurrency goal is not
controversial: everyone wants adequate infrastructure.
The controversy related to concurrency comes from at
least two areas: (1) defining the levels of service
that are needed to support development," and (2) de-
termining who will pay for the infrastructure. Economic
analysis can shed some light on why these areas are
problems, and what might be done about them.

I. The Common Pool Problem and Collective
Consumption Goods

A. Inefficient resource allocation results
when scarce resources are owned in common and when any-
one is allowed access at no cost. The inefficiency
arises because nobody has an incentive to consider the
costs their behavior imposes on others. See Cheung,
The Structure of a Contract and the Theory of a Non-
exclusive Resource, 13 Journal of Law & Economics 49
(April 1970).

B. Illustrations:

1. If grazing land is owned in common,
nobody has an incentive to conserve the scarce grass in
the common grazing ground, so it will be overgrazed.
The inefficiency arises because individuals do not have
an incentive to consider the costs that their grazing
imposes on others. The solution is to divide up the
common land and give every user exclusive ownership
over a small portion. Private owners have an incentive
to make their own grazing land as productive as possi-
ble, and the land will be more productive because it is
not overused.

2. A century ago buffalo were hunted
almost to extinction while the cattle population grew,
despite the fact that more cattle were being consumed
2.1








than buffalo. The reason is that cattle were privately
owned while buffalo were not. There was no incentive
for individuals to conserve the resource, so it was
overused and hunted almost to extinction.

3. Roads are also a common pool resource.
Access to roads is not restricted, and nobody has an in-
centive to take into account the costs they impose on
others by their access.

C. The common pool problem gives individuals
an incentive to overutilize roads.

II. Congestion and Peak Load Pricing

A. Some goods require a large fixed investment,
but they are fully utilized only at certain peak times.
Illustrations include golf courses, movie theatres,
electricity generation facilities, and roads. The
resource could be used more efficiently if some peak
users could be enticed to use the facility at off-peak
times.

B. Efficient prices always require users to
take account of the full costs of their use of the good.
If there is excess capacity, then users do not impose
congestion costs on others and the optimal price is
lower.

1. The law of demand states that there
is an inverse relationship between the price of a good
or service and the quantity demanded. People respond
to incentives. An increase in a price discourages an
activity while a decrease in price encourages it.

2. This explains lower off-peak prices
such as afternoon matinees at movies, weekday greens
fees at golf courses, and off-peak electricity rates
(where time of use can be monitored). For efficient
use, road use should be priced differently at peak and
off-peak hours.

C. As long as there is no charge to gain
access to a road, people will enter as long as the
benefit of doing so is positive, whereas efficient
access should be halted when the cost (including costs
S2.2









imposed on others) exceeds the benefit.


1. One solution is toll roads, where the
toll reflects the total cost imposed on others for the
use of the road. This forces the driver to take account
of the costs of road use. Toll roads may not be prac-
tical in congested urban areas.

2. Congestion acts as a cost imposed on
drivers, and causes them to use roads less, and at off-
peak hours. Tolls would be a more efficient means for
rationing road use, but in the absence of tolls, con-
gestion serves the function of allocating scarce space
on roads.

D. As long as access to roads is unrestricted,
it will not be possible to eliminate congestion by
building new roads and widening existing ones. Road-
way improvement will produce more traffic by itself
because it reduces the incentive to use roads on off-
peak hours, it reduces the incentive for people to live
close to where they work, and it reduces the incentive
to take fewer trips but do more on each one. In other
words, roadway improvement lowers the congestion cost
paid by drivers, so roadway improvement by itself will
cause more traffic even if there is no new development.

III. Levels of Service

A. The concurrency requirement, narrowly inter-
preted with specified levels of service, is based on
the naive assumption that development causes congestion.
While more people will tend to cause more congestion,
congestion is also caused by peoples' choices of where
to live relative to where they work, when they take
discretionary trips (such as for shopping), and how
much to accomplish on each outing.

1. One implication is that levels of
service, as defined by Fla. Admin. Code Rule 9J.5, may
be impossible to implement. Road improvement intended
to raise levels of service could result in increased
levels of traffic instead.


2.3


I








2. Levels of service could be increased by
encouraging business and commercial development on the
outskirts of urban areas. An assumption (too often
true today) is that commuters will drive from suburbs
to urban center in the morning, then back in the eve-
ning. Business development at the outskirts helps
traffic flows two ways.

a. The two-way flow of traffic will be
more balanced, rather than producing congestion in
one direction or the other.

b. Spreading work places around the
perimeter makes it easier to live closer to the work-
place, reducing total commuting miles. This is counter
to the "urban sprawl" model of traffic congestion be-
cause that model assumes everyone commutes to the same
central work location.

c. Zoning and other restrictions on
land use are often responsible for long commutes that
cause congestion.

B. It could make sense to have temporarily
lower levels of service in areas of new development.

1. This could allow time for the tax base
to develop in an area to finance the improvements in
infrastructure.

2. More congestion would make it easier to
implement mass transit in an area. Mass transit could
improve levels of service without direct roadway
improvement.

C. While this is not an exhaustive treatment,
it illustrates the conceptual problems with, and some
alternatives to, attacking the concurrency problem by
using tax dollars to build infrastructure.

IV. Collective Consumption Goods

A. Roads are a collective consumption good
where everyone shares the same good, even though indi-
viduals have different demands.
2.4








1. Look at all the different kinds and
qualities of cars on the roads. It is likely that the
demand for roads is as varied as the demand for the
automobiles that drive on them, yet we all must share
the same quality of roads.

2. There is a collective choice problem of
how to choose the level of service for everybody, given
that each person is likely to have a different idea
about what is ideal.

B. Since decisions are made through the
political process, individuals can participate in
infrastructure decision when their motivations lie
elsewhere.

1. Some individuals are opposed to growth.
Strong enforcement of the concurrency requirement can
reduce growth.

2. Owners of developed land have an incen-
tive to keep additional land from being developed be-
cause it raises the value of existing developed land.

V. Distributional Issues

A. The first distributional issue is who pays
for infrastructure improvements. Economic principles
suggest that people should pay for the infrastructure
they use. This imposes costs on users, causing them
to take account of the costs of their own actions.

1. One implication is that gasoline taxes
are a better source of revenue for roadway improvements
than other sources, such as sales (or income) taxes.

2. When applying this principle, it is
important to recognize that the last development built
that adds traffic to a road is not the development that
causes the congestion. All traffic on the road,
whether from new or old developments, are equally
responsible for the congestion on roads.

a. The implication is that new devel-
opments and old developments have equal responsibility
for funding arterial roads that both use.
2.5







b. If this principle is not adhered to,
it creates a common pool problem (with the arterial
road being the common pool). Everyone has an incentive
to develop property too fast so as not to be the one
who is charged for congestion on the roads. Thus, a
policy of taxing new development more than existing
developments for common infrastructure will lead to
overly rapid development, helping to cause congestion
problems that the policy is intended to solve.

B. The political structure makes concurrency
a distributional issue and creates conflict rather than
consensus.

1. Existing developments have an incentive
to block growth.

a. Blocking growth raises the value of
developed land by reducing competition from new devel-
opments.

b. Political incentives are created if
existing residents think they will have to pay for the
infrastructure needs of new developments, or even if
they just want to preserve the existing community.

c. The way the law is structured, al-
most anyone has standing to oppose development on the
grounds that it does not meet concurrency requirements.
See Taub, Florida's Growth Management Concurrency
Doctrine -- Moratorium or Impetus to Fund Needed
Infrastructure Environmental and Urban Issues 5 (Fall
1988), and F.S. 163.3213(1), F.S. 163.3215(1)(2).
Concurrency requirements provide a mechanism for those
who oppose development, regardless of the reason they
oppose it.

2. Subsidies from one area of the state to
another lessen the incentives to control growth in the
subsidized area.

a. This can occur when the state pays
for local service roads. For example, 80 percent of
Dade county roads are state-owned.


2.6








b. Incentives are blunted in general
whenever non-road use taxes are used to finance roads.

3. Majority rule politics has a built-in
incentive problem of allowing majorities to exploit
majorities. There is always the incentive to build a
majority coalition to force a minority to finance
benefits that go to a majority. This turns any politi-
cal issue into a distributional issue.

VI. Conclusions

A. Infrastructure (and roads in particular)
are like a common pool. Because users are not charged
for their access to a scarce resource, there is an
incentive for all users to overuse.

1. This will make it impossible in some
areas to alleviate congestion by enlarging capacity.
There is a fallacy that sometimes creeps into highway
planning that a given amount of development will create
a given amount of traffic. In fact, the amount of
traffic created by a given development depends upon
how costly it is to use the roads. The mere act of
enlarging capacity will create congestion without
additional development by reducing the incentive to
avoid peak hour travel, creating the incentive to take
more trips, and reducing the incentive to live close
to work. Congestion is a cost that rations roadway
use, and it follows that unless tolls are charged,
congestion cannot be eliminated in densely populated
areas by enlarging roads.

2. Charging for access causes people to
take account of the congestion costs they impose on
others. If tolls are not feasible, then using a gaso-
line tax to finance roadways can serve as a substitute.

3. Charging new developments for a dispro-
portionate share of infrastructure used by all resi-
dents gives an incentive to develop rapidly in order to
avoid higher costs in the future, and creates more
congestion.


2.7








B. While concurrency as an abstract concept
is something most people agree on, it is controversial
because of the distributional issues.

1. Who pays?

2. Owners of developed property have an
incentive to stop new development because it increases
the value of already-developed property.

3. Majority rule politics gives people an
incentive to form coalitions that produce benefits for
the coalition at the expense of others. Concurrency
requirements make development iore of a political
issue, subject to the problems inherent in majority
rule decision-making.


2.8
















THE IMPACT OF THE CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT


Charles W. Blowers
Chief

Planning Department
Metro Dade County
Miami


7


i









The Impact of the Concurrency
Requirement on Local Government
Dade County

INTRODUCTION


Probably one of the most significant and far
reaching provisions of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of 1985 is the requirement that all
local comprehensive plans contain a capital
improvements element (CIE). The intent is to make
such plans "fiscally feasible." That is, a
community or governmental jurisdiction must
precisely identify the public infrastructure and
other facilities which projected growth requires,
at given levels of service, and must clearly
demonstrate the ability to fund these investments.
Not only must new growth be considered, but
efforts must be directed at correcting existing
deficiencies.

Recognizing that there are major shortcomings in
public facilities and services throughout the
State of Florida, the new planning legislation
adopted what is known as the "concurrency"
principal. That is, as growth occurs, the
facilities must be provided, thus assuring that
the infrastructure situation will not deteriorate
further.

The dilemma for most urban counties, such as Dade,
is to identify the funding sources to carry out
this idealized mandate, or to accept major
alterations in the rate and/or the pattern of
development.

In discussing this issue, three main facets will
be dealt with:

1. An assessment of infrastructure costs
and revenue sources;


3.1




F-


2. Implications for developing required
information systems;

3. Identification of possible outcomes/
effects on urban development.

I. Concurrency Infrastructure Funding

A. Meeting the financial requirements of
the State mandated growth management
legislation is is a very challenging
task. A local government such as Dade
County has enormous public
responsibilities with increasingly
limited fiscal options.

B. With respect to the operating budget
there is very little room to maneuver.
Countywide, Dade is at the State imposed
10 mil cap for the third year. Fees,
charges, "creative" financing and tax
increases have all been utilized to the
fullest and revenue growth is not in
line with needs.

C. On the capital side, Dade County's needs
are equally large and diverse. The
current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program contains planned projects
totalling more than $4 billion ($620
million in 1988/89). Unfortunately,
many of these may be delayed or not
built at all due to constraints on the
operational side. Meeting the capital
requirements of growth management will
not be easy. Over the next 10 years the
infrastructure needs in the mandated
functional areas total $1.94 billion.
All but $457 million of this appears
feasible using the usual capital funding
mechanisms.

D. Growth Management Expenditure Categories


3.2










1. There are seven growth management
functions for which LOS standards
must be adopted. These are:

Roads
Transit
Sewers
Potable water
Solid Waste disposal
Drainage
Local Parks

For fiscal planning purposes,
potable water, sanitary sewers and
solid waste disposal can be assumed
to be self supporting. All three
have dedicated revenue streams
available which can support capital
financing.

2. The remaining functions and their
capital requirements are listed
separately.


10 Year
Functional Project Available Additional
Area Costs Funding Required


Drainage $ 35.0 6.8 28.2
Parks 83.3 20.0 63.3
Transit 403.5 197.5 206.0
Roadways 310.0 150.0 160.0

TOTALS $831.8 $374.3 $457.5


Thus, about $46.0 million per year
net additional capital funding is
required by the County for
concurrency needs. Of this about


3.3


MMP-









$21 million is for transit and $16
million for roads.

3. In addition to roadways for which
Dade County has responsibility, an
estimated $1.9 billion is required
for State roads over the next 10
years. About $1.450 billion should
be available leaving a shortfall of
$450 million ($45 mil. annually).

E. 1. Countywide it would appear that the
prospects most appropriate for
infrastructure are a combination of
the local option infrastructure tax
and the voted gas tax. The latter
tax would provide an additional $8
million per year in road building
capability. The infrastructure tax
would free-up debt service on
approximately $350 million worth of
existing bonds and add new bonding
capacity of nearly $600 million
assuming 30 year bonds at 10
percent interest.

2. The major non-volitional and
already anticipated sources of
local funds are the ad valorem
taxes and bonding capacity. The
Capital Improvements Element
anticipated an increase in net
assessed real and personal property
values of between four and five
percent per year. Bonding capacity
increases were estimated at a
minimum of $86 million per year for
revenue bonds and $20 million per
year for general obligation bonds.
Additional bonding capacity would
be derived from special obligation
bonds as well as from debt retired


3.4


L










and from any net proceeds of
refunding of existing bonds.

3. The only assured new revenue source
is road impact fees. There are two
questions associated with this
however. The amount of funds
forthcoming is highly uncertain and
it is not clear on what facilities
the expenditures would occur. It
cannot be assumed they would all go
into the arterial road system for
capacity improvements. They cannot
be used for covering existing
deficits.

4. A large (up to $1 billion) GO bond
issue or the infrastructure sales
tax most probably would cover the
projected needs but voter approval
is uncertain. The Capital
Improvements Element reports
implied capital funding capacity
averaging $518.2 million per year
for the period 1988 through 1994.
This implied level of capital
expenditures is predicated on bond
financing averaging $337.3 million
for the period. Based on historic
experience of bonding capacity per
capital these revenue potentials
appear attainable. But whether or
not the combination of self
sufficient revenue streams,
existing bonding capacity and new
funding sources can actually meet
future funding requirements remains
problematical. Final determination
of the answer to this problem
requires an in-depth study on a
project by project basis.


3.5


r










F. Summary Concurrency Infrastructure
Funding

Funding Gap to Year 2000
(millions)


Drainage
Parks
Transit
Roadways (County)


$2.8
6.3
20.6
16.0
$45.7


Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually


Water, Sewer, Solid Waste Disposal assumed to
be self funding.


Source


Capital Funding
(millions)
Annual
Amount


GO bond issue
($1 Billion)



Infrastructure
Sales Tax (1%)



Optional $.01
Gas Tax

Road Impact Fees
(In place)


$100



100





$ 8


$ 15


II. Information Systems
Implementation


Options (not additive)


Limitations

Voter approval.
Allocation to all
infrarastructure
needs.

Voter approval. 15
year limit. Alloca-
tion to all infra-
structure needs.

Voter approval.
Amount could vary.

Amount problematical
and can vary. Not
necessarily allo-
cated to arterial
roads.


to Support Concurrency


A. In 1985 and 1986, the Florida


3.6









Legislature adopted a series of
amendments to Chapter 163, Part II of
the Florida Statutes (F.S.) which govern
the preparation, adoption and
implementation of local government
comprehensive plans. Among other
significant legislative changes, the
amendments added requirements that
specific level of service (LOS)
standards be included in local
comprehensive plans and that no
development orders be issued if the LOS
standards would not be met.

On its face, this requirement seems
logical and desirable. Little thought
was devoted to the issue of its
feasibility.

B. This is the most far-reaching
requirement of the State's local
government comprehensive planning law
and has been termed the service
"concurrency" requirement. Paraphrasing
Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes
(F.S.), each county and municipality
must amend its development regulations
to incorporate specific and detailed
provision which shall provide that
public facilities and services meet or
exceed the LOS standards established in
the CIE and are available when needed
for the development, or that the
development orders or permits are
conditioned on the availability of these
public facilities and services.

C. In order to effectuate the service
concurrency requirements contemplated by
Chapter 163, F.S., Metro-Dade County
shall enact, by Ordinance, a concurrency
management program which .accomplishes


3.7









the statutory requirements. Admin-
istration of the required program
necessarily involves the establishment
of methods and capabilities to monitor
outstanding development commitments and
the service demands posed by those
commitments, plus the existing,
programmed and projected capacities of
all pertinent urban service facilities
or systems.

D. Whatever term is applied to it (e.g.,
concurrency management, development
monitoring) the process we are talking
about is an information system and is
one particularly adapted to GIS
application. Thus, it is a logical
extension of work performed now in most
planning offices dealing with the
quantitive aspects of plan formulation.
Two points must be firmly kept in mind:

database/information system
development is usually a
lengthy and costly process;

prior planning is critical in
order to design the system to
produce what you really want
and to avoid costly mistakes.

E. Illustration

Dade Development Monitoring System
(Example: Potable Water Supply)

Establish LOS Standard Units of
Measurement

1. System supply GPD
2. Water Delivery PSI by line
3. System capacity GPD/population
4. Unit costs


3.8









Existing Facilities Inventory and
Performance

1. Geographic Areas
a) Plant service area
b) Distribution system

2. Current Performance Status
a) Plant rated capacity
b) Line Pressures
c) Quantities delivered

3. Assessment of Existing
Conditions
a) Surplus areas
b) Deficiency areas
c) Cost to correct
deficiency

Projections of Facilities Requirements

1. Demand side
a) Housing and population
b) Employment
c) Other variables affecting
use
d) Convert to requirements

2. Supply side
a) Plant capacity
b) Distribution system
c) Costs

3. Growth Assessment Surplus -
Deficit

Compile Committed Service Improvements

1. Plant improvements
2. Distribution system expansion
3. Adjust supply side by sub-area
for first 5 years


3.9










Compile Development Impacts


1. Residential
2. Commercial/industrial
3. Other special
4. Compare to projections
over/under

Performance Assessment

I. Annual status report
a) Deficit reduction
b) Growth accommodation
c) Overall LOS status

III. Possible Outcomes and Effects of Concurrency
Application on Urban Development

A. Only speculation is possible since it
will take several years to ascertain the
effects of concurrency as it is finally
defined and applied.

B. Of the mandated facilities, their rank
in terms of potential importance
generally appears as follows:

I. Roadways
2. Sewerage
3. Water
4. Solid Waste Disposal

The possible effects on urban
development are likely to differ
somewhat among these facilities.

C. In the Dade County context, some
possible outcomes could be along the
following lines.

1. Roads Some slowdown in develop-
ment throughout the County.
Pressure to permit more residential


3.10










development well beyond the current
Urban Development Boundary (UDB).
Some additional transit use and
perhaps additional employer
provided transportation. Somewhat
more office development in central
city versus outlying areas.

2. Sewerage To the degree it can't
be provided, either through lack of
transmission lines or plant
capacity, it will halt growth.

3. Water Same effect as sewerage,
although there is more flexibility.

4. Solid Waste Disposal Not likely
to be a constraint, but lack of
capacity if it occurs well halt
growth.

D. In general, the concurrency requirement,
especially for roads, will lead to more
dispersal of growth in Florida.
Two-thirds of the population currently
live in just ten counties. By its very
nature, urban development leads to
congestion which is essentially
unavoidable and extremely costly to
accommodate. If the standards presently
in use are actually applied over time,
growth will inevitably be shifted to
less populous counties.


80mo.doc


3.11


- ------~-^-rrrnl------~----~----~




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs