Florida Senate - 2023 SB 350

By Senator Brodeur

10-00277B-23 2023350__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to alternative mobility funding
3 systems; amending s. 163.3164, F.S.; defining the
4 terms “mobility fee” and “mobility plan”; amending s.
5 163.3180, F.S.; revising requirements regarding
6 agreements to pay for or construct certain
7 improvements; authorizing certain local governments to
8 adopt an alternative mobility planning and fee system
9 or, in certain circumstances, an alternative system;
10 specifying requirements for the application of an
11 adopted alternative system; prohibiting an alternative
12 system from imposing responsibility for funding an
13 existing transportation deficiency on a new
14 development; amending s. 163.31801, F.S.; revising
15 requirements for the calculation of impact fees by
16 certain local governments and special districts;
17 deleting local governments’, school districts’, or
18 special districts’ ability to increase impact fees in
19 certain instances; creating s. 163.31803, F.S.;
20 providing authorizations for mobility fee-based
21 funding systems and requirements for mobility plans;
22 prohibiting certain transportation impact fees and
23 fees that are not mobility-based fees within specified
24 areas; prohibiting mobility fees, fee updates, or fee
25 increases from relying solely on motor vehicle
26 capacity; requiring certain mobility fees to be
27 updated within a specified timeframe; providing that
28 mobility fees that are not updated are void; providing
29 that certain adjustments and phased-in fees do not
30 qualify as updates; providing that mobility fees may
31 not be based on recurring transportation costs and
32 must fully mitigate the development’s full
33 transportation impacts; specifying requirements for a
34 local government adopting a mobility plan and
35 mobility-fee-based funding system for transportation
36 mitigation; specifying criteria to be used by a local
37 government in calculating a mobility plan and mobility
38 fee for transportation mitigation improvements;
39 requiring mobility fees to be expended or committed
40 within a specified time period; providing criteria for
41 use by local governments issuing building permits
42 related to mobility fees; encouraging local
43 governments to coordinate certain activities included
44 in mobility plans with other affected local
45 governments for certain purposes; specifying that
46 local governments have the burden of proving that the
47 imposition or amount of a fee or an exaction meets
48 certain requirements; prohibiting courts from using a
49 deferential standard for a specified purpose;
50 providing that mobility fee credits must comply with
51 the Florida Impact Fee Act in any mode that creates
52 equivalent capacity that is designated in a local
53 government capital improvements list; providing that
54 the holder of transportation or road impact fee
55 credits is entitled to specified benefits; providing
56 for full mitigation of a development’s transportation
57 impacts in certain instances; amending s. 212.055,
58 F.S.; conforming a cross-reference; providing an
59 effective date.
61 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
63 Section 1. Present subsections (32) through (52) of section
64 163.3164, Florida Statutes, are redesignated as subsections (34)
65 through (54), respectively, and new subsections (32) and (33)
66 are added to that section, to read:
67 163.3164 Community Planning Act; definitions.—As used in
68 this act:
69 (32) “Mobility fee” means a local government fee schedule
70 established by ordinance and based on the projects included in
71 the local government’s adopted mobility plan.
72 (33) “Mobility plan” means an integrated land use and
73 alternative mobility transportation plan adopted into a local
74 government comprehensive plan which promotes a compact, mixed
75 use, and interconnected development served by a multimodal
76 transportation system in an area that is urban in character as
77 defined in s. 171.031.
78 Section 2. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of subsection (5) of
79 section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
80 163.3180 Concurrency.—
81 (5)
82 (h)1. Local governments that continue to implement a
83 transportation concurrency system, whether in the form adopted
84 into the comprehensive plan before the effective date of the
85 Community Planning Act, chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida, or as
86 subsequently modified, must:
87 a. Consult with the Department of Transportation when
88 proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic
89 intermodal system.
90 b. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. For
91 the purposes of this sub-subparagraph, public transit facilities
92 include transit stations and terminals; transit station parking;
93 park-and-ride lots; intermodal public transit connection or
94 transfer facilities; fixed bus, guideway, and rail stations; and
95 airport passenger terminals and concourses, air cargo
96 facilities, and hangars for the assembly, manufacture,
97 maintenance, or storage of aircraft. As used in this sub
98 subparagraph, the terms “terminals” and “transit facilities” do
99 not include seaports or commercial or residential development
100 constructed in conjunction with a public transit facility.
101 c. Allow an applicant for a development-of-regional-impact
102 development order, development agreement, rezoning, or other
103 land use development permit to satisfy the transportation
104 concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the
105 local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06,
106 when applicable, if:
107 (I) The applicant in good faith offers to enter into a
108 binding agreement to pay for or construct its proportionate
109 share of required improvements in a manner consistent with this
110 subsection. The agreement must provide that after an applicant
111 contributes or constructs its proportionate share pursuant to
112 this sub-sub-subparagraph, the project is considered to have
113 mitigated its transportation impacts and is allowed to proceed.
114 (II) The proportionate-share contribution or construction
115 is sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements
116 that will benefit a regionally significant transportation
117 facility. A local government may accept contributions from
118 multiple applicants for a planned improvement if it maintains
119 contributions in a separate account designated for that purpose.
120 A local government may not prevent a single applicant from
121 proceeding after the applicant has contributed or constructed
122 its proportionate share.
123 d. Provide the basis upon which the landowners will be
124 assessed a proportionate share of the cost addressing the
125 transportation impacts resulting from a proposed development.
126 2. An applicant shall not be held responsible for the
127 additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies. When an
128 applicant contributes or constructs its proportionate share
129 pursuant to this paragraph, a local government may not require
130 payment or construction of transportation facilities whose costs
131 would be greater than a development’s proportionate share of the
132 improvements necessary to mitigate the development’s impacts.
133 a. The proportionate-share contribution shall be calculated
134 based upon the number of trips from the proposed development
135 expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from the stage
136 or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour
137 maximum service volume of roadways resulting from construction
138 of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted
139 level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the
140 time of development payment, of the improvement necessary to
141 maintain or achieve the adopted level of service.
142 b. In using the proportionate-share formula provided in
143 this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall
144 identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation
145 deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as
146 defined in subparagraph 4. The proportionate-share formula
147 provided in this subparagraph shall be applied only to those
148 facilities that are determined to be significantly impacted by
149 the project traffic under review. If any road is determined to
150 be transportation deficient without the project traffic under
151 review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed
152 from the project’s proportionate-share calculation and the
153 necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency
154 shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the
155 proportionate-share calculation. The improvement necessary to
156 correct the transportation deficiency is the funding
157 responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility
158 for the facility. The development’s proportionate share shall be
159 calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that
160 are greater than the identified deficiency.
161 c. When the provisions of subparagraph 1. and this
162 subparagraph have been satisfied for a particular stage or phase
163 of development, all transportation impacts from that stage or
164 phase for which mitigation was required and provided shall be
165 deemed fully mitigated in any transportation analysis for a
166 subsequent stage or phase of development. Trips from a previous
167 stage or phase that did not result in impacts for which
168 mitigation was required or provided may be cumulatively analyzed
169 with trips from a subsequent stage or phase to determine whether
170 an impact requires mitigation for the subsequent stage or phase.
171 d. In projecting the number of trips to be generated by the
172 development under review, any trips assigned to a toll-financed
173 facility shall be eliminated from the analysis.
174 e. The applicant shall receive a credit on a dollar-for
175 dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other
176 transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or
177 payable in the future for the project. The credit shall be
178 reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the
179 project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the
180 selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local
181 ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit.
182 3. This subsection does not require a local government to
183 approve a development that, for reasons other than
184 transportation impacts, is not qualified for approval pursuant
185 to the applicable local comprehensive plan and land development
186 regulations.
187 4. As used in this subsection, the term “transportation
188 deficiency” means a facility or facilities on which the adopted
189 level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing,
190 committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected
191 background trips from any source other than the development
192 project under review, and trips that are forecast by established
193 traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with
194 the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business
195 Research medium population projections. Additional projected
196 background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage
197 or phase of development under review.
198 (i) If a local government elects to repeal transportation
199 concurrency, the local government may it is encouraged to adopt
200 an alternative mobility planning and fee system, as provided in
201 s. 163.31803, or an alternative system that is not based on
202 mobility planning and a fee system. The local government funding
203 system that uses one or more of the tools and techniques
204 identified in paragraph (f). Any alternative mobility funding
205 system adopted may not use the alternative system be used to
206 deny, time, or phase an application for site plan approval, plat
207 approval, final subdivision approval, building permits, or the
208 functional equivalent of such approvals provided that the
209 developer agrees to pay for the development’s identified
210 transportation impacts via the funding mechanism implemented by
211 the local government. The revenue from the funding mechanism
212 used in the alternative system must be used to implement the
213 needs of the local government’s plan which serves as the basis
214 for the fee imposed. The alternative system A mobility fee-based
215 funding system must comply with s. 163.31801 governing impact
216 fees. An alternative system may not impose that is not mobility
217 fee-based shall not be applied in a manner that imposes upon new
218 development any responsibility for funding an existing
219 transportation deficiency as defined in paragraph (h).
220 Section 3. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4), paragraph (a)
221 of subsection (5), and paragraph (g) of subsection (6) of
222 section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
223 163.31801 Impact fees; short title; intent; minimum
224 requirements; audits; challenges.—
225 (4) At a minimum, each local government that adopts and
226 collects an impact fee by ordinance and each special district
227 that adopts, collects, and administers an impact fee by
228 resolution must:
229 (a) Ensure that the calculation of the impact fee is based
230 on the most recent and localized data available within the
231 previous 12 months before adoption.
232 (5)(a) Notwithstanding any charter provision, comprehensive
233 plan policy, ordinance, development order, development permit,
234 or resolution, the local government or special district that
235 requires an improvement or a contribution must credit against
236 the collection of the impact fee any contribution, whether
237 identified in a developmental order, proportionate share
238 agreement, or any other form of exaction, related to public
239 facilities or infrastructure, including monetary contributions,
240 land dedication, site planning and design, or construction. Any
241 contribution must be applied on a dollar-for-dollar basis at
242 fair market value to reduce any impact fee collected for the
243 general category or class of public facilities or infrastructure
244 for which the contribution was made.
245 (6) A local government, school district, or special
246 district may increase an impact fee only as provided in this
247 subsection.
248 (g) A local government, school district, or special
249 district may increase an impact fee rate beyond the phase-in
250 limitations established under paragraph (b), paragraph (c),
251 paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) by establishing the need for
252 such increase in full compliance with the requirements of
253 subsection (4), provided the following criteria are met:
254 1. A demonstrated-need study justifying any increase in
255 excess of those authorized in paragraph (b), paragraph (c),
256 paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) has been completed within the 12
257 months before the adoption of the impact fee increase and
258 expressly demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances
259 necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in limitations.
260 2. The local government jurisdiction has held not less than
261 two publicly noticed workshops dedicated to the extraordinary
262 circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in
263 limitations set forth in paragraph (b), paragraph (c), paragraph
264 (d), or paragraph (e).
265 3. The impact fee increase ordinance is approved by at
266 least a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
267 Section 4. Section 163.31803, Florida Statutes, is created
268 to read:
269 163.31803 Mobility plans.—
270 (1) This section establishes the method for the adoption
271 and implementation of a mobility plan as an alternative to
272 transportation concurrency under s. 163.3180(5).
273 (2) A mobility-fee-based funding system must comply with
274 this section and s. 163.31801 governing impact fees.
275 (3) A mobility plan:
276 (a) May include existing and emerging transportation
277 technologies that reduce dependence on motor vehicle capacity.
278 (b) May not be based solely on adding motor vehicle
279 capacity.